Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #6

Isos wrote:

GarryB wrote:

It's like russian first civilian plane since their industry was destroyed during USSR fall. The SSJ100. It's just full of foreign stuff and it isn't as good as foreign competitors. Now they need years to make it all russian.

Actually the SSJ100 was deliberately developed with western systems and equipment and engines to make it appeal to western customers and markets...

But it was all a waste of time and effort because we all know how intolerant the west is regarding anything to do with Russia...  

Years after the russian version is still not ready. What I'm saying is that you can't just wake up abd say "let's make a plane" when you don't have the industry for and expect it to be the best out there.

Chinese have never made an engine and some here still expect them to be the best on the market.

BTW some western companies bought the ssj-100 and it isn't doing as expected.

Its a cut throat market. Russia hasn't yet developed the infrastructure and logistics for 24/7 flying around the clock. IMO it was a mistake for Russia to sell jets to Mexico for round the clock flying right out of the gate. They should have kept it in Russia for the start. They sold some to the Thai airforce for executives. That is a perfect kind of niche for Russia to sell into.

BTW hows the Mitsubishi Spacejet program going ? Its bankrupt. The program cost 9 billion so far. (SSJ program cost is 1.5 billion)

How did the Bombardier C- Series program go ? It went bankrupt too and bailed out by the Canadian govt. And Airbus bought it for 50 cents/dollar. Program cost 7 billion.

The Sukhoi Superjet program with all its faults, looks like a winner in comparison to these.

LMFS wrote:]

Wow that journo was surprisingly competent reporting on the Su-57...

She specifically brings up aircraft carriers and implies that the jet could land and take off from a carrier deck without the vertical take off equipment in a F-35. Maybe that is something they were going for. We can estimate its take off distances from video clips but this is with the phase 1 engine.

I always thought the phase 2 engine would be overkill but maybe not. If it can give the su 57 carrier take off capability then its totally worth it Would that ever piss off the haters.

The Drive hasn't reported on this news yet. Its probably gonna be Rogoway.  

Backman wrote:
She specifically brings up aircraft carriers and implies that the jet could land and take off from a carrier deck without the vertical take off equipment in a F-35. Maybe that is something they were going for. We can estimate its take off distances from video clips but this is with the phase 1 engine.

I always thought the phase 2 engine would be overkill but maybe not. If it can give the su 57 carrier take off capability then its totally worth it Would that ever piss off the haters.

The Drive hasn't reported on this news yet. Its probably gonna be Rogoway.  

That topic has been commented before, I think Egorov on Military Acceptance said something similar... I remain sceptic any plane would be operated from a carrier without ramp and arresting cables at least, no need for it. But of course the higher the thrust and the better the STOL characteristics, the better for carrier operations, because the main problem of fighters is that they have a high minimum speed. I linked before about some exotic landing mode proposed at a Sukhoi paper years ago that would take that to the extreme, since the plane would slow down at extreme AoA and land almost on the spot, we never agreed whether that was realistic for carrier operations or just some merely theoretical possibility. The izd. 30 will provide a certain increase in max thrust useful for carrier operations, but the main advantage should be the big increase in military thrust. It could eventually allow for taking off on mil settings from the long TO runs.

BTW I was not meaning all in the RT documentary making sense or being truthful, for instance they provided technical data that are simply not officially available, but the average journo would have been way, way worse

Regarding the lack of news on US about the first Su-57 being handed over to the VKS, it is predictable, they are fast to cover any crash, delay or even remotely credible smears, but reporting the successes of Russia is not their business...

Isos wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:SSJ-100 wasn't Russia's first foray into civil aircraft.  Tu-204 was before it and also had offered an all russian digital avionics and used PS-90A engines later in the years.  I would have just upgraded the Tu-204 and it would probably be in a lot of numbers by now too.

SSJ-100 is the first for Sukhoi though.

First flight was in 1989 so it's a soviet plane. SSJ was the first to be russian (dev included) and it happened after the destruction of the industry.

Tu-204 couldn't be successful because it was made for soviet system where planes and airport belonged to the state. It was roposed with improvements but couldn't compete with airbus and boeing after sale services. The plane itself was the best at the time.

Most development happened in the 90's. And Tu-204 could easily fill whatever need and export, and with modernization, would have been efficient. Already was. But as pointed out, Russian government corporations like Aeroflot was actually taking bribes to buy Boeing jets. That was initial reason for Il-96 not being used too.

Spare parts and maintenance was an issue with ssj-100 cause they only had a few selected service centers and that's it. Now Russia is expanding its service centers for ssj-100 and ms-21 now. Same could have happened for Tu-204.

Overall, management was shit

The Aeroflot management should be lined up against a wall and shot.

This is another example where the "free market" is like a cult around the biggest money source.   So all around the world
opportunists are selling their mothers for dimes to latch onto the American "gravy train".    No rational economics decisions
being made whatsoever.   The only cure is big bad government regulation to keep all these opportunists in line.   And
for sure harsh legal penalties for clowns taking bribes.  

I agree that the Tu-204 should have been upgraded and promoted.   But it fell victim to the comprador era of the 1990s
where everything from NATzO was considered gold.   This rot even affects the SSJ-100 which was aimed at integration
with the west.   No such integration is possible with foaming at the mouth enemies.

[quote="LMFS"]

PhSt wrote:

Wow that journo was surprisingly competent reporting on the Su-57...

Yes, surely not the average state media announcer ...

Marcellogo wrote:Comparing the two programs is not such easy.
Let's say they are very different as a result of both the different procedures they use , maximized by the fact that the one ofF-35 was unconventional also to standard western one.
They developed three greatly different versions in the same time and rushed on to introduce them in service even if not completely ready (to use an euphemism).

In case of Su-57 a.t.c. they are actually even exacerbating usual russian insistence into introducing in (wow, 4 words beginning with in, a record, I think) service only full developed models.

I am not trying to understate the complexity of the JSF program, but when measures are employed that instead of risk mitigation create "risk augmentation" and they are piled one on top of each other, well, I need no further proof of what is going on. While Russia created all sorts of alternatives for the VKS in case the PAK-FA program and its individual elements failed, the US leadership and program management did exactly the opposite and left the services completely exposed to any program risk. This is is malfeasance and should end up with people in jail, not be lauded as an example of how things are to be done.

Fully agree, russian developer can take all the time they need to fully refine the design before to go into full production rate because the VKS has already reached the amount of modern planes it was expected to have.
USAF has instead forced itself into a dead end, with an huge problem of fleet obsolescence on one side and an half backed plane on opposite one

kvs wrote:The Aeroflot management should be lined up against a wall and shot.

This is another example where the "free market" is like a cult around the biggest money source.   So all around the world
opportunists are selling their mothers for dimes to latch onto the American "gravy train".    No rational economics decisions
being made whatsoever.   The only cure is big bad government regulation to keep all these opportunists in line.   And
for sure harsh legal penalties for clowns taking bribes.  

I agree that the Tu-204 should have been upgraded and promoted.   But it fell victim to the comprador era of the 1990s
where everything from NATzO was considered gold.   This rot even affects the SSJ-100 which was aimed at integration
with the west.   No such integration is possible with foaming at the mouth enemies.

As I recall back in the 1990s Berezovsky ran or controlled Aeroflot for some time. It was used to launder money because of its operations abroad. he was also head of the Russian Security Council at some point.

Video of the 1st serial Su-57 at #Tolmachevo Novosibirsk

https://twitter.com/Cyberspec1/status/1342568061086310400

i love how Russia has a totally different engineering ideal as compared to China and the West. totally unique approach to fifth gen design.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Very cool and a great milestone after a rather seemingly long developing and testing period, but I don't think that really was the case and the reason is we were rather quite influenced by China's sudden development of the J-20 and the speed at which they brought that thing about.  I think that really -- and by default -- just made the development of this aircraft seem a lot longer than it really was.  Even though we weren't privy to a single example of a weapons bay firing (with the exception of the vertical flight shot) but we really never saw any doors of either bays open and close.  That said, I still think the development of the first digitally designed from the ground up Russian military aircraft was quite the accomplishment even in the time it took.

So I have a few questions and also a few criticisms that hopefully will create discussion and back & forth since they're not made to disparage in any way.  But it still seems rather unfinished.  I see a few panels that are off-colored and not painted in what appears to be the RAM in that darker grey?  Or is there no RAM yet?  Why is the top seam of the canopy gaping?  Shouldn't that be tighter than a bull's ass in fly season?  You can clearly see all that I just mentioned by enlarging the top pic.  I thought we would see an aircraft that doesn't have any fasteners in any of the seams in the paneling?  Isn't there a belief that the more smooth surfaces from any fasteners would be most ideal for a LO platform?  Is that perhaps why maybe it appears not to be finished and that we might be seeing a secondary stage of these finished aircraft?  Other than those few questions, she's a beauty for sure.

Anyone know what the two, bulbous glass balls are for?  One on top and one on bottom.

DIRCM

also the aircraft looks tight. totally unique fifth gen fighter. the sensor suite is pretty mind blowing. seems to me that the Chinese followed along with the western approach. i find this odd as the western approach seems to be an answer to russian surface to air missile systems. only thin i can think of is the Chinese went along western lines so as to overcome american naval anti aircraft missiles.

@Gomig-21

Respectfully,

those criticisms are taken from disingenuous Western sources. They are simply not interested in truth or technical realities, just in smearing the opponent, period. After one is debunked, the next one arises, it has been like that for nearly 20 years. I don't care anymore.

> The development time: we have demonstrated above that it was significantly less than the F-35, under way worse conditions (actually incomparably worse) and with incomparably better use of risk mitigation measures and program management best practices, while US MIC behaved like Cosa Nostra.

> Fasteners, rivets, gaps and all that crap: al planes have them, period. People that claim absurdly low RCS values (physically impossible unless by divine intervention, due to the presence of metallic elements in the fuselage bigger themselves than the RCS value claimed for the whole plane) should be put under scrutiny instead. Who says the 0.0001 sqm is a real value and not utter BS?

To all that RCS BS I have to say: unless someone shows me compared RCS values of Su-57 and F-35/22 professionally measured by themselves and they can explain the results, I am done with this issue. Every amateur wants to teach Russian elite scientists and engineers how stealth is done, I simply cannot bother anymore explaining how absurd this is.

>The plane has RAM (it is not mandatorily dark grey just because USAF fighters are painted that colour) and is finished.

>We did saw the launching of a Kh-59MK2 (now called Kh-69 IIRC) from the ventral bays. The doors have been seen open on a number of occasions, but the bays themselves never with clarity. Russia does not give a sh*t if anybody does not feel their curiosity satisfied with that, as you can imagine.

> Panels with different colour are normally dielectric apertures for radar or ESM/ECM, there is a big number of those in the plane (14 at least, without counting smaller comms antennas)

Gomig-21 wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:]

So I have a few questions and also a few criticisms that hopefully will create discussion and back & forth since they're not made to disparage in any way.  But it still seems rather unfinished.  I see a few panels that are off-colored and not painted in what appears to be the RAM in that darker grey?  Or is there no RAM yet?  Why is the top seam of the canopy gaping?  Shouldn't that be tighter than a bull's ass in fly season?  You can clearly see all that I just mentioned by enlarging the top pic.  I thought we would see an aircraft that doesn't have any fasteners in any of the seams in the paneling?  Isn't there a belief that the more smooth surfaces from any fasteners would be most ideal for a LO platform?  Is that perhaps why maybe it appears not to be finished and that we might be seeing a secondary stage of these finished aircraft?  Other than those few questions, she's a beauty for sure.

Anyone know what the two, bulbous glass balls are for?  One on top and one on bottom.

Seriously no offense. But I think the endless propaganda leveled at this jet has rubbed off on you. You've probably never even thought to look at a F-22, F-35 or even a J-20 in the same inquisitive way that you look at the su 57.

Have you ever looked at a F-22 and focused closely to inspect the craftsmanship ?  I never have. But I find myself doing it on the su 57 because of all the bullshit.

Edit: Anyway LMFS answered this better than I could.

Years after the russian version is still not ready.

The Russian version was the backup model for countries that did not have good relations with the west and did not want western components included... for most of the period of design that did not include Russia... now it does... and makes a military version more practical too which is a bonus.

What I'm saying is that you can't just wake up abd say "let's make a plane" when you don't have the industry for and expect it to be the best out there.

They are now making state of the art engines and new composite wings... the latter and former which were not made in Russia when this plane was started... if a western country was doing this it would be all over Popular Mechanic Magazine as an amazing feat... even more so when it is poor and under economic sanction Russia... but no mention as usual and certainly no credit.

Chinese have never made an engine and some here still expect them to be the best on the market.

China licence produces all sorts of western gear they would not otherwise be able to make on their own... it is not actually a big deal... licence produce and pay for the privilege. If they ban you then buy from someone else, or steal the technology.

BTW some western companies bought the ssj-100 and it isn't doing as expected.

Of course western companies will be totally honest all the time...

It was roposed with improvements but couldn't compete with airbus and boeing after sale services

Airbus and Boeing are in a position to undercut any potential competitor to an extent no Russian maker can match, but fortunately for Russia the west is imposing all sorts of economic and political sanctions so return sanctions that would break WTO rules can be imposed to protect and help grown domestic producers like food growers and aircraft makers...

That topic has been commented before, I think Egorov on Military Acceptance said something similar... I remain sceptic any plane would be operated from a carrier without ramp and arresting cables at least, no need for it

they are not talking about standard aircraft operating from carriers... they will use ramps and arrester cables... that is just common sense as it means they use less space to take off and land.

Dont know if this has been discussed before on the forum but can the Su-57's if 2nd variant gets equipped with ROFAR can it engage air to air missiles with the 1,800 rounds from the 9-a1-4071k cannon which has a max 1.2km range engaging aerial targets, like tracking the inbound air to air missile at a 5-10km range or farther before firing.

It would make more sense to carry tiny interceptor missiles like the anti drone versions of the Pantsir system.... trying to shoot the incoming threat with the aircraft mounted cannon would essentially mean pointing your nose at the high speed incoming threat when turning off at a tangent direction would make more sense.

Very cool and a great milestone after a rather seemingly long developing and testing period, but I don't think that really was the case and the reason is we were rather quite influenced by China's sudden development of the J-20 and the speed at which they brought that thing about.  I think that really -- and by default -- just made the development of this aircraft seem a lot longer than it really was.

The thing about the Chinese stealth fighters is that they are largely unknown... but we know their engines are not state of the art new designs... what are their other systems like?

But it still seems rather unfinished.  I see a few panels that are off-colored and not painted in what appears to be the RAM in that darker grey?

RAM goes over the aircraft and then the paint goes over top of that. The nose and the side panel below the IRST are dielectric material designed to be invisible to radar waves because they cover radar antenna.

Why is the top seam of the canopy gaping?

A canopy is required to withstand the impacts of rather heavy objects... ie large birds. By having a two piece design the front section can be thicker and stronger, while the canopy behind that can be thinner and clearer and easier to see through.  The canopy on the F-16 is very thick and actually rather heavy because it is a one piece that is thick enough to withstand a high speed bird strike from any angle... which means it wont be as easy to see through as a thinner lighter canopy.

The location of the structure of the canopy is well within the field of view of both the nose mounted radar and IRST so if you think there is a chance something might be there and the pilot can't see it then you would be wrong. Moving your head to look left and right is normal for pilots and bobbing your head up and down means the strip of vision where you can't see is eliminated.

The odds of something appearing and remaining in that blind spot is enormously low and even if they did it is not a blind spot for IRST and radar...

Everyone complaining about bulbs on the Su-57, TAI TFX has them as well based on illustrations and designs shown of it.

Anyone know what the two, bulbous glass balls are for?  One on top and one on bottom.

The one on the spine behind the cockpit is part of the self defence suite for detecting laser and IR sources and is part of the DIRCMS system to defend the plane from IR and IIR guided and optically guided weapons... the material is likely a crystal material probably Germanium... its RCS would be zero.

The front facing ball is the IRST which contains EO including thermal and IR sensors for detecting aircraft targets out to extended ranges so the aircraft can operate in hostile airspace with minimal use of radar emissions... which is also a very good thing in terms of stealth.

Have a look at this image up close... note in particular the horizontal gap between panels below the number 156 and the location of fasteners...

@Sukhoi 57 Felon on Twitter said that this 1st production aircraft has a "reshaped keel intake" What is this ?

Backman wrote:@Sukhoi 57 Felon on Twitter said that this 1st production aircraft has a "reshaped keel intake" What is this ?

The left intake at the keel root is different from the right, this was seen already from T-50-8 onwards IIRC:

The nose and the side panel below the IRST are dielectric material designed to be invisible to radar waves because they cover radar antenna.

The housing around the IRST could be molded out of the same material. Which requires it not to have the fancy trapezoidal shape. And could very well be a superior solution. Like so many other things on the su 57. Like the levcons vs canards ect. But fanboys think that the J-20 is an endorsement of the F-22. And since they are both the same , it can be the only way of doing stealth. When in reality , it's the same because the J-20 is a CTRL-P of the F-22 shape wise. In the same way that the Chinese Flankers are exact copies of su 27 aerodynamically. It's a smart move for China because they don't have the experience to start reinventing things.

Which is why we cannot CANNOT look at pictures on the internet and make declarations on the RCS performance of highly classified aircraft.

LMFS wrote:@Gomig-21

Respectfully,

those criticisms are taken from disingenuous Western sources. They are simply not interested in truth or technical realities, just in smearing the opponent, period. After one is debunked, the next one arises, it has been like that for nearly 20 years. I don't care anymore.

My dear LMFS, obviously you still care quite a bit because you answered and I appreciate that, despite how careful I was to write something I considered legitimate but tried my very best to walk eggshells (since I am 54 years old and have 0 interest in just coming out here and throwing spit balls; quite the opposite, actually since I have a personal vested interest in this aircraft) that it still is very difficult to actually speak in constructive criticism terms since it still pokes the Bear in a bad way which is in the least my intentions.  I understand, though.  I look at what I see and if it makes sense, I complement deservingly so and if it doesn't, I try to understand it first but if I base it on what I know (which isn't much admittedly so) then I will comment about it.  I don't throw mud and see if it sticks.  These are my observations.

LMFS wrote:> The development time: we have demonstrated above that it was significantly less than the F-35, under way worse conditions (actually incomparably worse) and with incomparably better use of risk mitigation measures and program management best practices, while US MIC behaved like Cosa Nostra.

Now I'm really surprised!  A guy as smart as you didn't realize that I was actually complementing the timeframe and not critisizing it?  How is that possible?  I only said that many were influenced by the J-20 somewhat stealing the show in whatever way they did, details are unimportant but that was the point.  The influence of the J-20's appearance etc. influenced the way "many" thought of the PAK-FA/T-50/Su-57 development time.  That's all.  

LMFS wrote:> Fasteners, rivets, gaps and all that crap: al planes have them, period. People that claim absurdly low RCS values (physically impossible unless by divine intervention, due to the presence of metallic elements in the fuselage bigger themselves than the RCS value claimed for the whole plane) should be put under scrutiny instead. Who says the 0.0001 sqm is a real value and not utter BS?

Totally agree.  Does that mean we don't talk about it, to a certain level of understanding?

LMFS wrote:
To all that RCS BS I have to say: unless someone shows me compared RCS values of Su-57 and F-35/22 professionally measured by themselves and they can explain the results, I am done with this issue. Every amateur wants to teach Russian elite scientists and engineers how stealth is done, I simply cannot bother anymore explaining how absurd this is.

That's not what anyone is saying, least of all me! lol.  

LMFS wrote:>The plane has RAM (it is not mandatorily dark grey just because USAF fighters are painted that colour) and is finished.

I was referring to this grey on the Su-57 along with the digital camo pattern color and nothing else and if that's actually the RAM or if that's a step down the road.  I guess Gary B. answered that in detail.  

LMFS wrote:> Panels with different colour are normally dielectric apertures for radar or ESM/ECM, there is a big number of those in the plane (14 at least, without counting smaller comms antennas)

Yeah I wasn't referring to any of the dielectric panels or the radome color.  There's another panel just aft of the forward landing gear that is still in light blue and I thought there was something else too, just can't pinpoint it now and probably won't since I don't want to piss anyone off anymore than you guys already are.

Backman wrote:

The nose and the side panel below the IRST are dielectric material designed to be invisible to radar waves because they cover radar antenna.

The housing around the IRST could be molded out of the same material. Which requires it not to have the fancy trapezoidal shape. And could very well be a superior solution. Like so many other things on the su 57. Like the levcons vs canards ect. But fanboys think that the J-20 is an endorsement of the F-22. And since they are both the same , it can be the only way of doing stealth. When in reality , it's the same because the J-20 is a CTRL-P of the F-22 shape wise. In the same way that the Chinese Flankers are exact copies of su 27 aerodynamically. It's a smart move for China because they don't have the experience to start reinventing things.

Which is why we cannot CANNOT look at pictures on the internet and make declarations on the RCS performance of highly classified aircraft.

By invisible I think Garry means transplant to radar wave.
Which mean panel(s) itself won't return radar wave to the source but object(s) under it will, the same way objects in cockpit will reflect radar wave if canopy is lack of coating layer.
So making the IRST housing out of same material with the radome may not exactly did the job.

From what I've read, their (Sukhoi) solution is made the back side of IRST orb from RAM and rotate the RAM side out when IRST is not in use.
This way should made it least expose to radar but not hinder performance of the infrared sensor.

Some differences. This is not from me, I just found it.