Russia is,developing a light weight stealth fighter

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

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4484
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post13 Jun 2021, 14:54

I agree they fielded successful single engine designs in the past (Mig-21, 23, 27 etc.). So what's the problem now? I still stay its the stealth factor and not having the rubles/manufacturing tolerances which drive so many of its metrics. Stealth forces them to use internal weapons bays/internal weapons. All fuel needs to be internal (at least while stealthy). Carrying the next gen AESA/other sensors and avionics. All of it adds weight and manufacturing headaches. So stealth is the root cause/necessity of all those manufacturing/engineering headaches..

Maybe they will join SAAB and declare stealth doesn't work... :mrgreen:
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3347
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Jun 2021, 22:07

mixelflick wrote:I agree they fielded successful single engine designs in the past (Mig-21, 23, 27 etc.). So what's the problem now? I still stay its the stealth factor and not having the rubles/manufacturing tolerances which drive so many of its metrics. Stealth forces them to use internal weapons bays/internal weapons. All fuel needs to be internal (at least while stealthy). Carrying the next gen AESA/other sensors and avionics. All of it adds weight and manufacturing headaches. So stealth is the root cause/necessity of all those manufacturing/engineering headaches..


It's also for the reasons that you mentioned above that I think/believe that the Russians would never be able to build a top notch stealth 5th gen fighter aircraft - just look at the Su-57!
This means that IMO the only way that the Russians could be successful in this endeavor of creating a 5th gen fighter aircraft would be to build a simpler (namely compared to the Su-57) and cheaper (with single engine preferably) fighter aircraft with some stealth features and other limited features such as small weapons bay which for example could only house air-to-air weapons (while the air-to-ground weapons would only be carried externally). Such aircraft would never be the best in any special category (including speed, acceleration and agility) but could be made simpler and cheaper enough to be fielded in big numbers.
Resuming it would be a XXI century and 5th gen Mig-21 or Mig-23.


mixelflick wrote:Maybe they will join SAAB and declare stealth doesn't work... :mrgreen:


LOL, perhaps they will :mrgreen:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1370
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post14 Jun 2021, 22:10

mixelflick wrote:I agree they fielded successful single engine designs in the past (Mig-21, 23, 27 etc.). So what's the problem now? I still stay its the stealth factor and not having the rubles/manufacturing tolerances which drive so many of its metrics. Stealth forces them to use internal weapons bays/internal weapons. All fuel needs to be internal (at least while stealthy). Carrying the next gen AESA/other sensors and avionics. All of it adds weight and manufacturing headaches. So stealth is the root cause/necessity of all those manufacturing/engineering headaches..

Maybe they will join SAAB and declare stealth doesn't work... :mrgreen:


Nonsense. They can't say stealth doesn't work when they already have one serial stealth and finishing second one (S-70 ucav)


About you question about problem with single engine fighter?

Well for stealth single engine design problem was engine, as I point out if they used most powerful AL-31 variants, it would need to have heavier F-16 variant weight to match F-35 kinematics. So were is weapon bay and RAM?

Only now they have adequate engine.
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 388
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post15 Jun 2021, 02:52

milosh wrote:Nonsense. They can't say stealth doesn't work when they already have one serial stealth and finishing second one (S-70 ucav)

Actually the narrative I've encountered from numerous Russians online is that true stealth (VLO) is impossible, and that aircraft like the Su-57 and S-70 simply possess signature reduction features that are balanced with their other attributes. I think it was Alexander Davidenko (chief Su57 designer) who got that ball rolling with the claim that the Raptor had an "average" RCS (whatever that means) of ~0.3m, with the Su-57 being about a third of that.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7632
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post15 Jun 2021, 03:16

boogieman wrote:
milosh wrote:Nonsense. They can't say stealth doesn't work when they already have one serial stealth and finishing second one (S-70 ucav)

Actually the narrative I've encountered from numerous Russians online is that true stealth (VLO) is impossible, and that aircraft like the Su-57 and S-70 simply possess signature reduction features that are balanced with their other attributes. I think it was Alexander Davidenko (chief Su57 designer) who got that ball rolling with the claim that the Raptor had an "average" RCS (whatever that means) of ~0.3m, with the Su-57 being about a third of that.



What would you expect from Russian Sources???

If, Stealth was really such a failure. Funny, that most of the major powers are spending so much money. To develop both 5th and 6th Generation Stealth Fighters. (and Bombers)

Tell your Russian Friends to come back when they stop doing that. Otherwise, they're wasting your time.... :?
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 388
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post15 Jun 2021, 03:19

I didn't say I believed them, just that this seems to be the narrative coming out of pro-Russian sources :wink:
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7632
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post15 Jun 2021, 03:47

boogieman wrote:I didn't say I believed them, just that this seems to be the narrative coming out of pro-Russian sources :wink:



Yes, they have a bad habit of drinking their own cool-aid..... :shock:
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1370
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post15 Jun 2021, 16:54

boogieman wrote:
milosh wrote:Nonsense. They can't say stealth doesn't work when they already have one serial stealth and finishing second one (S-70 ucav)

Actually the narrative I've encountered from numerous Russians online is that true stealth (VLO) is impossible, and that aircraft like the Su-57 and S-70 simply possess signature reduction features that are balanced with their other attributes. I think it was Alexander Davidenko (chief Su57 designer) who got that ball rolling with the claim that the Raptor had an "average" RCS (whatever that means) of ~0.3m, with the Su-57 being about a third of that.


What they bsing in past isn't relevant what is relevant is what they saying now, I don't see Russian officials are sh*tting on stealth as they did in past, while Swedes are still doing that. Quite simple, Russians are building VLO while Swedes don't.

You have Su-57 which have lower RCS then Gripen and I am talking about clean configuration.

Then you have S-70 which is to say stealthy uac design by the book, I am talking about serial version which have non afterburner engine and flat nozzle:
https://www.aircosmosinternational.com/ ... afale-3076

"Average" or to be more clear mean RCS is what you have in academic studies of stealth models, those studies don't use lowest possible RCS but mean RCS. For example Chinese Su-57 study calculated Su-57 rcs without RAM at .8m2 (mean value for frontal RCS) and they concluded it isn't much different then other VLO models they used (of course similar size).
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7632
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post16 Jun 2021, 02:05

milosh wrote:
boogieman wrote:
milosh wrote:Nonsense. They can't say stealth doesn't work when they already have one serial stealth and finishing second one (S-70 ucav)

Actually the narrative I've encountered from numerous Russians online is that true stealth (VLO) is impossible, and that aircraft like the Su-57 and S-70 simply possess signature reduction features that are balanced with their other attributes. I think it was Alexander Davidenko (chief Su57 designer) who got that ball rolling with the claim that the Raptor had an "average" RCS (whatever that means) of ~0.3m, with the Su-57 being about a third of that.


What they bsing in past isn't relevant what is relevant is what they saying now, I don't see Russian officials are sh*tting on stealth as they did in past, while Swedes are still doing that. Quite simple, Russians are building VLO while Swedes don't.

You have Su-57 which have lower RCS then Gripen and I am talking about clean configuration.

Then you have S-70 which is to say stealthy uac design by the book, I am talking about serial version which have non afterburner engine and flat nozzle:
https://www.aircosmosinternational.com/ ... afale-3076

"Average" or to be more clear mean RCS is what you have in academic studies of stealth models, those studies don't use lowest possible RCS but mean RCS. For example Chinese Su-57 study calculated Su-57 rcs without RAM at .8m2 (mean value for frontal RCS) and they concluded it isn't much different then other VLO models they used (of course similar size).



The Su-57 is more akin to LO than VLO (F-22, F-35, NGAD)......
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 388
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post16 Jun 2021, 02:47

milosh wrote:What they bsing in past isn't relevant what is relevant is what they saying now,


Where have you seen them talking up the value of stealth? Not saying you're wrong, I just haven't encountered it. Like I said, most of the pro-Russian material/propaganda I've seen still downplays the value of stealth or the possibility of VLO-level RCS in tactical fighters.

milosh wrote:"Average" or to be more clear mean RCS is what you have in academic studies of stealth models, those studies don't use lowest possible RCS but mean RCS. For example Chinese Su-57 study calculated Su-57 rcs without RAM at .8m2 (mean value for frontal RCS) and they concluded it isn't much different then other VLO models they used (of course similar size).


I figured as much, it just seems like an odd stat to me as a radar is not going to "see" an average RCS from a given aircraft at a given moment, but quite a specific one based on aspect/orientation etc. I suppose you could use it as a rough proxy for the overall level of RF signature reduction applied to a given airframe or from given aspects, but that's likely to be quite difficult using open source data. Strikes me as the kind of stat that could be easily abused for propaganda purposes... :wink:
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1370
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post16 Jun 2021, 17:55

Corsair1963 wrote:The Su-57 is more akin to LO than VLO (F-22, F-35, NGAD)......


Nope. Design meet VLO requirements (with new LOAL nozzle) this is what was confirmed by 3d model study done by Chinese in 2016. If Su-57 got stealth nozzles it would be VLO design was their conclusion.

Only question was build quality and in that field Su-57 we have biggest surprise. It is something we probable never saw in Russian aviation. There aren't gaps and you can hardly see any nut, also it have two RAM layer first one is applied in factory (which is quite thick) then you have additional spray layer applied in base, second layer reduce RCS but also protect first layer. On top of that they plan to use protective covers for Su-57 to reduce RAM degradation even more.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3825
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post16 Jun 2021, 19:49

milosh wrote:


Nope. Design meet VLO requirements (with new LOAL nozzle) this is what was confirmed by 3d model study done by Chinese in 2016. If Su-57 got stealth nozzles it would be VLO design was their conclusion.

Only question was build quality and in that field Su-57 we have biggest surprise. It is something we probable never saw in Russian aviation. There aren't gaps and you can hardly see any nut, also it have two RAM layer first one is applied in factory (which is quite thick) then you have additional spray layer applied in base, second layer reduce RCS but also protect first layer. On top of that they plan to use protective covers for Su-57 to reduce RAM degradation even more.

When can we expect to see Su-57s with this level of build quality? We sure haven't seen it yet.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7224
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post16 Jun 2021, 22:09

wrightwing wrote:
milosh wrote:


Nope. Design meet VLO requirements (with new LOAL nozzle) this is what was confirmed by 3d model study done by Chinese in 2016. If Su-57 got stealth nozzles it would be VLO design was their conclusion.

Only question was build quality and in that field Su-57 we have biggest surprise. It is something we probable never saw in Russian aviation. There aren't gaps and you can hardly see any nut, also it have two RAM layer first one is applied in factory (which is quite thick) then you have additional spray layer applied in base, second layer reduce RCS but also protect first layer. On top of that they plan to use protective covers for Su-57 to reduce RAM degradation even more.

When can we expect to see Su-57s with this level of build quality? We sure haven't seen it yet.


its right there with that engine they have that they don't have yet. The one that was holding them back until now. But now they have it. except they don't but theyre not being held back now that they (don't) have it.

I can say from personal experience that Eastern block/Russian people are the most blunt, and brutally honest people I've ever encountered. They make the Germans look like kind hearted tactful sweethearts. I have no idea how any of the Russians and easterners ever fell for propoganda then or now.

but anyway the engine is here, its not but it is.
Choose Crews
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7632
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post17 Jun 2021, 03:42

milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:The Su-57 is more akin to LO than VLO (F-22, F-35, NGAD)......


Nope. Design meet VLO requirements (with new LOAL nozzle) this is what was confirmed by 3d model study done by Chinese in 2016. If Su-57 got stealth nozzles it would be VLO design was their conclusion.

Only question was build quality and in that field Su-57 we have biggest surprise. It is something we probable never saw in Russian aviation. There aren't gaps and you can hardly see any nut, also it have two RAM layer first one is applied in factory (which is quite thick) then you have additional spray layer applied in base, second layer reduce RCS but also protect first layer. On top of that they plan to use protective covers for Su-57 to reduce RAM degradation even more.



:lmao:
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1324
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post17 Jun 2021, 10:18

milosh wrote:
Nope. Design meet VLO requirements (with new LOAL nozzle) this is what was confirmed by 3d model study done by Chinese in 2016. If Su-57 got stealth nozzles it would be VLO design was their conclusion.

Only question was build quality and in that field Su-57 we have biggest surprise. It is something we probable never saw in Russian aviation. There aren't gaps and you can hardly see any nut, also it have two RAM layer first one is applied in factory (which is quite thick) then you have additional spray layer applied in base, second layer reduce RCS but also protect first layer. On top of that they plan to use protective covers for Su-57 to reduce RAM degradation even more.


A new engine nozzle wont give it VLO levels. Too many bad design decisions that prevent it from getting there.

I still question the build quality. The first production version crashed during its delivery flight and we still dont have a explanation as to why. Secondly after 10 aircraft built already (prototype and test models) along with almost a decade of data, dont you think by now they could build more than 2 aircraft a year? Also it sounds to me that they finally caught up RCS maintenance levels that was seen with the F-22...

https://www.tyndall.af.mil/News/Feature ... s-stealth/

The F-22 has benefited from the F-35. The F-22 now gets the same durable radar absorbent coatings used on the F-35.

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/the ... ew-tricks/
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: krieger22 and 23 guests