Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 91 to 108 of 108

Thread: Su-57 (PAK FA) News, Discussion and Pics

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,292
    From that F-16.net link. The truth has a funny way of coming out. The whole western defense media has convinced itself that the Pak Fa isn't stealth (Tyler Rogoway even made a whole post about how unstealth the Pak Fa is. Which is why I don't go there anymore)But now more and more, we keep running into posts like this.

    I think it's going a bit too far to say that the SU-57 only matches a super hornet for RCS. Everything that's been said publicly about stealth design is that the shape of the aircraft is the most important consideration, and that materials are less important.

    The SU-57 beats the pants off of a shornet, rafale, typhoon or gripen or any other aircraft that was designed with only aerodynamics in mind and then stealth features added opportunistically afterward. It has planform alignment. Those other aircraft don't. The horizontal stabs are in the same plane as the wing. Not the case on other 4.5 gens. It had sawtooth panels over the weapons bays, IFR probe, landing gear, etc. Those other aircraft don't. Hell, those other aircraft don't even have internal weapons bays.


  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,862
    It's obviously better than SH and Tyler is an idiot.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1
    Nice:

    Fantastic, thanks!

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    177
    Tyler used to write great pieces, even if a little biased at times but nothing one couldn't look past.

    Lately, his articles read like propaganda pieces written by some douche on the Pentagon's payroll

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    699
    gonna wait for anyone doing things in the level of Carlo Kopp's stuff.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    288
    I <3 that blue-grey the Russians use on their planes.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB
    From that F-16.net link. The truth has a funny way of coming out. The whole western defense media has convinced itself that the Pak Fa isn't stealth (Tyler Rogoway even made a whole post about how unstealth the Pak Fa is. Which is why I don't go there anymore)But now more and more, we keep running into posts like this.

    I think it's going a bit too far to say that the SU-57 only matches a super hornet for RCS. Everything that's been said publicly about stealth design is that the shape of the aircraft is the most important consideration, and that materials are less important.

    The SU-57 beats the pants off of a shornet, rafale, typhoon or gripen or any other aircraft that was designed with only aerodynamics in mind and then stealth features added opportunistically afterward. It has planform alignment. Those other aircraft don't. The horizontal stabs are in the same plane as the wing. Not the case on other 4.5 gens. It had sawtooth panels over the weapons bays, IFR probe, landing gear, etc. Those other aircraft don't. Hell, those other aircraft don't even have internal weapons bays.
    Link?

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,702
    Keep your F-16.net nonsense to PMs. Not everyone here cares.



    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,326
    A nice anti glare around the canopy glass there^
    Did they rework the mesh right behind the glass canopy?
    Thanks

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    867
    As a general rule detection range is halved when rcs is reduced by a factor of ten. Airframe rcs has to be reduced multiple factors of ten to reduce detection range to useful levels. Thus it doesn’t matter if SU-57 “beats the pants” off 4th gen fighters. Even if it has 10% the rcs of shornet that still place it in the same class in terms of detectable range. Now I have no idea how these aircraft actually compare, but simply claiming its more stealth than x and y is not meaningful.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    16
    That's right; but I think that with some basic (engineering) understanding of how RCS scattering (matrix) works and what can be achieved with materials (RAM) we can guess ...

    Thus, contribution of different structures and RCSR based on shaping to the reduction obtained (dominant scatter, combined RCS result ...); materials used; RAM treatments ...

    In relation with a legacy design (4G) where RCSR shaping was not considered at all or only in a limited way (no internal weapons bay, general surfaces alignment ...) 20-30 dB in most important aspects is realistic... that besides the other means. Therefore a new clean design shall be in a different class in terms of observability

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,292
    Even if it has 10% the rcs of shornet that still place it in the same class in terms of detectable range
    This is total nonsense. There's no way that the su 57 has more than 5% more rcs than the F-22. The only reason the su 57 exists is to match and therefore neutralize the stealth advantage coming from the west. Its basic military doctrine. Its why Stalin worked and worked until they developed a nuclear bomb. He didn't just give up half way and call it good. Sukhoi didn't just give up and self sabotage the development of the rsc of the su 57 either.

    The su 35 has supercruise and 5th gen avionics. Russia didn't need another jet.

    If Russia had any doubt about its ability to design a stealth aircraft, it could have just copied the F-22 too. They could have easily copied the same basic design. They did it before. The western defense media just has this burning desire to deny the stealth of the su 57. And its ridiculous.
    Last edited by KGB; 23rd May 2018 at 17:33.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    110

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    India
    Posts
    384
    Thank you Bellum for the pic.

    This picture shows that the Izd 30 is just a wee bit shorter in length compared to the AL-41F1.

    Bort 052 landed at Zhukovsky on April 26th.we have the picture of its landing. Where was this Bort all this time between its first flight with Izd 30 engine on Dec 5 and its arrival at Zhukovsky in April?
    Any chance of it being in Akhtubinsk?


    And can any Russian member of this forum give an estimate of the amount that has been invested in the Pakfa program till date?

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB
    This is total nonsense. There's no way that the su 57 has more than 5% more rcs than the F-22. The only reason the su 57 exists is to match and therefore neutralize the stealth advantage coming from the west. Its basic military doctrine. Its why Stalin worked and worked until they developed a nuclear bomb. He didn't just give up half way and call it good. Sukhoi didn't just give up and self sabotage the development of the rsc of the su 57 either.

    The su 35 has supercruise and 5th gen avionics. Russia didn't need another jet.

    If Russia had any doubt about its ability to design a stealth aircraft, it could have just copied the F-22 too. They could have easily copied the same basic design. They did it before. The western defense media just has this burning desire to deny the stealth of the su 57. And its ridiculous.
    http://archive.is/ZHbOH


    (...)
    According to the patent paperwork, taken together, all of the stealthy measures offer significant improvements over legacy fighter designs. The papers claim that the radar cross-section (RCS) of an Su-27 was in the order of 10-15 m 2 , with the intention being to reduce the size of the RCS in the T-50 to an "average figure of 0.1-1 m 2 ".

    (...)





    It is very easy to copy a F-22,....OMG

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,292
    ^ So they only made the RCS of the su 57 10 to 15 times smaller than the 4th gen. Do you actually think that this is a small difference or something ? Reports show that the F-22 was estimated to be between .3 and .5 and that is where they decided to shoot for with the design of the su 57. Anyone with a rational grasp of what stealth is, knows that there is no magical formula that is making the F-22 way smaller than the su 57. Especially when the su 57 is lower profile and sleeker in size to begin with.

    The F-22 would be easier to copy than the Concorde. Its basically an F-15 that's gone through the stealth computer modeling.
    Last edited by KGB; 25th May 2018 at 05:31.

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,660
    AGAIN, average figure is different than maximum RCS reduction,
    The latter is simply a comparative measurement took at a fixed azimuth (+/- 45°) and inclination (-45°)in an anechoic chamber: it has NOT any operative meaning.
    So those 0,000 you see would never happen if not for the blink of a second, as son as the plane move RCS change.

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    6,252
    Interview with Head of UAC Yuri Slyusar

    https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3637769

    On Su-57 Program

    Tell us, how are the major projects of the corporation going forward? For example, at what stage is the new Su-57? I would also like to know about MS-21. Let's start with the bomber, how are things here?


    - Fighter of the fifth generation. Two significant events. The first is the baptism of fire that the plane received in February in Syria. Two planes took part, directly carrying out the task. And, in fact, we are satisfied with the implementation. I can say without any particular details that the aircraft has fundamentally different capabilities compared to a fighter of the current generation. It is quite competitive, if you compare it with analogues and American, and developed by the Chinese. And the discussion that has recently been on the topic, which is better, is certainly fruitful for us, since it allows us to discuss in a sufficiently broad format the pros and cons of each project. But our plane, of course, we think is the best.

    Well, the second is, of course, an event that is no less significant, it may, in the cultural sense, mean more, it is participation in the parade. The first airplanes took part in the parade. And, of course, the fact that they flew over Red Square, they were seen, for us, such a stage, perhaps from the point of view of directly experimental design work and launching into mass production, is not the most important, but again I say, in a cultural sense for us, of course, such a serious result of our work.

    - When will he go to the series?


    - June-July, we are assigned to sign a contract for the so-called installation lot, this is the first production lot. In 2019, we will take the first production car.

    "Will it go to the troops?"

    - Will go to the troops, will go into operation, yes.
    "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 8 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 7 guests)

  1. haavarla

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES