FBWAre you real Sure Amraam 120D max range is 180km?
?
Classified. Probably comes from the statement of “50% greater range than the C7”.
And the range of the C7 is classified, so most likely based on vague statements and estimates.. Those types of ranges are for head-on. The intercept is nowhere near that far (true of all stated AAM ranges).
FBWThat particular example is another instance of overambition though. MTBF was required to be 200+h, which just wasn’t going to happen with a hybrid analogue/digital architecture built out of 1980s Soviet electronics. Heck, contemporary fully-digital Western radars (e.g. EL/M-2032) were happy to hit 150h (modern incarnations of these designs are a lot better, but we’re talking about their performance when first entering production in the late-1980/early.
200+ hours? From the literature at the time, the MTBF was around 5 hours for the early versions at state trials in 1985! That isn’t overreach, that’s a GD disaster.
It wasn’t just that, it was multiple target tracking and range. Anyway, it puts Marcellogo’s statement about Russian/Soviet acquisition practice into context. The Su-27 proved to be a capable platform, one that evolved into a world class platform. One reason why I think current comments on the Su-57 (positive and negative) are overreach. The one thing I agree with is the Russians do things differently. They tinker and improve over time.
FBW@ XB-70
fact is that in Russian/Soviet acquisition process there is nothing like IOC (and consequently LRIP) , full scale serial production begin when the item is fully ready, period.
Right on the first part, the second part, fully ready? That isn’t at all the Russian/Soviet acquisition model.
The Soviets basically invented concurrency (hyperbole). The Su-27 went into mass production with unsatisfactory radar performance that took several years to meet requirements. The Soviets would begin mass production before the weapon system was fully operationally suitable. Very apparent in their ship/sub classes. The first few in a production series would basically be mules, each slightly different. Their tank series was the same. Russia seems to be following a similar model, the first three 955 SSBN, the first 885 SSN, first four 22350.
Basically, get it into production and make incremental improvements.
FBWWell civilian turbofans have a pretty stringent testing and certification process one that has to meet. EASA/FAA recognize each other’s certification, any civilian turbofan would have to meet those testing requirements. PD-14 will undergo EASA validation, 2019?
A Russian military turbofan wouldn’t, as an aside.
Back to the point, the Izd. 30 engine is in flight testing. I doubt they encountered any serious deficiencies in bench tests/ wind tunnel, which was my original point.
I recall a post from secret projects a long time ago from a credible memeber stating that the original AL-41F was problematic even during bench tests, a bit of a technological overreach for the time (interesting parallel with US concerns about the technological readiness of the YF120).
The type 30 began bench tests in 2016, so they must have gone pretty smoothly for flight testing to have begun a little over a year later. That is a pretty compressed testing period though.
FBWYeah I figured that because I recall the press release when they started bench testing. But that’s not the point, what does their bench testing entail? If you some insight I’d like to hear it. I was very surprised when talking with some P&W engineers on F135 testing process. They purposely destroyed and dissected; entire engines, LPC, HPC. Damaged individual blisks and ran engines. You get the point.
FBWThat really is the billion dollar question. “What is the Russian certification process for turbofans”. If it were a U.S. product, it would have already been bench tested to max hours (not lifecycle testing, that was just completed last year, for the F135 as an example), max power, had various poultry fired at it in a wind tunnel, and been blown apart running it at excess rpm and temp. Then flight testing. So they would have a pretty good idea of any potential issues (though as the F135 fire showed, mating it to the airframe/inlet may expose others).
I don’t think we have a Russian aerospace engineer on here to give insight into their process.
FBWOne thing to note is that there is no USAF F-35 routine yet. The F-35 still has to complete IOT&E.
It will be interesting to see what the USAF chooses to display in the program created for US F-35 airshow routine.
FBWWhat I see in these comments on the display are examples of confirmation bias, both positive and negative.
The display was different than that of the Paris show. First off, the cloud ceiling appears to be fairly low. Not much point in stringing together a series of dynamic maneuvers at a higher altitude that would have been hard to see. The pilot did a series of low level maneuvers, then climbed under full power. About the only thing apparent in the video is that the F-35 can bleed energy quickly and swing that nose around, and appears to regain energy quickly.
My one complaint with a lot of displays these days is that they favor those types of low speed pitch up and snap maneuvers to demonstrate low speed, high alpha. The Typhoon/F-16 displays tend to be higher speed and more aggressive with minimum radius turns, aggressive vertical maneuvers, and rolls (which I think are more exciting) What I don’t see is any evidence of “high wingloading” being a factor in the display, it’s the maneuvers, not the aircraft.
FBWBTW, 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?
I 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.
FBWOut 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.
FBW@AJ
Screen for FLIR? It was removed later becuase composite RAM backside was enough plus it had impact on picture quality .
Complete horsh@t…. if you don’t know something, don’t make it up. You and KGB would do well to follow those rules.
Just gives a bad name to Russian posters.
FBWBelief is a poor substitute for facts;
US has produced 4 production manned LO aircraft, several unmanned (several other tech demonstrators, likely “black” experimental manned LO aircraft, likely several operational LO “black project” unmanned aircraft.
The US has three generations of AESA flying, each building off previous, each with 3rd generation TRM (again built off operational experience).
The US is still the world leader in bleeding edge aerospace R&D (though China is rapidly gaining).
The gap is narrowing, just not with Russia. Not that any of the above would prevent the Su-57 from being a capable fighter when complete. Time will be a factor however, if it takes almost 10 years for the Su-57 to arrive in large numbers in active squadrons, that would be 25 years since the Sukhoi design bureau was selected to develop the Pak-Fa.
Not exactly inspiring performance that would suggest Russian aerospace leapfrogging the US anytime soon.
When you show up 15 years late to the 5th gen party, you better be bringing better champagne than the others.
FBWThis is just getting painful (perfect reason I don’t find it worth my time to post on this forum anymore).
KGB, give it a rest. The pathetic attempts to bring the F-35 into the discussion are sophomoric at best and frankly, idiotic if I were to be honest. Your paranoid attempts to deflect attention from the Su-57 with these lines drawn on the F-35 make you even more of a laughingstock and punchline than you were before.
L-M has 37 years experience building LO aircraft (ones that are actually in service). The manufacturing tolerances and finish on the F-35 speak to that experience. If you want to engage in a tit for tat exchange on that, I think you will find the harsh reality of high resolution photos deeply depressing.
We will see soon enough the build quality of serial Su-57’s within a year or two. I’ve always been under the impression that the aircraft is a work in progress, Russia tends to take incremental steps introducing new weapon systems.
The internet minions claiming the Pre-serial Su-57’s are VLO as is, are fooling themselves. Even when people pointed out the unfinished nature of the project, people such as yourself would scream “troll”, then just as predicted, Sukhoi would make modifications and improvements.
I’ve said it a million times on here, LO shaping of an aircraft has been made much easier with advances in computing and modeling. Building that airframe and incorporating apertures, antennas, control surfaces, maintenance access, and gap tolerances isn’t. There is a learning curve. I fully expect the Su-57 to evolve considerably over the next 5-7 years.
There is no “western media conspiracy” against the Su-57. Unfinished military projects are always targets of defense “experts” and journalists. It doesn’t help that Russian media sources and officials make contradicting and exaggerated claims of progress, capability, and dates. I recall that article from the George Washington University thinktank, the Russian expat professor stated his probable date for large scale production of the Su-57 no earlier than 2025. People lost their minds on this forum and claimed he was a fool, full rate production was right around the corner. Then full details of the GPV came out, then officials started stating the Su-57 wouldn’t see FRP until after the second stage engine was complete post-2023. Seems he knew a bit more than our resident forum moron brigade.
FBW@ActionJackson
http://amunt.tumblr.com/image/46877242821
Huge surface discontinuity but no one doesn’t say it isn’t stealth
You are aware that both the FLIR and DLIR had a wire mesh screen in front of them right?
FBW“HAVE GLASS” type treatment (don’t know if that’s the correct term when not applied to F-16). They’ve been grey for a long time. If you look at B-1B rollout, it was a motled grey-green scheme. Some appear darker than others, could be more recent HAVE GLASS “paint” seen on some F-16’s
Sign In
