Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #5

Isos wrote:Wtf is "specific gravity" ? The engine is better on Mars ?

The translation is bad, i searched and on Sputnik in portuguese they talk about specífic thrust, specífic consuption and specific weight

They don't have refueling aircraft on carriers. Two or three buddy-buddy refueling jets won't be enough to save a big formation in the air.

Some sort of barrier landing systems could be used with carbon fibre cables... with the ship operating at top speed of about 30-35 knots they could probably land them even if the cables to break they will slow them a little.

Idk imagine they have a mechanicle issue that needs 6 hours to be repaired. Or imagine there is no wind when the jets come to land. Many case where your idea won't work.

They don't require wind to land... the arrester cables don't require ship speed or wind speed to work.

They can't maintain cables abd you think they could maintain two EM system one for take off one for landing ?

Who said they can't maintain cables?

Do you even understand what happened in Syria?

It wasn't a problem with the arrester cables, it was a problem with the arrester gear the cables were attached to.

You have not explained why there is a big formation of aircraft in the air yet... they normally test things before they put them into serious use...

That's called emergancy landing. If you want it to be the normal type of labding then you will lose all your fighter pretty quickly.

Wow....

The Su-33 can take off from the Kuznetsov without a catapult... why would an Su-57 need one as it has rather more powerful engines in its current version... in the improved engine version due very shortly they are even more powerful, but the Su-57 is smaller and lighter than the Su-33 but with a much bigger wing/lift area... are you following still?

We have speculated that it might be possible with a full length landing with the ship sailing at speed into a head wind that they might be able to land planes without using the arrester cables.

AT NO POINT DID I SAY THEY DON'T NEED ARRESTER CABLES FOR NORMAL OPERATIONS.

Only an idiot would think that they didn't need cables to land.

Not sure, @15º AoA and fixed nozzles your engines are going to produce ca. 97% of the horizontal thrust while having vertical component of ca. 26% of thrust lifting the plane. So you increase substantially lift at a very low cost in horizontal thrust.

The point is that with thrust vectoring you can vary the angle of the wing and plane as well as the angle of the thrust of the engine independently to get the best combination for takeoff and for landing.

Agree. Interesting about latest news is, if the plane has a very low min. speed the impacts are going to be much less severe and the deceleration provoked by the arrestor cable also much smaller. And then you may have the option to land in emergency mode over the whole length of the carrier, should the landing strip / gear be not available, which is very valuable IMO. At least this seems remotely thinkable after last information from Sukhoi.

A possibility on a large carrier.... not on a helicopter carrier...

Wtf is "specific gravity" ? The engine is better on Mars ?

Weight is a combination of gravity and mass...

Su-57 fighter can simultaneously track up to 30 aerodynamic targets. About this in the new issue of the program "Military Acceptance" told the general director of the NIIP. V.V. Tikhomirova Yuri Bely.

According to Bely, we are talking about airplanes, helicopters and cruise missiles. In this case, the antennas are distributed from the Su-57 throughout the body.

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201811141015-6qb4.htm

They don't require wind to land... the arrester cables don't require ship speed or wind speed to work.

You said it's possible to land without cables by using low speed and accelerate ship to max speed in the wind...

You can read your comments if you want.

Who said they can't maintain cables?

Do you even understand what happened in Syria?

It wasn't a problem with the arrester cables, it was a problem with the arrester gear the cables were attached to.

You have not explained why there is a big formation of aircraft in the air yet... they normally test things before they put them into serious use...

If it was better maintained it wouldn't have heppened that quickly.

They test it when it is all new. After 2 or 3 years of operation problems can happen (that didn't happened during tests).

A carrier will send a big formation in the air for training or for real operation.

Wow....

The Su-33 can take off from the Kuznetsov without a catapult... why would an Su-57 need one as it has rather more powerful engines in its current version... in the improved engine version due very shortly they are even more powerful, but the Su-57 is smaller and lighter than the Su-33 but with a much bigger wing/lift area... are you following still?

I'm answering to the speculation that you made about the possibility of landing without cables. Why are you talking about take off ?

We have speculated that it might be possible with a full length landing with the ship sailing at speed into a head wind that they might be able to land planes without using the arrester cables.

AT NO POINT DID I SAY THEY DON'T NEED ARRESTER CABLES FOR NORMAL OPERATIONS.

Only an idiot would think that they didn't need cables to land.

Then we agree.

Weight is a combination of gravity and mass...

I don't think sputbik journalists knows that They just copy/past a russian articke in google translate and published crap without reading what it translated.

dino00 wrote:Surpasses all analogues: the developer revealed the features of the engine Su-57

The new engine for the Su-57 fighter exceeds foreign analogues, will significantly expand its capabilities and belongs to the 5+ generation.

The engine of the second stage for the fifth generation fighter Su-57 in its specific gravity surpasses all analogues in the world. About this in the new release of the program “Military acceptance” to the film crew of the TV channel “Zvezda” said the General Designer-Director “OKB im. A.M. Cradles "Yevgeny Marchukov.

“I would say that this generation 5+ is slightly ahead of the fifth one. It is to this generation that the engine corresponds to specific thrust, specific consuption and specific weight.``


https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201811131419-5mml.htm

Ah, good old, "нет аналогов в мире".

Militarov wrote:Ah, good old, "нет аналогов в мире".

Should the West have the monopoly of bullshitting us about how good they are? I am sick of reading about how "unmatched" "unparalleled" "ground breaking" and "game changing" Western technologies are, let Russians boast also a bit!

BTW, if they surpassed F135 T/W ratio they deserve credit, lots of it.

Became known appearance of the serial fighter su-57

The serial production of fifth generation fighter aircraft su-57 will be launched in the so-called "pixel" color, which creates the effect of a blurred contour.

https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.ru/https/tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201811141457-xd6k.htm

In this case, the antennas are distributed from the Su-57 throughout the body.

That would be the three in the nose... the main forward facing antenna and two small antennas in the sides of the nose, as well as antennas in the wings in the L band for long range detection of stealth targets.

5 AESA antenna in total.

You said it's possible to land without cables by using low speed and accelerate ship to max speed in the wind...

Yes, I said it was possible as an emergency procedure... not as normal practise for landing all aircraft... it might work for a hot rod like the Su-57 with large wing area and very powerful engines and low drag internal weapons storage, but it would certainly not work for MiG-33s or Su-33s.

If it was better maintained it wouldn't have heppened that quickly.

They test it when it is all new. After 2 or 3 years of operation problems can happen (that didn't happened during tests).

A carrier will send a big formation in the air for training or for real operation.

If the problem was the cables they could have tried them all... they didn't.

The problem was the arrester gear that the arrester cables are attached to.

No cable, no matter what its condition will hold an aircraft landing... it will just snap.

If you attach that cable to a gearing mechanism that lets the cable out at a measured speed to slow the aircraft down over a distance of 40-50 metres then you greatly reduce the peak stress on the cable so aircraft can use it to land.

The problem in Syria was not the cables, it was the gearing that was supposed to release the cables out fast enough to stop the cable from snapping, but slow enough to slow the aircraft down in the space available.

Without gearing the cable would try to stop the plane instantly, which will either snap the cable or the tail hook or both.

With gearing set too light the plane wont slow down enough and will roll off into the sea... set to hard and the cable will snap and the aircraft might be damaged.

The gear uses different settings for different aircraft landing at different weights.

I'm answering to the speculation that you made about the possibility of landing without cables. Why are you talking about take off

Takeoff runs are shorter than landing runs, but just because it could take off from a carrier with a head wind and a ski jump does not mean it could land without cable assistance... you are suggesting I said anything could land on the carrier without assistance, which is not what I said... I said ONE aircraft type that has a very high power to weight ratio and lots of lift and low drag could probably do it.

The new and old An-2 could also operate from the current carrier without cats or cables too.

Then we agree.

Yay...

I don't think sputbik journalists knows that lol1 They just copy/past a russian articke in google translate and published crap without reading what it translated.

Sadly the quality of journalism is not very high anywhere...

Of course in the past when they just reported the news it didn't matter that they didn't know what they were talking about.

Now they have their own opinion and twist on the story it can be amusing when they still don't know what they are talking about...

BTW, if they surpassed F135 T/W ratio they deserve credit, lots of it.

The current western analogs are not really setting the bar very high... all it has to do is not cost more than 500 million per aircraft and not suffocate its crew and it is already better than F-35 and F-22...

The serial production of fifth generation fighter aircraft su-57 will be launched in the so-called "pixel" color, which creates the effect of a blurred contour.

The colours they paint it will only be effective in optical camouflage, so making it pixelated should reduce the ability of optical systems to determine its shape and size... which is all you can really expect from paint...

Arrow wrote:We do not know the izd-30 parameters. It is hard to compare this engine to F-135.

Agree that it is difficult to compare since both sides are withholding data. US only states dimensions and thrust class (43.000 lb) of the F135, we only have unofficial weight references and specific thrust according to them is clearly (11.46) above that of AL-41F-1 (ca. 10.5). From official sources in Russia we hear now that izd. 30 has no analogues in several parameters, among them specific thrust so it must be better than F135 in that regard.

Considering F119 allows supercruising for a comparable plane like the F-22 with a dry thrust of 116 kN, izd. 30 should be close to that value too. But of course the level of certainty about concrete values of izd. 30 is zero at the moment.

GarryB wrote:The current western analogs are not really setting the bar very high... all it has to do is not cost more than 500 million per aircraft and not suffocate its crew and it is already better than F-35 and F-22...

Was referring to the engine F135, which has been head, shoulders and waist above the rest of fighter engines for a good while. Russians matching or surpassing it should make all alarms ring loud as hell on the other side of the Atlantic and make the ADVENT program get even more prio than before. That and possibly motivate a substantial upgrade program for the F119/F135.

LMFS wrote:

Arrow wrote:We do not know the izd-30 parameters. It is hard to compare this engine to F-135.

Agree that it is difficult to compare since both sides are withholding data. US only states dimensions and thrust class (43.000 lb) of the F135, we only have unofficial weight references and specific thrust according to them is clearly (11.46) above that of AL-41F-1 (ca. 10.5). From official sources in Russia we hear now that izd. 30 has no analogues in several parameters, among them specific thrust so it must be better than F135 in that regard.

Considering F119 allows supercruising for a comparable plane like the F-22 with a dry thrust of 116 kN, izd. 30 should be close to that value too. But of course the level of certainty about concrete values of izd. 30 is zero at the moment.

GarryB wrote:The current western analogs are not really setting the bar very high... all it has to do is not cost more than 500 million per aircraft and not suffocate its crew and it is already better than F-35 and F-22...

Was referring to the engine F135, which has been head, shoulders and waist above the rest of fighter engines for a good while. Russians matching or surpassing it should make all alarms ring loud as hell on the other side of the Atlantic and make the ADVENT program get even more prio than before. That and possibly motivate a substantial upgrade program for the F119/F135.

If the izd.30 is really surpassing the F135, than it's a great news.

Don't forget the F135 is the engine of the F-35 and the little brother is the F119, driving the F-22.

So maybe, maybe...there is a good chance to see a single engine light fighter in Russia soon? Maybe modified izd. 30 for the new VTOL fighter?

The Russian military seems to have discarded the idea of single engined aircraft in their forces... the only exception would be the Yak prop trainers... Yak-52s.

For jet fighters twin engines offer more internal volume, which has better potential for internal weapons carriage, twin engined safety, but at the cost of increased maintenance, larger frontal area, so the better thrust to weight ratio is needed.

As shown with the MiG-29 and Su-27, the engine power does not scale down properly... the MiG-29 was what they wanted but could not have been the same aircraft with one 12.5t on thrust engine from an Su-27 instead of two 8.3 ton thrust engines which is what it had.

I have searched but have not found any information about doctrinal considerations on single-engine fighters in VVS, I guess the decision would depend on the reliability of the engine itself. The izd. 30 would be ideal for an aircraft along the lines of a F-16 or slightly bigger, up to ca. 10 ton empty weight. This is challenging to combine with internal bays capable for A2G ordnance and weight increase due to modern requirements but could be possible.

But... no news about such fighter by now, even when I am sure there have been discussions behind closed doors about it.

It was a political decision by Gorbachev to declare one engined aircraft unsafe to have a reason to scrap them (one-sided disarmament to please the west).

GarryB wrote:The Russian military seems to have discarded the idea of single engined aircraft in their forces... the only exception would be the Yak prop trainers... Yak-52s.

For jet fighters twin engines offer more internal volume, which has better potential for internal weapons carriage, twin engined safety, but at the cost of increased maintenance, larger frontal area, so the better thrust to weight ratio is needed.

As shown with the MiG-29 and Su-27, the engine power does not scale down properly... the MiG-29 was what they wanted but could not have been the same aircraft with one 12.5t on thrust engine from an Su-27 instead of two 8.3 ton thrust engines which is what it had.

I doubt there was a doctrine against single engine fighters. Best example for single engine fighters are Mig-23, Yak-38 and Yak-141. I forgot the Mig-27. They were avaible in the 80ies in high numbers, so no need at this time for super duper single engine fighter.

Maybe everything is correct what you wrote about Mig-29, a formidable fighter, but also a comlex and expensive fighter in comparison to single engine fighter, more like the bigger and more expensive Su-27 family.

Russia need a fighter in the class of F-16 or F-35. A cheap and not so complex fighter in high numbers, becaus quantity is a quality of it's own

If Russia is really developing a VTOL aircraft, then it will be a single engine aircraft (maybe with additional lifting engine)! So a next generation single engine aircraft is not soo far away.

There was. Gorbachev wanted arms reductions.

Hole wrote:It was a political decision by Gorbachev to declare one engined aircraft unsafe to have a reason to scrap them (one-sided disarmament to please the west).

Do you have by chance any further reading on that?

Azi wrote:Russia need a fighter in the class of F-16 or F-35. A cheap and not so complex fighter in high numbers, becaus quantity is a quality of it's own Wink

We have discussed this in the LMFS thread. Issue with modern fighters is that the weight of avionics on the total cost has increased massively since early 4G to our days due to the evolution from single to multirole design. And then, with 5G, min. weight and cost increased again, massively, due to LO requirements and even more advanced avionics. So even when a smaller, single engine fighter is the best chance to attain numbers as you (IMO correctly) say, I remain sceptic as to what the savings would be compared to a two-engine fighter. Weight of the airframe is not anymore the decisive cost driver, considering a modern Western radar costs ca. 10 million and the engine a similar value (F135-PW-100, US$ 13.3M per LRIP 9, F135-PW-600, US$ 19.05M). And then, all 5G fighters have abandoned cheaper airframe layouts like single keel (F-16) and are using complex and expensive aero configurations, massive percentage of composites and advanced alloys, RAS/RAM and high precision manufacturing, so also in this aspect they have gone high-tech and correspondingly expensive. Add to this that they are extremely complex to use, which turns their pilots into absolute elites which are implicitly scarce too. So, everything goes against the goal of making them dirt-cheap for mass production.

If you have an IA assisted Su-57, with what do you think it is best to complement it, a lighter fighter, which is going to be almost as expensive to procure and only relatively cheaper to operate, or a UCAV with significantly lower prices (due mainly to lesser capacities in some key, very expensive aspects), not limited by pilots capability / availability and much more expendable? I think this may be the reason we don't hear much about the 5G light Russian fighter, probably the UCAV card is gaining weight with each passing day. Maybe the STOVL project will be involved? CTOL and STOVL designs have enough contradicting requirements to make me think this is not very good idea in case of high commonality (to the level of basic layout, position of main engine and weapons bays mainly IMO) between both variants. But of course this is almost pure speculation and he only ones in condition to make well based assumptions are the guys at MoD, we have so little info that it would be coincidence if we guess correctly here...

Maybe everything is correct what you wrote about Mig-29, a formidable fighter, but also a comlex and expensive fighter in comparison to single engine fighter, more like the bigger and more expensive Su-27 family.

Hahahaha... why would a single engine fighter be cheaper and less complex than a twin engined fighter?

Russia need a fighter in the class of F-16 or F-35. A cheap and not so complex fighter in high numbers, becaus quantity is a quality of it's own

No it doesn't.

The idea of having lots and lots of cheap simple fighters is bunk.

You can't even get cheap UAVs good enough for the role let alone a manned model.

Cheap simple and in numbers is nice for peace time to cover large areas, but during war you will wish you had better fighters...

Look at experience in WWII on the eastern front... you had to survive and gain experience to rise above the herd and to do that you needed skill and a good plane.

By your definition the I-16 Polikarpov would be ideal... cheap and simple and in service in numbers... and the poor pilots were slaughtered... the good pilots managed to hold their own.. but most were destroyed on the ground which was the best use for them at that time.

When they were new there was nothing else like them and they were good, but by WWII and technology moving on they were obsolete and it showed.

With the price of aircraft these days the extra drag and therefore extra fuel used in a twin engined aircraft is not worth worrying about, while the twin engined safety has value... along with providing more internal volume for internal weapons and other things deemed necessary these days.

The amusing thing is that in the 1970s and 1980s the Ilyusion design bureau had a large aircraft with two crew intended to compete against the Su-25... it had wing mounted internal bomb bays for 250kg bombs... three in each wing and a rear facing crewman with a rear facing gun and it was called archaic.

Ironically it was a similar size to the A-10 with a similar payload capacity.

Issues in combat with Hinds and Su-25s being fired upon from behind after they had made their attack passes is what largely created the idea for the tail gun... which makes sense to me.

If you want cheap and numbers then go for UAVs.

For manned aircraft then you need redundancy and performance...

If Russia is really developing a VTOL aircraft, then it will be a single engine aircraft (maybe with additional lifting engine)! So a next generation single engine aircraft is not soo far away.

The last VTOL aircraft they developed had three engines and unlike modern conventional twin jets it tripled the chance of a crash rather than reducing it because any one of the three engines fail and it will crash...

VTOL is the opposite of twin engined safety.

The fact is that the concept of the cheap light fighter was the concept of heavy capable fighters managing the fight and the light aircraft carrying the missiles and act as bomb trucks later when the enemy air power has been dealt with...

In that regard UCAVs make more sense... and even then I would go with a twin engine design.... modern Avionics will require a lot of electrical power so drawing power from two engines makes rather more sense than taking it all from one engine/generator.

Yefim Gordon writes about it in Soviet Tactical Aviation and a few other books.

Hole wrote:Yefim Gordon writes about it in Soviet Tactical Aviation and a few other books.

Sorry, but safety is not the reason for a twin engine design. It's only perfomance! One of the best western fighter designs is the cheap and light F-16 and it's in general not more or less safe than a F-18 or F-15. All single-engine fighters of USSR were death-traps? Not safe enough?

The whole concept of the F-35 is based on a light (single-engine) multi-role fighter. To have a few thousands light multi-role fighter or have not a single one, because of stupid "safety-reason" is a big difference. For russian forces future will be maybe 250 great Su-57, a few hundreds remnants of the Su-27 series and maybe 100 Mig-31 against THOUSANDS of F-35  and hundreds F-22, F-18 and so on. And you will for sure tell me now, that the kill ratio of Su-57 against F-35 will be more than 10:1? It's not about a conflict defending Russia, that scenario will go maybe nuclear very quick so not realistic, but a scenario like Syria, to project power and defend allies.

There is much bla bla about the future belongs to UCAV, but it won't. Maybe in 50 or 100 years. The AI of UCAV'S can't compete with humans, so remote control is the option, but in a heavy EW zone complete useless. Best example is Iran landing high tech UAV of USA a few years ago ;D LOL

Garry B wrote:Hahahaha... why would a single engine fighter be cheaper and less complex than a twin engined fighter?

The cost of 1 F-35 is about 100 million US-$ and the cost of 1 F-135 engine is 13 million US-$. That's quite more than "nothing"! For 100 fighter this means 1,3 billion US-$ only for the engines, and hypothetic 2,6 billion US-$ if the F-35 would be a twin-engine fighter with the same engine.

Complexity woud be the same, the difference is you have only to maintain one engine and not 2!

LMFS wrote:

Hole wrote:It was a political decision by Gorbachev to declare one engined aircraft unsafe to have a reason to scrap them (one-sided disarmament to please the west).

Do you have by chance any further reading on that?

Azi wrote:Russia need a fighter in the class of F-16 or F-35. A cheap and not so complex fighter in high numbers, becaus quantity is a quality of it's own Wink

We have discussed this in the LMFS thread. Issue with modern fighters is that the weight of avionics on the total cost has increased massively since early 4G to our days due to the evolution from single to multirole design. And then, with 5G, min. weight and cost increased again, massively, due to LO requirements and even more advanced avionics. So even when a smaller, single engine fighter is the best chance to attain numbers as you (IMO correctly) say, I remain sceptic as to what the savings would be compared to a two-engine fighter. Weight of the airframe is not anymore the decisive cost driver, considering a modern Western radar costs ca. 10 million and the engine a similar value (F135-PW-100, US$ 13.3M per LRIP 9, F135-PW-600, US$ 19.05M). And then, all 5G fighters have abandoned cheaper airframe layouts like single keel (F-16) and are using complex and expensive aero configurations, massive percentage of composites and advanced alloys, RAS/RAM and high precision manufacturing, so also in this aspect they have gone high-tech and correspondingly expensive. Add to this that they are extremely complex to use, which turns their pilots into absolute elites which are implicitly scarce too. So, everything goes against the goal of making them dirt-cheap for mass production.

Everything you wrote is correct! Avionics increased in weight, but power and thrust of engines increased the same way

Yes of course a single engine fighter costs not 50% of a powerful twin-engine design, but if you can save only little money this will stack. If you go for huge numbers there is a difference to pay a few billion US-$ more or less.

I'm not against twin-engine designs, I want both, the perfect mix between them But from my opionon RuAF makes a great mistake procure only twin-engine fighter. The USA did the mistake with F-35 making it too much multi-role, without a proper specialization, so every F-35 is completly overloaded with too fancy shit.

Azi wrote:Sorry, but safety is not the reason for a twin engine design. It's only perfomance! One of the best western fighter designs is the cheap and light F-16 and it's in general not more or less safe than a F-18 or F-15. All single-engine fighters of USSR were death-traps? Not safe enough?

The whole concept of the F-35 is based on a light (single-engine) multi-role fighter. To have a few thousands light multi-role fighter or have not a single one, because of stupid "safety-reason" is a big difference. For russian forces future will be maybe 250 great Su-57, a few hundreds remnants of the Su-27 series and maybe 100 Mig-31 against THOUSANDS of F-35  and hundreds F-22, F-18 and so on. And you will for sure tell me now, that the kill ratio of Su-57 against F-35 will be more than 10:1? It's not about a conflict defending Russia, that scenario will go maybe nuclear very quick so not realistic, but a scenario like Syria, to project power and defend allies.

There is much bla bla about the future belongs to UCAV, but it won't. Maybe in 50 or 100 years. The AI of UCAV'S can't compete with humans, so remote control is the option, but in a heavy EW zone complete useless. Best example is Iran landing high tech UAV of USA a few years ago ;D LOL

Garry B wrote:Hahahaha... why would a single engine fighter be cheaper and less complex than a twin engined fighter?

The cost of 1 F-35 is about 100 million US-$ and the cost of 1 F-135 engine is 13 million US-$. That's quite more than "nothing"! For 100 fighter this means 1,3 billion US-$ only for the engines, and hypothetic 2,6 billion US-$ if the F-35 would be a twin-engine fighter with the same engine.

Complexity woud be the same, the difference is you have only to maintain one engine and not 2!

Just for record, the F/A-18 F404 engine cost 5.3 million $ each, less than half of the money needed for one F-135.
The single engine require more and longer maintenance than the twin engine on any aircraft. Simply because the lack of redundancy.
Check the ocean crossing requirements of the jet engines , for TWO engine aircrafts.

Anyway, USA can deploy only hundreds of f35s for the invasion of Russia, not thousands. That expecting to withdraw every aircraft from every other theatre , and leave the USA mainland naked against the Chinese/ Indian / Russian / European cruise missiles.