Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #8

ALAMO

This things work both direction. Sure you can make a missile that will fly 3km/s, yet it will struggle with accuracy for the very same reason. To maneuver at such high speeds need a whole system to be overcomplicated, starting from the mechanical/gas steering and ending up on the computing power of on board systems. I suppose it is a kind of trade off - the missile must be fast enough to catch the victim, yet slow enough not to overcomplicate things. One of the fastest missiles created was 5W28 used in S-200 Vega, that could go at Ma5.0. Very similar speed was attributed to AIM-54, but was downgraded in need to make it more versatile and useful against maneuvering targets. Even specialized anti-ballistic (yet common) 9M82 does not reach 2000m/s speed. Doesn't sound like an accident if you ask me. The only pieces that have really different parameters are dedicated interceptors, which pay the price being huge, expensive etc ... wrote:

I'm pretty rusty lately regarding the aerospace thematic (don't have the time to upgrade on the subject), but I have few remarks that could be interesting?!

[img][/img]

Here is the declassified table for the missiles that S-400 is using.
We can see that some missiles can fly at the speed of 2500 m/s, and can hit the targets that are traveling at speeds up to 4800 m/s!
So, from the perspective of guidance and processing power/speed I think there should be no problem for the hypersonic air to air missile to hit much slower target such as fighter plane.

Now here comes an interesting part, and why I think that the missiles such as R-37M are very dangerous!

Since I'm a professional falconer, many years back I had a theory that Peregrine Falcon uses the same "guidance" principals as modern missiles called PN guidance law (Proportional Navigation guidance law).

Observing many peregrine attacks on other birds in the air I have noticed that inexperienced immature falcons tend to tail chase a lot at the beginning of their training.
One of the most challenging prey species is the pigeon that has lower wing loading than the peregrine falcon which makes it very maneuverable, I would say more maneuverable at comparable speeds, but it has somewhat lower top level speed.  
When the peregrine is approaching the pigeon at lower closure rate there is almost no chance for the falcon to make the contact because the pigeon is able to outmaneuver the falcon!
Since the closure rate is relatively slow, the pigeon has enough time to make a good timing and to evade a predator by sharply turning.

Here are few videos of my immature peregrine male as an example:





The situation is changing when the peregrine falcon starts to realize that higher closure rate creates many problems for the pigeon!
Attacking the pigeon from the higher altitude in a dive at very high speed provides the falcon few advantages. First, the falcon is able to pull much more G's than the pigeon. Second, the falcon is not tail chasing the pigeon, he is intercepting the pigeon which means he doesn't need to pull proportionally so much more G's than the pigeon in order to follow its every turn, and thirdly, extremely high closure rate creates the problem for the pigeon to optimally time the evasive maneuver/turn.

Here are few videos of my male peregrine falcon that illustrate that:







In every case the peregrine has made a contact from a dive and has damaged the pigeon enough that he was not able to escape!

In my opinion, the biggest problem for the pigeon is actually the timing, because even if the pigeon is able to pull enough G's to make enough of a sharp turn (which is not the case in reality for the most part in such a set up), if he does it to early, the peregrine has enough time to make a very small adjustment and to intercept the pigeon.
If the pigeon does the turn to late, he won't be able to dodge the peregrine because the falcon is for the most part traveling at about three times higher speeds, and to make it even worse, he is traveling on interception course, not catching up from behind!

The worse thing any bird can do in this case is to make a sustained G turn when being attacked by the high speed peregrine!
Doing sustained G turn is almost the same as flying in a strait line because its flight path is predictable for the system that is using the PN guidance law.
The ducks and pheasants very often make such turns and are much easier to get hit compared to the pigeons.

Here are few examples:







Translating my experience with the falcons to the fighter planes and missiles, I have started to think about the best method for a fighter pilot to evade the incoming missile and logical choice for me was to look at what the experienced pigeon is doing when being attacked by the stooping peregrine!
The good pigeon, when alerted to an attack from a high distance will start to make zig zag flight pattern, and then a series of controlled jinking maneuvers when the falcon is approaching (similar situation as if the the fighter plane is inside of no escape zone NEZ of the missile).
What that creates is the number of problems for the peregrine to solve!
In the first place the peregrine has to react to every jink in order to be able to timely intercept the target because every jink is potentially a high G evading turn. By reacting to the jinking of the pigeon the falcon is loosing the speed/energy and is also loosing the time for the proper adjustment for the final blow because he constantly has to readjust its position relative to the target.
When the peregrine is in the reach of the pigeon, in a split second the pigeon is pulling the high G instantaneous turn, and because he was already created the problems that made the falcon flying in the less than optimal conditions, he is able to outmaneuver the peregrine!
 
Now, years letter few studies have emerged that have proven all my theories!

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1714532114

https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006044



It is incredible how accurate the computer simulations were in this assessments, and also, an open loop missile evasion algorithm created by using the super computers confirmed that the best method for evading the high speed incoming missile is the very same thing experienced pigeon is doing when being attacked by the peregrine falcon!

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA136834

Now, why I think that the pigeon has far better chances of evading the peregrine than an F-16 evading the R-37M?!

The answer is timing!

In order for the pilot to evade the hypersonic missile, he needs to have the same situational awareness as the pigeon does, and that is almost 360 deg visual/spherical coverage. There is only one blind spot for the pigeon, but that is another subject.
At the moment there is no system that is able to provide the pilot his position relative to the missile in the way he can react perfectly against the hypersonic missile.
The Su-57 is the closest to be able to solve the problem with its UV/IR and radar sensors spread all over the planes hull, but they are able to provide the data for the DIRCM system to react timely, not the pilot, and since the R-37M can't be neutralized with the DIRCM system, the only chance the pilot has is the ECM, chafts, and maneuvering which is hampered by the fact that pilot has to have almost perfect timing!
The fact that R-37M has few times bigger and powerful active seeker, and few times bigger warhead compared to the AIM-120D makes the things even worse!

At the end of a day, maybe my theory is wrong, but aside from a lower maneuverability and bigger size, the R-37M has many advantages compared to the more maneuverable missiles such as R-77-1 or AIM/120D in my opinion, because aside from the obvious advantages that I have listed, much higher range can be also translated to higher maneuverability.
That means, if a missile has higher potential energy at the end of the flight path (which is going to happen if the missile is fired at a long range at maneuvering target), that higher energy can be consequentially used for maneuvering, while other missiles with much lower range will be left with a slow speed and no energy for maneuvering!

R-77M is more important for su-30/35 that aren't stealthy and lack first shoot capability against aim-120D or meteor equiped western aircraft or pl-15/21 equiped chinese aircraft. R-37M isn't a replacement for r-77-1 even if it allows them to shoot first.

The R-37M can engage targets pulling 8g and is intended for use against fighters as well as large aircraft and cruise missiles.

R-37M is not a replacement for R-77-1 but it can do the job till newer missiles are ready... targets being shot down at 200km plus ranges in Ukraine suggests it is being used and we have seen photos of them being armed with such missiles.

This things work both direction.
Sure you can make a missile that will fly 3km/s, yet it will struggle with accuracy for the very same reason.

A scramjet engine means they can approach the targets at any speed they please... the enormous speed of the missile basically equates to effectively making the target move in slow motion in comparison... as the missile approaches the distance the target can move and the directions they can go is minimised by the high speed of the approaching weapon... if the target is flying high where the air is relatively thin detonating the warhead early spreads fragments over a wide area with speeds that would cut through anything... equally on their major SAMs they had smart fused warheads where the targets location was determined at the last nano second and the appropriate detonator initiated on the opposite side of the warhead from the projected location of the target so the explosive essentially blew the fragments of the warhead in the direction of where the target will be when the fragments arrived... but considering the missiles flight speed a tiny HE core charge as a column in the centre of a cylinder of metal fragments stacked in the warhead section where the HE just acts as a spreading charge to blow the fragments out in a dense pattern nano seconds before impact to create a hypersonic shot gun blast...

Some of their faster missiles had side thruster rockets that operate for a split second and are located around the missiles centre of gravity so when fired they don't turn the missile... they shift the missile sideways a metre or two to ensure missile to missile contact (used for very small targets that are hard to hit no matter what the speed).

In 2 minutes the enemy has enough time to go low between mountains and evade your missiles.

Do they know it is coming and who it is coming for... but more importantly a very long range missile climbs to high altitude... think about enormous altitudes... like a satellite taking photos of the ground... how effective would flying very low in mountains be in evading a missile coming down nearly vertically?

I agree if the missile was ground launched and to hit you the launcher had to track your target then mountains are a perfect idea to cut the signal and the view, but a lofted missile with active radar homing (ie its own sensor) then flying very low in mountains just means you slow down a big and you burn more fuel.

Higher speed gives you also advantage even if your opponent has same or longer range missiles.

Plus the high efficiency of a scramjet engine means you could launch a Zircon sized missile where the several hundred kgs of HE and the jammers and radar sensors could be replaced by Verba or other small missiles... released from 30km altitude directly above a group of enemy fighter aircraft, some sort of Main IR sensor on the core missile detects targets as it starts to descend and by datalink allocates a specific target to each of the say... 10 or 15 light compact missiles on board the carrier missiles which will then individually guide to target aircraft, or any cruise missiles they might have already launched... the missiles could dive and only light up their own rocket motors if they need to manouver a bit...

I know but when I say it is a replacement I mean they still carry r-77-1 with only 2 r-37. R-77-1 need to be replaced by r-77M.

When you start out as a computer technician you might buy yourself an expensive set of screw drivers... but a bit of experience and you realise a phillips head and a flat head of moderate size is good enough for most jobs... I have a tiny screw driver on my keychain with a large flat handle that is easy to grip and a shaft that has a phillips head at one end and a flat head at the other.

I would guess for super long shots the R-37 will be the only choice, while anything closer they can use the R-77-1 and if it evades that they could use an R-37 instead and close in targets the R-74 would be ideal, though getting that close to targets probably would not be ideal.

The stopped the ramjet model of the R-77 to concentrate on the improved solid rocket fuelled R-77M... which means more funds and design talent working on the problems of the improved solid rocket model... I would think it would be developed faster rather than slower, and I would think the potential for a scramjet powered missile over a ramjet powered one probably was part of the reason for that as well.

IMO normal load will be 2 r-37M, 2 or 3 r-77M, then a mix of r-77-1 and r-74 and pods.

I would agree, though I might add a couple of R-27ETs for long range IR guided potential and probably a Kh-31 anti radiation missile just in case any Patriots light up...

In fact I would probably carry 3-4 Kh-31s because battlefield radars would be valuable targets to keep hitting as fast and as often as possible.

The closing speed between the two fighters is mach2 or mach 3. Once it launches r-37M at max range the enemy fighter will be in range to launch r-77M and once it launches them it will be in range to launch r-77-1. If the formers fail.

That is not so likely, the Russian aircraft might be flying high and also flying supersonic to give its missiles reach, but the target might not be flying towards the interceptor at all, because most likely the target is probably trying to climb and accelerate to launch HARMs at Russian radars... of course we can call HARMS and HIMARS diseases because Russian Penicilin should be very effective against them.

A mix is very good. French are working on improved MICA even if they have meteor too. But having a full load of r-77M with 2 r-37 is a beast mode.

Their new LMUR missile has a two way datalink and IIR seeker and there is talk of the 9M100 short range self defence missile having the same guidance so it can be launched without a lock on the target... from inside the missile bay it can't obviously see its target so it has to lock on after launch, so it is told where the target is in relation to your aircraft and it is given an IR signature of the target from the IRST of the aircraft and the launched and it finds its target and gets a lock.

The IIR being totally passive it would be ideal to use on a very long range missile as it could look for targets all through its flight without giving away its position and if it finds a high priority target like an F-35 or some such thing it can get a lock and engage.

In fact the wing mounted L band AESA radar array could possibly be used as a datalink communication system for long range missiles so the missile can transmit its close up view of the target for the pilot to select and confirm...

Even just a backup IR sensor to hit stealthy targets the radar can't get a proper lock on...

Of course most long range missiles come down from altitude so looking from directly above most stealthy planes wont be stealthy.

Well in track while scan or passive launch it doesn't really know. But then the missile is communicating with its launch aircraft so theorically you can always detect the use of datalink which indicates a missile is going at you.

AFAIK most AAMs are not track via missile so the launch aircraft would send target information as an update to the missile... all the other aircraft on the battlefield might detect that communication but they wont know where the missile is or who it is going after... and even if it is going after you the course correction datalink is 250km away... how many other datalink signals from other platforms do you think there will be?

The idea that Maverick can go down into the weeds and evade a 5th gen fighter in his F-14 is just silly... the Su-57 doesn't need to chase him and get on his six... but if he did he could do it with ease... he could just climb and fire missiles down at him with good chances of kills because that F-14 wont be able to manouver properly without crashing into a mountain side which means the missiles should get him easily.

Such a tactic would really only work if the enemy aircraft has used up all its missiles and needed to shoot you down with guns.

In the case of the movie a thrust vectoring Su-57 would clean up any model F-14 in a gun fight.

Going low between mountains doesn't allow your enemy to have you on its radar and guide its missiles. The missile will be flying very high like you say but won't know where yo look. Also its small seaker isn't made to scan and detect in enormous part.

The missile seeker in the R-37 is designed to shoot down fighters and bombers and also cruise missiles... the latter flying very low flight profiles.

Coming in from high altitude mountains don't block the missiles view of the target and the fact that the target is moving makes them rather easy to distinguish from the ground... which isn't moving. Stealth is not intended to work from directly above either so all that shaping is wasted.

The fighter radar tells it where and when to look with its radar so that it immediatly lock on the target. Also its radar works for the last 10-20km which at mach 2-3 means few seconds.

The radar on the R-37 is rather larger than most missile radars and could probably detect aircraft from directly above at 35km.... which is probably about the height it will be flying at...

Gorgeous Su-57, don't know if one of the new ones (fitting image for my 1000th post )

Recent Su-57 article:
https://dzen.ru/a/Y7QKrIoLDjrN2dUx

Best picture I have seen. And it isnt even in it's full might.

Hey guys I have noticed that recently AMNTK Soyuz has been posting a lot of Su57 related stuff. Like this


Or this


Why is that? They always have a SU57 as an advertisement when they advertise their new R579-300 5th gen fighter jet engine. They never use a Su75 or Su35 or any other Russian fighter jet. They always go with the Su57. Could Russia have acquired 2 different engines for the Su57? Because the AMNTK one was done long before the Izd-30 by NPO Saturn. And its more powerful and has VTOL capabilities. The AMNTK R579-300 will do 230kN with the Afterburner vs the estimated 180kN by NPO Saturns izd 30. Maybe there is a Super Su57 we dont know about. Or perhaps Russia is going to offer the Saturn 30 for export and use the R579-300 strictly for VVS use. Anyone know anymore on what the R579-300 is built for? Considering they are state owned I doubt they would just build an advanced fighter jet engine for absolutely no reason. Its expensive too. There has to be something its going into.

It has more thrust because the engine is bigger. I think. This is likely a 5th gen iteration of the engine they designed for the Yak-141.
The Yak-141 engine bay was so large there were proposals at one point to use the NK-32 in it.

What matters is thrust-to-weight in terms of generational leap in performance. You can always make the engine bigger to get more thrust.

These press releases by Soyuz also caught my eye. Their technical capabilities seem to be underused at the moment and with all the engines which need to be designed both large and small, PD-14 derivatives, PD-35, helicopter engines, it is surprising to see them just standing there like this. Their engines for the Ka-60 were a failure but they historically did design successful engines like the one in the Su-25.

PS: The Ka-60 engines were designed by Saturn. My mistake.

It has more thrust because the engine is bigger. I think. This is likely a 5th gen iteration of the engine they designed for the Yak-141. What matters is thrust-to-weight in terms of generational leap in performance. You can always make the engine bigger to get more thrust. wrote:

It isnt much bigger and is about the same size as a AL41F1. But it is multiple times more powerful. AMNTK just built a better engine and they are the better guys. The R79 they had and its R179 cousins were all better than what Lyulka was making at the time. Whilst the AL31 was making pitiful figures AMNTK was hitting 160kN in 1994 with the R79/R179

The R79 is designed for a single engined fighter so tends to have a higher thrust than an engine designed to be used in a twin engined fighter like the Al-31 or RD-33.

Looking at the video they posted, their own figures showed the Soyuz engine being 2 tons with the AL-41 being about 1.6 tons, so it is 400kgs heavier, but it is also about half a metre longer but most importantly it is half a metre wider, which obviously impacts how much air can flow through it.

Part of the issue is that each aircraft design bureau tended to work with a particular engine design company and a particular radar design company, so the dominance of Sukhoi is not just killing MiG, but also the radar and engine companies that traditionally work with MiG too... which is a serious waste of resources...

It is not good that some design bureaus seem to be rather neglected, and with no work they wont have much funds to come up with products to get more work... it is a negative spiral where success makes further success more possible and more likely, making for the perfect recipe for ending up with the monopoly that OAK was designed to avoid.

Just theorizing a bit. I understand only a bit of russian but they seem to allude at Su-75, it could use the extra power. Maybe there could be a VTOL Su-75 in the future even. Also at the end of the video they say something about Mach 4 speeds, so perhaps it could be used on the future PAK-DP? It's true it's not even clear if they will build PAK-DP or what kind of specs they really aim for it, but i guess if they will build a 21st century MiG-31, this engine might be just the right one for it.

Just theorizing a bit. I understand only a bit of russian but they seem to allude at Su-75, it could use the extra power. Maybe there could be a VTOL Su-75 in the future even. Also at the end of the video they say something about Mach 4 speeds, so perhaps it could be used on the future PAK-DP? It's true it's not even clear if they will build PAK-DP or what kind of specs they really aim for it, but i guess if they will build a 21st century MiG-31, this engine might be just the right one for it. wrote:

This is possible. The AMNTK engine is just too powerful. Nothing like this exists. I wouldnt be surprised if they have to hold back a jet with it , with cables to prevent it from flying off on its own.

There was information that a Su-57 shot down a Ukrainian Su-27 in the Sumy region yesterday. Another aerial victory in the Su-57 standings. By the way, no one has information, how many of them can there be in total? In any case, a pretty good result for an aircraft that supposedly does not exist.

The real Ghost of Kiev. 

February 11, 13:00

Sukhoi Design Bureau has developed the first part based on bionic design
The aluminum power bracket is intended for the Su-57 fighter

MOSCOW, 11 February. /TASS/. The Sukhoi Design Bureau has developed the first part based on a bionic design - an aluminum power bracket for the Su-57 fighter. This was reported in the Telegram channel of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC).

"The first part based on bionic design was developed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau - an aluminum power bracket for the Su-57 fighter. This is a completely domestic development. The designers designed the part on a supercomputer. Specialists of the All-Russian Research Institute of Aviation Materials (VNIAM) from the domestic metal powder created on its basis aluminum alloy compositions printed a part on a 3D printer," the report says.

The new bracket weighs a quarter less than similar parts made using traditional technologies and was made overnight, while traditional machining of an aluminum billet would take at least a week, the company said.

As explained in the UAC, generative design is a way of designing various objects, in which solutions other than traditional solutions are used to reduce weight and increase strength. Externally, objects produced in this way differ from ordinary man-made products. They have pronounced features inherent, for example, in plants, imitate the structure of limbs or bones. That is why this design method is often called bionic design. The term "generative design" is used due to the fact that the geometry of such structures is automatically calculated, as if generated in special software.

The bionic approach to design allows for some technological processes to spend 30 or even 50% less material. This has a positive effect on the price of such products.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/17027573

Just for visualization what are we talking about :

Weighs less and costs less.. while when it comes to critical parts they can be tuned to be stronger and take more load, or focus on whatever other property as needed

Sign me up

IT is faster to produce, too. Printed.

There were pictures of such a "bionic" model being circulated before, showing the main load-bearing elements of the plane. I think I saw it on Paralay, many years ago.

Cool that they're actually going there.

edit: Found it, they were screenshots from this episode of Combat Approved:
https://dzen.ru/video/watch/610d8477e71d0a5fcc3299f4

At 13:00 in.

Everybody does.
Airbus has been showing models of next-gen fuselage structures for years.

This case gets really interesting when combined with industrial-grade 3D printing, and an increasing amount of stuff that can be used as building materials. This process is fascinating because it is magic.

In a regular process, you are to take a big chunk of dedicated metal and process it with a big CNC machine for a few hours. Later you need to make next-stage processing to get the desired quality, precision etc. All the material that you are milling - is lost. Requires collecting, transporting and reprocessing - all energy and time-consuming.
And here ... you just put some powdered material, that is being melted with already dedicated precision right on a produced detail.
You are using 1/3-1/5 of the material itself, with one process only, and no waste to recycle.
Future is now

More importantly if you are operating on a remote airfield and you need a part you can print it...

Imagine going to Mars with these printers and print material and designs, you can leave it till you get there to decide what you want to build for use when you get to the surface... what type of ground vehicles, what type of machines, and if anything breaks down you can print out replacement parts as you need them... your spare parts pool becomes a powder bank of different metal combinations.

Just one step below Star Trek where the necessary stuff just materialises from nothing.

@DrSnufflebug

That's a good documentary. I thought I seen them all but not this one

some screen shots

Print vs machined

GarryB wrote:More importantly if you are operating on a remote airfield and you need a part you can print it..

It would be easier and far cheaper to have an entire machining department at that airfield than to provide it with such a printer.