Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #8

What Su-57M2? was that announced anywhere else with the Su-60?

The even number (ie 60) would suggest a dedicated strike version... like the Su-34 is a strike aircraft with self defence air to air capacity, but Su-35 is fully multirole too so rather unnecessary.

The next gen AAMs should be compatible with all new Russian aircraft.

limb wrote:So Su-57M upgrades are just sensors and avionics. Still important. Lets hope it can use R-77Ms

For aircraft like the Su-57, sensors and avionics are the most important aspect.

Engines are nice, but the soooner you detect your opponent and the more situational awareness you have around you, the higher your chances of survival.

Soviets had a silly habit of holding back on sensors and EW on their aircraft, leading to incedents like Iranian F-14s taking out a number of iraqi migs without them even knowing that the were BVR killed.
Iraq thought it was a maintanence problem.

New photo? Or someone's imagination?

It's a CG, by this artist.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CUQng8lsBTc

Soviets had a silly habit of holding back on sensors and EW on their aircraft, leading to incedents like Iranian F-14s taking out a number of iraqi migs without them even knowing that the were BVR killed.
Iraq thought it was a maintanence problem.

The Soviets were smart enough to downgrade their export aircraft so when the CIA compromised the design they didn't learn anything useful about Soviet aircraft.

GarryB wrote:

Soviets had a silly habit of holding back on sensors and EW on their aircraft, leading to incedents like Iranian F-14s taking out a number of iraqi migs without them even knowing that the were BVR killed.
Iraq thought it was a maintanence problem.

The Soviets were smart enough to downgrade their export aircraft so when the CIA compromised the design they didn't learn anything useful about Soviet aircraft.

But your allies get shitty equipment.

The best is to make export version stuff that aren't used by your own forces but with the same level of technology.

Isos wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Soviets had a silly habit of holding back on sensors and EW on their aircraft, leading to incedents like Iranian F-14s taking out a number of iraqi migs without them even knowing that the were BVR killed.
Iraq thought it was a maintanence problem.

The Soviets were smart enough to downgrade their export aircraft so when the CIA compromised the design they didn't learn anything useful about Soviet aircraft.

But your allies get shitty equipment.

The best is to make export version stuff that aren't used by your own forces but with the same level of technology.

Exactly, basically what Russia is doing now, lesser performance, but not to the point where they are monkey variants.

The Soviets had numerous issues with basic stuff like MAWS and IFFs, meaning their allies kept either shooting themselves down because of lack of IFF and/or not getting any warning that they've been locked-on.
Terrible combination, Syrian Mig-23s suffered greatly during the conflict with Israel thanks to this.
Soviets did correct course after that with new mig-23 model, but for some reason again repeated the same mistakes with the Iraqi Mig-29 AKA: the 9.12B models.

AlfaT8 wrote:

Isos wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Soviets had a silly habit of holding back on sensors and EW on their aircraft, leading to incedents like Iranian F-14s taking out a number of iraqi migs without them even knowing that the were BVR killed.
Iraq thought it was a maintanence problem.

The Soviets were smart enough to downgrade their export aircraft so when the CIA compromised the design they didn't learn anything useful about Soviet aircraft.

But your allies get shitty equipment.

The best is to make export version stuff that aren't used by your own forces but with the same level of technology.

Exactly, basically what Russia is doing now, lesser performance, but not to the point where they are monkey variants.

The Soviets had numerous issues with basic stuff like MAWS and IFFs, meaning their allies kept either shooting themselves down because of lack of IFF and/or not getting any warning that they've been locked-on.
Terrible combination, Syrian Mig-23s suffered greatly during the conflict with Israel thanks to this.
Soviets did correct course after that with new mig-23 model, but for some reason again repeated the same mistakes with the Iraqi Mig-29 AKA: the 9.12B models.

I know people in America who think the Iraqi Mig29s were the best of the Soviet Union. They think any export Mig was the best of the Soviet Union.

But your allies get shitty equipment.

The best is to make export version stuff that aren't used by your own forces but with the same level of technology.

You mean like no one else does?

Who can afford to produce an entire second tier range of weapons and aircraft that is not good enough for your main customer?

Plus the equipment they buy is their choice... they can refuse it and make their own if they want to... for these countries these are still the best weapons they can buy and they buy them... you don't think those Iranian F-14s were D model F-14s do you?

Interestingly the Soviets already did create export versions of their aircraft but let their customers add what they wanted... when it was first introduced the Indian Su-30MKI was the most capable Flanker in service by anyone... the only possible exception would be the Fullback in terms of strike performance.

The US sold modified jet trainers to central and south american countries... and also to Iran.... what do you think an F-5 really is other than a T-38.

Exactly, basically what Russia is doing now, lesser performance, but not to the point where they are monkey variants.

They let their clients add western shit if they want that, so they are not downgraded at all except for a few top secret elements.

The Soviets had numerous issues with basic stuff like MAWS and IFFs, meaning their allies kept either shooting themselves down because of lack of IFF and/or not getting any warning that they've been locked-on.
Terrible combination, Syrian Mig-23s suffered greatly during the conflict with Israel thanks to this.
Soviets did correct course after that with new mig-23 model, but for some reason again repeated the same mistakes with the Iraqi Mig-29 AKA: the 9.12B models.

The Americans shot down two blackhawk helicopters just after Desert Storm in the early 1990s because they thought they were Hinds... IFF systems are complex and require highly disciplined use by all parties or you end up shooting down your own aircraft anyway... patriot shot down western planes too... because someone didn't get the settings right.

Giving them IFF and MAWS would not have completely solved the problem and most of those military structures would be riddled with moles so I don't think the solution would be worth a lot... compared with potential costs... give them the best ejection systems and send them more planes... they usually didn't care about losses either.

I know people in America who think the Iraqi Mig29s were the best of the Soviet Union. They think any export Mig was the best of the Soviet Union.

Late model MiG-23s had better IRSTs and radar and missiles than export model MiG-29s, but export model MiG-29s seemed to clean up the HATO fighters during testing and training with East German models, which is why HATO was so keen to get that training to learn to fight these aircraft, because otherwise they would be in trouble.

GarryB wrote:The Americans shot down two blackhawk helicopters just after Desert Storm in the early 1990s because they thought they were Hinds... IFF systems are complex and require highly disciplined use by all parties or you end up shooting down your own aircraft anyway... patriot shot down western planes too... because someone didn't get the settings right.

Giving them IFF and MAWS would not have completely solved the problem and most of those military structures would be riddled with moles so I don't think the solution would be worth a lot... compared with potential costs... give them the best ejection systems and send them more planes... they usually didn't care about losses either.

Better something than nothing, else you gonna lose all your loyal customers.

IFF and MAWS are like IADS... most countries will buy an air defence missile or gun platform, but what they rarely do is buy all the management and communications and command systems behind the air defence vehicle that links them all together and shares information and control to effectively use the AD systems together.

It is very much like giving a man in every town a pistol and a badge and calling them the sheriff... on paper that looks OK but any time more than one criminal is a problem at a time then that cop is in serious trouble because with no radio and no car or bike they can really only ensure law abiding is done in a radius of perhaps 50m around their current position.

Hire teams, give them radios and dog teams and armed response teams and coordinate actions with nearby towns and cities across the country and all of a sudden you have a much more effective force.

Traditionally those countries that Russia or the Soviet Union supported often got subsidised weapon purchases... sometimes they were freebies... other times they did pay but it was nothing to do with their actual defence needs really, though neighbours and rivals often can be dealt with... it is when the entire west gets involved that some problems arise.

And honestly often the solution is not IFF or MAWS... it is just having a decent missile... the R-3 and R-13 were not great, R-60 was better but was a mini self defence missile rather than a sidewinder equivalent... when they got R-73 then they really were something the west would have to respect... as ground launched models showed in Yemen...

11/17/2022
TASS

By the end of the year, more aircraft deliveries are planned to the Russian Aerospace Forces


The first (in fact, the second) built serial sample of the fifth generation Su-57 fighter with tail number "01 blue" (aircraft T-50S-2, serial number 51002) in a special workshop No. 18 of the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Plant named after Yu.A. Gagarin (branch of PJSC "Company" Sukhoi "), 2020.
Image source: photograph from the factory newspaper of the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Plant named after Yu.A. Gagarin


Now they are in production, according to the government website.

MOSCOW, 16 November. /TASS/. The Russian Aerospace Forces are expecting another delivery of aircraft by the end of this year, which are now in production, according to the website of the Russian government on Wednesday.

"We understand the importance of our work to provide the Russian armed forces with the necessary aviation equipment and will continue to fulfill all our obligations. By the end of this year, the Russian Aerospace Forces will receive the next aircraft that are currently in production," Yury, Director General of the Rostec United Aircraft Corporation, is quoted as saying. Slyusar on the website of the Cabinet of Ministers.

https://vpk.name/news/654372_do_konca_goda_v_vks_rossii_zaplanirovany_eshe_postavki_samoletov.html

November 22, 23:01,
updated November 22, 23:06

Chemezov said that Rostec supplies military products ahead of schedule

The general director of the state corporation said that employees of Uralvagonzavod, TsNIItochmash, the Kalashnikov concern and other enterprises work in three to four shifts

MOSCOW, 23 November. /TASS/. Enterprises of the state corporation "Rostec" are increasing the production of military products as part of the implementation of the state defense order, deliveries to the troops are often ahead of schedule. Sergey Chemezov, CEO of the state corporation, spoke about this in an interview with TASS on the eve of the 15th anniversary of Rostec.
“Today, the enterprises of the state corporation are doing everything possible to increase the output of military products. Employees of Uralvagonzavod, TsNIItochmash, the Kalashnikov concern, the High-Precision Systems holding, enterprises of the United Aircraft Corporation and other enterprises working on The Ministry of Defense regularly receives new batches of aviation equipment, armored vehicles, artillery systems, small arms, equipment and much more," he said.

Chemezov recalled that the state corporation accounts for almost half of the entire state defense order of the country, and its execution in recent years has been at the level of almost 100%.

In September, Uralvagonzavod shipped a batch of TOS-1A heavy flamethrower systems to the Ministry of Defense ahead of schedule, handed over another batch of T-90M tanks, and delivered a batch of Malka self-propelled howitzers ahead of schedule in October, the head of the state corporation said.

He also pointed to the transfer to the Aerospace Forces in September of the next batch of Su-35S fighters produced by the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Plant. Gagarin. In addition, Chemezov added, the company is expanding its production to increase the production of fifth-generation Su-57 fighters. Moreover, the fighters of 2022 are in a high degree of readiness and will soon be handed over to the customer, he stressed.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/16400595

How do the photonic radars work? If I remember right they use 3D imagine of targets? Or I am wrong?

Just going to drop this here in case anyone has seen the new simulation of Su-57's RCS, where the Su-57 doesn't seem to do so well:

In the comments below that article you can see a little thread between the author and a certain "Bart", who challenges the simulation results somewhat. The conversation ends with the author doubling down on his position, namely that the "tunnel" between the two engines on the bottom of the aircraft serves as a corner reflector for radars illuminating the aircraft from the nose aspect and that is why the aircraft has a really poor bottom nose aspect RCS.

Now, because I am, shall we say, prosopically united to Bart, and I have it on good authority that Bart cannot post any more comments on that thread due to what appears to be a ban (and Bart waited a week for any potential technical issues to be resolved, while in the meantime other people posted on other threads on that page without issue it seems), I want to answer the author's final comment here, so there is an online reference to what Bart would have said had he not been banned:


I've already stated that yes, the "engine tunnel" can be regarded as a dihedral corner reflector (actually two, one for waves coming from the bottom left beam aspect and one for waves coming from the bottom right beam aspect). That does not, however, apply to waves coming from the nose aspect:
look carefully at the image you posted and you will see that the points of incidence of the rays on the two surfaces are all in a straight line (with one 90° turn at the edge where the two planes join), which traces the longitudinal middle axis of the two planes; this is because those rays are all located in the same two-dimensional plane, which intersects the dihedral reflector at that axis. So to transfer the analogy to the "engine tunnel" of the Su-57 you would have to shoot the waves in a 2D-plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, i.e. from one of the beam aspects of the aircraft, not the nose aspect.

Shooting waves from the nose aspect will mean the rays are not perpendicular and so will simply bounce off the planes and continue in the other direction; in order for them to return to the sender, you either need a dihedral reflector that is properly oriented (arguably this could be the intake and SRAAM bays, more on that in a bit) or you need a trihedral reflector, such as in the following image:


See how in the above image a ray comes in, bounces off one plane, then another and then it would actually keep traveling away from the ray's source if it were not for the third plane, which makes it go back. There is no such third plane in the "engine tunnel".

Regarding the modeling of material: APA will still have to have defined an inlet shape, because they need to constrain where the "black hole" ends. They could have defined this "black hole" as being inside the engine nacelles and thus not affecting waves interacting with the outside of the nacelle; in fact, that is the most reasonable assumption about their analysis and how it's usually done if one doesn't want to model the engines.
It is correct that we just can't know the exact makeup of RAS/RAM and material distribution, so I'm not faulting you for using an all-metal model, but my point still stands: any strong return signal, such as your model and, to some degree, APA's model show in the lower frontal sector needs to be treated with suspicion, because the engineers involved in the aircraft's design will know how to conduct these kinds of analyses, too, and try to eliminate such problems (since the aircraft is supposed to have a significantly reduced signature, i.e. that's one of the design goals).
This means that returns from places that are clearly not load bearing (such as the inlets and SRAAM covers) should be suspected to have materials properties, which make them not reflect in that worst-possible way. This could be thin metal liners beneath RAS/RAM, which have a slightly different shape or it could mean that they are radar transparent. In the case of this potential dihedral corner reflector formed from the inlet side and the medial part of the SRAAM bay, a radar transparent inlet would actually completely remove the problem. In the case of the SRAAM bay as its own source of specular reflection, I suspect that RAS/RAM and some metal liner with unknown exact angle is indeed used beneath the composite material.
And finally, the DIRCM turret itself (not the cover) is actually quite small and made of unknown material; there is no reason why it couldn't be 3D-printed from some kind of plastic, for example, either completely without metal parts or with metal parts that are smaller than the pilot tubes (which the F-35 also has, btw.). So stating that modeling of the DIRCM cover as 100% metal is going to produce a lower RCS than alternatives is not true. And since it is supposed to be transparent to strong laser light, the choice of metal layers would also be limited in order to not interfere with the DIRCM function. A more reasonable assumption here is that it does not contain such a metal layer (unlike the canopy, which almost certainly does).


So now that I've defended Bart's honor in the face of this NAFO imbecile who can't understand that space has three dimensions (and what's worse, another NAFO imbecile has already started liking his posts...Lord have mercy!), I want to end on the positive note of how this whole encounter actually made me like the Su-57 even more:
If one looks at the APA results for, e.g., 6 GHz, it becomes clear that the bad returns in the above mentioned blog's simulation correspond to the "four streaks" in the middle of the following image taken from APA (somewhat vertical lines in the middle horizontally and in the third quarter from the top vertically) as well as the stronger signal directly below that:


The "four streaks" come from the corner reflector created by the apico-lateral inlet surface and the medial SRAAM surface, which is easily verifiable, e.g. by looking at an appropriate image of the Su-57 (e.g. see below, ignore the pod) and using two hand-held mirrors and a shut eye while emulating the angles (or just use your brain):


As my syn-prosopon would have pointed out, this corner reflector only works if it is assumed that the apical inlet and SRAAM bay surfaces are entirely made out of metal; even if just the first, lets say, 15 cm of the inlet are radar-transparent composite or have some RAS mitigation, the effect is lost. The stronger signal referred to above, that is in the APA image below the "four streaks", can in turn be explained by the lower apical intake lip, which would be a direct specular reflector for such angles; as it is very likely to have the same mitigation, that means this part of the RCS signature should also be disregarded.

Therefore, I suspect that the Su-57 may have even better frontal aspect stealth than the F-35!
And all the NAFO trolls can do is ban/de-platform/propagandize  


If anyone should agree with me and feel the need to correct the injustice of the banning of Bart, feel free to leave comments on the above linked blog...I recommend not using straight up insults, as the author has set up strict content moderation with pre-approval for new commenters and there's no need for that; instead, how about limb-style comments like:
"Has the F-35B and F-35C fixed the problem of being essentially an expensive sub-sonic aircraft yet?"
"Isn't a round nozzle on the F-35 really bad for stealth?"
"I read that the US military has said that the F-35 has failed. Why is that?"

Or, a bit less emo-marxist:
"Why does your article about stealth imply that the F-35 has smaller RCS than an insect when the pilot tubes alone are bigger than most insects?"

Or, related to Bart's above reply:
"If a bullet ricochets twice when you shoot it down a perfectly straight tunnel, does it reverse its flight path and fly back to you?"

I know stealthflanker does this kind of stuff did you make it or did he make it?

The author of the blog (who is not known to me personally) claims he conducted the analysis together with stealthflanker.

In case you are referring to Bart's comments or Begome's additions, then that would obviously not be stealthflanker.

Good post homie

Because it's a translation issue.

Read it thoroughly.  He is saying they had no time, as in had to rush development. Nothing about raw materials.

Russian GaN modules are used on ships currently, particularly anything with Polimont Redut. TR1 posted about it years ago.

It is an odd method of writing to translation.

I can't seem to access Istoks website anymore. Their GaN modules was linked here on this site at one point.