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

[A Bar Brother]

The Raptor has been in development since 1986, the PAK-FA has been designed because the MK-1 is no match for the Raptor, however the Russians themselves have stated for the record that they compromised stealth in order to match the supermaneuverability of the the Raptor.

The Russians say the stealth on PAKFA is as good or better than the Raptor. Most of the stealth is lesser claims come from western analysts with no data.

When the Russians claimed they compromised stealth over maneuverability, they claimed they didn't make the aircraft more stealthy than it could have been because they didn't want to compromise aerodynamics.

so no after having to deal with TVC and its associated ills, the US has decided to pursue aerodynamic and stealth, as well as electronic measures to achieve air-superiority.

You are confusing the F-35's design parameters with that of the T-50.

Here again you are making a statement that is NOT accurate, the Russians, as well as the United States are the leaders in developing and deploying OVT/TVC.

Huge difference between developing it and employing it. We have more advanced AWACS technology than the Israelis do. Why is that so? Because they developed a superior system for us compared to what the Israeli Air Force could afford.

IAF has been employing full fledged TVC for years now. No other air force.

 

[A Bar Brother]

Harrier has VIFFing, in fact the Harrier was the first aircraft using TVC in combat.

VIFFing is nowhere the same as TVC on Flankers.

Russia builds the Su-30MKI, HAL only license it, they have taken all the information IAF says to Sukhoi, the first Su-35S were received in 2010 and now they are operational, the Su-30MS also are operational, your statement is wrong.
Russia had since 1997 Sukhoi aircraft with TVC

There is a big difference between developing one and then using one. Like the difference between a professional car maker and a professional car driver.

 

[A Bar Brother]

Here again , more nonsense, the IAF does NOT have a lead of any kind in employing OVT/TVC, it is simply a story you are making up, the US and the Russians employed TVC long before India, and India is flying a license built Russian aircraft???

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.

As to your very grandiose statement that the MK-1 will out turn a Raptor again you are very sadly mistaken, the Raptor will sustain a 6G turn at 50,000 ft, this according to Ret. General Norton Schwartz, former Air Force Chief of Staff, you sadly have no idea what that means???

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.

as to your claim that the PAK-FAs structural issues were with the Wing, please post a link or reference that we may look at to confirm that. My information was very clear the cracking was in the aft fuselage, and possibly some issues with the horizontal stabilizers as well???

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.

 

[A Bar Brother]

Maybe i'm behind the times but the only 'aircraft' I've seen making a complete 360 w/o bleeding a single oz of energy is the Millienium Falcon!

Normally there should be loss of energy when making a turn, however TVC with powerful engines eliminates the losses to a certain extent, enough to maintain energy to continue the fight. The Russians/Indians probably mean the loss in energy isn't drastic. There could be differences based on the amount of fuel carried too.

7:33 demonstrates a very slow version of the maneuver, although the PAKFA continues turning and losing energy.

The airshow maneuvers are just eye candy. We do not know the actual capabilities of the TVC in an operational environment. Some could be as subtle as increasing the turn rates by a few deg/s to some that could make drastic changes in nose pointing.

 

[b787]

VIFFing is nowhere the same as TVC on Flankers.



There is a big difference between developing one and then using one. Like the difference between a professional car maker and a professional car driver.

Su-30MKI was and is a Russian made design, you paid a license, Eugeny Frolov flew the Su-37 since 1997, you are simply saying things without sense, the USA has been testing TVC nozzles since the late 1980s, Russia since the mid 1990s. India has experience but admit it; you have not made a single engine with TVC with your own technology, only Russia and the US have done it.

Harrier can do Viffing which very close to a cobra, you need to do a bit of historical research before saying statements without real back up in reality

The only difference is the US scrapped the F-16MATV and the F-15 with TVC and went for the F-22, Russia needed cash so you bought the Su-30MKI, you helped to keep the program alive but by 2008 Russia implemented the technology in the best Flanker variant up to date the Su-35S, PAKFA basically uses the same engine.

 

[b787]

Normally there should be loss of energy when making a turn, however TVC with powerful engines eliminates the losses to a certain extent, enough to maintain energy to continue the fight. The Russians/Indians probably mean the loss in energy isn't drastic. There could be differences based on the amount of fuel carried too.

7:33 demonstrates a very slow version of the maneuver, although the PAKFA continues turning and losing energy.

The airshow maneuvers are just eye candy. We do not know the actual capabilities of the TVC in an operational environment. Some could be as subtle as increasing the turn rates by a few deg/s to some that could make drastic changes in nose pointing.

TVC does not prevent from losing speed, it just make more controllable the post-stall regime.
the TVC nozzles do help and make fantastic jets i like Su-30MKI, Su-35, PAKFA but they do lose speed if they get in the post stall regime, if they use TVC then they can reduce drag, for such reason PAKFA has such small vertical tails

click the following link here to see what is Viffing

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Basically is a Pugachev cobra with TVC nozzless

 

[A Bar Brother]

Su-30MKI was and is a Russian made design, you paid a license, Eugeny Frolov flew the Su-37 since 1997, you are simply saying things without sense, the USA has been testing TVC nozzles since the late 1980s, Russia since the mid 1990s. India has experience but admit it; you have not made a single engine with TVC with your own technology, only Russia and the US have done it.

Harrier can do Viffing which very close to a cobra, you need to do a bit of historical research before saying statements without real back up in reality

That's not the point I'm making. The Harrier uses TVC in only one mode where the nozzles look down. The F-22 uses TVC where the nozzles look up and down. IAF uses TVC where the nozzle looks up, down and cants a bit to the left and right. I'm specifically talking about the third. That's because only the third type provides control in pitch, roll and yaw.

Cobra can be done by aircraft without TVC.

Check 0:46.

The only difference is the US scrapped the F-16MATV and the F-15 with TVC and went for the F-22, Russia needed cash so you bought the Su-30MKI, you helped to keep the program alive but by 2008 Russia implemented the technology in the best Flanker variant up to date the Su-35S, PAKFA basically uses the same engine.

I don't think you understood the point I was making. IAF has 500+ pilots fully qualified to use 2.5D TVC. VVS probably has a handful, with the rest still under training to use 2.5D TVC. The USAF has a lot of pilots fully qualified to use 2D TVC.

Having a handful of test pilots in Sukhoi who are no longer affiliated with the VVS doesn't mean anything as far as operational tactics are concerned. You need to train your warfighting pilots, test new tactics in exercises, 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.

I'm comparing IAF, VVS and USAF, not HAL, Sukhoi and Lockheed Martin. If you want to use something in war, you first need to have the capability inducted and operational. That's when pilots start training to use the technology. That's why any criticism about the TVC can only be done by the IAF, the actual users of a TVC enabled aircraft. And it is clear they want TVC in other aircraft as well.

Similarly, the USAF has a huge operational advantage in using stealth compared to anyone else. So, only they are currently qualified to naysay stealth, the only actual users of stealth technologies.

So the next time you see a pilot who says TVC is useless, ask him whether he has actually flown one or whether he is basing it on airshow maneuvers or whether he heard it from a friend who heard it from another friend.

 

[A Bar Brother]

TVC does not prevent from losing speed, it just make more controllable the post-stall regime.

This is just one among the declassified aspects of TVC. We don't know the full capabilities of TVC.

We know that activating TVC gives control during post stall, but we don't know how much of a difference it makes when the nozzles only move by a few degrees during regular flight, when subsonic or supersonic.

The MKI has much higher STR and ITR compared to regular Flankers, all thanks to TVC. Considering that, TVC obviously goes beyond post stall maneuvers and air show maneuvers.

 

[tphuang]

The Russians say the stealth on PAKFA is as good or better than the Raptor. Most of the stealth is lesser claims come from western analysts with no data.

When the Russians claimed they compromised stealth over maneuverability, they claimed they didn't make the aircraft more stealthy than it could have been because they didn't want to compromise aerodynamics.

Russians made a lot of claims that didn't turn out to be true. Just because they said something, that doesn't mean it's true. I can tell you this for sure based on Chinese experience with Russian weapons. Do you go by evidence or is your aim to be their sales staff?

The Chinese analysts don't think PAK-FA stealth is that great, but they have spent a lot of RnD on system with purpose of countering American stealth.

 

[A Bar Brother]

Russians made a lot of claims that didn't turn out to be true. Just because they said something, that doesn't mean it's true. I can tell you this for sure based on Chinese experience with Russian weapons. Do you go by evidence or is your aim to be their sales staff?[

AFB is going by what the Russians claimed too. When I came into the forum, I said the same, don't go by claims. Russians have claimed contradictory things.

The Chinese analysts don't think PAK-FA stealth is that great, but they have spent a lot of RnD on system with purpose of countering American stealth.

Maybe so. But even they don't know everything.

All I know is the IAF preferred to go for the FGFA over the F-35. That would mean Chinese stealth is better than Russian and American. This is all if you go by claims.

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).