Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #7

Regarding the 3 stream engine issue:

The bypass streams both take the air from different stages of the LPC but do not interfere with the core, so the statement that the same gas generator will be used for the PAK-FA, LFI and PAK-DP makes perfect sense (even if the PAK-DP would use a fundamentally different regime proper of an ABVCE for high speed) and then, considering the logical improvement of the technological parameters over the development period (izd. initiated development ca. 10 years before this new 3 stream engine), a very similar core could be used for the new engine, without having to start from scratch. So the izd. 30 basic technological generation could comprise the current engine under flight tests and then another one with the improved bypass features substituting it on a relatively short term (MLU or even from production line, for the PAK-FA ordered after 2030-35). This all in line with the claims, that the Su-57 could be developed into a 6G plane that were received with laughs in the West. All speculative by now, but I am fairly sure that Russia, arriving so late to the 5G camp, dedicated a good amount of thought to the possibility that US would skip the normal development of their 5G altogether and try to leapfrog the PAK-FA upon its arrival to the VKS and the ways of preventing it with an advanced enough airframe and an ambitious, long term development roadmap. That strategy looks fully supported by the latest news that we are reading now.

BTW this news about the izd. 30 I found is old (2012) but relevant (often the best information is the oldest one, regarding Russian weapons):

Bench tests of a fundamentally new engine (the engine of the second stage) for the Russian fifth-generation PAK FA aircraft will begin in 2014, said Yevgeny Marchukov, General Designer-Director of the Scientific and Technical Center named after Lyulka, NPO Saturn.

"In iron, the engine will be ready in two years, and bench tests will begin, it will be fine-tuned," Marchukov said at the 11th International Conference "Aviation and Cosmonautics-2012", which opened at the Moscow Aviation Institute on Tuesday.

According to him, the new "engine 117" will belong to the "5+" generation and in its characteristics will surpass the existing foreign analogues of engines for fifth-generation aircraft.

"This is a fundamentally new engine, so it is being created for quite a long time. The engine has a specific weight of 30% less (than the 117C-approx.), the cost of the life cycle is also 30% less, and it should be cheaper, " said E. Marchukov.

https://vpk-news.ru/news/13148?utm_source=warfiles.ru

I had not seen such a clear indication about izd. 30's thrust before, that specific weight indication means that it should have, depending on the real weight of the unit, between 16.8 tf (for 1300 kg weight scenario, due i.e. to reduction of engine stages and lighter materials than AL-41F1) to 18.2 tf (for 1400 kg, slightly more than izd 117 if for instance additional observability reduction means are included or, if being VCE, the variable inlets etc increase weight). I therefore think that expecting a thrust of 17-17.5 tf is fairly reasonable. TWR of the engine would be an outstanding value of almost 13, above F135 from what we know and probably close to the new US adaptive engines with extra 10% thrust.

We already know that the izdelie 30 and Advent for F-35 and NGAD will be the same and that is a hybrid bypass ratio engine design https://www.aero-mag.com/next-generation-air-dominance-engine-19052021/. But I will be laughing that Russia gets a detonation engine 1st on their 6th gen aircraft which based on Magnum and Dino's sources seem to suggest so

Edit: https://labuda.blog/1499284.html they deleted it from aex.ru. Good shit Dino for the source. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:x-4qs1I0tR0J:https://www.aex.ru/news/2021/5/18/228542/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

thegopnik wrote:We already know that the izdelie 30 and Advent for F-35 and NGAD will be the same and that is a hybrid bypass ratio engine design

Do we know it? Marchukov said explicitly a couple o years ago that izd. 30 is not a three stream engine

But I will be laughing that Russia gets a detonation engine 1st on their 6th gen aircraft which based on Magnum and Dino's sources seem to suggest so

That is significantly different and more difficult. Izd. 30 has been in development for ca. 10 years now and probably it wont see the series until 2024-25, development of the three-stream VCE is tarting now and will take a similar amount of time. You make it all sound as if it was trivial task, but it is all decades work, only at the reach of a handful of countries in the world, actually even less.

Edit: https://labuda.blog/1499284.html they deleted it from aex.ru. Good shit Dino for the source. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:x-4qs1I0tR0J:https://www.aex.ru/news/2021/5/18/228542/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Thanks for the links

LMFS wrote:Do we know it? Marchukov said explicitly a couple o years ago that izd. 30 is not a three stream engine

Keeping the same range as you said before that is like retaining the advantages of a low bypass engine, adding more thrust for super cruise that's like adding the advantages of a high bypass engine meaning if you have both you got a hybrid bypass engine and that is basically all I got about the ADVENT for the F-35. I only compare performances.

LMFS wrote:That is significantly different and more difficult. Izd. 30 has been in development for ca. 10 years now and probably it wont see the series until 2024-25, development of the three-stream VCE is tarting now and will take a similar amount of time. You make it all sound as if it was trivial task, but it is all decades work, only at the reach of a handful of countries in the world, actually even less.

More difficult yes, but I don't see much US reports about detonation engines but we have a bunch of news information that detonation engines have been tested on aircrafts for hours and hours on end. Magnum stated the sources which I will have to find if you haven't seen where the estimated speeds of the detonation engines matched the claim speeds of the Mig-41. And of course there was information prior that they were testing avionics close to hypersonic speeds in one of their projects.

thegopnik wrote:Keeping the same range as you said before that is like retaining the advantages of a low bypass engine, adding more thrust for super cruise that's like adding the advantages of a high bypass engine meaning if you have both you got a hybrid bypass engine and that is basically all I got about the ADVENT for the F-35. I only compare performances.

We know the izd. 30 has preserved the same SFC of the AL-31F while increasing a lot the specific thrust, but you will find many people that disagree that it automatically means it is a VCE. Not that I have seen any authoritative writing about why, mind you. And even then, a three streams engine is a further development of a basic, variable BPR two streams engine, in which a third stream is added for wider BPR operation window and which is also very crucial as a heat sink for the increasing cooling demands of modern planes. That is what adaptive engines currently under test of demonstrators are, and we know the izd. 30 is not of the same kind. Marchukov already said that they are very complex.

More difficult yes, but I don't see much US reports about detonation engines but we have a bunch of news information that detonation engines have been tested on aircrafts for hours and hours on end. Magnum stated the sources which I will have to find if you haven't seen where the estimated speeds of the detonation engines matched the claim speeds of the Mig-41. And of course there was information prior that they were testing avionics close to hypersonic speeds in one of their projects.

The thing is that nobody has said a word (that I have seen, at least) about PDEs being in the roadmap for immediate application, much less in turbofans of fighter jets. They are in basic research phase, which is often decades away from serial application. UEC is saying as shown above about using the same core of the izd. 30 for the PAK-DP, if a PDE was used, then the engine can be used without issues as a scramjet for high hypersonic flight and it will probably allow the dreamed "space plane", capable of taking off and going on orbit by its own means. For high supersonic plane like the PAK-DP that is not needed, and I struggle to see how a simple change in the combustion chamber of an engine of the currently used types could be used with detonation, in case they would just want to use the superior burn efficiency of detonation and not the inherent lack of limitation of such engine for hypersonic flight. There may be something, but I don't think there is enough known evidence to make that claim.

TMA1 wrote:What about a simple ramjet setup with the izd 30? Could take it a bit beyond Mach 4 in high atmosphere.

That is what a ABVCE is about, only it is not simple at all...

LMFS wrote:We know the izd. 30 has preserved the same SFC of the AL-31F while increasing a lot the specific thrust, but you will find many people that disagree that it automatically means it is a VCE. Not that I have seen any authoritative writing about why, mind you. And even then, a three streams engine is a further development of a basic, variable BPR two streams engine, in which a third stream is added for wider BPR operation window and which is also very crucial as a heat sink for the increasing cooling demands of modern planes. That is what adaptive engines currently under test of demonstrators are, and we know the izd. 30 is not of the same kind. Marchukov already said that they are very complex

Fuel capacity for F-35 is 8278 kg for 2,200kms, fuel capacity of Su-57 is 10,300 kg for 3,500kms, both are internal.
Specs for ADVENT for F-35 is increase in flight range by 35% and the thrust by 10%. 1.35 times 2,200 is 2,970 times 8278/10,300 is 3682.8 kms assuming the old source of Izdelie 30 wont have its range changed or fuel efficiency, while the 35% more flight range holds to its promises, I will still safely assume the Su-57 will operate at higher supercruise speeds than the ADVENT. VCE or not I do not see much of difference of the ooh and ahh vibes I get from you

https://aviation21.ru/izdelie-30-po-udelnoj-tyage-prevosxodit-vse-zarubezhnye-analogi/

Marchukov noted that the engine is superior to all foreign counterparts, is a completely new product and has nothing to do with the engine of the Su-35 fighter.

The engine of the second stage, which has been designated "product 30" will allow the fighter to take off faster, to gain altitude, to make maneuvers with a large overload during air combat, especially near.5

In addition, the engine will allow to fly at supersonic speed without the use of a booster, and in the future - to increase the range due to lower fuel consumption.

LMFS wrote:The thing is that nobody has said a word (that I have seen, at least) about PDEs being in the roadmap for immediate application, much less in turbofans of fighter jets. They are in basic research phase, which is often decades away from serial application. UEC is saying as shown above about using the same core of the izd. 30 for the PAK-DP, if a PDE was used, then the engine can be used without issues as a scramjet for high hypersonic flight and it will probably allow the dreamed "space plane", capable of taking off and going on orbit by its own means. For high supersonic plane like the PAK-DP that is not needed, and I struggle to see how a simple change in the combustion chamber of an engine of the currently used types could be used with detonation, in case they would just want to use the superior burn efficiency of detonation and not the inherent lack of limitation of such engine for hypersonic flight. There may be something, but I don't think there is enough known evidence to make that claim.

So let me get this straight, NGAD is going to be VCE or a none-near hypersonic speed aircraft but rather the same old subsonic supersonic options, while Mig-41 seems looks like it will be given a detonation engine proposal, Tempest is given a near hypersonic reaction engine proposal and FCAS is given a near hypersonic SABER engine correct? The thing is 1 of those 3 aircrafts have demonstrated ground tests for near hypersonic engines and one of them has demonstrated working conditions of avionics near hypersonic conditions of an aircraft https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?lang=RU&nid=516338&rid= and one of them has a leading edge over other countries in hypersonic fly-wing rockets and weapons which is a beneficial field for hypersonic aircraft designs.

So where do you stand, are you in the all 6th gen proposals which just give up and going with something simpler like VCE? Are you in the FCAS and Tempest giving up while mig-41 goes through with it(thats me)? or do you think all countries will give up with a near hypersonic 6th gen aircraft design and go for VCE?

Why was Russia proposing this if they are not interested in pursuing hypersonic aircrafts? "According to the portal materials, the state corporation is looking for a contractor to "develop the technology of making radio transparent thermal materials for hypersonic aircraft fairings based on volume frames made of refractory continuous fibers." The research work was called "Thor."
The work should be completed by September 2020. They allocated 346.9 million rubles.
In addition, Roscosmos is looking for contractors to develop "technology of thermomechanical testing of composite materials at a wide temperature interval with programmable thermal and mechanical loadings, imitating the flight conditions of advanced products of rocket and space technology" (cipher of research and development - "Ferz") and "technology of obtaining high-temperature composite materials and a new generation of reinforcement fillers, frames of carbon fibers based on baking, ceramic SiC, SiCN-fibers for promising products of rocket and space technology" (the cipher of the research and development "Breakthrough-1").

very low altitude aircrafts will have air to air weapons that will have significantly less range when trying to target and engage higher altitude aircrafts and will have difficulties with radar locks. They have created durable material that is better than aluminum and titanium with 1/10 less the weight and regeneration capabilities from small fire arm attacks thus increasing the thrust to weight ratio, demonstrated and stated multiple times success on detonation engines, developed radio transparent material on hypersonic aircrafts. I don't see a problem what was proposed on the mig-41 here, what problems do you see?

I dont know about you but I dont think they are testing hypersonic aircraft radio, material, just for kicks.

Anyone concerned we haven't heard about the next serial produced su57? I wonder if they're working on 4 simultaneously or doing them in serial. I was expecting we'd have no 2 rolled out already.

thegopnik wrote:Fuel capacity for F-35 is 8278 kg for 2,200kms, fuel capacity of Su-57 is 10,300 kg for 3,500kms, both are internal.

There are no official internal fuel values for the Su-57. Nor any other technical detail that allows to calculate reliably its range, beyond very rough "eyeballing" of the available internal volume (this could actually be estimated in a decent way but I have not seen any serious analysis) and assuming similar requirements to the Flanker it will substitute. So we have no numbers.

Specs for ADVENT for F-35 is increase in flight range by 35% and the thrust by 10%. 1.35 times 2,200 is 2,970 times 8278/10,300 is 3682.8 kms assuming the old source of Izdelie 30 wont have its range changed or fuel efficiency, while the 35% more flight range holds to its promises, I will still safely assume the Su-57 will operate at higher supercruise speeds than the ADVENT. VCE or not I do not see much of difference of the ooh and ahh vibes I get from you

I can't follow your reasoning here. VCE allows both high specific thrust for supersonic flight without AB and long range in subsonic due to variable BPR. If you understand this, then it is clear it is not about ooh and aah but about such engine being at the core of the (real) 5G and (in name only) 6G capabilities. ADVENT is an engine to allow for supercruising, and NGAD is theoretically meant to be very fast. I don't know if it will be faster than Su-57 of second stage. Such engines being applied to a non optimal airframe like the F-35 will not result in a world beater in terms of supersonic cruising, that is clear.

In addition, the engine will allow to fly at supersonic speed without the use of a booster, and in the future - to increase the range due to lower fuel consumption.[/i]

Said by Marchukov or by the journo? I only take fully backed statements, journos and complex jet engine technologies are not a good combination. Nevertheless that above can have several readings. I stick to what Marchukov said, that izd. 30 preserves the fuel consumption of the AL-31F. It may be more or less accurate or detailed, but it is definitely better than journo made-up BS

So let me get this straight, NGAD is going to be VCE or a none-near hypersonic speed aircraft but rather the same old subsonic supersonic options, while Mig-41 seems looks like it will be given a detonation engine proposal, Tempest is given a near hypersonic reaction engine proposal and FCAS is given a near hypersonic SABER engine correct?

WTF... I don't know who is saying FCAS will have a SABRE engine. All this is utter sensationalistic crap. Those planes will receive VCEs as it is logical and due. And who is saying PAK-DP will receive a detonation engine? I am linking a picture direct from UEC talking about using the SAME izd. 30 core on that plane, what has that to do with PDEs? I have explained a bypassed core with ramjet augmentation is current and capable up to > 4 M, which is the speed discussed for PAK-DP, but somehow that does not qualify as good enough military porn for some people that need to start talking about science fiction nonsense.

The thing is 1 of those 3 aircrafts have demonstrated ground tests for near hypersonic engines and one of them has demonstrated working conditions of avionics near hypersonic conditions of an aircraft https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?lang=RU&nid=516338&rid= and one of them has a leading edge over other countries in hypersonic fly-wing rockets and weapons which is a beneficial field for hypersonic aircraft designs.

I don't see what that news has to do with PAK-DP

So where do you stand, are you in the all 6th gen proposals which just give up and going with something simpler like VCE? Are you in the FCAS and Tempest giving up while mig-41 goes through with it(thats me)? or do you think all countries will give up with a near hypersonic 6th gen aircraft design and go for VCE?

Unlike the others, PAK-DP is not a fighter but a high speed long range interceptor. That forces the whole design of the plane and its propulsion through a very specific path that has little to do with the compromises a fighter takes for flexibility. None of them would need to be hypersonic, at most PAK-DP will be high hypersonic, if all. Programs with an uncertain funding and schedule like the European ones can say all what they want, by their sluggish, politics driven development MO we can be discussing the same theoretical topics and playing with slightly modified CGIs in ten years time.

Why was Russia proposing this if they are not interested in pursuing hypersonic aircrafts? "According to the portal materials, the state corporation is looking for a contractor to "develop the technology of making radio transparent thermal materials for hypersonic aircraft fairings based on volume frames made of refractory continuous fibers." The research work was called "Thor."
The work should be completed by September 2020. They allocated 346.9 million rubles.
In addition, Roscosmos is looking for contractors to develop "technology of thermomechanical testing of composite materials at a wide temperature interval with programmable thermal and mechanical loadings, imitating the flight conditions of advanced products of rocket and space technology" (cipher of research and development - "Ferz") and "technology of obtaining high-temperature composite materials and a new generation of reinforcement fillers, frames of carbon fibers based on baking, ceramic SiC, SiCN-fibers for promising products of rocket and space technology" (the cipher of the research and development "Breakthrough-1").

They are doing a lot of research in hypersonics, why precisely the program which has never been stated as hypersonic (PAK-DP) is the reason for all these developments to you? There are tons of weapons that need them already

Lurk83 wrote:Anyone concerned we haven't heard about the next serial produced su57? I wonder if they're working on 4 simultaneously or doing them in serial. I was expecting we'd have no 2 rolled out already.

#2 is flying. The first one was lost.

Backman wrote:

Lurk83 wrote:Anyone concerned we haven't heard about the next serial produced su57? I wonder if they're working on 4 simultaneously or doing them in serial. I was expecting we'd have no 2 rolled out already.

#2 is flying. The first one was lost.

I also read somewhere that some of the hydraulic actuators in #2 were replaced with electromechanical ones ahead of schedule given what happened with #1.

Backman wrote:

Lurk83 wrote:Anyone concerned we haven't heard about the next serial produced su57? I wonder if they're working on 4 simultaneously or doing them in serial. I was expecting we'd have no 2 rolled out already.

#2 is flying. The first one was lost.

ok, number 3 then.

LMFS wrote:There are no official internal fuel values for the Su-57. Nor any other technical detail that allows to calculate reliably its range, beyond very rough "eyeballing" of the available internal volume (this could actually be estimated in a decent way but I have not seen any serious analysis) and assuming similar requirements to the Flanker it will substitute. So we have no numbers.

Range of Su-35 is 3,600kms a little more weight than the Su-57 and a little more fuel than the Su-57 but the Su-57 has a lighter frame, 100kms less and newer better engines than what the Su-35 has. There are no official internal values for you favorite F-35 aircraft either with ADVENT.

LMFS wrote:I can't follow your reasoning here. VCE allows both high specific thrust for supersonic flight without AB and long range in subsonic due to variable BPR. If you understand this, then it is clear it is not about ooh and aah but about such engine being at the core of the (real) 5G and (in name only) 6G capabilities. ADVENT is an engine to allow for supercruising, and NGAD is theoretically meant to be very fast. I don't know if it will be faster than Su-57 of second stage. Such engines being applied to a non optimal airframe like the F-35 will not result in a world beater in terms of supersonic cruising, that is clear.

Apparently the range and trade offs are not much comparing aircrafts especially when you and the admin of another board got mad here when random users gave 2,049kms for the F-22 and its not like the drag would have gave anymore it a bigger boost in range. Is the NGAD going to be the size of the F-22 because just for the fun it of it I dont mind doing the 35% more fuel with additional 10% more thrust calculation.

LMFS wrote:Said by Marchukov or by the journo? I only take fully backed statements, journos and complex jet engine technologies are not a good combination. Nevertheless that above can have several readings. I stick to what Marchukov said, that izd. 30 preserves the fuel consumption of the AL-31F. It may be more or less accurate or detailed, but it is definitely better than journo made-up BS

https://naukatehnika.com/novyj-dvigatel-dlya-su-57.html 2nd paragraph states new features from the engine burning excessive fuels and burning less fuel you get more range according to your hero. Also "In the engine of the second stage for the Su-57, the developers have applied a number of new design approaches and technologies, so that the "Product 30" in terms of specific fuel consumption roughly corresponds to the two-engine AL-31F (670 grams per kilogram-force per hour in cruising mode), but exceeds it in terms of specific thrust. The AL-31F and its variants are some of the most fuel-efficient engines for combat aircraft in the world; such engines are put on Su-27, Su-30 and Su-34 fighter jets, as well as on Chinese J-20 fighter jets."

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-27-specs.htm Looking at the range and internal fuel I am going god damn if the fuel consumption would be the same and if it is there is a friendly reminder that the Su-57 has more internal fuel than this aircraft.

LMFS wrote:WTF... I don't know who is saying FCAS will have a SABRE engine. All this is utter sensationalistic crap. Those planes will receive VCEs as it is logical and due. And who is saying PAK-DP will receive a detonation engine? I am linking a picture direct from UEC talking about using the SAME izd. 30 core on that plane, what has that to do with PDEs? I have explained a bypassed core with ramjet augmentation is current and capable up to > 4 M, which is the speed discussed for PAK-DP, but somehow that does not qualify as good enough military porn for some people that need to start talking about science fiction nonsense.

Hey thats what they propose for their 6th gens that only difference I was stating is one country has more experience with hypersonic craft designs. So you are more for the option of them giving up and that's fine everyone is entitled to their opinions.

LMFS wrote:
I don't see what that news has to do with PAK-DP

Radars are considered avionics and if you put them on a hypersonic aircraft and you get considerable results, than the same material that was used on that project can help the Mig-41 hit mach 4 speeds using its radar to combat other aircrafts. Experiences on HGVs, rockets and having Illushin aircraft designers work on hypersonic fly wings might add their experiences on creating a near hypersonic aircraft design.

thegopnik wrote:Range of Su-35 is 3,600kms a little more weight than the Su-57 and a little more fuel than the Su-57 but the Su-57 has a lighter frame, 100kms less and newer better engines than what the Su-35 has.

Everything fine if we except that there is no weight or internal fuel data for the Su-57. We are free to speculate.

There are no official internal values for you favorite F-35 aircraft either with ADVENT.

There are official data for the F-35 (you must be smoking something pretty strong if you think F-35 is my favourite plane) and there are IMHO misleading, PR type of claims for the extra thrust and extra mileage coming from the ADVENT engine. It is hard to see it reducing TSFC of an already relatively high BPR, highly efficient engine as the F135 by 35%, even considering spillage and any other effects. But that is the data we have.

Apparently the range and trade offs are not much comparing aircrafts especially when you and the admin of another board got mad here when random users gave 2,049kms for the F-22 and its not like the drag would have gave anymore it a bigger boost in range. Is the NGAD going to be the size of the F-22 because just for the fun it of it I dont mind doing the 35% more fuel with additional 10% more thrust calculation.

Again I am at a loss to figure out what you are trying to say, sorry.

https://naukatehnika.com/novyj-dvigatel-dlya-su-57.html 2nd paragraph states new features from the engine burning excessive fuels and burning less fuel you get more range according to your hero. Also "In the engine of the second stage for the Su-57, the developers have applied a number of new design approaches and technologies, so that the "Product 30" in terms of specific fuel consumption roughly corresponds to the two-engine AL-31F (670 grams per kilogram-force per hour in cruising mode), but exceeds it in terms of specific thrust. The AL-31F and its variants are some of the most fuel-efficient engines for combat aircraft in the world; such engines are put on Su-27, Su-30 and Su-34 fighter jets, as well as on Chinese J-20 fighter jets."

My own estimation or baseline is the same range for Su-57 than for Su-35. Supported by very rough eyeballing as said and "guessing" the intent and minimal requirements of the VKS. I can be totally wrong.

The paragraph you quote is exactly the one I refer when I say both izd. 30 and AL-31F have the same TSFC. What is your point here? There can be a huge improvement in specific thrust as demanded by the supersonic cruise, but maybe not a big advance in fuel consumption. In fact, that it remains the same is remarkable already.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-27-specs.htm Looking at the range and internal fuel I am going god damn if the fuel consumption would be the same and if it is there is a friendly reminder that the Su-57 has more internal fuel than this aircraft.

You don't know the internal fuel of the Su-57. You and I can have whatever opinion we want, but it is just guesswork, unless you work out a very detailed and professional 3D model of the Su-57 including internal / structural details and figure out the available fuel volume. Not a small job or one to be done by non professionals.

Hey thats what they propose for their 6th gens that only difference I was stating is one country has more experience with hypersonic craft designs. So you are more for the option of them giving up and that's fine everyone is entitled to their opinions.

Well we will see how things pan out

LMFS wrote:The paragraph you quote is exactly the one I refer when I say both izd. 30 and AL-31F have the same TSFC. What is your point here? There can be a huge improvement in specific thrust as demanded by the supersonic cruise, but maybe not a big advance in fuel consumption. In fact, that it remains the same is remarkable already.

I already see that the Su-27 has a 4000km range in the spec range along with other sources stating the same on internal fuel, if the fuel rate burn is the same of this 2nd stage engine with the addition of the Su-57 attaining more fuel that range will be more, do you get what I am saying? 6000kg for 4000kms, your currently bitching about the su-57 internal fuel estimate but not if I go use the Su-35 in comparison which is only slightly bigger in airframe meaning the Su-57 fuel weight will be at least a little smaller than Su-35 but that would still give a drastic increase in range compared to why I did with the F-35 VCE. I wont complain if their 6th gen is VCE, but the PAK-DP will be slightly different with engine performance like this that already exceeds VCE. https://tass.ru/ekonomika/11103513 I am making it sound like the Su-57 will have over 4000kms on 2nd stage so I am probably ball parking its range around there assuming that they took account of the weight of the Su-57 air frame being a little heavier in comparison to the Su-27 but the engine still having the same fuel consumption rate.

thegopnik wrote:I already see that the Su-27 has a 4000km range in the spec

Show me that spec. Do you understand that Su-35 has OFFICIALLY 11500 kg fuel for 3600 km range at optimum cruise? If you know how an older Flanker version gets more range with less fuel, let me know.

if the fuel rate burn is the same of this 2nd stage engine with the addition of the Su-57 attaining more fuel that range will be more,

For the umpteenth time, there are no official internal fuel values for the Su-57.

your currently bitching about the su-57 internal fuel estimate

I am not bitching, I am saying you have no fuel, no L/D, no weight no nothing about the Su-57. And I have told you already that I use for myself the same ballpark range than Su-35, but that is just guesswork and not facts.

but not if I go use the Su-35 in comparison which is only slightly bigger in airframe meaning the Su-57 fuel weight will be at least a little smaller than Su-35 but that would still give a drastic increase in range compared to why I did with the F-35 VCE.

Yeah it is assumed by pretty much anyone that F-35 has less range than heavy Russian fighters. With the adaptive engines my calculator tells me a 35% range increase would mean 3780 km max range on internals for the F-35. But I told you that type of calculation is BS because it is not clear to what kind of flight profile that range increase relates too, given such a huge range increase would basically mean the F-35 is more economical than airliners, most probably they refer to profiles where afterburner and supersonic flight are involved. On top of that, the comparison is greatly inconsequential since they want to build the NGAD, nobody thinks of the F-35 as USAF's air superiority fighter now or in the future.

I wont complain if their 6th gen is VCE, but the PAK-DP will be slightly different with engine performance like this that already exceeds VCE. https://tass.ru/ekonomika/11103513

Do you want to bet it will not be a PDE? Everybody is answering you the same and showing you the UEC roadmap with explicit indications about the PAK-DP engine and yet you keep insisting on some exotic laboratory demonstrator... with all respect, that is not how technology works.

I am making it sound like the Su-57 will have over 4000kms on 2nd stage  so I am probably ball parking its range around there assuming that they took account of the weight of the Su-57 air frame being a little heavier in comparison to the Su-27 but the engine still having the same fuel consumption rate.

As far as you don't make us take your assumptions for facts it is all ok with me.

Invisible to radar

Serial production of the Su-57 sets new complex but interesting tasks for the team of the coating shop

A special feature of the Su-57 aircraft is its low radar visibility. It becomes possible due to the design features and the use of special materials, as well as special radio-absorbing coatings. A special coating shop is responsible for their application at the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Plant (KnAAZ) named after Yu. A.Gagarin.

The coating shop of KnAAZ named after Yu. A. Gagarin is diverse. Its specialists are engaged in the final painting of Su-35S aircraft, as well as in the detailed application of electroplating and paint coatings. Work is also underway on radio-absorbing coatings.
Large and diverse volumes

The site for applying radio-absorbing coatings was transferred to the coating shop of KnAAZ named after Yu. A. Gagarin two years ago. Prior to that, it was part of a flight test station, whose specialists did a lot to develop an experimental technology for applying special coatings. "The workers and technologists of our division picked up the baton and continued to work on the transition from experimental to mass production," says Svetlana Latyshova, head of the coatings department. – The team worked with full dedication, as long as it was necessary – so much and worked. This is the most important component of success. Today, when you look at the finished Su-57, the soul sings."

In 2020, the specialists of the workshop had a chance to paint the second four Su-35S of the 4++ generation, built at the Yuri Gagarin KnAAZ for aerobatics masters of the Russian Knights group. The first batch, also consisting of four combat cruise vehicles, was delivered in the fall of 2019. "The process of preparing the aircraft for painting is complex and multi-stage. The scale is huge, there are a lot of details and handmade work, " says Olga Senina, the head of the site.

In recent years, the tasks that are assigned to the team of the coating shop are constantly becoming more complicated. "The volumes are large and varied – from small parts that we apply a coating several microns thick, to painting such large products as the aircraft itself. At each site there are people who are dedicated to their work, who know and love it, who do their work with all their heart, " states Svetlana Latyshova.

"We try to approach our work creatively," adds Maria Gorelova, Acting production master. – If we see opportunities to improve the quality, we offer our ideas to technologists, they take them to work and implement them. We have good cooperation in this regard. We all have the same goal – to ensure that the coverage meets all the requirements. We are glad that now we have orders for many years to come, which means that there is stability, the opportunity to devote yourself to your favorite work and family. We have a very well-coordinated team: a lot of young people, but also a lot of those who have worked for twenty or more years. It is good when the chain of knowledge and experience is not interrupted."

Leap into the future

"If you show what is the paper volume of technological processes for applying radio – absorbing coatings, you will get a very voluminous folder," Svetlana Latyshova's hand rises 30 centimeters above the table, showing an imaginary pile of documents. – This is a very large number of operations, and the quality of the final result depends on the correct execution of each of them. The process is quite complex, new, and uses recently developed and implemented materials. There are few businesses that can boast of being able to do this kind of work. We have mastered this technical process and are now moving on to mass production."

Each layer of special coating has a special functional purpose and its own unique thickness, which depends on the application area. Compounds – compositions based on various polymers-eventually form a kind of layer cake, the properties of which make it possible for the Su-57 to significantly reduce radar visibility.

"We apply, process, measure the thickness, apply again the next day, and so on," explains Svetlana Latyshova. – It is the thoroughness of all operations that determines the quality of the coating and its service life during the operation of the aircraft. The Su-57 has a very long warranty period and service life. We must do everything possible to ensure that the radio-absorbing coating is of high quality, performed in compliance with all the rules and regulations laid down in the design documentation. Marriage is not allowed in this case."

"The work is labor – intensive, physically and technically difficult, but very interesting and promising," says Konstantin Lachkov, a painter at the radio-absorbing coatings section. – The competence center for radio-absorbing coatings in Russia is us, our Yuri Gagarin plant. There is no coating chamber like ours anywhere else. You will not find such knowledge as that of our team outside Komsomolsk-on-Amur either. All are trained and certified. Taking into account the growth in production volumes, new personnel are currently being trained. Our team is ready for serial production of the new aircraft. We have everything for this."
New challenges for the series

Mastering the technology of applying radio-absorbing coatings on the Su-57 aircraft is only the beginning of the journey. A lot of work is underway to improve the process. According to today's technologies, the entire cycle of phased application of radio-absorbing coatings takes just over a month. According to experts, technological capabilities and scientific developments to reduce the time of this process allow us to do it faster.

"We have developed a good link between production and the technological service," explains Svetlana Latyshova. - Production raises questions about where and what can be done better, and the technology department works through them and gives answers. We are working to make the process more technologically efficient in order to reduce the time required for coating subsequent aircraft."

Serial production with a gradual increase in the volume of production of fifth-generation aircraft sets new complex but interesting tasks for the team of the coating shop. One thing remains unchanged – the quality of work should always remain on top.

https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5ddfbc8b9515ee00ac9e370a/nezametnyi-dlia-radarov-60ae0df6cf9bb44946e98e90

LMFS wrote:Show me that spec. Do you understand that Su-35 has OFFICIALLY 11500 kg fuel for 3600 km range at optimum cruise? If you know how an older Flanker version gets more range with less fuel, let me know.

the specs are in that link I already provided just click it, the su-35 uses different engines that burn more.

LMFS wrote:For the umpteenth time, there are no official internal fuel values for the Su-57.

But we know the Su-57 has a bigger airframe hence more fuel than Su-27. I mean do you have an agreement on this simple logic atleast? If they said the 2nd stage with more thrust is comparable to fuel burn to the AL-41 I wouldnt have said shit in the 1st place. But the AL-31F is announced as the most fuel efficient engine and based on the range and internal fuel specs on the Su-27 I can see why. Remember attention to detail they said the AL-31F is the most fuel efficient, not any of the AL-41 series, if they compared the 2nd stage to the AL-41 I would have kept my mouth shut but they didnt  

LMFS wrote:Yeah it is assumed by pretty much anyone that F-35 has less range than heavy Russian fighters. With the adaptive engines my calculator tells me a 35% range increase would mean 3780 km max range on internals for the F-35. But I told you that type of calculation is BS because it is not clear to what kind of flight profile that range increase relates too, given such a huge range increase would basically mean the F-35 is more economical than airliners, most probably they refer to profiles where afterburner and supersonic flight are involved. On top of that, the comparison is greatly inconsequential since they want to build the NGAD, nobody thinks of the F-35 as USAF's air superiority fighter now or in the future.

To get the most range out of aircrafts all max ranges are achieved with subsonic speeds. than get the range increase with the fuel increase, unless you think it can magically go above 35%? with subsonic speeds.  Well the F-35 weights a little more than the Su-57 so I will be generous and give it a 4000km + range if it had the same weight as the Su-57.

LMFS wrote:Do you want to bet it will not be a PDE? Everybody is answering you the same and showing you the UEC roadmap with explicit indications about the PAK-DP engine and yet you keep insisting on some exotic laboratory demonstrator... with all respect, that is not how technology works.

of all your time here you do know there is a reason why we have a 6th gen thread and a separate 6th interceptor thread remember? https://topwar.ru/167799-minoborony-zakazalo-razrabotku-oruzhija-protiv-giperzvukovyh-raket.html. Sorry for ruining your goalpost that the U.S. had any lead over Russia.

thegopnik wrote:the specs are in that link I already provided just click it, the su-35 uses different engines that burn more.

On the one hand they are BS, and on the other you are reading them wrong.

But we know the Su-57 has a bigger airframe hence more fuel than Su-27.

Linear dimensions of the Su-57 are clearly smaller than the Flanker. It is flatter and seems to have more surface, but how that relates to internal fuel is not obvious.

I mean do you have an agreement on this simple logic atleast? If they said the 2nd stage with more thrust is comparable to fuel burn to the AL-41 I wouldnt have said shit in the 1st place. But the AL-31F is announced as the most fuel efficient engine and based on the range and internal fuel specs on the Su-27 I can see why. Remember attention to detail they said the AL-31F is the most fuel efficient, not any of the AL-41 series, if they compared the 2nd stage to the AL-41 I would have kept my mouth shut but they didnt  

AL-41 is an engine of the AL-31F family in dimensions, stage count and basic layout. OPR is at least equal and TIT is certainly higher so most likely AL-41F1 (and S) are as much or more fuel efficient than the old original. What counts there is the BPR, and AL-31F's is among the highest BPR jet fighter engines.

To get the most range out of aircrafts all max ranges are achieved with subsonic speeds.

Yes obviously

than get the range increase with the fuel increase, unless you think it can magically go above 35%? with subsonic speeds.

?? Agrammatical sentences do not help me to understand what you mean.

 Well the F-35 weights a little more than the Su-57 so I will be generous and give it a 4000km + range if it had the same weight as the Su-57.

What?? F-35 is 13 t, Su-35 is ca. 18.5 t empty. Do you expect the Su-57 to be lighter than the F-35??

of all your time here you do know there is a reason why we have a 6th gen thread and a separate 6th interceptor thread remember? https://topwar.ru/167799-minoborony-zakazalo-razrabotku-oruzhija-protiv-giperzvukovyh-raket.html.

Don't know what that link about a new missile has to do with the topic. Fighters and long range interceptors are different with different needs so we can fancy whatever propulsive solution we like. But when UEC says explicitly what engine is appropriate for the PAK-DP and you ignore that based on wishful thinking and shaky reports of exotic technology then you are just being illogical. Don't expect to get applause for that.

Sorry for ruining your goalpost that the U.S. had any lead over Russia.

Don't make me laugh, I am not invested in ideological shit. I just try to understand the technical realities the best I can. US has a lead in 3 stream VCE which is the next step in military aviation engines, Russia is catching up fast and by the rot in the US MIC they may well overtake them soon. I cannot say what level of development PDEs have in the US and I am more than fine if Russia is ahead. And besides, pure technological lead is useless if your leadership is inadequate, having the YF120 US decided to go for the F119 and not upgrade it for along time, now it indeed seems Russia has leapfrogged them with the izd. 30 and what is the US response? Cancel the F-22 altogether and go for the next scam. There is nothing engineers can do against such political incompetence and such corruption.

LMFS wrote:On the one hand they are BS, and on the other you are reading them wrong.

Of course they dont fit your narrative you got a comparable Su-27 specs, dont tell me it is not known on this old aircraft.

LMFS wrote:Linear dimensions of the Su-57 are clearly smaller than the Flanker. It is flatter and seems to have more surface, but how that relates to internal fuel is not obvious.

What? Su-57         Length: 20.1 m (65 ft 11 in)
Wingspan: 14.1 m (46 ft 3 in)
Height: 4.74 m (15 ft 7 in)

Su-27    Length: 21.9 m (71 ft 10 in)
Wingspan: 14.7 m (48 ft 3 in)
Height: 5.92 m (19 ft 5 in) Where are you getting that the Su-57 is smaller?

LMFS wrote:AL-41 is an engine of the AL-31F family in dimensions, stage count and basic layout. OPR is at least equal and TIT is certainly higher so most likely AL-41F1 (and S) are as much or more fuel efficient than the old original. What counts there is the BPR, and AL-31F's is among the highest BPR jet fighter engines.

Sources bro to back this up please, other than my source when they announced that the AL-31F is more fuel efficient.

LMFS wrote:?? Agrammatical sentences do not help me to understand what you mean.

I maxed out the range for you as much as possible going no less, just trying to figure out the complaint.

LMFS wrote:What?? F-35 is 13 t, Su-35 is ca. 18.5 t empty. Do you expect the Su-57 to be lighter than the F-35??

Oh dang my fault I guess the range is satisfactory with the ADVENT on where the F-35 is at instead of pushing it to 4000kms or more, thanks.

LMFS wrote:Don't know what that link about a new missile has to do with the topic. Fighters and long range interceptors are different with different needs so we can fancy whatever propulsive solution we like. But when UEC says explicitly what engine is appropriate for the PAK-DP and you ignore that based on wishful thinking and shaky reports of exotic technology then you are just being illogical. Don't expect to get applause for that.

OK I will read what that source has said with the following highlights. 1. A name like MFRC-DP is a dead giveaway as the last two letters seem to correspond to PAK-DP. 2. Calling a PDE a bench demonstrator is no different than calling a VCE a bench demonstrator(dont know why you didnt say that Mr. Bias) but if Lyulka has two seperate engine designs than they have plans for them 3. According to the military's plans, the aircraft will have to launch a long-range "special ammunition" with several air-to-air warhead missiles, which at some point fires
missiles. Those in the war queue find and attack the target, including the hypersonic. It is stated that the possibility of hitting a target is greatly increased by several missiles, rather than one. The over-distribution of the munition will allow to expand the target's target zone. It is apparently clear they want aircrafts to knock shit out of orbit and hit other aircrafts several hundred kilometers away(900 if we take k-77m range account with it) which is better achieved with very high altitudes. Notice they state that something called MFRC-DP will do this and not the PAK-DP. You can cheer on that the PAK-DP gets one set of engines but my other favorite aircraft will get its soon enough.

Saw a cool image of the IFRC-DP example on comment section.

thegopnik wrote:Of course they dont fit your narrative you got a comparable Su-27 specs, dont tell me it is not known on this old aircraft.

You should rather cry and not laugh for saying that Su-27 has 4000 km range with 6 t fuel and Su-35 3600 km range with 11.5 t, it is not even funny.

Where are you getting that the Su-57 is smaller?

From the numbers?

Sources bro to back this up please,

Everyone knows AL-41F1(S) is an AL-31 version, what source do you need?

A name like  MFRC-DP is a dead giveaway as the last two letters seem to correspond to PAK-DP.

DP means long range in Russian