KrivakapaWhat my google lens android translation from Russian language:
The key word is “SIMILAR”. And “similar” does not mean “same”. For this it is not a IRST on same way than OLS-50. And they do not tell what features some similars….
Of course is a very ambiguous information.
What is similar? IR sensor. What is different? Laser. Is that so hard to conclude?
And if you think it doesn’t have IR sensor, fine, then explain us why they marketing all around IR scanning as part of Su-57 sensor package? With what it would do if 101KS package don’t have couple IR sensors around plane?
What I agree with you it isn’t same as DAS but it still provide 360deg IR picture, not instant though. But because we are talking about QWIP sensors, they are analog to AESA radars, scaning time is lot faster with them then with older gen Russian sensors.
KrivakapaIf you have a rotating IRST, how many time need for scan 180º? it is many time for it, and a missile it is only seconds for impact with airplane from 15-20 kms away. It has not any sense. Need to be fixed sensors for have minimum delay and covering few grades each sensor.
101KS-O defensive laser of course use data from 101KS-U (which is fix sensor) when missile is close and its engine is working but when missile engine not working how you expect UV sensor to track it? That is why 101KS-O have IR sensor to point laser in right direction or (more likely) to inform pilot so evading measures can be applied.
You time estimate is way off, closing missiles have speed below Mach 3, so they would need more then 15-20sec to hit Su-57. More then enough for detection and evading.
Maybe in future 101KS-O will be just laser system (more powerful laser for example) and 101KS-U will be dual band sensor but for now IR scaning is done by 101KS-V and 101KS-O sensors and if they are QWIP then we surely can talk about IR 360deg coverage for Su-57. Not good as F-35, I agree but still better then any other fighter in world.
KrivakapaNo.
What part you do not understand about you need instant scanner of totally 360 º around the airplane. It is impossible with rotating sensors, for this DAS has fixed sensors covering each one around 90º in real time. For this J-20 has similar sensors located than F-35.
The only sensor covering on Su-57 360 º is the MWS KS101-U
You don’t need instant scanner for further threats for that KS101-O is more then enough. You need instant scanner only for close threats for example MANPADs, and 101KS-U is there for that.
Btw F-22 which have IR staring MAWS doesn’t have IR situation awareness capability. And no one say it is problem, while for you are say rotating IR sensors for IR SA are big problem. Also don’t forget OLS-50 sensor isn’t some old soviet tech it is QWIP sensor, something similar to AESA in radars. So even though it use rotating dome it scan very fast and can track lot of target, Pirate IRST sensor for example can track up to 200 targets if info on net is right.
KrivakapaIMO it´s impossible is any kind of DAS System. You need 5-6 Irst with IIR for covering 360º; on a F-35 a field of regard of 1 eodas is around 90-95º. That is not the case with only 2 DIRCM, but also i dont think these 2 Dircm have any IIR capability. Of course, in future we will know exactly features of these dircm.
You are comparing apple to oranges, fix sensors with rotating ones. If you look position of F-35 DAS sensors they are cover same as Su-57 101KS-V and 101KS-O combo.
http://thumbnail.egloos.net/460×0/ht…785743cb6b.jpg
101KS-V and lower 101KS-O covers same space as nose DAS sensors and 101KS-O also covers space which is covered by two lower DAS sensors. 101KS-O behind cockpit is almost on same position as two DAS sensors located also behind cockpit.
KrivakapaNot really.
1st, the weight of the weapons reduces range. Weight has probably a bigger impact than drag at subsonic cruising speeds, but that’s my guess.
2nd, ferry range doesn’t typically include the use of afterburners, maneuvering or flying at suboptimal combat altitude.
We are using F-35 A-A stealth configuration to estimate ferry range, that would be at best four AIM-120 so it is 0.6tons weight which less then 3% of total plane weight (plane+fuel+weapons). Drag impact of four AIM-120 (with pylons) would be lot bigger then 3% of additional weight.
F-35 using of afterburner/supersonic flight is quite problematic if you look what we read about B and C version so I really doubt LM presentation at all using them in that presentation. I think what they presented is relaxed combat radius which can be used for ferry range estimate.
KrivakapaI’m pretty sure they are quoting the combat range – and not the ferry range of the F-35. Combat range would typically be close to the combat radius x 2.
Combat range is similar to ferry range for 5gen because they carry weapons internally. 4gens carry them externally so that impact combat range a lot.
KrivakapaI was speaking about the Type 30 engine – the final engine type for the Su-57. I don’t think it is near ready for production yet. The engine you are speaking off is still an advanced derivative of the 1970s AL-31F. It’s closest equivalent is probably the General Electric F110-GE-132, as fitted to the F-16E.
117 engine isn’t just upgraded AL-31F:
От двигателя для Су-35С (изделие 117С) его отличает повышенная сила тяги, сложная система автоматизации, полностью цифровая система управления, новая турбина и улучшенные расходные характеристики
If wiki is right it have new turbine, beside new FADEC and plasma ignition system which is one of kind in world.
KrivakapaWhere do you find all these precise figures? I’m pretty sure they’re not available yet.
Do you think the Chinese are standing still technologically as well? I’m sure they are looking for a replacement for the RD-93 and WS-13 as we type. Both the Su-57 and J-31 need to move on from the 40-year old engine technology which they are using now – no disagreement there… There is the WS-19 engine – a new powerplant for the J-31?
I am impressed with Chinese progress but we need to be realistic and reality is they didn’t even start making WS-13 and you are mentioning WS-19. It would take time to iron WS-13 and only then they will start serious work with WS-19.
Su-57 engine have lot of new tech, for example plasma ignition. Can you point out which western engine have something like that?
As I wrote earlier J-31 is could be good plane but it isn’t match for Su-57. They are different class of stealth fighters. So J-31 need to be noticable cheaper to be competitive with Su-57.
KrivakapaPoint si, that comparing engine thrust is only relevant for boys playing quartets game and here you are correct. The Su-57 is way ahead.
Point however is, which country is willing to invest and even purchase an unproven design, that is at best then in limited service by the Russians themselves? So, if they cannot get hand on the F-35 or have fancy plans on something indigenous, the FC-31 COULD become a interesting, and IMO the only possible alternative.
So in the end it might be irrelevant if the Su-57 is much better on paper than anything else, if it remains unsuccessful, since the RuAF purchases only too few and no other country is willing to risk it.
Last time I check Russia is getting first Su-57 while J-31 is still is demonstrator phase. If J-31 would be lot cheaper then Su-57 then I can justify it but if it cost similar I really don’t see any point of buying J-31 instead Su-57.
Btw Russia is planing to get 76 Su-57 in this first order, I doubt that is final number they will have.
KrivakapaThere isn’t need for MiG-41, in fact MiG-31 can be replaced with less stealthy Su-57 variant, more rugged composite and no RAM on hot sections of airframe, no radar blocker in intake, and bigger spine fuel tank like they did with MiG-31M:
https://testpilot.ru/russia/mikoyan/…s/mig31m-1.jpg
Russias J-20 will be the Mig-41. Still years away, yes. But they will wait for the Mig-41 and invest in it before buying J-20s.
J-31 is still years away from even having airforce prototypes, only 2 test birds so far, after years. Lets talk when they have 10 flying prototypes and orders from Chineses airforce.
And they still change design. Newest mock up have not small changes compared to second prototype. Also in interview one of engineer mentioned it could be noticable heavier then prototypes. I really doubt J-31 can match F-35A weight. I expect it would be closer to 15tons.
KrivakapaYes, and i read some days ago some chief of the J-31 program telling all is going well about schedules plan. So it will soon be a real threat to Su-57’s exports.
Su-57 will have engine which have more then two times RD-33 thrust, China still don’t make engine similar to RD-33. So two AL-51 will have two times more thrust then what J-31 have now!
So even if WS-13 deliver promised thrust (~100kN) it would still be 200kN vs 320kN or maybe even 340kN. This allow Su-57 to carry lot more and to have cruise speed better then theoretical max speed of F-35 and I expect J-31 to have similar problems as F-35 with speed.
We still don’t have info about J-31 weapon bay but it surely isn’t spaced as F-35/Su-57 weapon bays, J-31 weapon bay on mockup:
https://defense-update.com/wp-conten…eapons-bay.jpg
What you can fit in Su-57 bay:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1000126889548185600
probable two of those per bay:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVjO-BxXcAEburG.jpg
So how can you consider J-31 as real threat for Su-57 sales? Only if you are here to troll Su-57 we can understand why you wrote that nonsense but if you aren’t troll then you really need to check what you are writing before you wrote it.
KrivakapaWhat is point of putting dogfighting missile in F-35 storage? Other stealths have dedicated storage for dogfighting missiles, with small doors which open and close fast and drag impact isn’t no where near as when you open F-35 storage.
Much better solution would be small underbelly multirole pod, it can carry two HOBS missiles and DIRCM.
KrivakapaWe do know the aircraft plans to light up like a Christmas tree in this regard though.
If modern AESA is very hard to detect then having two additional smaller AESA arrays (side ones) will not change much, in fact F-22 would have them too but then budget cuts canceled them.
L band AESA in wings isn’t something strange. F-35 have something similar which is used for EW and F-22 probable have too.
Krivakapa@RALL
Indian media aren’t to be trusted, for example in same texts were you can read how poor PAK-FA stealth is, you can read about AL-41F1 engine it is expensive, not capable for super cruise nor is modular engine. So by them first engine in world which use plasma ignition is POS engine, nonsense of no super cruise capability is only overshadow by even bigger nonsense about molecularity, I mean AL-31F is modular design!!!
So what source to read? Chinese. Chinese don’t have any reason to praise or bash PAK-FA, but in their PAK-FA model study they concluded PAK-FA has stealth shape in fact for some angles it is best stealth model they analyse. Biggest “no no” stealth for PAK-FA by them is if Russians don’t hide engine face and use classic nozzle.
Everything else is easy to be fixed with RAM and RAS.
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/jatm/v8n1/1…m-8-1-0040.pdf
We saw new PAK-FA nozzle it look similar to LOAN, and we read about radar blocker for engine face and in patent they mentioned engine face as big RCS problem which is taken in account.
So what value Chinese got in their study using composite (no RAM&RAS) model of PAK-FA which have hidden engine face but classic nozzle?
Mean frontal RCS: -8 dBsm and -6dBsm for 30 to -30 angle, so mean RCS is something between 0.15m2 and 0.25m2, which is similar ballpack as 0.3-0.5m2 mentioned in Indian media. So what maybe happen was Russians giving brifing to Indians and said “RCS is 0.5m2 without RAM&RAS” and Indian officials which are deep in Rafale deal sold journalists that number as definite PAK-FA rcs value.
Btw 4.5gen smaller fighter could have RCS at threshold for VLO but that is only in frontal segment and without noticeable weapon and external fuel. That is why Indian AF commander statement about stealth Rafale is nonsense, to him this is stealth:
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0152/1643/files/1c_grande.jpg
KrivakapaNot necessary MAWS require big instantaneous FoV for coverage aka wide beam coverage while FCR has narrow beam width, MAWS may not have pulse compression or frequency hoping either
Power of MAWS antenna is lot smaller then any radar and MAWS antenna can have all goods you have for modern radar (LPI mode for example). It would be ridiculous to use such MAWS in Typhoon if it can be detect from long range.
MAWS which was used as base for Typhoon’s one:
Low power and ECCM features protect the PVS2000 from both signal intercept and hostile jamming
Sign In
