Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #7

GarryB wrote:Are you sure... if tubes and flat surfaces all generated lift then why did it take so long to make planes?

Surely any old tube could be used as a propeller blade and any old flat surface would do as a wing.... right?

I am sure because I researched that. A wing is a device that creates vertical lift by transferring downwards moment to the airflow. This is done because of the AoA. The proof of this: planes can fly inverted, but they cannot fly with negative AoA.

There are symmetric and cambered airfoils. Please take a look at the profile of supersonic wings, they are normally diamond shaped and often symmetrical

That is not lift that is merely a turning force. If you have you hand out the window of a moving car if you hold it flat with your palm facing down your hand cuts through the air nicely. Increase angle of attack and there is a lifting force but it is not real lift it is merely the force of the air hitting your angled hand pushing on hand and moving it... up or down. It is not a lifting aerofoil it is more like a sail.

Actually sails in modern ships act like aerofoils too, that is why they can sail with winds not coming from behind them...

The hand does not bend air efficiently, it is stalled and creates mostly drag

While the low energy rocket motor is burning its nose up attitude generates a lift from the downward angled rocket motors exhaust... when the motor is burned out then angle of attack is used to trade speed for altitude to maintain height.

No, lift is perpendicular to the aircraft's axis, even in a climb, while the engine's thrust is parallel to the axis:

By staggering the missiles vertically you could mount them closer together and get more in... the large rear grid fins do retract forward.

I made a drawing of this some time ago, with up to 6 missiles per bay, but there are some difficulties:
> The free space in the bay is 40 cm, that is tight for two stacked AAMs like R-77 with 20 cm diameter (no clearance)
> The ejector for the lower missiles would need to be like the one in the F-35, but then it would be in the way of the missiles stacked higher

So I rather see up to 4 missiles per bay (they would need careful design and test because clearances would be minimal), unless they go for weapons substantially smaller than the R-77, there the range and warhead / guidance would suffer. I think the multimissile is a better solution altogether, since it allows to use up better the free depth of the bay and requires less modifications for the ejectors. It would result in the equivalent of 8 missiles per bay, so it is incomparably better than any of the other solutions in that regard.

@Gomig-21 see above about the missile stacking topic you mentioned too.

Cyberspec wrote:I think it's pretty clear that the Su-57 can carry 4 x missiles in the main internal bays....to be more specific 4 x K-77M (Izd-180)

Yes, the current state of things is clear. We entertain some speculative ideas here too

Hey, you know what else BFFLES the mind? That they never created a sniggle 50 caliber gun that soul fire from the back of the aircraft at the enemy who ends up with the adb=vantage of following a fighter that constantly having to doge being locked on by the none behind.

Standard Soviet gun pods including articulated ones that could lower and angle the guns to follow targets while the aircraft executed some limited manouvers.... could be fitted facing backwards on standard wing pylons.

The proof of this: planes can fly inverted, but they cannot fly with negative AoA.

Of course they can fly with negative AoA...

Thrust vectored engine nozzles allows aircraft carefree nose pointing ability without fear of stall or superstall.

There are symmetric and cambered airfoils. Please take a look at the profile of supersonic wings, they are normally diamond shaped and often symmetrical

Very pretty, but we are talking about missiles that don't have such shapes for fins and strakes.

Actually sails in modern ships act like aerofoils too, that is why they can sail with winds not coming from behind them...

But the big square handkerchiefs of sails do not.

The hand does not bend air efficiently, it is stalled and creates mostly drag

Like fins on a missile... that are intended to "fly" at very high speed and never intended to manouver like an airplane.

> The ejector for the lower missiles would need to be like the one in the F-35, but then it would be in the way of the missiles stacked higher

The arm launcher is narrower than the missile itself... how could it possibly get in the way of launching other nearby missiles.

The standard launch arm of the R-77 missile along with its folding rear grid fins were intended from the outset for internal weapons bay use.

I think it's pretty clear that the Su-57 can carry 4 x missiles in the main internal bays....to be more specific 4 x K-77M (Izd-180)

It was also pretty clear the Su-35 can carry a single R-77 missile on each of its two centreline pylons... till they revealed a twin mount system that allowed two to be carried on each centreline pylon...

Man this shit is depressing Embarassed there is a smaller 5th gen aircraft that will carry 6 internal missiles and that is not including their CUDA option, and the old current F-22 carries 8 internal weapons. Miniature missiles were made for tor and pant sir, hope the new air to air missiles don't disappoint in size and loading capabilities.

It will be operating with MiG-35s and Su-35s and Su-30s carrying 8 or more missiles each, and operating from home reloads should not be a problem especially when they will be operating with S-70 based drones and ground based S-350, S-400, S-500 et al SAM systems too.

They will have more missiles than their enemy has planes by an order of magnitude.

GarryB wrote:Of course they can fly with negative AoA...

Thrust vectored engine nozzles allows aircraft carefree nose pointing ability without fear of stall or superstall.

No, they can't, unless you call flying to what I call falling from sky

First, why do you bring TVC when we are talking about the lift generated by wings / airfoils? That would be a lifting force generated externally to aero surfaces.
Second, how on earth will a TVC at the rear end of the plane allow it to fly with negative AoA? It makes no sense at all...

Very pretty, but we are talking about missiles that don't have such shapes for fins and strakes.

You just needed to check that out, they are either diamond shaped or hexagonal as in the diagram. And second, what would it do to prove the fins and strakes do not generate lift? You were wrong thinking fins and strakes do not generate lift because you assume only airfoils with the typical subsonic profile generate lift, it is that easy.

The arm launcher is narrower than the missile itself... how could it possibly get in the way of launching other nearby missiles.

If you are using the whole bay width to place (4) missiles there is no space left for any additional arm, the only solution would be to use the bay doors or rather hinges as in the F-35, but then the doors do not open beyond 90 deg, so the arm would stay in the way of any missile deeper in the bay being ejected downwards, in the best case the clearances would be extremely tight and would complicate release envelope. For the same total number of missiles it is better to have more missiles in line than stacking them, it is simpler and the available depth of the bay is not advantageous in that regard with the current missile design and dimensions.

Su-57 received the most automated cockpit

According to the magazine "New Horizons", the fighter is equipped with multifunctional indicators capable of providing the pilot with a large amount of information about the tactical situation and the operation of aircraft systems

MOSCOW, February 8. / TASS /. The 5th generation Su-57 multipurpose fighter received a cockpit with the maximum degree of process automation. This is stated in the magazine " New Horizons ", published by the United Aircraft Corporation (under the control of the state corporation "Rostec").

According to the publication, the Su-57 achieved maximum automation of piloting and combat use, thanks to which the developers managed to create a single-seat multifunctional fighter.

Nikita Dorofeev, head of the Sukhoi Design Bureau's cockpit department, Nikita Dorofeev, told the publication that automation, information integration and intellectual support are the defining requirements for the ergonomics of a modern fighter's cockpit. "Theoretically, after taking off and until the time of landing, a pilot may not be engaged in piloting at all, but search and attack targets. Moreover, this process is also sufficiently automated," he stressed.

According to the magazine, the fighter is equipped with multifunctional indicators capable of providing the pilot with a large amount of information about the tactical situation and the operation of the aircraft systems.

The Su-57 has implemented an intelligent support technology that helps the pilot to carry out the assigned tasks, says Novye Horizons.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/10649543

thegopnik wrote:Comparing it to J-20? Am I only one here that does not want to set the standards for the su-57 that low(probably why I got into my only arguement with lmfs about extending range and speed of new engines,etc issues with other users)?

The su-57 has bigger weapons bay than either the f-22 or f-35. The fact that a smaller aircraft like the f-35 is reaching the same load out levels as the su-57 is one huge disappointment I have of the aircraft, other than that I am awaiting the new weapons, avionics and engine design specs more than anything if that even gets disclosed.

If you listen to Strelets, the very high bay / aircraft volume ratio is one of the main features of the plane. That means they are acutely aware of the relevance of payload, and I take it for a fact that they are working on the best way of putting that big advantage to use. We have already outlined some possible options, in particular de multimissile is a very elegant and powerful solution IMHO. For me it is a given that something which is possible and beneficial (to optimize the bay usage) will be pursued. It has a direct impact in the military value of the plane, for instance if one considers the tactical advantage a long range supercruising platform carrying 4x hypersonic missiles can have, compared for to the capabilities of say the F-35. In A2A roles the same applies, a long endurance plane like the Su-57 should have a massive advantage due to superior weapons carriage in terms of both offensive and defensive aspects and therefore be a strong deterring force, because any potential enemy would avoid picking a fight with it as much as possible, knowing they will be clearly overpowered. This is quite relevant, because bay capacity is essentially an unsurmountable limitation of the platform that practically no modernization effort can address, so planes with swallow bays like F-22 will always be limited in their capabilities and military value. Russian were very smart putting a lot of effort in a layout that is massively superior in that regard, now it only remains to see how they make the best use of it. This may take many years as the proper weapons are developed and we may not even get to know anytime soon what the ultimate capabilities are, but that is something that hardly bothers me, since the potential is there and it will be realized sooner or later. Aircraft design is the art of compromise and nobody is going to go for such bays and not put them to good use, that is simply impossible.

First, why do you bring TVC when we are talking about the lift generated by wings / airfoils? That would be a lifting force generated externally to aero surfaces.

Most weapons with fins like bombs do just fall.

The control surfaces and strakes on missiles relative to their body sizes and weights are tiny and only matter at enormous speeds... they don't hold the missile in the air, they direct its flight direction.

Second, how on earth will a TVC at the rear end of the plane allow it to fly with negative AoA? It makes no sense at all...

Care free manouvering with TVC engines allow aircraft with TVC to essentially keep their noses pointed in directions that are not related to the direction of flight... in the case of a fighter it allows a fighter aircraft to keep its nose and therefore also weapons and nose mounted radar pointed at a target independently of the direction it is flying.

You just needed to check that out, they are either diamond shaped or hexagonal as in the diagram.

Did you look at that image carefully... the trailing outer edge clearly says   NO LIFT...

And second, what would it do to prove the fins and strakes do not generate lift?

They don't generate lift in the aircraft sense they direct flight by generating drag to turn or direct the missile in flight.

You were wrong thinking fins and strakes do not generate lift because you assume only airfoils with the typical subsonic profile generate lift, it is that easy.

You can describe it as lift in the sense of a flat bottomed stone can be skimmed off water surface, but it is not generating lift as such.

If you are using the whole bay width to place (4) missiles there is no space left for any additional arm,

The arm is less than the width of the pylon... if the missiles were 20mm wide and the pylons were 20mm wide you could get dozens in there if there were no fins or strakes.

n the best case the clearances would be extremely tight and would complicate release envelope.

The clearance can be tight because the arms throw the missiles down and clear of the aircraft on launch... they are not released to wobble while sitting amongst the other missiles in the bay.

For the same total number of missiles it is better to have more missiles in line than stacking them, it is simpler and the available depth of the bay is not advantageous in that regard with the current missile design and dimensions.

Stacking means you can have more in a given width. A single stack magazine for a pistol might hold 8 rounds but a double stack double feed mag of very similar length but made thicker can carry normally 13-15 rounds.

The su-57 has bigger weapons bay than either the f-22 or f-35. The fact that a smaller aircraft like the f-35 is reaching the same load out levels as the su-57 is one huge disappointment I have of the aircraft, other than that I am awaiting the new weapons, avionics and engine design specs more than anything if that even gets disclosed.

So without seeing glossy photos, you have to ask yourself why are they developing new weapons custom designed after the period the Su-57s shape was finalised that are smaller and more compact.

Why would they make the weapons smaller if it could only fit two medium or long range missiles in each main weapon bay?

What would be the advantage of making them smaller and more compact?

Unless it allowed more to be carried at once.

This is quite relevant, because bay capacity is essentially an unsurmountable limitation of the platform that practically no modernization effort can address, so planes with swallow bays like F-22 will always be limited in their capabilities and military value.

I assume you meant shallow rather than swallow, but that is a factor of the western aircraft being air to air focused and of course weapons like SDB, whereas the Su-57 is supposed to be a fully multirole swing fighter and bomber.... in fact the French term for Rafale is probably better... Omnirole in the sense that different jobs can be performed in a single mission as needed.

To me , it is more of a launch catapult thing. There are suspenders made to carry light missiles , such as the R-77M , but some heavier missiles , such as A2G cruise missiles require another launcher configuration. When your internal missile launchers are configured to fire heavy cruise missiles , a pair for each bay , then you can only mount a pair of R-77M's as well.

The pneumatic arm launchers are not built in to the aircraft... they are built in to the weapon pylon... and the arm that throws down R-37M missiles should handle most other 600-800kg weapons just fine...

GarryB wrote:The control surfaces and strakes on missiles relative to their body sizes and weights are tiny and only matter at enormous speeds... they don't hold the missile in the air, they direct its flight direction.

Obviously non movable strakes and fins are not used to change direction.

Care free manouvering with TVC engines allow aircraft with TVC to essentially keep their noses pointed in directions that are not related to the direction of flight... in the case of a fighter it allows a fighter aircraft to keep its nose and therefore also weapons and nose mounted radar pointed at a target independently of the direction it is flying.

Tell me when you find a plane different from a Harrier keeping negative AoA in flight with TVC...

Did you look at that image carefully... the trailing outer edge clearly says   NO LIFT...

Good joke

I hope you noticed the diamond profile?

You can describe it as lift in the sense of a flat bottomed stone can be skimmed off water surface, but it is not generating lift as such.

I find it interesting that you don't believe that strakes and fins, being airfoils with different aspect raios and profiles, do not generate lift, but at the same you are sure the cylindrical body of the missile does...

The arm is less than the width of the pylon... if the missiles were 20mm wide and the pylons were 20mm wide you could get dozens in there if there were no fins or strakes.

Aha... MRAAM are ca. 200 mm diameter + fins, the bay is ca. 1100-1150 mm wide, detract clearances to wall and nearby weapons for 4 missiles in parallel and there is no place for any arm. You can trust me, I bothered drawing it. Make a sketch on a napkin if you will, so I understand what you mean.

Stacking means you can have more in a given width. A single stack magazine for a pistol might hold 8 rounds but a double stack double feed mag of very similar length but made thicker can carry normally 13-15 rounds.

Yeah, that is why I propose the multimissile which stacks 4 warheads on top of another 4. Unbeatable

You can carry 2x big AGM in one bay while at the same time carry 2x 4-strong salvos against up to 8 air targets, or one salvo + other smaller self defence missiles. Nothing comes close, it is easy as that.

I assume you meant shallow rather than swallow,

Yeah true

but that is a factor of the western aircraft being air to air focused and of course weapons like SDB, whereas the Su-57 is supposed to be a fully multirole swing fighter and bomber.... in fact the French term for Rafale is probably better... Omnirole in the sense that different jobs can be performed in a single mission as needed.

Agree, and using the bay optimally is needed for that, see the examples that I propose above

The pneumatic arm launchers are not built in to the aircraft... they are built in to the weapon pylon... and the arm that throws down R-37M missiles should handle most other 600-800kg weapons just fine...

Yes there are two models, one for big ordnance up to 700 kg and the other up to 300 IIRC...

@LMFS, I run a construction site and basically am a foreman who points my finger at all sorts of inadequacies and have then correct them so I'm on my way out ATM and haven't had a chance to absorb what you wrote there but will most certainly look into it in great detail when I get back later today for sure and respond to you. Thanks for the heads up!!!!

Wow thanks man

That "smoke" is the expected exhaust. There is no such thing as pure CO2 and H2O emissions (ideal end stage of hydrocarbon combustion).
All fuel burners emit NOx. NOx gives the colour you see in the video. This is not poor burn associated with excessive aerosol (soot and
brown carbon) emissions.

Then we have the problem of tuning jet engines for expected altitude of operation. All jet engines under-perform and pollute most near
the ground. One does not typically notice the colour of vehicle exhaust because there is no clear sky background to compare it against
but the most ground and buildings.

Obviously non movable strakes and fins are not used to change direction.

They are stabilisers like the feathers on an arrow to keep the nose pointing forward unless the moveable control fins counter that and turn the missile in a new direction.

Tell me when you find a plane different from a Harrier keeping negative AoA in flight with TVC...

My understanding is that all fighters fitted with TVC engines can point their noses independantly of their actual direction of travel... doesn't that mean they can flip their noses up while still moving forward (high AOA) or flip their noses down while moving forward (negative AOA)...

Obviously when they do the Cobra they have massive AOA and rapidly slow down because the wings and body lift suddenly becomes a massive air brake, but surely the reverse of that pushing their nose down the wings would become an airbrake rather than a lifting surface too while the vectored engine thrust prevents loss of height so the aircraft maintains height but rapidly slows down with a negative AoA...

I find it interesting that you don't believe that strakes and fins, being airfoils with different aspect raios and profiles, do not generate lift, but at the same you are sure the cylindrical body of the missile does...

The fins and strakes are tiny and would create little actual lift in teh sense that an aircrafts wing generates lift to support the aircraft.

The Strakes stabilise and the fins initiate turns.

The cylindrical body of the missile does not generate lift... otherwise an anti tank missile would not need to be powered all the way to the target.... its body lift and control fins should allow it to fly all the way... except it doesn't.

Aha... MRAAM are ca. 200 mm diameter + fins, the bay is ca. 1100-1150 mm wide, detract clearances to wall and nearby weapons for 4 missiles in parallel and there is no place for any arm. You can trust me, I bothered drawing it. Make a sketch on a napkin if you will, so I understand what you mean.

The Arms that throw the missiles down don't require any width... they are inside the launch pylon and are above the missile and push it down and out of the bay on launch.

By staggering the missiles you can fit the missiles in a space where they simply would not fit if they were side by side, but having some mounted higher and some mounted lower you can fit more in the same width.

Yeah, that is why I propose the multimissile which stacks 4 warheads on top of another 4. Unbeatable

Only if there are always four targets... otherwise you are essentially wasting three shots.

You can carry 2x big AGM in one bay while at the same time carry 2x 4-strong salvos against up to 8 air targets, or one salvo + other smaller self defence missiles. Nothing comes close, it is easy as that.

I would think four separate slimmer missiles would make more sense...

something has attracted my attention about missile capacity.
The R-77 family has the ability to shoot down air to air missiles , making it similar to an air borne hard kill APS , if the Su-57 , or a non stealthy airplane , such as the 35 , carries a big payload , it can shoot down the enemy's loadout. And so , if the fight ends up in a WVR scenario, these fighters may end up very dangerous.

The new 9M100 missile is also an anti missile missile.... it will be used as an anti missile missile at sea in a Redut launch system... four 9M100 missiles fit in the tube of the larger 9M96 missile... the launch container for the 9M96 is 47cms and a quad of 9M100 missiles fits in that tube... as such I would expect the airborne version of the missile would be rather potent... and it will be used by all their forces... the ground based S-350 can carry 9M100 missiles... four to a 9M96 missile tube and also on dedicated launchers to replace the SA-13 in some roles... though Pine might also be used too.

More info about cockpits, I will post the whole interview in the aerospace industry thread:

Vzglyad-x-ray, augmented reality and voice control: the su-57 designer spoke about the cockpits of future fighters

According to the designer, vision management systems can also become quite real. And with their help, you can even "click" buttons.

Head of the cabin Department of the Sukhoi design Bureau of the Sukhoi company (part of the UAC) Nikita Dorofeev said about what technology will be used in the cockpits of the fighter jets of the future. He did this on the pages of Horizons, the corporate magazine of the United aircraft Corporation.

   "Our future from the point of view of the display is Nova, a helmet-mounted target designation system and display, the system of technical vision and augmented reality. The technical vision system is a system of cameras located around the aircraft, operating in different optical ranges, " said Dorofeev.

This means that the pilot will be able to see in any direction, and not only in "normal" mode, but also in various infrared ranges. This can help in clouds or at night. In addition, all information will be displayed directly on the glass of the flight helmet.

Augmented reality also means that for the pilot, important objects such as the runway, buildings, or even the terrain in General will be "drawn" with bright contours. And in this case, we are not talking about the very distant future - such systems are already available on some civil aircraft.

   "The speech control system may be a promising direction. A prototype of such a system was made back in the 1990s, and it was already working steadily at that time. However, our goal now is to teach the system to understand context rather than memorized phrases. So that the pilot does not have to remember convulsively in extreme conditions exactly what phrase he should say," Dorofeev continued the topic of the future.

But the most interesting possibility is not even in this - according to the designer, gaze control systems can become quite real. And with their help, you can even "click" buttons. However, so far, as Dorofeev emphasized, such prototypes are being implemented only at experimental stands. And in real flight, and even more so in air combat, everything will be much more difficult.

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/2021281533-FKySI.html

Atmosphere wrote:something has attracted my attention about missile capacity.
The R-77 family has the ability to shoot down air to air missiles , making it similar to an air borne hard kill APS , if the Su-57 , or a non stealthy airplane , such as the 35 , carries a big payload , it can shoot down the enemy's loadout. And so , if the fight ends up in a WVR scenario, these fighters may end up very dangerous.

I see it very similarly and that is what I mean when I talk about the relevance of salvos in the conditions of increased awareness, countermeasures and defensive means of newer fighters. The one with the deepest magazine has substantial arguments to win the fight because it will retain offensive potential even after having defeated the enemy's loadout.

thegopnik wrote:
1. if the Su-57 does get a photonic radar, than 10 F-35s jamming a single Su-57 wont do shit as explained in the radar system thread we had a month or two ago, While a single Su-57 can do distributive jamming that will effect the opposing aircrafts

2. If it was a 10 missile loadout than I see it possible for 76 Su-57s to take out 760 F-35s with a stealth profile and conducting EW with its entire body.

You can assume every country is working on such radars, it is not like any powerful state is going to come with some untouchable technology, or not for a long time at least. But that does not mean I don't agree on very lopsided exchange ratios in favour of the Su-57 if it counts on the needed early warning and the expected kinematic and potential payload advantages materialize. If the Su can attack while the F-35 cannot, then there is simply no chance they will shot them down, no matter how many they are. It is a simplified example but that is the way VKS or any air force would try to play for sure.

GarryB wrote:Obviously when they do the Cobra they have massive AOA and rapidly slow down because the wings and body lift suddenly becomes a massive air brake, but surely the reverse of that pushing their nose down the wings would become an airbrake rather than a lifting surface too while the vectored engine thrust prevents loss of height so the aircraft maintains height but rapidly slows down with a negative AoA...

No, TVC out of CoG only points the nose up or down. So in the case you describe, the plane would fall like a rock, but turning very aesthetically around itself

The fins and strakes are tiny and would create little actual lift in teh sense that an aircrafts wing generates lift to support the aircraft.

The Strakes stabilise and the fins initiate turns.

The cylindrical body of the missile does not generate lift... otherwise an anti tank missile would not need to be powered all the way to the target.... its body lift and control fins should allow it to fly all the way... except it doesn't.

If the fins are small and the body does not generate lift, the missile would not fly. I am explaining that no aircraft flies with zero AoA, all have a slight noise up attitude so the aero surfaces can work, creating lift by transferring downwards moment to the airflow. So both the fins/strakes and body create lift, some shapes are obviously more effective than others in that regard. The high flight speed and low weight of the missile allows it to fly despite having small lifting surfaces

The Arms that throw the missiles down don't require any width... they are inside the launch pylon and are above the missile and push it down and out of the bay on launch.

Of course they need the robustness and stability to eject the missile, maybe under load, high speeds, vibrations, etc. Those loads are no small thing and only sufficient arm width can handle them.

Only if there are always four targets... otherwise you are essentially wasting three shots.

Planes don't fly alone and salvos are regularly used, so no big deal. In therms of self defence, some different, short ranged missile of which many can be carried would be ideal, maybe a higher calibre gun with guided rounds would be even better? They would be both useful for short range atttack and for defence from incoming missiles...