Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #6

kvs wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:I think the reason was that they never used the YF was because
1) more expensive
2) Lockheed Martin has a stronger influence in US politics.

YF-23 was a rather good design and it wouldnt be a bad idea to grab some influence designs from it.

Most planes are similar to other planes.   There is way too much false attribution of originality and "copying"
inferences.  





Not so similar now.

marcellogo wrote:

kvs wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:I think the reason was that they never used the YF was because
1) more expensive
2) Lockheed Martin has a stronger influence in US politics.

YF-23 was a rather good design and it wouldnt be a bad idea to grab some influence designs from it.

Most planes are similar to other planes.   There is way too much false attribution of originality and "copying"
inferences.  





Not so similar now.

Sorry but i didn't see anything even vaguely similar in this two.
Wing is completely different, f-23 has no horizontal tail, engine placement is completely different.

Sorry, when I see a Su-57 I see the successor of the Su-27 design, when I see the F-22 a successor of F-15 and when is the case of J-20 i see an evolution of J-10 and J-9.
YF-23 bear IMHO instead just a vague influence from the SR-71.
When I see an F-35 instead, i just feel sick.

marcellogo wrote:

kvs wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:I think the reason was that they never used the YF was because
1) more expensive
2) Lockheed Martin has a stronger influence in US politics.

YF-23 was a rather good design and it wouldnt be a bad idea to grab some influence designs from it.

Most planes are similar to other planes.   There is way too much false attribution of originality and "copying"
inferences.  


Not so similar now.

Sorry but i didn't see anything even vaguely similar in this two.
Wing is completely different, f-23 has no horizontal tail, engine placement is completely different.

Sorry, when I see a Su-57 I see the successor of the Su-27 design, when I see the F-22 a successor of F-15 and when is the case of J-20 i see an evolution of J-10 and J-9.
YF-23 bear IMHO instead just a vague influence from the SR-71.
When I see an F-35 instead, i just feel sick.

In the early 1990s, several companies were fighting their way to the top of a competition for the next fighter jet. In the end, it came down to two respective jets the Lockheed YF-22 and the Northrop YF-23. The United States Government selected the YF-22 which evolved into the Lockheed Martin F-22 and the YF-23 was forgotten, or so we thought.

Many considered the Northrop YF-23 to the superior fighter and that the YF-22 was only selected because it operated better at lower speeds. Then in 2009, the Russians unveiled the Sukhoi PAK FA, their most advanced fifth-generation fighter and it bore a striking resemblance to the YF-23. At first sight, everyone thought this design was stolen because its features are so incredibly similar.

While there are some similarities between the two aircraft, there has been no direct link to stolen plans or leaked information. The PAK FA seems to be a merger of the Sukhoi Su-27 and the Northrop YF-23. Of course, this hasn’t stopped the theories of theft and leaks of F-22 tech falling into the hands of the Chinese which gave way to the Chengdu J-20.

The PAK FA is proceeding ahead into development with a new designation the Sukhoi Su-57. What do you think, is there evidence to support Russia stealing the design or was it mere coincidence?

marcellogo wrote:

kvs wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:I think the reason was that they never used the YF was because
1) more expensive
2) Lockheed Martin has a stronger influence in US politics.

YF-23 was a rather good design and it wouldnt be a bad idea to grab some influence designs from it.

Most planes are similar to other planes.   There is way too much false attribution of originality and "copying"
inferences.  

[img]

[img]

Not so similar now.

Sorry but i didn't see anything even vaguely similar in this two.
Wing is completely different, f-23 has no horizontal tail, engine placement is completely different.

Sorry, when I see a Su-57 I see the successor of the Su-27 design, when I see the F-22 a successor of F-15 and when is the case of J-20 i see an evolution of J-10 and J-9.
YF-23 bear IMHO instead just a vague influence from the SR-71.
When I see an F-35 instead, i just feel sick.

Arrow wrote:

kvs wrote:
The F-22 is really a gen 5- design hyped to the level of a 5+.  

So if the F-22 is a 5+ generation fighter, what tier is the Su-57 at? The 6th generation Su-57 surpasses the F-22 in every respect.

GarryB wrote:

Backman wrote:

GarryB wrote:

.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Backman wrote:

GarryB wrote:

.

What is that thing now ?    It almost looks like a smoothed over F-117 . It's a bottom wing but the intakes are underneath.

Backman wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Backman wrote:

GarryB wrote:

.

What is that thing now ?    It almost looks like a smoothed over F-117 . It's a bottom wing but the intakes are underneath.

That's the Nth iteration of the LMFS which should have been given Priority instead of the SU-57. Alas the PAK FA got first place and Russia is forced to overextend a great 80's plane lifespan. Mig29.

Backman wrote:

GarryB wrote:

.

Russia's defense doesn't need PAK FA in absolute terms. It needs point defense fighters like the Mig which are cheaper and can be produced faster. Instead they're embarked into double trouble with two expensive fighters (Su-27/57 family) which don't allow for a release of the venerable SU-24.

LMFS wrote:It can be both, depending on the position of the plane re. the CoG. If the first is higher than the second, the anhedral will be actually stabilising. But probably your theory below is better.

LMFS wrote:It does not have the vortexes of close coupled canards but they probably compensated for that with the small LERX right besides the LEVCONs, in general I think the layout of the PAK-FA is very smart and a very good compromise.

GarryB wrote:

What is that thing now ? Wink It almost looks like a smoothed over F-117 . It's a bottom wing but the intakes are underneath.

The wobblin goblin was a subsonic cruise missile with two bombs inside as warheads... this model is clearly a fighter design to turn and manouver and shoot things down.

The bottom mounted air intakes alone suggests high AOA is expected...

That's the Nth iteration of the LMFS which should have been given Priority instead of the SU-57. Alas the PAK FA got first place and Russia is forced to overextend a great 80's plane lifespan. Mig29.

I disagree, a big 5th gen fighter is more useful than a smaller one... and unless the new LMFS is exceptional they might find a simpler high low mix will be big 5th gen fighter and medium size 4+++ gen fighter because an all 5th gen fighter fleet is neither affordable because of maintenance issues, nor desirable because most issues don't require stealth as such.

The MiG-29 deserved a proper upgrade and will remain a useful aircraft for as long as any of the upgraded western 4th gen fighters... simply fitting Su-35s and MiG-35s with 5th gen equipment will keep them relevant... but eventually taking the cockpits out and making them drones could be their ultimate future as weapon trucks.

You mean high/low mix wise ? Russia's forced to overextend the low mix with the Mig 29 ?

I think the Su-35 and Su-30 and MiG-35 will occupy the low mix and the new 5th gen fighters will be the high mix... but in any case all their fighters need a decent operational radius of action so they really wont have a high and low mix.... more a high and medium.

Their operational costs is what actually matters and they seem to be a fraction of the cost of most western aircraft.

Russia's defense doesn't need PAK FA in absolute terms. It needs point defense fighters like the Mig which are cheaper and can be produced faster. Instead they're embarked into double trouble with two expensive fighters (Su-27/57 family) which don't allow for a release of the venerable SU-24.

I don't agree... bigger planes have more growth and performance potential... and they don't need 10,000 fighters... and if they did they could be making MiG-29M2s, but they seem to be ordering MiG-35s instead.

That's an interesting point. They could have just used to su 35 has the heavy fighter and produced a punchy Mig 29 with a stealth skin.

I just wonder how much cheaper it could have been to develop or manufacture.

The price depends on who is buying but the Su-35 and Su-57 both look to be rather cheaper than Rafales for export and F-35s for domestic and export use too...

Which is just as well because Russia just can't afford to piss money away like the west does.

They never stated any goals for an all stealth fleet and I don't think they ever planned for an all Flanker or all Fulcrum fleet, and all stealth fleet either.

The Su-35 and MiG-35 are not backups, they are the numbers aircraft I suspect, while the Su-57s and LMFS will be the point of the spear that rips the guts out of the attacking enemy while the nonstealthy aircraft will be the bomb trucks for later when their stealth aircraft start carrying external weapons too.

First serial-produced Su-57 fighter to be delivered by year’s end

PeregrineFalcon wrote:I'm not sure what you exactly mean by "first" and "second", but this video provides very nice explanation of the problem

Yes, but I don't think that the PAK FA's LERX is actually small.

For the same reasons [and the fact that it doesn't have negative effects associated with the downwash] I also think that this solution is more aerodynamically efficient than the use of the canards, but can't claim that with 100% certainty.

Arrow wrote:

1st (2nd) serial production unit thumbsup

Edit: already posted... oh well, such is life

lancelot wrote:The Su-34 is a lot more capable than the Su-24. To a degree where it does not need to be replaced in a 1:1 ratio.
Avionics aside the Su-34 has more range, higher ceiling, higher speed, etc. Also slightly more payload.
With precision munitions the terminal effects are increased, you have better range, so you don't need as many aircraft.

I think it was a much better idea to get the Su-57 vs the LMFS. It has higher export potential for one. The US won't export the F-22 and the line was closed.
The F-35 does not compete with the Su-57 in terms of performance.
Also, since you need to have internal bays for stealth a larger fighter gets you more usable payload.

Russia needs an aircraft with long legs which can be easily deployed from one theater of operations to another. Not a short legged point defense fighter.
Those will, I think, end up getting replaced with drones which don't require as much pilot training since a lot of the functions will be automated.

If it was a single engine aircraft like the MiG-21 then it might make sense. But if it is another twin engine aircraft it will be nearly as expensive as Su-57 without the same performance.

lancelot wrote:The Su-34 is a lot more capable than the Su-24. To a degree where it does not need to be replaced in a 1:1 ratio.
Avionics aside the Su-34 has more range, higher ceiling, higher speed, etc. Also slightly more payload.
With precision munitions the terminal effects are increased, you have better range, so you don't need as many aircraft.

I think it was a much better idea to get the Su-57 vs the LMFS. It has higher export potential for one. The US won't export the F-22 and the line was closed.
The F-35 does not compete with the Su-57 in terms of performance.
Also, since you need to have internal bays for stealth a larger fighter gets you more usable payload.

Russia needs an aircraft with long legs which can be easily deployed from one theater of operations to another. Not a short legged point defense fighter.
Those will, I think, end up getting replaced with drones which don't require as much pilot training since a lot of the functions will be automated.

If it was a single engine aircraft like the MiG-21 then it might make sense. But if it is another twin engine aircraft it will be nearly as expensive as Su-57 without the same performance.