Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #7

BTW how is it possible for the first operational Su-57 to have crashed because of total control failure? this doesn't make sense. i thought these aircraft have a huge amount of system redundancies that prevents them from just dropping out of the sky.

Redundancies are good at high altitude when you have time and altitude to recover safely.

At low altitude if your nose start diving and you loose controls for a few seconds you are fucked. You can't go against physics.

This is beautiful, only concern is if they showed too much?

Edit: No Weapons bay or Air intake shot

A yt clip from some ruskie news outlet of the new fighter. Closer than I have seen yet. Lovely aircraft.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx2-iFpDO-4

Edit: No Weapons bay or Air intake shot

Maybe here:

owais.usmani wrote:

Note at 00:24. Look at the frame of that grate. They are indeed controlling the angles the corners of parts to the aircraft. This kind of technique tho looks totally different from western method. Fascinating.

Isos wrote:

BTW how is it possible for the first operational Su-57 to have crashed because of total control failure? this doesn't make sense. i thought these aircraft have a huge amount of system redundancies that prevents them from just dropping out of the sky.

Redundancies are good at high altitude when you have time and altitude to recover safely.

At low altitude if your nose start diving and you loose controls for a few seconds you are fucked. You can't go against physics.

If I remember correctly the control system malfunctioned at around 8km altitude and the pilot tried to recover control upto 2km, at which point he ejected. So I would take it not as a problem of unfortunate lack of flight altitude but as a failure of the controls indeed, redundant or not.

Daniel_Admassu wrote:

Isos wrote:

BTW how is it possible for the first operational Su-57 to have crashed because of total control failure? this doesn't make sense. i thought these aircraft have a huge amount of system redundancies that prevents them from just dropping out of the sky.

Redundancies are good at high altitude when you have time and altitude to recover safely.

At low altitude if your nose start diving and you loose controls for a few seconds you are fucked. You can't go against physics.

If I remember correctly the control system malfunctioned at around 8km altitude and the pilot tried to recover control upto 2km, at which point he ejected. So I would take it not as a problem of unfortunate lack of flight altitude but as a failure of the controls indeed, redundant or not.

I was talking about general case. Not this particular.

Maybe it was a default in the manufacturing process that stuck something in the plane which isn't necessarly the fly by wire system.

If they are manufacturing them it means it wasn't a big issue.

Isos wrote:

I was talking about general case. Not this particular.

Maybe it was a default in the manufacturing process that stuck something in the plane which isn't necessarly the fly by wire system.

If they are manufacturing them it means it wasn't a big issue.

No, I assume it was not. It is a new machine with a totally new set of flight surfaces and avionics and unexpected things either related to function or production tend to go wrong. It is important that no human losses happened, as that would have been a greater loss not only from the point of view of sentiment but also investment and the program as a whole. It is also good that they discovered whatever went wrong in the acceptance test and not later, like during combat duty.

^ It probably had nothing to do with a design defect. They've had enough prototypes to figure the design out.  It was a cockup in the manufacturing process. Someone left a screwdriver in a bad place
IMO Russia should have kept it under wraps.  

Smooth finish. Looks like its the camo that actually makes it look less smooth than it is.

The title is misleading, the article is rather a summary of the deliveries to VKS in general:

UAC prepares capacity to increase the rate of serial production of the Su-57

The first fighter of the fifth generation Su-57 was manufactured and transferred to the Ministry of Defense under a state contract for the supply of 76 aircraft

MOSCOW, January 29. / TASS /. The United Aircraft Corporation (part of Rostec) is expanding capacities for the production of the Su-57 fifth-generation multifunctional fighter. The corporation told reporters about it.

"The first serial multifunctional fifth-generation fighter Su-57 was manufactured and handed over to the Russian Ministry of Defense under a state contract for the supply of 76 aircraft. <...> At the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Plant named after Yu. A. Gagarin - a branch of the Sukhoi company - work continues on the preparation and deployment of serial production. From 2021 it is planned to increase the rate of construction of aircraft of this type, "- said in the message .

According to the UAC, its enterprises have fulfilled their obligations to fulfill the state defense order in 2020. "Three serial heavy military transport aircraft Il-76MD-90A have been manufactured and handed over to the customer. At the Ulyanovsk enterprise Aviastar-SP, which is part of the UAC transport aviation division, it is planned to increase the rate of serial production of aircraft in 2021," the company said. According to the corporation, today one of the new Il-76MD-90A has been named after its creator, Honored Aircraft Designer Genrikh Novozhilov.

“This year one of the priorities is to master the technology of serial production and achieve stable rates of serial production of two new aircraft in the military and transport segments of our business. a stable rate of serial production in accordance with the schedule ", - the words of the General Director Yury Slyusar quoted in the corporation.

According to him, the corporation in Ulyanovsk is also reaching stable rates of mass production. At the same time, he is engaged in the modernization of the fleet of military transport aviation and the creation of a new Il-78M-90A tanker aircraft. The contract for their supply was signed at the end of the year.

Fighter aircraft

According to the UAC, in 2020 two large long-term contracts for the supply of multipurpose Su-35S fighters and Su-34 fighter-bombers in the interests of the Russian Aerospace Forces were completed. Obligations for the modernization of the MiG-29 and MiG-31 combat aircraft were also fulfilled. Work continues on the program to create a light 4 ++ generation MiG-35 fighter and to market it.

In 2020, the deeply modernized Tu-160 with a new engine made its first flight. "In the future, the UAC will focus on the most important tasks of reproduction of the new deeply modernized strategic bombers Tu-160 at the SP Gorbunov KAZ," the corporation said.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/10579987

The obvious advantage is that you have 4 times as many stored kills as in the current configuration (!)

Now I understand what you are talking about, but the problem I see is that these multi warhead missiles will be best for defeating unmanned targets.... ie they will be used by MiG-31s to shoot down already deployed cruise missiles in large numbers.

Deploying four warhead missiles to defeat one single target would be questionable because if it can defeat one of the missiles then defeating four of them would be likely too.

The only way to avoid that is not launching any missile at all, a wining strategy indeed.

There is a counter to every tactic... you have to make sure your solution is not even easier to counter especially if it is more expensive like fitting datalinks and terminal seekers to four warheads on each missile you carry.

That is given by the low pk of current MRAAM, and in your case you would simply waste 1/2 of the load of the fighter just to test the waters. Not a great tactic indeed.

My suggestion is nothing of the sort, my suggestion is TVC motor with a scramjet or three stage rocket motor so in the terminal portion of the engagement the missile can manouver like it is still in its short range no escape kill zone region.

No, VKS has a tradition of using salvos, because they actually want the enemy killed

They used missiles with different seeker types together to increase the PK... they did not launch enormous volleys of missiles except in tests that were filmed.

We are supposing that you actually want to hit the target aren't we?

That is right, but a normal ARH missile with backup home on jam capability is the best you can do because while jamming is occuring you can't get a clean missile lock on the actual target so only the jammer can be engaged, so the missile launched at the target will take out the jammer so a follow up missile can be launched against the target.

Of course in the case of a Soviet launch of missiles the SARH missile might lock on to the jammer, while the IR guided missile continues on to hit the target.

Long explanation for not finding nothing of worth against having two missiles complementing each other.

The missiles launched need to have different guidance methods and seekers for them to compliment each other.

Yes I knew the salvo works, that is my position form the beginning.

Not if all the missiles in the salvo use the same guidance which is defeated by the target releasing chaff or flares or a disposable jammer...

Yes, it is wasteful to launch one to not hit anything while the enemy is in range and can kill you, while launching a bigger one for an almost sure stand-off kill makes complete sense.

Real world results tend to show the opposite... smaller shorter range missiles tend to have better kill performance that bigger heavier longer ranged missiles... especially against fighter sized targets.

Call me a bad person, but I would prefer that the bastard does not come back tomorrow...

After the 4th or 5th time he might not dump his load... in the mean time you are doing your job and defending your target.

If your bays allow you for way bigger, longer range, higher pk weapons, only a retard would not try to make use of that and attack the enemy with high kill probability and while out of range, and go for either losing millions in "warning shots" or go to the merge where you can get easily killed.

But bigger longer ranged missiles have demonstrably lower PK... especially against a sophisticated enemy and most of the time the best you can hope for is a mission kill.

For instance in the example of the Falklands war, the British having Phantoms with Skyflash missiles could have loaded up with a lot of BVR missiles and used their radar and AWACS support aircraft to fly to a position where they could launch attacks on the Argentine aircraft with a decent chance of a kill but no danger at all to themselves because the Argentine aircraft didn't have any BVR missiles and were much less situationally aware.

The reverse would also be true where if the Argentines had MiG-23s with R-23R and R-23T missiles both of which would have effectively reached the Sea Harriers at ranges where their sidewinder missiles were useless, they could have launched from safe distances... allowed time for a hit and then turned away and disengaged with little to no risk.

Even if only 1 in 25 missile got a kill... and that is being generous because of the enormous IR signature of the Harrier would have made it horribly vulnerable, then they can fire off hundreds of missiles with little to no risk to their own aircraft... unlike the actual situation.

You talk as if Su-57 would only carry R-37M, while that missile does not fit the bays.

Who told you that?

It is a similar size to the Kh-58UShKE which is internally carried by the Su-57, and its replacement missile will also be designed to be carried by the Su-57 too.

A bigger longer ranged higher pk missile like the multiple warhead one would render the current US stealth fleet almost useless, since they don't have the bays to carry similar weapons and would need to carry them externally to avoid being shot down at stand-off ranges...

Can't help noticing the bigger heavier long range multi warhead missile shown above is based on the Kh-31 body which would make it rather bigger and heavier than R-37M...

You are making the case for the multimissile again

But only makes sense against seriously well defended targets that would require multiple hits to defeat anyway, or when there are an enormous number of targets and you need to whittle them down.

Against one fighter it makes more sense to launch two missiles with different guidance methods and then wait to see what happens before deciding whether to fire again or just close and engage with guns.

Depends on the amount of holes they have in the hull...

Multiple sealed compartments normally.

Again making the case for the multiple warhead as a way of increasing pk... I am saying nothing different.

Not really... a decent IADS will detect the missile and might intercept it during its cruise phase and shoot down all four warheads with one shot.

I think you would like to have scramjet AAMs and therefore are rejecting the idea. I think scramjet AAM will be expensive when they are available, in the mean time I think a solution with more conventional technology is needed.

A scramjet is a very simple concept and a very simple machine that will likely need to be very precisely engineered but wont be made of solid gold.... and kerosene fuel is much cheaper than solid rocket fuel in much larger volumes.

When someone starts with "Russia can't afford", you know what follows is most probably unproven gut feelings at best. All planes today are "stealthy" in varying degrees since all have signature reduction measures. And that trend will only increase in the future.

Russia can't afford an all stealthy fleet because no country on the planet can afford an all stealthy fleet... even the US is coming to realise the F-35 is not getting cheaper and as they deploy more their operational costs are going to cost more and more... there wont be any money for anything else.

Of course HATO countries wont have any problems meeting their commitments to 2% of GDP for HATO because the operational costs of the F-35 will eat that up...

They are no arsenal aircraft, just using the space that designers put in the bays

People keep comparing the number of aircraft HATO has with the number of planes Russia has and pretends there is an enormous disparity in favour of the west, but the problem is that those western planes wear multiple hats... they are both the aircraft Russia has, but also the multitude of SAMS and radars that Russia has too and they can't really do both jobs at once, so trying to strike targets deep in Russian airspace will lead to them losing quite a lot of their attack strength... but that attack strength is also their defence as well.

Russian fighters on their own would be a formidable defence but together with their air defence networks, it is HATO that is in trouble... especially when HATO airbases start exploding after being hit by Iskander and soon much longer ranged missiles of all types.

Shifting on to the defensive to protect themselves all of a sudden HATO has almost no attacking strength at all...

I proved before the amount of weapons a Su-57 can carry is roughly the same as Flankers...

Not while keeping its stealth characteristics, and they also have Flankers so they don't need to anyway.

you cannot shut down NATO with hypersonic missiles unless they are nuclear tipped.

The most efficient solution...

I have been saying that from the beginning...

But it wont. It is for engaging multiple targets like cruise missiles or a flight of bombers.

The multiple missile missile is likely to be R-37M based and therefore carried mostly by the MiG-31 and MiG-41... how many F-22s will it come across?

That too, that is what happens with good ideas, they produce synergistic effects.

More likely they are for attacking strategic cruise missile carriers... as the missile approaches its target the target starts streaming cruise missiles that it is launching so the already launched long range missile can start releasing secondary missiles to engage the launched missiles with any remaining warheads attacking the bomber itself.

^ It probably had nothing to do with a design defect. They've had enough prototypes to figure the design out. It was a cockup in the manufacturing process. Someone left a screwdriver in a bad place
IMO Russia should have kept it under wraps.

The flight control system for the aircraft will have millions of lines of code with thousands of modules all interacting and working together. The various combinations of situations and interactions that are possible are exponential and impossible to check... even with 100s of aircraft and thousands of flights.

The F-111 had a serious problem with its vertical tail surface that led to them losing quite a few the first time they used it operationally in the Vietnam war... it was developed and got into operational service with fundamental lethal problems with its tail... it is not rare at all.

Computer models and computer design is only as reliable and effective as the models it uses and no model will get the real world 100% right... that is why they take years to test these things.

anyone know the material composition of the su-57? watching the clip and was wondering what metals and composites were used and what parts are which.

owais.usmani wrote:

This here is how you do a fucking promo video

I wanna kiss whoever made this

TMA1 wrote:anyone know the material composition of the su-57? watching the clip and was wondering what metals and composites were used and what parts are which.

I doubt they will be going on record we that anytime soon

GarryB wrote:Now I understand what you are talking about

Good!

but the problem I see is that these multi warhead missiles will be best for defeating unmanned targets.... ie they will be used by MiG-31s to shoot down already deployed cruise missiles in large numbers.

That is indeed one of their possibilities.

Deploying four warhead missiles to defeat one single target would be questionable because if it can defeat one of the missiles then defeating four of them would be likely too.

The salvo principle is based exactly on the opposite. So you need to understand how the defeat of one single warhead can be correlated to the defeat of multiple ones. The main reason for correlated defeat of one or multiple missiles would be kinematic, and in this regard the two stage architecture of the missile, maximization of the space for fuel and deferment of the start of the rocket engine of the warheads allow to reduce that possibility or said differently, allow the missile to be effective at longer ranges than a conventional missile would be. The idea is to allow the launch to be executed when the target is inside of the no scape zone. There could be even tactics to reduce the ability of target to escape or to reduce the directions in which it could do it. If you talk about defensive means like ECM, reduction of RCS return, DEW or self defence missiles, then the pk is indeed correlated with the amount of warheads, and the bigger the salvo and the better the cooperative tactics, the higher the likelihood of a kill.

There is a counter to every tactic... you have to make sure your solution is not even easier to counter especially if it is more expensive like fitting datalinks and terminal seekers to four warheads on each missile you carry.

I don't see why it would be easier, but ultimately agree that if you spend a very big and expensive missile on a single target you better make sure the pk is significantly higher.

My suggestion is nothing of the sort, my suggestion is TVC motor with a scramjet or three stage rocket motor so in the terminal portion of the engagement the missile can manouver like it is still in its short range no escape kill zone region.

Yeah I know you prefer the scramjet solution. This is relatively unrelated to that, it is not about the propulsion you use but about the system architecture to use up the space at the bays in the best way and to counter future active countermeasures that will make it almost impossible to down a competent enemy with a single warhead. If in the future scramjet engines are used in this type of weapon it could apply to the multimissile concept too.

That is right, but a normal ARH missile with backup home on jam capability is the best you can do because while jamming is occuring you can't get a clean missile lock on the actual target so only the jammer can be engaged, so the missile launched at the target will take out the jammer so a follow up missile can be launched against the target.

Not exactly, there are different ways of jamming, there is a burn-through distance and there are therefore different levels of effectiveness of the ECM/ECCM. It is far from a given that jamming is going to work always. And if it does and you launch a second missile, what prevents the target from releasing another towed decoy?

The missiles launched need to have different guidance methods and seekers for them to compliment each other.

Nothing prevents you from placing two warheads with ARH and two with IIR seeker if you find it is worth it, and use two per target if you want.

Not if all the missiles in the salvo use the same guidance which is defeated by the target releasing chaff or flares or a disposable jammer...

Well AShM salvos in the VMF do use the same guidance...

But bigger longer ranged missiles have demonstrably lower PK... especially against a sophisticated enemy and most of the time the best you can hope for is a mission kill.

See above, the idea is to use this missile inside the no-scape zone while the enemy ones remain outside of their own one.

Who told you that?

They told us all, the quote must be somewhere in the thread. The Su-57 can carry the missile externally only, of course an equivalent missile capable for internal carriage is under development (izd. 810)

Can't help noticing the bigger heavier long range multi warhead missile shown above is based on the Kh-31 body which would make it rather bigger and heavier than R-37M...

That is just a speculative drawing using already existing elements from other missiles, but no one says that makes any sense.

A very rough sketch of what I mean:




The single warhead left, assembled missile right. Fins can be folded flat on the sides for the triangular warhead and square booster. The front could form a ramjet intake, there could be some sleeve to shape it properly, obviously I have not done any research into that. The missile is 4.2 x 0.4 x 0.4 m

Against one fighter it makes more sense to launch two missiles with different guidance methods and then wait to see what happens before deciding whether to fire again or just close and engage with guns.

I think the low pk of current missiles rather indicates the solution is not very effective on long range shots, but if you manage to down a modern fighter with one of those missiles with reasonable certainty, I do think it makes sense to spend a bit more. Fighters and their pilots are very valuable.

Multiple sealed compartments normally.

The Titanic argument  

Not really... a decent IADS will detect the missile and might intercept it during its cruise phase and shoot down all four warheads with one shot.

You are actually pointing put to another advantage of the system, as soon as the booster is depleted and the missile is flying fast at high altitude you can release the four warheads and make it more difficult to intercept. You don't get anything from carrying the empty booster.

Russia can't afford an all stealthy fleet because no country on the planet can afford an all stealthy fleet... even the US is coming to realise the F-35 is not getting cheaper and as they deploy more their operational costs are going to cost more and more... there wont be any money for anything else.

Since in the US MIC manipulation of facts is implicit, we do not know for sure, but by the current prices, F-35 are cheaper than F-15EX. All modern fighters are "stealthy" in a way since all have RCS reduction measures. That is the way fighters are designed today.

Not while keeping its stealth characteristics, and they also have Flankers so they don't need to anyway.

I really don't think they will be ordering Flankers 2030 onwards, probably even sooner, but they will be buying Su-57. We will see.

The multiple missile missile is likely to be R-37M based and therefore carried mostly by the MiG-31 and MiG-41... how many F-22s will it come across?

A multimissile for the MiG-31 may be different to that for MiG-41 and different to that of Su-57. And MiG-31 would indeed come across F-22 because it is a very safe plane to attack it due to superior kinematics, if IADS guidance is available.

TMA1 wrote:anyone know the material composition of the su-57? watching the clip and was wondering what metals and composites were used and what parts are which.

Su-57 "01"

LMFS wrote:

GarryB wrote:Now I understand what you are talking about

Good!

but the problem I see is that these multi warhead missiles will be best for defeating unmanned targets.... ie they will be used by MiG-31s to shoot down already deployed cruise missiles in large numbers.

That is indeed one of their possibilities.

Deploying four warhead missiles to defeat one single target would be questionable because if it can defeat one of the missiles then defeating four of them would be likely too.

The salvo principle is based exactly on the opposite. So you need to understand how the defeat of one single warhead can be correlated to the defeat of multiple ones. The main reason for correlated defeat of one or multiple missiles would be kinematic, and in this regard the two stage architecture of the missile, maximization of the space for fuel and deferment of the start of the rocket engine of the warheads allow to reduce that possibility or said differently, allow the missile to be effective at longer ranges than a conventional missile would be. The idea is to allow the launch to be executed when the target is inside of the no scape zone. There could be even tactics to reduce the ability of target to escape or to reduce the directions in which it could do it. If you talk about defensive means like ECM, reduction of RCS return, DEW or self defence missiles, then the pk is indeed correlated with the amount of warheads, and the bigger the salvo and the better the cooperative tactics, the higher the likelihood of a kill.

There is a counter to every tactic... you have to make sure your solution is not even easier to counter especially if it is more expensive like fitting datalinks and terminal seekers to four warheads on each missile you carry.

I don't see why it would be easier, but ultimately agree that if you spend a very big and expensive missile on a single target you better make sure the pk is significantly higher.

My suggestion is nothing of the sort, my suggestion is TVC motor with a scramjet or three stage rocket motor so in the terminal portion of the engagement the missile can manouver like it is still in its short range no escape kill zone region.

Yeah I know you prefer the scramjet solution. This is relatively unrelated to that, it is not about the propulsion you use but about the system architecture to use up the space at the bays in the best way and to counter future active countermeasures that will make it almost impossible to down a competent enemy with a single warhead. If in the future scramjet engines are used in this type of weapon it could apply to the multimissile concept too.

That is right, but a normal ARH missile with backup home on jam capability is the best you can do because while jamming is occuring you can't get a clean missile lock on the actual target so only the jammer can be engaged, so the missile launched at the target will take out the jammer so a follow up missile can be launched against the target.

Not exactly, there are different ways of jamming, there is a burn-through distance and there are therefore different levels of effectiveness of the ECM/ECCM. It is far from a given that jamming is going to work always. And if it does and you launch a second missile, what prevents the target from releasing another towed decoy?

The missiles launched need to have different guidance methods and seekers for them to compliment each other.

Nothing prevents you from placing two warheads with ARH and two with IIR seeker if you find it is worth it, and use two per target if you want.

Not if all the missiles in the salvo use the same guidance which is defeated by the target releasing chaff or flares or a disposable jammer...

Well AShM salvos in the VMF do use the same guidance...

But bigger longer ranged missiles have demonstrably lower PK... especially against a sophisticated enemy and most of the time the best you can hope for is a mission kill.

See above, the idea is to use this missile inside the no-scape zone while the enemy ones remain outside of their own one.

Who told you that?

They told us all, the quote must be somewhere in the thread. The Su-57 can carry the missile externally only, of course an equivalent missile capable for internal carriage is under development (izd. 810)

Can't help noticing the bigger heavier long range multi warhead missile shown above is based on the Kh-31 body which would make it rather bigger and heavier than R-37M...

That is just a speculative drawing using already existing elements from other missiles, but no one says that makes any sense.

A very rough sketch of what I mean:




The single warhead left, assembled missile right. Fins can be folded flat on the sides for the triangular warhead and square booster. The front could form a ramjet intake, there could be some sleeve to shape it properly, obviously I have not done any research into that. The missile is 4.2 x 0.4 x 0.4 m

Against one fighter it makes more sense to launch two missiles with different guidance methods and then wait to see what happens before deciding whether to fire again or just close and engage with guns.

I think the low pk of current missiles rather indicates the solution is not very effective on long range shots, but if you manage to down a modern fighter with one of those missiles with reasonable certainty, I do think it makes sense to spend a bit more. Fighters and their pilots are very valuable.

Multiple sealed compartments normally.

The Titanic argument  

Not really... a decent IADS will detect the missile and might intercept it during its cruise phase and shoot down all four warheads with one shot.

You are actually pointing put to another advantage of the system, as soon as the booster is depleted and the missile is flying fast at high altitude you can release the four warheads and make it more difficult to intercept. You don't get anything from carrying the empty booster.

Russia can't afford an all stealthy fleet because no country on the planet can afford an all stealthy fleet... even the US is coming to realise the F-35 is not getting cheaper and as they deploy more their operational costs are going to cost more and more... there wont be any money for anything else.

Since in the US MIC manipulation of facts is implicit, we do not know for sure, but by the current prices, F-35 are cheaper than F-15EX. All modern fighters are "stealthy" in a way since all have RCS reduction measures. That is the way fighters are designed today.

Not while keeping its stealth characteristics, and they also have Flankers so they don't need to anyway.

I really don't think they will be ordering Flankers 2030 onwards, probably even sooner, but they will be buying Su-57. We will see.

The multiple missile missile is likely to be R-37M based and therefore carried mostly by the MiG-31 and MiG-41... how many F-22s will it come across?

A multimissile for the MiG-31 may be different to that for MiG-41 and different to that of Su-57. And MiG-31 would indeed come across F-22 because it is a very safe plane to attack it due to superior kinematics, if IADS guidance is available.

TMA1 wrote:anyone know the material composition of the su-57? watching the clip and was wondering what metals and composites were used and what parts are which.

hey thanks. so a bit over 60 percent of the structure is aluminum and titanium. do you know which composites are listed there?

TMA1 wrote:hey thanks. so a bit over 60 percent of the structure is aluminum and titanium. do you know which composites are listed there?

Normally this is carbon fiber

LMFS wrote:

TMA1 wrote:hey thanks. so a bit over 60 percent of the structure is aluminum and titanium. do you know which composites are listed there?

Normally this is carbon fiber

agreed, I just dont know Russian and couldn't figure ou what the other three bars represented on that chart.

TMA1 wrote:agreed, I just dont know Russian and couldn't figure ou what the other three bars represented on that chart.

You can use Yandex translator for images

thanks for what info I could get from it. ill keep looking and figure it out.

The main reason for correlated defeat of one or multiple missiles would be kinematic, and in this regard the two stage architecture of the missile, maximization of the space for fuel and deferment of the start of the rocket engine of the warheads allow to reduce that possibility or said differently, allow the missile to be effective at longer ranges than a conventional missile would be.

Even the most agile missile is capable of what is effectively a slashing attack... it wont be coming round for a follow up attack like they show in the movies.

Considering the 40% PK rate against unaware targets for AMRAAM an unaware target is likely also to not be manouvering hard as soon as it detected a launch, which means the PK against a situationally aware target will be closer to 4%.

The idea is to allow the launch to be executed when the target is inside of the no scape zone.

No escape zone assumes the target is not able to jam the missiles radar or blind its IIR sensor with DIRCMS.

Most modern aircraft are in that category... which means you need a new alternative guidance system or you practise getting up close and using guns.

I rather suspect guns will be used rather more often than most people expect.

If you talk about defensive means like ECM, reduction of RCS return, DEW or self defence missiles, then the pk is indeed correlated with the amount of warheads, and the bigger the salvo and the better the cooperative tactics, the higher the likelihood of a kill.

How about the aircraft that detects your launch and launches their own missile to intercept your missile before it deploys all its warheads...

Yeah I know you prefer the scramjet solution.

A speed advantage is always an advantage, and being a jet engine you can fly as fast or as slow as you want for the terminal phase of the engagement.

And if it does and you launch a second missile, what prevents the target from releasing another towed decoy?

Nothing at all, which is why Russia wants Su-35s as well as Su-57s, and also has them tied in to the ground based IADS so they could direct S-400 and S-500 and S-350 and BUK missiles too.

Nothing prevents you from placing two warheads with ARH and two with IIR seeker if you find it is worth it, and use two per target if you want.

I would expect next gen missiles will combine multiple seeker types that include optical and IR seekers as well as active and passive homing radar options.

It will be part of what increases their PK potential, but thrust vectoring propulsion... whether rocket or scramjet will be critical to prevent targets out turning them...

Well AShM salvos in the VMF do use the same guidance...

Actually they didn't... most of them had active radar homing but also had backup guidance options including IR. The ancient Styx anti ship missiles was exported in two models... one with IR and one with radar... the Indians famously used the IR guided version to hit Pakistani oil storage tanks at night after being heated up during the day by the sun. The domestic missile models had both IR and radar seekers to improve ECCM performance.

With newer missiles some were scanning with radar for targets, but others were just heading to coordinates, and others were listening for radars to turn on to home on to...

See above, the idea is to use this missile inside the no-scape zone while the enemy ones remain outside of their own one.

The NEZ is kinematic, not sensor related, and does not allow for being shot down via enemy missiles... remember some of these weapons will have significant ranges which might enter the engagement envelope of ground based SAMS which are perfectly capable of bringing down SAMs of all types.

The Su-57 can carry the missile externally only, of course an equivalent missile capable for internal carriage is under development (izd. 810)

The 810 is the same size as the R-37M and is its replacement.

The Titanic argument

So what you are saying is that all you need is a 20 million ton iceberg and you can sink any ship... you wouldn't have to drop it from very high up at all...

You are actually pointing put to another advantage of the system, as soon as the booster is depleted and the missile is flying fast at high altitude you can release the four warheads and make it more difficult to intercept. You don't get anything from carrying the empty booster.

I assumed the booster would include some sort of aerodynamic fairing which would mean the weight and size of the complete missile would cruise better than the individual missile warheads. Equally the booster will burn hot to accelerate and climb, but the cruise phase of most long range missiles require low energy solid rocket burn for minutes to achieve long range... if you dump your warheads into the slip stream early they are not going to reach anything like the range of the big missile... being smaller and lighter and not burning solid fuel slowly to counter drag they will slow down and fall from the sky... and being rather small their radar aperture will be rather small too.

F-35 are cheaper than F-15EX.

That is probably because they are not expecting to make 3,500 F-15s. Operational costs for F-35 are eyewatering so it wont take long for a force of 500 F-15s to turn out to be much cheaper and much easier to support than the F-35 is pretending it can.

All modern fighters are "stealthy" in a way since all have RCS reduction measures. That is the way fighters are designed today.

That is not true. MiG-35s and Su-35s and F-15s of any version is not stealthy. They have reduced their RCS in some ways in some directions, but if you could make any fighter stealth there would be no point to actual stealth aircraft... all of which were designed to be stealthy to begin with... not an added on feature.

And MiG-31 would indeed come across F-22 because it is a very safe plane to attack it due to superior kinematics, if IADS guidance is available.

F-22s will remain in the US for hunting cruise missiles to defend the motherland. There is very little they could do over the arctic.

https://servimg.com/view/20247923/103

Is the red ingredient pixie dust?