Sukhoi Su-57 flight testing, development & operations [2012-current]

[NMaude]

This is the kind of Bend you need for completely hide the compressor face. This one is from my WIP KF-21 model.

This would be easier to implement in a large airframe.

 

[yeetmahboi]

This would be easier to implement in a large airframe.

Dunno... Even on the Su-57, changing the whole intake duct would mean requalifying flight envelopes and thelike, because now your air routing is different. Plus stuff like cg and internal structure stability.

 

[NMaude]

Dunno... Even on the Su-57, changing the whole intake duct would mean requalifying flight envelopes and thelike, because now your air routing is different. Plus stuff like cg and internal structure stability.

What I mean is that a large airframe would have greater internal volume in a new design to optimally place the S-ducts without causing issues in regards to other internal systems and structures.

 

[Ainen]

What I mean is that a large airframe would have greater internal volume in a new design to optimally place the S-ducts without causing issues in regards to other internal systems and structures.

They began from s-ducts and proper body(see the pictures from the new book).

Then(my interpretation; not en engineer) they tried to make the current blended body work to get thinnest possible profile, for supersonic flight purposes. Not unlike some(Rockwell) prestealth ATF designs, but with a bay in it, and one hell of a bay(close to 9m).

At this point, from j-20ski the plane turned into a widow (which bends intakes upwards, but places engines strictly astern of the body - and bays). Choice - either cut the bay length, or stop bullying the fuselage. It already was kinda stretched, even more cavities are probably beyond that structural group would sign even at gunpoint (plane already was kinda optimistic). Whole center of mass of this plane is held by one narrow bulkhead!

Furthermore, of course, it'll come with more frontal area. And deep widow bay, apart from its risks, would require a flanker-like neck(and some proper fuselage). More drag, less fuel.

Basically, if they wanted an efficient supercruiser with such long bay - ducts had to give way. Hard to tell if nacelles support the structure, but at least they don't break it.

 

[flateric]

Doesn’t that mean it can have a full S-duct without changing the design?

It doesn't. It can't. It won't.

 

[Stormingart]

They began from s-ducts and proper body(see the pictures from the new book).

Do you have a link to the book? Honestly can’t find it.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Isn’t the engine that the Su-57M is going to use shorter? Doesn’t that mean it can have a full S-duct without changing the design?

Nope. You'd have to completely redesign the internals of the Su-57 to reroute the ducts, which would effectively be a new aircraft. But this is obvious, surely?

Shorter engine puts the engine face further back into the duct, which could allow more / different blocker designs I suppose.

 

[Stormingart]

Nope. You'd have to completely redesign the internals of the Su-57 to reroute the ducts, which would effectively be a new aircraft. But this is obvious, surely?

Shorter engine puts the engine face further back into the duct, which could allow more / different blocker designs I suppose.

Thanks for the info. I thought it sitting further back into the duct would have hidden the engine face with the current partial S-duct.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Thanks for the info. I thought it sitting further back into the duct would have hidden the engine face with the current partial S-duct.

To be pedantic, the current intake duct is already S-shaped, just not to the same degree as other 5th gens.

 

[Stormingart]

To be pedantic, the current intake duct is already S-shaped, just not to the same degree as other 5th gens.

Yeah which is why I thought the engine sitting further back would hide the engine face.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Yeah which is why I thought the engine sitting further back would hide the engine face.

Going by public literature the Felon intake is barely offsetted laterally and vertically so I honestly doubt it. To fully mask the frontal compressor without changing the ducting path you'd need something like a bump that digs into the current duct line, but a blocker already does that job even if partially.

 

[Ainen]

Do you have a link to the book? Honestly can’t find it.

You can find more early iterations in this thread

 

[paralay]

Do you have a link to the book? Honestly can’t find it.

 

[Stormingart]

Thank you both of you.

 

[snne]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1892876255608947168

View: https://x.com/THEEURASIATIMES/status/1892876255608947168

 

[stealthflanker]

Straight to Akhtubinsk then. Which is about 1500 km away.

 

[AGS-1787]

Nice video

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WIl1cufYYF0

 

[had]

It's like watching ballet, deadly ballet of some sort.

 

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

How much did the Russian Air Force pay for the fighters?
Su-30SM - 12 981 982 $ (?)
Su-35S - 25  012  462 $ (?)
Su-57 - 34 400 000 $ (2019)

Wow is that cheap. Holy crap.

 

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

I wonder why US systems aimed at launch detection are UV based, too. Outdated misunderstandings?

No. Most US/NATO planes have had UV-based MAWS for quite some time owing to that technology being developed before DAS, etc.

 

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

6 UV(101ks-u) cheaper than 6 das(DAS).
Two distributed systems of sensors(101ks, n036) in 4 bands is more expensive than just 1.

The only reason to mention cost, here, would be if The Su-57's defensive systems were on par with, or better than, those in The F-35, which is simply not the case. The DIRCSMs are cool, yes, but ironically, they only serve to further hurt the overall rcs of The Felon - sorry.

Of course, only if radars are active. Which is why there's maws to track launch events. And so on.

Again, only if the missiles are burning. That's the entire point of DAS - to continuously track threats from all around the aircraft at all times without anyone having to worry about it "being active" or the sensors being dependent on the motor of an incoming missile to still be, well, burning. It's an all-in-one kind of a setup.

 

[Galaxy]

A launcher was destroyed, yes - not the radars & everything else that comprises an entire system.

Iskandars have destroyed plenty of radars and command vehicles in the past and I would argue that Russia having destroyed dozens of S-300 launchers has a compromising effect.

What is even the point of your post exactly? The topic is about the SU-57 and some are arguing that publishing data about its combat use is detrimental. I showed examples how Russians clearly publish the work of systems like the Iskandar therefore disclosing SU-57s sorties or kills means nothing….but again what is your point?

 

[Ainen]

The only reason to mention cost, here, would be if The Su-57's defensive systems were on par with, or better than, those in The F-35, which is simply not the case.

Thanks for a fresh breath from f-16.net.
Where this comes from. Priest told you?
Not even mentioning the simple fact, that comparing (what's comparable) is in fact the point. "levels" don't fight, systems do.

Again, only if the missiles are burning. That's the entire point of DAS - to continuously track threats from all around the aircraft at all times without anyone having to worry about it "being active" or the sensors being dependent on the motor of an incoming missile to still be, well, burning. It's an all-in-one kind of a setup.

Same subsystem in su-57 uses at least 3 different band channels, including IR one. Instead of just 1 on F-35.

Uv one here is wide fov warning only, and for that - it is better than IR.