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

fidgetspinner

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27

Unread post15 Feb 2019, 03:06

Jesus Christ as much as I love new sources both of these when using google translate sounds like some Russian copied Wikipedia since most of this stuff as well is old information. I am just wondering what those circles on those images indicate(the circle on the wing and the circle on the body of the su-30) when stating 0,5 and 20 for the SU-57 and su-30. Anyone feel like helping my lazy a$$ out translating those Cyrillic alphabets?
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post15 Feb 2019, 07:29

It says "low RF, optical and IR observability" and the second line is "area of radio reflecting surface" (0,5 vs 20 m2). I think the silhouettes with circles are supposed to represent that "T-50" has only 1/40 of relative radar reflection size of Su-30 - they criss-crossed the whole Flanker but only a small portion PAK FA. My guess is that is graphic designer's understanding of what the RCS is - quite poor may I say :D

Given that they call it "T-50", it is probably from some years back. BTW " TV zvezda" is Russian MoD outlet, so expect them to be as honest and truthful as any other Russian MoD source (hint: they are not)

I also enjoy immensly that they proudly advertise 117 engines as having " fully digital control system" (thats the line with 1s and 0s in the brackets) and also "plazma ignition system". Brace yourselves for fanbois who say 117 is superior to F119 because of that. Also I suppose that ignition system is connected to flux capacitor that generates plazma for stealth and will propell Su-57 forwstd in time 30 years to catch up with the rest of the world.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 389
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post15 Feb 2019, 22:17

hythelday wrote:It says "low RF, optical and IR observability" and the second line is "area of radio reflecting surface" (0,5 vs 20 m2). I think the silhouettes with circles are supposed to represent that "T-50" has only 1/40 of relative radar reflection size of Su-30 - they criss-crossed the whole Flanker but only a small portion PAK FA. My guess is that is graphic designer's understanding of what the RCS is - quite poor may I say :D


Thanks for the translation. This is in line, with the statements of the Indian Ministry of Defense. So it's very likely, that the statements about the RCS for Su-57 and Su-30 are correct.

hythelday wrote:. BTW " TV zvezda" is Russian MoD outlet, so expect them to be as honest and truthful as any other Russian MoD source (hint: they are not)


Interesting to know. So lets say 20m2 and 0.5m2 for this Fighters are the best possible values. :wink:
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 725
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post16 Feb 2019, 10:16

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.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3268
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post16 Feb 2019, 14:11

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's say they get the RCS down to something on the order of a SH, slightly less. Let's also give them the benefit of the doubt on engines. The new ones allow it to super-cruise at mach 1.8. And say they get the radar, other sensors and ECM/ECCM working.

How many do you figure they can afford?

I don't see how they're able to make this thing (with all of the aforementioned capabilities) for under $100 million. Even $80 million.

How many can they build, and what constitutes the minimum effective force?

I say 100 airframes, organized into..

1.) 3 Front Line squadrons of 48 aircraft
2.) 2 training squadrons of 36 aircraft
3.) Remaining birds are for test, evaluation and cannibalization

Thoughts?
Offline

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post16 Feb 2019, 22:00

mixelflick wrote:How many do you figure they can afford?


The reality that I've shown many Russian trolls that I have encountered is that Russia CAN NOT afford the PAKFA in any meaningful numbers at any meaningful rate of production. All their hype and talk about new things and they can't afford it. Take for example their T-14 Armata

https://thediplomat.com/2018/08/russia- ... ttle-tank/

https://russiabusinesstoday.com/manufac ... expensive/

https://www.businessinsider.com/russias ... 018-7?r=UK

Many detractors of the F-22 claim that the F-22 was cut short because of its high cost yet we produced 187 units at a rate of 2 units per month and could very well accommodate (the desired) 339. Though I will partially agree with them I would however also point out that when the F-22 was being mass produced there was a shift in military and political necessities; which to me was the main driver and factor to the F-22's substandard numbers. On the other hand Russian military knows that certain areas (air power) they have dramatically fallen behind and the reality is they do not have the economy and funds to catch up let alone keep up.
Offline
User avatar

tomcooper

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 234
  • Joined: 17 Jul 2014, 10:51
  • Location: Haxbach, Schnurliland

Unread post14 Mar 2019, 10:21

charlielima223 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:How many do you figure they can afford?


The reality that I've shown many Russian trolls that I have encountered is that Russia CAN NOT afford the PAKFA in any meaningful numbers at any meaningful rate of production. All their hype and talk about new things and they can't afford it.
Not only that they can't afford it, but they do not even have the necessary know-how.

Russian aviation industry suffered an irrecoverable 'brain-drain' over the last 20 years: in many disciplines they can't make anything new - which in turn is the reason why all they're really rolling out is rehashed stuff from 20+ years ago.

For one good example, see this: New Russian VTOL Aircraft

...considered a highly promising design by Soviet and Western observers, the Yak-141 program was canceled after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Lockheed Corporation entered into a partnership with Yakovlev with the official aim of funding the program. Years later, many Russian observers suggested that Lockheed, already working on its X-35 F-35 prototype, effectively bought out the Yak-141's technical documentation for about $400 million.


Actually, Lockheed - i.e. Lockheed-Martin - not only bought all the R+D documentation but also the know-how from Yakovlev - in form of dozens of involved Russian engineers that were hired and re-settled in the USA.

This resulted in the following situation:

At the same time, according to Panteleev, the specially-designed engine may prove to be the new plane's biggest problem. "The developer of the engine for the Yak-38 has ceased to exist. While the technical documentation about the Yak's thrust nozzles, including its afterburner, is probably still around, the specialists with the practical experience to create these components probably aren't around anymore. Here, we've probably lost our expertise."


I.e. directors supposed to be in charge of such projects can't even say if they still have the necessary, 20+ years old documentation, to re-start the work. And they openly admit, they do not have the people necessary to do the job.
F-Arba-Ashara!! Yalla, yalla!!
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3268
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post15 Mar 2019, 13:44

So... 50, maybe 100 aircraft?

Their "silver bullet" squadrons will be even leaner than the Raptor's, and I'm guessing everything from the per unit cost, to the logistics to cost per flight hour are going to be ugly. There really is no comparison to the Raptor, nevermind the F-35.

Someone really needs to do the autopsy on this to see where it all went wrong. Was it too ambitious a program, for their first crack at stealth? Did they err insofar as building a big, heavy stealth fighter vs. something smaller? Was it simply a question of rubles or lack of expertise?

It's worth noting that the SU-57 was the first "new" aircraft program put in motion after the fall of the Soviet Union. It may be that they lacked the infrastructure to bang it out from concept to operational, front line examples. For my money, its the fact that 1.) They don't have the money 2.) They lack some expertise 3.) They should have developed the LMFS.

Looking back, I think the Russians will realize PAK FA is where everything really went south. Sad, sad day given Sukhoi's success with the Flanker series...
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1175
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post15 Mar 2019, 16:58

Was it too ambitious a program, for their first crack at stealth?


Not remotely ambitious enough. They basically went for a super maneuverabe evolved Flanker with enclosed weapons bay and worried about sorting out the stealth later. The Europeans had a similar approach with their Euro-Canards which were designed around getting the best aerodynamics out of canard deltas and stealth was then worried about afterwards. The Su-57 lies in between genuine all aspect VLO aircraft like F-22/F-35 and the Euro-Canards/Super Hornets which are only LO front on and in a clean configuration. 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.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1056
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post15 Mar 2019, 23:50

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.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 725
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post16 Mar 2019, 09:57

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.
Offline

falcon.16

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 20:10
  • Location: Spain

Unread post16 Mar 2019, 12:18

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.

Image

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.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3268
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post16 Mar 2019, 14:24

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...
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 725
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post16 Mar 2019, 19:35

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.
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1175
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post16 Mar 2019, 23:56

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.

Image
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: johnwill and 17 guests