Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #7

Backman wrote:I tried to figure out what all the hype about DSI intakes was. Through this video, it sounds like the advantage is in weight savings and less moving parts. Which is rather strange. If there was somewhere not to skimp on moving parts and extra weight, it would be how the air gets into the engine. But Im not an aircraft engineer. There are positives and negatives for both. And Lockheed chose one setup and Sukhoi chose another. I don't actually think Lockheed engineers are stupid so they must have their reasons.

Edit: Oh and he says it saves about a half million dollars. So money is why you want DSI intakes ! Lol

LMFS wrote:It is even worse for F-22 and J-20, which are air superiority fighters but whose engines will have to compete with Su-57 having way less amount of air and way worse pressure recovery. I don't know how anyone can think that is any sort of advantage...

RTN wrote:The issue is not so much stealth as much as it is the lack of advancement in seeker and propulsion.

Consider this all air to air missiles will have either

1. Active radar Seeker
2. IR Seeker
3. Active radar and IR seeker

Similarly regarding propulsion we only have

1. Ramjet powered air to air missiles
2. Dual pulse rocket motors

In these two critical areas more research needs to be done so that more advanced seekers and propulsion system can be developed. This is not happening either in US, Russia or EU.

TMA1 wrote:Are they seriously bashing su-57 for lack of DSI? Ridiculous. Even a normie like me can see the performance figures for fighters/bombers with DSI. Almost all max out at mach 1.8.

What's with the Chinese and their love for it? It is good for a cheaper fighter but it absolutely kills higher performance. Frankly I'm baffled. There is a kind of sycophantic cult of western aerospace engineering ideology.

Backman wrote:

TMA1 wrote:Are they seriously bashing su-57 for lack of DSI? Ridiculous. Even a normie like me can see the performance figures for fighters/bombers with DSI. Almost all max out at mach 1.8.

What's with the Chinese and their love for it? It is good for a cheaper fighter but it absolutely kills higher performance. Frankly I'm baffled. There is a kind of sycophantic cult of western aerospace engineering ideology.

I just guessed that it was about the DSI. And it is. Because I had the misfortune of translating the article to check just now. They don't even know the acronym for it.

There should be a minimum quality requirement for an article to be posted in here. This article as as bad as I've ever seen. Childish level.

Here's a quote:

the air intake is almost entirely based on the traditional design of the third generation fighter. From this point of view, the use of soft aluminum alloy for the cladding of the air intake and most of the connected rivets shows that there is still a generation gap between Russia and China with the United States in the development and production of advanced air intakes!

Before the invention of the F-22 and F-35 generation fighters, almost any advanced fighter could not avoid such a difficulty: the rivets of the air intake fell out and damaged the engine blades!

LMFS wrote:I am not sure I am getting your point, are you saying that the propulsive performance of the fighter is not relevant, but that of the missiles it carries? Or are you mixing two different topics?

GarryB wrote:

Consider this all air to air missiles will have either

1. Active radar Seeker
2. IR Seeker
3. Active radar and IR seeker

There is also semi active radar homing missiles (SARH), and also passive radar homing missiles too.

Backman wrote:Before the invention of the F-22 and F-35 generation fighters, almost any advanced fighter could not avoid such a difficulty: the rivets of the air intake fell out and damaged the engine blades!

RTN wrote:Was referring to air to air missiles being carried by air superiority fighters. My point was propulsion and especially sensors of air to air missiles have not made much progress regardless of how state of the art the fighter is which is carrying these missiles.

LMFS wrote:I am seeing reduced size missiles, multi-warhead ones, extremely long range designs, ducted rockets, multispectral seekers, new aero layouts, big advances in lofting and guidance and many other elements of progress, the ranges and capacities of a AIM-7 or a Meteor are hugely different.

Sujoy wrote:Lofting and guidance has improved? That's interesting. In which missile/s - Meteor? R-77-1?

LMFS wrote:Missiles now include two-way data links that help massively to optimize the flight against distant targets. Range increase between AIM-120C7 and D for instance are mainly due to improved lofting as far as I know.

Sujoy wrote:Concept of multiple warheads in air to air missiles is also intriguing. But what's the need for multiple warheads that too in air to air missiles? Extra weight will reduce range of the missile.

LMFS wrote:

Sujoy wrote:Concept of multiple warheads in air to air missiles is also intriguing. But what's the need for multiple warheads that too in air to air missiles? Extra weight will reduce range of the missile.

With multiple warheads I mean smaller shorter range missiles carried by a bigger one. There are two possible interesting uses:
> Mount several small missiles on a bigger one so the main body carries it long range and at a designated point the released missiles can attack several targets, for instance to blunt a massive CM attack coming from a given direction at a fraction of the cost that it would cost with the same number of independent long range missiles and actually increasing the number of targets attacked per aircraft.
> Helping increase the pk against a single target, given the new mini-missiles in development and other self defence weapons like directed energy ones.

limb wrote:The closest thing to a multiwarhead missile was the starstreak in the 1980s. I don't think the USSR/Russia ever took it seriously though, with good reason. The starstreak's small missiles had such tiny warheads that they needed a direct hit. Meanwhile something like the R-37 has a very large blast radius.

LMFS wrote:With multiple warheads I mean smaller shorter range missiles carried by a bigger one. There are two possible interesting uses:
> Mount several small missiles on a bigger one so the main body carries it long range and at a designated point the released missiles can attack several targets, for instance to blunt a massive CM attack coming from a given direction at a fraction of the cost that it would cost with the same number of independent long range missiles and actually increasing the number of targets attacked per aircraft.

LMFS wrote:This has been covered recently in some news, Russians are apparently designing a missile like I describe above.

GarryB wrote:They were working on lofted flight profiles on the R-27 family and teh R-33 family of AAMs in the 1970s....

Sujoy wrote:Sounds interesting. But guidance will be a major challenge. IOW, guiding so many missiles so that they can effectively attack one or more target.

Do you by any chance remember the name of this project/missile? Thanks.

limb wrote:It seems like similar to india, China has particular section pro-westerners that is intent on bashing russian tech, either for as a 5th column ploy, or because of economic interests.