Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!-

Profile picture for user LMFS

Member for

1 year 9 months

Posts: 484

@Mercurius

You miss to point out how previous attempts to discuss these issues based on logic arguments and honest questions have been simply ignored and instead the same outright insults to intelligence persist, ruining the possibility for a fruitful discussion in the thread. I personally refrain from going to the "pregnant penguin" thread to insist on the same issues over and over because I find it completely sterile and simply impolite with the guys genuinely interested and liking the aircraft, while some gentlemen insist on disrupting this one even when they have been shown many times that their arguments are not commonly accepted. In light of this it is both justified and necessary to call out such destructive and ill minded attitudes.

Don't really care who is insider and who is not when all needed here is intellectual honesty, a thing many insiders with actual interests in the business are not going to be motivated to show. In fact in my professional experience insiders are frequently subject to even higher levels of disinformation than general public for obvious reasons. Not to talk that anybody REALLY in the know is not going to be disclosing highly classified information in this or any other internet forum. And no, no ridiculous master mind is necessary here, only a deeply entrenched complex of superiority fed by literally centuries of Western hegemony and the elementary interests of each side of claiming the moral and intellectual high ground.

To be fair, some of the people falling for this deeply biased, self serving delusion are convinced of being completely fair and objective. My apologies to them for being maybe too direct, but the ongoing disruption of the discussion and the attempts to impose a way of thinking to the rest of users just needs to end.

Profile picture for user FBW

Member for

7 years 11 months

Posts: 3,106

BTW, perfectly ok to wake you up when orders reach that level, until then maybe you could stop polluting the thread? We understand you don't like the plane, so why to keep around only to put it down?

I do very little of that very thing above. You and KGB are the main sources of pollution.

My point on the post above was to insert a little reality into this discussion. No, I don’t necessarily agree with Action Jackson pointing out flaws on what is essentially a test mule airframe. I have taken a “wait and see” approach. However, the disingenuous rebuttals from childish posters comparing other nation’s aerospace industries to Russia are intolerable to me.

It is clear that Russian aerospace industry is facing the same issues as their naval shipyards: production is slow, newer weapons systems are procured at a trickle. This could be due to upstream issues with subcontractors, or the difficulties faced by trying to reconstitute a skilled workforce and manufacturing base after years of atrophy.

The production of Su-27 variants means nothing L-M and Boeing are still churning out F-16’s and -15’s... just not for the U.S. you can take this as an insult, though it isn’t intended to be one. I am merely pointing of the obvious.

Profile picture for user LMFS

Member for

1 year 9 months

Posts: 484

I do very little of that very thing above. You and KGB are the main sources of pollution.

My point on the post above was to insert a little reality into this discussion. No, I don’t necessarily agree with Action Jackson pointing out flaws on what is essentially a test mule airframe. I have taken a “wait and see” approach. However, the disingenuous rebuttals from childish posters comparing other nation’s aerospace industries to Russia are intolerable to me.

It is clear that Russian aerospace industry is facing the same issues as their naval shipyards: production is slow, newer weapons systems are procured at a trickle. This could be due to upstream issues with subcontractors, or the difficulties faced by trying to reconstitute a skilled workforce and manufacturing base after years of atrophy.

The production of Su-27 variants means nothing L-M and Boeing are still churning out F-16’s and -15’s... just not for the U.S. you can take this as an insult, though it isn’t intended to be one. I am merely pointing of the obvious.

1. I have been providing news and info and refusing to engage in fruitless discussions until my patience run out very recently. Happy if you share the same approach and looking forward to civil discussion.
2. Do not see that aerospace industry's woes are comparable to those found in shipbuilding but of course the 90's and early 2000 did take a toll. Simply not really seeing what the limited procurement numbers of Su-35 have to do with that. They have been delivering on time without further issues and doing a great job, contrary to shipyards. And as exposed above, those numbers are relatively low (compared to US) but simply because the level of perceived threat does not require more.
3. I'm perfectly ok with LM and Boeing delivering 4G fighters, why should it be an insult?

Member for

15 years

Posts: 1,620

The same old posters/F16.net types polluting and flaming the topic.
The same posters who flamingly denigrate, and always include a certain large industrial fighter programme in every single post

Mods: It's the same posters over and over again.
Instead of nuking whole threads, get rid of the culprits (the same ones each time).
I have been here for 20 years under a different name or two...this is getting worse.

Member for

13 years 10 months

Posts: 2,813

The same old posters/F16.net types polluting and flaming the topic.
The same posters who flamingly denigrate, and always include a certain large industrial fighter programme in every single post

Which fighter programme are you referring to, Su-57? All the major fighter programmes get a lot of stick on this forum - much of it well deserved. Have you ever visited an F-35 thread on this forum?

Member for

7 years 6 months

Posts: 999

The same old posters/F16.net types polluting and flaming the topic.
The same posters who flamingly denigrate, and always include a certain large industrial fighter programme in every single post

AJ wrote loads of sh.. t but he isn't the only poster polluting this thread, the constant sh... t from KGB or panzerfeist isn't any better. Constant propaganda versus propaganda and screaming contest.

Which fighter programme are you referring to, Su-57? All the major fighter programmes get a lot of stick on this forum - much of it well deserved. Have you ever visited an F-35 thread on this forum?

Agree, the trash talk and insults in previous F-35 threads were dozens times worse than this but they have good information sometimes.
Profile picture for user haavarla

Member for

11 years

Posts: 6,438

Out of pure morbid curiosity, is it “good news” that a state run aerospace manufacturer has produced 90 ish Su-35s over 6 years, a positive that the newest fighter will have a production run of 12 aircraft over the next year GPV?

In the words of RT “question more”.
Forget western media, ask why even the Su35s production is pathetic.

F-35.... 300 and counting for a “failed project”, the USN has had more advanced aircraft delivered than the VKS, recently.

Wake me up when then combined Su-35s and SU-57 production equals the “cancelled” 195 airframe run of the F-22.

If you are that curious FBW. Let me abide..

KnAAZ started the Su-35S program in 2006'ish. First flight prototype in 19th February 2008. First Serial Su-35S in 2011.
They had the first 8 Su-35S in February 2013 at 23rd IAP at Dzemgi AirBase Far East.
A full Sq in 2014, in which was pulled into the Factory for upgrade of hardware and software later the same year, as new set of required capability was set in stone by VKS.

By the end of 2014, 23rd IAP Dzemgi had a full 24 airframe Su-35S Regiment going.

Additional Airframes were allocated to 22nd IAP Tsentralnaya Uglovaya, around 12 airframes, IMO one full Sq.

And lately the 159th IAP, Besovets AirBase near Petrozavodosk, a whole Regiment is in the making, 24 airframes.

Its first batch of 10 Su-35S was delivered in 2016, but before the paint had dried up from factory, four of them was sent to Hemeimim AirBase Syria.
A batch of 10 more in 2017 was taken on strength by the Air Regiment.
Don't know if all deliveries are completed at 159th IAP by now.

As of January 2018 the VKS had 68(out of total 96 contract) Su-35S.
10 more units in 2019, ten more in 2020.

A VKS follow-up contract for Su-35S has already been signed, the number however is not known, but 40-50 is expected.

As China will have their last batches of Su-35S this year.
A follow-up order for PLAAF is under negotioation.
The annual deliveries to VKS was somewhat reduced due to exports.

Indonesia has order for 11 Su-35S, which deliveries will begin in 2019.

Oh, btw, before you or anyone else here starts bitchin with the low rate Su-35S production coming out off KnAAZ.

KnAAZ delivered;
12 new build Su-27SM3 and 4 new build Su-30M2 in 2011.
Another 16 new build Su-30M2 was delivered between 2013-2014.

36 Vanilla Su-27P are to be upgraded to SM3 standard, the first two has already been delivered.

Anyway.. my point is, you guys do the math on KnAAZ Annual Flanker production output.
You will find it to be far more then 12 per year.

Add to this, the Su-30SM from East Siberian Irkuts Plant and Su-34 from NAPO.

To my joy.
The Flanker linage is very healthy at the moment.

Profile picture for user Mercurius

Member for

12 years 2 months

Posts: 1,348

LMFS wrote:

"You miss to point out how previous attempts to discuss these issues based on logic arguments and honest questions have been simply ignored and instead the same outright insults to intelligence persist, ruining the possibility for a fruitful discussion in the thread."

Perhaps part of the problem is perhaps that what one man sees as a logical argument is seen by another as an "outright insult to intelligence". The fact that one may be genuinely interested in an aircraft and have a liking for it says nothing about the qualities of that aircraft - as my own personal interest in the Douglas X-3 Stiletto demonstrates.

"some gentlemen insist on disrupting this one even when they have been shown many times that their arguments are not commonly accepted. In light of this it is both justified and necessary to call out such destructive and ill minded attitudes."

The fact that an argument is not commonly accepted says nothing about whether it is correct or wrong. Many of us are trying to assess the Su-57 (either in an amateur capacity or as part of our professional work), but given the high signal-to-noise ratio of the available data, each item of available information has to be assessed on its merits, and not on the basis of how widely-believed it is.

"Don't really care who is insider and who is not when all needed here is intellectual honesty, a thing many insiders with actual interests in the business are not going to be motivated to show. In fact in my professional experience insiders are frequently subject to even higher levels of disinformation than general public for obvious reasons."

I am not sure how you would define an 'insider'. A manager, engineer, or user perhaps? So I cannot see any 'obvious reasons'. My own professional experience has been that the vibration test table, the test range, and even the weight breakdown of the finished aircraft or missile will rapidly show up any lack of intellectual honesty in the engineers who created it.

"Not to talk that anybody REALLY in the know is not going to be disclosing highly classified information in this or any other internet forum."

That is true, but as a result of their profession some people get access to limited information on classified matters, and may choose to provide a little of it here, even if such information cannot be confirmed from publicly available sources and will inevitably fail to convince the 'give-us-a-link' brigade.

"And no, no ridiculous master mind is necessary here, only a deeply entrenched complex of superiority fed by literally centuries of Western hegemony and the elementary interests of each side of claiming the moral and intellectual high ground."

If a "deeply entrenched complex of superiority" can prevent a realistic assessment of the Su-57, why did it not prevent (for example) initial over-assessments of the MiG-25 and Tu-22M by the West?

In all translations, the theme is the same....

"We tested the ability of our aircraft to be detected by the F-22 and F-35 in a short deployment to Syria. After gathering the data, we found significant cause for their (the Su-57s') improvement"

Other translations....

"telemetry gave a significant reason for their improvement"
"telemetry gave considerable cause for their improvement"
"telemetry gave essential reason for their perfecting"

I should not be considered Russian speaker, but it does seem equally valid to consider "our aircraft" & "their improvement" (plural!) as referring to the Su-35 and Su-34 (with the Su-57 acting as a F-22/F-35 surrogate). Even if he WAS talking about the Su-57s, what about all the criticism levelled at the Syrian deployment because such testing against (uncooperative) F-22s and F-35s was not feasible? Do we consider the reasons cited back then no longer valid?

These statements raise too many questions to be credible at face value.

What the hell did they do? Did they fly their T-50s towards the Eurphrates and Israeli border and watch all the legacy aircraft divert to them much sooner than they expected or detect AWACs radars getting queued towards them by Raptors? Did they try it as a propaganda stunt (take some IRST happy snaps of a retreating F-22) but it backfired horribly, which is why they were only there a few days before heading home?

I hardly see a need for them to use the Syrian EW environment for a backdrop to perform detection tests and mock BVR engagements with their own Su-35s.

I still think the most likely explanation is that it WAS a publicity stunt - but as a simple morale booster. Like Mr. Bush arriving in a S-3 to announce the end of OIF on board a CVN returning from the Middle East, when he could have done so equally well from his desk in the Oval Office.

Sometimes - regrettably enough - rational considerations do take a back seat to PR spectacle. I don't quite see why one would expect Russia, of all places, to act more sensibly than others in this regard.

I think people established that he heads a commitee in the Duma(?), but that is perhaps less important, what is important is he himself is referring to a statement made by the deputy prime-minister. Are we to not attach any significance to what the deputy prime minister said either? (Note, I have no Idea what he deputy prime-minister's original statements were, just go by what the text infers)

As officials go, a head of a parliamentary working group isn't that significant - he isn't even a member of government and, as VP of an industry lobby organisation, not very deeply affiliated (if at all) with the PAK-FA project on the contractor side either. He's clearly just airing his own opinion and you have to wonder about whether the quality of the information he has access to is really that much better. All in all, I would take his words with about the same amount of salt as Boeing claiming the F-15SE was going to match the front aspect RCS of an export F-35, or Trump's assertion that Boeing could build a Super Hornet version "comparable" to the F-35.

Said statement by the deputy PM, as pointed out in the article, was merely to the effect that there would be no large-scale Su-57 purchases in the near term, not that the total buy over the life of the programme would be severely cut back or something. Given the known status and progress, that is a trivial revelation not calculated to surprise anybody who wasn't taken in by the preposterous rhetoric coming (primarily) from the presidential office - it's a healthy dose of realism, but falls short of the doom and gloom you are somehow finding in it.

They are probably waiting for the definitive Izd. 30 engine to become available before committing in numbers - the approach they should have adopted from the outset. All those resources spent on rushing the airframe out of the door (only for it to run into serious structural issues) would then probably have netted them a polished end product at an earlier date.

May I also point out that one of the criticism points around the F-22 was based on the existance of only 187 of these things. Now someone -high up enough- suggests there might even be less than that for the Su-57 and no one bats an eye? I thought that was the point.

That this guy took the deputy PM's fairly innocuous statement and ran off with it on his own tangent doesn't suddenly make it the official stance.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]261414[/ATTACH]

1 - cavity - causes resonance
2 - cavity - causes resonance

Can be dealt with, albeit at a weight penalty for the more elaborate treatments and coatings required (see F-22, weight saving of 140kg per aircraft due to DSI claimed for the F-35).

3 - cyclindrical pitots - massive specular return

Flight test. It does bring me onto something I've been wondering about for some time though, early prototypes had what looked like B-2-style flush air data sensors in addition to varying configurations of conventional probes. They disappeared from #056 on IIRC, but it indicates they've been working on a more discrete solution:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]261505[/ATTACH]

4 - large levcon cavity - causes resonance

[ATTACH=CONFIG]261415[/ATTACH]

2 - no sawtoothing and pinching of control surface edge, cavity - causes resonance

You mean the lack of "notches" where moving aerodynamic surfaces meet fixed airframe parts or neighbouring control surfaces? They're absent on the F-23 production representative RCS pole model and production B-2s too, so appear not to be an indispensable requirement (or there are methods of treating such areas which do not modify the outer mold line). Incidentally, Sukhoi DID trial such notches on the inboard edge of the Su-47 LE flaps:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]161807[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]261416[/ATTACH]

1 - Multiple sources of specular and surface discontinuity return - resonance depending on wavelength

Been fitted with a mesh screen in later airframes. Could probably be improved further, but they're working on it.

2 - massive surface discontinuity almost at normal to axis - the gaps in these areas are quite large, inches in size

Well, just maybe those gaps are that large to accommodate a flexible seal later on (the J-20 was like that).

[ATTACH=CONFIG]261418[/ATTACH]

Almost forgot... radar disco ball/infrared headlamp

In a word - blocker.

Why is this old hat still a point of contention in the first place?!

The OLS's transparent surface helps hide the highly radar reflective, metalic components and lens of the IRST within (observable while it's being operated... ie. all the time). If the surface happened to be completely radar transparent then the OLS's internal components, having an RCS many dozens of times larger than the entire frontal aspect of most stealth aircraft would be exposed.

101KS-V
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261475[/ATTACH]

On a side note, the aircraft also has two other spherical pods under the nose and on it's spine for it's IR countermeasures. These do certainly seem to be a major RCS issue as can be seen by their internal components. It seems these cannot be coated with lossy material as they would potentially melt when in use.

101KS-O
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261476[/ATTACH]

The IRST & DIRCM turrets are about the only beefs I would concur with. Even allowing that the IRST is supposed to rotate rearwards to expose a thickly RAMed back face, it forces a choice between stealthy passive sensor and stealthy airframe configuration on the pilot. He can't have both at the same time as he could with a EOTS-like faceted window design.

Although the aircraft's canopy is covered in a very slightly attenuating, but conductive film, some radar waves do still penetrate the canopy and can reflect off objects inside. This image shows a number of cockpit features which will cause signal return back through the canopy. The HUD and the components in front of it, rear view mirrors, the helmet material...all contributors to RCS. Another side note: Also note the OLS. From the aspect this photo was taken, the feature presents an undeniably massive challenge for side aspect RCS.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]261478[/ATTACH]

One of the features of the F-35's and future US aircraft is the lack of a HUD and clean cockpit layout.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]261481[/ATTACH]

The pilot's helmet is made of carbon fibre (known for radar absorbing properties) and the canopy frame, even though concealed internally is faceted away from the source radar and is further concealed from the front behind a very thick piece of foam-rubber-like RAM. All other metallic frame components in the photo are concealed from site of incoming radar.

As pointed out a while back when this subject first came up, that's likely related to wind blast requirements in aircraft where the entire canopy (including windshield) is jettisoned rather than LO. Ever wondered why the F-22 & F-16 Block 40/42 (with the wide-angle screen) have such beefy frames?

If correct, not applicable to Su-57. I'm also not seeing the RAM on the F-35 canopy frame?

Attachments

The YF-23 was an initial protoype and would most certainly have changed in design during development. Nobody ever said it had a better frontal RCS specifically than the YF-22, just that it was better overall which can be seen clearly by it's way more highly canted sides and hidden exhaust. The F-22's canopy leading edge is different to the YF-22's.

Those proposed changes are pretty well established from the production representative RCS pole model and various technical drawings of the production variant that have been released, however: the canopy frame is not one of them.

Likewise, the production F-23 would have retained curved canopy leading and trailing edges like those on the B-2 and Su-57, rather than a F-22/F-35/J-20-style serrated solution. Obviously there are ways other than those adopted by LM of dealing with the RCS impact of these features, in the same way as there are viable alternatives to serpentine inlet ducts for masking the engine face reflection (blocker).

a) Does not have to go head to head against fighters and b) is not as stealthy as the F-117, F-22, F-35 front on.

Says who?

Also, it's designed primarily to penetrate VHF, UHF, L-Band protected areas where small features such as window's etc are not as important due to the wavelength.

Those windows would absolutely be relevant in L-band (decimetric) at the very least, though VHF might indeed be arguable.

It is clear that Russian aerospace industry is facing the same issues as their naval shipyards: production is slow, newer weapons systems are procured at a trickle. This could be due to upstream issues with subcontractors, or the difficulties faced by trying to reconstitute a skilled workforce and manufacturing base after years of atrophy.

The production of Su-27 variants means nothing L-M and Boeing are still churning out F-16’s and -15’s... just not for the U.S. you can take this as an insult, though it isn’t intended to be one. I am merely pointing of the obvious.

Firstly, as others have already pointed out, the Su-35 is not the only Russian fighter in production - combined output between KNAAZ, Irkut and NAPO is 40 Flankers per year, give or take. That's a comparable average rate per plant to the four Typhoon partners plus Rafale (each having their own final assembly line) at a total of some 60 each year.

Secondly, given the state of their order book, what are they supposed to do? Burn off their entire production backlog in two years - and then what? The F-35 with a quadruple digit cushion of virtually firm commitments is a singular exception, not the rule. Apples and oranges - even in the US, the F/A-18, F-15 and F-16 lines are in a similar predicament, being respectively down to 24, 12 and 12 aircraft per year (so much for "churning out"). The Eurocanards we've dealt with above, and in China the J-11/J-16 and J-10A/B/C have not totalled more than 60 annually on a sustained basis either. Rates of more than 4 fighters a month (let alone 10+) just don't exist anywhere outside the F-35 programme - do we therefore dismiss ALL other manufacturers than LM?

Thirdly, again as mentioned before, there is no real point in committing to big Su-57 numbers before the definitive Izd. 30 engine is available. Earlier intentions to rush it into service with interim engines have (most sensibly IMHO) been quietly dropped, it seems. Part of the reason why F-35 production numbers are so large this soon is the high degree of concurrency with testing - not necessarily one of the project's success stories.

Mercurius,

I would agree that the notion of a coordinated campaign is ridiculous in general, but all the same the recent Business Insider piece in particular definitely doesn't pass even the most basic sniff test. In fact, the standard of journalism in this case is so appalling that even some of the strident vocabulary you cite seems objectively apt.

How does the announcement of the order for an initial production batch (clearly denoted as such, rather than the production total), i.e. a move in the direction of starting series production, become a cancellation? What about that says "only 12 have been ordered, and no more orders are coming"?

"After 11 years in the program, India withdrew, leaving Russia to go it alone with a weak economy.

Now, India has been discussed as a potential buyer of the F-35 in another blow to Russia's dream of developing its own fifth-gen fighter."

If India's already out anyway, how is their interest in the F-35 "another blow"?

Best of all, deputy PM Borisov is "quoted" as saying:

"The Su-57 is considered to be one of the best aircrafts [sic] produced in the world. Consequently, it does not make sense to speed up work on mass-producing the fifth-generation aircraft."

The problem with that? In the original Russian statement, as in the English version provided by Austin above, he refers to the Su-35 rather than the Su-57. So the BI author and RUSI's Bronk are quite correct, the reasoning they're attributing to Borisov is utter nonsense - but that's merely the result of a misquote (originally by The Diplomat, but still) that completely alters the meaning.

Did they not think to check such an apparently illogical statement?!

At best that is gross negligence, at worst I don't think deliberate misrepresentation can be ruled out, given how blatant the errors are.

Profile picture for user haavarla

Member for

11 years

Posts: 6,438

Another thing. "The Russian Weak economy".
That has been a Anti-Russian card for.. well the times after SU fall i think.
It was quite fitting at one point in time, historical.

But as the 2010 came, and the Russian re-armament program started with the goal of replacing 70% of post Soviet military material.

They are getting close on the Airforce. Su-24, Mig-29 and Legacy Flanker gone in just a few more years from now. New fleet of Yak trainers.

Granted transport fleet and Tanker, AWACS and ELINT fleet still have a way to go.
But all in all i'd say the status of VKS is quite good for a country with "weak" economy.
Oh, and with a 5th generation program running. Something Robust economy like Germany, France, UK not have started on.

Guess my point is, sometimes i could swear those guys allways ranting about broke Russia economy and connects this with the PakFa program really think Russia would have to pay like $12Billion each year to keep this program running.. in which is a ridicules assumption.

Russian funding in Ruble is not the worse problem for getting new defense toys. If you read the latest on Russian military complex, that is the industry is missing some infrastructure to actually be able to spend all those Billions of Ruble on their defense. The funding just keep piling up on the different defense producing company accounts, due to their inability to turn Ruble into Production output.
In which Russian MoD now has corrected by reversing all those money and rather just sit on them they self, in better terms of seeing the military industrial complex slowly improving over time.

In short, Russia does not have the current capacity to actual spend all those Billions of Ruble each year now!
That is the issue, and this does not make Russia "broke" or "weak economy".
In reality, it keeps the outgoing spending in Russia very much in control, since they import shameless little on military equipment from other Nations.

And another factual mistake, some western media concluded that Russia military spending for 2017 and 2018 has dropped like 15-20% from the top 2016 year.
This is ofcourse also BS. This also has to do with the Russian MoD now sitting on a large cash reserve due to unspent Defense Ruble from previous years.
Hense they just cut back on the current military funding, since the cannot spend it anyway..

As it is now, i think Russia has the world banking credibility rate as the third top place due to their low inflation and low foreign trade debt now.

Profile picture for user panzerfeist1

Member for

1 year 9 months

Posts: 376

@mig-31bm it seems that most of my answers were dodged so I will keep it short because I dont have the time or energy.

"each individual microwave transmitter can transmit between 1 to 18 GHz doesn't mean the bandwidth of radar will be from 1-18 Ghz. You can see in Northrup Grumman pattern that the elements can transmit and receive between 2.0 GHz to 20.0 GHz,"

I was talking about an AESA radar you mentioned patents of a jammer which happens to be completely different from the functions of a radar

"There is no mentioned of "700 km" inside that page like you claimed, may be your English isn't very good but "several" # "seven" , either way you would know it is BS if you understand the concept of radar horizon.

I am just going to try my best to completely ignore anymore engagements responding to you because it is tiresome as I said to hold someone's hand and point out everything on a constant basis.

"The Richag-AV is able to jam advanced sensor systems from distances of several hundred kilometers away." I can find multiple sources of that if you want.

2020 is the magic year most of Russia's brand new toys come out. I am hoping for a more decent Niip catalog.

Member for

9 years 1 month

Posts: 276

Welcome back Trident! .... though extremely odd that just as it seems we've finally all been treated to a 1 month holiday from KGB's doltish contributions to the forum, you've suddenly returned. You don't post on a second account to take a break from all intellectual and social accountability from time to time do you? ;)

Can be dealt with, albeit at a weight penalty for the more elaborate treatments and coatings required

Though the removal of the cavity is featured on the YF-23, F-35 and both chinese stealth fighters (and on the Iranian monstrosity... but let's not bother going there). F-22 has a cavity too, but covers a much smaller area than the Su's. Negated it's advantage over the cockpit leading edge design of the YF-23 perhaps?

In a word - blocker. Why is this old hat still a point of contention in the first place?!

But will a blocker prevent IR coming straight back out the front of the intake? TBH adding that particular pic was done with tongue in cheek mostly, I'm waiting to see the final solution for that myself and whether blockers become a real, viable solution in future Gen 6 fighter concepts. The child's cartoon "elephant in the room" image felt fitting for the more primitive audience I knew would explode over it... and predictably, it exploded.

Even allowing that the IRST is supposed to rotate rearwards to expose a thickly RAMed back face, it forces a choice between stealthy passive sensor and stealthy airframe configuration on the pilot.

Exactly. It doesn't make sense hanging those radar beacons from a stealth airframe. It's a little more protected from IR missiles only to be so much more exposed to more prevalent radar guided missiles and aircraft. In combat against stealth aircraft, the front IRST is going to be operating pretty much full time, the whole stealthy back surface solution seems utterly pointless. So the OLS ball's surface is either:

- Radar transparent, exposing the metal and glass components inside or;
- Conductive and reflective, exposing the entire sphere to specular reflection directly back to the source radar

Guess we'll see how LM handles the F-35's DIRCM solution a few blocks down the track.

As pointed out a while back when this subject first came up, that's likely related to wind blast requirements in aircraft where the entire canopy (including windshield) is jettisoned rather than LO. Ever wondered why the F-22 & F-16 Block 40/42 (with the wide-angle screen) have such beefy frames?

Not totally sure what you're referring to here... the reduced amount of clutter in the front of the cockpit being because of ejection safety instead of LO? The F-35 doesn't jettison the whole canopy either. Det cord blows out the rear half of the canopy only.

I'm also not seeing the RAM on the F-35 canopy frame?

Its so difficult finding a decent picture of this (but I've seen one previously where flash photography was used), but the one below gives an indication. The front facing surface of the frame is canted away from a head on radar. The canted component also seems to be made from a different material to the frame itself (evident when looking at the frame from the outside of the canopy). The canted surface has some flexible, rubber-like material attached to it (arrow points to it in picture) that would only really be practical in that location for radar absorption, reducing solar reflection or both.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]261507[/ATTACH]

Why are we talking about other aircraft in this thread

....because we are comparing stealth implementation techniques and I consider the F-35 the most modern and refined benchmark. There are techniques used on the F-35 that weren't on the F-22. The Su-57's viability over the coming decades rests almost solely on it's ability to spot the F-35 and to a lower degree the F-22 before it itself is detected. Any issues now need to be solved before the aircraft is "useful" in it's primary role, so identifying these and tracking their progress helps get an indication of when the Su-57 is "actually" approaching service readiness as more than just a deterant.

Attachments
Profile picture for user Sintra

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,765


Mods: It's the same posters over and over again.
Instead of nuking whole threads, get rid of the culprits (the same ones each time).
I have been here for 20 years under a different name or two...this is getting worse.

No its not, far from it.
Look to a decade old topic on Typhoon, Raptor or Rafale, or a five year old on Dave and the type of flak that the SU-57 receives today is entirely tamed by comparison. Every time that the likes of APA, Winslow Wheeler, etc, threw an article about the JSF program the level of silliness in this forum went totally of the scales.
Worse several posters that are now claiming that there is a Western conspiracy against the latest Sukhoi product had (actually "have" ) absolutely no problems in "nuking whole threads".

Profile picture for user RadDisconnect

Member for

6 years 5 months

Posts: 471

ActionJackson’s laughable simplistic “analysis” is only a smidgen better than KGB and JSR drivel, i.e. it’s still crap. Can all these nationalist poster go to their own thread?

Also, looks like wilhem will rip on people criticizing Su-57, but is totally fine with KGB’s rambling. You can actually make valid criticisms or support for Su-57 without sounding like KGB or ActionJackson.

Profile picture for user MadRat

Member for

13 years 3 months

Posts: 4,940

The plane is virtually on deathrow anyhow. They'll never have more than 21 from recent reports.

Su-57 was squeezed for all the nationalistic propaganda it could muster. The reality is that its premise is proving to be costly and inefficient.

You will see a revival of a more compact stealth design than the Su-57 that is less costly.

Profile picture for user haavarla

Member for

11 years

Posts: 6,438

The plane is virtually on deathrow anyhow. They'll never have more than 21 from recent reports.

??..what report might that be?


Su-57 was squeezed for all the nationalistic propaganda it could muster. The reality is that its premise is proving to be costly and inefficient.

The only cost figure we have was from the reports you are refering too here, that's a $70Million per plane.

If that is for the initial 12 airframe, then the cost will fall as more are ordered. Isn't that the nature of things, as we see in F-35 cost analyses, the more that gets produced, the lower cost.

You will see a revival of a more compact stealth design than the Su-57 that is less costly.

Pls enlighten us..
Russia would nevah go ahead and push for a new design, if the VKS them self are not interesting in a smaller jet, with reduced range and payload.
No domestic market, no export market. End of story.