Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #7

Stealthflanker wrote:

Atmosphere wrote:

There is plenty of comparison over at forums , journalist publications of all sorts and similar outlets.
Or else the stealth inferiority myth would not have spread like wildfire.

So where i can find comparison of RCS between radar blocker vs S-ducts ? Because To be honest i cant find any, at least on that specific field.

The problem with trying to simulate ducts for an existing airplane is that no info is given about the absorbtion performance pet millimeter of coating neither it is for the thickness of the coating itself.For each part of the duct.
Further , the characteristics themselves of the material of the blocker are classified.
Carbon nanotubes have not been officially announced for the RAM of the Su-57. Those are announced as structural composites.

I dont know what are you are trying to say with this.

"So where i can find comparison of RCS between radar blocker vs S-ducts ? Because To be honest i cant find any, at least on that specific field. "


Pseudo scientists are everywhere

"... S-channel is not the simplest solution, it is the most effective way to reduce radar signature in the inlet because the shape and length of an S-duct make radar wave bounce of the wall many times before they can coming out of the duct, the longer the duct and the more curvy it is, the more bounce you will have, and as a result, the bigger accumulated radar absorbing capability. A layer of RAM with modest absorbing capability of 5-15 dB can be accumulated to 60 dB even with a slight curved duct. ( 60 dB mean you reduce radar wave power by 1.000.000 times). But an S-channel is lot heavier than a blocker and it can take up valuable space for fuel and weapon bay"

Forum: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/sukhoi-t-50-pak-fa-first-flight-pictures-videos-and-analysis.9186/page-7

This thread as well: f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=53658&sid=bd7f0ee022965848dc034b5d0f030b71&start=375

The internet is riddled with cringe inducing, pseudo scientific eyeballing, from people really convinced about their ability to analyse things  traditionnally
needing a whole assortment of sensors and real testing data (on real samples) to carry out. It's almost painful to read. I can almost physically hear the stupidity shimmering in those echo chambers.

Your next line would be "i meant simulations not eyeballing"

in that case that would not be the point that i have made. I have specefically mentionned in my comment that I meant those half baked studies. Not legitimate simulations.That is exactly my point.


"I dont know what are you are trying to say with this. "

It is me who should be saying this to you. Our topic was the Su-57 and the Su-57's ducts, yet you showed a simulation of something non directly related to the Su-57.
So i said that the Su-57's materials, both RAM and structural, are classified. So any simulation done on some hypothetical radar blocker does not necessairly represent the Su-57.

The ducts on the S-57 have enough curvature and shaping at the intake to result in serious attenuation of return signal to any forward illumination
by typical radar EM. This is aside from the blockers.

The whole fixation on the scatter from the radar blockers is inane. The billboard sized rudders on the F-22 are much bigger problem than any
highly contrived plane of flight emissions of radar EM detecting the Su-57. People really have no grasp of the concept of cross section.
It is fundamental in physics.

well in my opinion, the issue lies somewhat elsewhere.
Weather it is the ducts of the Su-57 or how is the Afghanit APS supposed to catch long rods, a person that does not have any access whatsoever to any of the heaps and loads of testing data that the company that is creating such equipment has, should not be creating "councils" in the internet dedicated into  evaluating or correcting said company


Besides, Stealth , to begin with, was never stated to be the most important feature of an airplane to justify all this twirl around it

Atmosphere wrote:well in my opinion, the issue lies somewhat elsewhere.
Weather it is the ducts of the Su-57 or how is the Afghanit APS supposed to catch long rods, a person that does not have any access whatsoever to any of the heaps and loads of testing data that the company that is creating such equipment has, should not be creating "councils" in the internet dedicated into  evaluating or correcting said company


Besides, Stealth , to begin with, was never stated to be the most important feature of an airplane to justify all this twirl around it

The baseline "analysis" in the west of Russia is to assume Russians are untermenschen who do not understand anything.   So we have the inanity
of the so-called critics which ignores any EM scattering simulations (guided by the design and measurement data) by Sukhoi.    Supposedly
the people who wrote the book on stealth in the 1960s do not know what equations and computers are.   There is no point discussing
anything with such "critics".   May as well visit the local psychiatric ward and try to have sane conversations with the mentally deranged.

My point about the shaping of the Su-57 ducts is relevant since it clearly shows deliberate design and not random untermenschen nose picking
as fantasy projected by self-anointed western ubermenschen.

Atmosphere wrote:well in my opinion, the issue lies somewhat elsewhere.
Weather it is the ducts of the Su-57 or how is the Afghanit APS supposed to catch long rods, a person that does not have any access whatsoever to any of the heaps and loads of testing data that the company that is creating such equipment has, should not be creating "councils" in the internet dedicated into  evaluating or correcting said company

Have to agree on that. Any person having had even remote contact with actual development can get an aneurysm from reading the self anointed masters of VLO design decrying the PAK-FA on the internet when most of them could not even know how to read Maxwell equations. Stealthflanker does not fall in that category for sure and I am not talking about him, but regardless professional level analysis is simply light years away of what we can do without real data, professional tools and actual measurements, even for the (very few) people that are not illiterate on the matter. For instance the 10+ coating layers in the glazing of the Su-57, who knows the properties and thickness of all of them? Or the edge treatments, thickness of coatings + RAS in the plane, treatment of flare spots, where absorption and where other means like destructive interference are used... even what modelling method to use depending on the dominant mechanisms of backscattering in place is a task of huge complexity... trying to judge all that without real data is a freaking joke and Western media is guilty of all that for having mislead people into thinking those are fields where amateur opinion has a place, when they are among the most difficult ones.

What i need is a specific paper on it not a forum thread.

"I dont know what are you are trying to say with this. "

It is me who should be saying this to you. Our topic was the Su-57 and the Su-57's ducts, yet you showed a simulation of something non directly related to the Su-57.
So i said that the Su-57's materials, both RAM and structural, are classified. So any simulation done on some hypothetical radar blocker does not necessairly represent the Su-57.

You seem to miss my point which i wonder how because i clearly states that Radar blocker does work. and you are basically repeating what i was saying in my post regarding the difficulty of simulating one.


But as seen. It is possible to simulate or estimate one as i demonstrated in my model above. Now the next path is naturally to make a model on Su-57. which i'm currently working on.




The problem is that to find actually "Agreeable" sets of specifications and how to present the result so people can understand. Like if i were to put the model above into ANSYS.. what i should input as variables ? Like say... if i were to treat the airframe, what kind of Absorber you think i should put ?. Now i'm asking you here what i should do for the "proper" estimates or simulations.


Just complaining about Russian bashing etc wont get you anywhere. Or are you suggesting that technical discussion shouldnt exist, No one should come up with any arguments or points on technical stuff due to "classifications". Is that the way you want ?

I think there is more reasoned analysis on this forum and even speculation on various questions is not fraught with BS projection.
There is not much point of having these threads if non-insiders cannot make any comments so I am not projecting my insecurities
on anyone making honest critical comments on Russian military tech.  

Totally dismissing non-expert opinions is a type of appeal to authority.   Arguments stand on their own merit.

LMFS wrote:

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. wrote:

You got any other leads? Su-35 has a heavier airframe with more fuel consumption engines.

LMFS wrote:From the numbers?

What numbers are those its like you did not even look at the size comparison I already listed by saying I am wrong or right.

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

There is a reason they state AL-31F and not the AL-41F1 for fuel efficiency.

LMFS wrote:DP means long range in Russian

I thought it meant double penetration, but its a multifunctional aviation complex that seems separate from PAK-DP hence the different name.

What is the reason that the R-77s for the Su-57 use conventional fins instead of the grid fins, even though the grid fins are as compact, if not more, and offer much better aerodynamic efficiency at high supersonic speeds?

limb wrote:What is the reason that the R-77s for the Su-57 use conventional fins instead of the grid fins, even though the grid fins are as compact, if not more, and offer much better aerodynamic efficiency at high supersonic speeds?

Grid fins from what I know are more draggy (at transonic speed they actually choke), but they have the advantage that they can be handled with a smaller servo and create smaller forces in the missile's body. Not surprising that they go for conventional fins in a long range AAM.

Stealthflanker wrote:

What i need is a specific paper on it not a forum thread.

"I dont know what are you are trying to say with this. "

It is me who should be saying this to you. Our topic was the Su-57 and the Su-57's ducts, yet you showed a simulation of something non directly related to the Su-57.
So i said that the Su-57's materials, both RAM and structural, are classified. So any simulation done on some hypothetical radar blocker does not necessairly represent the Su-57.

You seem to miss my point which i wonder how because i clearly states that Radar blocker does work.  and you are basically repeating what i was saying in my post regarding the difficulty of simulating one.


But as seen. It is possible to simulate or estimate one as i demonstrated in my model above. Now the next path is naturally to make a model on Su-57. which i'm currently working on.  




The problem is that to find actually "Agreeable" sets of specifications and how to present the result so people can understand. Like if i were to put the model above into ANSYS.. what i should input as variables ? Like say... if i were to treat the airframe, what kind of Absorber you think i should put ?. Now i'm asking you here what i should do for the "proper" estimates or simulations.


Just complaining about Russian bashing etc wont get you anywhere. Or are you suggesting that technical discussion shouldnt exist, No one should come up with any arguments or points on technical stuff due to "classifications".  Is that the way you want ?

Eh, I think everyone knows why there is a perceived defensiveness or frustration. Just look at the articles surrounding su-57 in western media (how many "it's all over for su-57, etc..) Lik you can see similar spirit in the hit pieces on the f-35 in foreign press. Naturally some people have favorites, or areas of knowledge in particular. You obviously know all of this. You are on RUSSIAdefenseforum after all ;-)

"Like if i were to put the model above into ANSYS.. what i should input as variables ? Like say... if i were to treat the airframe, what kind of Absorber you think i should put ?. Now i'm asking you here what i should do for the "proper" estimates or simulations. "

I think the problem is we DONT have that specific knowledge which could obviously help in your endeavors. That said though I don't think anyone was saying people like you shouldn't do your simulations. I think the criticism involves rash assumptions. I always like your posts on the various forums. though much can be quite over my head, I can intuitively grasp some of it. One critique I'd make concerned a post on secret projects forum where you didn't properly model the slight s curve of the su-57 intake but from what I saw that was just a quick model to help in the context of the conversation. Again, thanks for your posts bro.

Indian media is reporting that Russia is developing a single engine Su-57 and it will be offered to India.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNW_gJVojKg

What is the reason that the R-77s for the Su-57 use conventional fins instead of the grid fins, even though the grid fins are as compact, if not more, and offer much better aerodynamic efficiency at high supersonic speeds?

The small triangular fins create lower drag and so reduce the flight range of the missile less.

It is like a rudder on a boat... the grid fin allows a much harder turn to be performed by the boat because it can be turned to much greater angles and still generate a strong turning force before it starts generating drag instead of a turning force.

The smaller fin will improve the speed and range of the missile but reduce its ability to turn and hit its target.

When folded both types are very compact so I assume the reasoning is that even with a triangular fin it is lethal enough but it gets extra range.

Stealthflanker wrote:

What i need is a specific paper on it not a forum thread.

"I dont know what are you are trying to say with this. "

It is me who should be saying this to you. Our topic was the Su-57 and the Su-57's ducts, yet you showed a simulation of something non directly related to the Su-57.
So i said that the Su-57's materials, both RAM and structural, are classified. So any simulation done on some hypothetical radar blocker does not necessairly represent the Su-57.

You seem to miss my point which i wonder how because i clearly states that Radar blocker does work.  and you are basically repeating what i was saying in my post regarding the difficulty of simulating one.


But as seen. It is possible to simulate or estimate one as i demonstrated in my model above. Now the next path is naturally to make a model on Su-57. which i'm currently working on.  




The problem is that to find actually "Agreeable" sets of specifications and how to present the result so people can understand. Like if i were to put the model above into ANSYS.. what i should input as variables ? Like say... if i were to treat the airframe, what kind of Absorber you think i should put ?. Now i'm asking you here what i should do for the "proper" estimates or simulations.


Just complaining about Russian bashing etc wont get you anywhere. Or are you suggesting that technical discussion shouldnt exist, No one should come up with any arguments or points on technical stuff due to "classifications".  Is that the way you want ?

TMA1 pretty much understood my point so out answers will have some points in common.

"What i need is a specific paper on it not a forum thread. "
An argument that i had foresaw in my previous comment and answered it prealably

"
Your next line would be "i meant simulations not eyeballing"

in that case that would not be the point that i have made. I have specefically mentionned in my comment that I meant those half baked studies. Not legitimate simulations.That is exactly my point."

My point is *exactly* the issue that people are using opinions instead of structured, educated analysis and spreading it like wildfire.

"You seem to miss my point which i wonder how because i clearly states that Radar blocker does work.  "
Nobody said anything about radar blockers working or not.

"But as seen. It is possible to simulate or estimate one as i demonstrated in my model above. Now the next path is naturally to make a model on Su-57. which i'm currently working on.  "

As TMA has said, it is possible to create and simulate such models and no one is saying you cannot.
The criticism is directed towards using speculation (or even worse, eyeballing) to make rash statements about the airplane and state them as facts. Such as what happened with the idiots over at secret projects or noshitsherlock.net.

"The problem is that to find actually "Agreeable" sets of specifications and how to present the result so people can understand. Like if i were to put the model above into ANSYS.. what i should input as variables ? Like say... if i were to treat the airframe, what kind of Absorber you think i should put ?. Now i'm asking you here what i should do for the "proper" estimates or simulations. "

The closest you will ever get to the characteristics of the RAM used on the su 57 is this type of RAM that is agressively being marketed for use in russian military hardware.






The characteristics of which are highly comparable to the most modern western materials being marketed right now, let alone those of 10 and 20 years ago.

(Which by the way, is a massive slap in the face to thode circles claimig that country A started late so it must be behind/speculating without any base of proof that they do not have the same materials technology).

For instance , this RAM is ultra wideband and covers the 100 mhz to 50GhZ area  , making it effective against longer wave radars, something ive never seen being mentionned over at forums talking about the su-57.(Guess they were busy having a seizure about the round IRST).

Then theres the fact that it can work at 200 degrees celsius thus being resistant to the extremely hot shock cone generated by m 1.7-1.8 supercruise.



Yet again , no one has speculated on that and people tended to assume the worst for the su-57 at every chance they had.

(Ps: to anyone reading this, there's also a bit where the guy explains the usage of RAM inside , in the inner components of an IRST, which gives the idea of making it stealthy by having a radio transparent bulb and making the EM energy bounce many times inside after being deflected by the mirror, thus being absored at each bounce similarly to an S duct.





Coming back to your argument , to things need to be mentioned:
-Thid RAM id actively pushed into being used for the su-57,/S-70 , but not confirmed to be used on it. *However* , sukhoi did confirm that Several firms proposed several RAM coatings and that they will be using the best of them. So what is being used on the Su-57 is either similar or better than than what is presented above.

-You cannot know the thickness used. Do all you can simulate is X reflection at X thickness and make a table. Similar to a table for AESA radar range based on which theoretical power level of each module.

Lastly, why would anyone try to get such sensible data on a forum? That is akin to looking for armor compositions over at quora.

"Anywhere" in regards to what? The plane does not need anything from the internet. It does not need any denfense since any serious customer will test it beforehand so the myths layed around would instantly vanish
The goal of these posts is to direct the reader into not believing anything as a fact unless presented with official evidence. Other than that it is speculation in varying degrees.
Good speculation with simulators and whatnot, talking about how the airplane may turn to be. (Even sukhoi employs it)
And garbage forum drivel based on asserting personal hindsight as a fact (#moreRCSthanaSuperHornet)

PhSt wrote:

Too bad they didn't stick with that paint scheme. I'm sure they had their reasons, but it's just so much more interesting than that digital edged dark blue. I honestly thought they would end up with a single color all around. But those triple block non uniform tricolor patterns with the white radome is just fantastic.

Atmosphere wrote:-You cannot know the thickness used. Do all you can simulate is X reflection at X thickness and make a table. Similar to a table for AESA radar range based on which theoretical power level of each module.

Thanks for a nice post.

Not only is the composition and thickness of every layer not known, the overlapping of them is also not known. So, good luck to anyone trying to create that table, when it turns 10-dimensional

(Ps: to anyone reading this, there's also a bit where the guy explains the usage of RAM inside , in the inner components of an IRST, which gives the idea of making it stealthy by having a radio transparent bulb and making the EM energy bounce many times inside after being deflected by the mirror, thus being absored at each bounce similarly to an S duct.

The fixation with criticising came to such point that supposedly knowledgeable guys aware that the IRST was INTERNALLY covered with RAM where unable to join the dots and conclude that the front cover was therefore RF transparent. Besides that, a mirror that is reflecting in visible wavelengths can be transparent in RF too, so no reflections from the IRST proper are returned to the source. And on top of that, these people are so oblivious to facts that they decry the Su-57 for an RCS source (IRST) of ca. 0.03 sqm at worst, while they ignore that the RCS of their whole VLO planes (claimed at ridiculous -40 dBsm) should be smaller than that of the pitot tubes and other so called weak scattering sources they carry by dozens in the fuselage, which in fact are so small that not even a normally equipped anechoic chamber can reasonably measure them. After a few discussions, even the most assertive and supposedly knowledgeable critics were proven to be technically and methodologically broke, simple as that.

Manturov said that industrial enterprises are preparing to modernize the Su-57

According to the head of the RF Ministry of Industry and Trade, "this is an ongoing process."

MOSCOW, May 30. / TASS /. The defense-industrial complex is preparing for a new stage in the modernization of the Russian fifth-generation fighter Su-57. This was stated by the Minister of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation Denis Manturov on the air of the TV channel "Russia-1" in an interview for the program "Moscow. Kremlin. Putin".

"The Su-57 has just entered service, is just being supplied, and we are already thinking and preparing for a new stage of modernization. This is an ongoing process," Manturov said, answering the questions of journalist Pavel Zarubin.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/11510783

LMFS wrote:

Atmosphere wrote:-You cannot know the thickness used. Do all you can simulate is X reflection at X thickness and make a table. Similar to a table for AESA radar range based on which theoretical power level of each module.

Thanks for a nice post.

Not only is the composition and thickness of every layer not known, the overlapping of them is also not known. So, good luck to anyone trying to create that table, when it turns 10-dimensional

(Ps: to anyone reading this, there's also a bit where the guy explains the usage of RAM inside , in the inner components of an IRST, which gives the idea of making it stealthy by having a radio transparent bulb and making the EM energy bounce many times inside after being deflected by the mirror, thus being absored at each bounce similarly to an S duct.

The fixation with criticising came to such point that supposedly knowledgeable guys aware that the IRST was INTERNALLY covered with RAM where unable to join the dots and conclude that the front cover was therefore RF transparent. Besides that, a mirror that is reflecting in visible wavelengths can be transparent in RF too, so no reflections from the IRST proper are returned to the source. And on top of that, these people are so oblivious to facts that they decry the Su-57 for an RCS source (IRST) of ca. 0.03 sqm at worst, while they ignore that the RCS of their whole VLO planes (claimed at ridiculous -40 dBsm) should be smaller than that of the pitot tubes and other so called weak scattering sources they carry by dozens in the fuselage, which in fact are so small that not even a normally equipped anechoic chamber can reasonably measure them. After a few discussions, even the most assertive and supposedly knowledgeable critics were proven to be technically and methodologically broke, simple as that.

You're welcome.
And yes that is true, i also read about the part where they mentionned RAM as a layered cake. It seems to be an ongoing theme with the su-57, the lantern also has 12 layers.

Source: Su-57 fighter will be able to drive up to four Okhotnik drones

The KLA previously reported that the "Okhotnik" will hit air and ground targets as part of the network-centric interaction with the fighter

MOSCOW, June 1. / TASS /. The pilot of the fifth generation Su-57 fighter will simultaneously coordinate the actions of four newest Hunter heavy attack unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). This was reported to TASS by a source in the aircraft industry.

"Now the possibilities of controlling several attack drones from the cockpit of the Su-57 are being worked out. It is assumed that the fighter will carry from two to four Hunters with it," he said.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/11523527

By the way, is the obvious and well documented fact that those L-band arrays are infact radars still being debated?

To me the most overlooked and deadliest feature is that the aircraft is that it functions like the Yenisei radar by being passive and active at the same time. It might sound like I just made this shit up but let me explain.

https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/rwresm-and-passive-geolocation/

I know this has to be a feature of the Su-57 and that is turning the side radars and Himalayas system into passive detection mode while having the main radar nose active.



If an aircraft tries to do an S-shape maneuver the passive radar accuracy would be completely off but it wont be completely off if the aircraft just flies a straight direction towards you.



Problem doing S-shape maneuvers in front over another aircraft just active radar tracking will result in the sides of the aircraft being exposed with huge RCS returns, but to stay stealth towards an adversary's active radar you fly straight towards to them.

I am sure it is a function of the MIRES to change the side X-band, L-band and Himalayas system into passive tracking while having the radar nose beam remain active meaning your adversary aircraft is fucked whatever they do.

These techniques exist. Keep in mind however that triangulating a target is better done by multiple platforms.

The russians have already described, years ago, anti stealth techniques involving using one aircraft broadcastin radio waves and the second passively receiving the return that was supposed to be deflected by the shape. An Airborne bi static radar so to speak.

The variety of the onboard sensors of the su-57 would make it even easier.

It is also obvious that this airplane is made to fight quite well in radiosilence or else it wouldnt have been made to see and rangefind everywhere in every optical band.

Note : by 2004, they made optical systems for tanks, weighing 20 something kilograms, that could identify tanks at a distance of 5000 m.
While the IRST's , weighing 90 kilos , could detect airplanes at distances over 90 Km .

By 2018 , small , compact , 8kg thermal sights by shvabe could see tanks at a distance of 40 km. (According to their brochure).
You can connect the dots and see what i'm hinting at when it comes to correlating all this to the performance of 101KS-V.

noted, my example is more of a 1 v 1 kind of battle advantage.