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
Isos wrote:Wtf is "specific gravity" ? The engine is better on Mars ?
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.
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 can't maintain cables abd you think they could maintain two EM system one for take off one for landing ?
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.
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.
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.
Wtf is "specific gravity" ? The engine is better on Mars ?
They don't require wind to land... the arrester cables don't require ship speed or wind speed to work.
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...
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.
Weight is a combination of gravity and mass...
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
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!Militarov wrote:Ah, good old, "нет аналогов в мире".
In this case, the antennas are distributed from the Su-57 throughout the body.
You said it's possible to land without cables by using low speed and accelerate ship to max speed in the wind...
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.
I'm answering to the speculation that you made about the possibility of landing without cables. Why are you talking about take off
Then we agree.
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.
BTW, if they surpassed F135 T/W ratio they deserve credit, lots of it.
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.
BTW, if they surpassed F135 T/W ratio they deserve credit, lots of it. wrote:
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.Arrow wrote:We do not know the izd-30 parameters. It is hard to compare this engine to F-135.
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.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...
If the izd.30 is really surpassing the F135, than it's a great news.LMFS wrote: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.Arrow wrote:We do not know the izd-30 parameters. It is hard to compare this engine to F-135.
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.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.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...
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.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.
Do you have by chance any further reading on that?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).
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.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
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.
Hole wrote:Yefim Gordon writes about it in Soviet Tactical Aviation and a few other books.
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.Garry B wrote:Hahahaha... why would a single engine fighter be cheaper and less complex than a twin engined fighter?
Everything you wrote is correct! Avionics increased in weight, but power and thrust of engines increased the same wayLMFS wrote:Do you have by chance any further reading on that?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).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.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
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 LOLThe 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.Garry B wrote:Hahahaha... why would a single engine fighter be cheaper and less complex than a twin engined fighter?
Complexity woud be the same, the difference is you have only to maintain one engine and not 2!