Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #7

This picture shows very well the level of alignment of the intake and engine and the shape of the air duct:

Why is there such an obsession about S ducts , and in general , why is there always an obsession with things the west emphasise on? As if what they have layed is the standard.

The Su-57 has a lot of interesting stuff that is completely absent in fifth gens , yet this aspect gets little attention.

Well the reason for all this is semi-baked "intellectuals" that hop on forums and think of themselves as an authority judging russian tanks and airplanes via the high horse lense of ''i'm superior" while dishing out amounts of cringe that are comparable to twitter users. They have this weird obsession with trying to always feel smarter than whoever designed that piece of equipment. Add to this the fact that those are english speaking forums on russian equipment and voilà.

The YF-23 ducts did not completely hide the turbine blades either. Yet it was considered to be more stealthy than the YF-22 design.

Atmosphere wrote:The Su-57 has a lot of interesting stuff that is completely absent in fifth gens , yet this aspect gets little attention.

And then there is the schizophrenic element where those features you mention are copied in the 6G NGAD and argued as the reason F-22 is obsolete, but at the same time a proof that Su-57 is a 4.5G plane at best. Western fanbois have been brought through brainwashing to outright insanity.

The su-57 is the T-14 but in the sky.
Forum "Exeperts" criticised the crewless turret/way into robotization of the tani , but surprise surprise, NATO thanks are taking this route

lancelot wrote:The YF-23 ducts did not completely hide the turbine blades either. Yet it was considered to be more stealthy than the YF-22 design.

Neither did the X-32. But just because the F-35 and 22 are covered , the fanbois declared it a prerequisite for stealth.

It's as if they thought Russia didn't think of it or something. The Mig 1.44 and Berkut had S ducts

The irritation does not come from the claim itself , but by the fact that the conversation instantly starts with an atmosphere that doubts on the stealth (and avionics) capabilities of the plane.

Like, F-22/35 claims about stealth and avionics are taken for granted, meanwhile, the Su-57 has to *prove itself*.

That is once again similar to Armata. Every one takes it for granted that trophy works , that the M829A4 works , that the Abrams' Armor works, but when it comes to the T-14 , they are sceptic about everything.

Its one type of logic found on all branches.

Atmosphere wrote:The irritation does not come from the claim itself , but by the fact that the conversation instantly starts with an atmosphere that doubts on the stealth (and avionics) capabilities of the plane.

Like, F-22/35 claims about stealth and avionics are taken for granted, meanwhile, the Su-57 has to *prove itself*.

That is once again similar to Armata. Every one takes it for granted that trophy works , that the M829A4 works , that the Abrams' Armor works, but when it comes to the T-14 , they are sceptic about everything.

Its one type of logic found on all branches.

Agreed. The extreme skepticism aimed at a decades old premier design bureau of a world power has always baffled me. And yet because a nation like China that for decades had flagrantly copied designs because of a lack of current engineering and materials science is better accepted because they followed western trends very closely??? it is insanity.

I am a total layman and dont know much at all but what the su-57 represents to me is something like this. Imagine a western aerospace company wished to make a durable and more easily maintainable stealth fighter. They would design it from the outset with the right shape and cross section for deflecting key radiation frequencies and for ability to super cruise and handle internal loads. They then would use techniques like that seen on the super hornet but with the most up to date sealants, coatings, and use of large body panels for better effect. construction and maintenance is simplified and over time these costs can almost match that of legacy 4.5 fighters. This is a rough kind of view on how I see it and it is ingeniously pragmatic and effective.

That is pretty much what happened.
Instead of going for weight and complexity increasing solutions that also happen to make the aircraft worse in terms of speed , they simply exploited the massive advance in coatings and materials. To have similar levels of stealth without compromisig other things.

But once again , stealth is not the most important thing in an aircraft. That is like solely judging a tank by its camouflage and smoke grenades.

Atmosphere wrote:Why is there such an obsession about S ducts , and in general , why is there always an obsession with things the west emphasise on? As if what they have layed is the standard.

The Su-57 has a lot of interesting stuff that is completely absent in fifth gens , yet this aspect gets little attention.

Well for starters. nobody really bother atm to make the comparisons.

the S-ducts have plenty of materials already released so yeah, more people will basically assumes it's the best and not really looking at other alternatives.

Nonetheless some effort is required, mainly to obtain better prediction algorithm..  One example i recently got was ANSYS.  Much-much better than POFACETS and actually takes more physics like PTD (Physical Theory of Diffraction), creeping wave and UTD Which could help accuracy a bit.  Like here is one example of treatment.

Like i made myself a radar blocker for my plane, simulation is at L-band (1 GHz), Horizontal polarization :

This one is untreated/without blocker




With blocker added


X-band one. with treated inlet and radar blocker.


This is 2D projection of above :

Untreated :


Treated :


This one is "super treated" where everything in the inlet except the engine face have RAM.



X-band version



The other issue is that there is lack of agreement in how to actually present the result like what frequency, polarization and stuff that actually makes RCS prediction software results useful. and even people not really agree yet on what is Frontal section.  The other thing would be how to present the number. Most books i seen so far having means or medians for certain angles. But this never really enter the typical forum board discussion.

For me tho the Frontal aspect as simulated above are 65 deg to 110 deg vertical and -45 to 45 degrees horizontal.  The presentation would be in "Median". The following is the tabulation from the above.



The big conclusion is that it works.. Radar blocker works.

Now things to be done is well see the patent and try making one with good fidelity.

Another big problem is the material specifications...like no disclosure at all on electrical properties of Russian Radar absorbers. terms like CNT's etc are of no use as it doesnt really tell things like "Permittivity", "Permeability", "Tangential Loss" and "impedance" which what is needed for radar absorbers.

TMA1 wrote:

Atmosphere wrote:The irritation does not come from the claim itself , but by the fact that the conversation instantly starts with an atmosphere that doubts on the stealth (and avionics) capabilities of the plane.

Like, F-22/35 claims about stealth and avionics are taken for granted, meanwhile, the Su-57 has to *prove itself*.

That is once again similar to Armata. Every one takes it for granted that trophy works , that the M829A4 works , that the Abrams' Armor works, but when it comes to the T-14 , they are sceptic about everything.

Its one type of logic found on all branches.

Agreed. The extreme skepticism aimed at a decades old premier design bureau of a world power has always baffled me. And yet because a nation like China that for decades had flagrantly copied designs because of a lack of current engineering and materials science is better accepted because they followed western trends very closely??? it is insanity.

I am a total layman and dont know much at all but what the su-57 represents to me is something like this. Imagine a western aerospace company wished to make a durable and more easily maintainable stealth fighter. They would design it from the outset with the right shape and cross section for deflecting key radiation frequencies and for ability to super cruise and handle internal loads. They then would use techniques like that seen on the super hornet but with the most up to date sealants, coatings, and use of large body panels for better effect. construction and maintenance is simplified and over time these costs can almost match that of legacy 4.5 fighters. This is a rough kind of view on how I see it and it is ingeniously pragmatic and effective.

And they could make a super stealth deep strike variant if they wanted to. With F-22 style engine nozzles. That's all you'd have to really. Maybe delete the IRST to make the stealth pseudo experts happy

TMA1 wrote:

Atmosphere wrote:The irritation does not come from the claim itself , but by the fact that the conversation instantly starts with an atmosphere that doubts on the stealth (and avionics) capabilities of the plane.

Like, F-22/35 claims about stealth and avionics are taken for granted, meanwhile, the Su-57 has to *prove itself*.

That is once again similar to Armata. Every one takes it for granted that trophy works , that the M829A4 works , that the Abrams' Armor works, but when it comes to the T-14 , they are sceptic about everything.

Its one type of logic found on all branches.

Agreed. The extreme skepticism aimed at a decades old premier design bureau of a world power has always baffled me. And yet because a nation like China that for decades had flagrantly copied designs because of a lack of current engineering and materials science is better accepted because they followed western trends very closely??? it is insanity.

I am a total layman and dont know much at all but what the su-57 represents to me is something like this. Imagine a western aerospace company wished to make a durable and more easily maintainable stealth fighter. They would design it from the outset with the right shape and cross section for deflecting key radiation frequencies and for ability to super cruise and handle internal loads. They then would use techniques like that seen on the super hornet but with the most up to date sealants, coatings, and use of large body panels for better effect. construction and maintenance is simplified and over time these costs can almost match that of legacy 4.5 fighters. This is a rough kind of view on how I see it and it is ingeniously pragmatic and effective.

To be fair western rpopaganda on spaces like /k/, r/warcollege, and r/credibledefence has changed to "20 years head start in AESA", "Russia has shitty semiconductors", and "20 year head start in engine design" together with the saying that even the F-22 has 100 times more production examples built than the Su-57. Its hard to debunk this propaganda since its so vague and broad, and your rebuttals must be broad and too time consuming.

limb wrote:

TMA1 wrote:

Atmosphere wrote:The irritation does not come from the claim itself , but by the fact that the conversation instantly starts with an atmosphere that doubts on the stealth (and avionics) capabilities of the plane.

Like, F-22/35 claims about stealth and avionics are taken for granted, meanwhile, the Su-57 has to *prove itself*.

That is once again similar to Armata. Every one takes it for granted that trophy works , that the M829A4 works , that the Abrams' Armor works, but when it comes to the T-14 , they are sceptic about everything.

Its one type of logic found on all branches.

Agreed. The extreme skepticism aimed at a decades old premier design bureau of a world power has always baffled me. And yet because a nation like China that for decades had flagrantly copied designs because of a lack of current engineering and materials science is better accepted because they followed western trends very closely??? it is insanity.

I am a total layman and dont know much at all but what the su-57 represents to me is something like this. Imagine a western aerospace company wished to make a durable and more easily maintainable stealth fighter. They would design it from the outset with the right shape and cross section for deflecting key radiation frequencies and for ability to super cruise and handle internal loads. They then would use techniques like that seen on the super hornet but with the most up to date sealants, coatings, and use of large body panels for better effect. construction and maintenance is simplified and over time these costs can almost match that of legacy 4.5 fighters. This is a rough kind of view on how I see it and it is ingeniously pragmatic and effective.

To be fair western rpopaganda on spaces like /k/, r/warcollege, and r/credibledefence has changed to "20 years head start in AESA", "Russia has shitty semiconductors", and "20 year head start in engine design" together with the saying that even the F-22 has 100 times more production examples built than the Su-57. Its hard to debunk this propaganda since its so vague and broad, and your rebuttals must be broad and too time consuming.

...yes it is asinine. Dont argue on /k/ all you will get is "a f***ing ramp!!" tier replies (tho at least if can be more amusing than places like f-16 dot net.)  And yeah the 20 years behind bro debates are dumb. Mechanically scanned and PESA radars have not just been static for 20 freaking years. They are so obnoxious to deal with.

And I say the IRST stuff is ridiculous too. Though it is amusing to hear people freak out over it. The nozzles on the su-57m will be really advanced and incredible.

Stealthflanker wrote:

Atmosphere wrote:Why is there such an obsession about S ducts , and in general , why is there always an obsession with things the west emphasise on? As if what they have layed is the standard.

The Su-57 has a lot of interesting stuff that is completely absent in fifth gens , yet this aspect gets little attention.

Well for starters. nobody really bother atm to make the comparisons.

the S-ducts have plenty of materials already released so yeah, more people will basically assumes it's the best and not really looking at other alternatives.

Nonetheless some effort is required, mainly to obtain better prediction algorithm..  One example i recently got was ANSYS.  Much-much better than POFACETS and actually takes more physics like PTD (Physical Theory of Diffraction), creeping wave and UTD Which could help accuracy a bit.  Like here is one example of treatment.

Like i made myself a radar blocker for my plane, simulation is at L-band (1 GHz), Horizontal polarization :

This one is untreated/without blocker




With blocker added


X-band one. with treated inlet and radar blocker.


This is 2D projection of above :

Untreated :


Treated :


This one is "super treated" where everything in the inlet except the engine face have RAM.



X-band version



The other issue is that there is lack of agreement in how to actually present the result like what frequency, polarization and stuff that actually makes RCS prediction software results useful. and even people not really agree yet on what is Frontal section.  The other thing would be how to present the number. Most books i seen so far having means or medians for certain angles. But this never really enter the typical forum board discussion.

For me tho the Frontal aspect as simulated above are 65 deg to 110 deg vertical and -45 to 45 degrees horizontal.  The presentation would be in "Median". The following is the tabulation from the above.



The big conclusion is that it works.. Radar blocker works.  

Now things to be done is well see the patent and try making one with good fidelity.

Another big problem is the material specifications...like no disclosure at all on electrical properties of Russian Radar absorbers. terms like CNT's etc are of no use as it doesnt really tell things like "Permittivity", "Permeability", "Tangential Loss" and "impedance" which what is needed for radar absorbers.

There is plenty of comparison over at forums , journalist publications of all sorts and similar outlets.
Or else the stealth inferiority myth would not have spread like wildfire.

The problem with trying to simulate ducts for an existing airplane is that no info is given about the absorbtion performance pet millimeter of coating neither it is for the thickness of the coating itself.For each part of the duct.

Further , the characteristics themselves of the material of the blocker are classified.

Carbon nanotubes have not been officially announced for the RAM of the Su-57. Those are announced as structural composites.

limb wrote:

TMA1 wrote:

Atmosphere wrote:The irritation does not come from the claim itself , but by the fact that the conversation instantly starts with an atmosphere that doubts on the stealth (and avionics) capabilities of the plane.

Like, F-22/35 claims about stealth and avionics are taken for granted, meanwhile, the Su-57 has to *prove itself*.

That is once again similar to Armata. Every one takes it for granted that trophy works , that the M829A4 works , that the Abrams' Armor works, but when it comes to the T-14 , they are sceptic about everything.

Its one type of logic found on all branches.

Agreed. The extreme skepticism aimed at a decades old premier design bureau of a world power has always baffled me. And yet because a nation like China that for decades had flagrantly copied designs because of a lack of current engineering and materials science is better accepted because they followed western trends very closely??? it is insanity.

I am a total layman and dont know much at all but what the su-57 represents to me is something like this. Imagine a western aerospace company wished to make a durable and more easily maintainable stealth fighter. They would design it from the outset with the right shape and cross section for deflecting key radiation frequencies and for ability to super cruise and handle internal loads. They then would use techniques like that seen on the super hornet but with the most up to date sealants, coatings, and use of large body panels for better effect. construction and maintenance is simplified and over time these costs can almost match that of legacy 4.5 fighters. This is a rough kind of view on how I see it and it is ingeniously pragmatic and effective.

To be fair western rpopaganda on spaces like /k/, r/warcollege, and r/credibledefence has changed to "20 years head start in AESA", "Russia has shitty semiconductors", and "20 year head start in engine design" together with the saying that even the F-22 has 100 times more production examples built than the Su-57. Its hard to debunk this propaganda since its so vague and broad, and your rebuttals must be broad and too time consuming.

Those are what to be called as cesspools.
They are *extremely* easy to debunk for the exact cause that they are vague.
Semiconductors are 20 years late? You could simply tell him : Alright prove it. Give me a detailed , comprehensive , purely technical rundown (which means not pulled from your ass) , on the state of the russian military use semiconductors. Then compare it to what the west has

If anything short of this means the author of the claim is full of shit.

But again , we are talking here about Reddit , /k and penguin.net. The motto over there is "the burden of proof is on you , i'm only here to vomit my non substanced none sense that will probably make a clown of me in a real discussion with qualified people hence why i post it in forums where the knowledge (and intelligence) ceiling is low.

TMA1 wrote:

limb wrote:

TMA1 wrote:

Atmosphere wrote:The irritation does not come from the claim itself , but by the fact that the conversation instantly starts with an atmosphere that doubts on the stealth (and avionics) capabilities of the plane.

Like, F-22/35 claims about stealth and avionics are taken for granted, meanwhile, the Su-57 has to *prove itself*.

That is once again similar to Armata. Every one takes it for granted that trophy works , that the M829A4 works , that the Abrams' Armor works, but when it comes to the T-14 , they are sceptic about everything.

Its one type of logic found on all branches.

Agreed. The extreme skepticism aimed at a decades old premier design bureau of a world power has always baffled me. And yet because a nation like China that for decades had flagrantly copied designs because of a lack of current engineering and materials science is better accepted because they followed western trends very closely??? it is insanity.

I am a total layman and dont know much at all but what the su-57 represents to me is something like this. Imagine a western aerospace company wished to make a durable and more easily maintainable stealth fighter. They would design it from the outset with the right shape and cross section for deflecting key radiation frequencies and for ability to super cruise and handle internal loads. They then would use techniques like that seen on the super hornet but with the most up to date sealants, coatings, and use of large body panels for better effect. construction and maintenance is simplified and over time these costs can almost match that of legacy 4.5 fighters. This is a rough kind of view on how I see it and it is ingeniously pragmatic and effective.

To be fair western rpopaganda on spaces like /k/, r/warcollege, and r/credibledefence has changed to "20 years head start in AESA", "Russia has shitty semiconductors", and "20 year head start in engine design" together with the saying that even the F-22 has 100 times more production examples built than the Su-57. Its hard to debunk this propaganda since its so vague and broad, and your rebuttals must be broad and too time consuming.

...yes it is asinine. Dont argue on /k/ all you will get is "a f***ing ramp!!" tier replies (tho at least if can be more amusing than places like f-16 dot net.)  And yeah the 20 years behind bro debates are dumb. Mechanically scanned and PESA radars have not just been static for 20 freaking years. They are so obnoxious to deal with.

And I say the IRST stuff is ridiculous too. Though it is amusing to hear people freak out over it. The nozzles on the su-57m will be really advanced and incredible.

By the way , if you compare the 2015 samples of russian made LTCC brick modules with their same year analogue from the company that supplies them to the F-35's radar , you would find similar gain and noise figures for similar weight and size. I've seen this shared some years ago from an italian sleuth in a discord channel.

If they had cought up in 2015 you could easily see how crushingly superior they are compared to western modules from 20 years ago , let alone be equal or inferior to them.

One the most commonly discounted/ignored aspects of Russian technological development is the solid science base on which it rests.
The Russian science culture is superior to that of the USA which reflects the underlying norms of society. This is why America imports
STEM talent from around the world and has relatively little home grown. America is where the money is and we have Tesla and Fermi
being claimed as products of America. BS. Students who are into STEM are put down in schools because they are "nerds". This is
not mere movie fare, this is social coercion. And add to this the money grubbing obsession. You do not live up to US standards of
achievement by going into STEM. You are a success if you make millions as a trader or real estate pusher.

I see fanboi retards always make claims where even basic analysis of the physics of the problem would require actual effort to deal with
the supposed "fails". But supposedly those Russians are too stupid to see this. So what we have is nothing but pure fanboi fantasy projection.
These fanbois are part of a whole spectrum of pundits in the west, dominated by the USA. There is a trash information industry which generates
claims and evaluations that have no value other than propaganda masturbation. The deeply insecure and inadequate fanbois feed off this shit
and spread it around. This does not apply just to technology of the "un-west", it applies to every other topic where you see the same inane
denigration and caricaturisation.

Anyone with critical thinking skills would be interested in facts and not projection. Projection is a manifestation of insecurity. I can't
be bothered to give these head cases free therapy on fora. They should pay a professional.

Had to look up what LTCC was and it is a bit over my head but from what I can gather I totally agree. The "20 years behind" argument is bullcrap and I even saw it recently on one of binkovs videos.

It would be like saying the eurofighter typhoon's radar (they are finally starting to upgrade to an AESA radar but still many have the older mechanical planar array) is 20 years behind. It is foolish as the guts of the radar, processing power and the like, vastly increase the capabilities from the radars of 20 years ago.

It is essentially the same goofy argument that the su-35 or f-15 is "an old design and therefore obsolete". I have heard this and there is no reasoning with this kind of nonsense

Atmosphere wrote:

There is plenty of comparison over at forums , journalist publications of all sorts and similar outlets.
Or else the stealth inferiority myth would not have spread like wildfire.

So where i can find comparison of RCS between radar blocker vs S-ducts ? Because To be honest i cant find any, at least on that specific field.

The problem with trying to simulate ducts for an existing airplane is that no info is given about the absorbtion performance pet millimeter of coating neither it is for the thickness of the coating itself.For each part of the duct.
Further , the characteristics themselves of the material of the blocker are classified.
Carbon nanotubes have not been officially announced for the RAM of the Su-57. Those are announced as structural composites.

I dont know what are you are trying to say with this.

The 20 years ahead argument can be applied to S-400, which has a much better missiles and radar systems than any system in NATO today.
The S-400 was developed in the late 90s, which means the Russian missile and radar technology is 20 years ahead of anything in NATO right now, but the "western experts" don't like this argument.

Wow great news, do you have the link?

Marchukov already said that they were looking at the three stream VCE, but no details were provided unlike now. It remains to be seen what exactly izd. 30 is, if AL-41F1 is fixed BPR and they work in the 3-stream engine for the 6G planes based in the technologies of izd. 30, then you can figure what the intermediate technological step between those two is...


I am not sure though, that this 3 stream is of immediate application for Su-57. That may be >10 years away from the series by now. It is in any case relevant given the news from US that XA100 has completed tests and the announcements (by now they have credibility between zero and minus one, but still) that they want some sort of deployment by 2025. I believe this is not going to go as well as US hypes and they may find the realities of their across the board rot placing constraints they are not used to face to spend their way out of any problem, but by 2030 it is important that Russia has this technology in advanced state of implementation and maybe ready for the series. The statement that it can be applied to the same engine footprint of the AL-41 is extremely important in this regard, so US cannot undercut the PAK-FA by trying to jump one generation ahead with the retirement of the F-22 and early adoption of the NGAD. This will probably be a very big plane with adaptive engines, in order to leave the superior capacities of the Su-57 behind, but if the Russian model also gets an adaptive engine, things are not going to be easy for US. If they follow the rationale they are peddling, they will get an ultra expensive, big long ranged platform with questionable maneouverability. But PAK-FA already has substantial payload, range and growing potential for supercruising with really oversized variable intakes and extremely high lift design. So US is under risk of overshooting seriously and aiming for more than they can actually design and pay for, before they get tangible advantages in the theater which is of interest for Russia (range is critical in the Pacific not in Europe). As to naval side of it, NGAD is not intended for the USN, so not even a reasonable approach is available to them to leave the PAK-FA behind enough to reach the overwhelming superiority they need.

No link, the news was posted and later deleted...
Quoted from a Russian forum