Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 352

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

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by paralay
    Probably X-59MK2
    yes Sir!

    The rear weapons bay seems to be big enough for them also, that is a respectable ground attack capability (probably 4 of them can be carried in LO mode)

  2. #122
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,920
    OMFG - what will SolarWarden fill his days with from now on?!

    It does look most like Kh-59MK2 and the cruise missile shown in-flight in the seconds preceding the launch shot is almost certainly a Kh-59MK2. From the rear bay too - so much for CG concerns.

    The other encouraging aspect of this video is about the Kh-59MK2 itself - it's certainly not vapour ware!
    Last edited by Trident; 25th May 2018 at 20:04.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    India
    Posts
    424
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DeD-wm3XUAA6Kmx.jpeg 
Views:	1060 
Size:	26.6 KB 
ID:	260619

    It is most certainly a Kh-59mk2.

    Between aren't inert missiles which are used to represent the actual missile in mass and dimensions painted cherry red?

    The Kh59mk2 has a range of 295-300 km.

    Solar Warden is going to have a stroke. Someone dial 911 pls.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo
    No, it's even worse, the published comparative value is not the +/- 0 degrees azimuth and 0° inclination as this one would almost allow the plane to point its own nose directly toward the radar emitter, it's instead usually the double 45° degree both in azimut than elevation.
    That because stealth, contrary to popular belief, was not thought to be used as an air to air tool but to avoid detection from AD network so they were more interested into calculating reduction toward emission coming from the ground.
    That means, the plane would try to keep the AD sites in that direction as he passes contouring them? Not questioning the veracity of this, but would see two issues here:

    1) It would be difficult to maintain this relative position to a threatening radar without coming progressively closer to it.
    2) The alignment of the wings' leading edge in F-22 is 42º, producing a peak RCS value very close to that azimuth (don't know how this value varies with inclination though)




    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo
    Needless to say frontal (+/- 0°), tail (+/- 180°) and above all lateral (+/- 90°) rcs are order of magnitude higher than both reference and the same average one.

    Difference between frontal and tail aspect as the one published fro Su-57 0,1/1 sqm are instead way less relevant as in this case doppler beam sharpening goes into negative more than compensating the higher RCS (unless emitter is on a faster moving plane than it, bonne chance...).
    APA apparently analysed this with the same SW tools normally used by military contractors and found the head-on was the only angle where F-35 had an acceptable stealth. It would make sense in this approach since the Doppler effect as you comment strongly favours detecting of an incoming plane from that aspect. Cannot comment on the correctness of their analysis and surely they cannot know the exact position and technical parameters of the RAM used but I assume they can reasonably guess what would be sensible to a certain extent.



    Regarding the Doppler effect, agree what you say. In this case the PAK-FA for instance has high altitude and high speed kinematic capabilities that allow to launch from stand-off distances, and that even without considering that its weapons are superior in range and size of warhead compared to F-22 and F-35. Even when it is (apparently) not all-aspect VLO, it is superior to the F-35 to attack and disengage. And with small rudders and cheek radar it is better equipped than F-22 or F-35 to stay 90º from emitter to hide from Doppler radar.


  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,903
    same SW tools normally used by military contractors
    I can GUARANTEE you that they do not.

    Not only that, but they have no idea of it's RAM or ESM performance.

    The AU parliament basically laughed at their "submissions".
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by "Spudman"WP
    I can GUARANTEE you that they do not.

    Not only that, but they have no idea of it's RAM or ESM performance.

    The AU parliament basically laughed at their "submissions".
    That is what Kopp claimed, cannot comment on that and wrote "apparently" at the front of that sentence to make clear this is no statement from mine, but if you have more information on that regard it would be great to read it. Anyway the guys were active in the industry and their work was peer reviewed, are you sure the AU parliament (aka politicians unless you want to be more precise) knows much more about radar physics than them??

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by LMFS
    Not an expert but have to agree Marcellogo and to some extent KGB from what I have read. Russians do not take seriously those claimed infinitesimal RCS values disclosed in the west for F-22 since they only happen in a theoretical situation: head on at exactly the same level and without additional radars illuminating the stealth plane. They claim Ufimtsev's works had more to them than what was cleared for publication, implying their theoretical understanding of the phenomena is not only not below but actually above those of the US scientists. And they estimate REPEATEDLY F-22's RCS values at 0,3 - 0,5 sqm.

    Just saying, I have no way of proving or discussing this and nobody in the know will do to the point of irrefutably convincing anybody, but each one can make their own conclusions
    You need use the common sense.

    Russia can not know which RCS has american airplanes because can not know which RAM it has. So, its not important what russian tells about this question that only american or Lockheed martin can answer.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,903
    That is what Kopp claimed,
    There is no "peer" to review anything. "Peer Review" is a specific thing and Kopp never went through it.

    are you sure the AU parliament
    It was MoD/LM/JPO testimony in front of Parliament, sorry for the confusion. I actually listened to the testimony and it was quite evident what they thought of Kopp et al.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,917
    None of the APA “analysis” on particular aircraft was submitted for peer review in any industry journal. It is purely subjective and based on flawed open source information and commercially available RCS software.

    As I stated in another thread,It should be noted that one of the sticking points between the US and f-35 partner nations is the US government refusal to share the full RCS “footprint” of the aircraft from different angles and against different radars.

    Who knew all they have to do is ask APA for spectral analysis of the F-35 done with commercial software?
    Last edited by FBW; 25th May 2018 at 22:47.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,920
    Quote Originally Posted by RALL View Post
    You need use the common sense.

    Russia can not know which RCS has american airplanes because can not know which RAM it has. So, its not important what russian tells about this question that only american or Lockheed martin can answer.
    So what makes anyone other than Sukhoi people think they have the first idea about the Su-57's RCS?

    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    I can GUARANTEE you that they do not.

    Not only that, but they have no idea of it's RAM or ESM performance.

    The AU parliament basically laughed at their "submissions".
    Whatever you might think about his... er... eccentric opinions & conclusions, Kopp is a RF engineer by education IIRC.

    He generally knew more on the subject than his most vocal critics, including I suspect the vast majority of Australian members of parliament. Separating his opinion from factual insight was a chore, but there was genuine insight in there if you looked.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,903
    Like I said, it was the MoD who basically laughed at the data, not the politicians.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  12. #132
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,920
    At the data or his conclusions?

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    761
    APA apparently analysed this with the same SW tools normally used by military contractors and found the head-on was the only angle where F-35 had an acceptable stealth.
    A far better peer reviewed assessment is available here, http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%204_1_9.pdf which takes APA's modelling and provides some actual mathematical process to it.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,903
    At the data or his conclusions?
    Yes
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,903
    takes APA's modelling and provides some actual mathematical process to it
    In legal parlance, "fruit of a poisonous tree".
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    6,301




    "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    6,301
    Starts at 5 minutes 25 seconds

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeeTJbd9w6M
    "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,332
    We will have to wait to see a production representative Su-57 before making that kind of comparison. A lot of potential issues need to be looked at from inlet blockers, rivets, engine treatments, etc.
    Lol. NO NO NO.

    The su 57 has the planform alignment and was design optimized by a computer for stealth. These little details are not going to make the difference between RCS 15 and RCS .2. And anyone who thinks this has a poor grasp of what stealth is.

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,903
    RCS 15 and RCS .2
    Obviously not... but RCS 2 and .2 certainly.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  20. #140
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    226
    Just checking in to see if the SU-57 has op.... holy crap, finally!!

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,903
    Photoshop
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  22. #142
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    226
    You're kidding, right? Trident thought of me thinking this pic is real, it's gonna kill his ego knowing I'm laughing if this is true.

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,670
    Obviously not... but RCS 2 and .2 certainly.
    Yes but we could be certain thay they would have neither began to talk about beginning serial production before those issues would be completely addressed.

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by RALL
    You need use the common sense.

    Russia can not know which RCS has american airplanes because can not know which RAM it has. So, its not important what russian tells about this question that only american or Lockheed martin can answer.
    I am not here to defend Russian sources, just to transmit to you what I have come to know, in case it can help you compose a more balanced understanding of the topic.

    Regarding common sense: RAM as you can imagine is not black magic stuff but certain types of materials based in known physical principles. Its behaviour can be modelled based on scientific publications and known developments, normally with significant safety margins and under conservative assumptions, not to underestimate potential advances of the technology. The spots of the planes where their application makes sense is reasonably known. The cost and weight penalties that can be incurred in a serial aircraft have also their limits. This is not like having the development documentation from the manufacturer and does not guarantee being 100% correct but can provide a reasonable approach, which in turn can be refined by the direct observation of such LO objects like is happening right now in Syria. So to me it is quite reasonable that top world experts in radar physics (the fathers of PTD in first place) are at least to be considered when discussing LO, don't you think?

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,364
    The rear weapons bay seems to be big enough for them also, that is a respectable ground attack capability (probably 4 of them can be carried in LO mode)
    Lets not get carried away here. It still remain to be seen how many large Sticks the PakFa can carry internaly
    Thanks

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    873
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	8CE7C358-9172-4DD1-BC68-CEB82A6A2B9A.jpeg 
Views:	79 
Size:	111.8 KB 
ID:	260636

    Seems ordenance is centered in the bay to me. Both bay doors opened pass 90 degrees, there’s probably only room for one in the aft bay.

  27. #147
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,920
    Possible, admittedly, but I don't think the resolution is good enough to determine it definitively.

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,364
    Just for the sake of clarity, the forward main Weapon bay goes past the start of Air-intakes.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	229987.jpg 
Views:	48 
Size:	452.0 KB 
ID:	260638

    That being said, i think the X-59MK2 would really be a "tight fit" inside one of those bays, length wise.
    On the vid, the missile seems really miss-matched.. but its probably due to the camera angle, as the missile comes closer(larger) after it being launched.

    What was the length of the F-35 weapons bay again?

    If this Sukhoi really can cram four of the MK2's inside the bays..
    It would be a Massive capability for sure!!

    Add that up with four more; two on air-intakes ext station and two on inner wing stations.. thats's eight of em!
    Last edited by haavarla; 26th May 2018 at 14:21.
    Thanks

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla
    Lets not get carried away here. It still remain to be seen how many large Sticks the PakFa can carry internaly.
    Just for the sake of clarity, the forward main Weapon bay goes past the start of Air-intakes.

    That being said, i think the X-59MK2 would really be a "tight fit" inside one of those bays, length wise.
    On the vid, the missile seems really miss-matched.. but its probably due to the camera angle, as the missile comes closer(larger) after it being launched.

    What was the length of the F-35 weapons bay again?

    If this Sukhoi really can cram four of the MK2's inside the bays..
    It would be a Massive capability for sure!!

    Add that up with four more; two on air-intakes ext station and two on inner wing stations.. thats's eight of em!
    haavarla, the bays on the T-50 have roughly 4.5 m long and 1 m width. The Kh-59MK2 has been evidently designed (look at the recessed sections to accommodate the folding wings and tail surfaces) to have a section of 40 x 40 cm. Section and length of 4.2 m is common to all weapons devised to fit the bay of the Su-57, so for me it is almost a certainty that the plane can carry 4 of these missiles. I think paralay has a lot of drawings, even one with this very missile inside the bays, maybe he posts something later.

    Now consider than in all probability the series Su-57 will be capable of supercruising with 4 of these CM and you can realise the attack effectiveness / turnaround compared to western equivalents. To me it is clear what an outstanding multirole fighter this aircraft can be.

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cantabrigia
    Posts
    1,363
    APA would not have had access to the specialised software used by companies such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop, and academic and other open-source pronouncements on the subject of stealth technology need to be taken with some degree of caution. The author of a classified paper on the challenge posed to stealth aircraft by VHF radar has warned that academic studies on stealth topics contain what he described as "obvious errors" both in modelling, and in the methods used for such modelling.

    In the statement by LMRS that the Russians "estimate REPEATEDLY F-22's RCS values at 0,3 - 0,5 sqm", the word that needed to be 'shouted' in all-caps was 'estimate'. Without detailed knowledge of the F-22 structure and the types of RAS or RAM that it uses, any 'estimate' could better be described as a 'guesstimate'. The same would apply to Western figures for the RCS of the Su-57.

    In stealth technology, the devil is in the details. Those 'little details' that KGB dismisses as "not going to make the difference between RCS 15 and RCS .2" are in practice of major importance. During trials of one early US stealth platform, a major increase in RCS noted during one test was finally traced to a single faulty (or badly-fitted) fastener. (If my memory is correct, Ben Rich was the source of this story, and it is recounted in his book 'Skunk Works'.) So KGB's "Lol. NO NO NO" dismissal of the critical importance of such small details certainly shows that someone "has a poor grasp of what stealth is".
    Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

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