Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #5

AFAIK 99% mass of earth's atmosphere is below 50km. Flying gin very thin layers actually helps you to loose fraction to air compression and friction. So yes, you jump and dive

Climbing up to this lower friction area requires moving against gravity, which slows the missile. Missiles do this in early stages of flight, when climbing up to operational altitude, on which they fly most of the path. In this phase they offset the loss of speed due to climbing up with having engine turned on. Once they get up there and shut their engine down, all the maneuvering should be yawing and rolling and no pitching.

 IT is more bout principle not radius or circle, ti is bout that trajectory cn be changed in flight.

If AEGIS ships will be located too densely, Kinzhal may have a lot of moving to do to pass in between unnoticed. Many turns slow the the missile down, so it will have to be used in big numbers to guarranty a hit.

 Same with height. Why not say loose form 50km to 40 to keep speed despite manouveing?

I haven't seen any basis for assuming so high altitude. Anyway the missile should fly on a depressed ballistic trajectory, so it won't be as free as CMs to move anywhere. In the final stage it will be gradually decreasing, but the effect on speed is questionable, because the air drag will increase, too.

AAD envelope decreases rapidly. Why Kizhal would go lower?

The AAD altitudes alone aren't a problem in the US with their endo and exo athmospheric daydreaming. The thing is a ballistic trajectory is a particular thing. If those analysts say it has a range of cca 1000 km and a ceiling of 20 km...a ceiling of 40 km would mean it has a range of 5000 km.

why decoys? you loose MiG to decoy carrier? did Orlans or Anteys use Granit without warheds?  

Decoys are smaller then real warheads. 3-headed Kinzhal could carry 2 heads and 5 decoys.

Perhaps making Su-57 extreme STOL ?

S in VSTOL would be more useful than V. Since T-50 needs 330 m to takeoff, Su-57 with izdeliye 30 and lightly armed could take off the Kuznetsov with only light changes in design.

if you don't know where it is going to be in 10 or 20 seconds time how can you launch missiles to be there when it gets there?

Slower speed means trajectory doesn't change so much after a turn, so you fire many interceptors and increase the chance of a hit as much as you can. Kinzhal's good, but not without flaws.

Think of an attacking carrier group

I'm thinking about the last SU-US naval standoff and the ships were spread wide around Cuba. You hit one, communications dead, how do 10 other destroyers know what's going on if it's outside visible range? Besides orders are everything. Captain tells Pentagon what's happened and if they tell him to find till the last seaman, guess what happens. Imagine Trump pulling tail between his legs?

Now how long is Venezuelan coastline? Try to block all the ports, naval bases and oil rigs with Burkes and let's see if 10 existing Mig-31K are enough.

so as quick as they can build them they can deploy them.

But then again Russians are known to be some smart planners, not wanting to bankrupt like SU. How much's a Zircon and how many cells are in the navy now.

verkhoturye51 wrote:

AFAIK 99% mass of earth's atmosphere is below 50km. Flying gin very thin layers actually helps you to loose fraction to air compression and friction. So yes, you jump and dive

Climbing up to this lower friction area requires moving against gravity, which slows the missile. Missiles do this in early stages of flight, when climbing up to operational altitude, on which they fly most of the path. In this phase they offset the loss of speed due to climbing up with having engine turned on. Once they get up there and shut their engine down, all the maneuvering should be yawing and rolling and no pitching.

moving up is generally against  gravity        but that's why you have first stage/booster. Why not pitching ? little energy loss vs. huge AAM countermeasure

BTW what  is roll value in evasive maneuvers?      

V51 wrote:

 IT is more bout principle not radius or circle, ti is bout that trajectory cn be changed in flight.

If AEGIS ships will be located too densely, Kinzhal may have a lot of moving to do to pass in between unnoticed. Many turns slow the the missile down, so it will have to be used in big numbers to guarranty a hit.

Is there any missile lunched not in salvos in this case? . AFAIR In 80 Soviets  assumed that  20 Onyx is enough to take down CSG.
AEGIS ? they will be located as they always do. To protect CVN.  

BTW why would you  assume Russian military requiring specific characteristics didnt know  characteristic & doctrine  of AEGIS application ?

V51 wrote:

 Same with height. Why not say loose form 50km to 40 to keep speed despite manouveing?

I haven't seen any basis for assuming so high altitude. Anyway the missile should fly on a depressed ballistic trajectory, so it won't be as free as CMs to move anywhere. In the final stage it will be gradually decreasing, but the effect on speed is questionable, because the air drag will increase, too.

Kh-22 ->.......27km
Kh-32 ->.......40km
Iskander ->..100km+
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4305705


If I understand  you correctly  MiG-31 on 20km launches horizontally Kinzhal? I haven't seen any source with low altitude.
It is actually contradicting well known " Putin's vid". 1:50. MiG-31 lunches Kinzhal nd it flies upon  steep trajectory first.

V51 wrote:

AAD envelope decreases rapidly. Why Kizhal would go lower?

The AAD altitudes alone aren't a problem in the US with their endo and exo athmospheric daydreaming. The thing is a ballistic trajectory is a particular thing. If those analysts say it has a range of cca 1000 km and a ceiling of 20 km...a ceiling of 40 km would mean it has a range of 5000 km.

what range 5000km? what ballistic trajectory? mind to elaborate?      

BTW US interceptors  missiles are not to shot maneuvering targets on 30-50 km but  ICBM warheads flying on ballistic trajectory.  That's why all those   hypersonic  weapons  are so dangerous to US.

V51 wrote:

Perhaps making Su-57 extreme STOL ?

S in VSTOL would be more useful than V. Since T-50 needs 330 m to takeoff, Su-57 with izdeliye 30 and lightly armed could take off the Kuznetsov with only light changes in design.

True 330m is with low payload + high fuel   consumption . But this makes usage of large fighter in low numbers with low payload not really good choice.

V51 wrote:Kinzhal's good, but not without flaws.

Agreed, but IMHO it wot lst long. Better lighter missiles will come into service.

V51 wrote:

Think of an attacking carrier group

I'm thinking about the last SU-US naval standoff and the ships were spread wide around Cuba. You hit one,

You're right. Looks nice but then we need to assume there is possible "tactical nuclear war" possible. hat i dont see it happening.

V51 wrote:Now how long is Venezuelan coastline? Try to block all the ports, naval bases and oil rigs with Burkes and let's see if 10 existing Mig-31K are enough.

Shore based Bastion with Zircons? half way to florida?

BTW Caracas Tama  is like 2,500km ...with Kinzhal you can shoot on US mainland      

V51 wrote: But then again Russians are known to be some smart planners, not wanting to bankrupt like SU. How much's a Zircon and how many cells are in the navy now.

GZURs is planned 50 per year. But I think it depends manly  on geopolitical situation .

Lads although Kinzhal discussion is very interesting but this is PAK-FA thread. Perhaps admin can move those posts to the relevant thread?





https://www.sukhoi.org/press/news/ministerstvo-oborony-rf-sertifitsirovalo-noveyshuyu-operatsionnuyu-sistemu-realnogo-vremeni-bagros-4.html

Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation certified the latest real-time operating system “Bagros-4000” for multi-core processors, developed by PJSC “Company“ Sukhoi ”

Moscow, February 26. Certification of the “BagrOS-4000” OSRV on information protection requirements in 8 Directorate of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces was completed. OS RV "BagrOS-4000" can be used to process information containing information constituting state secrets and having a degree of secrecy "top secret".

The “BagrOS-4000” RTOS is successfully used in the Su-57 aircraft and is ready for use in the avionics of advanced and modernized aircraft.

The BagrOS-4000 RTOS allows importing to replace such well-known foreign RTOSs as VxWorks and Integrity (USA), QNX (Canada) and PikeOS (Germany).

Among the possibilities of RTOS should be noted:

Support for multi-core processor architectures Elbrus, MIPS64, PowerPC, ARMv7, Intel x86;
Support standards ARINC 653 and POSIX;
Developed tools for developing application programs.
More detailed information about OS RV "BagrOS-4000" is given on the page: Technical description OS RV "BagrOS-4000"

Climbing up to this lower friction area requires moving against gravity, which slows the missile. Missiles do this in early stages of flight, when climbing up to operational altitude, on which they fly most of the path. In this phase they offset the loss of speed due to climbing up with having engine turned on. Once they get up there and shut their engine down, all the maneuvering should be yawing and rolling and no pitching.

Any energy they use climbing up they will get back coming down, but the higher they go the less drag and faster they can move for a given level of engine thrust...

He meant the altitude in which the missile travels: Kh-22 20km, Kh-32 40km.

I read in books about the F-14 in the 1990s after information was revealed from newly available Russian sources that the Kh-22M operated at different heights and one was the 40km height specifically to overfly the US fleet air defence systems... the Kh-32 didn't exist then...
Perhaps the model they were talking about was an upgraded version of the Kh-22, because there was a family of missiles with different guidance and warheads.

The main reason for the Kh-32 to travel at this altitude is to maximize the range of its radar against his prefered prey: aircraft carriers.

They don't launch them at empty space in the hope it can find something, most of their long range anti ship missiles acquired their targets in flight on their way to the target area... it doesn't fly that fast to need to detect the target at extended ranges to be able to find and hit them.

If AEGIS ships will be located too densely, Kinzhal may have a lot of moving to do to pass in between unnoticed. Many turns slow the the missile down, so it will have to be used in big numbers to guarranty a hit.

The big circles around AEGIS class ships is the effective range of their SAMs to hit normal aircraft... if you reduced the size of those circles to show the distance at which they can shoot down mach 9 or mach 10 manouvering non ballistic targets there would not be a circle...

I haven't seen any basis for assuming so high altitude. Anyway the missile should fly on a depressed ballistic trajectory, so it won't be as free as CMs to move anywhere. In the final stage it will be gradually decreasing, but the effect on speed is questionable, because the air drag will increase, too.

Operating at high altitude offers a lot of benefits... including lower drag, and being out of reach of enemy air defences... any energy lost getting to such altitudes pays off in lower drag and extended range in the thinner colder air, and that energy to climb is returned when it descends on the target.

When operating at 20km altitude the original Kh-22 flys at mach 3... it doens't reach mach 3 in the climb up to that altitude... it normally gets to that altitude at mach 1.5 or so and then levels off and accelerates to mach 3, and when it gets to the target it enters a 30 degree dive and normally accelerates to mach 4.2 by the point of impact with the ship at sea level.

The AAD altitudes alone aren't a problem in the US with their endo and exo athmospheric daydreaming. The thing is a ballistic trajectory is a particular thing. If those analysts say it has a range of cca 1000 km and a ceiling of 20 km...a ceiling of 40 km would mean it has a range of 5000 km.

It does not have a ballistic trajectory... that is the point... if it did then it would be easily interceptable... the S-400 can intercept targets moving at 4.8km per second which, as you can work out pretty quickly is rather faster than the 2.8km per second that Kinzhal moves at, or the roughly 2.5km/s the Zircon will be moving at... their speed in not the primary factor in the ability of the Americans to intercept them or not, it is the fact that they fly like a plane... they do not follow a predictable flight path or trajectory curve.

The altitude an aircraft climbs to means nothing in regard to the distance it will travel in terms of flight distance.

Decoys are smaller then real warheads. 3-headed Kinzhal could carry 2 heads and 5 decoys.

Kinzhal is based on the Iskander, which reportedly has one warhead but also carries jammers and decoys that can be released in flight... against similar targets I would assume the same for the air launched model.

S in VSTOL would be more useful than V. Since T-50 needs 330 m to takeoff, Su-57 with izdeliye 30 and lightly armed could take off the Kuznetsov with only light changes in design.

The Su-33 is bigger and heavier, with more drag and less powerful engines than those currently fitted to the Su-57 and with a full internal weapon load I would suspect the Su-57 even with its current engines could easily take off from the Kuznetsov... though landing without a tailhook might be an issue.

Slower speed means trajectory doesn't change so much after a turn, so you fire many interceptors and increase the chance of a hit as much as you can. Kinzhal's good, but not without flaws.

Slower speed means the interception points are not so far away from the missile, that doesn't mean you can intercept it... even with dozens of interceptors...

Besides orders are everything. Captain tells Pentagon what's happened and if they tell him to find till the last seaman, guess what happens. Imagine Trump pulling tail between his legs?

And American commander told British commander to attack VDV position at Pristina airport and the Brit told the Yank where to go...

After the fourth of 5th ship is hit and sinks the others are not going to stick around and trump wont have any say in the matter... the commander of the group was likely on the carrier... the first to get hit...

Now how long is Venezuelan coastline? Try to block all the ports, naval bases and oil rigs with Burkes and let's see if 10 existing Mig-31K are enough.

They can sink any ship that gets within 2,000km of their current flight location... they don't need to unblock all the ports at once or free all the oil rigs at once...

But then again Russians are known to be some smart planners, not wanting to bankrupt like SU. How much's a Zircon and how many cells are in the navy now.

Each of their new corvettes have 8 tubes... newer ones might have 16. Their new Frigates have 16 tubes but may get more... we were expecting their destroyers to have 32 but they are talking about over 100, which would be 102 at least as they are in multiples of 8.

Scramjet engines are not expensive exotic material fan blades, they are shapes and burn rates and computer controlled fuel systems... they could easily mass produce those in enormous numbers...

Lads although Kinzhal discussion is very interesting but this is PAK-FA thread. Perhaps admin can move those posts to the relevant thread?

Will do.

The radar of the Kh-22 had to see the target before launch, that´s why its range was much shorter when launched from a low flying carrier. The Kh-32 receives the known coordinates of the target and is launched, its radar starts searching afterwards.

Interesting article on Izd. 30 and further developments:

https://nplus1.ru/material/2019/03/06/engines

> Specific weight below 0.1 (no big surprise here since IIRC AL-41F1 already below that value)
> Specific fuel consumption similar to AL-31F but with better specific thrust (thrust / airflow), which should indicate similar bypass ratio but higher temperature. It was previously said that Izd. 30 would surpass current examples domestic and foreign in terms of specific weight, fuel consumption and thrust.
> Unclear comment regarding the engine being variable cycle (??)
"Compared to engines of the fourth generation the fifth was added cruising supersonic movement — the engine should have a variable bypass ratio.
«По сравнению с двигателями четвертого поколения в пятом добавилась возможность крейсерского сверхзвукового движения — для этого двигатель должен обладать изменяемой степенью двухконтурности.
> In any case they confirm being working on the subsequent generation which will be variable cycle
> First serial units of Su-57confirmed with AL-41F1, Izd. 30 to be used from middle of 2020's onwards.
> Confirmed design for low radar and IR visibility

LMFS wrote:Interesting article on Izd. 30 and further developments:

https://nplus1.ru/material/2019/03/06/engines

> Specific weight below 0.1 (no big surprise here since IIRC AL-41F1 already below that value)
> Specific fuel consumption similar to AL-31F but with better specific thrust (thrust / airflow), which should indicate similar bypass ratio but higher temperature. It was previously said that Izd. 30 would surpass current examples domestic and foreign in terms of specific weight, fuel consumption and thrust.
> Unclear comment regarding the engine being variable cycle (??)
"Compared to engines of the fourth generation the fifth was added cruising supersonic movement — the engine should have a variable bypass ratio.
«По сравнению с двигателями четвертого поколения в пятом добавилась возможность крейсерского сверхзвукового движения — для этого двигатель должен обладать изменяемой степенью двухконтурности.
> In any case they confirm being working on the subsequent generation which will be variable cycle
> First serial units of Su-57confirmed with AL-41F1, Izd. 30 to be used from middle of 2020's onwards.
> Confirmed design for low radar and IR visibility

Great find! If i may add something...

>For the new engine, which will be installed on Su-57 fighters from the mid-2020s, a flat nozzle is being developed
However, this same technical solution introduces additional resistance for exhausting gases, due to which the engine characteristics deteriorate on average by 2-3 percent.

It is not yet known whether the flat nozzle will be part of the propulsion system with the “Product 30” at the base. Today, this engine is tested with a conventional nozzle.

>A serious aspect of the new engine is also reducing the cost of the life cycle of the machine - less maintenance costs, more overhaul resource

GarryB wrote:

no, Kh-32 does

Why would the Kh-32 be designed to avoid F-14s and Phoenix missiles.... there are none in service now...

km
why would you mix obsolete F-14 here? SM6 max ceiling is 33km

Russia already tested flat nozzles back in the 80´s on a modified Su-27. If they wanted them (for whatever reason) they would fit them to the Su-57.

Why would the Kh-32 be designed to avoid F-14s and Phoenix missiles.... there are none in service now...

Because when a Kh-22 replacement program was started it was because F-14 + Phoenix was able to shoot down Tu-22M + Kh-22.

km
why would you mix obsolete F-14 here? SM6 max ceiling is 33km

SM6 performance is hardly relevant to the design of the Kh-22... it didn't exist then...

The F-14 and Phoenix missiles and Standard 2 missiles did exist and the 40km altitude was to over fly them... the Phoenix flys at between 24km and 30km altitude on its way to its target so it can dive down on most targets...

Russia already tested flat nozzles back in the 80´s on a modified Su-27. If they wanted them (for whatever reason) they would fit them to the Su-57.

I remember when the F-22 was revealed and it was said only flat square nozzles would allow thrust vector engine control.

The Su-27 did carry such an engine nozzle and it was found it improved IR signature by increasing the rate at which the cold air and the hot air mixed because the square shape reduced thrust by about 15% because of the turbulence it created.

It was only some time later than the Americans revealed round engine nozzles with thrust vector performance, but they have not really deployed them...

GarryB wrote:

km
why would you mix obsolete F-14 here? SM6 max ceiling is 33km

SM6 performance is hardly relevant to the design of the Kh-22... it didn't exist then...

The F-14 and Phoenix missiles and Standard 2 missiles did exist and the 40km altitude was to over fly them... the Phoenix flys at between 24km and 30km altitude on its way to its target so it can dive down on most targets...

I was talking about Kh-32 not Kh-22. But regardless on type of missile envelope to intercept something flying at 40,000m with speed of 1,500km/s is fairly small.


BTW I know you're in love with 80s but F-14 are long dead now, Phoenix alike.

I was talking about Kh-32 not Kh-22. But regardless on type of missile envelope to intercept something flying at 40,000m with speed of 1,500km/s is fairly small.

Can't argue there... no matter what altitude.... anything moving at 1,500km/s would be a difficult target for anything... even laser based... it could orbit the planet in about 30 seconds for goodness sake... 

BTW I know you're in love with 80s but F-14 are long dead now, Phoenix alike.

F-14 still in operational service in Iran... and Topgun...

Even in the Iraq war the F-14 couldn´t hit anything with the all-mighty (sarcasm) Phoenix. The radar of the AIM-54 had only a narrow field of view. A small evasive maneuver and it lost sight.

GarryB wrote:

I was talking about Kh-32 not Kh-22. But regardless on type of missile envelope to intercept something flying at 40,000m with speed of 1,500km/s is fairly small.

Can't argue there... no matter what altitude.... anything moving at 1,500km/s would be a difficult target for anything... even laser based... it could orbit the planet in about 30 seconds for goodness sake... 

Kinzhal flies 3km/s... from 40km gets down in 13 seconds. Try ti hit it. Good luck with that.
OK Tom Cruise could but only him.

Hole wrote:Even in the Iraq war the F-14 couldn´t hit anything with the all-mighty (sarcasm) Phoenix. The radar of the AIM-54 had only a narrow field of view. A small evasive maneuver and it lost sight.

This is because Iraqis didnt watch Top Gun nd more seriously. Phoenix s loooong range missile wasn't for dog fighting.

GB wrote: F-14 still in operational service in ... and Topgun...

Touche, now Im convinced

LMFS wrote:Interesting article on Izd. 30 and further developments:

https://nplus1.ru/material/2019/03/06/engines

> Specific weight below 0.1 (no big surprise here since IIRC AL-41F1 already below that value)
> Specific fuel consumption similar to AL-31F but with better specific thrust (thrust / airflow), which should indicate similar bypass ratio but higher temperature. It was previously said that Izd. 30 would surpass current examples domestic and foreign in terms of specific weight, fuel consumption and thrust.
> Unclear comment regarding the engine being variable cycle (??)
"Compared to engines of the fourth generation the fifth was added cruising supersonic movement — the engine should have a variable bypass ratio.
«По сравнению с двигателями четвертого поколения в пятом добавилась возможность крейсерского сверхзвукового движения — для этого двигатель должен обладать изменяемой степенью двухконтурности.
> In any case they confirm being working on the subsequent generation which will be variable cycle
> First serial units of Su-57confirmed with AL-41F1, Izd. 30 to be used from middle of 2020's onwards.
> Confirmed design for low radar and IR visibility

So is VCE in Izd 30 Engine or Not ?

What is the great leap in technology from 117 to Izd 30 engine ? Other than Thrust and Less number of stages I dont see any great advancement

Austin wrote:So is VCE in Izd 30 Engine or Not ?

That is exactly the argument I expected people to be having now  

To be brief, I am not sure, so I would ask Russian-speaking members to take a look at the original interview and try to come to a conclusion. But, the more I read the translation, the more it seems to me the designer is pointing out clearly that, in order to make an efficient supercruising engine, you NEED a VCE. This is consistent with other people stating that Izd. 117 is already capable of supercruising but does not completely fulfil the expectations of a 5G engine.

From the article:

In the USSR and then in Russia, this engine was "the Product 20". It planned to install developed by the Corporation "MiG" MiG-1.44 MFI. Then came the "Product 30"
Izd. 20 was already a VCE in the first place

"Compared to engines of the fourth generation the fifth was added cruising supersonic movement — the engine should have a variable bypass ratio. This requirement added one specific option — specific fuel consumption at cruising supersonic speed. Also, the engine should be much less visible in the infrared and radio range. This is achieved by special design nozzles and air intake. A major aspect of the new engine is also reducing life cycle cost of the machine less the cost of maintenance, the overhaul period more", — told about the new power plants Marchuk.
This statement here, either is somehow referring some hypothetical optimized supercruising engine or is clearly indicating Izd. 30 IS a VCE.

One further aspect that suggests that the engine is indeed VCE is that it needs to create much more thrust in dry setting (compare values for instance in F119 and AL-41F1) than an engine of the previous generation AND at the same time is stated to have a cruising efficiency similar to AL-31F, which has a BPR of ca. 0.6 and is therefore by that characteristic much more efficient in that regard than a engine with low BPR (0.3) like F119 which is optimized to generate lots of thrust at supersonic speed.

So, even when it may seem far fetched when first looking at it, the fact is Russia does have the know how (apparently they invested massively in the first AL-41 for the MFI) and that the given statements and parameters would point to the engine being VCE. If true, it would really justify Russian claims of it belonging to 5G+, 6G being fully developed VCEs with three streams technology. It would also mean both very long range in subsonic and extreme performances in the supersonic range.

What is the great leap in technology from 117 to Izd 30 engine ? Other than Thrust and Less number of stages I dont see any great advancement

Even without being VCE, F119 for instance is a massive step from F110, and Izd. 30 would be too compared to engines of the AL-31 family. The capacity to withstand much higher temperatures and the smaller number of stages need great advances in technology and allow for lower maintenance / better fuel combustion / higher engine performance on their own.

Austin wrote:

LMFS wrote:Interesting article on Izd. 30 and further developments:

https://nplus1.ru/material/2019/03/06/engines

> Specific weight below 0.1 (no big surprise here since IIRC AL-41F1 already below that value)
> Specific fuel consumption similar to AL-31F but with better specific thrust (thrust / airflow), which should indicate similar bypass ratio but higher temperature. It was previously said that Izd. 30 would surpass current examples domestic and foreign in terms of specific weight, fuel consumption and thrust.
> Unclear comment regarding the engine being variable cycle (??)
"Compared to engines of the fourth generation the fifth was added cruising supersonic movement — the engine should have a variable bypass ratio.
«По сравнению с двигателями четвертого поколения в пятом добавилась возможность крейсерского сверхзвукового движения — для этого двигатель должен обладать изменяемой степенью двухконтурности.
> In any case they confirm being working on the subsequent generation which will be variable cycle
> First serial units of Su-57confirmed with AL-41F1, Izd. 30 to be used from middle of 2020's onwards.
> Confirmed design for low radar and IR visibility

So is VCE in Izd 30 Engine or Not ?

What is the great leap in technology from 117 to Izd 30 engine ? Other than Thrust and Less number of stages I dont see any great advancement

Let's say that obtaining an higher thrust diminishing the number of stages is an enormous advancement in itself:
previously the way to increase performance was to increase the numbers of said stages in order to progressively increase the velocity (for compressors) and the volume (for turbines) of the air flow.

Let's compare as an example the F-100-PW-229 3+10 compressor stages and 2+2 turbines or the GE F-110 3+9 and 2+1 turbine with the 3+6 and 1+1 of the F-119 and the 3+6 and 2+1 of the F-135.
Izd 30 would introduce the same advancement in russian engines also and would take it at an even greater level.

Even in the Iraq war the F-14 couldn´t hit anything with the all-mighty (sarcasm) Phoenix. The radar of the AIM-54 had only a narrow field of view. A small evasive maneuver and it lost sight.

The Phoenix missile wasn't the problem, the radar of the F-14 was a conventional scan radar, so while it could track 24 targets at one time and guide 6 missiles to 6 of those targets at one time at different distances and horizontal angles it was not great at scanning in height.

It could track high altitude targets and low altitude targets but not both at the same time.

The much vaunted test where it hit 6 targets at different ranges and horizontal angles... the vertical distance between targets was less than 800m.

In the case of the Iraq war with US fighters and US missiles they both missed retreating targets that were not manouvering at all... they should have gotten them.

GarryB wrote:

Even in the Iraq war the F-14 couldn´t hit anything with the all-mighty (sarcasm) Phoenix. The radar of the AIM-54 had only a narrow field of view. A small evasive maneuver and it lost sight.

The Phoenix missile wasn't the problem, the radar of the F-14 was a conventional scan radar, so while it could track 24 targets at one time and guide 6 missiles to 6 of those targets at one time at different distances and horizontal angles it was not great at scanning in height.

It could track high altitude targets and low altitude targets but not both at the same time.

The much vaunted test where it hit 6 targets at different ranges and horizontal angles... the vertical distance between targets was less than 800m.

In the case of the Iraq war with US fighters and US missiles they both missed retreating targets that were not manouvering at all... they should have gotten them.

A.t.c. operative results of F-14/Phoenix combo by the IRIAF were excellent: that because they used them in Aerial Combat Maneuvering i.e. getting in the tail of the target and closing in so to put it in the no-escape zone.
Given that the AIM-54 was an ARH missile once it is locked on, the target would not be able to counteract by changing suddenly course nor by moving faster than the F-14 (both moves negate doppler effect and so hamper sarh missile and long range radars instead)

LMFS wrote:
That is exactly the argument I expected people to be having now  

To be brief, I am not sure, so I would ask Russian-speaking members to take a look at the original interview and try to come to a conclusion. But, the more I read the translation, the more it seems to me the designer is pointing out clearly that, in order to make an efficient supercruising engine, you NEED a VCE. This is consistent with other people stating that Izd. 117 is already capable of supercruising but does not completely fulfil the expectations of a 5G engine.

From the article:

In the USSR and then in Russia, this engine was "the Product 20". It planned to install developed by the Corporation "MiG" MiG-1.44 MFI. Then came the "Product 30"
Izd. 20 was already a VCE in the first place

"Compared to engines of the fourth generation the fifth was added cruising supersonic movement — the engine should have a variable bypass ratio. This requirement added one specific option — specific fuel consumption at cruising supersonic speed. Also, the engine should be much less visible in the infrared and radio range. This is achieved by special design nozzles and air intake. A major aspect of the new engine is also reducing life cycle cost of the machine less the cost of maintenance, the overhaul period more", — told about the new power plants Marchuk.
This statement here, either is somehow referring some hypothetical optimized supercruising engine or is clearly indicating Izd. 30 IS a VCE.

One further aspect that suggests that the engine is indeed VCE is that it needs to create much more thrust in dry setting (compare values for instance in F119 and AL-41F1) than an engine of the previous generation AND at the same time is stated to have a cruising efficiency similar to AL-31F, which has a BPR of ca. 0.6 and is therefore by that characteristic much more efficient in that regard than a engine with low BPR (0.3) like F119 which is optimized to generate lots of thrust at supersonic speed.

So, even when it may seem far fetched when first looking at it, the fact is Russia does have the know how (apparently they invested massively in the first AL-41 for the MFI) and that the given statements and parameters would point to the engine being VCE. If true, it would really justify Russian claims of it belonging to 5G+, 6G being fully developed VCEs with three streams technology. It would also mean both very long range in subsonic and extreme performances in the supersonic range.

The quoted part clearly indicated Izd 30 could have a VCE , He clearly states that unless the reported mix his own personal opinion with official quotes.

Even without being VCE, F119 for instance is a massive step from F110, and Izd. 30 would be too compared to engines of the AL-31 family. The capacity to withstand much higher temperatures and the smaller number of stages need great advances in technology and allow for lower maintenance / better fuel combustion / higher engine performance on their own.

COnsidering a military engine has a life cycle of 35-40 years with upgrades , I wont consider without VCE for izd 30 its the effort worth .......It will be very dissapointing infact from my pov.

Field of view Zaslon: 18.200 sq deg.
Field of view AN/AWG-9: 420 sq deg.

"Due to the emitters low power and a small field of view the designers of the AIM-54 succeeded only in achieving a price hike but not an improvement in efficiency."

Quote from MiG-31 from Yefim Gordon.

In the end the F-14 and AIM-54 combo is a typical western weapon system. Good for PR and the pockets of the MIC.

Austin wrote:COnsidering a military engine has a life cycle of 35-40 years with upgrades , I wont consider without VCE for izd 30 its the effort worth .......It will be very dissapointing infact from my pov.

Just out of curiosity, would you consider F119 and F135 a big disappointment too?

LMFS wrote:

Austin wrote:COnsidering a military engine has a life cycle of 35-40 years with upgrades , I wont consider without VCE for izd 30 its the effort worth .......It will be very dissapointing infact from my pov.

Just out of curiosity, would you consider F119 and F135 a big disappointment too?

Yes from Technology pov its not a great achievement , both are similar to 117 Engine in terms of what they achieved , IIRC F119 has a worst T:W ratio some where around 8:1 this is from my memory , 117 has 10.5:1