Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #6

LMFS wrote:All engines emit smoke when throttle settings are changed, and typically when AB is engaged/ disengaged. You can see this in any airshow by F-22 or F-35, they are no different to Su-57 in how much smoke they produce, only they are Western products and therefore beyond any doubt or any questioning  

yes I know the transition always results in smoke, but it still seems to me that Russian planes have a larger smoke window then Western planes although this has improved quite a bit since the earl Mig-29. AL-31s never were smoky.

kvs wrote:

Physics says that this "issue" is pure inanity.   The size of objects matters to EM wave interaction with them.   Even a high frequency signal
is going to have a low scattering cross section for small objects.   You simply cannot dial up the return signal by changing the frequency
arbitrarily.   There is a gain from using shorter wavelengths, but it saturates quickly.   And higher frequency EM is attenuated more by
atmospheric moisture and aerosols so it ain't no panacea.  

The rivet fags are ignorant twits who never got a proper education.   They are internet fanbois fantasizing that they are engineer designers.
That is why these Dunning-Kruger prats are always lecturing Sukhoi and all of Russia.   These fanbois are cringeworthy losers.

The radar blockers in the inlet ducts is another fanboi retard topic.    Those Su-57 inlets are clearly stealth designs having the characteristic
parallelogram shape with the added twist of inward curved lips that prevent direct line of sight inside the inlets for most angles of attack.  
So many losers over the last 10 years have been stroking their ignorant dicks over this subject.  They always use some line of sight above
the plane of the jet.  Are NATzO radar systems deployed kilometers above the ground?  

I'm just wondering, how would these people determine the degree of impact on the RCS for this aircraft?

There is something seriously wrong with the coating on that jet. It is like rust under paint one gets from shoddy preparation
of the surface. This is not a car exposed to winter road salt. This is a high tech device that never gets exposed to salt
at all. I also doubt it ever saw any deicing fluid during its life.

It looks like moisture is able to enter at some of these seams and the freeze-thaw cycle is peeling off the coating similar to
what rust does to paint. But of course these issues are not important for fanbois since fanbois do not care about objective
analysis and only care about dick stroking self-affirmation through vicarious "achievement".

kvs wrote:
Multi-spectral detection on satellites is to be expected. So the concept of tracking in real time is feasible with enough coverage
density. The US is using commercial Trojan Horse projects to achieve this. Starlink is clearly a dual use system. Even though
the Keyhole satellites are the size of a bus, they are old designs. I suspect that modern CCDs have evolved enough that a full sized
telescope optical layout is not necessary to get high resolution images. Unlike observations of remote stars, the photon flux
from the surface of the Earth is high enough that ultra-focusing is not required.

I think you may be confusing light detection with light collection in photography. CCDs are light detection / image sensing components that replaced film from older era. They have the advantage of being compact and digitizing the image for signal processing but have actually taken them at least a decade to reach the color sensitivity level of film.
The light collection part is a totally different task that is done by the optical aperture, which is an assembly of lenses. The bigger the aperture, the greater the amount of collected light, the clearer the image. There is no getting around that. The larger the megapixels on the CCD, the more you can do with the collected light but that is about it. What has been improving recently is in software based (intelligent) image processing that results in cleaner images by compensating for missing photons based on some prior geometrical programming and heuristic estimation. You can see what a smart phone camera can do with such a small aperture. But couple that same system to a larger aperture and the result would be proportionally superior. So there is really no replacement for a good old large lens or reflector either in a satellite or smartphone.
As for geostationary satellites, unless someone figures out how to launch a 25 meter (just a guess) aperture telescope there, we can safely forget getting any useful details from an image taken from there.

Daniel_Admassu wrote:

kvs wrote:
Multi-spectral detection on satellites is to be expected.   So the concept of tracking in real time is feasible with enough coverage
density.   The US is using commercial Trojan Horse projects to achieve this.   Starlink is clearly a dual use system.   Even though
the Keyhole satellites are the size of a bus, they are old designs.   I suspect that modern CCDs have evolved enough that a full sized
telescope optical layout is not necessary to get high resolution images.   Unlike observations of remote stars, the photon flux
from the surface of the Earth is high enough that ultra-focusing is not required.  

I think you may be confusing light detection with light collection in photography. CCDs are light detection / image sensing components that replaced film from older era. They have the advantage of being compact and digitizing the image for signal processing but have actually taken them at least a decade to reach the color sensitivity level of film.
The light collection part is a  totally different task that is done by the optical aperture, which is an assembly of lenses. The bigger the aperture, the greater the amount of collected light, the clearer the image. There is no getting around that. The larger the megapixels on the CCD, the more you can do with the collected light but that is about it. What has been improving recently is in software based (intelligent) image processing that results in cleaner images by compensating for missing photons based on some prior geometrical programming and heuristic estimation. You can see what a smart phone camera can do with such a small aperture. But couple that same system to a larger aperture and the result would be proportionally superior. So there is really no replacement for a good old large lens or reflector either in a satellite or smartphone.
As for geostationary satellites, unless someone figures out how to launch a 25 meter (just a guess) aperture telescope there, we can safely forget getting any useful details from an image taken from there.

My thinking revolves around the potential to use a small focusing apparatus coupled with a high resolution CCD to get real time
detection of small objects from an LEO vantage point. Detecting 10+ meter objects from LEO is not impossible with small satellites:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPOT_(satellite)

https://earth.esa.int/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/s/spot-6-7

So Musk's Pentagon funded Starlink can serve this purpose even if the size of each satellite is smaller than SPOT. A bus sized
satellite is not needed. And we are not talking about micro satellites.

The smoke nonsense requires context. Depending on relative humidity, you will have rapid formation of cloud droplets from
the aerosol formation induced by the jet engine emissions. People think this is actual coarse mode aerosol emitted by the
engine when it is nothing of the sort.

I've been looking forever for this, but thanks to Cyberspec it's been found again finally! Ever wonder why the Su-57 didn't get flat nozzles? Well the USSR developed them and used them on a testbed Su-27, and found that it reduced thrust by a ridiculous 15%, and they actually developed a better solution to reduce thermal signature for the engine nozzles...

Heat / IR sig reduction system for Su-57. According to the chart, it reduces the IR sig from the engine exhaust by 3 - 3.5 times. Details are classified but it's assumed an aerosol substance is injected into the exhaust
via Ru Net


https://twitter.com/Cyberspec1/status/1343322820760141825

kvs wrote:The smoke nonsense requires context.   Depending on relative humidity, you will have rapid formation of cloud droplets from
the aerosol formation induced by the jet engine emissions.   People think this is actual coarse mode aerosol emitted by the
engine when it is nothing of the sort.

I think most people on this forum can tell the difference between water vapour and smoke.

LMFS wrote:
I have not noticed any relevant difference between Su-57 and F-22/35 in that regard.

I looked at an F-35 demo and yes you are right, a lot of smoke at transition points. I guess any demo will result in smoke.

magnumcromagnon wrote:I've been looking forever for this, but thanks to Cyberspec it's been found again finally! Ever wonder why the Su-57 didn't get flat nozzles? Well the USSR developed them and used them on a testbed Su-27, and found that it reduced thrust by a ridiculous 15%, and they actually developed a better solution to reduce thermal signature for the engine nozzles...
Heat / IR sig reduction system for Su-57. According to the chart, it reduces the IR sig from the engine exhaust by 3 - 3.5 times. Details are classified but it's assumed an aerosol substance is injected into the exhaust

From what I can see it seems to take bypass air to cool the afterburner nozzles and create a "sleeve" of cooler air around the exhaust. The beauty of this is when you cut the burners none of the exterior metal bits will be very hot and the flares will be more effective in decoying IR missiles. Its possible there is also water or alcohol the pilot can use to further cool the exhaust in an emergency.

mnztr wrote:

kvs wrote:The smoke nonsense requires context.   Depending on relative humidity, you will have rapid formation of cloud droplets from
the aerosol formation induced by the jet engine emissions.   People think this is actual coarse mode aerosol emitted by the
engine when it is nothing of the sort.

I think most people on this forum can tell the difference between water vapour and smoke.

No you can't.  Both are white due to Mie scattering. Their intrinsic colour does not dominate.

mnztr wrote:

LMFS wrote:
I have not noticed any relevant difference between Su-57 and F-22/35 in that regard.

I looked at an F-35 demo and yes you are right, a lot of smoke at transition points. I guess any demo will result in smoke.

So what is exactly the point you are making? That Russian jet engines are garbage compared to western wonders? Because
Russians lack the engineering and science base to understand combustion?

Maybe you should go to a NATzO fanboi forum.

kvs wrote:

mnztr wrote:

LMFS wrote:
I have not noticed any relevant difference between Su-57 and F-22/35 in that regard.

I looked at an F-35 demo and yes you are right, a lot of smoke at transition points. I guess any demo will result in smoke.

So what is exactly the point you are making?   That Russian jet engines are garbage compared to western wonders?  Because
Russians lack the engineering and science base to understand combustion?  

Maybe you should go to a NATzO fanboi forum.

Point I am making is it is normal for engines to smoke when power settings are varied rapidly. geez

kvs wrote:

mnztr wrote:

kvs wrote:The smoke nonsense requires context.   Depending on relative humidity, you will have rapid formation of cloud droplets from
the aerosol formation induced by the jet engine emissions.   People think this is actual coarse mode aerosol emitted by the
engine when it is nothing of the sort.

I think most people on this forum can tell the difference between water vapour and smoke.

No you can't.  Both are white due to Mie scattering.  Their intrinsic colour does not dominate.  

 

In some cases that may be true, but in the case of the pic its clearly not water vapor.

magnumcromagnon wrote:I've been looking forever for this, but thanks to Cyberspec it's been found again finally! Ever wonder why the Su-57 didn't get flat nozzles? Well the USSR developed them and used them on a testbed Su-27, and found that it reduced thrust by a ridiculous 15%, and they actually developed a better solution to reduce thermal signature for the engine nozzles...

Heat / IR sig reduction system for Su-57. According to the chart, it reduces the IR sig from the engine exhaust by 3 - 3.5 times. Details are classified but it's assumed an aerosol substance is injected into the exhaust
via Ru Net


https://twitter.com/Cyberspec1/status/1343322820760141825

Great find. I think it is not only about IR signature reduction. When I lookd at those Sukhois in MAKS flying and than when making bell figure, they stand still for a long period of time with full afterburner. I was wondering, how they manage to cool the structure. Usually jets with afterburner fly fast and flow of air cooling down the structure, but in this case there is no flow of air as it stand still. So this system of reducing IR signature also is cooling engine structure, so it could fly very slow or stand still with full afterburners.