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

Yes, the naval Tejas, aka Navy LCA or LCA (N). Its development was halted in favor of the TEDBF, with the Rafale Marine being purchased in the meantime.

So what we have now ? Where are the other fighters with that LEVCONs except Su-57 as the only operational fighter with them? Tejas in naval version was cancelled,those many concepts stayed only the concepts ....

Btw, LEVCON's on the Su-57 are not only the simple aerodynamic control surface.It has inside of it long range L-band AESA N036L. So those LEVCON's have practically dual role for the Su-57.

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/comments/sjlxy8/a_new_pair_of_serial_production_su57s_no02_and_52/#lightbox
 
Every time I hear or read that the LEVCON concept is unique to the Su-57, I can't help...
(Plus a handful of unflown Northrop MRF studies.)
There's plenty of NASA work on variations of it too from the 70s / 80s if you look

Everything is a trade off into whether a particular feature makes its way onto an aircraft or not
 
Oh my ignorant friend (sniffs in self satisfaction) you clearly know nothing. I am an expert in engineering, the five regional sacred schools of aeronautics, and a fifth dan in the ancient form of bjj developed in the dawn of the 1990s.

I am superior to you, and I could certainly school you, but I won't, and you will suffer in your ignorance. While you were running around with women I was studying the blade. When you were having fun with friends I was mastering the airfoil. And now when the enemy is at the gates you come to me for help Nothing personal kid

*does 360 and walks away*
 
The past existing flat nozzle designs on the F-22 or testbed Su-27 have some crevices that could give high RCS values(the red highlighted parts) which is why I was asking F119Doctor if those deficiencies on existing flat nozzle designs would have higher RCS values than the flat nozzle design of the Su-57. Trying to figure out what he considers as a good or a bad flat nozzle design.
 
The only way to eliminate gaps will be to make them unserviceable, it is just not viable; these things are war machines after all, not luxury items. I figure during a high intensity conflict; stealth skin will not look pristine and mechanics probably wouldn’t have time to make everything neat. On a different note; I have noticed lately the forum has become very heated; let’s try to keep the discussion civil and respectful; there is no need to get angry. We have enough with current geopolitical events to make even this forum a hostile environment.
 
The past existing flat nozzle designs on the F-22 or testbed Su-27 have some crevices that could give high RCS values(the red highlighted parts) which is why I was asking F119Doctor if those deficiencies on existing flat nozzle designs would have higher RCS values than the flat nozzle design of the Su-57. Trying to figure out what he considers as a good or a bad flat nozzle design.
Yes, there are gaps and angles where the F-22 nozzles are not optimum. However, most are either covered by a flexible joint, and/or are coated. The flat sidewalls will reflect, but under most angles the signal will bounce into the AB cavity, which purposely design to swallow RF energy. The position you see the nozzle is the shutdown position, while at most thrust conditions the external flaps are in perfect alignment with the outer mold line. This isn’t true under Max AB or high vector conditions, but LO is probably not the main concerns in this part of a fight.

The flat nozzles and engines shown on the Su-57 have several apparent issues
1. The exposed nozzle sidewalls are not aligned with the vertical fins and airframe sidewalls.
2. The divergent flaps have two angles, neither of which appear to be surface aligned, creating a hexagonal reflecting opening.
3. The internal nozzle sidewalls have a vertically aligned corrugated feature, which would reflect RF energy. It is possible that a smooth liner is not installed on this nozzle in the photo, maybe they haven’t figured out how to cool it properly?
4. The view up back of the engine shows radial flame holders, but there does not appear to be any line of sight blockage for the components forward of the flame holder (spraybars, turbine blades, etc)

LO, especially at the aft end of an afterburning engine, is hard.
 
Why even try to make a LO for the rear of the aircraft if the Doppler effect will be enough
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, if we are to do a ranking system for rear nozzle stealth it would be something like.

1st place: flat nozzles on the F-22 and Su-70
2nd place: flat nozzles of the Su-57.
3rd place: round nozzles with serrated teeth on the F-35, and what was previously shown for the Su-57 before.
Last place: round nozzles with no serrated teeth which is most 4th gens.
 
Show picture of aircraft, then ask for RCS evaluation by eyeballing exterior details.

Fail.


You are talking about me? I’m not the one that stated round nozzles have almost no benefits to flat ones. There are literally multiple scientific sources that did studies on flat nozzles that concluded they have superior IR reduction. I also did post pictures demonstrating how round nozzles have corner reflectors and dozens of discontinuities, gaps, and seams…..I literally posted sources explaining how that increases RCS.

A flat, smooth serrated nozzle will have superior RCS compared to a round none serrated, or even serrated nozzle, due to less moving or stationary parts, gaps, seems. This is the most basic and scientifically proven concept there is.

IMG_2177.png

IMG_2176.png

If anyone thinks the round nozzle is anywhere close to a flat nozzle in terms of RCS that is a fail…..look up creeping waves and then try to explain how electromagnetic energy will not be disrupted by dozens discontinuities that serve no purpose for RCS but rather are a consequence of engine back pressure.
 
So, if we are to do a ranking system for rear nozzle stealth it would be something like.

1st place: flat nozzles on the F-22 and Su-70
2nd place: flat nozzles of the Su-57.
3rd place: round nozzles with serrated teeth on the F-35, and what was previously shown for the Su-57 before.
Last place: round nozzles with no serrated teeth which is most 4th gens.
Assumptions with no valid data.
 
You are talking about me?
No, you replied to @flateric
So educate him instead of asking rhetorical questions.
... when he wrote - with which I agreed ...
Your red marks clearly show that you don't understand what "RCS treatment" means.
... in response to @Null here
... posting images and asking ...
So which has better RCS treatment?
... which I would have ignored if there hadn't been numerous instances in this thread alone of people eyeballing images jumping to conclusions. That made me cranky.
 
No, you replied to @flateric

... when he wrote - with which I agreed ...

... in response to @Null here
... posting images and asking ...

... which I would have ignored if there hadn't been numerous instances in this thread alone of people eyeballing images jumping to conclusions. That made me cranky.

What did you agree with? A rhetorical question?

Again those gaps between the F-22 engines and fuselage give off additional RCS no matter how much you deny it. This has been covered to death. Any cavity or discontinuity will cause the RCS to increase. This information is publicly available and has been covered here and by many other publications.

And no just because those gaps have serrations does not mean it will magically cancel out the RCS. The RCS has to go somewhere….The reason why the F-117 doesn’t have as small RCS as an F-22 or B-2 or F-35 is because it used faceting exclusively, where the EM energy was redirected off many different parts of the aircraft. Where as modern stealth aircraft primarily have the EM energy travel along the contours of the aircraft and diffract off fewer areas.

So yes those F-22 gaps definitely…100% increase the RCS just like the SU-57 round engines definitely 100% increase RCS.


And you are cranky at me and quoting me for stating flat nozzles have lower RCS but not cranking at the person claiming flat round nozzles make almost no difference in RCS?
 
Your red marks clearly show that you don't understand what "RCS treatment" means.
This is what I agree with. An opinion, not a question, nor a rhetorical question.

You took this to task:
Plus, the new Su-57 2D flat nozzle just look wrong, and are unlikely to make a large contribution to overall stealth of the aircraft due to adding additional flat surfaces not aligned with the existing airframe edge alignment. It remains to be seen if there will be any significant improvement in observability inside the AB cavity.
I read @F119Doctor comment as directed at the Su-57 2D flat nozzle, not at flat nozzles in general. If I remember correctly, the YF-23's flat nozzles not being vectoring was a deliberate choice by Northrop because of RCS considerations.
 
Last edited:
''The greater the wavelength is ,longer is the detecting/tracking distance''. L-Band AESA has 8 times greater wavelength than X- band AESA ( 24cm vs 3 cm).
Though it must be mentioned that waves traveling further is a double-edged sword - it means that it has to contend with that much more noise and that much easier to jam. A jammers strength decreases with a square of the distance, so if the L-band side array has 200km range, it's possible that a jammer at 1000km can suppress L-band detection - essentially flooding the airwaves and making L-band detection impossible. Which might be why in an actual wartime scenario, where the point is disrupting the enemy killchain, not hiding, that L-band stealth is entirely unnecessary and detection in the same band is impossible.
 
L-bands have less accuracy than X-band but are still used for fire control frequencies to track and hit targets from far away
Yeah but now you're talking about a radar much much larger than whatever the su57 can carry. This mythical "radar" function of the L-band arrays are more myth than physics. Be aware of some of these russian sources being just magazines, sites, and blogs much like the american TWZ.com rather than actual manufacturers' claims. And even then, it's not like russian manufacturers are not well known for lofty claims that are not backed with performances in the real world.
 
Last edited:
So *checks notes* for the next 35 years, that is? Even less, if we consider that Russian equipment are usually cheaper because they have less usable life built into them...

So, in short, sensor fusion and MUM-T? That hardly makes the Su-57 a 6th-gen fighter—at most, it's a 5.5th-gen.

And if we consider that broadband-VLO is typically considered a critical design element of what makes a jet '6th gen,' this is another aspect where the Felon falls short compared to its competitors...
It was stated to include technologies which are generally associated with the "sixth generation".

One such technology being the effective use of UCAV "wingmen" or as the Americans call them CCA (collaborative combat aircraft). Something the Su-57 more or less pioneered within it's generation through tests with the S-70 UCAV years ago.

It's pretty evident, especially considering joint testing under combat conditions behind enemy lines in UA, that the Russians are very committed to get the S-70 worked out and to get it to work in conjunction with the Su-57.

On top of that comes the patent for the tandem seat Su-57 (Su-57D? Su-60?) which was labeled something along the lines of battlefield management complex, I can remember something like that. So similar to the J-20S it will be tandem seat stealth fighter that's intended to make use of CCAs to boost it's combat effectiveness and extend the sensor and strike range beyond what the actual jet usually is able to achieve. And just like the J-20S which is based on the J-20A, the Su-57D/Su-60 will be based on the Su-57M.

So you have a modernized 5th generation fighter that can operate with combat drones and has the necessary hard and software to do so effectively. In short, you have a modernized 5th Gen that can do something that's heavily associated with the next generation of jet fighters.

So yeah, as they said, it will feature some aspects of next generation developments. Or as you said "5.5th Gen".
 
I always thought that The Su-47 was so cool, much in the same manner as The YF-23 was radically different to what eventually became The F-22, & unlike The Su-57, The Berkut also had proper S-Ducts but only one weapons bay. I could also see them modifying the design to change the shape of the intakes & add levcons later down the road, but ultimately, one of the primary reasons that it was never adopted was due to the problems with forward-swept wings limiting the maximum speed to Mach 1.6, which, ironically enough, is currently the same limit as The F-35, albeit for reasons related to RAM, iirc.

Never forget, however, that The Su-47 first flew at a time when Russia was still in the abject misery of The 1990s, so the money simply wasn't there, even if it could have been built in numbers, so in the end, the platform wound up being a kind of flying laboratory for various technologies that were later incorporated into The Su-57, so it wasn't a total loss. I can't do anything about the irst bulb, though, lol, smh.

As for The Su-75, yes, it's a much better stealth design, especially if they opt to keep the v-tail, & The Checkmate also features a faceted EOTS-like device underneath the fuselage, so it looks like someone at Sukhoi finally got the memo in that regard, but evidently, everyone is STILL not on the same page as the aircraft retains the standard irst bulb in front of the cockpit. Sigh.

In terms of modifying The Su-57, it would probably be best to get rid of the second weapons bay so as to ease the overall stress on the airframe & then smooth the bottom, which would also yield more storage for the single weapons bay. Do that, give us a faceted irst, said EOT-like setup from The Su-75, & then let's see where we are in terms of its rcs. Who knows - a return of 0.006 m2, or thereabouts, might actually be quite attainable, provided that the dircms are also removed. Continuing down the current road is just a waste of time & money, imo.

Oops, almost forgot - the partial S-Ducts are also complex, expensive, & don't yield the necessary level of radar reduction, so yeah. Not great, Bob.

So your prospect to make the aircraft "better" is crippling it's ability to carry ordnance (removing an entire weapons bay, literally one of the driving factors of the entire design) as well as making it less survivable (removal of DIRCM)?

At that point just say you think the MiG-15 is optimal aircraft, given it lacks such "flaws", and should be produced again in the thousands.

Who needs a supercruising stealth fighter that can carry several Kh-69s internally and has direct infrared countermeasures to stay alive longer? Clearly all these engineers at sukhoi with their diplomas have no idea how an aircraft is designed after several decades of doing it. Luckily you enlightened us all.
 
So what we have now ? Where are the other fighters with that LEVCONs except Su-57 as the only operational fighter with them? Tejas in naval version was cancelled,those many concepts stayed only the concepts ....

Btw, LEVCON's on the Su-57 are not only the simple aerodynamic control surface.It has inside of it long range L-band AESA N036L. So those LEVCON's have practically dual role for the Su-57.

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/comments/sjlxy8/a_new_pair_of_serial_production_su57s_no02_and_52/#lightbox
F-15 has upper surfaces of intake ducts that affect airflow around the aircraft and are similar to LEVCON
 
F-15 has upper surfaces of intake ducts that affect airflow around the aircraft and are similar to LEVCON

Yes but 'LEVCON' as Leading Edge... so that has nothing to do with the air intakes as part of the fuselage.Besides F-15, MiG-25 ,MiG-29M/M2 , MiG-29K/KUB and MiG-31 have also so called 'lip' as movable part of the air intakes on the bottom side. Btw ,MiG-29K/KUB have panels on the bottom side of the LERX as something similar to the LEVCON's.

 
Yes but 'LEVCON' as Leading Edge... so that has nothing to do with the air intakes as part of the fuselage.Besides F-15, MiG-25 ,MiG-29M/M2 , MiG-29K/KUB and MiG-31 have also so called 'lip' as movable part of the air intakes on the bottom side. Btw ,MiG-29K/KUB have panels on the bottom side of the LERX as something similar to the LEVCON's.

My apologies, I accidentally deleted the previous post.
The F-15 has movable upper intake ducts that actively affect fuselage flow and in this they are a bit similar to LEVCON
 

Attachments

  • ONE.jpg
    ONE.jpg
    94.1 KB · Views: 34
Yes, I've seen some of your posts, but to be honest, without the original document's proper formatting such as tables, images, and illustrations it's difficult to draw a clear conclusion. Right now, it feels like a mix of multiple different articles rather than a cohesive analysis
It probably better if you just screenshot the document and let people use google translate to read it.

Page no 96, bellow your comment. Original Russian doc about the Project ''The Scale''.

Btw, translation is on the page no 97.
 
My apologies, I accidentally deleted the previous post.
The F-15 has movable upper intake ducts that actively affect fuselage flow and in this they are a bit similar to LEVCON
The moving intakes are not like Levcons, they're simply there to adjust and optimize the inlet flow based on alpha. Levcons are just basically integrated canards. They have good control power, which is why so many Northrop designs from the late eighties and early nineties had them.
 
The moving intakes are not like Levcons, they're simply there to adjust and optimize the inlet flow based on alpha. Levcons are just basically integrated canards. They have good control power, which is why so many Northrop designs from the late eighties and early nineties had them.
The F-15 intake ducts have multiple ramps and the one at the upper optimizes the flow over the fuselage, this allows the F-15 to have lower trim drag and achieve higher AoA ( because there is a delay in the flow over the fuselage.)
 
The F-15 intake ducts have multiple ramps and the one at the upper optimizes the flow over the fuselage, this allows the F-15 to have lower trim drag and achieve higher AoA ( because there is a delay in the flow over the fuselage.)
In fact, the F-15 ramps are used to change the aero trim of the aircraft, lifting the front of the aircraft to partially offset the nose down pitching moment that occurs when the wing center of lift moves aft supersonic, in addition to aligning with high AOA and moving the internal ramps for supersonic oblique shock positioning in the inlet.
 
The F-15 intake ducts have multiple ramps and the one at the upper optimizes the flow over the fuselage, this allows the F-15 to have lower trim drag and achieve higher AoA ( because there is a delay in the flow over the fuselage.)
The ramps in the ducts are usually locked and don't move. It keeps maintenance to a minimum.
 
The ramps in the ducts are usually locked and don't move. It keeps maintenance to a minimum.
Not if the F-15. All versions have fully functional ramps and hoods (upper section).

On the F-14, the variable inlet bleed doors were locked into a fixed position to reduce maintenance, while the internal shock ramps remained fully functional.
 
In fact, the F-15 ramps are used to change the aero trim of the aircraft, lifting the front of the aircraft to partially offset the nose down pitching moment that occurs when the wing center of lift moves aft supersonic, in addition to aligning with high AOA and moving the internal ramps for supersonic oblique shock positioning in the inlet.
Yes, they reduce trim drag at supersonic speeds, plus they modify the airflow over the fuselage at subsonic speeds/higher AoA because they form a vortex. A small vortex but still important.
 

Attachments

  • inlety2.jpg
    inlety2.jpg
    87.7 KB · Views: 18
The ramps in the ducts are usually locked and don't move. It keeps maintenance to a minimum.
The ramps were never locked, the F-15 would probably fly very bad with locked ramps. But I think it might have been able to take off.
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom