Russian Su-57 Aircraft Thread (PAK-FA and IAF FGFA)

[Engineer]

Depends on speeds you aim to achieve in combat conditions.

US and China's faith in DSI is a product of analyzing performance over all operational conditions of their aircraft, not just speeds under combat conditions.

It isn't much of a secret, it's simply lighter and much less complex technically=service intensive.
At the same time, it works for performance envelope of j-10(and f-35, for the matter) just as well.
For f-22 it simply doesn't, available or not.
One mach too much.

What are you talking about? F-22's top speed isn't Mach 3 so it isn't "one Mach too much". Furthermore, F-22 uses fixed inlet which works good enough, DSI will performance just as well.

...
Is this serious?

Why shouldn't it be? The Su-57 is an ultra conservative design that keeps as many elements from the Flanker as possible. Even with such conservative approach, Russia still runs into problems.

 

[Engineer]

Tupolev played with LERX for parallel tu-160 design with fixed wing, but it simply was worse(couldn't get necessary specifications on some attack profiles).
And, as mentioned above, at least 4 aircraft manufacturers I know used swing wing on their projects after deploying lerx-equipped fighters.(Lockheed, Northrop, Sukhoi, MiG).

Swing-wing having been used by multiple manufacturers doesn't mean it is not obsoleted. The point is that development of engine inlet design follows the same trend as wing design — in with fixed structure and out with movable mechanisms.

 

[Gloire_bb]

US and China's faith in DSI is a product of analyzing performance over all operational conditions of their aircraft, not just speeds under combat conditions.

US have no special faith or lack of one in DSI, it just appeared where it is appropriate (I.e. on a certain fighter bomber)

What are you talking about? F-22's top speed isn't Mach 3 so it isn't "one Mach too much". Furthermore, F-22 uses fixed inlet which works good enough, DSI will performance just as well.

Mach 2.5+, and degree of this + is speculative.
Exactly one mach over practical limits for DSI equipped fighters.

Why shouldn't it be? The Su-57 is an ultra conservative design that keeps as many elements from the Flanker as possible. Even with such conservative approach, Russia still runs into problems.

And what does it tell?
I can add, what this certain flanker on photo one certain country bought with it's own fifth gen, as well as it's own four gens(accidentally, flankers) in production.
Does it tell us what Chinese 5th gen is inferior, or just what su-35 benefited enormously from bring in parallel development to 5th gen fighter(as well as vise versa)?

Swing-wing having been used by multiple manufacturers doesn't mean it is not obsoleted.

To put it bluntly, each of respective manufacturers has more weight than Chinese aircraft manufacturers combined.
Certainly they sell more their own planes abroad.

 

[Engineer]

US have no special faith or lack of one in DSI, it just appeared where it is appropriate (I.e. on a certain fighter bomber)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. DSI deemed appropriate for use despite alternatives being available is a sign of faith.

Mach 2.5+, and degree of this + is speculative.
Exactly one mach over practical limits for DSI equipped fighters.

Not sure where you got your figure from but most published figure I have seen is Mach 2.2+, with operational top-speed around Mach 1.8. Aircraft surface heats up fast at and beyond Mach 2, and composites will get very unhappy. Also, Mach 1.5 isn't practical limit for DSI, see J-10 and J-20. Regardless, a fixed inlet being suitable for the flight envelope of F-22 means DSI will be suitable as well.

And what does it tell?
I can add, what this certain flanker on photo one certain country bought with it's own fifth gen, as well as it's own four gens(accidentally, flankers) in production.
Does it tell us what Chinese 5th gen is inferior, or just what su-35 benefited enormously from bring in parallel development to 5th gen fighter(as well as vise versa)?

I have no idea why China buys an obsoleted platform.

To put it bluntly, each of respective manufacturers has more weight than Chinese aircraft manufacturers combined.
Certainly they sell more their own planes abroad.

Aside from Lockheed-Martin, none of the manufacturer you mentioned produces 5th generation fighter. Northrop left the fighter business entirely. For Russian manufacturers, you may still have a point ten years ago, but now days Russian manufacturers are irrelevant. CAC carries as much weight as Lockheed-Martin, and their choice of DSI for their fighters is just as good a proof that DSI is superior.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Not sure where you got your figure from but most published figure I have seen is Mach 2.2+, with operational top-speed around Mach 1.8.

2.5 , both for it and preceeding f-15. This is one of the reasons why they are based on Alaska.
M1.8 is a rumored supercruise, also quite a respectable value. And on top of that come extreme altitude performance with ability to pull high Gs while supersonic.

Those who see raptor just as stealth fighter with a good radar are blind.



Ability of DSI - equipped J-10 to reach M=2 is unknown, I see it unlikely.
To be honest, though, it isn't like M=2 or M=1.8 is that much of a difference, especially for a fighter with a very limited internal fuel storage.

I have no idea why China buys an obsoleted platform.

Well, answer is the same as in case with decision on switching to DSI on J-10.
PLAAF guys taking decisions are just kinda less ignorant than forum specialists.

CAC carries as much weight as Lockheed-Martin,

Yes, and everyone buys CAC fighters even without political deals.
Aya, stop. It doesn't happen.

 

[Engineer]

2.5 , both for it and preceeding f-15. This is one of the reasons why they are based on Alaska.
M1.8 is a rumored supercruise, also quite a respectable value. And on top of that come extreme altitude performance with ability to pull high Gs while supersonic.

Those who see raptor just as stealth fighter with a good radar are blind.

As I suspected, you are most likely confusing F-15's top speed with F-22's top speed. As for Mach 1.8 figure, it was the original supercruise speed, but this became the new operational top speed because composites and heat don't mix. It doesn't change the fact that F-22 uses fixed inlet, which despite its limitation is still good enough. DSI is better than fixed inlet. DSI didn't get employed on F-22 is more due to the timing rather than DSI not being superior enough. As the F-35 development shows, DSI got adopted as soon as it became available.

Ability of DSI - equipped J-10 to reach M=2 is unknown, I see it unlikely.
To be honest, though, it isn't like M=2 or M=1.8 is that much of a difference, especially for a fighter with a very limited internal fuel storage.

Three-shock variable inlet system like that on J-10A has a typical speed limit around Mach 2.0. As a replacement, the DSI on subsequent J-10 models must have similar speed limit. That is pretty logical.

Well, answer is the same as in case with decision on switching to DSI on J-10.
PLAAF guys taking decisions are just kinda less ignorant than forum specialists.

DSI is superior to the variable inlet that got replaced. Su-35 offers no superiority over J-20. So no, the answers are not the same. Also, some forum specialists are more informed than others. I for example, is at the more informed end, as you and the other guy are still trying to argue against facts.

Yes, and everyone buys CAC fighters even without political deals.
Aya, stop. It doesn't happen.

No need for there to be deals. As the only other company in the world to produce 5th generation fighters, CAC carries as much weight as Lockheed-Martin, period.

 

[Dizasta1]

Frankly I don't get what all the hoopla is all about. It's a Russian aircraft, their decision to try out a new engine (intended for Su-57 Stealth Jet), so why make a fuss about it? They decide what they want to do with their aircraft. None of anyone else's damn business. And this whole hue and cry about deceit ... puleez ... we live in an age where everyone from a news anchor to politician to corporations are lying outta their asses.

I wish the Russians well in their pursuit of better, more powerful military, space and cyber technology. Every nation has their own method to reach their objective. What is certain though, is that hubris more than anything else, is what dictates particular nations and their empty chants about their achievements by berating others. At least, Russia isn't one of such nations.

Rest is all baloney!

 

[Gloire_bb]

As I suspected, you are most likely confusing F-15's top speed with F-22's top speed

1.It was requested from new fighter otiginally, and I have never met reliable sources what they failed. On the contrary, they replaced f-15s in interceptor role on the most critical direction. Given what Alaskan threat list includes tu-160s, which are capable of long high supersonic dashes.
2.Top speed performance drop is far more logical.
3.it's, okay, I see , I see. Luckily for PLAAF, you're well informed as far away from them as possible, though.
4.And what is inside of this , we still don't know that well(apart from actual su-27 family engines). Yes, we know what it's cool and superior (more so on Chinese-themed forums), but that doesn't give that much confidence.

 

[Engineer]

1.It was requested from new fighter otiginally, and I have never met reliable sources what they failed. On the contrary, they replaced f-15s in interceptor role on the most critical direction. Given what Alaskan threat list includes tu-160s, which are capable of long high supersonic dashes.

I have not seen a single reliable source that quotes Mach 2.5+ as top speed for F-22. The supercruise capability of F-22 offers far more advantage in interception. If you want to stick with Mach 2.5 figure, okay, fixed inlet allows F-22 to operate at Mach 2.5+ then so can DSI. What is your point? You have none. F-22 doesn't disprove that DSI is superior in application.

2.Top speed performance drop is far more logical.

Nope, nothing logical about 25% performance drop that you are hoping for, especially because modification is always made to improve performance. This is true for aircraft types all over the world. Plus we know aircraft with DSI can attain Mach 2.0 anyway, and the only reason you object is because you don't wanna to believe it.

3.it's, okay, I see , I see. Luckily for PLAAF, you're well informed as far away from them as possible, though.

It has nothing to do with PLAAF though. Me being more informed than you is quite simple to achieve — I just need not to spew uninformed garbage like you are doing right now.

4.And what is inside of this , we still don't know that well(apart from actual su-27 family engines). Yes, we know what it's cool and superior (more so on Chinese-themed forums), but that doesn't give that much confidence.

PLAAF publicly expressed they are very pleased with the bird. That's confidence. Whether you are confident about J-20's performance is frankly irrelevant. In contrast, Su-57 got its number slashed to 12, and that's not a sign of confidence from RuAF. This particular comment of yours highlights your issue, which is that you are salty because Chinese are more advance than what you think they "deserve" to be.

 

[Gloire_bb]

The supercruise capability of F-22 offers far more advantage in interception.

1.Max velocity has a direct relationship with dynamic altitude.
Supercruise capability doesn't replace dash capability for an interceptor. Window of intercept is tight, especially when target can reheat many times longer than your supercruise.
Btw, it shsll be understood what supercruise radius of f-22is still pitiful. Good old MiG-31 on afterburning supercruise flies significantly further. And faster.

2.modification to increase serviceability(=readiness levels) at cost of rarely used performance envelope corner is an improvement. If you aren't in for a **** measurement contest. And PLAAF has faster and more suitable aircraft anyways.
Technically yes, it is possible, but at cost of far more useful part of 4th gen fighter envelope. Are you sure it's clever?

3.ah, OK. A pity your truth contradicts to simply verifiable facts.
Just need to spew more, yes~

4. I have nothing against them being pleased. More than that, I sm quite sure it's really capable. Just there are limits to this capable, dsi and current Russian engines, which are far too weak for a 5th gen fighter among them.

5.Su-57 with intermediate engines. Let izd.30 appear first.
Btw, intermediate engines of Russian fighter are well above al-31fm...