Su-57 is a misunderstood aircraft

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

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4454
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post22 Nov 2022, 14:15

milosh wrote:To be clear Indians were talking about Su-57 v1.0 which Russians tried to sell them. That is version which don't have LOAN nozzles and probable heat signature of engine isn't reduced either.


To be clear, NO!
The Indians intended to develop an advanced and improved version based on the Su-57 called the FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft). However the Indians abandoned the program because they perceived the Su-57 was suffering from delays and problems such as the aircraft (Su-57) not meeting the Stealth requirements.


milosh wrote:Any reason why F-35 accelerate better then Su-57? I don't see any. Reason why F-35 acceleration is good is because F-22 don't accelerate that well (or as you would expect from such beasts of engines) in subsonic regime. But that is because F-22 have engines with bypass ratio of 0.3:1, while F-35 have engine with bypass ratio of close to 0.6, but Su-57 also have engines with bypass ratio of 0.6:1, so I really don't see reason why F-35 would accelerate better then Su-57.

Maybe T/W ratio is better? Well no. By wikipedia Su-57 with 100% fuel have 1:1 T/W ratio, F-35 is 0.87:1


The reasons why the F-35 should accelerate better than the Su-57:
First if the (future) Su-57 engine is optimized for supercruise and supersonic performance then the Su-57 future engine will have a lower bypass like the F-22 engine. And as we can see with the F-22 this will have an impact on subsonic acceleration.

Secondly, even if the it's decided to keep the current higher bypass engine then there's your wikipedia numbers specially those revolving around the Su-57's empty weight are most likely inaccurate (they even lack proper sources) since and for example, how can an aircraft which is considerably bigger than the F-22 be considerably lighter than the F-22??
The only way for those wikipedia Su-57 weight values to be anywhere close to the reality is if these are the weight values of a prototype without any significant equipment (such as sensors) and even so it's still very doubtful since and again we're talking about an aircraft which is bigger than the F-22. I don't believe for a second that the Su-57 (at least a production and combat ready model) empty weight is only 39,683 lb while the F-22 empty weight is 43,340 lb, not even by a long shot!
In any case, if it's decided to keep the current higher bypass engine in the Su-57 then bye bye supercruise!


milosh wrote:Because 0.5m2 and 0.0001m2 aren't same RCS method.


Yes, they are! Both the 0.5 square meters for the Su-57 and the 0.001 (and not 0.0001) square meters for the F-35 are average RCS values.
And you know what else has an (average) RCS of around 0.5 square meters when clean?? The Super Hornet! Here, just for you:
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/did-you ... -the-f-35/
Did you know the Su-57 Felon has the same RCS of a clean F/A-18 Super Hornet (and 1,000 times bigger than that of the F-35)?


Please stop twisting numbers in order to fit your narrative! This as been discussed countless times and over and over again in this same forum.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

RMR_22

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 15:59

Unread post22 Nov 2022, 15:11

Interesting images and video of how the RCS tests are done on the SU-57.

As I said some time ago they use absorbent RAM in the canopy. For that reason the tests are done with a manikin with a helmet.

The idea that they are close to the USA, or that they use different measurement methods is just BS.

https://www.ruaviation.com/news/2018/11/16/12399/
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1935
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post22 Nov 2022, 15:13

ricnunes wrote:
The reasons why the F-35 should accelerate better than the Su-57:
First if the (future) Su-57 engine is optimized for supercruise and supersonic performance then the Su-57 future engine will have a lower bypass like the F-22 engine. And as we can see with the F-22 this will have an impact on subsonic acceleration.



There isn't any evidence Su-57 new engine will be anything like F119. In fact Su-57 with AL-41F1 is already able to super cruise. New engine have new combustion system which is lot more efficient and because of that it will be even more efficient for super cruise.

ricnunes wrote:how can an aircraft which is considerably bigger than the F-22 be considerably lighter than the F-22??


Because Su-57 construction is 40% Al, F-22 construction is 40% Titanium. Al is lot lighter then Ti.

And because Su-57 don't have S-duct intakes nor it have flat nozzles.

And Su-57 isn't really much bigger. J-20 is. I will do Su-57 size if it is design as F-22, you will see it would fit in F-22 footprint without problems.

About RCS. Yes we talked a lot about that problem is you use 0.5m2 without any info what it mean, while we have studies which 0.5m2 have for RAMless model and they were done by experts, like Chinese one from 2016. Btw if you read their conclusion they didn't bash Su-57 at all, in fact they concluded it is VLO design when RAM is applied.

0.5m2 can't be VLO at all.

Is it similar to F-35? Of course not! F-35 is smaller and LM have much bigger experience with VLO so I do expect F-35 is quite smaller on radar. In fact I would estimate Su-57 is at least 10times bigger (head on). That mean same radar will detect Su-57 from twice the range then F-35 at least.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4454
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post22 Nov 2022, 17:50

milosh wrote:There isn't any evidence Su-57 new engine will be anything like F119. In fact Su-57 with AL-41F1 is already able to super cruise. If you check and you didn't becuase it also require google on Russian, you will see new engine have new combustion system which is lot more efficient and because of that it will be even more efficient for super cruise.


The only real evidence regarding Russian stuff/sources is that they are full of wishfull thinking and propaganda... :roll:

Anyway, either the AL-41F1 is a high bypass engine which make the Su-57 supercruise in a limited way just like the F-35 can (something like Mach 1.2) or if the Su-57 can effectively supercruise (something like Mach 1.4 or even above) then it must have a lower bypass engine (than the F-35's F135 engine) which will impact subsonic acceleration.


milosh wrote:Because Su-57 construction is 40% Al, F-22 construction is 40% Titanium. Al is lot lighter then Ti.


And the Su-57 construction is 10% Steel while the F-22 construction is only 6% Steel and Steel is a lot heavier than Titanium.

Moreover, knowing for a FACT that Titanium is much stronger than Aluminum - Titanium is twice as stronger - while only being 60% heavier (see link below) this means that the F-22 structure can be made much thinner and thus using less materials and thus ending up being lighter than the Su-57 while at the same time being just as strong. There's a reason why Titanium is extensively used in the aerospace industry and it isn't used much more because Titanium is a quite rare material and thus much more expensive than for example Aluminum or Steel.
Resuming, the Su-57 despite using more % of lighter Aluminum in its structure it must use proportionally more materials and this means that for example it needs to be thicker/bulkier or more precisely an Aluminum structure must weight more than a Titanium structure in order to reach the same/similar level of strength.

All of the above indicates that the Su-57 isn't likely lighter than the F-22 and this is even made worse since the Su-57 is a bit bigger than the F-22.

Link (Titanium versus Steel versus Aluminum):
https://www.thermofisher.com/blog/metal ... -titanium/
Titanium is highly valued in the metals industry for its high tensile strength, as well as its light weight, corrosion resistance, and ability to withstand extreme temperatures. It’s as strong as steel but 45% lighter, and twice as strong as aluminum but only 60% heavier.


Or, if you put into another perspective Titanium has a better weight to resistance ratio than Aluminum and of course, also than Steel!


milosh wrote:And because Su-57 don't have S-duct intakes nor it have flat nozzles.


And the Su-57 has Radar Blockers and those also weight considerably while the F-22 doesn't have them.


milosh wrote:And Su-57 isn't really much bigger. J-20 is. I will do Su-57 size if it is design as F-22, you will see it would fit in F-22 footprint without problems.


The Su-57 is still bigger than the F-22. For instance the Su-57 length is 20.1 meters versus 18.9 meters in the F-22, Su-57 wingspan is 14.1 meters versus 13.56 meters in the F-22, Su-57 wing area is 78.8 m2 versus 78.04 m2 in the F-22.
And again add this to a likely bulkier/thicker Su-57 airframe and you'll end up with a (much) heavier weight for the Su-57 than you might initially imagine.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4089
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post22 Nov 2022, 21:26

milosh wrote:




About RCS. Yes we talked a lot about that problem is you use 0.5m2 without any info what it mean, while we have studies which 0.5m2 have for RAMless model and they were done by experts, like Chinese one from 2016. Btw if you read their conclusion they didn't bash Su-57 at all, in fact they concluded it is VLO design when RAM is applied.

0.5m2 can't be VLO at all.

Is it similar to F-35? Of course not! F-35 is smaller and LM have much bigger experience with VLO so I do expect F-35 is quite smaller on radar. In fact I would estimate Su-57 is at least 10times bigger (head on). That mean same radar will detect Su-57 from twice the range then F-35 at least.

Now we're getting somewhere. The Su-57 isn't a VLO design. RAM isn't going to take you from .5m^2 to VLO. Shape is between 70 to 90% of the signature reduction. Materials, coatings, sealers, sawtooth edges, canopy materials, fit/finish, while important, play much smaller roles in signature reduction. So if you're not already at .001 with shape alone, you can forget about .0001 or better.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4454
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post22 Nov 2022, 23:18

wrightwing wrote:Now we're getting somewhere. The Su-57 isn't a VLO design. RAM isn't going to take you from .5m^2 to VLO. Shape is between 70 to 90% of the signature reduction. Materials, coatings, sealers, sawtooth edges, canopy materials, fit/finish, while important, play much smaller roles in signature reduction. So if you're not already at .001 with shape alone, you can forget about .0001 or better.


DITTO! Absolutely THIS!

Moreover and "funnily enough" it looks like that some Super Hornets are or may be being used as aggressors to simulate the Su-57, at least judging for soem paint schemes:
https://theaviationist.com/2021/06/18/s ... or-scheme/
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

f119doctor

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 211
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2019, 00:07

Unread post23 Nov 2022, 00:47

milosh wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
The reasons why the F-35 should accelerate better than the Su-57:
First if the (future) Su-57 engine is optimized for supercruise and supersonic performance then the Su-57 future engine will have a lower bypass like the F-22 engine. And as we can see with the F-22 this will have an impact on subsonic acceleration.



There isn't any evidence Su-57 new engine will be anything like F119. In fact Su-57 with AL-41F1 is already able to super cruise. New engine have new combustion system which is lot more efficient and because of that it will be even more efficient for super cruise.


I’ve read the Russian claims about how their “plasma ignition” combustor is able to relight in-flight without a “make up oxygen system” and will increase engine performance because it is so much more efficient. This appears to be BS:

1. No modern US military turbine engine that I am familiar with has an separate oxygen system to assist with inflight restarts. There is usually a limited flight envelope for restarts, but F100 and F119 engines start just fine up to 25-30k ft. Maybe this advance is fixing a unique Russian design problem on previous engine designs?

2. Modern western combustors are about 98% efficient in turning jet fuel caloric content into hot air and have less than 5% pressure drop thru the combustor. Unless we are talking about a rotating detonation combustor (which effectively raises the engine OPR), there is not much performance increase available to improve. You could make it shorter (lowering engine weight), improve pattern factor (reduce hotspots to allow higher average turbine inlet temp), but there are not really any areas available to improve engine thrust or SFC by 15-20%.
Last edited by f119doctor on 23 Nov 2022, 03:35, edited 2 times in total.
P&W FSR (retired) - TF30 / F100 /F119 /F135
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8957
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post23 Nov 2022, 02:28

ricnunes wrote:
wrightwing wrote:Now we're getting somewhere. The Su-57 isn't a VLO design. RAM isn't going to take you from .5m^2 to VLO. Shape is between 70 to 90% of the signature reduction. Materials, coatings, sealers, sawtooth edges, canopy materials, fit/finish, while important, play much smaller roles in signature reduction. So if you're not already at .001 with shape alone, you can forget about .0001 or better.


DITTO! Absolutely THIS!

Moreover and "funnily enough" it looks like that some Super Hornets are or may be being used as aggressors to simulate the Su-57, at least judging for soem paint schemes:
https://theaviationist.com/2021/06/18/s ... or-scheme/



Yes, it would be interesting to know the true RCS of a clean Super Hornet compared to the Su-57? :|
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1668
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post23 Nov 2022, 05:36

Corsair1963 wrote:Yes, it would be interesting to know the true RCS of a clean Super Hornet compared to the Su-57? :|


I would make a strong wager that the Su-57 would still be more stealthy than a clean Rhino. While the Felon stealth design isn't as refined/good as F-22 and F-35, it is however designed to be stealthy from the on set instead of Super Hornet having small stealth features while retaining a very 4th gen fighter look.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1668
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post23 Nov 2022, 07:25

No one here is really misunderstanding the Su-57.

1. Silver Bullet force.
> With only 76 of these aircraft to be produced that is an extremely small force. How much milage and use can you really get out of a force of 76 aircraft for a nation as large as Russia and with an air force it currently has? People here all agree that 187 F-22 Raptors isn't enough for the USAF as a whole and with 120 out of the current 183 that is an even smaller number. Are all those 76 aircraft going to go combat operational units? Even if they do that is still close to 50 aircraft LESS than the F-22 that it was meant to fight. The reality is that this aircraft would be a drop in a bucket when it is already out numbered by the F-22 and as the things progress would be vastly overwhelmed by F-35s.

2. Kinamatic king
> No doubt that Su-57 looks impressive at airshow displays and on paper... THAT IS IT (Russian fighter aircraft demonstrations flights always look to be more about ballistics than controlled flight IMO). There has been no comment from pilots who flew against this or flew this against other aircraft. In contrast pilots experience with and against the F-22 in a WVR all say that the thing is "eye watering" or "a power house" and even "how the hell did it do that". An airshow display is great for wowing the crowd but doesn't really speak about how the aircraft fights in the air. If call you have to go on is display at airshows, than this thing would be the king of the dogfight...
(

3. Not stealthy enough
> For the Russian Airforce it just may be stealthy enough for them. Yet when compared to US and Chinese counterparts, the Su-57 is rather lacking in stealth design and refinement. (I have always said it) Aircraft like F-22, F-35, and even J-20 are attempting to be as stealthy as possible. On the other hand the Su-57 was designed to be stealthy enough. When India dropped out of the PAKFA program one of their criticisms of the design of the aircraft was that it wasn't as stealthy as its competitors. Sure if you're going up against older 4th get fighters, the Su-57 would no doubt come out on top. However if you're going up against a force with 5th gen aircraft that are more stealthy with pilots that have more 5th gen experience, being stealthy enough means you're the first place loser. Garrya's RCS simulation is the most indepth and honest stuff I have seen on the interwebs.
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... imulation/

4. Sensors
> The Su-57 is no doubt going to be the most advanced aircraft the Russian military will fly for a long time, yet even in terms of avionics and computer quality there is room to be desired. As we have seen from the Ukraine war, a considerable amount of Russian computer hardware is dependent on outside material, Russia isn't known for its tech industry. While the Su-57 will have an AESA radar, if that radar is a completely Russian design with built in Russia parts, dont expect much performance and capability out of it when you compare it to current US AESA radars of similar size like APG-77, 81, and 82. As we have seen in Syria their best multimode radar on the Su-30 displayed SAR map resolution comparable to the APG-70 on the F-15E in the late 80s.

5. Russia wont need as many Su-57s because they will have more Su-75s
> Okay thats nice... how is the Su-75 coming along? With recent economic sanctions on Russia where are they going to get the money during this debacle of a war they got themselves into? Last we have seen was a nice mockup and pretty displays on the ground with a laser light show. If the Su-75 is meant to become the new backbone of the Russian fighter inventory shouldn't they be talking about it even more? Further more, the performance of Russian gear/hardware in the Ukraine war has shown the quality that they are when going up against western stuff. If I were looking at how Russian equipment is performing in Ukraine I would have serious second thoughts about buying Russian tanks and aircraft.

No one is misunderstanding this aircraft here in this forum. The only people who dont understand this aircraft and what it is, is the individual who dooped us into responding to their dumb comment. When PAKFA first came out it had plenty of potential and lots of hope behind it. As things have went on, the Su-57 now is nothing more than a vanity project of a failing military with a corrupt government propping it up in an attempt to be something they aren't. The most fame and recognition this aircraft is ever going to get is being in a movie where it is shot down by an ace fighter pilot in (what I assume is) an F-14A.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1935
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post23 Nov 2022, 11:50

@ ricnunes

Su-35 by words of test pilot was able to accelerate above Mach 1.1 without using AB.

Su-57 can only be noticeable faster then Su-35,becase of much better supersonic design.

Also test pilots mention difference in acceleration is quite noticeable. So with similar engines Su-57 would need to be lighter then Su-35, to have noticeable better acceleration. And weight of Su-35 is ~19tons.

About materials.

There is no reason Su-57 not to have same % of Ti as F-22 or you think Russians dont know about titanium!?!

Usage of Al is to reduce weight. Same as F-35 use lot of Al.

About dimensions.

Don't be fool by those. Su-57 is longer because it have sting, you need to look footprint or better say volume of Su-57 and F-22. Difference isn't noticeable but if you look dimensions it do look like Su-57 is bigger bird.
Last edited by milosh on 23 Nov 2022, 13:58, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

not_kent

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 79
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2021, 12:59

Unread post23 Nov 2022, 12:30

xt0xickillax wrote:Su-57 does have N036 AESA made by NIIP and it’s in production. They aren’t building them very fast because of how much technology is in the aircraft including stuff never seen in other fighters like DIRCM. But 78 aircraft is still a healthy number for silver bullet force against most demanding enemies. It a Lamborghini that you don’t use all the time. Su-57 is only 5th generation fighter with 3D TVC, large oversized intake with variable geometry, LEVCON. If anything the kinematics is unmatched. It doesn’t have the advantage of numbers like the F-35 but it’s only meant as a special force for very demanding opponents. Keep in mind Su-57 is stealthy too and with DIRCM and EW systems, so it will be very difficult to see and target.


How do you figure that there will ever be 78 Su-57? At best Russia is producing 2 a year.

There is between three and 15, depending on how we count. Meanwhile Lockheed Martin delivered 142 F-35 fighter jets in 2021 alone. Production models of Russia’s Su-57 Felon are so rare that America has more aggressor F-35s playing the role of Russian stealth fighters for training than Russia actually has in service.

Three are serially made examples that have been delivered to the Russian Air Force. Two further aircraft were manufactured but, as of late August 2022, may not have been delivered yet. In addition, there are 10 flyable prototypes. Of the six first-stage ones, only one is likely to be operational. Two more were rebuilt into second-stage prototypes. Four more second-stage prototypes were produced, which brings the likely count of combat-capable prototypes to six.

However, it is possible that up to two of those prototypes were further modified and delivered as serially made Felons, bringing the total number of combat-capable prototypes down to four, and the total number of Su-57s available to the Russian Air Force to nine.

When taking a tally of the largest operational stealth fighter fleets on the planet, the F-35 dominates the list, with 9 of the top 10 nations operating F-35s and Russia, with its Su-57 Felon, only reaching the 11th spot if you opt to include its problematic prototypes in its total count.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4454
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Nov 2022, 14:39

milosh wrote:@ ricnunes

Su-35 by words of test pilot was able to accelerate above Mach 1.1 without using AB.


If you consider that to be supercruise than the F-35 is also a supercruise aircraft since it can fly at Mach 1.2 without using AB.
The truth is that speeds like Mach 1.1 or 1.2 even without AB aren't that effective (unless perhaps at the moment of releasing weapons) because these speeds are only a bit faster than subsonic cruise speed (I would say around Mach 0.95, depends on the aircraft of course) while using much, much more fuel.
In order to attain more effective supercruise speeds such as Mach 1.4 or above you'll need different engines.

milosh wrote:Su-57 is faster noticeable then Su-35, it have slightly more powerful engine but is much better supersonic design.

Also test pilots mention difference is very noticable. So with similar engines Su-57 would need to be lighter then Su-35, to have noticable better acceleration. And weight of Su-35 is ~19tons.


Accelerating better when using AB doesn't mean it can attain supercruise speeds or better supercruise speeds - See previously discussed engine limitations.


milosh wrote:About materials.

There is no reason Su-57 not to have same % of Ti as F-22 or you think Russians dont know about titanium!?!


Yes, there is as reason for the Su-57 not having the same percentage of titanium! It is called COST!
If the Russians can only order 76 or so Su-57s (and lets see if they can order as much?!) with the current structure then imagine how many (less) they could order if the Su-57 had more titanium in its composition!

And I never said that the Russians didn't know anything about titanium!! :doh:
What I said was aircraft don't use more percentage of titanium - and this includes the Su-57 - because of cost factors since titanium is a rare mineral. On top of this titanium is a hard material to work with which increases even more the cost of an aircraft which uses more titanium compared to the ones that uses less.
So and again this means more % of titanium in the Su-57's structure = Less Su-57 to be ordered/build (and there are already very few Su-57's being ordered/build!).
On top of all of this, even if the Russians decided to increase the % of titanium in the Su-57 structure specially to levels similar to the F-22 this would require a major redesign of the Su-57's structure which would increase its cost even more!

And NO the Su-57 does NOT use the same % of titanium as the F-22.
Here is the F-22 material composition:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -22-mp.htm
And here is the Su-57 material composition:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... erials.htm
So:
- 39% of the F-22's structure is composed by titanium (36% titanium-36 + 3% titanium 62222)
- 18% of the Su-57's structure is composed by titanium


milosh wrote:Usage of Al is to reduce weight. Same as F-35 use lot of Al.


The usage of Aluminum is to KEEP THE COST LOW while using a lightweight material (as opposed to Steel which despite being also cheap is much heavier).
Again titanium has a better weight to strength ratio than aluminum and if titanium was just as common and cheap and easy to work with as aluminum is then you can bet that aluminum wouldn't be used in aviation and titanium would instead be used in its place.
I proved this to you in my last post!


milosh wrote:About dimensions.

Don't be fool by those. Su-57 is longer because it have sting, you need to look footprint or better say volume of Su-57 and F-22. Difference isn't noticeable but if you look dimensions it do look like Su-57 is bigger bird.


Don't be fool, the "sting" was only fitted to prototypes and during tests. Or more precisely, the "sting" is NOT part of the aircraft's structure and as such does NOT count for its length size.
Here:
Image

Do you see a sting??
Of course not...
Last edited by ricnunes on 23 Nov 2022, 15:05, edited 2 times in total.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4454
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Nov 2022, 15:00

charlielima223 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Yes, it would be interesting to know the true RCS of a clean Super Hornet compared to the Su-57? :|


I would make a strong wager that the Su-57 would still be more stealthy than a clean Rhino. While the Felon stealth design isn't as refined/good as F-22 and F-35, it is however designed to be stealthy from the on set instead of Super Hornet having small stealth features while retaining a very 4th gen fighter look.


In real combat yes, the Su-57 would have a lower RCS than the Super Hornet because the Super Hornet would have to carry all its weapon externally which obviously increases its RCS. As opposed the Su-57 can carry its weapons internally and as such won't have any RCS penalty regarding (internal) weapons carriage.
But and when clean the Super Hornet RCS does seem to be in the same/similar class as the Su-57. Of course we can all argue that a clean Super Hornet would be useless in real combat and that would be true. But that's not the point here.
There are several indications about it, including Russian sources which clearly state the Su-57's RCS being around 0.5 square meters. Actually I found the link below which quotes Sukhoi official sources:
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/did-you ... ith-dircm/
According to Sukhoi, the Su-57’s radar cross section (RCS) is reduced to an average figure of 0.3-0.4m2 compared to 15m2 for the Su-27.


So yes, even Sukhoi figures put the Su-57's RCS in a similar ballpark as 0.5 square meters that I previously mentioned and in line with a clean Super Hornet!


charlielima223 wrote:No one here is really misunderstanding the Su-57.

1. Silver Bullet force.
> With only 76 of these aircraft to be produced that is an extremely small force. How much milage and use can you really get out of a force of 76 aircraft for a nation as large as Russia and with an air force it currently has? People here all agree that 187 F-22 Raptors isn't enough for the USAF as a whole and with 120 out of the current 183 that is an even smaller number. Are all those 76 aircraft going to go combat operational units? Even if they do that is still close to 50 aircraft LESS than the F-22 that it was meant to fight. The reality is that this aircraft would be a drop in a bucket when it is already out numbered by the F-22 and as the things progress would be vastly overwhelmed by F-35s.


The fact is that the Su-57 in not a silver bullet because:
a) It's inferior to the aircraft that it competes against (F-35 and F-22)
b) It's numbers are and will be inferior to any aircraft that it competes against

So the Su-57 doesn't have the qualitative advantage - requirement to be a "silver bullet force" - and neither the quantitative advantage.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1935
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post23 Nov 2022, 16:26

@ricnunes

Sting is that thing behind engine it was called like that for ages (on Flankers). Sting and pushed back engines make Su-57 quite longer then F-22 is. But I will try when have time (weekend probable) to do size comparison of both.

Not much difference there.

Btw expensive titanium isn't really the case. Flankers do have lot of titanium and it wasn't problem but all the sudde cost of titanium would be problem for their pride project?!?

Reason to use Al is to reduce weight. Btw USSR did thought of switching toward next gen Al-Li alloys in 1980s but metallurgy wasn't there yet. Then 1990s happened and only in 2000s they could continue work on new alloys.

Btw you have info that Su-57 is better in subsonic acceleration then even Su-35, that say something about Su-57 mass. If it have next gen engine it wouldn't be strange and we could say well it is heavier but engine thrust compensate that. Su-35 last data we go is 19tons, so with 18.5tons and maybe little more powerful engine (new combustion system) Su-57 would have noticeable better acceleration.

But I think we are running in circles while everywhere weight of Su-57 is 18 to 18.5tons I think we need official number to be clear.

Btw interesting info I found about Izd30 engine, it look like have variable bypass ratio so it is more like F120 then F119.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests