SU-57 deployed to Syria

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

juretrn

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 375
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post20 Nov 2018, 07:27

fidgetspinner wrote:I got a very odd feeling that if this guy joined this forum there are going to be like 20 pissed off comments with the guy getting banned the moment he starts his account here. Thankfully the newbie privilege here will prevent him from posting too much. https://qr.ae/TUhm5x Let everyone's blood pressure rise at their own discretion.

I am almost willing to bet certain body parts that he did - his username was wewuzkangz. Same bad English, same fanboyism, same weasel words, and same functional illiteracy.
Russia stronk
Offline

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post20 Nov 2018, 10:45

juretrn wrote:I am almost willing to bet certain body parts that he did - his username was wewuzkangz. Same bad English, same fanboyism, same weasel words, and same functional illiteracy.


Pretty sure I saw that Quora poster having a sook about F-16.net at some point. He's a total shithead that spams qoura with misinformation then has a tantrum because he got kicked off these forums for trying to do it here.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 252
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post20 Nov 2018, 22:40

New Russian Video about the development of the Su-57.

Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 908
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post20 Nov 2018, 23:45

Jut looked at the video.

With all those "naked" rivets and bolts in the outer skin? Let us not even talk about RCS.
They don't know what the word means.

And with those engines and exhaust?
The IR signature must look something like a football field high up.

And if you look at the smoke plume?
It is back to F-4 Phantom days. To fid the fighter? Follow the smoke plume.

Next try please… LOL.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7948
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post20 Nov 2018, 23:52

Image
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

collimatrix

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 156
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 15:27

Unread post21 Nov 2018, 00:24

vilters wrote:Jut looked at the video.

With all those "naked" rivets and bolts in the outer skin? Let us not even talk about RCS.
They don't know what the word means.

And with those engines and exhaust?
The IR signature must look something like a football field high up.

And if you look at the smoke plume?
It is back to F-4 Phantom days. To fid the fighter? Follow the smoke plume.

Next try please… LOL.


I could buy that smoke plumes tend to scatter IR, and thus would show up against a clear sky.

That said, if you watch the video of the testbed SU-57 with the new engine ("Type 30," the one with the serrated nozzle), it does not appear to smoke. But then, most jet engines only smoke at certain throttle settings, and there's hardly video of the new type 30 engine being tested in the air through its entire throttle range. So far, the testbed aircraft only has one of the new engines installed (but there was a picture from the documentary of it with the starboard engine position empty, presumably in preparation for the installation of the new engine). The engines on the SU-57 are pretty wide-set, so if the AL-41F is going full military power, who knows what the Type 30 is doing. Probably not full power, I would imagine there would be yaw issues.

In any case, there's a good chance that the new engine doesn't smoke.

As for the rivets... well, maybe yes and no. Having rivets that stick out like that is probably not great for RCS, or even for subsonic drag coefficient for that matter. Certainly not ideal.

But the issue, such as I understand it, is that radar waves tend to bounce off of portions of the aircraft where there are discontinuities in conductivity. So, from that perspective, is a rivet really the worst way to connect two pieces of material on an aircraft? A rivet gets forcibly deformed into place, and it actually squeezes the two pieces of metal together. If you were to, say, put a bit of conductive paste on the edges of the two pieces of metal to be riveted together, would the return from the joint be all that much worse than a butt weld? You would have the round shape of the rivet heads, but those are only a problem from certain angles. Welding is expensive and tricky; there are all sorts of ways you can accidentally screw up the metallurgy of the work pieces. If the first few planes are just technical demonstrators and testbeds, then Sukhoi probably doesn't want to pull their hair out with expensive and technically risky manufacturing processes.

I think it's broadly consistent with the overall design goal of the current PAK-FA demonstrators. It doesn't look perfect and pretty because it doesn't have to. The US ATF prototypes were in a competitive fly-off, so they had to look the part. That meant smooth, composite skins that looked very futuristic. Remember how much Northrop groaned about Lockeed shooting an AMRAAM out of the YF-22? An ATF prototype that looked as rough as the PAK-FA prototypes would be a lot harder to take seriously in a competitive fly-off.

Sukhoi isn't dealing with a fly-off. They're the only game in town, and the Russian government knows this. MiG is an absolute shambles right now. Right now, MiG has the MiG-35, which the Russian government has bought a small number of simply to keep MiG afloat. Nobody else is interested because the MiG-35 is, as a piece of military hardware, slightly less outdated than cavalry sabers. The rumored MiG fifth-generation fighter has not seen the light of day, meaning that it likely exists only on computer screens and blueprints right now. Furthermore, beyond India, there's no serious talk of exporting the SU-57.

So, since Sukhoi isn't trying to sell the plane to anyone, the prototypes don't have to look pretty. They have have all sorts of provisional equipment and production shortcuts. Think of the big, lance-like nose pitot tube on the YF-22. Stuff that's clearly just for the prototype. That but moreso. The production, combat-coded aircraft are clearly not going to have air intakes that expose the engine fan face without some sort of blocker. You wouldn't go to all the effort of putting the stabilators in line with the main wings and planform aligning the entire front of the aircraft and putting sawtoothing on all the access panels and then just forget about the compressor face.

I stand by my prediction that the air intakes will be re-designed. The definitive aircraft will have air intakes with more stealth features, and they will probably be resized to match the airflow requirements of the new engines. This is a major feature to re-design this late in the game, but there is precedent.
Offline

collimatrix

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 156
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 15:27

Unread post21 Nov 2018, 00:31

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
1.) They carried over the "tunnel" from the Flanker, which gives a nice weapons storage/area for more fuel

Yeah, about that. Imagine how much more volume for fuel/weapons you would have if you filled in the tunnel? Better RCS by reducing the number of corner reflectors. Less form drag from interference of those interior corners. Arguably some increase in wave drag as it changes the area ruling.


My read is that low supersonic drag was a high design priority for the PAK-FA. Sucker is designed to go fast, at least in a dash. The intakes are supposed to have some sort of VG ramps hidden in them, the wings are extremely swept, the aircraft has no less than three ways of trimming out supersonic CG shift (thrust vectoring, stabilators, LEVCONs), and the entire design has a generally high aspect ratio at the expense of lots of wetted area.

The fuselage underside and air intake design gives a lot of opportunities for area-ruling, as you point out. On top of that, it gives two other important advantages. The first is that podded or semi-podded intakes can be more easily re-sized later on to accommodate new engines that have different airflow requirements. The second advantage is that the intakes are widely spaced and thus far away from the weapon bay doors, which means no worries about any interactions between the intake flow and the disturbance caused by the doors opening.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2687
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post24 Nov 2018, 15:22

Slick video. You almost get the impression they're aiming for it to be their next gen air superiority platform but of course, we know that's not the case.

Two words: Technology demonstrator. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. They're going to build a dozen. OK. That means roughly 50% may be airworthy at any one time. Barely enough to integrate the new engines, weapons and radar/electronic warfare suite. This also assumes no attrition/losses. How exactly are they going to take their new toy and integrate it with the rest of the fleet? Do they have anything similar to Red Flag, where they can determine how it works with their other aircraft? Combat deployments? To where? Syria?? What does it do for them the SU-35 doesn't???

That's the real question. They seem to have answered that question by NOT mass producing it. Sure, they leave the door open to after the 2nd stage engines are perfected etc, but by then the US PCA will be flying, along with thousand of F-35's and significantly upgraded F-22's. Not to mention ever increasing numbers of J-20's and quite possibly J-31's on their border..

They do have the prettiest camo schemes for their birds, I'll give them that...
Offline

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 924
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post25 Nov 2018, 05:37

Typically whenever I see something about the PAKFA its usually some kind of photo shoot from Russian propaganda. Whenever I read something about it, its usually overly exaggerated/hyped.

Looks like it can take time out of its busy modeling schedule to actually do something...

Time index 1:08 it looks like the PAKFA is doing an engine shut off test
Offline

fidgetspinner

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27

Unread post07 Dec 2018, 00:42

Seems that they are planning on having a missile that is similar to the Kinzhal but yet they want it to fit inside the SU-57.

http://tass.com/defense/1034559

"In accordance with Russia's State Armament Program for 2018-2027, Su-57 jet fighters will be equipped with hypersonic missiles. The jet fighters will receive missiles with characteristics similar to that of the Kinzhal missiles, but with inter-body placement and smaller size," the source said.

Anyone got a good guess what size they would need. For example the kinzhal is like 8 meters long how much room would they have left to fit this inside the SU-57? What size would the missile have to be reduced to?
Offline

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post12 Dec 2018, 18:27

fidgetspinner wrote:Seems that they are planning on having a missile that is similar to the Kinzhal but yet they want it to fit inside the SU-57.

http://tass.com/defense/1034559

"In accordance with Russia's State Armament Program for 2018-2027, Su-57 jet fighters will be equipped with hypersonic missiles. The jet fighters will receive missiles with characteristics similar to that of the Kinzhal missiles, but with inter-body placement and smaller size," the source said.

Anyone got a good guess what size they would need. For example the kinzhal is like 8 meters long how much room would they have left to fit this inside the SU-57? What size would the missile have to be reduced to?


According to this site: https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.word ... fa-russia/ the Su-57 weapon bays are 4.6 meters long by 1.0 meters wide.

Image

The bays do not appear to have a great volume or depth to them however:
Image

They are probably only half a meter or less in depth.

Given the Iskander is 7.3 meters long by 0.92 meters in diameter, it would have to be drastically shrunk to fit inside those bays, resulting in much reduced missile performance.

It would probably result in something similar to the Kh-15 (4.78 meters length, 0.455 meters diameter); Mach 5 speed with 300 km range.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3813
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post12 Dec 2018, 18:48

I question that lower photo. The center missile is literally sticking out of the bay.
"Spurts"

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

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 743
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post12 Dec 2018, 20:34

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I question that lower photo. The center missile is literally sticking out of the bay.

That "center" missile actually looks like a second store level of the left side missile, like this if you look at it from the rear:
Code: Select all
     | _ |     
----[|---|]----
     /O O\
      O


I am not sure how that can fit in the Zoomski, especially the rear doesn't look that deep.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3813
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post12 Dec 2018, 21:30

I suppose
"Spurts"

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

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post12 Dec 2018, 23:28

Also note that Russian claims of Mach 10 velocity and 2000 km range for the Kinzhal are likely severely inflated about real performance.

The claim the missile has a 3000 km range when launched by the Tu-22M is a giveaway, indicating Russia is counting combat radius of the launch aircraft as part of the missile range.
Given the MiG-31 has a combat radius of about 1400 km and the Tu-22M about 2400 km, that suggests the actual range of the missile is merely 600 km.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests