Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #7

TMA1 wrote:

Hole wrote:

kvs wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Can we get a discussion going how ridiculous it is that so many countries have "5th generation" fighter programs when they haven't proven that they're capable of designing and building indigenous 4th generation jets?

Japan: Has no indigenous 4th gen fighters but has a 5th gen program. Took the F-16, gave it an additional seat and dubbed it the F-2 and bloated the price out the atmosphere. The F-2 cost's $127 million in FY2009 Dollars, with inflation it costs $160 million in 2021. Imagine paying $160 million for a glorified F-16 lol!    

Turkey: No indigenous 4th gen fighters of their own, has a 5th gen program, but also negotiating trying to buy Su-57's. What's even amusing is that their drones are literally pieced together from parts sourced all over the world, but they think they can create a domestic 5th gen fighter lmao?

India: Their 4th gen fighter is a stillborn abortion that's 30 years late, they turned down the FGFA(Su-57) program and now they're claiming that they can create 5th gen fighters? Fuck outta here! Their media's idiocy rivals the bullshit excreted by US/UK media concerning Russian MIC, but that's expected from those licking Anglo-Suckson nutsack. You go from being independent to wanting to be colonized again.

South Korea: No indigenous 4th gen fighters but has a 5th gen program.

Notice how Western media never once questions their ability to create 5th gen fighters despite never having successful indigenous 4th generation programs, but they lodge infinite amounts of criticism for the Su-57.

It's the me-too club.  

I am sure they will also produce the bestest stealth ever.

At least their jets will be much better then this shitty russian Su-57.

...someone got salty very quickly! looks like a comment you'd see on f-16.net. the irony is that if I made even a milder criticism of f-35 on f-16.net id be banned in point zero five seconds. anyways...

Turkey's project is kinda silly. same with India's. SK seems to be goin an interesting route and is on course to realizing their goal. dont know enough about Japan's project but it will probably be very good and very expensive.

frankly the su-57 is very unique and isn't following the same paths as others. all I can hear are "muh one piece canopy" tier complaints, or "uv maws is so dated" kind of nonsense. the aircraft is front hemisphere oriented, and very aggressive. the EO and radar sensors are top notch. when I hear people bitch about su-57 for shit like "not having diverterless intakes" it makes my eyes roll.  they all envision a Mach 1.6, chunky little strike fighter f-35 clone.

Obviously you don´t know what sarcasm is.

Backman wrote:

thegopnik wrote:

Because of this I am assuming that only a single order of the Su-57 would be made, but I could be wrong or I am setting my expectations way too high.

Edit: I mistook your post for a new one. Either way.

If you think drones are the future, then do you believe that all Flanker derivative production will stop ? Mig 35 also ?

The su 57 is a true stealth blend wing with a small silhouette and we already know that they built it with unmanned capability in mind. So even if what you are saying becomes true, su 57 will be in more demand. Not less.

The problem is how convinced the general western public is by saying shit like how the su-57 canopy is not shaped like other 5th gens, or not having a 6 polygon shape for their sensors but bulb shapes. Etc, etc while puling .000001 claims.

Because of this i would find it hilarious that i decide to go shitpost drones taking out f-35s for less than 10 million dollars and that candidate would be the su-70. Only current complaints are back engines meaning i can go pull .000001 from front claims and western public would seem more convinced because i barely see criticism from su-70 than su-57. Meaning that with those RCS figures both su-70 and f-35 will have short missile engagements only, combine that with EW immunity from PICs(which raytheon is still struggling with) than we can say the su-70 is a serious threat to f-35s. with 1/10 production costs of the f-35 traumatizing f-35 fans.

Hole wrote:

TMA1 wrote:

Hole wrote:

kvs wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Can we get a discussion going how ridiculous it is that so many countries have "5th generation" fighter programs when they haven't proven that they're capable of designing and building indigenous 4th generation jets?

Japan: Has no indigenous 4th gen fighters but has a 5th gen program. Took the F-16, gave it an additional seat and dubbed it the F-2 and bloated the price out the atmosphere. The F-2 cost's $127 million in FY2009 Dollars, with inflation it costs $160 million in 2021. Imagine paying $160 million for a glorified F-16 lol!    

Turkey: No indigenous 4th gen fighters of their own, has a 5th gen program, but also negotiating trying to buy Su-57's. What's even amusing is that their drones are literally pieced together from parts sourced all over the world, but they think they can create a domestic 5th gen fighter lmao?

India: Their 4th gen fighter is a stillborn abortion that's 30 years late, they turned down the FGFA(Su-57) program and now they're claiming that they can create 5th gen fighters? Fuck outta here! Their media's idiocy rivals the bullshit excreted by US/UK media concerning Russian MIC, but that's expected from those licking Anglo-Suckson nutsack. You go from being independent to wanting to be colonized again.

South Korea: No indigenous 4th gen fighters but has a 5th gen program.

Notice how Western media never once questions their ability to create 5th gen fighters despite never having successful indigenous 4th generation programs, but they lodge infinite amounts of criticism for the Su-57.

It's the me-too club.  

I am sure they will also produce the bestest stealth ever.

At least their jets will be much better then this shitty russian Su-57.

...someone got salty very quickly! looks like a comment you'd see on f-16.net. the irony is that if I made even a milder criticism of f-35 on f-16.net id be banned in point zero five seconds. anyways...

Turkey's project is kinda silly. same with India's. SK seems to be goin an interesting route and is on course to realizing their goal. dont know enough about Japan's project but it will probably be very good and very expensive.

frankly the su-57 is very unique and isn't following the same paths as others. all I can hear are "muh one piece canopy" tier complaints, or "uv maws is so dated" kind of nonsense. the aircraft is front hemisphere oriented, and very aggressive. the EO and radar sensors are top notch. when I hear people bitch about su-57 for shit like "not having diverterless intakes" it makes my eyes roll.  they all envision a Mach 1.6, chunky little strike fighter f-35 clone.

Obviously you don´t know what sarcasm is.

...yes i do

LMFS wrote:

Gomig-21 wrote:If those are in fact 3 fuel tanks on its back and spine, that is quite the internal load of fuel this thing can carry!  It would be something if that center, spine "box" was actually a container for additional missiles that would automatically feed down into the forward weapons bay once its missiles are used up.  That would give this aircraft quite the weapons load as you could pack in what, 20 R-77s in that space?  Even split it where the lower half holds additional missiles while the upper half holds fuel.  That would be quite the setup to make this thing even more lethal than it already seems to be.

If the Su-57 is to match the massive 11.5 t of fuel of the Su-35 for a range >3500 km, which I take as the "no brainer" approach to the plane's baseline requirements, then they need something close to 14.5 cubic meter fuel volume, and that is a LOT. Some knowledgeable guys doubt this is even possible, since the linear dimensions of the Su-57 are smaller than those of the Flankers. The plane already has way bigger weapons bays than any other competitor and, as discussed, the current issue would be how to make the best use of it. Two layers of magazine would make the handling of the missiles very complex, the mechanicals would be quite challenging. I think the plane as designed is a masterpiece and the only piece missing is to know more abut the real capabilities including operational concept, engines, systems and armament.

I think the quote goes is that the Su-57 has more litres of fuel than Su-27s, which I believe makes sense since the Su-35 did receive additional fuel tanks. But taking into account newer design, materials, and engines, it will get the same or higher range than the Su-35. Plus possibility of have the huge drop tanks as well.

Overall it's an incredible plane, enormous range and payload, all-around(or near all-around) radar, full vision systems, all around IRST, laser countermeasures, kinematic capability....but people focus on rivets.

LMFS wrote:If the Su-57 is to match the massive 11.5 t of fuel of the Su-35 for a range >3500 km, which I take as the "no brainer" approach to the plane's baseline requirements, then they need something close to 14.5 cubic meter fuel volume, and that is a LOT. Some knowledgeable guys doubt this is even possible, since the linear dimensions of the Su-57 are smaller than those of the Flankers. The plane already has way bigger weapons bays than any other competitor and, as discussed, the current issue would be how to make the best use of it. Two layers of magazine would make the handling of the missiles very complex, the mechanicals would be quite challenging. I think the plane as designed is a masterpiece and the only piece missing is to know more abut the real capabilities including operational concept, engines, systems and armament.

I suppose rolling the missiles down a chute off a spring-loaded mount like a clip or magazine is out of the question, ey? loool.  It was just a great sounding idea.  Imagine being able to go into battle with 25 missiles!?  You could just fire away at BVR and increase your chances of kills by a lot.  A half-dozen aircraft could take out an entire squadron and then some of the enemy without breaking a sweat.  The advantage would be tremendous.  I guess the complexity is one thing for sure, and there's also the room for passageway that would need to be addressed and that would seem like a challenge as well.  I'm sure there are all sorts of wiring and tubing and you name it running through that area under that tank from the cockpit to the rear of the fuselage.  Hey, it sounded like a good idea for a few minutes, anyway!

Your information about the fuel volume requirements is pretty interesting.  They might not be able to match the same tonnage of fuel as the Su-35, being the latter is just a massive aircraft including its girth, as opposed to the Su-57's slim, linear shape.  We have seen a few of the prototypes sporting underwing fuel tanks whereas I don't recall ever seeing an Su-35 with tanks at all.  That might be implausible for them to achieve that in the Su-57 even with those massive tanks and other areas where they can sneak in fuel.  We'll have to wait and see, I guess.  Do you know if they're using the same foam inserted in the fuel tanks to help keep the fuel from sloshing around like in the Su-35?  That seems like such a brilliant solution to that problem.

EDIT: I just saw your quote on the foam in the Su-57. I always thought it was to contain the fuel from moving around.

thegopnik wrote:

Backman wrote:

thegopnik wrote:

Because of this I am assuming that only a single order of the Su-57 would be made, but I could be wrong or I am setting my expectations way too high.

Edit: I mistook your post for a new one. Either way.

If you think drones are the future, then do you believe that all Flanker derivative production will stop ? Mig 35 also ?

The su 57 is a true stealth blend wing with a small silhouette and we already know that they built it with unmanned capability in mind. So even if what you are saying becomes true, su 57 will be in more demand. Not less.

The problem is how convinced the general western public is by saying shit like how the su-57 canopy is not shaped like other 5th gens, or not having a 6 polygon shape for their sensors but bulb shapes. Etc, etc while puling .000001 claims.

Because of this i would find it hilarious that i decide to go shitpost drones taking out f-35s for less than 10 million dollars and that candidate would be the su-70. Only current complaints are back engines meaning i can go pull .000001 from front claims and western public would seem more convinced because i barely see criticism from su-70 than su-57. Meaning that with those RCS figures both su-70 and f-35 will have short missile engagements only, combine that with EW immunity from PICs(which raytheon is still struggling with) than we can say the su-70 is a serious threat to f-35s. with 1/10 production costs of the f-35 traumatizing f-35 fans.

There is no convincing the western public of anything. They argue in bad faith. We can see that by them giving the J-20 a pass on everything including those canards.

LMFS wrote:If the Su-57 is to match the massive 11.5 t of fuel of the Su-35 for a range >3500 km, which I take as the "no brainer" approach to the plane's baseline requirements, then they need something close to 14.5 cubic meter fuel volume, and that is a LOT. Some knowledgeable guys doubt this is even possible, since the linear dimensions of the Su-57 are smaller than those of the Flankers. The plane already has way bigger weapons bays than any other competitor and, as discussed, the current issue would be how to make the best use of it. Two layers of magazine would make the handling of the missiles very complex, the mechanicals would be quite challenging. I think the plane as designed is a masterpiece and the only piece missing is to know more abut the real capabilities including operational concept, engines, systems and armament.

I assume it has a wet wing? It has 25% more wing area then the SU-35, so I assume this will carry quite a bit of fuel Average wing thickness would only need to be 18 cm to support 14 cubic meters of tankage

Backman wrote:

There is no convincing the western public of anything. They argue in bad faith. We can see that by them giving the J-20 a pass on everything including those canards.

You sure about that? Of course it's hard to get a consensus on such things but I'd guess that people here would have lower opinions of Chinese aircraft than Russian ones, perhaps considering how they like to copy stuff and sometimes build without licenses. Fair play to PRC for trying to develop 5th gen but the J-20 looks rather awkward, like a Typhoon that's been pancaked.

I highly suspect the SU-57 has large shoulder tanks at the wing root, pretty much where the Rafale and F-16 are putting their conformal tanks. Of course they are perfectly integrated since they are built in. They can carry an enourmous amount of fuel here with very little aerodynamic penalty and very well placed in terms of CG and having the fuel directly supported without too much structural penalty.

Finty wrote:

Backman wrote:

There is no convincing the western public of anything. They argue in bad faith. We can see that by them giving the J-20 a pass on everything including those canards.

You sure about that? Of course it's hard to get a consensus on such things but I'd guess that people here would have lower opinions of Chinese aircraft than Russian ones, perhaps considering how they like to copy stuff and sometimes build without licenses. Fair play to PRC for trying to develop 5th gen but the J-20 looks rather awkward, like a Typhoon that's been pancaked.

You'd be wrong on that. The Western defense media loves the Mig 1.44 errr i mean J-20. Just read any article from The Drive about it. They can barely write an article about the J-20 that doesn't contain a  swipe against the su 57 in it.

If the su 57 didn't exist , they'd probably think less of the J-20. But because it exists , they hype it up to cut down the su 57. su 57 derangment syndrome is a real thing.

I like the J-20 as an interceptor (needs to get rid of those DSI intakes to actually be an interceptor but I digress) but I never say it because most Chinese fanboys are just as bad as the Americans with their bullshit about the su 57.

They try to divide to rule better.

They have access to none but yet have a lot to say...

Nato shits in their pants when they see the new weapons that Russia sells to everyone. The technological gap is no more. They used to have total technological advantage against 3rd world countries but now those same countries can buy similar weapon that NATO use.

Even guerillas now have night fighting capabilities, AD missiles, antiship missiles, ballistic and cruise missiles, last atgm...

In any new war they will loose more and more.

Isos wrote:They try to divide to rule better.

They have access to none but yet have a lot to say...

Nato shits in their pants when they see the new weapons that Russia sells to everyone. The technological gap is no more. They used to have total technological advantage against 3rd world countries but now those same countries can buy similar weapon that NATO use.

Even guerillas now have night fighting capabilities, AD missiles, antiship missiles, ballistic and cruise missiles, last atgm...

In any new war they will loose more and more.

The USSR was compromised from the inside.  Russia has manged to reach a new level of national coherence.   This is evident from the
ridiculous case of the Soviet IC fabrication plants being torched in the 1970s and leading to substantial impact on Soviet IC capability.  
None of the modern Russian IC plants have been torched and have been advancing to higher resolution lithography.  There is clearly a
much higher level of intrinsic security and organizational functionality even though the USSR was supposedly totalitarian and a command
economy.   The commanders were rotten and planning the dissolution into 3rd world capitalism long before the USSR collapsed.    

In spite of this, the USSR was not far behind the west in terms of military technology.   But Russia is ahead of the west now and not
by a trivial margin.  And that is objective fact based on actual weapons systems and not some "we are better, because we are" BS that
afflicts the minds of NATzO fanbois.

LMFS wrote:

Yes, you can see this in the same picture where the dorsal tanks are visible. This is one of the main advantages of the integral aerodynamic layout or blended wing-body. There is a space for the wheels of the main landing gear and another for the side bays, essentially the rest of that volume is available for fuel. But that was also the case in the Flanker.

Do you mean the pic above? I don't see shoulder tanks there If you look at the F-22 vs the SU-57 and how the wing blends into the body, there are some significant differences. That is most apparent about 1/3 of the way towards the back. IF that space is used for fuel, they are pretty large tanks. Its also about 1.2m longer. So do you think it has more then the 10.5T listed in the wiki?

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://redsamovar.com/2021/03/08/actu-pak-dp-le-prochain-intercepteur-russe/

translated to English. anyone heard of issues about object 30 engine? is what this guy is saying legit? issues with the compressor core? the guy seems to imply that it will take much longer.

He is talking about if the engine is adapted for use in the PAK DP

mnztr wrote:He is talking about if the engine is adapted for use in the PAK DP

sorry wrong article

https://redsamovar.com/2020/12/26/actu-livraison-du-premier-sukhoi-su-57-de-Serie/

in the article the author cites an invoice of some kind. here is the link.

https://zakupki.gov.ru/223/purchase/public/purchase/info/lot-info.html?lotId=13455655&purchaseId=10143489&purchaseMethodType=IS

I translated it and this is a portion of what the author quoted.

1700-2020-02468 Implementation of research and development work on the topic: "Research to determine the causes of destruction of the welded section of 1-2 stages of HPC kit No. С17-004 of product 30-05 assembly 7".

anyone with jet engine knowledge out there? the hot compressor core is the beating heart of the whole thing. what do you guys make of all this?

Sounds like the welds are failing, so it could be one of several solutions, different welding technique, different metals, coatings, boundary layer of cooling air. Or more difficult approaches like repositioning the seam so the weld is at a different location or eliminated complelely (the latter is probably a difficult and expensive) If the weld is at a location of extreme thermal stress, differences in the welding metal and the structure can cause cracks due to different rates of expansion. In any case, its certainly a problem they will have to fix before production, but not a huge issue.

thanks for replies. would agree that the companies involved would announce any serious delay as they are always pretty open about that stuff. that French blog has legit info but he is pretty obviously skeptical and biased. still an interesting source nonetheless.

One solution could be to friction weld the two sections, but I am not 100% sure if it is a suitable technique for such a large item. That way the two sections would have the same metal, and with some cleanup and heat treatment of the completed item it should be fine. Manufacturing tech is really quite amazing and getting even more amazing. They may even 3d print the part but also not sure if the tech is there yet.