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.

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

Just want to keep the photonic radar hype for Su-57 alive. http://www.promweekly.ru/book/Phasatron-100_years.pdf

pdf page 14

The inexhaustibility of scientific thought
Among the promising developments are conformal AFARs that can fit
into the aircraft fuselage, and
the so-called "smart" airframe skin.
In next generation fighters,
including PAK FA, it will become, as it were, a single transceiver locator, providing the pilot with complete information
about what is happening around the aircraft.
Fazotron-NIIR continues development
national radar. The Corporation has developed and mass-produced
multifunctional airborne radar stations of the “4+” and “4++” generation
for the Russian Air Force and foreign customers.
Photonic technologies used today
will expand the capabilities of the radar,
reduce its mass by more than half, and increase its resolution tenfold.
Such radars with radio-optical phased antenna arrays are capable of making a kind of “X-ray image”
aircraft located more than
500 kilometers, and give them a detailed, three-dimensional image. This technology
allows you to look inside the object, find out
what equipment does it carry, how many people are in it
located, and even see their faces.
Fazotron-NIIR Corporation in the 21st century —
one of the most significant strategic
defense enterprises of Russia thanks to its unique technologies, know-how,
production base and highly professional personnel. Today color and pride
his scientific school is A. Kanashchenkov,
Yu. Guskov, V. Frantsev, I. Ryzhak, I. Tsivlin, O. Samarin, V. Babichev, A. Matyushin,
V. Ratner, V. Kustov, V. Kurilkin, N. Gorkin,
P. Kolodin, S. Loginov, S. Zaikin and others.
No matter what ups and downs it goes through
enterprise, one for a hundred years
existence was unchanged - work
for the defense of the country, for aviation, the creation of first-class equipment that has no analogues
in the country, and sometimes in the world. And ahead
Fazotron-NIIR Corporation has a wide
front of work, which, undoubtedly, has not yet been
once glorify both the enterprise itself and the country


Everyone remembers how the photonic radar antennas looked like, if you havent here is a refresher.



only these radar antennas make a smart skin possible than just usually putting them in the fuselage because they were reported as being thinner than paper.

I will be busy looking at some random promweekly.ru articles, the only reason i was browsing the website was for KRET magazines but I cant find them there since they did before provide us radar information from the K-27M and the Ka-52 Katran.

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?"

if I know stealthflanker does this kind of stuff did you make it or did he make it? Also who the hell is Bart? If you got his email or contact info so i can message him to join this forum and some other forums.

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

I know who Eloise and stealth flanker are, i will message them to see if they can contact the author to unban bart since it sounds like they are all well acquainted.

found some new information. https://www.niip.ru/info/articles/2021-god/ now I am going to scan through some articles.

with the rest of the onboard avionics
and controlled aircraft
means of destruction.
At the institute carefully
followed all foreign
developments in this area.
Research work was carried out on such necessary
creating a radar station with AFAR
topics such as multi-frequency radar, ultra-wideband radar, bistatic
radar.
And yet, despite the extensive backlog, the creation of a radar station with AFAR,
given the state of the domestic
element base, it was a matter of
supremely complex. But the NIIP team, headed by the chief
system designer Vladimir Zagorodny and AFAR chief designer Anatoly Sinani managed to solve this problem.
It is unlikely that Belka would see the light of day and
without truly tyrannical effort
Director General of NIIP
Yuri Bely, who actively defended the interests of this grandiose
projects at all levels of government.
In December 2008, bench tests confirmed that the "birth" of the forward looking AFAR
took place. April 26, 2012 Honored Test Pilot, Hero
Russia, Sergei Bogdan for the first time flew on the third PAK FA prototype with the inclusion of radar in
air-to-surface mode. And according to the report of the pilot, and further
analysis of the received information
the result of the work of NIIP turned out to be
quite worthy.
By 2016 NNP Istok had
serial production mastered
microwave modules based on gallium arsenide,
front manufacturing technology
and side antennas from AFAR were transferred to the State Ryazan
instrument factory. Both in NIIP and
NPP Istok launched work on the creation of new transceiver modules based on nitride
gallium with a high degree of integration, with improved characteristics and reduced weight.
Unfortunately, as in 2019 in an interview with the National
defense" noted Yuri Bely,
the state level of the program for the development of gallium nitride technology for PPM AFAR,
that would link the whole line,
from raw materials to all
technological chains, so far
no time. As a result, in this direction, Russia is now ahead not only of the United States, but also of China.
For obvious reasons, there is no information on the performance characteristics of the MIRES fighter of the fifth generation of the Su-57.
According to the detection range of the system
is unlikely to be inferior to the Irbis radar system mounted on a fighter
generation 4 ++ Su-35, and in its maximum version it is
400 km. In foreign media, you can find information about
that the Belka Su-57 can simultaneously track up to 60 targets with
the ability to target 20 of
of them (16 - air and four - on the ground). How reliable is this
information, we probably will not know
earlier than the export modification of the Russian fifth fighter
generation will be actively promoted to the foreign market with a corresponding demonstration of its tactical and technical characteristics.
Be that as it may, as in the case of the Su-35S, the official acceptance of the fifth generation air complex into service with the Russian Aerospace Forces
will happen after
a significant number of aircraft will go to combat units.
The specialists of the Scientific Research Institute of Instrument Engineering named after. V.V. Tikhomirov and OKB
Sukhoi ahead - extensive work
on the creation of algorithms for various modes of operation of onboard radio electronic equipment and their
software implementation
security, because only it can reveal all the possibilities
MIRES, including a radar complex with AFAR

The bold makes no sense we dont have the raw material for GaN so why even bring it up on this article and than claim your ahead of China and the U.S. for all we know mught upgrade their radars with GaN? Decide rather if you want to put GaN on the Su-57 radars or not before saying your ahead of China and Russia. At best Turkey TAI TFX is assured to have GaN once they are supplied with U.S. engines.

2019 we have no time for GaN modules for Su-57....So has that opinion changed after the avionic 2022-2024 modernization program? I rather still go for the photonic integrated circuit radar route than GaN MMICs. Make of this as you will.

more news again. https://www.niip.ru/upload/iblock/d36/d36d8fe0d10dbae67246f6dc9ad700eb.pdf

Photo: Izvestia/Alexander Kazakov
Speak text
Russian fifth-generation fighters Su-57 will be equipped with additional antennas
radar to expand the view of the aircraft. This was announced to Izvestia by the CEO
Research Institute of Instrument Engineering named after V.V. Tikhomirova Yuri
White.
Employees of the institute will place radar stations H036 "Belka" throughout
surface of the machine, and not just in its bow. In total, the design of the Su-57 will
There are six such systems. This will expand the view of the fighter, and the pilot
will be able to see the approaching enemy from behind.
“The characteristics of the radar are confirmed in the main modes - when scanning
air space and the earth's surface," the director general of the institute explained.
According to experts, additional radars will ensure the superiority of the Russian
aircraft over any enemy, including over fifth-generation F-22 fighters
and the US Air Force F-35.
Read more in the exclusive Izvestia article:

So Niip confirms that the aircrafts radars have 360-degree coverage if they put this on their site. I remember that this was a constant ongoing debate on forums that argued between the Su-57 having either 240 radar coverage or 360-degree radar coverage. Besides KRET Niip confirms this.

http://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2933&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=16110

RU2767213
https://disk.yandex.ru/i/wIrAQclOUkEVQw

CARGO COMPARTMENT OF AN AIRCRAFT

The invention relates to the cargo compartment of an aircraft for placing the dropped goods on board the aircraft. The cargo compartment contains at least one cargo holder installed
stationary on the upper wall of the cargo compartment opposite the opening of the hatch of the cargo compartment, less than one cargo holder mounted on a rotary platform located outside the opening of the cargo compartment. In this case, the rotary platform is configured to rotate around the longitudinal axis of rotation using a drive to transfer the cargo placed on it to a position for
safe separation of the cargo, opposite the opening of the hatch of the cargo compartment. The invention provides an increase in the rocket and bomb load of the aircraft without increasing the midrange of the fuselage, as well as maintaining
the minimum mass of the aircraft and the most optimal geometric characteristics of the cargo compartment with the possibility of unhindered separation of cargo. 15 z.p. f-ly
, 3 il



Comments

Cool, only the width is too much, it's not the Su-57.


No. And what in the patent you need to be accurate in this case?)

Offline Profile Send a private message


Eldarado Message header: Re: PAK FA T-50 (Part 5)MessagePosted: Apr 30, 2022, 05:04 pm
User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2009, 10:54
Posts: 11877
From: these only come from
Yes. If only because in this configuration the side rockets will fly directly into the side of the nacelles.


_______


Chepkin's interview about the 5th generation
Saturn engine comes out from behind the clouds - about 117, 11C, etc.
Offline Profile Send a private message


Vaal Message header: Re: PAK FA T-50 (Part 5)MessagePosted: Apr 30, 2022, 05:11 pm
User avatar

Joined: 01 Apr 2011, 20:05
Posts: 8762
Eldarado wrote:
Yes. If only because in this configuration the side rockets will fly directly into the side of the nacelles.

The nacelles are higher, they hide behind open flaps. Nothing will "fly" anywhere.
That's not the question... and how this drawing is combined with holes for fastening the UVKU on real photos (stops).
All in all, there's a lot to think about.


_______

____


I hear ZOV
and OZV...

We are Russians! God is with us! Victory will be ours!
Offline Profile Send a private message


MSV Message header: Re: PAK FA T-50 (Part 5)MessagePosted: Apr 30, 2022, 11:55 pm

Joined: 23 Jan 2015, 15:18
Posts: 212
Eldarado wrote:
And which side is it to the Su-57?


Maybe the most direct. Not a fact, but it can.

1. The vertical part of the cargo holder installed on the rotary platform may well be in the stamping of the side wall of the compartment. Thus, without taking the size from the cargo placed in the compartment according to its width.
2. The two mounting points officially placed in the compartment are designed to secure two sufficiently large loads in the compartment. The RVVSD missile is clearly smaller in size, respectively, nothing structurally prevents placing 2 missiles on these mounting points on each UVKKU. In total, 2 * 2 we get 4 central ones as in the patent. Yes, in the vertical dimension there will be a loss of space, but the RVVSD is smaller in size than the same RVVBD, therefore, in terms of vertical dimension, nothing will hurt.
3. The diameter of the RVVSD is indicated as 0.2 m. Yes, the wingspan and rudders are more, but there are also options:
- for the version of the intra-compartment they can be foldable;
- missiles relative to each other can be placed with a displacement in length with the separation of the rudders of neighboring missiles along the length;
- Rudders can be located exactly as in the figure in the patent, namely, the width does not go beyond the size of the rocket body or go out slightly, while decently extending in height. Namely, in terms of height in the compartment, there is just a margin in size.
4. The drawing of the same paralay clearly indicated the size of the compartment inside more than the compartment cover. Without this patent, it was not very clear why the air should be transported.
If you estimate, then 6 missiles with such a layout and placement of missile rudders according to the version specified in the patent are quite 6 RVVSD missiles in the compartment and allows you to place.
And that's in one compartment. There is also a second one.

Offline Profile Send a private message


Eldarado Message header: Re: PAK FA T-50 (Part 5)MessagePosted: Apr 30, 2022, 15:12 pm
User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2009, 10:54
Posts: 11877
From: these only come from
The solution is so-so. The dissipation of one central missile reduces the ammunition by half.


_______


Chepkin's interview about the 5th generation
Saturn engine comes out from behind the clouds - about 117, 11C, etc.
Offline Profile Send a private message


Vaal Message header: Re: PAK FA T-50 (Part 5)MessagePosted: Apr 30, 2022, 16:59 pm
User avatar

Joined: 01 Apr 2011, 20:05
Posts: 8762
Eldarado wrote:
The solution is so-so. The dissipation of one central missile reduces the ammunition by half.

Why would that be? All four central ones are independent of each other. And the lateral ones depend only on the extreme central ones.

In addition, a dissimilarity with the UVCU is an extremely unlikely event. There is also a pyrocartridge in the catapult drive.

It is likely that this is how it works. The patent is not "paper".


_______

____


I hear ZOV
and OZV...

We are Russians! God is with us! Victory will be ours!
Offline Profile Send a private message


Deyman Message header: Re: PAK FA T-50 (Part 5)MessagePosted: 01 May 2022, 11:22

Joined: 14 May 2015, 19:32
Posts: 77
Personally, I was intrigued by how much this scheme is "friendly" with a large load on the two main suspension points. Here they drew in full swing how you can place three "pieces" of large diameter in the compartment, but taking into account this patent, the main option of 2 + 2 is possible.

Offline Profile Send a private message


Vaal Message header: Re: PAK FA T-50 (Part 5)MessagePosted: 01 May 2022, 11:29
User avatar

Joined: 01 Apr 2011, 20:05
Posts: 8762
Deyman wrote:
Personally, I was intrigued by how much this scheme is "friendly" with a large load on the two main suspension points. Here they drew in full swing how you can place three "pieces" of large diameter in the compartment, but taking into account this patent, the main option of 2 + 2 is possible.

Looking at the picture, it can be assumed that a configuration of "two large in the middle plus two skinny on the sides" is theoretically possible. 2xRVVD + 2xRVVVSD in each compartment.


_______

____


I hear ZOV
and OZV...

We are Russians! God is with us! Victory will be ours!
Offline Profile Send a private message


intoxicated Message header: Re: PAK FA T-50 (Part 5)MessagePosted: 01 May 2022, 12:07
User avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2008, 21:59
Posts: 1933
From: Bulgaria, Sofia
The width of the cargo compartment is not more than 1.2 m, respectively, the diameter of the missiles (the tails / wing fold!) can not be more than 14 cm. You can imagine a missile with a ramjet and a range of ~ 200-250 km with an optical seeker.

Offline Profile Send a private message


Vaal Message header: Re: PAK FA T-50 (Part 5)MessagePosted: 01 May 2022, 12:30
User avatar

Joined: 01 Apr 2011, 20:05
Posts: 8762
1,2/6=0,2
From so many empty spaces for each rocket.
And if the compartment, let's say, we have 1.25m? The compartment is wider than the flaps...


_______

____


I hear ZOV
and OZV...

We are Russians! God is with us! Victory will be ours!
Offline Profile Send a private message


CG Message header: Re: PAK FA T-50 (Part 5)MessagePosted: 01 May 2022, 14:41

Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 04:46
Posts: 762
Deyman wrote:
Personally, I was intrigued by how much this scheme is "friendly" with a large load on the two main suspension points. Here they drew in full swing how you can place three "pieces" of large diameter in the compartment, but taking into account this patent, the main option of 2 + 2 is possible.


Your problem is that you proceed from the size of the existing missiles, but it is obvious that new products will be created for the internal compartments of the Su-57 and Su-75. In addition, this patent may concern the Su-75.

Offline Profile Send a private message


flateric Message header: Re: PAK FA T-50 (Part 5)MessagePosted: 01 May 2022, 14:44
User avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2008, 15:40
Posts: 5188
From: Here is a beautiful area
your problem is that you are projecting a schematic image from a patent for real products.


_________________
Your document is worth nothing. You couldn't kidnap the plane. (c) Major Pronin
Offline Profile Send a private message


Vaal Message header: Re: PAK FA T-50 (Part 5)MessagePosted: 01 May 2022, 16:14
User avatar

Joined: 01 Apr 2011, 20:05
Posts: 8762
flateric wrote:
your problem is that you are projecting a schematic image from a patent for real products.

However, it was the image from the VU patent that allowed the collective intelligence to identify this device on the PAK FA. This was done on this forum... I have all the moves recorded.

Patent law does not allow you to draw frank nonsense, but only allows you to distort.


_______

____


I hear ZOV
and OZV...

We are Russians! God is with us! Victory will be ours!
Offline Profile Send a private message


Deyman Message header: Re: PAK FA T-50 (Part 5)MessagePosted: 01 May 2022, 16:47

Joined: 14 May 2015, 19:32
Posts: 77
CG wrote:
In addition, this patent may concern the Su-75.


In this case, the question is even more interesting. After all, he is positioned as a striker and the ability to carry a couple of heavy strike weapons (or no longer so heavy) plus a couple of missiles for air combat in a large compartment is even more relevant for him.

Offline Profile Send a private message


Flier Message header: Re: PAK FA T-50 (Part 5)MessagePosted: 01 May 2022, 17:28
User avatar

Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 20:09
Posts: 7537
From: Chelyabinsk
The dimensions of the Su-57 and 75 compartments are the same.

Offline Profile Send a private message


Vaal Message header: Re: PAK FA T-50 (Part 5)MessagePosted: 01 May 2022, 20:47
User avatar

Joined: 01 Apr 2011, 20:05
Posts: 8762
Letun wrote:
The dimensions of the Su-57 and 75 compartments are the same.

It's not known exactly. It's probably partially unified.


_______

____


I hear ZOV
and OZV...

We are Russians! God is with us! Victory will be ours!
Offline Profile Send a private message


lazutchik Message header: Re: PAK FA T-50 (Part 5)MessagePosted: 02 May 2022, 04:50
User avatar

Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 18:08
Posts: 306
Personally, I see the patent as applicable to Gorynych. With some changes.


________

"ONFP" - New Physical Principles again.
Offline Profile Send a private message


Vaal Message header: Re: PAK FA T-50 (Part 5)MessagePosted: 02 May 2022, 10:11
User avatar

Joined: 01 Apr 2011, 20:05
Posts: 8762
MSV wrote:
- Rudders can be located exactly as in the figure in the patent, namely, the width does not go beyond the size of the rocket body or go out slightly, while decently extending in height. Namely, in terms of height in the compartment, there is just a margin in size.


The possibility of using an X-shaped plumage instead of a cruciform one has been discussed on the forum much above.


_______

____


I hear ZOV
and OZV...

We are Russians! God is with us! Victory will be ours!
Offline Profile Send a private message


MSV Message header: Re: PAK FA T-50 (Part 5)MessagePosted: 02 May 2022, 12:54

Joined: 23 Jan 2015, 15:18
Posts: 212
If we take the patent for the compartment as a basis for the SU-57 and SU-75, then the following point arises, especially relevant for the 75th in view of only one compartment.
If 2 large strike munitions are loaded into the compartment, then until they are used, it is impossible to use missiles placed in extreme buried positions.
At the same time, it can be taken as a basis that a large munition takes up 2 times more space than a conditional RVVSD.
For the possibility of using extreme ammunition, it is desirable to place a large munition in the center, in which case there will be 2 missiles (4 in total) on the left and right with the possibility of their use without dropping the load in the center.
However, if there are two mounting points in the compartment, the question arises how to actually place all this.
I assume that the compartment uses some kind of standardized frame / platform for attaching the payload which is just attached to these 2 nodes. And already on it is placed a payload. In this case, the set may be different. Including in the part of any small ammunition, including a multiple of the shorter length relative to the compartment.
Of the advantages, in addition to the simplicity of placing various payloads, it is also possible to quickly suspend it by initially placing it on the platform in advance and then mounting the frame in automatic / semi-automatic mode in the compartment. At the same time, platforms with different payloads can be prepared in advance, including in several versions.
If there is a need for high-intensity flights, then conceptually the speed of preparation for the next flight can be ensured.
It is clear that any large-sized loads are possible to mount without it because it takes away the useful volume of the compartment. But as one solution, it looks quite workable, at least to me.

Offline Profile Send a private message


Vaal Message header: Re: PAK FA T-50 (Part 5)MessagePosted: 02 May 2022, 13:21
User avatar

Joined: 01 Apr 2011, 20:05
Posts: 8762
If we promise from the picture, the side "rotary" UVKU live by themselves, that is, they are integrated into the compartment at the permanent.
And on the central mounting points you can put either "heavy" UVKU-50U, capable of carrying 700 kg of ASP, or some double light UVKU, designed for 2x300 kg.
Without any "frames" there. Frames stand, weigh, and take up space.

Pulling these frames with a suspension weighing two tons on the airfield is such an idea. All ASP already have regular places of quick fastening (rope tows).


So Su-57 can carry 8 air to air missiles internally is what this forum is arguing about? Dont think this info was posted here before.