Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 250

Thread: Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!-

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,426
    ^ Here comes the super troll again. Where did you put the red crayons ? He just made a new batch of BS up. Just like the Business Insider hit piece. It's a witch hunt through and through. The exact some condescending tone, the same junk accusations.

    The Iranian fighter "has it better" now. Nice touch. No axe grinding childish behavior detected..

    You couldn't be that arrogant. So it has to be blatant trolling. You are trolling this thread if you have the gall to write that Internet enthusiasts like yourself have a superior grasp of stealth than Russia and the Sukhoi design bureau. Ironically the country who makes the best AIR defense systems in the world. Systems that NATO members would risk losing the F-35 to acquire.

    Anyone who wasn't so arrogant would question their own Internet pseudo knowledge of RCS (IRST & all) before they made such claims that you do about the su 57.
    Last edited by KGB; 12th July 2018 at 13:55.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    near nowhere
    Posts
    2,362
    It is not surprising that this thread on the Su-57/PAK-FA is regularly removed ... From pages to pages, each revival becomes more and more the meeting place of children in a sandbox. Everyone tries to brag about his plane by decrying the one of the other simply by looking at it on photographs. Unfortunately the stealthness is not solved by a simple fuselage curve, a HUD reflecting the electronic waves or an outgrowth not inclined enough. The material used, its composition, its coating, its degree of absorption/reflection, …, are all elements to know to define the degree of stealthness. Even a B-2 has non-inclined cockpit uprights seen from the front .... Do not try to compare yourself with engineers from LM, Sukhoi or Chengdu by only pulling your data on the Internet or Wikipedia ... try to connect your neurons without becoming annoying trolls. If there was only one way to do stealth, all planes would look like an F-117 ...none would have curves like the B-2, the F-35 or the F-22...and the Su-57.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    224
    If there was only one way to do stealth, all planes would look like an F-117 ...none would have curves like the B-2, the F-35 or the F-22...and the Su-57
    Why would they not have curves? As long as the curves are gradual, the angles low, and as long as the aircraft can be affordably maintained, everyone would build the same thing, and it would be far stealthier than the F-117....oh wait...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	next gen.png 
Views:	77 
Size:	579.6 KB 
ID:	261482

    nfortunately the stealthness is not solved by a simple fuselage curve, a HUD reflecting the electronic waves or an outgrowth not inclined enough. The material used, its composition, its coating, its degree of absorption/reflection, …, are all elements to know to define the degree of stealthness.
    Good shape plus materials will always beat just materials, not disputable.
    Last edited by ActionJackson; 12th July 2018 at 14:24.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    near nowhere
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by ActionJackson View Post
    Why would they not have curves? As long as the curves are gradual, the angles low, and as long as the aircraft can be affordably maintained, everyone would build the same thing, and it would be far stealthier than the F-117....oh wait...
    No personal attack but you are tiring at always wanting to understand nothing and read the sentences to their first degree ... have you ever looked at the fuselage difference between an F-117 and a B-2 or F-35 ? And it is you who systematically perceive the curves as a possible return of radar waves, like the Su-57's IRST or cockpit frame. But I will stop there to avoid going into "troll attitude"...

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    224
    I think you've missed something, my post was not related to curves at all.

    BTW it's not my posts that get threads removed, just the children who lose their temper in frustration at themselves because they can't form a mature, coherent and informed argument. Hence why I now backup my posts in case the threads delete. Some people find them informative as they based on science fact rather than fantasy.
    Last edited by ActionJackson; 12th July 2018 at 14:36.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    79
    Thanks ActionJackson again, great job attaching all these pictures. All people can understand if they are not blind. I would add the faceted EOTS in contrast to spherical OSL-50. It is few details, but all together is a big difference.

    KGB, the best Air defense system is the Aegis System. Its version SPY-1D(v) has the twice the range of 91N6E (S-400).
    Last edited by RALL; 12th July 2018 at 14:47.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    near nowhere
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by ActionJackson View Post
    I think you've missed something, my post was not related to curves at all...
    Bad memory ?


  8. #128
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    224
    That is nothing to do with curves, but surfaces and edges which point directly at the source radar. Whether it was straight or curved, no difference, it is not sharply angled. It is a simple fact that that having very little forward facing edge and diverting most of the echos well away from the source radar is a better solution.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2018-07-11_20h12_49.png 
Views:	46 
Size:	1.01 MB 
ID:	261483

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    62
    @ActionJackson

    Your analyse is nice but you forget one important thing and that is F-117:
    https://tvrphoto.files.wordpress.com...7_798_0972.jpg

    Many negatives you wrote about Su-57 you can see on F-117 even OLS problem is there, that thing below canopy is FLIR when it isn't in use it would rotate and backside is made as RAS RAM combo, something like that is also mentioned for OLS-50 in patent I think. If you compare that with F-35 front DAS sensor and EOTS you don't have that luxury they need to rely only on glass film coat to reduce return of their optical system and I doubt it is better then RAS RAM combo.

    If you think Su-57 canopy is mass because of metal frame bar and "poorly" design backside well:
    http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/up...5B1C8D2EC6.jpg

    So yes Su-57 have some imperfections but it is far more dangerous then what folks thought in 2010, back then people thought it would have exposed fan blades and non stealth nozzles, now we know it isn't case, we saw new nozzle and new engine will have some kind of radar blocker. That is lot more important then some smaller fixes on airframe but to be honest I would love to see they fix them too becuase it isn't something impossible to be done.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    near nowhere
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by ActionJackson View Post
    That is nothing to do with curves, but surfaces and edges which point directly at the source radar. Whether it was straight or curved, no difference, it is not sharply angled. It is a simple fact that that having very little forward facing edge and diverting most of the echos well away from the source radar is a better solution.
    You mean like these ?


  11. #131
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    224
    See the screen?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	030321-F-0000J-111.JPG 
Views:	16 
Size:	369.2 KB 
ID:	261485

    The YF-23 was an initial protoype and would most certainly have changed in design during development. Nobody ever said it had a better frontal RCS specifically than the YF-22, just that it was better overall which can be seen clearly by it's way more highly canted sides and hidden exhaust. The F-22's canopy leading edge is different to the YF-22's.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    224
    You mean like these ?
    You know that's all inside the cockpit right? The canopy's a single, continuous piece of glass. Surface waves travel on... surfaces.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2018-07-13_00h23_57.png 
Views:	22 
Size:	498.5 KB 
ID:	261487
    Last edited by ActionJackson; 12th July 2018 at 15:26.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    near nowhere
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by ActionJackson View Post
    You know that's all inside the cockpit right? The canopy's a single, continuous piece of glass.
    Nice to know that the OLS and its inside is then invisible if rightly treated...

    And for B-2 ?


  14. #134
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    near nowhere
    Posts
    2,362
    My last post in this thread that will not be directly related to Su-57. I just wanted to show that there are many ways to design stealth without it being seen directly, by nacked eyes, on simple pictures.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,426
    What ActionJackson does has been the approach of this childish witchhunt all along. Which is the only reason why he does it.



    See if you can spot what's wrong.


    It is gutter journalism through and through. And again, this is why ActionJackson does this. He was never an pseudo expert about stealth or anything. He just started doing this to the Pak fa because he seen others doing it.



    The National Interest is quoting the Business Insider article which had this doozey in it. Another thing that some pseudo expert made up. Turns out it makes no sense and he looks like a moron. And the National Interest didn't even bother to check. Why ? Because its a witchhunt. Nobody is interested in the truth here.

    ^Note the sidebar article links.


  16. #136
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    224
    Nice to know that the OLS and its inside is then invisible if rightly treated...
    I think you mistake travelling waves caused by incident beams hitting a surface at a low angle vs direct illumination, front on.

    And for B-2 ?
    a) Does not have to go head to head against fighters and b) is not as stealthy as the F-117, F-22, F-35 front on. Also, it's designed primarily to penetrate VHF, UHF, L-Band protected areas where small features such as window's etc are not as important due to the wavelength.

    I must say it's refreshing being in this thread now with KGB on ignore, it's done wonders to level of the post I read in here.
    Last edited by ActionJackson; 12th July 2018 at 15:59.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    62
    @AJ

    See the screen?
    Screen for FLIR? It was removed later becuase composite RAM backside was enough plus it had impact on picture quality
    https://image.slidesharecdn.com/f-11...?cb=1427351223

    The YF-23 was an initial protoype and would most certainly have changed in design during development. Nobody ever said it had a better frontal RCS specifically than the YF-22, just that it was better overall which can be seen clearly by it's way more highly canted sides and hidden exhaust. The F-22's canopy leading edge is different to the YF-22's.
    Northrop didn't think it have big impact on frontal RCS of F-23, because pole model and F-23EMD have divaded canopy with metal bar.

    All you mentioned as small imperfections which could make Su-57 detectable for longer distance then F-22 but still that distance is very deadly when you need to deal with Su-57 no matter in what fighter is agianst Su-57. F-22 would be best pick agianst Su-57 but it lacks IRST.

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    461
    ActionJackson and KGB should get their own thread so the rest of us can have a break from all the nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krivakapa
    All you mentioned as small imperfections which could make Su-57 detectable for longer distance then F-22 but still that distance is very deadly when you need to deal with Su-57 no matter in what fighter is agianst Su-57. F-22 would be best pick agianst Su-57 but it lacks IRST.
    The issue is that the PAK FA stealth patent says only the back of the IRST is treated with RAM and it's turned backwards when not in use to preserve stealth.

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,939
    Quote Originally Posted by Krivakapa View Post
    @AJ



    Screen for FLIR? It was removed later becuase composite RAM backside was enough plus it had impact on picture quality .
    Complete horsh@t.... if you don’t know something, don’t make it up. You and KGB would do well to follow those rules.

    Just gives a bad name to Russian posters.

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    62
    @FBW

    Maybe they are using coatings? But still FLIR isn't present to radar when it isn't in use. And I am not Russian, nor Russia stronk type, if you check my posts you will see how many times I correct KGB with "Su-57 intake = F-23 intake" idea, so I don't think Su-57 is the best stealth but it is good enough to make F-22/35 problems.
    Last edited by Krivakapa; 12th July 2018 at 18:10.

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,421
    Quote Originally Posted by RadDisconnect View Post
    ActionJackson and KGB should get their own thread so the rest of us can have a break from all the nonsense.



    The issue is that the PAK FA stealth patent says only the back of the IRST is treated with RAM and it's turned backwards when not in use to preserve stealth.
    Agreed on the first.

    Is it not possible to coat the OLS glass as well as the inside or backend of the OLS house.
    You know, sinse they bother to spend much resources to find the right coat to the much larger cockpit glass..

    And to AC;
    have you study the Cockpit bar on the Su-57. How is it shaped inside the cockpit. Is square, rectangular or perhaps trapez shaped?
    We know its flat on the outside. The serial birds will get a ticker RAM coating across the glass beam. Much like F-35 around its panels on the skin.

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,426
    Here's just some more objective fact based reporting from Business Insider. This time, with a link to The Diplomat.



    So these mainstream outlets are telling everyone that the su 57 has external weapons. Shameless disinformation peddling.


  23. #143
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,421
    KGB, i fail to ser any point of posting reference to bad sources. We all know Internet is crowded with them, but still.. you are poluting this thread with boring and unintresting stuff.

    And you do not need to reply every post of people whom have a different opinion.

    There are many senior members on here, many if not most have a good time just snapping up tidbit of news.. any news. But to have to skim through nonsens of pages just to find it is highly anoying!

    The best thread around here is by far the military Aviation news thread by TANGO, hands down.

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,426
    @Haavarla

    Do you really think that these reports are just honest mistakes from "bad sources" ? Ha..

    They aren't. They are condescending hit pieces against the su 57. It's a disinformation witch hunt. There is nothing in good faith here. Where are the corrections for these errors ? There is none. Because they know what they are doing

    And its exactly what ActionJackson is doing too.

    Why the hell should we have to put up with the thread being polluted with things that he makes up ? Look at him. He's obsessed. He has an agenda. He's not even an Internet fanboy pseudo expert. He's a Russophobic sh** poster

    You should see what forums devolve into when the sophists just run wild. The stuff they convince themselves of about the su 57 is cringe worthy
    Last edited by KGB; 12th July 2018 at 21:50.

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    94
    I have to agree KGB here. This is a disingenuous smear campaign motivated by a mix of poor losers attitude and blind sectarism. Some posters just keep on repeating the same ridiculous smear points over and over and over, simply ignoring any argument that proves the weakness of their reasonings and the most elementary logic and decency. No, they are way above Sukhoi guys, who are only capable of clumsily imitating shapes of Western LO aircraft but without even knowing what a spherical reflector is. Truly mind blowing, I'm left speechless by the cheek of this propagandistic posturing.

    There are dozens of honest forum members here that would like to discuss interesting news and issues about the Su-57 but instead have to endure this non-stop sh*t storm from some guys that find it necessary to show us the light. Leave us in peace, for god's sake!
    Last edited by LMFS; 12th July 2018 at 22:38.

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    60
    "In 2014 they states their development program finished and produced several kind of UHF GaN modules."

    Several are you twisting what is said as already stated? he said 4 of those mmics are to be used for krasukha, tarantula,khlibiny and himalayas did he not? He have an example of the 4 GaN UHF modules, than gave an example of the 4 EW systems...... Please atleast dont tell me that you think there are other EW systems that you think he is referring to?

    "where did they even mentioned the EW system is Himalayas like you are trying to imply? " So what your saying is you actually think that the mig-35s,mig-29s and su-30s are to have GaN than their newer aircraft? Because 1. you do not believe that it is present in mentioned jammers from Rostec 2. They mentioned EW GaN is present on aircraft and EW systems but since you disagree with the 4 systems mentioned by Rostec since it is not mentioned than what other EW systems do you think they have that have GaN since they have literally stated that.

    "What they said is totally correct because in the market at the moment there are many EW system using GaAs modules, and some uses GaN modules." Not even once have they mentioned the majority of their EW systems are GaAS there better not be any voices in your head to suggest otherwise which is why you post a catalog page but an actual quote.

    "They didn't say Their EW system uses GaN." Are you on damage control or something? As stated multiple times, "Usually, solid-state gallium-arsenide and
    gallium-nitride amplifi
    ers are used as active
    elements of active phased-array antennas of
    present-day EW equipment. "

    You say they didnt say GaN but they state they used GaN. You say they use GaAS more than GaN while they only state the use both not even once stating they used GaAS.

    "GaN T/R modules are used in radar system we produced " but that doesn't mean we should assume APG-77v1 and AGP-81 use GaN (at the moment we only know that TPS-80 has GaN element). Or BAE can correctly say "we produced EW system with GaN modules" no no no there is a huge difference in comparing apples and oranges. 2014 they state where the GaN MMICs are to be used, apg-77v1, N036 and apg-81 there can be multiple sources found that state they used GaAS. The difference is they mentioned the Himalayas GaN MMIC features months later say they have present GaN on their EW systems. The only EW systems they mentioned of GaN are their newest EW appliances. 2015 there was nothing present of what new EW systems would be using GaN. 2014 they said where GaN will be applied until time later they have mentioned it is present. Give me a hint what other new EW systems that came out in 2015 to make you believe that it is GaN? I already gave you a clue.

    "put a Sniper-XR pod on B-1 but Sniper-XR isn't created for B-1 only" What kind of example is this? Are you suggesting that there are different aircraft that can be fitted with the Himalayas?

    "i said those UHF elements weren't created specifically for Himalayas" 4 GaN UHF modules, 4 systems that are to use GaN as stated, OK I hope you mean that the UHF elements were created specifically for 4 different systems? Unless your thinking those GaN mmics are for the mig-29 or whatever because they state 4 different GaN for 4 different specific EW systems.

    "Size reduction and efficiency in form of percentage how do you know know they are the same without a base number?? What if the previous version is bucky?. Imagine someone said his house dog is half as big as her father, his house cat is half as big as her mother, then someone else concluded that the dog and cat are equal in size. Won't you think that will be a ridiculous assumption? " Which is why I was asking a question in the 1st place if anyone knew the sizes of either being based off of LTCC besides the same size reduction and if one is applied with GaN using LTCC for EW systems is it applied for their T/R modules regarding their radar? That is all.

    "You have yet to give us the citation to these range"
    http://tass.com/defense/942027
    Krasukha-20 The entire system is deployed within several minutes without a man’s participation, after which it is capable of disabling an AWACS at a distance of several hundred kilometers.

    http://www.deagel.com/Protection-Sys...003124001.aspx Rychag-av stating 700km, AVM unknown.

    Murmansk-bn http://www.deagel.com/Tactical-Vehic...003384001.aspx max coverage 3000km

    If most of their new EW systems like were presently operaional before feb-2015 I would have not said a word. But the fact that there were no newer systems that I can think between 2014-2015 other than the Krasukha-4 and himalayas being presented between that timeline, that they were introduced with GaN between, that time and now state they have already GaN present in their EW systems.

    "In the broadband range of 2.0 GHz to 20.0 GHz the active antenna system is fully functional in electronic countermeasures and radio frequency jamming "

    I hope that you are pulling my leg 2-20ghz for ECM and jamming. OK how about a patent with that range regarding """"radar"""".

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    224
    Plenty of high bandwidth HPAs available at Wolfspeed RF (formerly Cree). 1-18GHz are fairly common and the have nice little 70W for all your jamming and high bandwidth needs.

    In other developments Cree have now released an extremely tiny uhf Radar amplifier capable of a whopping 900W output. 900W per TR module!

    https://www.wolfspeed.com/cghv1j070d

    These guys are doing amazing stuff still and their GaN product line is huge. It’s good to see other companies have finally progressed past prototype phase though, just not sure they’ll be disrupting the market any time soon.
    Last edited by ActionJackson; 13th July 2018 at 00:03.

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    109

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,303
    I was wondering how long it would take for the Business Insider article to show up

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    94
    Thanks for bringing that excellent example of Western libel against the PAK-FA

    Here the confirmation of the PAK-FA cancellation:
    https://sputniknews.com/military/201...fighters-su57/

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 10 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 9 guests)

  1. Shania

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