As far as I know, there has not been an official Russian definition of supercruise, and generally speaking supercruise refers to holding speeds above the transonic region (Mach 0.8-1.2) without afterburner. Mach 1.5 was simply the supercruise operating number that the ATF, the F-22, was optimized for, but generally, anything above Mach 1.2 would be considered supercruise. Perhaps with the AL-41F1, the Su-57 is around that upper Mach 1.2 boundary without afterburner, hence Marchukov’s comment about supercruise.
Well, the context that Marchukov was talking about when when stating that the AL-41F1 being unable to allow the Su-57 to supercruise is insufficient specific thrust. To me this is more pertinent when discussing sustaining supersonic speeds rather than going through the transonic region. Using afterburner to accelerate through the draggy transonic region is quite normal even for supercruising aircraft that I don’t think it would be worth mentioning. The F-22 uses afterburners to punch through the transonic because even though it can go through without afterburners, the longer time required meant that it would use more fuel than just using afterburner to reach the desired supercruise speeds. The Concorde, which is among the fastest supercruising aircraft, also does this.
He never said that.
Flying at supersonic speed makes no real sense for cruising, it is a high energy state related to combat and a substitute for dashing in AB that massively helps a plane dominate the engagement. Cruising should be done at min necessary throttle settings for range / endurance optimization, that is never going to be supersonic.
Given the engine's characteristics and available thrust, that is what I would assume as a safe bet. It is not easy to quantify the difference in performance noted by Bogdan re. Su-35, it appeared to imply the plane can go supersonic without AB, but was not really specific
For engines optimized for supersonic flight, it creates a second range optimum (and in the past there were planes for which it was the single optimum, them being so inefficient at subsonic cruise it just didn't pay off).
Combat oriented in any case, be it A2A or A2G. In A2G missions the AD footprint is severely reduced by the altitude and speed of the target and this is aggravated by its low RCS, plus the turnaround times are reduced and range of the launched weapons increases. Of course supersonic maneuverability is a crucial parameter here (not the strongest point in the MiG-31 for instance) and the Su-57 has been explicitly designed with that goal in mind.
F-22 has rather short legs and from what I recall the supercruising range in a given mission is estimated in some hundreds of miles. For the Su-57 a supersonic range of more than 1500 km has been indicated. In any case this is three times less than maximum range on internal fuel of >3500 km
I second that. It just sound wrong..
Much higher operating altitude, much higher top speed, much higher cruising speed, much bigger antenna aperture
16350 kg
What a perfect way to promote sales
Don't worry, sales figures in the CAATSA fee market have little to do with actual performance of the products, which is why the subsonic F-35 exists at all in the modern world.
Do you think that purchasing decisions are made on the basis of a poster?
sputnikglobe.com
Considering the YF-22 in part won through cool imagery of missile launches I would say yes cool posters and Top Trumps boards can sway non-technical people and they tend to be the ones in charge of the money and paperwork!Do you think that purchasing decisions are made on the basis of a poster?
