Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
It is all CGI
+65
Lennox
hoom
Scorpius
higurashihougi
zepia
Broski
ChineseTiger
Mir
flamming_python
Russian_Patriot_
ALAMO
Lurk83
Stealthflanker
11E
bac112
GreyHog
gbu48098
galicije83
miketheterrible
UZB-76
bren_tann
lancelot
FFjet
Dorfmeister
Finty
x_54_u43
JohninMK
Nomad5891
Cheetah
Big_Gazza
franco
medo
GarryB
LMFS
DerWolf
lyle6
Cyberspec
Atmosphere
Isos
Rasisuki Nebia
The-thing-next-door
ult
Tai Hai Chen
Gomig-21
Azi
Sujoy
limb
RTN
Arrow
Daniel_Admassu
tanino
marcellogo
thegopnik
Kiko
calripson
owais.usmani
PhSt
magnumcromagnon
kvs
dino00
Hole
PapaDragon
mnztr
AlfaT8
Backman
69 posters
Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #7
LMFS- Posts : 5156
Points : 5152
Join date : 2018-03-03
flamming_python, Manov, thegopnik and Finty like this post
Gomig-21- Posts : 746
Points : 748
Join date : 2016-07-17
GreyHog wrote:GarryB wrote:Used to deal with a lot of experts telling me that Russian aircraft camo is useless and totally ineffective and that the HATO gray was vastly superior... but a while back there was a video of a Flanker and an F-15 flying in close proximity.... I seem to recall the F-15 had come to look at a Russian plane the Su-27 was escorting and so the Su-27 moved him along.
As they both departed flying further and further away the Su-27 melted into the background and disappeared, while the F-15 remained visible.
Question answered.
Better question is why do westerners think everything the west does is right and perfect and effective without seeing any examples to show that.
I believe it is this one?
Probably because that F-15 appears to be an F-15E strike Eagle which has a dark grey uniformed camo since it's missions are relegated to nighttime strike missions. What it's doing approaching a Russian aircraft in mid daylight is beyond me.
But the F-15 C air to air interceptors and the ones who are supposed to do his kind of interception mission have a much softer light blue and light ight grey to blend in much better. This aircraft that got chased away --quite vigorously by the Su-35 -- was probably on its way to delivery it to a new customer or returning back to base when it noticed the Russian aircraft. Otherwise had they purposely sent an F-15C with the appropriate lighter blend camo, it would have blended a lot better almost like the Su-35. Just being objective and fair don't jump all ugly fellows. And wow Su-35 ain't playing around! That was a VERY aggressive move that hadn't the F-15 moved immediately that could have been a serious midair collisional.
That Sukhoi blend is really amazing!
mnztr- Posts : 2890
Points : 2928
Join date : 2018-01-21
PapaDragon wrote:
Frostbite sounds awesome but I firmly believe that Felon will catch on big time
I remember when Flanker was considered weird and today it's popular, this stuff takes time
They called the MIG-21 the Fishbed, yet its one of the most successful designs in history.
mnztr- Posts : 2890
Points : 2928
Join date : 2018-01-21
Backman wrote:Su 57 high pitch howl again at parade rehearsal. Man it must be cool being downtown and taking that in
https://twitter.com/DylanMalyasov/status/1390535336539852802?s=19
Man I hope I can go to MAKS this year and see all the cool Russian planes.
Finty likes this post
GarryB- Posts : 40484
Points : 40984
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Probably because that F-15 appears to be an F-15E strike Eagle which has a dark grey uniformed camo since it's missions are relegated to nighttime strike missions. What it's doing approaching a Russian aircraft in mid daylight is beyond me.
You are missing the point.
At every airshow I have ever been to the low viz gray has been touted as being superior camouflage to the paint schemes the Soviets and Russians use on their aircraft... they actually call it low visibility gray... suggesting it makes the plane hard to see.
As the video shows it does not, it actually makes the aircraft clearly visible at much greater ranges.
After most of my life being told that Russian camo is rubbish and they don't care about their soldiers lives and don't learn lessons from conflicts and just make what they want without reason or concern for combat performance... this video is an excellent proof they are wrong... but I already knew that...
Backman likes this post
Gomig-21- Posts : 746
Points : 748
Join date : 2016-07-17
GarryB wrote:Probably because that F-15 appears to be an F-15E strike Eagle which has a dark grey uniformed camo since it's missions are relegated to nighttime strike missions. What it's doing approaching a Russian aircraft in mid daylight is beyond me.
You are missing the point.
At every airshow I have ever been to the low viz gray has been touted as being superior camouflage to the paint schemes the Soviets and Russians use on their aircraft... they actually call it low visibility gray... suggesting it makes the plane hard to see.
As the video shows it does not, it actually makes the aircraft clearly visible at much greater ranges.
After most of my life being told that Russian camo is rubbish and they don't care about their soldiers lives and don't learn lessons from conflicts and just make what they want without reason or concern for combat performance... this video is an excellent proof they are wrong... but I already knew that...
I understood exactly what you meant. I saw the Su blend in much better. I was just pointing out that that particular F-15 is a Strike Eagle model which has a much darker color than the other types because it's role is mostly nighttime strike missions and does not have the low vis camo, that's all, and that maybe if it was the other lighter colored type, it might been a little less obvious than what we saw in that video. So just mostly commenting on the video not arguing your point.
GarryB, TMA1 and Finty like this post
TMA1- Posts : 1191
Points : 1189
Join date : 2020-11-30
Anybody heard of the date or rough estimate on when the third serial su-57 is coming out?
Gomig-21 and limb like this post
Finty- Posts : 539
Points : 545
Join date : 2021-02-09
Location : Great Britain
Gomig-21 wrote:GarryB wrote:Probably because that F-15 appears to be an F-15E strike Eagle which has a dark grey uniformed camo since it's missions are relegated to nighttime strike missions. What it's doing approaching a Russian aircraft in mid daylight is beyond me.
You are missing the point.
At every airshow I have ever been to the low viz gray has been touted as being superior camouflage to the paint schemes the Soviets and Russians use on their aircraft... they actually call it low visibility gray... suggesting it makes the plane hard to see.
As the video shows it does not, it actually makes the aircraft clearly visible at much greater ranges.
After most of my life being told that Russian camo is rubbish and they don't care about their soldiers lives and don't learn lessons from conflicts and just make what they want without reason or concern for combat performance... this video is an excellent proof they are wrong... but I already knew that...
I understood exactly what you meant. I saw the Su blend in much better. I was just pointing out that that particular F-15 is a Strike Eagle model which has a much darker color than the other types because it's role is mostly nighttime strike missions and does not have the low vis camo, that's all, and that maybe if it was the other lighter colored type, it might been a little less obvious than what we saw in that video. So just mostly commenting on the video not arguing your point.
Indeed and we can't forget that at one time, Su-34s and Su-35s were outshopped in a rather fetching scheme of sky blue undersides but dark grey topsides.
Isos- Posts : 11592
Points : 11560
Join date : 2015-11-06
Mig-29 had different grey cammo than su-27 which had a light blue cammo.
One is adapted for high altitude above the clouds where sky is blue when the other was adapted for lower altitude where there are grey cloud and ground.
Cammo is to be used depending on how you use your plane, where you use it and when you use it.
One is adapted for high altitude above the clouds where sky is blue when the other was adapted for lower altitude where there are grey cloud and ground.
Cammo is to be used depending on how you use your plane, where you use it and when you use it.
Finty- Posts : 539
Points : 545
Join date : 2021-02-09
Location : Great Britain
Isos wrote:Mig-29 had different grey cammo than su-27 which had a light blue cammo.
One is adapted for high altitude above the clouds where sky is blue when the other was adapted for lower altitude where there are grey cloud and ground.
Cammo is to be used depending on how you use your plane, where you use it and when you use it.
Indeed. For instance, at least one of the VVS MiG29s based in East Germany was painted in a green camo scheme for ground attack work but otherwise, the majority were painted in light grey schemes.
limb- Posts : 1550
Points : 1576
Join date : 2020-09-17
Why is it taking so long to produce the next few serially produced Su-57s? Also in case of a war, are at least some of the prototypes combat worthy? If the fulfillment of the order gets delayed, it would be prudent to keep the prototypes in active combat service to bolster numbers.
TMA1 likes this post
LMFS- Posts : 5156
Points : 5152
Join date : 2018-03-03
They are adjusting the production line together with all the supply chain. That is a HUGE amount of work, specially for modern, complex products with high technology + tight tolerances for every employed component. The whole Russian aerospace industry needs to move forward with the program and that is simply a very ambitious goal. But nevertheless this year another 4 units should leave the production line already, so in the big picture they are not standing still at all.
TMA1 likes this post
Gomig-21- Posts : 746
Points : 748
Join date : 2016-07-17
Sorry if repost, I edited the post since is was landing but this one hopefully LMFS and others who couldn't see can now. But like more jetfighter, the movement of the surface to get the nose up at take off is almost exclusively performed with the H-stabs forcing the rear behind the landing gear down and nose up exposing lower surface of wings and drops flaps to slow the air and and build more pressure under the wings to create lift. But if the Su-57 uses flaps, I think like most aircraft that check altimeter and as soon as it's airborne, flaps are retracted to the straight position as it appears in this pic.
Last edited by Gomig-21 on Sat May 15, 2021 10:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
Finty likes this post
LMFS- Posts : 5156
Points : 5152
Join date : 2018-03-03
Again I cannot see the picture 
Yes for landing they deploy flaps.
Yes for landing they deploy flaps.
Gomig-21- Posts : 746
Points : 748
Join date : 2016-07-17
LMFS wrote:Again I cannot see the picture
Yes for landing they deploy flaps.
Check now I've changed the pic and quote.
Enlarge this beauty and get some satisfaction!
medo and Backman like this post
LMFS- Posts : 5156
Points : 5152
Join date : 2018-03-03
@Gomig-21
Yes, that picture is a take off and this time again flaps are not deployed. To the rotation you mention, in the Su-57 we have seen the LEVCONS being employed (deflecting upwards), besides the tail
Yes, that picture is a take off and this time again flaps are not deployed. To the rotation you mention, in the Su-57 we have seen the LEVCONS being employed (deflecting upwards), besides the tail
Gomig-21 likes this post
bac112- Posts : 6
Points : 12
Join date : 2021-05-16
I thought the engine intakes weren't s-shaped.
LMFS- Posts : 5156
Points : 5152
Join date : 2018-03-03
I don't know the origin of that drawing, sees to be clearly Paralay's style, but constructively it does not make any sense. They have a straight air duct, with the intake slightly out of alignment with the compressor's face, obscured by the lower intake lip and with a radar blocker and grids / doors for management of the air flow. It is all in the patent.
GarryB- Posts : 40484
Points : 40984
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
S shape intakes are good for RCS because any radar wave that enters the intake has to bounce off the walls to reach the front of the engine to bounce back out.
The walls of the intake can be coated with RAM so two bounces in to strike the front surface of the engine which will also be RAM coated and then two bounces to get out means a signal reduction of 4 x X plus Y, where X is the signal reduction from the RAM in the intake lining and Y is the RAM signal reduction on the engine face... but S shaped intakes create airflow restriction that can seriously effect engine performance... otherwise the air intake on a modern stealth fighter would be a spiral that needs thousands of bounces to get to the engine blades and thousands of bounces to get out... awesome for stealth, but the plane would not fly.
AFAIK the plan all along was to use radar blockers... the Su-27 and now the MiG-29 have had metal mesh screen doors that activate when the undercarriage is deployed to deflect rubbish and material from the ground and prevent it being ingested into the engine... imagine having two sets of screens located 1/3rd and 2/3rds along the engine intake... one from above and one from below they each extend to just over half the intake width so the air can flow both around them and through them, but things travelling in straight lines like radio and radar waves will hit them and bounce all over the place inside the engine... the more bounces the better because everything is RAM coated so each bounce reduces signal strength.
Deflecting waves coming directly into the tube to near 90 degrees means bouncing sideways hundreds of times before hitting the engine face at a shallow angle and bouncing back out through the engine intake tube... so a beam heading directly into the intake actually exits the intake sideways not returning to the antenna that directed it at the target aircraft and with many times less power...
Note that drawing also shows internal missile locations on the inside edge of the engine intakes which has never been claimed as being possible by anyone.
The walls of the intake can be coated with RAM so two bounces in to strike the front surface of the engine which will also be RAM coated and then two bounces to get out means a signal reduction of 4 x X plus Y, where X is the signal reduction from the RAM in the intake lining and Y is the RAM signal reduction on the engine face... but S shaped intakes create airflow restriction that can seriously effect engine performance... otherwise the air intake on a modern stealth fighter would be a spiral that needs thousands of bounces to get to the engine blades and thousands of bounces to get out... awesome for stealth, but the plane would not fly.
AFAIK the plan all along was to use radar blockers... the Su-27 and now the MiG-29 have had metal mesh screen doors that activate when the undercarriage is deployed to deflect rubbish and material from the ground and prevent it being ingested into the engine... imagine having two sets of screens located 1/3rd and 2/3rds along the engine intake... one from above and one from below they each extend to just over half the intake width so the air can flow both around them and through them, but things travelling in straight lines like radio and radar waves will hit them and bounce all over the place inside the engine... the more bounces the better because everything is RAM coated so each bounce reduces signal strength.
Deflecting waves coming directly into the tube to near 90 degrees means bouncing sideways hundreds of times before hitting the engine face at a shallow angle and bouncing back out through the engine intake tube... so a beam heading directly into the intake actually exits the intake sideways not returning to the antenna that directed it at the target aircraft and with many times less power...
Note that drawing also shows internal missile locations on the inside edge of the engine intakes which has never been claimed as being possible by anyone.
TMA1 likes this post
kvs- Posts : 15839
Points : 15974
Join date : 2014-09-10
Location : Turdope's Kanada
There is a compromise between hiding reflected EM waves and increasing drag. An S-duct intake results in more fuel burn to overcome
more resistance of air entering such a duct and setting up quasi-stationary vortices that amplify the drag. This in addition to the fact
that changing the direction of flow does not come for free. This energy cost is not so trivial and that is why radar blockers are used.
But as noted in this thread before, the geometry of the Su-57 intakes at the aperture has been thought through. There is no easy line
of sight into the intakes for any emission source or observer that is not in the same plane as the intakes. There is a lip on the bottom
of the intake aperture that is not some random feature. This lip also frustrates the reflection of EM back to the emission source.
A major problem for any stealth is that radar systems that do not co-locate the emission and detection of the EM waves used for detection
defeat all the effort to scatter the EM in the wrong direction. Advanced ground systems can detect stealth aircraft already and even
networked old style systems can do enough. This approach can also be applied in the air if there are groups of jets engaged in a confrontation.
They can detect and send position data in real time. This is why certain features, like 3D thrust vectoring must not be sacrificed on the
altar of stealth fanboism.
more resistance of air entering such a duct and setting up quasi-stationary vortices that amplify the drag. This in addition to the fact
that changing the direction of flow does not come for free. This energy cost is not so trivial and that is why radar blockers are used.
But as noted in this thread before, the geometry of the Su-57 intakes at the aperture has been thought through. There is no easy line
of sight into the intakes for any emission source or observer that is not in the same plane as the intakes. There is a lip on the bottom
of the intake aperture that is not some random feature. This lip also frustrates the reflection of EM back to the emission source.
A major problem for any stealth is that radar systems that do not co-locate the emission and detection of the EM waves used for detection
defeat all the effort to scatter the EM in the wrong direction. Advanced ground systems can detect stealth aircraft already and even
networked old style systems can do enough. This approach can also be applied in the air if there are groups of jets engaged in a confrontation.
They can detect and send position data in real time. This is why certain features, like 3D thrust vectoring must not be sacrificed on the
altar of stealth fanboism.
Backman and TMA1 like this post
LMFS- Posts : 5156
Points : 5152
Join date : 2018-03-03
GarryB wrote:Note that drawing also shows internal missile locations on the inside edge of the engine intakes which has never been claimed as being possible by anyone.
Well actually it represents a second layer of missiles attached to the bay doors. I had not seen this drawing before and came up with a similar idea not so long ago, but this looks old so he probably changed his mind later on.
As to the air duct, the construction of the plane (podded engine) is naturally conductive to the straight layout of way higher efficiency and lower weight. We have seen the production pictures proving the actual straight shape. That S duct would ruin lots of internal space, be very bad for air flow and make the plane much heavier and more difficult to build. Also incompatible with the variable ramps and constructively absurd. Nobody needs it.
dino00, Gomig-21, TMA1, The_Observer and Finty like this post
11E- Posts : 123
Points : 135
Join date : 2020-12-08
mnztr wrote:Backman wrote:Su 57 high pitch howl again at parade rehearsal. Man it must be cool being downtown and taking that in
https://twitter.com/DylanMalyasov/status/1390535336539852802?s=19
Man I hope I can go to MAKS this year and see all the cool Russian planes.
Me too, this is the second Covid year I could not go to Moscow. Hope next year, and see these beautiful planes!
Backman- Posts : 2703
Points : 2717
Join date : 2020-11-11
The s is a bit over stated in that pic but it is there.LMFS wrote:I don't know the origin of that drawing, sees to be clearly Paralay's style, but constructively it does not make any sense. They have a straight air duct, with the intake slightly out of alignment with the compressor's face, obscured by the lower intake lip and with a radar blocker and grids / doors for management of the air flow. It is all in the patent.
The engines are canted inward toward the centerline of the aircraft too.
LMFS- Posts : 5156
Points : 5152
Join date : 2018-03-03
Backman wrote:The s is a bit over stated in that pic but it is there
S duct implies that the compressor is completely hidden by the air duct, in the PAK-FA that is not he case. There is a slight misalignment as it is the case in most planes, maybe a bit more due to the 3 deg deviation of the engines vs. plane's axis, but nothing like US designs. Which is IMHO actually very good, since the curves necessary for a S duct are just awful for the internal layout of the plane, specially for the weapon bays. The design decision of Sukhoi is much smarter in my opinion, an advantage of not investing themselves in BS narratives like absolute radar stealth that prevent them from doing what is practical and reasonable. The propulsive performance of the Su-57 is in all likelihood quite superior to that of F-22 and F-35, as the weapon space, and the construction simplicity / weight is likely better too.
TMA1 likes this post
Backman- Posts : 2703
Points : 2717
Join date : 2020-11-11
LMFS wrote:Backman wrote:The s is a bit over stated in that pic but it is there
S duct implies that the compressor is completely hidden by the air duct, in the PAK-FA that is not he case. There is a slight misalignment as it is the case in most planes, maybe a bit more due to the 3 deg deviation of the engines vs. plane's axis, but nothing like US designs. Which is IMHO actually very good, since the curves necessary for a S duct are just awful for the internal layout of the plane, specially for the weapon bays. The design decision of Sukhoi is much smarter in my opinion, an advantage of not investing themselves in BS narratives like absolute radar stealth that prevent them from doing what is practical and reasonable. The propulsive performance of the Su-57 is in all likelihood quite superior to that of F-22 and F-35, as the weapon space, and the construction simplicity / weight is likely better too.
Yes. Its just that some idiots say that because it doesn't have S ducts, its just like the Flanker. But its not just like the Flanker. They went through a lot of effort to hide it.
Gomig-21, TMA1 and bac112 like this post