XB-70[USER=”41059″]halloweene[/USER] – There wasn’t much of anything there…just the statement from April regurgitated again and then some generalized (often non-related) stuff. The latest I could dig up is this below. It seems like it is still just generalized concepts…might not learn much until years end or next year.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2019-06-15/sixth-gen-fighters-already-drawing-board
XB-70There’s very little opportunity in the military space at this time. The Russians won’t go for a Y-20 because it is just a refaced Il-76 and they will develop a true next gen airlifter when they are ready to move on from that design. Phasing out the Migs with the FC-31 is more realistic – but still not likely. The problem with rapidly phasing in a large number of stealth fighters is you have to have the infrastructure to maintain them – including their coatings. I don’t see that happening that fast, so the Su-57 will likely be the only Russian stealth bird for a while. Maybe the Chinese could get some benefit from Russian helicopters, but I think they will see their own as good enough. The one exception is the new heavy lifter that Russia and China are developing together. Similarly, I don’t see much use for the Z-20 for Russia.
The one thing the Chinese will still need from the Russians for a while is engines. The Russians could source drones from the Chinese. But, for the most part, I don’t see much sharing beyond joint projects like the CR929 and the new heavy lift helicopter – programs where component and system manufacturers can work together for mutual benefit.
XB-70I found this – an article over a month old now – but it seems like the incident has been mostly put together. What caused the controls failure is still unresolved but the SSJs instrumentation seems to have done its job in providing warnings to the pilot and the plane is actually built pretty tough. There’s definitely flight crew errors involved in this crash.
So it doesn’t look like a MAX disaster for Sukhoi, but at the same time SCAC can’t weather things the way Boeing can.
https://www.flyingmag.com/sukhoi-superjet-encountered-windshear/
XB-70USAF and UK MOD start work to prepare for F-35 at Lakenheath
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-starts-construction-of-permanent-f-35-base-in-e-459697/
F-22 and F-35 to miss 80% mission capability rate
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-martin-f-35-and-f-22-to-miss-80-mission-ca-459725/
B-2 Spirit 30th anniversary
https://defence-blog.com/news/u-s-air-force-commemorates-the-30th-anniversary-of-b-2-test-flight.html
AC-130U completes its final combat deployment (I never understood why they jumped from ‘H’ to ‘U’)
https://defence-blog.com/news/u-s-air-forces-spooky-gunship-completed-its-final-combat-deployment.html
XB-70[USER=”30740″]BlackArcher[/USER] – Well egg on my face. I only follow flightglobal and a few other sites regularly. Mostly, I’ve tried to keep this thread alive with quick searches. I’ll be more carefull.
XB-70Thanks for the old news article, Mig-31. You saved me a lot of time. I’ll use it a bit later.
XB-70[LEFT][COLOR=#222222][FONT=Helvetica][SIZE=13px]The F-35 at least has also several EO apertures, wouldn’t they be also rendered transparent by lower frequencies?
Yes. But most of its apertures – DAS – are smaller. And the EOTS is underneath a facetted canopy – which will allow for a more controlled directivity from the part of the wavefront that is reflected (until Mie scattering happens). The F-35 also probably has the cleanest cockpit interior. That said, the USAF freely admits the RCS of their designs experiences a step change for the worse at lower frequencies. And, if they didn’t, any EE with a background in RF would know they are lying.
With the Su-57, if you will remember, the early prototypes didn’t have the DIRCMs. I think once the Okhotnik-B drone started coming along they abandoned the deep penetration role for the Su-57 as it was redundant.
Some ideas floated around over recent years for the sixth generation fighter concept were smart skins and a pilotless platform. If you didn’t have the canopy then that eliminates a large part of the canopy effect (you can sink the surface currents deeper with composite structures), and if you could shrink your apertures sufficiently and spread them out across the surface that would take care of most of the rest. No current 6th gen concept does this. The technology for it does not yet appear to exist.[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
XB-70I was going to post these in the Indian AF thread but it is still closed for review…
First run of 25kN turbofan engine
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/boost-for-make-in-india-hals-25-kn-aero-engine-completes-inaugural-run-can-be-used-for-trainer-aircraft/articleshow/50173767.cms
France is pushing India to jointly finish Kaveri (and they are saying ~30% of the work still needs to be done! Ouch!)
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/france-offers-eur-1-billion-to-revive-indias-combat-jet-engine-project/articleshow/53036894.cms?from=mdr
XB-70Oh, one addition that just popped in my head.
9) The Sukhoi patent is an accurate assessment of the Su-57’s stealth properties.
Myth. The patent is an aerodynamic patent – it specifically says so. Thus, it does not in any way describe material depth. So it doesn’t even accurately cover shaping and anyone who doesn’t know that is ignorant of even basic RF engineering. Because this isn’t some super secret stuff. If you want to build radios, microchips, touchscreens, and most every electronic thing produced today you have to understand and work with skin depth. Anyone touting it doesn’t understand the subject.
XB-70[USER=”29017″]ActionJackson[/USER] – I made a stealth thread. Use that. No point talking about the Su-57 on the TFX thread.
XB-70You have no evidence to suggest that the Su-57 has a greater ferry range or combat radius than the F-35 (except at supersonic speeds), none. it may not even be an improvement on the J-31 endurance.
I never said I did. I said it was a pretty safe bet – and it is. A vehicle with more gas will usually have more go. You should keep in mind that volume increases with the cube of dimensions. A cube which has its sides increased by 10% each has a 33% increase in volume. Strategic bombers use this little trick to carry around sufficient fuel for very long ranges while also carrying immense payloads. Probability is not on your side. I’m sorry you are so emotionally invested in this.
[LEFT][COLOR=#222222][FONT=Helvetica][SIZE=13px]Surely you don’t think the Chinese are going to market a 5th gen fighter without an EOTS system, do you? Such systems do exist for the J-31 – they may even have been tested and integrated – not necessarily on the J-31 though.
I don’t know. That depends on their market outlook. But if they are going to install one then this bird is nowhere near ready.[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
XB-70I didn’t think they were building the aircraft yet either. Who’d they partner with then?
But, yeah, their engine tests have been going smoothly – and fast. They just got to flight test it now, and they will probably be doing that fairly soon.
XB-70…though there’s no evidence Russia has the high accuracy application process seen on the US aircraft, in fact some early manufacturing photos indicate the T-50s application of the patches was random and haphazardly done)…
Oh, do tell us about this, ActionJackson.
The canopy itself however, is one big, continuous surface with no signs of variable, sawtooth shaped areas of varying conductivity (post Russian pixie dust claims it does exist in 3,2,1…).
Why would they claim they have “sawtooth shaped areas of varying conductivity” and why do they need this? Sawtoothing edges is an edge technique – an impedance mismatch technique. If you could build the whole surface with no impedance mismatches then you wouldn’t need any. Now, obviously you are going to have to use some because of unavoidable openings due to the landing gear, weapons bay, and such. But a lot of the reason why the Raptor looks the way it does is because of how CFRP was built back then (late 90s to early 00s).
The Su-57 canopy frame has a clear raised protrusion that can be seen in numerous of the aircrafts high res photos. It also has an obvious 5-15mm seal gap right in the middle.
…with all the obvious airgaps, bumps and protrusions , and even with surface waves traversing rubber-like seals, the Russians have still managed to achieve perfect continuous conductivity from front to back of the canopy.
Oh, do tell.
According to a recent test done at a range, an untreated 3mm surface discontinuity on a low RCS ovoid object similar to the canopy, increased the RCS of the test target from -40dbsm to -20dbsm.
What do you think is untreated? Look, your reasoning is sound. It is true that if the Russians didn’t try to build a stealth fighter then they didn’t make one. But that’s all you say again and again. But I’ll bite this time, and I’ll start a dedicated thread for this kind of discussion in short while.
XB-70[LEFT][COLOR=#222222][FONT=Helvetica][SIZE=13px]The F-35 carries a huge amount of fuel, 8+ tonnes, at a big fuel fraction. The Su-57 will carry over 3 tonnes more than the F-35 but is a much bigger aircraft (with two engines) so fuel consumption will be higher. I doubt if there is much difference in either aircraft’s range, combat radius.
Those are your words, Levsha, not mine. The Su-57 has more range than either the F-35 or the FC-31…mostly because it is carrying a lot more fuel. Although, in comparison with the FC-31, I would wager it has a considerable advantage in efficiency too. It just isn’t probable for the FC-31 to match that.[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
And the FC-31 is more “bare bones” than the F-35, J-20, and Su-57. It doesn’t have any IRST/EOTS system and it doesn’t have the same level of apertures. Either more will be added to it (and in which case the design is nowhere close to completion) or it is targeting the section of the market for a simple, low cost stealth fighter.
XB-70[USER=”9270″]Levsha[/USER] – Sure, I don’t know about range. But it’s a pretty safe bet. The FC-31 is only slightly larger than the F-35 (and so fuel storage won’t be much different), but it’s got two engines to feed and they don’t have the same level of technology in them. So, assuming less efficiency is practically a given.
It seems your only criticism is that the Chinese aircraft is smaller than the Russian.
Why are you taking it as a criticism to point out that size plays a role in preference? I mean, it does. Take India’s MRCA competition for one example – all of the entries were considered medium size! (Gripen could be considered a light size…and it wasn’t selected!) Size does play a role, because it’s a factor in so many specifications. And once you recognize that you will see that those two designs are chasing different parts of the overall fighter market. That’s why I said they won’t compete much.
Sign In
