Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #7

For the record, I am definitely in the camp of people that think thrust vectoring has no intention to dodge or fool missile tracks.

The Su-57 also has a lot smaller vertical tails than the Su-27. I think part of the reason is the TVC.

With TVC you do not need the control surfaces to be as large and this reduces RCS.

Also what is the story about the time between overhaul of Russian engines compared to western engines?

Cheetah wrote:I watched both of Millennium 7's videos on the subject yesterday.

Obvious errors aside, it is somewhat refreshing to see someone who doesn't immediately criticise the Su-57. Ignoring the specifics, he was more or less on-point with the broad strokes; though, there is one thing I took issue with. His take on thrust vectoring.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I've always held the idea that the Soviets', and by extension Russia's, obsession with extremely nimble fighters (with a recent focus on thrust vectoring) was due to a prediction that modern air combat, in spite of all its technological proclivities, would inevitably degrade into a complete mess where WVR combat would be prevalent.

I think with the advent of modern EW systems, and the still lackluster performance of medium-range A-A missiles, it seems perfectly logical to focus on close-quarter air combat capability. I'd also argue that in the larger defensive military doctrine employed by Russia, this tendency towards WVR combat could be forced by any number of complementary assets, such as SAMs, ground-based EW systems, Interceptors, etc.

For the record, I am definitely in the camp of people that think thrust vectoring has no intention to dodge or fool missile tracks. We're talking about aircraft entering combat at speeds nearing or exceeding Mach 2 and merging at around Mach 1. At those speeds, the accelerometer is going to max-out long before your AoA meter. Pushing that boundary isn't going to be good for the airframe and more-so the squish container of red water strapped into the seat. Not to mention, all of that is ignoring that the best way to defeat a missile is with vector changes at high speed and high G force with the intention of defeating the missile's energy, not its tracking ability.

TL;DR
I think Russia plans to force the aerial battleground into a WVR focused arena. Hence the focus on thrust vectoring and super-manoeuvrability.

Atmosphere wrote:"On reddit, self proclaimed computer engineers were claiming with a straight face that the F-35 is as maneuverable and retains more energy than the Su-35 because it was designed by a supercomputer, while the Su-27s aerodynamics were designed on paper sheets."

lyle6 wrote:The main reason why Sukhoi didn't stealthmaxxx the Su-57 is because there is literally no point. Not when netted, multispectral sensor complexes can detect and allow for engagement of stealthed targets at nominal ranges - so taking on a modern IADS is off the table. Instead the Su-57's stealth is tuned against the limited by contrast sensor suites of tactical aircraft, and even then it would still lean heavily on its superior kinematics to win such engagements.

thegopnik wrote:Definitely will get chewed out here, but this is now a new shit posting viral image of the Su-57.  

I mean what do other 5th gens use? Do they do this as well and cover it with paint?

miketheterrible wrote:I believe they cover it with a film then paint.  The pain acts like an adhesive to whatever film they use over it.  I'm not sure how often though one has to reapply film and paint.  I'm assuming quite often thus the Russians and Americans do not repaint and apply the film as often as we may think.  Waste of money.

lyle6 wrote:

LMFS wrote:
And that would be imply admitting the US did better with their stealth, which is far from a given. Given their claims about "insects" and "marbles" are not only unproven but rather demonstrably false, when weak scattering sources are placed all over the fuselage whose RCS is already comparable to the values claimed for the whole plane, it would not be strange that they simply tried to bullshit their way out of the problem as they normally do. It could perfectly be that Su-57 has the same or better RCS values than the F-22 and F-35 in tactically relevant conditions, that is something we cannot really know.

Many people unironically ascribe the 40 dB reduction to the F-22/35 as if its in isotropy. Seriously. If whoever you're speaking to is that dumb as to think the complex geometry of a stealth fighter can be reduced to that of a sphere that's your definite cue to leave, preferably after hurling insults rightfully deserved.

Also, whether the RCS of the Su-57 is worse or not than its opponents is frankly, immaterial. The Russians simply made it irrelevant with a fully 360 degree sensory field of view + superior kinematics enabling it to reorient itself at a dime against threats from any direction. You aren't sneaking a missile past an unawares Su-57, ever. In this sense improving stealth is like a runner taking laxatives to reduce weight and theoretically improve his speed over his opponent. Retarded as ****.

If its true that the F-35 is as small as a marble from the front, then it would be impossible for any ARH AAM or SAM to lock onto it from the front and it will harmlessly fly past it, unless a larger Xband radar is tracking it.

kvs wrote:

thegopnik wrote:Definitely will get chewed out here, but this is now a new shit posting viral image of the Su-57.  

I mean what do other 5th gens use? Do they do this as well and cover it with paint?

This is an obvious photoshop hack.   Nobody uses Phillips screws on air frames.   Rivets are used for a reason.  Screws would unwind
enough to lead to structural failure very quickly simply due to thermal expansion/contraction cycling.   The temperature in the troposphere
falls off rapidly with height.

Also, why would Sukhoi release a promo photo from this vantage in-flight to show such crap?   The photoshop is also apparent from the
fact that the "wing" is not that of the Su-57.