David Axe living up to his surname here. Actually to be fair to him he’s just reporting someone else here.
Ten years after it first flew, Russia’s Su-57 Felon stealth fighter is a mess. Its radar signature is at least 10 times greater than that of an American F-22. Its radars might not work. And it’s not clear that Moscow can afford to buy all 76 copies that Russian president Vladimir Putin wants.
www.forbes.com
This is report he’s quoting from:
Yeah, Axe is just a journalist with a decidedly non-professional target audience, I'm more worried about the guy who's being quoted - he
should know better. As "Research Fellow for Airpower and Technology in the Military Sciences team" it's his freaking job to!
Is it ok for me to rant? No? Bad luck:
Justin Bronk said:
The Su-57 is a heavily modified derivative of the Flanker airframe
No. Just - no.
Justin Bronk said:
Notable sources of radar reflections include the unusual fully moving leading-edge root extension (LERX)
Which is qualitatively different in RCS impact to the (perfectly usual) moving leading edges on the wings of, you know, each and every other stealth fighter?*
Justin Bronk said:
What does Mr. Bronk know here that Northrop did not with the (Y)F-23?*
Justin Bronk said:
ram air intakes at the base of the canted vertical stabilisers
Which are thereby at least hidden from threats below the aircraft,
unlike the cooling air scoops on the F-35, or the ECS intakes in the BL diverter cavities of the F-22. Admittedly, the latter is also a pretty clever location - it's a RCS hotspot anyway - but the point is that if you're going to need air scoops on a stealth fighter, putting them at the base of the vertical tails is actually a
good solution!*
Justin Bronk said:
IRST sensor in front of the canopy
What about its location makes it more deleterious than the EODAS enclosure under the nose of the F-35? I mean, the IRST on the Su-57 IS in fact a signature problem, but that's patently not the reason!
Justin Bronk said:
the only partially shrouded jet engine turbine faces
What about the would-be F-32 or Boeing's ATF entry? A decent blocker, coupled with the favourable pressure loss from short, straight ducts should deliver similar overall aerodynamic performance and radar cross section. Prove. Me. Wrong.
Again, there are legitimate issues with the intakes on the Su-57 (the need for FOD screens, the variable ramps). But he cheerfully blows past those and criticizes features that have been seen on other LO designs, and are therefore very likely not as big a problem as he makes them out to be.
But it gets better:
Justin Bronk said:
These features are likely a result of comparative Russian inexperience in designing and building stealth aircraft
Last time I checked, Russia (Sukhoi in particular, even) does have experience in designing serpentine inlet ducts for RCS reduction - *cough* Su-47 *cough*. So what's the basis for assuming the solution chosen for the Su-57 will be an inferior compromise?
His criticisms of the aircraft's avionics suite are even less well-sourced, so it is hard to give them any credit at all.
Some more, just for fun:
Justin Bronk said:
A total of 92 Su-35Ss have been delivered to the VKS as of August 2020, but four were assigned to the ‘Russian Knights’ aerobatic display team, leaving 88 in combat units.
Thing is, unlike most other aerobatic teams, the Russian Knights nominally ARE a combat unit. IIRC they've even performed on airframes taken ad hoc from other squadrons on occasion, as their own aircraft are also fully equipped in combat-capable trim. Of course the aerobatic rehearsals mean less operational training, but they very much have a fighting role.
Justin Bronk said:
The R-37M has a maximum ballistic range (Rmax) in the order of 200 km when fired from high speeds and altitudes.
No, it doesn't. The export RVV-BD does, but even the predecessor of the current R-37M (the basic R-37) demonstrated a range 50% greater than that *in a live fire test* no less than 25 years ago. And does high and fast mean "MiG-31 high and fast"? Because...
Justin Bronk said:
This is similar to the higher-end, open-source claims of Rmax for Meteor. However, as a ramjet-powered design, the Meteor will retain much more energy at longer ranges, thus increasing the size of the no-escape zone, potentially beyond that of the R-37M, especially if both launch fighters are high and fast.
... since when does the West have any operational fighter whatsoever (let alone one equipped with Meteor) that could match the MiG-31 in that department?
I'm actually a big fan of Meteor and, taken all round, do consider it the best AAM currently available, but come on.
* I realize that not having an external canopy frame or not having LEVCONs is better from a LO perspective than having them - even if they are properly designed for signature reduction. I even agree that the Su-57, compared to its peers, has more than its fair share of these moving parts, but that only makes it all the more baffling why he seizes on problems that aren't actually very problematic. There objectively is plenty of opportunity to criticize, so why essentially make things up? Just say that the aircraft is excessively complex mechanically and nobody would have any grounds for complaint.
No word either on by far the biggest stealth problem on the Su-57, the lack of edge alignment and serrations on panel joints.
inter-coastal.com
iz.ru
