I have a question:
we have always evaluated the level of -DB from the photos of the prototypes. Looking at this photo is it right to suppose that the difference between -DB of an F-35 is reduced at least by 30-50%?
GarryB wrote:We have seen very worn F-35s where the quality of the stealth would be in serious question... so the better question would be could useful RCS levels be achieved and maintained in peacetime let alone in war time...
Does the extra money spent on much higher levels of stealth actually pay off at all?
tanino wrote:I have a question:
we have always evaluated the level of -DB from the photos of the prototypes. Looking at this photo is it right to suppose that the difference between -DB of an F-35 is reduced at least by 30-50%?
tanino wrote:But more surprising is certainly the mounting between two sections in the upper part of the J-20, very similar to the mounting of sections of the J-20, which so worried the Americans).
tanino wrote:LMFS:
I'm sorry, I misunderstood.
on the second production vehicle (I see the photos), you can clearly see that the rivets and the lining have a more signature reduction oriented arrangement, even with the use of RAM.
In your opinion experts the overall reduction (compared to the prototypes) will be very strong? Let's say not obviously 0.0001 sqm but certainly better than 0.2 sqm...
tanino likes this post
limb wrote:But lmfs I think said something counts as supercruise only if its 1.8m+ like the F-22. Su-57 allegedly will only be able to achieve 1.6m with izd.30, and currently its below that.
limb wrote:But lmfs I think said something counts as supercruise only if its 1.8m+ like the F-22. Su-57 allegedly will only be able to achieve 1.6m with izd.30, and currently its below that.
What are the reasons that the Su-57 with the current engines can't supercruise when it has a higher T/W ratio than the F-22, due to it being lighter due to no S-Ducts?
miketheterrible wrote:It can super cruise. Su-35 can and uses same engines.
Isos wrote:I wonder what are the drawbacks of supercruising and if it's worth it.
Begome likes this post
Its pathetic how the world's biggest economy cant keep the RAM coating of its flagship fighters in shape. I doubt about the engine though. The Americans are the absolute leader in jet engine technology(at least by 20 years compared to every other nation, because they created the F119 in the late 90s while russia is still testing its equivalent). Im sure they have some super classified superalloy that can withstand supercruise without shortening engine life much. Also why would engine life be shortened during supercruise compared to afterburner?Isos wrote:I wonder what are the drawbacks of supercruising and if it's worth it.
If it destroys the engine 2 or 3 times faster than normal cruise speed it's useless. Same for fuel consumption.
It for sure destroy RAM coating faster on f-22 faster than normal cruising. It's not cheap to repaint it after every flight.
limb wrote:The Americans are the absolute leader in jet engine technology(at least by 20 years compared to every other nation, because they created the F119 in the late 90s while russia is still testing its equivalent).
Im sure they have some super classified superalloy that can withstand supercruise without shortening engine life much. Also why would engine life be shortened during supercruise compared to afterburner?
The only way to make a jet engine run as hot as possible is to have extremely advanced alloys, more advanced than anything any other nation has.LMFS wrote:limb wrote:The Americans are the absolute leader in jet engine technology(at least by 20 years compared to every other nation, because they created the F119 in the late 90s while russia is still testing its equivalent).
The Russians were developing the equivalent of the high-end engine for the ATF at the same time than Americans were doing, that was the original AL-41F /izd. 20). It was a VCE equivalent to the YF120, which was way more advanced than YF119. So by that time they had almost closed the gap, of course then the 90's came and the gap opened again. Now US has a substantial advantage in adaptive engines, though Russia is looking into that too. What we don't know is what kind of engine izd. 30 will be, it may be way more advanced than F119. Add to the specific thrust argument I mentioned above, that of SFC equivalent to AL-31F and other comments by Marchukov stating the engine is not 5G but rather 5G+. The issue for US is that when Russia fields the second stage engine, they could leapfrog the F-22 in terms of propulsion.
Im sure they have some super classified superalloy that can withstand supercruise without shortening engine life much. Also why would engine life be shortened during supercruise compared to afterburner?
A crucial parameter there is TIT, the F135 runs substantially hotter (almost 600ºF) than the F119.
I dont think 2.7 tons is that much of a difference though. Thankfully there are ways to maximise aircraft performance with weaker engines, and the soviets did that throughout the cold war and WW2, and the Su-57 is also made with advanced aerodynamic features to reduce drag and weight. The yak-9s and yak-3s outperformed the FW-190 in terms of speed and climb rate even though their engines were weaker by 300-400hp. I think the Su-57 can possibly outperform the F-22 in supercruise and speed because of that.LMFS wrote:We cannot exactly know the thrust reduction of US and Russian engines while cruising in altitude compared to spec values which are given in uninstalled conditions, but of course an engine like the F119 which is essentially a turbojet (bypass ratio is only 0.3:1) with very high dry thrust (ca. 11.7 tf from what we know) is head and shoulders above any AL-31F derived engine with way higher BPR (0.57:1 IIRC) and way lower dry thrust (9-9.5 for izd. 117).
limb wrote:The only way to make a jet engine run as hot as possible is to have extremely advanced alloys, more advanced than anything any other nation has.
I honestly am skeptical if it will bridge the gap without acquiring western tech like what
The F135 truly has no analogues and is far more advanced than even the izd.30,
being able to achieve a whopping 195kN with AB and run at the highest temperatures of any engine in the world.
I guess the Americans became so advanced in engine construction and material science that other aspects of aircraft design regressed.
even more perplexing is why the americans havent built a fighter with 2 F135s yet.
I dont think 2.7 tons is that much of a difference though. Thankfully there are ways to maximise aircraft performance with weaker engines, and the soviets did that throughout the cold war and WW2, and the Su-57 is also made with advanced aerodynamic features to reduce drag and weight. The yak-9s and yak-3s outperformed the FW-190 in terms of speed and climb rate even though their engines were weaker by 300-400hp. I think the Su-57 can possibly outperform the F-22 in supercruise and speed because of that.
Begome likes this post
Flying high and fast is equivalent to having high ground on a land battle, it allows you to hit the enemy while the enemy cannot hit back at you. It is the kind of unfair advantage everyone wants to count on when battling...
Also why would engine life be shortened during supercruise compared to afterburner?
thegopnik wrote:Besides DIRCM, jamming and pulling kulbits if a missile tails you are there any other countermeasures this aircraft has like chaffs, flares or mini missile APS?
magnumcromagnon wrote:thegopnik wrote:Besides DIRCM, jamming and pulling kulbits if a missile tails you are there any other countermeasures this aircraft has like chaffs, flares or mini missile APS?
1.) Chaff and flares would be apart of the DIRCM suite, that's why it's called Direct Infrared Counter-Measures.
2.) The Morphei missile will be the mini missile active protection system that your talking about, it'll be apart of the Su-57's defense suite.
Isos wrote:Yeah but if that advantage is sutainable for few hours and then you need 2 day rest, it sucks.
Afterburner gives you the same advantage but only when really needed and it doesn't really change the outcome of the battle.
F35 is newer and used in numbers ten times higher than f-22 and doesn't have supercruising. F-22 doesn't even supercruuse all the time.
Supercruising means reaching high speeds above the mach 1 without afterburner which is more complicated than staying at mach 0.8. That means the engine is more stressed and pushed to its limits.
Driving your car at 170 when its max speed is 180 is gonna destroy it faster than driving it at 120 and sometimes push at 170.
Do you have a source I cant find the morphei missile APS anywhere? We have too many Su-57 threads and when I try to search for it there are like a bunch of users talking about it and I never heard of a morphei missile on a su-57
thegopnik likes this post
e really don't know what is the technological level of the izd. 30 so we cannot say. If the engine is not a VCE, then it must have substantially better technology than the F119. Higher specific thrust + estimated 20% lower SFC at the same time talk about way higher TIT and OPR than one of the best engines worldwide, the other option is that it is a VCE and then it may have worse technological parameters than the F135 but compensate that with a superior layout. wrote:
Big_Gazza and 1ffmm like this post
But lmfs I think said something counts as supercruise only if its 1.8m+ like the F-22. Su-57 allegedly will only be able to achieve 1.6m with izd.30, and currently its below that.
I wonder what are the drawbacks of supercruising and if it's worth it.
If it destroys the engine 2 or 3 times faster than normal cruise speed it's useless. Same for fuel consumption.
It for sure destroy RAM coating faster on f-22 faster than normal cruising. It's not cheap to repaint it after every flight.
There are and have been other planes capable of flying faster than 1 M on mil thrust, but what would be the use of doing that, unless the increase in speed is substantial?
> The intakes of the Su-57 are notably bigger than those of the F-22, and they are adjustable, needed for flight speeds between 2 < M < 3. Pressure recovery of fixed intakes is not really good approaching 2 M. That should mean more air should be available to the engine at high altitude and speed.
Flying high and fast is equivalent to having high ground on a land battle, it allows you to hit the enemy while the enemy cannot hit back at you. It is the kind of unfair advantage everyone wants to count on when battling...
Im sure they have some super classified superalloy that can withstand supercruise without shortening engine life much.
The issue for US is that when Russia fields the second stage engine, they could leapfrog the F-22 in terms of propulsion.
Also why would engine life be shortened during supercruise compared to afterburner?
Russia truly had achieved parity in engine construction in the late 80s, but the collapse of the USSR has kept it 20 years behind, and I honestly am skeptical if it will bridge the gap without acquiring western tech like what
they did with the nene. Modern material science is too complex to be quickly mastered.
The F135 truly has no analogues and is far more advanced than even the izd.30, being able to achieve a whopping 195kN with AB and run at the highest temperatures of any engine in the world.
I guess the Americans became so advanced in engine construction and material science that other aspects of aircraft design regressed. even more perplexing is why the americans havent built a fighter with 2 F135s yet.
Thankfully there are ways to maximise aircraft performance with weaker engines, and the soviets did that throughout the cold war and WW2,
Besides DIRCM, jamming and pulling kulbits if a missile tails you are there any other countermeasures this aircraft has like chaffs, flares or mini missile APS?
Afterburner gives you the same advantage but only when really needed and it doesn't really change the outcome of the battle.
IMO it's like having a car of 500hp in a city full of red lights. At the end the small car with 80hp does the same job at the same speed but the 500hp car cost 10 times more...
Supercruising means reaching high speeds above the mach 1 without afterburner which is more complicated than staying at mach 0.8. That means the engine is more stressed and pushed to its limits.
Driving your car at 170 when its max speed is 180 is gonna destroy it faster than driving it at 120 and sometimes push at 170.
1.) Chaff and flares would be apart of the DIRCM suite, that's why it's called Direct Infrared Counter-Measures.
Do you have a source I cant find the morphei missile APS anywhere? We have too many Su-57 threads and when I try to search for it there are like a bunch of users talking about it and I never heard of a morphei missile on a su-57
o the Russian level of aircraft engines is at the US level.
|
|