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: 4464
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Nov 2022, 18:40

milosh wrote:@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.


Ok, now I know what you mean with "sting". Anyway, that "sting" isn't stretched much longer compared to the rest of the aircraft (namely engine and horizontal stabs edges) and in the case of the F-22 it's the horizontal stabs that stick out and contribute for its length, so I fail to see you point unless you're again as usual using stupid semantics in order to try to justify your wrong point. And the Su-57 wingspan and wing area continue to be bigger than the F-22. :roll:
Image

Image


milosh wrote: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?!?


@milosh,

JEEZZZ, you are playing dumb or just being plain dumb?? :roll:
Of course it's because it's expensive! High performance planes usually use smaller amounts of titanium, namely in the wing edges and other parts where highest strength while keeping the weight to a minimum is required! It's not only the Flankers that use titanium is some parts, many/most other high performance aircraft do as well!
The F-22 using 39% of titanium in its structure is very impressive indeed! And this was done in order to increase the aircraft's strength while keeping its weight the minimal as possible. But this should be one of the reasons why the F-22 is so expensive!
According to the link below the Flanker uses 18% of titanium in its structure, so basically the same as the Su-57:
https://inf.news/en/military/43d3bbf493 ... 40140.html


milosh wrote: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.


AGAIN, titanium do increase cost - It's a RARE and HARD TO WORK material! - and since the Russians can hardly procure the Su-57 which have most of its structure built in aluminum, imagine how harder would it be - COST WISE - to procure Su-57 whose structures would be made with a (much) higher % of titanium??

AND AGAIN, titanium has twice the strength of aluminum while weighting only 60% more and THIS MEANS THAT:
1- EITHER, you can build a structure using titanium with the SAME STRENGTH but LIGHTER compared to if it was build using aluminum.
2- OR, you can build the a structure using titanium which would have a BIGGER STRENGTH but have the SAME WEIGHT compared to if it was built using aluminum.

CAPICHE, for Christ sake?? :bang: :bang: :bang:

And because of this, there's no way that a production Su-57 weights less than the F-22!


milosh wrote: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.


Sorry but I don't speak Garblish and Russian troll/"propagandish"... :roll:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

garrya

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1017
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post23 Nov 2022, 19:53

Calm down guys. Name calling is not neccessary
Offline

f119doctor

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2019, 00:07

Unread post23 Nov 2022, 21:11

milosh wrote:
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.

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


Please post any real information (not speculation) you have obtained on the Izd30 engine.

This new combustion system has me very doubtful. There are only so many BTUs in a pound of jet fuel, and modern combustors are almost 100% efficient in turning them into hot air. I don’t see how much this “new combustion system” suddenly unleashes higher thrust or lower SFC.
P&W FSR (retired) - TF30 / F100 /F119 /F135
Offline

jessmo112

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1033
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post24 Nov 2022, 02:28

I have made up a new word. It's called Russiatanium.

1. It's lighter that anything out there.

2. Stronger than any titanium.

3. And when you build things out of it you automatically get a plasma stealth effect.

4. It impervious to Anti-tank rockets.

It will make Russia stongq.

The 1st tanks that were sent to Ukraine, didn't have thus alloy, but just wait.

Remember, you learned it here. "Russiatanium"
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1938
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post24 Nov 2022, 09:22

f119doctor wrote:
milosh wrote:
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.

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


Please post any real information (not speculation) you have obtained on the Izd30 engine.

This new combustion system has me very doubtful. There are only so many BTUs in a pound of jet fuel, and modern combustors are almost 100% efficient in turning them into hot air. I don’t see how much this “new combustion system” suddenly unleashes higher thrust or lower SFC.


https://nplus1.ru/material/2019/03/06/engines

It is interview with director of OKB, he mentioned plasma ignition system and also variable bypass ratio for Izd30. Plasma ignition system is already in use on first stage engine for Su57 it is what make that engine different from Su35 one and also different TVC.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4282
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post24 Nov 2022, 09:34

I think it's something like YF-22 to F-22. F-22 gained significant weight compared to YF-22 even though from outside YF-22 already looked like operational fighter aircraft as it could carry and fire AMRAAMs for example. But all the avionics systems and operationally ready (for decades of service) structures and other systems (like weapon bays and countermeasures systems) tend to be rather heavy (when everything is installed). I'd be really surprised if Su-57 is lighter than Su-35 or even F-22 with all that stuff.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1676
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post24 Nov 2022, 10:28

f119doctor wrote:
milosh wrote:
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.

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


Please post any real information (not speculation) you have obtained on the Izd30 engine.

This new combustion system has me very doubtful. There are only so many BTUs in a pound of jet fuel, and modern combustors are almost 100% efficient in turning them into hot air. I don’t see how much this “new combustion system” suddenly unleashes higher thrust or lower SFC.


At this point they will say just about anything to make their stuff sound better than what it really is.

Question: What's as big as a house, burns 20liter of fuel every minute, makes a sh*t ton of smoke and noise, and cuts an apple into 3 pieces? A Russian engine advertised to cut an apple into 4 pieces.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1938
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post24 Nov 2022, 14:46

hornetfinn wrote:I think it's something like YF-22 to F-22. F-22 gained significant weight compared to YF-22 even though from outside YF-22 already looked like operational fighter aircraft as it could carry and fire AMRAAMs for example. But all the avionics systems and operationally ready (for decades of service) structures and other systems (like weapon bays and countermeasures systems) tend to be rather heavy (when everything is installed). I'd be really surprised if Su-57 is lighter than Su-35 or even F-22 with all that stuff.


If test pilots liying then Su-57 is heavier then Su-35 but if they aren't it is lighter. Take off and subsonic acceleration is noticeable better in case of Su-57.

Both have quite similar thrust because engines are more less same.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4464
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post24 Nov 2022, 14:59

hornetfinn wrote:I think it's something like YF-22 to F-22. F-22 gained significant weight compared to YF-22 even though from outside YF-22 already looked like operational fighter aircraft as it could carry and fire AMRAAMs for example. But all the avionics systems and operationally ready (for decades of service) structures and other systems (like weapon bays and countermeasures systems) tend to be rather heavy (when everything is installed). I'd be really surprised if Su-57 is lighter than Su-35 or even F-22 with all that stuff.


EXACTLY! Absolutely THIS!

I think this is not that hard at all to understand - unless for someone with a bias - and I actually mentioned this my first post of the last page in this thread.

And just to complement your YF-22 to F-22 excellent example, I would like to add another: The Gripen E.
From the prototype/demonstrator Gripen NG and planned empty weight for the Gripen E to the actual Gripen E empty weight there's a diference of 1,000 kg or around 2,200 lb in the imperial system (Gripen NG/planned Gripen E: 7,000 kg and actual/production Gripen E: 8,000 kg) and this for a lightweight fighter aircraft. Then imagine for a heavyweight fighter aircraft developed by a nation (Russia) which is technologically less advanced than western countries?!
“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: 4464
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post24 Nov 2022, 15:19

milosh wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I think it's something like YF-22 to F-22. F-22 gained significant weight compared to YF-22 even though from outside YF-22 already looked like operational fighter aircraft as it could carry and fire AMRAAMs for example. But all the avionics systems and operationally ready (for decades of service) structures and other systems (like weapon bays and countermeasures systems) tend to be rather heavy (when everything is installed). I'd be really surprised if Su-57 is lighter than Su-35 or even F-22 with all that stuff.


If test pilots liying then Su-57 is heavier then Su-35 but if they aren't it is lighter. Take off and subsonic acceleration is noticeable better in case of Su-57.

Both have quite similar thrust because engines are more less same.


Let's try this one more time:
- Even if test pilots weren't "lying" and this is a huge IF as basically everything else coming from Russia then there's the fact that test pilots fly prototypes so it's quite possible that prototype Su-57 may weight somehow less than the F-22 or more precisely it may weight that value mentioned in Wikipedia. BTW, do you know how much was the YF-22 empty weight? 33,000 lb! The production F-22 empty weight is 43,340 lb and that's more than 10,000 lb diference between prototype (YF-22) and the production F-22!

So, if you still think that a production Su-57 weights what you think it weights or more precisely that a production Su-57 weights less than the production F-22 then I have this to sell you:
Image

Or in case you still didn't get it, those test pilots you brag about were flying the Su-57 equivalent of the YF-22 and not the Su-57 equivalent to the (production) F-22.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1938
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post25 Nov 2022, 09:32

Agree, I need to check was that about prototype or serial fighter statement.
Offline

spicyblanket

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2022, 14:51

Unread post25 Nov 2022, 15:47

xt0xickillax wrote:Recently there’s so much writing about how much the Su-57 is flawed, and how it’s not a true 5th generation fighter. To be this is grossly misunderstanding what Su-57 is. The aircraft is supposed to be a silver bullet force that outflies anything in the air. It’s kinematically king with unsurpassed maneuverability and speed, has distributed sensors and IRST and AESA like F-35, and even has DIRCM that can neutralize heat seeking missiles. Those saying it’s not being bought in large numbers, that’s the point because it’s meant to be an elite force meant to defeat the toughest opponents, while most missions can be done by Su-35 or Su-30SM or the upcoming Checkmate. It’s the hi in the hi-lo combo.

Those saying it’s not stealthy enough, you think you can tell just by eyeball? Or you know more than Sukhoi? Not even LM has claimed Su-57 isn’t stealthy. Even then, it has DIRCM and L402 ECM that can wreak havoc with AAMs, and anything that gets in a gunfight with Su-57 is dead meat. Su-57 takes a balanced approach to survivability with good enough stealth, tons of countermeasures, and the highest maneuverability to date and the best speed of all 5th generation fighters, as the large oversized intakes and variable geometry intake ramps show.

Su-57 doesn’t have the advantage of numbers like F-35 has but that’s not the point and it’s not supposed to be a cheap affordable 5th generation aircraft like F-35, that’s what Checkmate is for. Su-57 is designed for ultimate air superiority to counter F-22 and fits well with Russian design philosophy having the advantage in key characteristics or not inferior in any substantial way. It’s only beginning in terms of its life and how upgrades it will be, just like the original Su-27. And don’t get me started on piece of crap J-20.

In fact, the Su-57 is a far better aircraft than the J-20, which is a MiG knockoff and blended with components the Chinese copied from F-22 and F-35. For all the puff pieces about how good the J-20 is, it hasn’t done anything impressive in a single air show and all the claims are just from Chinese brochure.


I think this is a terrible take on the whole thing. and it is in some ways a kind of back-handed insult. Saying Russia's most sophisticated aircraft will be a great gun platform is like being the best student in remedial school. The logic and reason behind some of these claims is hard to even take seriously. It is not only ignorant of the Su-57, it manages to be ignorant of every aircraft Su-57 is compared to as well. Back in the old days, we measured speed by how fast something went, not on intake size and ramps. in the same post that you say, one can't tell RCS with the eye ball you tell us how fast something is just by looking at it.
I see you lurking.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1231
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post27 Nov 2022, 19:41

Su-57 structure had to be reinforced because it was cracking too much even just 1 year into testing without even going to max g limit. It also boasts about having more volume than F-22 so that it's more versatile as a multirole fighter. If it ends up being lighter, it may be sacrificing other qualities, for example it can only pull 9 g at low fuel levels, just like the Su-27.
Offline

madrat

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3568
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post28 Nov 2022, 12:33

The stress cracking probably has everything to do with lack of money to secure bleeding edge forge press access for Sukhoi. F-35 bulkheads are created with technology that wasn't available to F-22A. Sukhoi is probably limited to technology from the early 90s because it is very expensive to develop.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4977
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post28 Nov 2022, 17:16

At this point in the war, I think its a distinct possibility the SU-57 gets cut/mothballed. It's not doing the Russians any favors. Certainly hasn't helped them win superiority in the air, nor has it seemingly had any impact as a SEAD/DEAD platform. The very existence (or planned existence) of the SU-75 amounts to a tacit admission no foreign orders are likely to be placed. The SU-57 is still unproven as a platform and likely too expensive - even for Russia. It's doubtful they could mass produce it, even IF foreign $/orders showed up. How much of it uses western tech? I'm sure they're scrambling now to figure that out, and come up with plausible work arounds. But it's futile - the SU-57 is going nowhere.

At the time Gates/Obama/USAF cut it, at least the F-22 production line had been established and was humming along. The Russians are in a much worse place. Their production line is anything but mature, and struggling to get aircraft in the single digits to Russian units. It's as if they're hand made, and that may actually be the case (at least on some level).

In summary, there is a lot more working against its success vs. things going for it. And that dynamic only becomes more pronounced as the days, weeks and months tick by. It's time for Russia to acknowledge the obvious, time to cut its losses...
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: zero-one and 30 guests