LMFS[USER=”77174″]panzerfeist1[/USER]
There is a RuN thread on naval aviation and a general discussion subforum. Would discuss such issues but excuse that I don’t do it just here.
LMFSLMFS , Thanks.
So the 1st Stage Engine cannot supercruise PAK-FA or do they have some higher Mach number expectation for SC ?
They have said several times that the 1st stage engine can be considered a 5G engine (15 T thrust vs 156 kN on F119 is not that far off I would say) and they seemed even a bit offended that the plane was being put down based on the engine, since they claim MoD requirements were covered with it. They invested very heavily on the izd. 20 and they know what a 5G engine should do after all, and applied all their high-temp tricks on the engine, which is pretty new. That means that the plane should be capable of supercruising already with the izd. 117. But, and I understand them being annoyed in this case, AL-31F family being a rather high-bypass engine, it would not make sense to expect from it dry thrust in line with that of the F119, simply due to design philosophy. But on the other hand, F119 probably has a big fuel consumption in comparison, so one thing compensates the other during plane operation.
With izd. 30 they are explicitly designing an engine for supercruising, so they probably want higher speed and not marginal SC. Either it has lower BPR or variable cycle. They have said specific thrust is higher than any other comparable engine (that means IMO higher than F119) and given inlet design, trimming options and overall cross-sectional area I would say cruising speed on the level of F-22 or even higher should be expected. Just reminding, those inlets are 30% bigger than those of F-22, adjustable and theoretically valid (according to the patent) up to M = 3, that should match some requirement for either current or future performance.
Have no hard data but the figures from Paraly look reasonable to me.
LMFSCan anyone translate key points from slides?
The engine of the “first stage” of the AL-41F-1 for the Su-57 fighter launched in serial production
The main points I remember:
– Development started 2004, bench tests ended in 2014
– The engine was transferred end of last year to serial production, after 38 units were produced for tests and 10 T-50 prototypes
– Allows Russia to bridge the gap in engine technology and provides Su-57 with competitive characteristics in terms of TWR, manoeuvrability and stealth.
– Main difference to F-1S from technological point of view is the FADEC with domestic components, that will be further used and developed for the 2nd stage engine,
– Characteristics: high temperature turbofan / increased thrust / reduced visibility / plasma ignition system / new FADEC / multiple redundancy of engine management systems
– There is a diagram where AL-31F has 12.5, AL-41F-1S has 14.5 and 1st and 2nd stages are in an apparently linear progression, but no values are given.
– Interesting: they mention the 1st stage as compliant with LO design
– Difference to 2nd stage is supercruising ability
You can use Yandex OCR to check the slides if you want
LMFSSu-35S simply has small power generating engine on board. Called TA14-130-35 and generates up to 30kVA of electric power.
That is the APU, not the generators actioned by the engines as far as I know.
LMFS[USER=”28771″]TR1[/USER]
Some say the MiG-35 will just go to Kubinka with the 237 TsPAT while VKS has no real interest on the aeroplane and is substituting the MiG-29s with the Su-30SM instead of MiG-35. Statements from officials have been that the MiG-35 is the future of the VKS though, we have so wait and see. Personally I think the export success of the plane needs a more serious installed base in the VKS than 6 planes with the Swifts.
EDIT:
Some claims here that this is not a serial unit but one of the two pre-production ones contracted in 2017
https://weaponews.com/news/65350044-in-lukhovitsy-flew-the-second-production-two-seater-mig-35ub.html
LMFSHmm quick question. So we know that in terms of thrust. the 117S is higher than previous generation of AL-31F family. But how does it fare in terms of power generation. Does the 117S also come with a new and better power generator to make use of the extra rating ? Especially today as aircraft become more and more “electric”.
If anyone curious on possible “potential” for engine “shaft power” rating. 1N of jet thrust is equal to 65 Watt of power, in static case. Aircraft engine. in terms of electric power generation may however have 25% extra rating available for power. So perhaps 117S is actually sized for at most 21.6 KN extra for possible extra power or 1.4 MW. I wonder tho if the generator can extract it all. The limit so far is probably the weight of the generator. Design having CSD (Constant Speed Drive) Will be about 0.45 Kg/KVA of generated power while the one with no CSD is lighter 0.23 Kg/KVA.
Harvesting that entire 1.4 MW will require generator which weighs 635 Kg if it has a CSD and about half of it without 317.5 Kg.But yeah, do we have anything new in terms of power generation.
Don’t know your calculations thrust-power, but here are some real numbers from a comparable engine: from what I read, F135-PW-600 extracts something like 29-30,000 HP from the low pressure turbine to move the lift fan for hovering, that would be over 21 MW. So the power available at the shaft of a modern turbofan is not exactly small, even considering that particular engine has been designed with such capacity in mind.
I agree in any case that the generator and power electronics can be a real limitation in order to extract all that is available at the engine. I have no data about the 117 or 117S electric power generation BTW.
LMFSI might cause an argument so no one take my statements too seriously that you would feel offended.
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us…fications.html
2 external fuel tanks fuel weight: 11,900kg
range: 1,600 nautical miles or 2963.2kms
http://www.knaapo.ru/media/eng/about…buklet_eng.pdf
maximum internal fuel weight: 11,500kg
range: 3,600kms
since the AL-41 is pretty much what the SU-57 was currently using is this the right way to compare fuel efficiency between aircrafts? For example if I was to add 400kg to make the su-35 fuel range comparable to the f-22 I would have to 11,500/11,900 get .9663 – 1 get 3.36% add 1 to get 1.0336 times 3,600km the range would be 3,720.96kms. However the F-22 supercruises at mach 1.82 while the SU-57 supercruises at mach 1.6. Is that because the F-22 is burning more fuel therefore having what seems to be a lesser range than the SU-57? If there is anyone that can dumb this done please do so but remember do not feel p!ssed off because I am not drawing a conclusion yet on this.
Just my two cents about what you re trying to do:
> IMO it is not a bad idea to take known technical data from the Su-35S to infer those of the Su-57, since probably the former is the benchmark taken by MoD / Sukhoi for the design of the later in many regards. It is nevertheless unreliable, since we don’t know a number of key figures like empty weight and internal fuel of the newer model.
> Comparing max range of the F-22 with that of the Su-35S is tricky too. The first one just states > 1,600 nm but no exact value. Even assuming both figures are given considering optimum conditions to maximise range, the F-22 is carrying two big tanks that are going to worsen its aero efficiency significantly. You cannot compare clean and EFT-loaded planes for range AFAIK
> Those range numbers certainly don’t imply the F-22 is cruising at M = 1.82 but at its optimum speed for range, that is, subsonic. Cannot imagine it can supercruise with those EFTs and if it can, it should be much slower than that. On the other hand, we don’t know how fast the Su-57 can (with AL-41F1) and will be able to (with izd. 30) supercruise. It is simply a speculation, unless you have found a very good source. I personally think, based on what I have seen and read, that it has a potentially higher supercruising speed than F-22. But that is just my impression based on scarce and easily misleading data.
> We don’t know the range of Su-57 so your last question does not really apply IMHO, apart from supercruising being out of question for max range values.
> Real reasons as far as I understand for the “short” range of F-22 compared to Su-35S are 1) low internal fuel compared to Flanker platform 2) Low BPR engine (0.3 for the F119 vs 0.6 for the AL-31 family) that should lead to TSFC of ca. 0.8 against 0.67 for the Russian engine. That is the price of supercruise capability, unless you have a VCE.
Hope it helps somehow
LMFSAs i understand it, the AL-31FM3 has a different Stage fan or compressor stages. It was never even tested. It was more of a Salyut proposal, never left the drawing board.
The AL-31FM2 has been or are being testing, funded by Salyut in house.Salyut sells/supply engine to Irkuts export products, the Su-30xxx. And as mentioned huge deals to China as well. Both AL-31F and AL-31FN. Think they are called factory name, Serial 42, which i think means AL-31FM1.
Yeah, Sukhoi normally works with Saturn as preferential engine supplier, so it was logical that they would go with them for the Su-57 too. Besides, there was a nasty IP issue with Salyut over the engines for China, so I think the move of using the FM3 may have been politically a no go for Saturn.
LMFSThe F-35 acolytes are desperate in their way of “inventing” a new Capability/ability/thing for the F-35.
There is nothing new about it at all.
Understanding a pinch of Aerodynamics field, you will see that the F-35 gets around its curves with the thrust alone.
There is nothing “special” about the F-35, aerodynamic wise.Its Thrust and FBW.
Which happen to be what one of the Su-27M’s did in the 90’s without any TVC.
They tested new FBW algorytm on it, and it turns out the flight envelope was expanded beyond the ordinary Su-27S envelope.We all know the story, the Su-27M did not come into fruitation in the 90’s.
But decades later the Su-35BM happen.
The difference was that that they did from the very start decided to add the TVC on it.Be that as it may, i’m sure it can do funky post stall manuveres without its TVC.
I agree it is basically about FCS and let’s not forget, engine control, but I think its aero is well optimized too. It generates a good amount of lift for a plane this thick and is controllable at low speeds. Funnily enough, this approach is something US side mocked of Russian fighters and they have gone the same way because it makes sense, pure and simple. In any case it is better to react than to persist in the error, so well done LM engineers.
So it is all fine and good, but Russians and Chinese have or are deploying TVC as you say, and the wing loading of the newer fighters (including eurocanards) is substantially lower than that of F-35 (which BTW replicates almost exactly that of F-16). Same happens with TWR, it is good compared to 4G but we are not in times of developing 4G anymore.
It’s not about being Russian, French, Indian or from the US. Wings, you know the little things protubering from each side of your fuselage provide LIFT, the thing that overcome gravity. No wings (just like you have in a post-stall excursion), no LIFT… Hence power have to overcome that. And power doesn’t come from magic but from engines that barely can compensate the weight of your airframe (what is the max T/W ratio today 1.4?*).
As you see, it’s relatively simple. You don’t need to invoke the absurd to turn it into something catchy: it’s pure honest physics.
Wings? Ah, those things… I think Flankers have them too!
If you point out what manoeuvres you refer exactly from both sides maybe I understand you. I have not seen F-35 doing anything ground-breaking but maybe I am wrong.
LMFSThe SU 57 needs some export orders. Without export orders this project is unlikely to survive. It might go down the Mig 35 path. Hardly any country (with the exception of Kazakhstan & Egypt) has placed orders for the Mig -35. Even the F-35 program took off, because the US Government was able to strike export deals with several countries.
Increasingly buyers(especially in Asia-Pacific & Mid East) are getting around financial constraints by raising the money from banks and other off-budget funding sources. So interested buyers might procure the Su 57. But for that it needs to display at the very least the same sophistication of the F-35. Instead what we see is plenty of bolts and other crap sticking out of it. It isn’t stealthy from the front with all of those bolts nor the back with exposed engine casings. Furthermore, currently Russia doesn’t even have any active service GaAS AESA radars.
Thanks for making a selected summary of common talking points about the Su-57. Funniest part is MoD and Sukhoi carry on with the development, orders and roadmap, unaware of the stern realities that genuinely concerned Western “partners” are warning them about :eagerness:
LMFSIt was confirmed that no flares was launched by Su-22
Thanks for the info, had not seen these rectifications.
I am not allergic to an alternative view, but I am very allergic to sources which intentionally repeats false narrative, that article is a propaganda article nothing more, nothing less.
True, there are a couple of errors, the SDB is remarkably off or he means low altitude attack, don’t know. Russian sources are very tricky due to translation too so you must be cautious. But this is not “pure” propaganda IMHO, they are modelling a combat based on numerical parameters. So calling this propaganda and swallowing Western claims at face value is quite questionable I think, they are full of lies and misleading interpretations too. BTW the guy has written some other analysis, for instance Su-35 against Rafale, that were not so rosy for the Russian fighter. But then Rafale is superbly gifted for manoeuvring combat despite drag of the delta wing and the single keel. So, take what you may find useful of the analysis and that’s it, nobody is saying all the truth and nothing but the truth.
Most Russian “trrick”, the wonderful things Flankers and Su-57 we are use to see now are POST-STALL manoeuvre where, yeah, the loss of energy is high.
AoA even at the extreme angles displayed by the F-35 are within the flight domain of the aircraft where wings still provide lift and the nose is simply angled with its velocitu vector, allowing rapid recovery.
You will have a good idea of the difference watching one of the latest Hornet (F-18) airshow video by the Swiss (50 deg AoA excursion and immediate recovery).The Flanker is said to be around 35 deg max AoA.
In the “square loop” that is part of the F-35 display, the aircraft reach extreme AoA without altering much of its velocity allowing rapid trajectory changes with minimal loss of E. A perf out of reach of more conventional design.
I do not quite understand why angling the nose with the velocity vector causes loss of energy if you are Russian but allows fast recovery if you are American, that must be definitely a blessing. Wings drag energy like crazy if you put them at angles with the air flow. They will stall about 15º unless slats and other devices are used, this is physics in the end. BTW, Flankers execute AoAs close to 150º (maybe more) in airshows, don’t know if those 35º you mention are recommendations to avoid bleeding energy or where do they come from.
LMFSPSpeaking of farce, the firm mindset that there is some delineation between BVR (seemingly visualized by posters as 20 miles or more) where people claim missiles are easily dodged and countermeasures always work (saracasm), and WVR seemingly visualized as a knife fight at 5 miles or less.
The farce I mean is claiming equanimity when high AoA manoeuvres and general controllability of a plane are nothing but circus tricks if done by Russian planes but media and enthusiasts alike start jumping in joy when an US plane shows some signs of controllability just moderately close to what their rivals have been doing for years. F-35 is clearly well optimized in terms of controllability (aero, engine control and FCS), following what Russians did many years ago, and that is simply right. It was not necessary and it was not fair to dismiss that strategy only to put Russians down, arguing we don’t need that because it is old fashioned and we are stealth and blah blah. It is right to make the planes controllable in every condition because it allows the pilot to concentrate in fighting and not in preventing a stall, or eventually point the nose despite loosing speed, if that is what is needed to win.
BTW I didn’t speak of knife fights and don’t know exactly what you mean in modern air combat terms to be honest. But merges can happen and will happen, simply because planes are damn fast and air combat is complex. And in future with VLO and countermeasures being more effective, the merges could paradoxically happen more often. Think the influence of DIRCM on close combat, it could change everything, from forcing to redesign missiles to having to resort to the cannon more often, who knows.
The “west’s” control of the narrative is based on experience. What was the last kill of a manned aircraft by a Russian pilot? (Ukraine claims Su-25 downed by Russia, of course Russia denies their fighters were involved) Yes, deep well of experience to draw conclusions from.
Narrative control is a PR strategy and many of the claims made come from MIC-linked journos and greedy manufacturers, not real military and scientific experts talking honestly. I am not claiming how easy or difficult is to dodge missiles nowadays or in a given combat configuration, but if you would do as you claim and look at history you would see the pk of BVR missiles is not exactly 1. And that not even considering you have almost never met rivals at your level but rather downed unaware guys while guided by AWACS and amidst crushing technological and numerical superiority. Such experience is of little use against modern and well developed rivals.
Love the rationale of some of the Russian (and Russophile posters), “ long range missiles don’t work, look at Su-xx WVR prowess. Hey? Did you see the new R-37? Amazing, it can shoot down the F-35 from 100 miles away”
Love the rationale of US and US-assimilated posters (better let us avoid adjectives when referring to fellow forum users to avoid rising susceptibilities) thinking Russians live in stone age with no avionics and therefore design the planes to be good dogfighters out of despair and as a last resort, when reality shows they were pioneers in networking planes, first to use electronically steered radar arrays in fighters, have the by far longest ranged and in many regards most powerful AAM nowadays and are far from neglecting BVR or energy manoeuvrability concepts. This is a very wrong and common misconception too but oversimplifying is tempting for everyone I guess.
How has WVR not been kept in mind with the F-35? The issue with WVR these days is that if both sides have modern IR guided AAMs like the AIM-9X, R-74, IRIS-T, etc. losses will be extremely heavy on both sides.
Did I say that?
It is rather people saying it does not need to excel at that that are quite wrong IMO.
Analysing the plane and the current factors of WVR (please correct me if you will):
> Carriage of IR missiles in the F-35 is planed in external pylons, is it correct? Is it already cleared for the bays? Neither of both are optimal. The first has obvious effects on RCS and aero, the second limits the view of the target by the missile’s seeker and would affect the aero during the combat
> It is difficult for me to believe that a plane like the F-35 will compete favourably in terms of manoeuvrability with other 5G planes. Sorry but I don’t see the fundamentals beyond the effusive praise it receives at home. It is compared too often with 4G and that is a bit too easy IMO
> As said above, countermeasures like DIRCM are to be taken into account. Or simple flares which fooled the latest AIM-9X over Syria to dismay of the military community… DIRCM is planed in the F-35, just don’t know if it is already operational
> Kinetics and geometry of an engagement play a role, despite modern missiles being capable of engaging targets outside of their seeker’s FOV the plane on the defensive has not the same chances of wining that the one in the best position. Check this if you will (only if you are not allergic to alternative views):
http://www.aviapanorama.ru/2019/02/v-borbu-za-nebo-vstupajut-35-e/
LMFSA somewhat hilarious flipflop from what you guys has been saying for the last decade now about Flankers at Airshows.. its just for airshows.
Thanks, someone had to call out this farce. It says it all about how the West strives for narrative control and how much truth anyone should expect from them. Discredited until further news.
BTW and only as a brief reminder regarding the calls to avoid WVR, some times in seconds until close combat at diverse distances and individual planes speed (no dash considered), conservatively assuming WVR starts at 10 km:
Two planes 0.9 M, 50 km –> ca. 75 s
Two planes 0.9 M, 100 km –> ca. 165 s
Two planes 1.2 M, 50 km –> ca. 55 s
Two planes 1.2 M, 100 km –> ca. 125 s
Two planes 1.8 M, 50 km –> ca. 35 s
Two planes 1.8 M, 100 km –> ca. 85 s
Time for a 4 M MRAAM to cover 50 km is > 40 s. So let us consider how much time there will be for identifying targets, applying ROE, taking action in general and reacting to missile failures in the case of many vs. many in complex environments where targets are stealth and EW is being used both against communications and sensors. Anyone can make their own conclusions about the adequacy of designing planes without keeping WVR in mind.
LMFSWe all go off-topic sometimes, nothing against it as you cannot reasonably avoid briefly touching side issues when discussing a particular topic. But I think the latest digression is a bit too much. I don’t care that much about the thread being cancelled again (never was an explanation given to justify the apparently arbitrary decision) but it is getting a bit annoying entering the thread to see if something new has been added and only seeing a discussion that does not belong here.
LMFSI have proposed one of a dozen ways to assess the potential of the country. True or false, time will tell. Several independent methods with similar calculation results will be the most accurate.
I think that we need to build LMFS short takeoff and vertical landing with an engine “Izd.30”.
And build as many aircraft carriers class “destroyer” (8 – 12 thousand tons of displacement)the 9000 ton destroyer and a cruiser of 13,000 tons
Cool, nice drawings! Maybe new multihull technology by Krylov allows something like this in a future, who knows??
[USER=”28771″]TR1[/USER]
Thanks for the video
Sign In
