SU-57 deployed to Syria
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1154
- Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16
Their problem is enginering quality.
All their capable engineers fled North and South, East and West when the GREAT RUSSIAN EMPIRE collapsed and money dried up.
The period when all was done for the honor of staying out of jail is over.
They wanted to be paid in real money, not in some Red Party Vodka left-overs.
All their capable engineers fled North and South, East and West when the GREAT RUSSIAN EMPIRE collapsed and money dried up.
The period when all was done for the honor of staying out of jail is over.
They wanted to be paid in real money, not in some Red Party Vodka left-overs.
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2309
- Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
- Location: Serbia, Belgrade
marsavian wrote:Don't be surprised if the Russians double down and eventually produce an even bigger but stealthier variant and call it Su-67. Obviously they need to get rid of the exposed engine faces in such a variant so will need a wider fuselage. Russians are all about evolution not revolution in their aircraft designs.
No S-duct intake doesn't automaticilly mean no stealth, we can expect Su-57 have radar blocker combine with RAM composite curved IGV (photo of that IGV was publish in 2017 or 2018).
Only big change which Saturn CEO mentioned in last interview is flat nozzle, if AF or some buyer want (India was mentioned eariler) it wouldn't problem, prototype is tested on ground.
- Active Member
- Posts: 179
- Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 20:10
- Location: Spain
milosh wrote:popcorn wrote:In their dreams maybe. Wasn't there speculation in The Russian press that the US 5gens had a 0.5m RCS? They never explained how they knew. Lol
You can find on net that study it is median frontal RCS.
Same thing as Chinese academical PAK-FA study from 2016, where they calculated PAK-FA median frontal RCS as 0.5m2 but lowest possible RCS they got was -40dBms and they conculded PAK-FA is VLO design but only if Russians use intake radar blocker (they concluded one in study) and develop stealthy nozzle, new nozzle design was seen in first flight of type-30 engine.
BTW speed data isn't right, it isn't 2600km/h or 2.6M (high altitude). Butowski was told on MAKS they lower max speed to 2.1M because or RAM and composites.
I think this is the study about you talk...
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/jatm/v8n1/1984 ... 1-0040.pdf
And really they do not tell nothing about -40db is significant, only in certain angles can get this number, but you need know this happends with any airplane, and do not need to be VLO.
For example. You can see on next picture, this civil airplane can get more than -30 db in some specific angle. This is the same for Su-57 but it is not relevant data.
On this study, they take for this study a 3d perfect model of the Su-57, with no irst, pitots, dircm and other elements on its surface that you can find and real airplane as no swathood angles, etc...
And this is important note from the study:
The RCS numerical simulation method applied in the paper
is an approximate method for cavity calculation, and the exact
solution for the inlets and nozzles cannot be obtained. The
engines that have not been exposed to radar wave directly for
the inlets are closed with inclined protective screening. The
inlets of the model are also sealed with inclined planes for
the calculation of RCS. The nozzles of the model are closed
with cones and annuluses for calculation.
So, they dont take into consideration of inlets with exposed engine blades....and this is a very important contribution on frontal RCS.
On resumen, this number around 0,5 m2 from frontal view is not about real Su-57 but about perfect 3d model. If you make study about real airplane you will get bigger frontal rcs than 0,5 m2, and only you will can get around RCS sukhoi patent (0,1-1 m2) when you have apllied ram.
https://aeropathfinder.blogspot.com/
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5319
- Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
- Location: Parts Unknown
So.... it has the approximate RCS of a clean SH, maybe a little bit better?
I concur with the position that they built an evolved, super-maneuverable Flanker, then stealthed it up as much as possible later. The "super-maneuverability" looks to be an order of a bit less than the SU-35 though, at least when you eyeball it. Either that or they haven't fully opened up its full envelope.
Regardless, I have to think even the Russians look at the SU-57 as a failure. Almost a decade after its first flight, they're still quite a way away from the operational version. And even then it won't be mass produced. At some point, you have to wonder how much more $ they're going to plow into it. That "Hunter" UAV can't be cheap either, and if they pursue that it'll mean even less rubles for the SU-57...
I concur with the position that they built an evolved, super-maneuverable Flanker, then stealthed it up as much as possible later. The "super-maneuverability" looks to be an order of a bit less than the SU-35 though, at least when you eyeball it. Either that or they haven't fully opened up its full envelope.
Regardless, I have to think even the Russians look at the SU-57 as a failure. Almost a decade after its first flight, they're still quite a way away from the operational version. And even then it won't be mass produced. At some point, you have to wonder how much more $ they're going to plow into it. That "Hunter" UAV can't be cheap either, and if they pursue that it'll mean even less rubles for the SU-57...
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2309
- Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
- Location: Serbia, Belgrade
falcon.16 wrote:I think this is the study about you talk...
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/jatm/v8n1/1984 ... 1-0040.pdf
And really they do not tell nothing about -40db is significant, only in certain angles can get this number, but you need know this happends with any airplane, and do not need to be VLO.
In forward aspect they got -5.6 dB but that is median but people use median value as best possible RCS and that makes problem. That is what I wanted to point out and you used -40dB as example I am not right, you missed my point 100%.
This part is interesting:
The mean RCS value in a range
of ± 30° of the forward direction is −5.625 dBsm when exposed
to 10-GHz radar wave.In general, it is the same or even exceeds
the stealth level of modern fighters in the world.
So they consider it VLO model.
falcon.16 wrote:
So, they dont take into consideration of inlets with exposed engine blades....and this is a very important contribution on frontal RCS.
Because they can't guess how much RCS of engine is reduced with radar blocker.
@mixelflick
Without RAM and RAS it is 0.3m2 for +- 30 deg left and right by Chinese study, so you can try to figure out how lower it would be with RAM and RAS.
What I think about Su-57?
I think we will have to two variants. Small fleet as you call silver bullet which would be done to be as VLO as possible and more casual one maybe with thin RAM and less RAS, this second one could replace Su-27 much easier then true VLO and still would be force multiplayer.
milosh wrote:The mean RCS value in a range of ± 30° of the forward direction is −5.625 dBsm when exposed to 10-GHz radar wave.In general, it is the same or even exceeds
the stealth level of modern fighters in the world.
So they consider it VLO model.
Only from the front and rear. From the sides its average is around 15 dBsm which is completely unstealthy and frankly I can't see being made up with RAS/RAM. From the sides the Su-57 would be very visible to both fighter and missile radar. In contrast the F-35 shape peaks at a similar level but its average over ± 30° from the sides is well under 10 dBsm, i.e. still quite LO before RAS/RAM is taken into account.
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2309
- Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
- Location: Serbia, Belgrade
marsavian wrote:Only from the front and rear. From the sides its average is around 15 dBsm which is completely unstealthy and frankly I can't see being made up with RAS/RAM. From the sides the Su-57 would be very visible to both fighter and missile radar.
Yeap but model have classic nozzle because back then they didn't know Russian will test something like LOAN nozzle for Su-57:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/c3UKL.jpg
https://youtu.be/282XF5vBTFM?t=28
@juretrn
Radar blocker is normal solution for stealths, some UAV/UCAV use it, F-117 use it,
I think B-2 have radar blocker too, I saw earlier some photo where it can be seen in intake, I don't know was that photoshop or real.
Japs in their studies of future fighter consider them they even go that far they consider integrated it with engine where engine IGV and engine fan blades would be design in such way so radar return would be minimal.
And I almost forgot flying bath tub, F-32.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5319
- Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
- Location: Parts Unknown
Bet that's the last "deployment' we see for a LONG time...
It is interesting though, to watch how Russia chips away at the SU-57's problems and further develops it. In much the same way they did on the Sukhoi T-10, culminating in the SU-35. Decades and decades of refinement in that case led to a world class fighter, albeit we have little combat experience to properly evaluate it.
It was supposed to replace SU-27's 1:1 in Russian service, but I think that's a pipe dream at this point. They're going to have to settle for a mish mash of various Flanker types, and perhaps a token amount of Mig-35's and SU-57's.
It is interesting though, to watch how Russia chips away at the SU-57's problems and further develops it. In much the same way they did on the Sukhoi T-10, culminating in the SU-35. Decades and decades of refinement in that case led to a world class fighter, albeit we have little combat experience to properly evaluate it.
It was supposed to replace SU-27's 1:1 in Russian service, but I think that's a pipe dream at this point. They're going to have to settle for a mish mash of various Flanker types, and perhaps a token amount of Mig-35's and SU-57's.
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2497
- Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26
milosh wrote:
Yeap but model have classic nozzle because back then they didn't know Russian will test something like LOAN nozzle for Su-57:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/c3UKL.jpg
https://youtu.be/282XF5vBTFM?t=28
Cheezy video btw. As its looking the PAKFA wont be a "Top Gun" any time soon.
Happy St Patricks day!
As I type this I'm already 3 shots into Jameson and got Boondock Saints playing in the background!
At any rate; just because it looks like it doesn't mean it will be as good. The Chinese are even doing their own take on the LOAN design and have incorporated a TVC design similar to the F-16VISTA
milosh wrote:marsavian wrote:Only from the front and rear. From the sides its average is around 15 dBsm which is completely unstealthy and frankly I can't see being made up with RAS/RAM. From the sides the Su-57 would be very visible to both fighter and missile radar.
Yeap but model have classic nozzle because back then they didn't know Russian will test something like LOAN nozzle for Su-57.
The nozzle is only a small part of the 15 dBsm, it's mostly the long flattish side profile. This will have to be alleviated using RAS/RAM ... if they can.
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2309
- Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
- Location: Serbia, Belgrade
charlielima223 wrote:milosh wrote:
Yeap but model have classic nozzle because back then they didn't know Russian will test something like LOAN nozzle for Su-57:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/c3UKL.jpg
https://youtu.be/282XF5vBTFM?t=28
Cheezy video btw. As its looking the PAKFA wont be a "Top Gun" any time soon.
Happy St Patricks day!
As I type this I'm already 3 shots into Jameson and got Boondock Saints playing in the background!
At any rate; just because it looks like it doesn't mean it will be as good. The Chinese are even doing their own take on the LOAN design and have incorporated a TVC design similar to the F-16VISTA
In stealth tech look is important. You can't have stealthy nozzle with classic round one. So new nozzle surely is better in stealth therm. Also that is prototype nozzle one of them, becuase I saw at least two different nozzles for Su-57,
This one which was in Salyut factory, saw-toothed edge of serrated feather:
http://in24.org/wp-content/uploads/2017 ... F-30-2.jpg
and this one Saturn nozzle:
https://cdn.aviaforum.ru/images/2017/11 ... 958d4e.jpg
It look similar to one in video but feather tip is totally different and it more rounded then one on video.
So it look like nozzle RCS is important for Russians. And you have that Saturn flat nozzle which is in development (latest interview with Saturn CEO) it isn't for Su-57 even though it is nozzle for AL-51 engine.
Chinese nozzle looks really rounded from side, maybe it is new nozzle for J-10/11, I doubt they would use such rounded nozzle on stealth.
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2497
- Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26
marsavian wrote:
The nozzle is only a small part of the 15 dBsm, it's mostly the long flattish side profile. This will have to be alleviated using RAS/RAM ... if they can.
I doubt RAM can do much about the PAKFA's side profile signature to a radar. From the front view the PAKFA appears to have LO complaint design
yet as you travel further back the shaping of the engine nacelle changes to the more conventional rounded lobes
The same cannot be said of the F-22 that maintains a constant angle throughout the majority of the fuselage
and the F-35 using complex blended cuvatures
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests