LMFSWhat are the major differences between the current engine and the idz.30 ?
It will have less stages in LPC, HPC and turbine IIRC but apparently can be replaced 1 to 1 with the old one (not really sure the front compressor has exactly the same diameter or not)
Composite materials for better RCS in front compressor.
Also different nozzle for RCS too and other unspecified measures for IR signature reduction
Higher efficiency and thrust, expected ca. 110 kN dry, 170 kN or higher in A/B. Should allow supercruise in similar conditions to F-22
Claimed a 5+ generation engine by Russian sources, should be a rough equivalent to F-119 with maybe little higher thrust.
LMFS1.Perhaps part of the problem is perhaps that what one man sees as a logical argument is seen by another as an “outright insult to intelligence”. The fact that one may be genuinely interested in an aircraft and have a liking for it says nothing about the qualities of that aircraft – as my own personal interest in the Douglas X-3 Stiletto demonstrates.
2. The fact that an argument is not commonly accepted says nothing about whether it is correct or wrong. Many of us are trying to assess the Su-57 (either in an amateur capacity or as part of our professional work), but given the high signal-to-noise ratio of the available data, each item of available information has to be assessed on its merits, and not on the basis of how widely-believed it is.
3. I am not sure how you would define an ‘insider’. A manager, engineer, or user perhaps? So I cannot see any ‘obvious reasons’. My own professional experience has been that the vibration test table, the test range, and even the weight breakdown of the finished aircraft or missile will rapidly show up any lack of intellectual honesty in the engineers who created it.
4. That is true, but as a result of their profession some people get access to limited information on classified matters, and may choose to provide a little of it here, even if such information cannot be confirmed from publicly available sources and will inevitably fail to convince the ‘give-us-a-link’ brigade.
5. If a “deeply entrenched complex of superiority” can prevent a realistic assessment of the Su-57, why did it not prevent (for example) initial over-assessments of the MiG-25 and Tu-22M by the West?
Thanks first of all for your civility Mercurius
1. True. I find it nevertheless irrational that otherwise clearly intelligent and capable people insist over and over on the same points that have been discussed hundreds of times. Or to suggest that Russian scientific community ignores what a spherical reflector is. Or to claim as clear “sins against stealth” of the Su-57 design features that are found on supposedly VLO US designs. It is not reasonable that all these are genuine arguments but one or other forms of trolling.
If one design feature conflicts with common knowledge of LO, the logical step would be to wonder why they are doing all that. Maybe the own analysis of the design and involved phenomena is not completely correct. Maybe their theoretical modelling is not 100% the same as ours. Maybe the operational requirements are different. Maybe they have a development roadmap we are not aware of. Assuming the same guys that created the theoretical framework for LO design ignore its most basic consequences is outright bad faith.
2. Yes of course and anybody is entitled to have their opinion. But if I have told you hundred times my arguments and you do not agree on them, why to insist hundred more?
3. I originally meant that this is an issue of common sense (not considering the best Russian scientists idiots) rather than of richness of sources. Regarding the insiders, I mean anybody having access to restricted sources. But such sources do not need to be sincere all of the time if they want to spread information through other guys like officials, servicemen or journalists. This could be easily the case with LO design issues due to the huge impact the mastering of such technologies has in the international perception of Western military power.
4. Agree, we should all take the few opportunities when such a situation like you describe happen. But when I have provided information susceptible of being of this nature, I have been ignored instead of questioned. That is why I say some guys here have an agenda
5. There can be many reasons for this, like for instance getting more money for defence. And since the Western technological superiority is a myth, seeing it at risks generates fear that in time is a great excuse for getting bigger military budgets authorized. We see often this duality between the complete disregard of Russia (“gas-station masqueraded as a country”) and its representations as a country powerful enough to control the elections and on the brink of conquering the West. There is indeed a narrative at play in our society, completely beyond facts and rationality. What actual experts believe and what is circulated in the open sources is not necessarily the same. Exactly the same way PR and science differ, I do not think real military experts in the West would be fool enough to disregard the Su-57 the way some guys do here.
LMFSGutenev is from State Duma and he is lobbying for 6th gen aircraft some how claiming 5th gen are obsolete , These are all rosy talk over vodka , The 6th gen aircraft is not even on drawing board that has been approved by RuAAF much less first engineering prototype being buiilt what Gutenev has about 6th gen features are also too rosy and his claim of it being hypersonic etc are even remotely true that its cost would be 10x time more than PAK-FA.
To sum it up Gutenev is just BS may be his job in Duma demands that , There wont be any 6th gen fighter flying before 2030 and likely not entering production before 2040.
Once RuAF current older flanker fleet retires and eventually they will which forms bulk of the fleet will have to be replace by PAK-FA in next 10-20-25 years there is no other aircraft on design board to replace the flanker , Mig-29 may get replaced by Hunter Class 20 T UCAV and if PAK-DP ever sees the light of the day than it would replace the Mig-31 after 2035 else RuAF will have to develop a variant of PAK-FA for interceptor role.
The requirement to replace Heavy Fighter in RuAF is huge in next 20 years spanning into multiple 100’s
Exactly. Some Russians are rather telling that American 5G is “a dead branch” of fighter evolution (see rpgtype7 post above), considering to develop Su-57 into 6G, telling that stealth is not very relevant and that Su-35 is essentially enough to counter F-22/F-35 and somehow the same folks posting these news claim all that proves Su-57 is a failure because it is not stealth. Marvellous intellectual pirouettes at display here. So, clear text for them: all those comments mean the following: these sources find the Su-57 too good to be needed in big numbers by now. That does not mean that T-50 is not going to replace T-10 type airframes in the next decades as it was always planned, only they will not rush this happening. Perfectly logical since they will spread the workload, avoiding excessive sizing of involved workforce and guaranteeing long term employment. What is not to like from that?
LMFSI do very little of that very thing above. You and KGB are the main sources of pollution.
My point on the post above was to insert a little reality into this discussion. No, I don’t necessarily agree with Action Jackson pointing out flaws on what is essentially a test mule airframe. I have taken a “wait and see” approach. However, the disingenuous rebuttals from childish posters comparing other nation’s aerospace industries to Russia are intolerable to me.
It is clear that Russian aerospace industry is facing the same issues as their naval shipyards: production is slow, newer weapons systems are procured at a trickle. This could be due to upstream issues with subcontractors, or the difficulties faced by trying to reconstitute a skilled workforce and manufacturing base after years of atrophy.
The production of Su-27 variants means nothing L-M and Boeing are still churning out F-16’s and -15’s… just not for the U.S. you can take this as an insult, though it isn’t intended to be one. I am merely pointing of the obvious.
1. I have been providing news and info and refusing to engage in fruitless discussions until my patience run out very recently. Happy if you share the same approach and looking forward to civil discussion.
2. Do not see that aerospace industry’s woes are comparable to those found in shipbuilding but of course the 90’s and early 2000 did take a toll. Simply not really seeing what the limited procurement numbers of Su-35 have to do with that. They have been delivering on time without further issues and doing a great job, contrary to shipyards. And as exposed above, those numbers are relatively low (compared to US) but simply because the level of perceived threat does not require more.
3. I’m perfectly ok with LM and Boeing delivering 4G fighters, why should it be an insult?
LMFS@Mercurius
You miss to point out how previous attempts to discuss these issues based on logic arguments and honest questions have been simply ignored and instead the same outright insults to intelligence persist, ruining the possibility for a fruitful discussion in the thread. I personally refrain from going to the “pregnant penguin” thread to insist on the same issues over and over because I find it completely sterile and simply impolite with the guys genuinely interested and liking the aircraft, while some gentlemen insist on disrupting this one even when they have been shown many times that their arguments are not commonly accepted. In light of this it is both justified and necessary to call out such destructive and ill minded attitudes.
Don’t really care who is insider and who is not when all needed here is intellectual honesty, a thing many insiders with actual interests in the business are not going to be motivated to show. In fact in my professional experience insiders are frequently subject to even higher levels of disinformation than general public for obvious reasons. Not to talk that anybody REALLY in the know is not going to be disclosing highly classified information in this or any other internet forum. And no, no ridiculous master mind is necessary here, only a deeply entrenched complex of superiority fed by literally centuries of Western hegemony and the elementary interests of each side of claiming the moral and intellectual high ground.
To be fair, some of the people falling for this deeply biased, self serving delusion are convinced of being completely fair and objective. My apologies to them for being maybe too direct, but the ongoing disruption of the discussion and the attempts to impose a way of thinking to the rest of users just needs to end.
LMFSOut of pure morbid curiosity, is it “good news” that a state run aerospace manufacturer has produced 90 ish Su-35s over 6 years, a positive that the newest fighter will have a production run of 12 aircraft over the next year GPV?
In the words of RT “question more”.
Forget western media, ask why even the Su35s production is pathetic.F-35…. 300 and counting for a “failed project”, the USN has had more advanced aircraft delivered than the VKS, recently.
Wake me up when then combined Su-35s and SU-57 production equals the “cancelled” 195 airframe run of the F-22.
Wait, I thought Russia was a terrible risk to the West that needs an increase of NATO military budget to be countered. But according to you they are pathetic. Make up your mind first and then we talk ok? Reality if you are a sane person is that military spending is not desirable since needs to be subtracted from expenditure devoted to social policies and economic development. What is wrong with the Russians if they do not feel threatened enough by the US military? Do better your job guys, until now there is no need to match the number of fighters of USAF to defend the country.
BTW, perfectly ok to wake you up when orders reach that level, until then maybe you could stop polluting the thread? We understand you don’t like the plane, so why to keep around only to put it down?
LMFSThanks for bringing that excellent example of Western libel against the PAK-FA
Here the confirmation of the PAK-FA cancellation:
https://sputniknews.com/military/201806301065909032-russian-military-purchase-steaqlth-fighters-su57/
LMFSI have to agree KGB here. This is a disingenuous smear campaign motivated by a mix of poor losers attitude and blind sectarism. Some posters just keep on repeating the same ridiculous smear points over and over and over, simply ignoring any argument that proves the weakness of their reasonings and the most elementary logic and decency. No, they are way above Sukhoi guys, who are only capable of clumsily imitating shapes of Western LO aircraft but without even knowing what a spherical reflector is. Truly mind blowing, I’m left speechless by the cheek of this propagandistic posturing.
There are dozens of honest forum members here that would like to discuss interesting news and issues about the Su-57 but instead have to endure this non-stop sh*t storm from some guys that find it necessary to show us the light. Leave us in peace, for god’s sake!
LMFSThat’s a pretty bold statement, although I don’t think you realize it. When we built HaveBlue and even the follow on F-117 we didn’t have 3d printers, computers had very little processing power for simulations, computer aided design tools were in their infancy and not very reliable, and we were very limited in what we can do with composites. They don’t have any of those problems today. Heck, they even got the radar absorbent materials we used on the F-117, and they have had almost 20 years to improve on them. So, although Sukhoi may not have the same level of knowledge (and experience) as LM now has, it is certainly sufficient.)
Yeah, especially sufficient to avoid internet-enthusiast level of blunders against LO. The level of arrogance this discussion implies on the part of some people is simply amazing. One thing is not having all the experience in the manufacturing or maintenance aspects of LO, which is very logical and everybody would expect, and other completely different is not being capable of getting even extremely basic aspects of the design and shaping right… especially when you are the one formulating the theoretical basis that allowed LM to design stealth in the first place. This is simply ludicrous…
LMFSSame Gutenev statements but on a different version, this time from Military Watch:
Regarding the cost of the Su-57, prominent Russian lawmaker Vladimir Gutenev, a member of State Duma’s expert panel on the aviation industry, stated “The fifth generation fighter jets are undoubtedly competing with U.S. F-22s and F-35s, but it is considerably cheaper even though it has similar characteristics, while in some aspects, for example, manoeuvrability, it does better than the U.S. jets.” The lawmaker further stated regarding the fighters’ service in Syria: “The time our four Su-57 aircraft spent in Syria definitely allowed us to get additional information on this aircraft’s ability to detect [using communications systems] U.S. F-22 and F-35 aircraft which are operating in the same airspace.” This was in reference to the United States’ deployment of Raptors and Israel’s deployment of its F-35I jets over Syrian airspace. Monitoring stealth fighters’ transponders has long been a key means for U.S. adversaries to track its most advanced combat aircraft – an issue recently highlighted by the U.S. military.
LMFS@RadDisconnect:
> I explained in a later post that I wanted to show how dynamic capabilities do matter and are hard facts, in contrast with undefined and rather vague avionics features that are used to sell 5G as not needing to stand out by their flight dynamics anymore but only in information technologies. But nevertheless, MiG-25 and 31 are interceptors and as such would matter a lot, especially the latter obviously, in case a hypothetical conflict between Russia and US would take place close to Russian borders. In fact, even limited numbers of R-37-loaded MiG-31 directed by the corresponding IAD and their low frequency radars would pose only by themselves a serious problem to attacking F-22s, since:
– They can get the approximate location of the attacking planes from long distances by direct and indirect means
– By means of those rough coordinates and using their high power radars illuminating from different angles have a high probability of detection and generation of targeting solution or simply direct their missiles to the last approximate position of the threat
– Can attack them with a big number of extremely powerful, jamming resistant Mach 6 missiles from well outside the engagement range of the F-22
– Due to their speed and supersonic range can engage and disengage at will and repeat the process until the threat is destroyed or repelled
As far as I see it, this is not only relevant but by itself capable of directly stopping the F-22s or any other fighter not equipped to counter the approach above described from penetrating Russian air space with minimum guarantees of success.
> Regarding the Su-35 supercruise: some forum member was himself “eyeballing” that the plane could not possibly supercruise due to the podded engine configuration. Then I replied that in my opinion there was no need for such statement given the dry thrust of the AL-41F1S being so clearly inferior to that of the F-119 (25% below or more). It is beyond me why you say I am eyeballing aerodynamics rather than him.
@XB-70: good post, thanks!
LMFS@ActionJackson:
Why do you think Sukhoi would possibly commit such (in your opinion) obvious capital sins against radar LO when designing a stealth fighter? Either: a) they are idiots and don’t know the basic issues you are pointing out b) the program is a farce c) they do this on purpose and have their reasons for it, whether you know them or not. Considering the Russians are the fathers of PTD and Sukhoi engineers the best of the best in their country, a) is not likely. And you know it because most probably you are an engineer too. After so many years and money invested, b) not likely to me, but who knows. I wonder: do you even consider c) being a reasonable possibility?
There are many obvious issues with the design “failures” you comment above, and I am not even by far very knowledgeable in the issue or going into the details:
> “Failures” that can be attributed to prototype condition of the T-50 models seen until now and where stating that serial models will be identical is simply imprudent. I.e. pitot tubes, rivets etc
> Air gaps exactly the same as present in supposedly ultra VLO models as the F-22 (intakes) or illumination of engine compressor (like YF-23)
> Presence of shaping in places you point as resonant cavities (LEVCON)
> Possibility of impedance matching material used in air gaps and leading edges
Another question: what are the operational conditions where you are considering these planes will be used? Russian AF is mainly defensive in nature as said many times. Therefore, main focus is operating in their territory or close to it. That means, with supporting assets. Do you think the PAK-FA would operate alone against F-22 as a norm? Do you think F-22s can penetrate Russian IAD undetected and unharmed, really? How would that work if I may ask against multiband, multilayered radars some of them perfectly capable of detecting stealth planes at great distances and long range SAM/AAM with active radar or IR seekers?
In summary, why to make such an issue about a feature that is no panacea? If VLO was what it is said to be, what is the problem with F-35s operating close to S-400 in Turkey? What better occasion than that (considering it is a export version of S-400 and therefore not even comparable to the domestic version) to destroy Russian export market by proving their inability to beat your stealth technology? Or even better, gather so much needed signatures from the S-400 and use them for your threat data bases? Instead, unhinged excuses are being used to try avoid, at all costs, that Turkey buys both systems. Maybe you have a good, reasonable and articulated explanation, for me this simply stinks of fear.
LMFS@XB-70:
Thanks, that is quite reasonable and the Doom example very telling :D. Military electronics is not like consumer market due to many reasons among them requirements about robustness and reliability / system stability, with the testing duration of a military system, electronics of a fighter are going to be old already at the time of entering operation… Then you have architecture and programming issues, where processors with slightly older technological process can still be optimized for a given set of tasks and code writen and compiled in such a way to be perfectly apt in the end. I don’t know how people can say an Elbrus processor is worse or better or more optimized for which tasks, or the programming more or less skilfully designed than that of a F-35 so lightly from home. These are clearly insider issues and even then, many of them are not necessarily critical to military capacity for a concrete mission.
Also agree your comment on growing capacity for the avionics of newest fighters, very important too.
@KGB:
I don’t completely agree that stealth is the only reason for the Su-57. The T-10 platform is 40 years old, even when it is still a very good one, at some time you need to go back to the drawing board because technologies have advanced and there are some things you cannot effectively update anymore. Not that this happens very often considering the extra effort of a completely new design, but it happens in the end. Russia was also in need of reactivation of the aerospace industry and the PAK-FA program had this clear goal. Some aspects where PAK-FA is a step forward compared to T-10:
> Updated aero, with such features that can be seen in plain sight like increased wing area and sweep angle, introduction of LEVCONS, heavy reduction of the tail size. This allows for increased capabilities in terms of manoeuvrability and supersonic flight.
> Inclusion of weapon bays allows not only for LO but also for low drag carriage of weapons. This is very relevant for range
> Important size reduction compared to T-10. Nose and other electronic bays reduced and adapted to new technologies
> Notable increase in capture area of the intakes
> Newly designed structure based in composites
> Completely new design tools and methods
If you want to implement all this in a T-10 and get an optimized product and not some botched work, it is clear that it compensates to start from zero and include a certain degree of LO. And include all what you see interesting from other designs or that can be improved from previous efforts, as it can be seen in the T-50 in form of influences from T-10, F-22 and YF-23.
You as a follower of Russian military will know that they don’t believe in stealth being a silver bullet against advanced militaries and rather a tactical resource and a tool for power projection. Advanced IADs have so many radars on so many frequencies illuminating targets from so many angles that the chances of escaping them are very slim, and that not considering IR detection, multistatic radars, early warning and OTH, human intelligence, satellite surveillance etc etc. They are definitely not going to sacrifice everything for the sake of VLO characteristics in which they don’t even believe to start with. Having said that, the T-50 as seen until now is definitely optimized for frontal LO and probably also to be reasonably stealth from the rear aspect with the second stage engines. This makes sense for air superiority and strike roles but together with that and even more importantly, the aircraft can supercruise and has very long legs and big payload. Focus of Russian military is still self defence and therefore they have different approaches than US
LMFS@F/A-XX
Poor Iraqi guys had enough coming back alive after trying to disturb a bit the US air power, I wouldn’t call they built a mythical reputation or I was not not meaning it that way at least. But it is undeniable that the sheer speed of the aircraft made it very difficult at times for even F-15s to engage them. Logical in my view since a 4 M MRAAM against a high-flying, almost 3 M fighter is going to be challenged by pure kinematic performance of the target. And this is a hard fact I wanted to contrast with some IMO over-hyped and vague concepts that are circulated about 5G avionics. Nobody denying that up to date avionics are critical, but I simply fail to understand what elements are so unique in Western 5G avionics that Russian and others do not have or cannot implement, progressively closing any potential gap present. Sensor fusion is done by most updated 4G fighters. Also data links are present, high power processors and high speed data buses, multi-spectral sensors… just a genuine question because seeing the Su-57 avionics I find it completely credible and in line with 5G standards. SW development may be at a lower level still but how people can evaluate this from open sources is questionable I think.
LMFS@RALL:
You have to pay a royalty to Lockheed Martin every time you write “situational awareness” (TM) you know 😀
Please explain, because I still don’t understand, what elements of this mythical feature are absent in Su-35 or Su-57. To talk about this to Russians, who used the “network-centric warfare” (TM) with the MiG-31 like 30 years before knowing that it would make for such a good propaganda in Western hands, is a little absurd. By the way, the pilot of the F-35 can have a superb knowledge of their surroundings and still get his ass handed to him by a SAM shot (in full HD of course) since it cannot accelerate fast enough, fly fast enough or attack far enough to out-run it. To see this, take a look at how the Iraqi MiG-25s in the Gulf War engaged and disengaged almost at will with US air power only because they were freakin’ fast. BVR missiles and all, engagement windows do depend very strongly on the relative dynamic capabilities of the target and the missile. So how fast and high a plane can fly does matter, much. And while avionics can be updated, the aerodynamic limitations can not, by far, be improved in the same way.
IIRC, the old Russian TVC nozzles move as you depict. The newer on Su-35 and T-50 move independently in X and Z axis. Nevertheless, the ones you show can produce torque in both axis as well, though not so optimally or with so many degrees of freedom.
As far as I understand, the supercruise limitation of the Su-35 to low supersonic speed comes rather from the dry power of its engines, clearly below that of a F-22, rather than from aerodynamics.
Regarding the pressing need of 5G fighters for Russia… it simply does not exist in reality beyond industrial and prestige reasons. US has no basing capabilities to mount a reasonably dangerous conventional attack to Russian territory. And even then, the Russian IAD is simply way too powerful to be easily defeated due to advantages in radar coverage and interception means. Only to avoid radar detection through the integrated radar network and destruction by means of MiG-31 / R-37 would be already an achievement. So no big surprise, that they take their time deploying the Su-57.
Sign In
