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

[Air Force Brat]

One of the best report on the net not in english but the guy speak Russian and have even Russian documents !
Sukhoi Su-57 PAK FA

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

LOL

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yes, we've seen most of this, but that is a very comprehensive and honest summary of Su-57 development, which also illustrates the "targeting pod", (Russian equivalent of the "Sniper") hung on a pylon on the inboard left wing,,, another big No No in L/O... so everything we see from the electronic jamming, external targeting pod, indicates that they missed the mark on L/O shaping??

So we shall see if the Turkish interest grows, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Russians welcome them on board, even incorporating that fancy new Turkish cruise missile, Turkey has the expertise to bring a Western perspective to the Su-57, and turn it into the airplane that the Russians wanted to build and buy, we shall see, but mark my words, this is far more than just posturing or talk, this is a very serious turn of events, and yes this is a tremendous set-back for NATO and the F-35 partnership,,, I'm extremely disappointed in this turn of events... I really am.

 

[Hyperwarp]

Reposting some stuff on potential T-50 Radar blockers.
Collection of patents related to the T-50 -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Air Force Brat]

Um no. This is 100% untrue. It is you who insist on making ambiguous and passively snide remarks and then saying cheap stuff like ..." but it's a fantastic plane and I love it etc etc" like the tone in most of your posts. Mine are pretty unambiguous. I have doubts about Su-57s LO. This is where semantics come into play since I can't give frontal or overall RCS, BUT I do suggest that I would not be surprised if it were lower than F-22 etc. I also make the clear disclaimer that Russians may have other thoughts and be heading in different directions than pursuing stealth the American way. I have not once contradicted myself. If anyone's comprehension is poor enough to think so, I challenge them to find a quote given the full context.

BTW any reasonable human being would say that your statement about F-35 certainly being superior is the only grandiose statement around for pages. Another passive aggressive thing you like doing is liking other people's posts you clearly have a problem with. I don't think anyone can make sense of your first response to my post which is clear and unambiguous... quite unlike the stuff you wrote.

Off Topic: You Sir are an extremely poor psychologist, I am a mental health professional, (damn near starved to death, LOL),,,, but very good at what I do! I LOVE everybody here on SDF, (I'm a Christian, not a very good Christian, but I am not ashamed of my Master), and I work very hard to display kindness and honesty!

and how would deign to know who or what I liked or disliked?? I like everybody, HELL I LIKE YOU! you're one of the few people here on SDF who really does try to understand and give an honest assessment on aerodynamics, and make a practical application of what you think, in fact I'll guarandamntee ya that I prolly respect you more than almost anyone else here on SDF, and if I give you a like?? which I have done, and will continue to do,,, its because you made a good point, I try to do that for each and every member of SDF!

and further I'm NOT passive aggressive,,,, but I am polite, I like to be polite and respectful,, I may laugh at some of your contradictions?? (yes, we all do it, depending on our frame of mind), and to be perfectly clear, the Su-57 is probably one of, if not the most beautiful of all the five Gens,,, yes I like the F-22 almost as much..

I have acknowledged that the Su-57 is likely a bit more agile than the F-22,,, yes it pains me to do so, but it could very well be true,,, for a great U-tube video check out the Indonesian flying display of the Su-30 MKM,,, very sweet flying!

Mod's feel free to edit this, it is well off topic.

 

[ougoah]

Off Topic: You Sir are an extremely poor psychologist, I am a mental health professional, (damn near starved to death, LOL),,,, but very good at what I do! I LOVE everybody here on SDF, (I'm a Christian, not a very good Christian, but I am not ashamed of my Master), and I work very hard to display kindness and honesty!

and how would deign to know who or what I liked or disliked?? I like everybody, HELL I LIKE YOU! you're one of the few people here on SDF who really does try to understand and give an honest assessment on aerodynamics, and make a practical application of what you think, in fact I'll guarandamntee ya that I prolly respect you more than almost anyone else here on SDF, and if I give you a like?? which I have done, and will continue to do,,, its because you made a good point, I try to do that for each and every member of SDF!

and further I'm NOT passive aggressive,,,, but I am polite, I like to be polite and respectful,, I may laugh at some of your contradictions?? (yes, we all do it, depending on our frame of mind), and to be perfectly clear, the Su-57 is probably one of, if not the most beautiful of all the five Gens,,, yes I like the F-22 almost as much..

I have acknowledged that the Su-57 is likely a bit more agile than the F-22,,, yes it pains me to do so, but it could very well be true,,, for a great U-tube video check out the Indonesian flying display of the Su-30 MKM,,, very sweet flying!

Mod's feel free to edit this, it is well off topic.

Okay. I guess I need to tread more carefully. RCS eyeballing is inaccurate. Rather than simply saying we can't eyeball RCS, I should have made it clear that on one hand, we can't be certain about RCS from photos but we also do know that surface evenness and protrusions can and usually do affect RCS using the shaping school of thinking (at least what we've been told to think and somewhat confirmed with Chinese efforts following this school). These two are not mutually exclusive. Su-57 having less even surfaces and more protrusions would make me unsurprised to learn if it had inferior LO to something like the F-35 let's say. However it is still impossible to know for sure because we can't get the exact numbers just from those traditional rules. If I said Su-57 does have inferior RCS, that would be a different matter. Anyway all that aside, the posts others have contributed regarding radar blockers and exposed fan-blades are appreciated.

If one of the reasons behind not utilising S ducts was for the aerodynamic setup and consideration for the weapons bays, it would make sense for them to have a decent enough work-around for the problem. It does not make any sense to go to these great troubles in engineering a perfectly fine flying fighter that obviously tries to be VLO using the usual shaping techniques (radome, edge alignments, internal weapons bays, IZD-30 with serrated nozzles, relatively clean surfaces compared to previous generation) only to have all those efforts squandered by totally exposed fan-blades. It just doesn't add up. We can say it was because they valued kinematic performance and the way the bays are positioned, S ducts were just not an option, but then why build a stealth fighter at all? The Su-35 can be upgraded to host all the relevant electronics and sensors while maintaining about the same level of performance. This suggests that the fan blades should only be as big an issue against the stealthiness of the fighter as the most obvious problem/s e.g. protrusions and uneven surfaces (I know no one is perfect and even the F-22 has protrusions and tubes sticking out in places). They went into this whole thing with the knowledge that exposed blades works against stealth. Maybe it's all in the details though and the measurable and predicable risks with this design are calculated to be acceptable for the gains in other domains.

 

[Equation]

Okay. I guess I need to tread more carefully. RCS eyeballing is inaccurate. Rather than simply saying we can't eyeball RCS, I should have made it clear that on one hand, we can't be certain about RCS from photos but we also do know that surface evenness and protrusions can and usually do affect RCS using the shaping school of thinking (at least what we've been told to think and somewhat confirmed with Chinese efforts following this school). These two are not mutually exclusive. Su-57 having less even surfaces and more protrusions would make me unsurprised to learn if it had inferior LO to something like the F-35 let's say. However it is still impossible to know for sure because we can't get the exact numbers just from those traditional rules. If I said Su-57 does have inferior RCS, that would be a different matter. Anyway all that aside, the posts others have contributed regarding radar blockers and exposed fan-blades are appreciated.

If one of the reasons behind not utilising S ducts was for the aerodynamic setup and consideration for the weapons bays, it would make sense for them to have a decent enough work-around for the problem. It does not make any sense to go to these great troubles in engineering a perfectly fine flying fighter that obviously tries to be VLO using the usual shaping techniques (radome, edge alignments, internal weapons bays, IZD-30 with serrated nozzles, relatively clean surfaces compared to previous generation) only to have all those efforts squandered by totally exposed fan-blades. It just doesn't add up. We can say it was because they valued kinematic performance and the way the bays are positioned, S ducts were just not an option, but then why build a stealth fighter at all? The Su-35 can be upgraded to host all the relevant electronics and sensors while maintaining about the same level of performance. This suggests that the fan blades should only be as big an issue against the stealthiness of the fighter as the most obvious problem/s e.g. protrusions and uneven surfaces (I know no one is perfect and even the F-22 has protrusions and tubes sticking out in places). They went into this whole thing with the knowledge that exposed blades works against stealth. Maybe it's all in the details though and the measurable and predicable risks with this design are calculated to be acceptable for the gains in other domains.

There's Brat's old tricks again. When cornered on logic and unable to defend his claims, he tries to disarm you by telling you how much he likes/respects you, what his religion is, how he thinks some jet is "beautiful" etc... You asked him to find a contradiction you made, he couldn't, but continued on to talk about your "contradictions" which he "laughs at"; did you notice that? Interestingly, other members can pull quotes proving his contradictions of himself which he will never acknowledge.

Bottom line is, he made a statement about F-35 being more than a match for any of Russia's systems without any evidence and phrased it with such confidence that someone who didn't know his history might be fooled into thinking that he knew what he was talking about. When asked to defend it, his reply was, "I'm a Christian and I like you." LOLOL

 

[Skywatcher]

Yes, we've seen most of this, but that is a very comprehensive and honest summary of Su-57 development, which also illustrates the "targeting pod", (Russian equivalent of the "Sniper") hung on a pylon on the inboard left wing,,, another big No No in L/O... so everything we see from the electronic jamming, external targeting pod, indicates that they missed the mark on L/O shaping??

So we shall see if the Turkish interest grows, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Russians welcome them on board, even incorporating that fancy new Turkish cruise missile, Turkey has the expertise to bring a Western perspective to the Su-57, and turn it into the airplane that the Russians wanted to build and buy, we shall see, but mark my words, this is far more than just posturing or talk, this is a very serious turn of events, and yes this is a tremendous set-back for NATO and the F-35 partnership,,, I'm extremely disappointed in this turn of events... I really am.

The US DoD and Intelligence Community clearly does not think the Turkish S-400 purchase is that big a threat to the F-35 (witness last week's lobbying about the NCAA).

 

[2handedswordsman]

omg there's an US embassy right here..lolol, but you have to remember if things go serious no stealthy gadjets can stop topols and minutemen...thanks to the brilliant mind of Teo Hall.Equality at the highest level

 

[Air Force Brat]

The US DoD and Intelligence Community clearly does not think the Turkish S-400 purchase is that big a threat to the F-35 (witness last week's lobbying about the NCAA).

Anybody with a small dribble of gray matter should be able to deduce that having Russian crews, training Turkish operators, having up close and personal technical information on the F-35, and 100 F-35s to run "voodoo" on! Basing your opinion on a lobbying effort is a rather risky endeavor, and most honest people have lost faith in our so called "intelligence community", thanks to John Brennan and his "minions". I'm positive that every Western Fighter Pilot flying the F-35 into combat would be vehemently opposed to allowing Turkey to buy F-35s, knowing that Turkey was buying the S-400 from the Russians...

You really ought to do a little better research before making assumptions about the US Military,, there's little doubt that the Senate took nearly unilateral action on shutting the Turkish sale down, due to concern and upon the recommendation of their liason's in the US Military....

in any regard, if the Turks buy the S-400 from the Russians, and we begin delivering New F-35's to Turkey, I will personally issue a retraction of my statements and offer a very real apology..

I'm not saying that can't happen, I'm saying it shouldn't happen under the circumstances... we never sold a single F-22 for precisely that reason!

 

[Tirdent]

First is materials. SU57 uses more conventional materials this limits the ability to manipulate the signature.

The composite content is known to be higher than in the F-22.

Is there any truth to claims that Su-57's fan blades are almost 100% hidden from direct view exactly head on due to offset placement. It does appear to be so just from photos. Similarly to YF-23 how the engine sits on a higher elevation than the intakes.

No. Like Hyperwarp says & TerraN_EmpirE's photo proves, while there is an offset between the inlet aperture and the engine face on the Su-57 both laterally and vertically, most of the engine face is exposed. Even when the variable inlet ramps are down for supersonic flight, as shown in the following patent image, a good third of it is visible.



As you noted though, there are other ways of dealing with the engine face reflection and one of these (a blocker) will be adopted for the Su-57. This is confirmed by another patent, although it's deliberately broad in scope on the precise configuration of the blocker so as to give no clues on its actual implementation. I.e. the real one is probably among the options covered, but so are multiple others with no indication on which one is preferred.



Fig. 5 is obviously a Super Hornet type blocker, which would probably be pretty favourable in terms of pressure loss when integrated with the engine fan inlet guide vanes (as shown in Hyperwarp's photo). Combined with the short, relatively straight ducts on the Su-57, such a solution might even compare well with a longer, aggressive serpentine duct as on the F-22 in this regard. It would also explain the rather exotic (YF120 style) IGV geometry of the Izd. 30 engine known from leaked images:



Problem with that theory is that the patent mentions a minimum separation between the blocker and engine face (tagged "a" in the image above) of 0.7 fan diameters IIRC. Another piece of Maskirovka? Your guess is as good as mine.

Generally speaking, this notion that s-ducts are the gold standard solution to hiding the engine face is not borne out by the facts though. It's a fairly elegant option, but not without drawbacks - compared to a straight duct of similar length it does carry a pressure loss penalty and there furthermore is a minimum length driven by length/diameter ratio to avoid flow separation in the bends. Most of all, it takes up huge amounts of internal volume and, unless you really efficiently package the airframe (it's no accident the center fuselage configurations of the F-22, Su-47 and J-20 are so similar), increases cross sectional area.

Sukhoi extensively flight tested them, studied them again during preliminary design for the Su-57 and still found them wanting. Hell, if your aircraft is subsonic (= no shocks forming at the intake opening), the good old F-117-style mesh screen remains a viable solution even today: RQ-170, I'm looking at you!

Here is another issue.

The Engine housings. Those are also a potential Radar hot spot.

Do keep up

 

[Labrador]

The composite content is known to be higher than in the F-22.

No. Like Hyperwarp says & TerraN_EmpirE's photo proves, while there is an offset between the inlet aperture and the engine face on the Su-57 both laterally and vertically, most of the engine face is exposed. Even when the variable inlet ramps are down for supersonic flight, as shown in the following patent image, a good third of it is visible.

View attachment 47514

View attachment 47515

Fig. 5 is obviously a Super Hornet type blocker, which would probably be pretty favourable in terms of pressure loss when integrated with the engine fan inlet guide vanes (as shown in Hyperwarp's photo). Combined with the short, relatively straight ducts on the Su-57, such a solution might even compare well with a longer, aggressive serpentine duct as on the F-22 in this regard. It would also explain the rather exotic (YF120 style) IGV geometry of the Izd. 30 engine known from leaked images:

View attachment 47516

Do keep up

Agree !

Please, not sure... a blocker is not a true stealth system also efficient than a reactor completely hidden ? the waves pass through this " grid "?