SU-57: On hold for a decade

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4434
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post08 Aug 2019, 18:36

milosh wrote: Su-57 carry less fuel but that doesn't have impact on range in fact in combat configuration range of Su-57 is noticable better compared to Su-35.

This I have no problem believing. The Su-57 just isn't that deep, and where it is deep compared to the Su-35 is where the weapons bays are. The F-22 is clearly not fuel optimized, it is speed optimized, just like the Su-57 appears to be. It has a longer but flatter fuselage, but it also doesn't have four weapons bays and two intakes going through the body. I guess 18,000lb to 22,000lb wouldn't surprise me, but 24,000 would.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

southerncross

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 17:09

Unread post09 Aug 2019, 04:07

mixelflick wrote:AL-31F Specific fuel consumption:
0.790 lb/lbf/h (22.37 g/kN/s) dry
1.819 lb/lbf/h (51.53 g/kN/s) with afterburner

Rosoboronexport gives a minimum value of 0.67 kg/kgf/h, don't know your source but this should be as official as it gets.
F100-PW-229
(MIL) 17,800lbs @ 0.726 lb/Hr/lb st
(MAX) 29,100lbs @ 2.060 lb/Hr/lb st

F110-GE-129
(MIL) 17,000lbs @ 0.745 lb/Hr/lb st
(MAX) 29,000lbs @ 1.900 lb/Hr/lb st

Would be interesting to know the sources, the GE has BPR of 0.76:1 while the P&W has 0.36:1, this should lead to significantly different fuel consumptions. I have found no official sources of TSFC at GE or P&W.
F119-PW-100
(MIL) 25,000lbs @ (~0.800?) lb/HR/lb st (Speculation varies between 0.600 - 0.860...)
(MAX) 37,000lbs @ (~1.950?) lb/HR/lb st

Low BPR engine, TSFC should be close to 0.8
F135-PW-100
(MIL) 28,000lbs @ 0.886 lb/HR/lb st
(According to J@ne'$, but seems too high? 0.700 is more likely)

(MAX) 43,000lbs @ (~1.950?) lb/HR/lb st

Agree, more likely close to 0.7
So, 2 known with a lower SFC (F-100-229 and F-110 129) and 2 possible (F-119 and F-135).

See above, not so clear given the sources need to be checked and even then, we need to know the conditions of the measurements. The GE has higher BPR, it is a good candidate to having lower TSFC than the AL-31F.
Frankly, I'd be shocked if the F-119 and F-135 weren't lower than the AL-31F, given they came much later and are more advanced...

Would certainly make sense for the 135 but not for the 119, given it is a specialised supercruising engine.
But I understand your point, there's at least 1 Russian engine that has a comparable SFC metric. Where things go awry for most Russian engines is the mean time between overhaul. Look at all of the problems the Indians have had with the AL-31 series in their Flankers. But that's another story for another day. I will give you this: Russian engine tech has come a long way...

Fair enough. The AL-41F1S has supposedly increased life by four times to 4,000 h, but still I think they are not even close in durability to US engines.
milosh wrote:You forget Su-35 have wet fins which Su-57 don't have, also Su-35 don't have weapon bays which take space which would be used for fuel. Su-35 sting is fuel only, while Su-57 sting have not so small radar or jammer.

True, I didn't account for the fins and sting, they don't seem to hold very substantial fuel volumes but still they add to the grand total. As to the WB, the Flanker's fuselage is extremely thin in that region so the loss of fuel volume is limited (in other words, the WB extends much further below the wing plane in the Su-57 than the lower fuselage in the Flanker does). Still I cannot reliably quantify it, you could be right.
My source is I think was some official person which said that in interview, Su-57 carry less fuel but that doesn't have impact on range in fact in combat configuration range of Su-57 is noticable better compared to Su-35.

May be true. The internal carriage has serious drag / range advantages compared to external load in real operation. Still we don't have numbers, a detailed analysis would be needed
Offline

southerncross

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 17:09

Unread post09 Aug 2019, 14:03

Some pictures related to the points I mentioned before.
Attachments
front.JPG
Lifting body in the Su-57 is far wider than in Su-27 or F-22. Due to its length and height, it should allow to carry substantial amounts of fuel
D8Cr4pNWsAA92wz.jpg large.jpg
Wing and lifting body have much more surface than Su-27
11185755-o.jpg
Section of the fuselage as per patent that allows to consider relative depth of the WB
T-50comparison .jpg
Fuselage of Flanker is much thinner at its middle section and its dorsal spine much narrower. F-22's space between cockpit and engines is much shorter than in Su-57
Offline
User avatar

jetblast16

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 623
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 00:12
  • Location: USA

Unread post24 Aug 2019, 18:02



Very impressive. At least at low speed, in some ways, more impressive than the Raptor.
Have F110, Block 70, will travel
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1030
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post25 Aug 2019, 01:16

jetblast16 wrote:

Very impressive. At least at low speed, in some ways, more impressive than the Raptor.


Russia - look what we can do at airshows!

US - thats really cool! what else can it do?

Russia - ummmm....

Seriously very nice display showing off some of its kinematic feats. However as some have noted here and else where, it would appear Sukhoi put more emphasis an maneuverability and everything else (stealth and avionics) was secondary. This demo appears to give more creedence to that claim.
Offline

fidgetspinner

Banned

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post25 Aug 2019, 01:53

@charlielima223

"Seriously very nice display showing off some of its kinematic feats. However as some have noted here and else where, it would appear Sukhoi put more emphasis an maneuverability and everything else (stealth and avionics) was secondary. This demo appears to give more creedence to that claim."

Although they are and admit they are behind in radars as you said not enough emphasis in avionics does not really mean they cant improve through other means in the future like photonics for instance.

https://itech.aorti.ru/upload/iblock/82 ... ressed.pdf

director of the RTI them. A. L. Mints, Alexander Osipov. - The institute has the necessary scientific, technical, software-algorithmic and technological for
affairs for the creation on a single structure of the latest BRKK for spacecraft. In the model of the BRLC, which was created at the institute, important are technologies for raising informativity: the use of innovative probing signal designs, the method of expanding the shooting range, innovative methods for detecting moving objects, superresolution algorithms, methods for processing and integrating radar data. - The basic principles of radar are well known to scientists around the world. It is very difficult to come up with qualitatively new solutions in this area, but we succeeded. With the help of a supercomputer, we have developed deep mathematical analysis algorithms that allow us to detect moving targets. This is a very difficult task that no one has yet solved for us, ”says Anatoly Leukhin. - The fact is that when we look at the Earth with a locator, we see not only rivers, oceans and cities, but also a huge amount of interference. Because of them, it is sometimes very difficult to see even moving objects. The ability to track moving objects is an essential step in the development of radar. This technology can be widely used for both military and civilian purposes. For example, to create systems
aircraft from space

https://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/2019- ... 2967.shtml

"The official propaganda of the Russians is generally the same: the detection distance is too far, the energy conversion efficiency is as high as 60%, the traditional radar is only 30%, and the noise is 100 times lower than the conventional radar, which greatly improves the signal-to-noise ratio, and the theoretical detection distance for the stealth target. More than 500 kilometers!"

https://weaponews.com/news/11884-kret-h ... he-6t.html

"said mikheyev. He explained that "Conventional radar station (radar) radiation is generated by vacuum-tube or semiconductor devices, the efficiency is relatively low – 30-40%". The remaining 60-70% of the energy is converted into heat. The new radar a radar signal is obtained by converting photonic crystal laser coherent energy in a microwave radiation.
This transmitter efficiency will be not less than 60-70%. That is a big part of laser energy will be converted into a radar, with the result that we can create a radar of high power, said the deputy director. The locator will not be a separate module in the nose of the aircraft, it will be a distributed system. Something similar can be seen today on the fifth generation fighter t-50 radar which operates in different bands and in different directions. In fact it is a single locator, but he exploded on the plane. It turns out about three or four different radars, which are comfortably placed around the fuselage and can simultaneously observe all the space around the aircraft, said mikheyev. Radiophony radar will be able to see, according to our estimates, far beyond the existing radar."

These 3 sources tell me the same exact thing. I do not know what Russian source the Chinese have found to make the claim to lower the noise 100 times. But noise in its own definition is interference with a received signal. I will get into the explanation later that MMICs and FICs are as different as apples and oranges. So I cannot find a source where the Chinese have said the noise can be lowered 100 times. However RTI the same company that has made prototype photonic radars has now come up with a solution that satellites with the right software and supercomputers can track targets based on the calculations of algorithms. I looked for every source on the web and I cannot find a single piece of information that firecontrol radar satellites being able to track low altitude targets :? this is the 1st article that has claimed this. The West in which KRET and RTI sadly admit they are 5-10 years behind them in MMIC technology(although they are working hard to improve) have not made such a thing happen yet for satellites to track low altitude targets as far as I have searched the web. But since RTI has made the claim they can in which they explained the interference is too high but they made it work which makes me suggest FICs(photonic integrated circuits) lowered the interference enough to make it work(track low altitude targets from space) because the Russians sure as hell cannot do this with MMICs. If a huge constellation of satellites is being made than I am sure this information can be shared to aircrafts.

Semiconductors or MMICs always have noise because of electronic signals. Mikheeyev explains lasers lower the noise hence transmitter efficiency significantly increases about twice as much as conventional radars. The "we can see farther than the existing radar" seems to make a lot of sense. Noise inside a conventional radar makes it difficult to detect or track a target remove that noise with lasers the easier it is to track or detect a target. Instead of seeing a 1m2 target at 400kms you can see a .01m2 target at 400kms instead the reason being is if noise is lowered or removed the better the signal is received and picked up. Also it comes with the benefit of ultra-high SAR resolution.

Another example

https://phys.org/news/2014-03-fully-pho ... laser.html

The radar system, part of a project known as PHODIR (Photonics-based fully digital radar) is an effort to improve the tracking and speed calculation abilities of current electronic signal based systems. It's well understood that making improvements in such a system will require higher frequency signals, something that can't be done with current systems due to an increase in noise that creates more uncertainty in the signals received. For that reason, scientists have been looking to use lasers—such signals are much more stable.

Same said sh*t by KRET but a different source making my claim more believable. Here they are attempting to lower the noise using lasers for received signals to be better heard. However this sad part comes later.

(Phys.org) —A team of researchers in Italy has developed the first fully photonics-based coherent radar system. In their paper published in the journal Nature, the team describes how they built their new radar system and what it might mean for the future of radar systems. Jason McKinney of the US Naval Research Laboratory offers a News & Views perspective piece on the development of the radar system in the same issue and outlines issues involved with attempting to implement such a system into real world applications.

The radar system the team built is still just a prototype, though it does appear feasible. The team tested its abilities by monitoring real aircraft taking off at a nearby airport and then comparing what they observed with data from traditional electronic signal based systems. They report that the systems matched very closely. That of course is just an initial test, as McKinney notes, much more research and testing will need to be done before the researchers will know if such a system could provide better results than conventional systems. Also, another area of concern is range, which could impact jitter, and thus the accuracy of the system.

US in 2014 say they have the same issues about making such a system apply to the real world. Italy says they have made the system match very closely to traditional radars. This means they have not improved ROFAR to exceed conventional radars this is said both by the Europeans and the US. On top of that this is now a closed project https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/92836/factsheet/en

https://uanews.arizona.edu/press-releas ... cs-project source from august 2017 or exactly 2 years ago

TUCSON, Ariz. — The American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics (AIM Photonics), a public-private partnership advancing the nation's photonics manufacturing capabilities, has announced the winner of a proposal call for a new Defense Department Government Directed Project for photonic integrated circuit, or PIC, data links for cryogenic focal plane arrays, or FPAs

Frank Jaworski, program manager for emerging technology at Raytheon Vision Systems, added: "Raytheon regards the integration of photonic integrated circuits with focal plane arrays as a critical path for the development of future Department of Defense imaging systems vital to the nation's security. We look forward to the University of Arizona's leadership of the consortium and utilizing their expertise in developing this key technology."
Neil Supola, chief of the infrared focal plane array branch at the Army's Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate and government program manager for AIM Photonics, said: "This program is a great opportunity for the Department of Defense to leverage advances in integrated photonics manufacturing being realized by the Manufacturing USA program together with its state, industrial and academic partners. The scope of industrial participation on this project highlights the relevance photonic integration has within the Department of Defense community, and this project's inherent potential to make a large impact."

In other words more funding for a state university to make better use of the technology instead of having the same conclusion as the phodir project by not making it exceed a conventional radar but with the same performance instead. :(

https://itech.aorti.ru/ No. 1 (20) of 2018


"- In your opinion, what are
domestic prospects
radiophoton component base?
- The prospects are good. Opening the veil of our plans, I note that
we are going to actively apply
radio photonic technologies for deep modernization of existing
Radar and the creation of advanced radars. This will allow to realize
promising synthesis methods
radiation, reception and processing of radar signals (including
ultra wideband) based
new competitive domestic products: radiophotonic
super fast analog digital
converters (ADC), photon
digital processors, electron-optical signal generators,
optical delay lines, parallel optical supervisors, optical-electronic systems
antenna control and calibration.
Integrated application of photonics
in the AFAR equipment will provide a scientific and technological breakthrough in the field of
radar, communications and electronic warfare, will provide
Consumers have significant advantages over traditional
hardware.
Develop radiophotonics in JSC "RTI"
planned primarily at the base
production capacity
Connector Optics LLC and OJSC
"OKB-Planet". The existing competencies of these enterprises make it possible to organize a complete
serial process chain
production of VIL and semiconductor modulators in microchip
performance.
As for semiconductor
modulators in microchip
performance, then in 2019 the research
work on this topic in which
OKB-Planeta OJSC is an industrial partner.
Within three to five years is possible
organization of the development, design and production of photonic
integrated circuits (FIS) both in packageless execution, and in the case.
The implementation of these plans will allow
JSC "RTI" take a leading position
in development and production
advanced domestic radio systems based on component
radiophotonic bases.

Replacing semiconductor components with radiophotonic components makes it possible to significantly simplify circuit solutions and functional
the construction of equipment, at times reducing its weight and size indicators
and power consumption.
The use of radiophotonics in radar systems provides
both quantitative and qualitative
advantages, including an increase in the order of the instantaneous width
signal spectrum, decrease by three
the order of transmission losses, reducing the weight and size of devices, a significant increase in resistance to electromagnetic pulses,
as well as minimizing interchannel
pickups.
- Shaping and processing radar signals in optical
range solves many problems
characteristic of electron propagation in copper conductors and in semiconductors, - explains Sergey
Saprykin. -

From here follow
the possibility of inertialess scanning sector review and real
adaptation to the noise-target environment, that is, the radar noise immunity increases. Huge frequency
range of radiophotonic radar allows
organize multi-frequency mode
work and the instantaneous signal bandwidth
in tens of gigahertz - to build a radar portrait of objects, to carry out spatial selection and effectively classify goals,
including stealth technology.
In addition to the complex of works on the creation of an integral radiophoton component base for radiolocation,
Interesting solutions can be obtained by applying radiophotonic technology to another new for NPK
work direction - radio engineering
terahertz range. The terahertz direction in NIIDAR has appeared recently, and the proven solutions in the world in engineering and circuit design
in this area is still very small.
- We started working on three
main areas where the previously inaccessible possibilities for the terahertz frequency range open up: radar with miniature
dimensions and superresolution
probing hazardous items
in inspection complexes as well
oncology diagnosis and treatment
diseases, explains Sergey Dmitrievich. - Bye hardware solutions
look not very elegant, but with the advent of radio photonics for the terahertz range, a technological breakthrough is possible, and we expect
among the first to enter the market
with new products.""

2019 they say 3-5 years they will start mass production of FICs and you would usually not do this if something does not work. They are even planning to raise it the THZ level. they also made a photonic radar balloon like this to assist SAMs.

"and object heights hc calculated by known
relations from the theory of radio communications (without
the effects of possible obstacles on the ground).
From the graphs it can be seen, for example, that with a height
facility 800 m line of sight
with increasing antenna height from 2 m to 1000 m
increases by 2 times (from 105 to 215 km),
and at an object height of 2 m, 12 times (from 10 to 120 km).
That is, the effect of lifting antennas in order to expand the serviced spatial zone is especially increased for ground and
at extremely low altitudes of objects."

Rather if stealth is secondary I hope your ideas are not based off a brochure that does not reference the actual RCS figures right? Wish they would tell us for example what the RCS estimates would be for the front of the aircraft. We might get lucky at this upcoming airshow. Please also list public sources like I do or you got some top secret level access you like to share here on their avionics and stealth being secondary to further elaborate? I wish to know about their stealth and avionics before judging where to place them as primary or secondary but no performance parameters are given. Please be willing to share your sources to your conclusions at least I am doing this with where their direction is heading in terms of developing radars.

http://www.promweekly.ru/archive/kret/KRET_4-2018.pdf They go into some detail about using FICs for jamming but do not give any performance data as to how much better it would be in terms of what conventional AESA or PESA offers. I cant find the 100 noise or -20 decibel reduction claim on any source so just as a reminder I am not taking that claim serious until a source is presented. However the lower noise reduction using laser modules I take a little more serious according to what PHODIR project attempted to do, and what the results stated by RTI and KRET have said.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7699
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post25 Aug 2019, 05:03

I'ld settle for them building a bleeding edge cellphone.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1655
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post25 Aug 2019, 09:47

Don't think there are many people out there who would buy a Taigaphone.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3358
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post25 Aug 2019, 14:49

It's all very impressive air show stuff, but they have put too much emphasis on "supermaneuverability" and airshow tricks. Tight turns? Yep. Tighter than a 9x? Nope...

They seem to have settled for a LO, vs VLO design. It's going to lay waste to F-15's, 16's and 18's though, and will likely require an F-35/22 in theater to nullify it. We'll see how many they build. I'm betting if the foreign orders don't materialize, it'll be 50 or less. Enough to equip a few front line units, but nothing more. Given the budget and stealth expertise they're working with, it was an ambitious project, and I think they've built something about as good as can be reasonably expected.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 788
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post25 Aug 2019, 15:57

mixelflick wrote:It's all very impressive air show stuff, but they have put too much emphasis on "supermaneuverability" and airshow tricks. Tight turns? Yep. Tighter than a 9x? Nope...

They seem to have settled for a LO, vs VLO design. It's going to lay waste to F-15's, 16's and 18's though, and will likely require an F-35/22 in theater to nullify it. We'll see how many they build. I'm betting if the foreign orders don't materialize, it'll be 50 or less. Enough to equip a few front line units, but nothing more. Given the budget and stealth expertise they're working with, it was an ambitious project, and I think they've built something about as good as can be reasonably expected.


F-35 is also trying to have nice air show demos, so I really don't see why you are BS when Su-57 do same thing?

Btw I didn't saw nothing as impressive as Su-35, that is example of super agility philosophy and just think what it would do when it get PAK-FA engines.

PAK-FA as test pilot said is "software, software and software" that was answer to journalist when he was asked to describe PAK-FA.

So focus is more on software and sensors then on super agility. Yes it can turn nice, it can stop in air etc but it isn't primary focus.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post26 Aug 2019, 00:28

mixelflick wrote:It's all very impressive air show stuff, but they have put too much emphasis on "supermaneuverability" and airshow tricks. Tight turns? Yep. Tighter than a 9x? Nope...

They seem to have settled for a LO, vs VLO design. It's going to lay waste to F-15's, 16's and 18's though, and will likely require an F-35/22 in theater to nullify it. We'll see how many they build. I'm betting if the foreign orders don't materialize, it'll be 50 or less. Enough to equip a few front line units, but nothing more. Given the budget and stealth expertise they're working with, it was an ambitious project, and I think they've built something about as good as can be reasonably expected.



Russia will have so few Su-57's. I can't see a scenario where they would be a threat to Western 4th Generation Fighters. As there will always be a larger number of F-22's and/or F-35's to counter them.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post26 Aug 2019, 00:38

charlielima223 wrote:
jetblast16 wrote:

Very impressive. At least at low speed, in some ways, more impressive than the Raptor.


Russia - look what we can do at airshows!

US - thats really cool! what else can it do?

Russia - ummmm....

Seriously very nice display showing off some of its kinematic feats. However as some have noted here and else where, it would appear Sukhoi put more emphasis an maneuverability and everything else (stealth and avionics) was secondary. This demo appears to give more creedence to that claim.


Airshows in general aren't a good judge of the true performance of any fighter. Especially, in the case of Russian Fighters. Which, usually lack in other aspects not seen during the display. It's also worth noting Russia would push such displays beyond the point my most Western Fighters would be allowed to. Especially, a type not fully developed and tested!
Offline

southerncross

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 17:09

Unread post26 Aug 2019, 01:39

charlielima223 wrote:Seriously very nice display showing off some of its kinematic feats. However as some have noted here and else where, it would appear Sukhoi put more emphasis an maneuverability and everything else (stealth and avionics) was secondary. This demo appears to give more creedence to that claim.

Sorry to be blunt, but that is a fallacy. An airshow demo is just that and of course will not provide any sort of evidence to assess other aspects of the aircraft. This seems just a try from yours to turn a good airshow performance into a problem. Obviously it is not, but just a proof of qualities like very low wing loading, excellent controllability and perfectly tuned FCS / engine controls.

BTW, the Su-57 performed today a demonstration of a short landing in the framework of the MAKS 2019 air salon, very interesting indeed and with great military value, apart from a good airshow trick :wink:
mixelflick wrote: We'll see how many they build. I'm betting if the foreign orders don't materialize, it'll be 50 or less.

Ok, what are you betting??

I mean, they have a contract for 76 units. At a price say 50% higher than a Su-35 and current rates, that would mean roughly $3.5 billion. They cannot pay $350 million/year for their prime fighter, and even worse, they don't even know it? Isn't that a bit of wishful thinking on your part? VKS is run considering a long-term planning, what would they do without the Su-57? ...pretty much as unthinkable as if US would cancel the F-35 by now.
Corsair1963 wrote:Airshows in general aren't a good judge of the true performance of any fighter. Especially, in the case of Russian Fighters. Which, usually lack in other aspects not seen during the display.

This is the kind of blanket statement which by definition holds no truth in it, just belief.
It's also worth noting Russia would push such displays beyond the point my most Western Fighters would be allowed to. Especially, a type not fully developed and tested!

1. Do you think the Su-57 in such aerobatics is going beyond the overloads Western fighters are flown normally at the airshows? I think the opposite is true. If you refer to post-stall recovery, modern Western planes claim to have total post-stall control too, and perform such maneouvers often, even without TVC, only not so brilliantly as Su-35 or Su-57.
2. Su-57 has finished state tests and is going in the series. Of course it is fully developed and tested
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post26 Aug 2019, 05:03

southerncross wrote:
Airshows in general aren't a good judge of the true performance of any fighter. Especially, in the case of Russian Fighters. Which, usually lack in other aspects not seen during the display.


This is the kind of blanket statement which by definition holds no truth in it, just belief.

ABSURD

We have no specific data on any aircraft actual flight performance during an airshow. (i.e. specific numbers) So, to make an "accurate" comparison between types is virtually impossible...So, you can't eyeball opposing types and draw any serious conclusion. Especially, when the extremely slow speeds and altitudes aren't representative of the vast majority of aerial combat in the first place. :?

That said, what we do have is reports from customers of Russian Fighters. Which, in turn means we have a fairly good idea of the overall Reliability, Availability and Serviceability (RAS) of many Russian Fighters. Including both the Flanker and Fulcrum Series. With India being a good example. We also know the success rates of many Russian Weapons. Like the R-77 /AA-12 Air to Air Missile. (again for example)

Has anybody seen anything that would suggest. That the Su-57 is markedly better than existing 4/4.5 Generation Fighter currently operated by Russia or any of it's customers???
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post26 Aug 2019, 05:21

southerncross wrote:
It's also worth noting Russia would push such displays beyond the point my most Western Fighters would be allowed to. Especially, a type not fully developed and tested!

1. Do you think the Su-57 in such aerobatics is going beyond the overloads Western fighters are flown normally at the airshows? I think the opposite is true. If you refer to post-stall recovery, modern Western planes claim to have total post-stall control too, and perform such maneouvers often, even without TVC, only not so brilliantly as Su-35 or Su-57.


All of Su-57's Russia have produced thus far and displaying at airshows are prototypes or early development aircraft. None are series production aircraft. (not even close) Nor, has the Su-57 been fully developed and tested. In addition they have also flown it into combat zones. (i.e. Syria) The West would never fly a similar fighter in development under such conditions. Why??? Because it would be to risky and said aircraft are not fully developed and "combat ready".

So, to answer your question...."YES" I believe Russia would go beyond the design limits. In order to try to put the best possible light on the Su-57. As they have already proven......


2. Su-57 has finished state tests and is going in the series. Of course it is fully developed and tested


Laughable...........it's far from fully developed and is really going into low rate initial production (LRIP). Which, likely has more to do with national pride and hopes of attracting a customer. (any customer)
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests