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

[Jeff Head]

An aircraft that's able to turn in the horizontal plane to 180deg at 600 Kmph is not something to be scoffed at. Oh, and it can return to forward flight without losing speed. This is one of the maneuvers which is not a secret. Not possible on the Raptor. Basically a 360 deg turn without losing speed.

You do realize the nature of this claim don't you?

If you are traveling at 600 Kmph (and what does "Kmph" mean? is it kilometers or miles per hour?), and saying that the aircraft can rotate 180 degrees in the horizontal plane while so doing, you do realize what that would mean don't you?

The aircraft would now be completely out of sync in terms the airflow and its structure As this occurred two very serious things would occur.

1) All lift over the wings and horizontal surfaces, and over the airframe itself, would be lost as it rotated into this position.

2) This would produce monumental, probably catastrophic, dynamic stresses on the airframe which is absolutely not designed to fly in such a fashion...all of the stress would be exerted along the broadside of the aircraft.

Sorry...I simply do not believe this is done as any sort of tactical maneuver which would be considered for war fighting.

I would have to see it to believe it had been done even one time. They may be able to recover from the loss of lift...but I do not believe the structure would withstand the consequences of turning normal to the airflow at those speeds.

(Added later\

Also. the idea that it would not lose speed is just ridiculous. With its engines pointed forward...how would it maintain ANY thrust?

Answer...it would not.

It would lose all thrust as soon as its engines were turned away from any position where any thrust could be imparted...in other words, as soon as it hit 90 degrees. But it would lose speed drastically long before that as the thrust it could provide at the off angle would steadily decrease until air friction and its own weigh overcame the diminishing thrust imparted by the engines at those angles.

And once it passed through 90 degrees on its way towards 180 egrees...it better just turn the engines off altogether in an effort to lessen the speed lost because the more it came around with the engines running, the more negative thrust the engines would produce at those speeds.

It is likely...as I said, the aircraft would fail...and it may completely break a part.

 

[A Bar Brother]

You do realize the nature of this claim don't you?

If you are traveling at 600 Kmph (and what does "Kmph" mean? is it kilometers or miles per hour?), and saying that the aircraft can rotate 180 degrees in the horizontal plane while so doing, you do realize what that would mean don't you?

The aircraft would now be completely out of sync in terms the airflow and its structure As this occurred two very serious things would occur.

1) All lift over the wings and horizontal surfaces, and over the airframe itself, would be lost as it rotated into this position.

2) This would produce monumental, probably catastrophic, dynamic stresses on the airframe which is absolutely not designed to fly in such a fashion...all of the stress would be exerted along the broadside of the aircraft.

Sorry...I simply do not believe this is done as any sort of tactical maneuver which would be considered for warfighting.

Km is metric for Kilometers.

Anyway, the MKI is designed to also fly "tail-forward," up to 200 Kmph. I don't know how the physics works though.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The aircraft is capable of near-zero speed airspeed at high angles of attack and super dynamic aerobatics in negative speeds up to 200 km/h.

The Mig-35 is no different.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and ensured that it will also remain controllable in zero-speed and 'negative-speed' (tail-forward) areas for sustained periods.

I would have to see it to believe it had been done even one time. They may be able to recover from the loss of lift...but I do not believe the structure would withstand the consequences of turning normal to the airflow at those speeds.

I had the exact same reaction when I heard it the first time. I assume this could be a desperate maneuver, kind of like the Mig-21 with two afterburner settings. The second setting can increase afterburner thrust by 30% of the normal to over 95KN for a short duration of a minute or so, the flip side being the engine life will reduce by a lot. So something that cannot be shown to the general public.

 

[Air Force Brat]

I will repeat the same to you. There is a huge difference in having developed first and having used first. Neither the US nor the Russians ever employed TVC on a dedicated air superiority combat aircraft for air superiority missions.

Please point out all the aircraft you know that could control pitch, yaw and roll using TVC, operational aircraft, not development aircraft. You don't develop combat tactics with development aircraft.



Actually, I do. We don't know similar figures for the MKI. No need to speculate something you need an energy diagram for.

Apparently, the British claim the turn performance of the Typhoon is similar to the Raptor.



The vertical stabilizers developed cracks.

I think we both had half of the problems correct. There were aft fuselage problems and they did strengthen the wings. Had to fix the stabilizers as well.

Here we are brother, you are acknowledging that each of my assertions are true. (of course they are, I value my credibility, and I would expect my fellow posters to correct me if I were wrong, and they have and do, then I would issue an apology.) Then you agree with me, that's a nice change, you acknowledge the aft fuse and horizontal stab issues and add the verts which I had heard?? but the wing is a new one for me??

The Mk-1 and the Typhoon are both fabulous aircraft, they are both turning fools, and at low to medium altitudes they may indeed out turn the Raptor, when we move to the high altitudes the Raptor is the queen!

So why don't we agree here where we are very close, I know you are very bright, but you don't have to be perfect, and you shouldn't insist you are always right?? That's called being reasonable, when someone on Sino Defense knows more than I????( lots of these guys are near genious) I listen and let them inform me of the truth, and say "OHH!"
anyway this is a good post on your part, we both have similar interests, lets try to reach the truth and listen to one another??? please, and thank you, brat

 

[A Bar Brother]

The Mk-1 and the Typhoon are both fabulous aircraft, they are both turning fools, and at low to medium altitudes they may indeed out turn the Raptor, when we move to the high altitudes the Raptor is the queen!

I don't know about the MKI, but the British claim the Typhoon can do 6.6G at mach 1.6 at an altitude of 50000 feet. No different from the American claim.

Typhoon trivia. The Singaporeans pit the Typhoon against three of their F-16 Block 52s, in a 3 on 1 engagement, during their fighter competition around 10 years ago. The Typhoon beat all three F-16s. The Typhoon can also supercruise at mach 1.4-1.5 while carrying 2 supersonic 1000 liter drop tanks and 6 missiles (4 BVR, 2 WVR).

There may be geniuses on this forum, but heavily biased (towards American technology) geniuses with little knowledge of what's happening across the pond, let alone the mountains beyond.

 

[b787]

That's not the point I'm making. The Harrier uses TVC in only one mode where the nozzles look down.


and fly your aircraft for over a decade before you can claim you have the same experience as the IAF. Sergei Bogdan is a Sukhoi pilot, not a VVS pilot. So his experience doesn't bring actual capability to the VVS.

.

First your statements are not true, Bogdan or Frolov have engineering knowledge, they are engineers and pilots, any test pilot is an university graduate with in many cases a PHD in an engineering trade.

Russia has more than 160 pilots currently flying TVC aircraft operational.
All the Indian pilots have to report to Sukhoi about the aircraft technical features and HAL since the manufacturer needs information, but the Sukhoi test pilots test the max technical features of the Flankers, regular Indian pilots will not pass the regular limits of the Su-30MKI/Su-30SM; furthermore Sukhoi as well as MiG test pilots did mock combat using TVC.



Viffing was used since the early 1970s, so Harrier has hundreds of pilots doing Viffing, thus RAF/ Ejercito del Aire/The italian navy and even the Indian navy as well the US marines know know to do it, specially the US Marines who did invent the maneuver.

 

[b787]

Anyway the Chinese have claimed that the shaping on PAKFA is not as good as that on the J-20. And as I have already said before, shaping isn't everything. Shaping is a double-edged sword. You are just diverting energy somewhere else and can still be picked up. You are not very stealthy as long as you can completely negate of completely destroy any signal that falls on you. PAKFA caters to negation and destruction aspects of stealth (more expensive methods without sacrificing aerodynamics) while the F-22 and J-20(maybe) deal with diverting signals away through shaping (which conflicts with aerodynamics).

that is true, planforming only sends strong signals to fewer angular sectors, but affects aerodynamics terribly.

 

[b787]

You do realize the nature of this claim don't you?

his claim is none sense, all cartwheel maneuvers reduce speed, they are called aerodynamic braking, the cobra or the Chakra as it is called reduce speed, at 600 miles is not performed, they will perform them at low speeds and they will bleed too much speed the aircraft will basically stop forward flight, these type of maneuvers reduce speed, thus in most cases the aircraft becomes a target after it has to regain speed.
this video shows it, Su-37 doing cartwheel turns

 

[A Bar Brother]

First your statements are not true, Bogdan or Frolov have engineering knowledge, they are engineers and pilots, any test pilot is an university graduate with in many cases a PHD in an engineering trade.

I wasn't talking about his qualifications either. As long as he is not a VVS pilot, his experience doesn't matter. He does not make tactics. His job is to make an aircraft operational. And that's it. After the aircraft is operational, his work is done and the air force's work starts.

Russia has more than 160 pilots currently flying TVC aircraft operational.

How many of them have been flying TVC aircraft operationally for the last 12 years? IAF has at least 8 pilots with 12 years of experience on a TVC aircraft, the maximum possible. That's followed by 8 more with 11 years experience, and so on until we get to the last batch which are still under training with no experience.

VVS has 10 pilots with 2 years of experience on a TVC aircraft, the maximum possible. Probably 12-16 pilots with one year experience, followed by a bunch of pilots with no experience, many still in training.

All the Indian pilots have to report to Sukhoi about the aircraft technical features and HAL since the manufacturer needs information, but the Sukhoi test pilots test the max technical features of the Flankers, regular Indian pilots will not pass the regular limits of the Su-30MKI/Su-30SM; furthermore Sukhoi as well as MiG test pilots did mock combat using TVC.

IAF doesn't give away tactics. Tactics are different from technical features.

Viffing was used since the early 1970s, so Harrier has hundreds of pilots doing Viffing, thus RAF/ Ejercito del Aire/The italian navy and even the Indian navy as well the US marines know know to do it, specially the US Marines who did invent the maneuver.

But none of them have used TVC with yaw and roll control. Harrier doesn't have yaw and roll control. Raptor doesn't have yaw and roll control. Only Su-30MKI variants and Su-35 have yaw and roll control.

And you are unable to understand what I'm talking about. I'm talking about actual combat training with a TVC aircraft.

Stage-1: Learn how to fly the aircraft.

Stage-2: With enough experience develop tactics and formations for the aircraft.

Stage-3: Refine tactics through years and years of combat training.

Stage-4: Integrate your aircraft with other dissimilar aircraft in service and create new tactics.

As of today only Russia and India have full scope TVC capability. And only India has finished all four stages while Russia is at the first stage. It doesn't matter how many hours Bogdan has spent on the Su-30MKI, he is not part of Stage-2, Stage-3 or Stage-4 because those stages are meant for air forces.

What tactics will Bogdan create by flying solo anyway?

 

[A Bar Brother]

his claim is none sense, all cartwheel maneuvers reduce speed, they are called aerodynamic braking, the cobra or the Chakra as it is called reduce speed, at 600 miles is not performed, they will perform them at low speeds and they will bleed too much speed the aircraft will basically stop forward flight, these type of maneuvers reduce speed, thus in most cases the aircraft becomes a target after it has to regain speed.
this video shows it, Su-37 doing cartwheel turns

The Su-37 does nothing of what I mentioned. I'm talking about spinning on the horizontal plane, not vertical. It's a turn done without banking or pitching. The PAKFA shows that in the video I posted to demonstrate what I was talking about.

 

[Jeff Head]

Anyway, the MKI is designed to also fly "tail-forward," up to 200 Kmph. I don't know how the physics works though.

The aircraft is capable of near-zero speed airspeed at high angles of attack and super dynamic aerobatics in negative speeds up to 200 km/h.

Neither of these conditions is even close to the claim you described.

Flying 180 degrees out of sync...sideways...at 600 kmh is nothing like moving in reverse at 200 kmh, or near zero speeds at high angle of attack.

At 180 degrees and 600 kmh, the aircraft would have zero lift and fall from the sky...but that would probably happen after the aircraft suffered what would probably be massive structural failure in any case as it got to that position.