QuadroFX
Russia, Chelyabinsk
We may see it this year. As a prototype, of course.Going to be years before we see it
We may see it this year. As a prototype, of course.Going to be years before we see it
what? airliner style thrust reversal? on a 5th gen fighter?thrust reverse
what? airliner style thrust reversal? on a 5th gen fighter?
ATF had this requirement early on; corresponding soviet flat nozzles iirc had it too.what? airliner style thrust reversal? on a 5th gen fighter?
Kh-69 was show at separate KTRV box.They're still shy showcasing the Izd-180 and 810 eh ? Also the Kh-69 seems absent too from there.
180 was shown without big fanfares together with LTS mockup two years ago.No 180 and 810, however.
Was it? There was a RVV-SD, with standard fins, buut it was never stated that this is a 180.180 was shown without big fanfares together with LTS mockup two years ago.
O RLY?For all we know there might be 170-1 with lattice fins, _standard fins_,
2,500 km/h is Mach 2.35 at altitude, which is the same maximum speed as the original specification for PAK FA that became the Su-57.
It was stated (was it Bondarev?) that maximum speed of the plane was reduced to 2M and ever since it has been widely assumed that to be the case, but for some stubborn people like myself. Do you remember this argument of yours when we discussed about the point of having variable intakes on the Su-57?2,500 km/h is Mach 2.35 at altitude, which is the same maximum speed as the original specification for PAK FA that became the Su-57.
Sukhoi’s own patents and documentations even stated a reduction in maximum Mach to around Mach 2 in order to increase the amount of composite materials used.
The original idea with these "supercruising" (misleading word IMHO) planes was that they would not need to dash in the traditional sense, since they would remain in mil power even under combat conditions, hence why I was arguing about the relevance of speeds as high as possible in mil power. But when the threats include other supercruising planes like the F-22, then it is beneficial to have speed advantages to try to dictate the terms of the engagement. Both planes as far as I know are able to go beyond 2M even with the limitation of the RAM and composites, as explained in the Sukhoi document, therefore the tactical relavance needs to exist, and as you say excess power with such engines is plentiful.As far as variable geometry inlets on the Su-57, it may indeed be meant to support a top speed of Mach 2.35 at altitude, although frankly the utility of dashing faster than Mach 2 has always been questionable, especially if it involves additional mechanical complexity and weight involved.
However, you don’t need the variable inlets for supercruise less than M2.0. It becomes an weight, cost and complexity disadvantage unless you are pushing past M2, in AB.The original idea with these "supercruising" (misleading word IMHO) planes was that they would not need to dash in the traditional sense, since they would remain in mil power even under combat conditions, hence why I was arguing about the relevance of speeds as high as possible in mil power. But when the threats include other supercruising planes like the F-22, then it is beneficial to have speed advantages to try to dictate the terms of the engagement. Both planes as far as I know are able to go beyond 2M even with the limitation of the RAM and composites, as explained in the Sukhoi document, therefore the tactical relavance needs to exist, and as you say excess power with such engines is plentiful.
Agreed. It may also be possible that the Levcon aero design is integral with the performance of the Su-57, and once you have the movable inlet leading edges, the rest of the variable inlet is easy and logical to include?Even well-designed fixed inlets can push beyond Mach 2.0, as both the YF-23 and the F-22 can push well past Mach 2.2 at altitude in terms of materials and structures, with the RAM being the principal limitation. Perhaps Sukhoi developed the inlet as a separate component that can be used for a future Mach 2.8-class PAK DP competitor to replace the MiG-31 and aimed to reduce costs by spreading some of the development onto the PAK FA, even if the T-50/Su-57 itself doesn’t operate at such speeds.
Do not believe this signRed“02” @ ARMY2023:
MTOW: 38t
Max speed: 2500km/h
Max payload:7-8t
Range: 3500km
Ceiling: 20000m
View: https://twitter.com/muxelaero/status/1691473807410700288?s=46&t=5THFve96Abhx7VANdlTzrg
Do not believe this sign
Though I seem to recall that variable inlets start providing discernible advantage from 1.6M onward, Sukhoi patent states flight regime between Mach 2 and 3 as design goal for the intake. Probably related to the interceptor role included in the PAK-FA, as Paralay mentioned.However, you don’t need the variable inlets for supercruise less than M2.0. It becomes an weight, cost and complexity disadvantage unless you are pushing past M2, in AB.
Erm... the last Delta Dart was decomissioned in 1988. The first Raptor flight was a decade later. And ATF program was never intended to replace the continental defense interceptors (their functions were already shifting to Air National Guard); they were supposed to replace F-16 and F-15.The F-22 replaced the only interceptor F-106
Rubbish. Go look at the units that operate the F-22 and what they operated beforehand.The F-22 replaced the only interceptor F-106
If you listen carefully, he says that he does not fit into the relative characteristics.1,3 Маха с нынешним AL-41F1 требуется использование форсажа, согласно Евгению Марчукову из OAK Saturn.
Yeah, Marchukov never said about speed values.If you listen carefully, he says that he does not fit into the relative characteristics. Do you even understand what relative characteristics are ?
Who is saying it reaches 2.8M? But it is a fact that Sukhoi stated it shares the characteristics of a strike plane, fighter and interceptor. Of course such a flexibility precludes ultimate performance of more specialized planes. Your argument about the speed, based on the use of the interim engine is not very convincing, rather an argument about the convenience of developing izd. 30. Lastly, the idea of putting an unnecessary intake on the Su-57, jeopardizing its design and negligently using the program to develop a solution for another plane with (according to you) completely different requirements is a nice conspiracy theory but makes no sense.The Su-57 is not achieving MiG-31-like speeds of Mach 2.8; materials alone would preclude this, and it's unlikely to have the excess thrust, especially as it requires the use of afterburner to achieve supercruise of Mach 1.3 with the current AL-41F1, per Evgeniy Marchukov of OAK Saturn. There is a reason that there is a separate PAK DP project to replace the MiG-31; that said, I think it's possible that Sukhoi may also be vying to compete for PAK DP and decided to trial some components on the PAK FA like the inlet to reduce risk and cost and see how the inlet behaves up to Su-57's top speed of Mach 2.35.
I’m frankly being charitable here. Marchukov stated that the Su-57 with the AL-41F1 does not achieve supersonic cruise without afterburners. Given that the Su-35 with the AL-41F1S attained Mach 1.1 without afterburners, I presumed that the Su-57 is capable of achieving the same, and that supersonic cruise refers to speeds beyond transonic region (Mach 0.8-1.2), hence Mach 1.3 or so.Who is saying it reaches 2.8M? But it is a fact that Sukhoi stated it shares the characteristics of a strike plane, fighter and interceptor. Of course such a flexibility precludes ultimate performance of more specialized planes. Your argument about the speed, based on the use of the interim engine is not very convincing, rather an argument about the convenience of developing izd. 30. Lastly, the idea of putting an unnecessary intake on the Su-57, jeopardizing its design and negligently using the program to develop a solution for another plane with (according to you) completely different requirements is a nice conspiracy theory but makes no sense.