yeetmahboi
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 6 April 2022
- Messages
- 321
- Reaction score
- 359
And if you don't advance, your progress flatline.
New tech will be adopt. Early on, not a lot of things "work as advertised". Eventually fixes will be rolled out.
Sukhoi Su-57 flight testing, development & operations [2012-current]
New tech will be adopt. Early on, not a lot of things "work as advertised". Eventually fixes will be rolled out.
haavarla
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 29 June 2010
- Messages
- 199
- Reaction score
- 252
I get that.
But the whole helmet capability has been for yeeeeaaars hyperboled. we are not anywhere near what they want it to be. I was around here last two decade on various forums. Whish i could put up some of the riddiculous claims back then.
Last edited:
They had 14 years to address the canopy issue… it’s final and yes it is an issue for two reasons. 1, the two pieces causes a discontinuity with three extra seams from the canopy bow plus screws holding the bow in place and 2, the shape itself is not ideal. There is a reason the F-22, J-20, F-35, J-35, KF-21 and TAI TF have a trapezoid style shapes.
Maybe in a future upgrade it will change but I doubt it. In my opinion it seems engineers are clashing, you have forward thinking engineers that push for modern design and then you have old fart dinosaurs that only care about cost and maneuverability for air shows or at the minimum they can’t except that times are changing. It only makes sense, I can’t see why else some panels are serrated while others are not or why some parts of the aircraft looks modern while other parts look not so modern.
I think the framed cockpit is a compromise they made, If Google Translate is correct...they chose the conventional design for strength, pilot protection, to be able to achieve high speeds and sustain them. But I was wondering if they were working on a new design since the su-27 at first had the same sliding design and later they changed it.
That sounds like archaic thinking from engineers that probably date back to and are stuck in the Cold War. Not sure what they would mean by strength, do they think that bird strikes happen often? Typical Soviet thinking, where they spend time, money and effort on something trivial that means little when it comes to capabilities (green cockpits, ekranoplan, ect). Ask any pilot if he wants a stronger canopy or one with lower RCS that has better battlefield survivability and 99.999% will want a canopy/aircraft with lower RCS.
Engineers should worry more about missiles strikes than bird strikes and less about obsessions with maneuvering at the cost of RCS.
There may be one way an SU-57 may get a single piece canopy and that is if India decides to get back into the program by infusing billions into the program by demanding a more modern canopy with lower RCS, but that is unlikely now as the west “rules based order” is threatening every country for having any relations with Russia and especially threatening countries that have ties militarily or economically to Russia; but remember, the west claims no country should threaten or dictate terms to other countries and that every country should be free to have relations with whoever they choose….unless you are Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Belarus, ect then….well it’s complicated and it’s best not to ask “exceptional” countries too many questions.
Humor aside, the only real problems a single piece canopies can create are weight issues but that is still insignificant when you factor the weight of aircraft itself. The other problem is in difficulty in manufacturing but so many countries have already created single piece canopies that I don’t even think it’s even an issue. If Russia can create en entirely modern aircraft, and AESA radars and new avionics and missiles and engines then something as simple as a canopy is nothing.
Null
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 16 December 2024
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 42
That is an unmanned drone based on SU-75 and has nothing to do with the topic of SU-57 or its canopy
It’s too late in the game for major improvements, the SU-57 is already in production. It’s a huge waste of money to start implementing changes now. Although the SU-75 has superior stealth characteristics which is odd considering the SU-75 is just a side project of Sukhoi with no government funding.
Null
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 16 December 2024
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 42
I know the Su-57 like the Su-75 did not come with a detachable cockpit as its patent but what amount of money is considered huge just having it replaced to function as a drone for a later redesign? This isn't something that is super crazy like changing the aircraft to an S-duct.
F-14ATomcat
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 26 May 2024
- Messages
- 237
- Reaction score
- 310
Interesting points however no aerodynamic configuration is perfect, it is like women, what you get in one you can not get in another.
Same is in airplanes, even a very advanced fighter will not fly as low and slow as an agricultural aircraft, even with Thrust vectoring.
All fighter aircraft are designed upon a mission profile, weapons reach and sensor ability.
Su-57 prioritizes speed and agility, but it does not mean these requirements are harmonizing, if I want something fast I will take boom supersonic over Su-57.
Stealth aircraft also are not so aerodynamic, their flat surfaces and faceting is peculiarly not low drag.
What I mean is Su-57 was designed upon a military tactic that if well executed will mean Su-57 will beat the rival aircraft, however in life nothing is like in lab conditions and life is more chaotic, so aircraft get losses.
In war you always will have losses, that was factored also in the design of Su-57, sadly Su-57 has a very low production rate, so in war it will not be highly effective, The Americans then consider J-20 a higher threat because its larger deployment and production numbers.
If Russia does not produce more than 300+ Su-57s by 2035 I consider the aircraft a failure despite it is a nice looking aircraft, I think Su-75 if it is produced in numbers will bring all the research and money poured into Su-57 into real success, otherwise sadly Su-57 as beautiful it is and agile will have a very low impact in aviation history.
same was MiG-29 a beautiful aircraft very agile and fast but as long as loses are higher than the production numbers and the victories are more than the loses a fighter is a failure.
Su-27 has eclipsed MiG-29 due to higher production numbers and lower loses per victories considering MiG-29 was supposed to build 2 or 3 MiG-29s per each Su-27 built.
F-16 was then highly successful.
I do not mean F-16 is better than MiG-29, simply the program was more effective only that and Su-57 seems to be not really effective in that regard.
Last edited:
F-14ATomcat
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 26 May 2024
- Messages
- 237
- Reaction score
- 310
Su-27 is well known to be more agile than the F-15, they proved it when a pair of Su-27s flew to the USA, they had mock combat with F-15s and the Su-27 won.
In real life F-15 has better combat record but Su-27 is much more effective as a dog fighter, but an aircraft is not only agility but avionics and tactics, so yes F-15 is a good aircraft but as a dog fighter Su-27 is better, but if you consider weapons, avionics or radar well both aircraft are comparable
Last edited:
Ainen
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 August 2011
- Messages
- 937
- Reaction score
- 1,147
I think Ukraine should've shown that it's kinda meaningless in system fight.
Flanker, depending on side and weapon system, can be either a pinata without any ability to fight back(old Soviet flanker in Ukrainian service) or a very efficient bomber (same Ukrainian flanker with GBU-39s), almost untouchable by even the best GBADs.
Add "some" system advantage, and modern weapons/electronic, and flanker E (as well as any flanker on RU side which even flew a2a) gets a perfect air to air record without a single loss.
Put contemporary f-15 into same situation, results won't change.
The only fighter that has shown some ability to reverse odds since Vietnam was the foxbat, and everyone knows why.
RadicalDisconnect
Anthony Foulke
- Joined
- 28 April 2014
- Messages
- 200
- Reaction score
- 86
Again you're not understanding the difference between an open section hole and closed section hole. In fact, see this for how dramatic the difference is between a close section (similar to an engine bay compartment) and an open section (similar to a weapons bay).
Sukhoi themselves identified the risk on the T-50/Su-57 design of this open section structural hole of having large weapons bay between the engines and along the wing root chord. They chose to take this risk because of their desire for large internal payload, but clearly this isn't for free with no downsides. "Not needing structural depth" is extremely misleading because Sukhoi themselves acknowledged that they had to design around that constraint.
Another thing that affects structural weight is service life, Soviet fighters like Su-27 had quite short service life of 4,000 hours while F-15 was rated at 8,000 hours, and same for F-22. Recently the Russians increased aircraft service life to 6,000 hours which should be what Su-57 is too.
Now this isn't to say tradeoffs are necessarily bad. For example, F-22 is designed to pull 9g at takeoff weight with full internal fuel and weapons which require a very strong structure. If Su-57 does not have to pull 9g at takeoff weight with full internal fuel because it's not considered a situation that's expected to occur, then it may save weight and improve performance elsewhere. But again that's still a tradeoff, nothing is "free".
Last edited:
F-14ATomcat
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 26 May 2024
- Messages
- 237
- Reaction score
- 310
The weapons bays are different, on the F-22 they are wider. but on the Su-57 they are narrower and the fuselage does not have side weapons bays.
The Su-57 must have a good design otherwise it will not maneuver as it does, Both designs are good, add by being the engines farther apart there is less need to vector the nozzle, and with the new nozzle I think they will vector less in many directions reducing the forces that can torn apart the fuselage.
RadicalDisconnect
Anthony Foulke
- Joined
- 28 April 2014
- Messages
- 200
- Reaction score
- 86
It's not just shape of weapon bays but also where they are placed, on F-22 and J-20 they are mainly put in front of the wings, while on Su-57 they run along the entire wing where the peak loads happen. This is a structurally riskier approach that Sukhoi themselves stated in their design patents. The benefits to this is a larger internal payload capacity, but the structural risk is undeniable here.
But as stated, the tradeoffs aren't necessarily bad. But that's not the same as claiming that the design is "perfect" with no tradeoffs whatsoever like what some posters here are claiming.
There is a very simple yet effective display on this issue in the Deutsches Museum in Munich: a pair of round-section steel tubes are mounted end-on to the wall, with handle bars on the other end. One of them is a normal, closed tube, the other cut open lengthwise in a narrow slot from the handles to the wall - the difference in the force required to twist them with the handles is amazing!
One thing I'd note on this point is that you need to be aware such a comparison of flight hours between aircraft designed by and for radically different entities can only ever be a rough guide. An hour in one case need not be exactly the same as an hour in the other, because the kind of flying and resulting loads contained in one hour is an assumption specified by the customer or regulations that may vary wildly between countries and aircraft type. In Western parlance, it is therefore becoming more common to use the less confusing term flight cycles instead of flight hours, since even an hour of real flying might not exactly correspond to a structural flight hour.
This is most obvious when comparing different types of aircraft: an hour of F-22 flying (real or structural) is going to involve drastically different loads than an hour of 787 flying. And even between different aircraft in the same category, significant differences can occur - the F-22 will in turn be radically different to the A-10, even though both are combat aircraft of roughly the same size. Likewise the A320 and 787, simply by flying shorter missions the Airbus has a much higher proportion of more demanding take-offs and landings per hour. Similar differences are bound to occur between fighters designed in places with such disparate operational practices as the US and Russia.
Last but not least, the assumptions written into the spec the airframe is designed against can prove to be wrong! The F-16 was designed to last X number of flight hours, with the kind of loads involved in one flight hour derived from F-4 operational experience. This turned out to be a poor reflection of real usage, since the pilots, delighted with the vastly improved maneuverability of the F-16, took advantage of its 9g capability *far* more often than anticipated. As a result, the aircraft would not have lasted anything like X flight hours as originally designed and had to undergo the FalconUP structural reinforcement programme to keep them in the air for the required time.
When comparing aircraft with markedly different fuel fractions at full tanks (e.g. Su-27S and F-15C) you also have to bear in mind that a g-load at X% internal fuel is going to be significantly more onerous on the aircraft with the higher capacity. I know you did that correctly earlier, but it bears mentioning again.
Last edited:
Ainen
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 August 2011
- Messages
- 937
- Reaction score
- 1,147
Su-57 is a relatively dark page of this war. Public info on their operations comes only from Ukrainian sources.
But an interesting aspect of this plane(and, slight offtopic, something I suspect USN is interested in doing) - unlike other current-gen fighters, su-57 is the only one that is very clearly ahead of 4th-gen aircraft in every single regard.
If it fails at something compared to them, its current platform maturity; otherwise, the basics are simply hopeless. That includes su-35.
F-14ATomcat
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 26 May 2024
- Messages
- 237
- Reaction score
- 310
Let us remember aircraft are tools, if we see that we can comprehend any design, without absolute concepts.
No aircraft can do everything for such reason you have different types.
What I meant is any tool has a range of uses, and same is any aircraft.
can I ask Su-57 to fly as low as an agricultural aircraft? No we can not.
Can I ask Su-57 carry as many people as B-787? No we can not.
So Su-57 is designed to solve some tasks therefore its configuration has pros and cons.
Ideally aircraft are designed to be used in certain way it will guarantee to be effective.
Same is the weapons bays, the Russian logic was to make a fuselage that had some camber and generated lift and blended with the wing in the same way F-14 and MiG-29 were designed, they decided that was the basic configuration, this as well as you have mentioned generates problems and solutions.
F-22 has other logic, it is a F-15 type, both have advantages and disadvantages, but depending how an aircraft is flown you will get the success you need.
The interesting things is the innovations seen on Su-57, Levcons, the side weapons bays that work as aerodynamic fences and still carry a single short range AAM, and now the new flat nozzle, in my opinion it is a very innovative design.
The only problem i see on it is its low production numbers.
The main weapons bays are designed to help retain the F-14 type fuselage lift while still carrying weapons and allowing for a very small radome and canopy cross section.
Is it better than other fighters? it will depend how the other fighters are flown, the avionics they have and weapons they use, absolute concepts are impractical because aircraft are tools designed to solve problems, and each aircraft solve different problem thus it has compromises, pros and cons.
Acatomic
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 18 October 2020
- Messages
- 224
- Reaction score
- 482
Su-57 Felon’s Two-Dimensional Thrust-Vectoring Engine Nozzle Breaks Cover
The flattened exhaust nozzle installed at an angle is planned to reduce the signature of advanced versions of the Su-57. The novel flattened exhaust nozzle is planned to reduce the radar signature of advanced versions of the Su-57 Felon fighter.www.twz.com
From the article:
I thought the round nozzle was two-dimensional but canted?
_Del_
I really should change my personal text... Or not.
- Joined
- 4 January 2012
- Messages
- 1,245
- Reaction score
- 1,655
Also makes CG changes when you drop something heavy less dramatic. Like you note, everything represents some balancing act of priorities.
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 11,186
- Reaction score
- 9,176
It's always funny to see multipage comparison of aircrafts whose performance remain classified for decades when it's obvious that even full stack of Sukhoi spooks were mistaken with F-15 abilities.
Last edited:
I think your assessment of the raptor is not quite right, the whole front of the plane creates vortices, the same applies to the su-57, but the difference might be that the levcons provide control over those vortices. I think comparing them without numbers and pilot assessments is just speculation. I do think the newer su-57 offers some advantages aerodynamically, but unfortunately for a jet fighter that’s not all that matter. That’s where the Russians have lots to prove, avionics, networking, weaponry; and tactics. The current conflict in Ukraine has show that the Russians have lot’s to improve. Here is the link where I got the picture from https://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2018/03/1-high-aoa-aerodynamics-for-combat.html?m=1
There is some "No true Scotsman" argument going on here and misunderstanding of a LEX's purpose. The purpose of a LEX or LERX (I'll use the LEX acronym) is to generate vortices at higher angles of attack to delay stall. As a vortex generator, all this requires is a small surface with a sharp edge that would be oblique at those higher angle-of-attack conditions, which is what both the F-22 and Su-57 LEX does; the additional surface that you highlighted on the Su-57 really does little for vortex generation (and the side "canoe" bays would actually interfere with that if that's your theory), especially at the Reynolds and Strouhal numbers encountered; dismissing the F-22 LEX as "not a true LERX" is incorrect.
What that additional area does, is that it shifts the aerodynamic center or neutral point forward due to the greater planform area ahead of the CG or CoM. For that purpose, the bottom of the F-22 fuselage would also count towards that planform area for generating lift; in other words, you need to look at the entire planform area. As far as quantifying the effects, that's not something you can simply determine by eyesight. The LEVCON offers more control of the LEX's vortex because it can adjust the incidence angle of the airflow at higher angles of attack, but the planform area isn't what's creating those vortices.
The effect of the LEX and LEVCON would be most pronounced at high angle of attack regimes and during turns. The LEVCON allows the Su-57's fuselage to be more "cambered" with respect to the flow in a turn, but I would caution against drawing conclusions on performance when comparing different fuselage configurations, when so many other things are different. The LEX/LERX also have little effect in level flight, and while it could potentially be used for trim, the large additional surfaces also present more wetted area that increases parasitic drag, as is the case with the F/A-18's large LEX.
Last edited:
QuadroFX
Russia, Chelyabinsk
PeregrineFalcon
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 31 January 2023
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 17
Where did I argued that F-22 LEX, inlet lip, call it whatever you like, is not vortex generator, or that Su-57 LERX/LEVCON surface has significantly more pronounced effect on vortex generation?
And what is my theory exactly?
And since we are at it, do you for a fact know that the the "canoe" bays would interfere with vortex generation, or with planes aerodynamics in general?
I'm genuinely interested in hearing your opinion, as I also have some theories about it that may differ from your perspective.
Anyway, we can see that even with the "canoe" bays Su-57 LERX/LEVCON combo is creating extremely powerful vortices without any problems.
That was exactly my point, because that is what traditional LERX with significant lifting surface is doing. Both, F-22 LEX and Su-57/Su-35S/F-18 etc. LERX are generating vortices (that was never the issue), but the difference in effective lifting surface is enormous, and that is the key difference between small vortex generators and traditional LERX.
We can see that even F-15 with its sharp inlet edges is creating vortices that propage over the upper surface of the body in similar fashion to the ones on the F-22.
Where did I said that?
All his talk about LEX, LERX, sharp inlet lip, vortex generators and whatever, started because RadicalDisconnect wanted to highlight how the F-22’s general airframe layout is drastically different from the F-15, as it has LERX, and the purpose of that was to discredit my comparison between the Su-27 and F-15, since I have claimed that one is representative of a wide lifting body with LERX, while the other is a more classical fighter with closely coupled engines and without traditional LERX.
Su-75 sharp inlet edges also generate vortices:
But I would never call them traditional LERX.
Actually, LEVCON is used in all flight conditions, not just in a turn and at high AoA, because it acts similar to the LE flap in a cruise flight, both subsonic and supersonic, improving the L/D ratio.
And that is exactly the reason why I have used the Su-27 and F-15 for a comparison between two different airframe layouts, because we already have a significant amount of data about them.
We don't have nearly as much data for the Su-57 and F-22, but we can make some, more or less, educated guesses based on what we have so far. And that is what I find most fun about the military aviation forums.
Last edited:
PeregrineFalcon
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 31 January 2023
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 17
I have never argued that the F-22 cannot generate vortices; that was never the issue, since for 14 years we have had the videos where we can see that very clearly, even without computer simulations (cool pic, and link by the way!). I explained this in my previous post.
Acatomic
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 18 October 2020
- Messages
- 224
- Reaction score
- 482
Yes, basically like this:
Interesting to see upper and lower 101KS-O spinning all the time even during taxiing.
Ainen
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 August 2011
- Messages
- 937
- Reaction score
- 1,147
They're sensors after all.
That part of their function, as well as conspicuous lack of coverage in upper frontal hemisphere(exactly where OLS-57 is), leads me to suspect main IRST ball actually shares functionality with them.
Both sensory and defensive.
QuadroFX
Russia, Chelyabinsk
101KS-O provide DIRCM-functionality only. You confusing it with 101KS-U which is combine IRST and DAS functions.
101KS-U as IRST?
QuadroFX
Russia, Chelyabinsk
Why not? It has three-band sensors. Part of the functionality, ok.
Ainen
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 August 2011
- Messages
- 937
- Reaction score
- 1,147
KS-U is in the UV band; i.e. MAWS first and foremost. For IRST use, it's...well, you can merge it into data fusion and feed it into HMD, no problem, but by itself, it's a sensor with very uneven utility.
My understanding (especially from that rotation, which is a very obvious scanning pattern; but also from matching angles b/n DIRCM balls and MAWS windows) is that they're not just laser turrets, but also likely IR sensor ones. Not least because laser DIRCM needs precise targeting against a target with or without burning engine. Radars can't do it either - they're just blind upwards and downwards.
General direction of target won't do for a laser countermeasure system (or modern ir missile sensors anyway).
And, by overturning the same argument, KS-V is rather likely also DIRCM-capable. Simply because it does have a likely suitable laser, and it is just too obviously placed in exactly the sector not covered by the other two balls.
All above is certainly no more than my speculation. But, as a rule of thumb, engineering makes sense, and (to me) this looks sensible.
Last edited:
The purpose of the "lifting surface" is that it's a part of the overall planform area that affects the aircraft's aerodynamic center, and is sized and shaped accordingly with respect to the CG to get the desired static margin. This means that the bottom of the F-22's fuselage is a lifting surface for the same purpose and can't be discounted either. In other words, the area that you highlighted in isolation is not useful; what matters is the overall planform. Furthermore, it's also not useful to try quantifying the effects just by visual inspection.
I'm not quite sure how you're defining a "traditional LERX". The LEX's purpose is to generate vortices that delay stall, and beyond the small surface with a sharp edge, any additional surface is meant to either guide the vortex direction or is just part of the overall planform area designed for the desired aerodynamic center; the two do not have to be the same contiguous flat surface.
The margin of error from these guesses are large, so it's not very useful or helpful, and they represent only a small fraction of what a combat aircraft is expected to do.
F-14ATomcat
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 26 May 2024
- Messages
- 237
- Reaction score
- 310
Just by visual inspection is impossible to see which aircraft is better.
To know which aircraft is better you need Manuals and both aircraft in a fly off to see where each one really performs better
In History that has only happened when an air force captured enemy aircraft in Example MiG-15, A6M Zero, MiG-21/23/29 by the USAF or F-5 by the soviets; or an air force operates both types such as Poland that operated MiG-29s and F-16 for example.
Technically the ideal LEX should be long and sharp this type is found in F/A-18A and Su-27.
The F-5, F-15 and F-22 have short LEXes.
However F-15 has a huge wing, same F-22 and F-22 has chines
Chines are basically a type of LEX some like SR-71, YF-23 or even F-35 have them.
Vortex generators in the nose are also type of LEXes so you have them in MiG-29, Gripen, Su-34 or F-5.
On Su-27M, the use of LEXes and canards gave way to the LEVCON.
Su-34 and Su-30MKI and Su-33 have that combination so the vortex generated by the LEX is also controlled by the canards.
On F-/A-18E the LEX as you have mentioned also generates lift so they increased the size area of it with relation of the F/A-18A, on the SU-34 they opted for a canard since both aircraft grew in weight.
However Su-30MKI has too many surfaces, so the LEVCON, which is basically a vortex Flap, was used to avoid canard downwash and better stealth wing integration.
The interesting of Su-57 is it used the side weapons bays as fences basically they are dropped wingtips
To say which aircraft is better F-22 or Su-57 just by looking well it is impossible since airshow performance will not show real data, the maneuvers Su-57 can make can be replicated by any aircraft with Thrust vectoring, in Example Su-35BM or X-29.
I mean definitively Su-57 is very innovative and I would be inclined to say aerodynamically should be better than F-22, but that is only my guess without numbers and studying the overall configuration is just bias and without a fly off well impossible to say with certainty.
Last edited:
This - LERX are not really designed to operate as traditional wings but mainly to contribute vortex lift at high AoA. At most you might quibble with the term LERX where the F-22 and F-35 are concerned and insist that the feature is better described as a chine. At this sort of attitude, vortex formation is dominated by planform and edge radius whereas the precise shaping of the ventral and dorsal surfaces is of secondary importance. So much so that the latter are sometimes greatly simplified in wind tunnel models, c.f. that FCAS model which tested LEVCONs.
Indeed. Also, the LEVCON serves another purpose on the Su-57. By deflecting sharply downwards, its planform area can be reduced which would shift the aerodynamic center aft to aid with stall recovery. This certainly isn’t the only method for stall recovery, but the potential benefit is that this allows a reduction in tail volume to decrease weight.
That said, while the Su-57 is among the first operational aircraft to employ LEVCON, the concept isn't new and several General Dynamics ATF proposals in the 1980s had them too.
That said, while the Su-57 is among the first operational aircraft to employ LEVCON, the concept isn't new and several General Dynamics ATF proposals in the 1980s had them too.
Similar threads
-
Sukhoi Su-57 / T-50 / PAK FA first flight - pictures, videos and analysis [2010]- Started by flateric
- Replies: 872
-
Sukhoi Su-57 / T-50 / PAK FA - flight testing and development Part I [2010-2012]- Started by Matej
- Replies: 760
-
Sukhoi PAK FA news and speculation (T-50, I-21) Part I [2006-2008]- Started by overscan (PaulMM)
- Replies: 455
-
Sukhoi's T-58M - an Su-24-based interceptor
- Started by overscan (PaulMM)
- Replies: 2
-
Article Related to Some of Russian Air Launched Missile Programme
- Started by ocay
- Replies: 0