GarryB wrote:Funny how the Air Force is in many ways the opposite to the Navy where the Air Force makes sense to develop and build the bigger aircraft first, and then look at scaling them down to make smaller aircraft, though not true for trainer aircraft which are also needed, while the Navy will focus on small ships and work their way up to bigger more capable ships...
True, it is completely different because they are different types of products, built in a completely different way. A fighter is serial produced, ships are not. The way to get a cheap light fighter is to have a ready to use box of systems and technologies and, even better, an existing assembly line, and this was done with the PAK-FA, which was the high priority project for the Russian military. What they are doing now is just leveraging all that work, actually in a way never before done (to my knowledge) in recent aerospace industry.
This plane sounds like it is fully funded, and the reuse of most of the bits and pieces from the Su-57 means it should be easy to make and indeed production could reduce the costs of making Su-57s because the wings and vertical tails for instance can be made in larger numbers and the cockpit looks the same.
They said they have a customer, yes. A state run company is not going to do this without previous alignment and green light from the government, some people clearly have drunk too much koolaid to let their brains work...
As to the production of the Su-57: I agree, this will pay for already incurred in investments in the Su-57 and reduce payback times, which is great for UAC and for the Russian state. But even more than that: fighters are not produced in thousands or millions, so the development costs and the investment in the production facilities weights significantly in the flyoff cost of each unit. So, by directly using even fuselage pieces from the Su-57, the LTS simply cancels the investment needed to produce them. These are the ways a significant reduction in sales prices can be achieved, I think it will be very interesting to follow where this leads.
I rather suspect this is more about trying to get more customers involved early on... especially ones that might make other choices like Rafale or Typhoon and or course MiG-35 that might actually want a real 5th gen light fighter instead.
It allows the state to avoid patronizing the project and taking responsibility for its success. It is too easy for UAC to hang that weight on the government, that is why all these projects start the same way, with as reduced a commitment from the state as possible and every effort being made on foreign funding being secured before purchasing is contracted.
Even with two engines the MiG-35 is probably going to be cheaper than this new plane, but I don't see them as being in competition... much as I don't see the Su-35 being in competition for the Su-57... they compliment each other and would work better together than having a fleet of one or the other.
MiG-29M is already more expensive, but the prices will be forced down from now onwards.
Not really. The paradigm they applied was to take existing products and give them a max makeover to correct as many of their problems and issues as possible while at the same time working on the next generation from scratch replacement model that in this case could share technology later on.
Sukhoi themselves named the export market as one of he two main drivers behind the Su-35, the other being what you mention. So the argument actually has merit. For every single project, the government encourages the companies to go find foreign funding and make money for the country, that is their freakin' job.
The barrier between a design on paper and a model that flies and can therefore be tested is really a case of assembling pieces and shapes to make them work... they have essentially taken one engine off the Su-57 and shifted things around to create a design and they seem to have done a very good job.
There is no "design on paper" anymore, we have a multidimensional model of the plane where essentially any physical characteristic of the plane can be tested and complex multivariable interactions can be simulated. This is no interior design, this is an extremely complex dynamic system and it is not about rearranging the furniture. When they build the prototype, they know already how this thing is going to perform in complex environments. That is the whole point behind digital engineering.
My discussions with LMFS (member not plane programme) seem to have centred around his view that a single engined fighter will be more manouverable and much cheaper, but that normally included canard control surfaces, which this design clearly lacks... I rather suspect this is a simple cheap numbers bomb truck and missile truck... which is all it really needs to be. I still think a MiG-35 will have better manouver performance and will certainly be faster and the suggestion it can carry 5 missiles internally suggests the front side mounted bays carry one missile each meaning the main bay carries three missiles... which is not a huge amount, but this is a numbers plane, not an arsenal plane... its virtue is it can reload over and over again and is around in large numbers.
Yes, knowing that some additional control surface will improve the authority of the plane, lifting characteristics and supersonic performance is easy, but knowing how Sukhoi can meet a defined cost goal is not. When they go this way it means several things IMHO:
- The required authority and performance goals are achieved
- Cost and weight are saved, which helps make the plane viable with the available propulsion options (no izd. 30 by now)
I think the VKS will buy and they will get a more capable version, with izd. 30, 9+ g structure and internal cannon, UAC themselves talked about the single seater and unmanned versions as their proposal to the military (exactly as I argued in the past if you remember). In case it is deemed necessary, they can include foreplanes or any similar additional aero feature along the chines, I see no big issue there, and increase aero performance. Maybe for the naval version, for instance. But that is not fundamental. If the economic case makes sense for VKS, Sukhoi will do the necessary modifications.
I still have no reliable data about this plane (Paralay's model is a bit raw yet and I have not bought the outstanding 3D model already available). But for what we know, TWR with 12 t empty weight and a izd. 30 (domestic version) would be 1.5, while MiG-35 is something like 1.4 from what we know. Cross sectional area of the MiG-35 is also not smaller. It is not easy to say with certainty, but I don't expect this plane to be worse than a MiG if the 8 g limit is (hopefully) removed. The wings are indeed very big, so lift should be already outstanding, as derived from the stated STOL capacity. And with the same thrust and lower cross sectional area and weight, it should not be worse in sustained turning. But we will see, it is soon still.
I suspect what he is trying to say is that it is designed but still a long way to go to get to serial production and service.
One does not seem to know what the word design means, the other is a troll. It is that easy.
The Su-57 was taxiing in about 2011 with 2020-2021 to get into serial production...
First flight 2010. That means that it was designed well before that. The cheap sophistry here consists in suggesting that, as long as there is need for redesign, the plane is not "designed". That allows these sore butts to complain open endedly about the plane never being finished. Which is, BTW, what happens with F-35 right now, but we know that having any sense of decency is not an issue for these gentlemen.
Making predictions without all the facts is blind gambling.... something I never do if I can help it.
Yeah, I am not talking about you. This retard is openly stating that the plane is not designed, which is blatant trolling, since the UAC has said it is. But when foreseeing what will happen in the future, he is too coward to be concrete and keeps everything wrapped in conditionals and innuendos. The golden rule for proving your understanding is right is to take the risks and try predict future developments. He just states obvious crap ("if there is financing", "if it is developed", "there will be delays") which is totally self evident, and use it as proof of him being "the adult in the room" for some less experienced users. He is a disingenuous PoS.
Some prototypes are designed for structure tests, but are generally broken in the process so are not used for flying tests... you test the structure before you fly the plane but the structural test models have the same structure as the flying models so you can see if it is safe to fly the flying models... structure test models don't need cockpits or engines...
This is not destined to destructive, ultimate design limits structural testing. But that does not mean that you can do a test flight of the thing without even making sure the structure's integrity and assembly was correct...
SS is allowed his own view and his own opinion, and he is not wrong that there is still a long way to go for this design... it looks very promising, but lets find out how it flys... without TVC and without canards and a tail surface it might fly like a brick for all we know... they might end up adding control surfaces to improve or modify performance, but that is up to the customer country.
He IS a troll. But your authority is the one counting here, so it is your call. In any case, I understand kvs perfectly. This gentleman's contribution is nothing but word twisting and posing. As all other trolls, there is no news contribution, no technical analysis and no constructive talk coming from him, just generation of polemics and a deliberate drive to sway people to his side by means of apparently reasonable statements so they enter in confrontation with other members of the forum, like the case with Isos in this topic
It is equally clear the F-35 was designed with super computer models too...
No it is not... digital engineering is being implemented now in US MIC (remember the cheesy talk about the digital century series from Mr. Roper). That does not mean some simulations where not carried out already for the F-35, just that the scope and hence disruptive nature of them was not present at that time.
Hahaha... people in glass houses should not throw stones...
Europeans among all the peoples in this world should really shut up in that regard...
You mean like Russia needed India to buy PAK FA so they could finish it?
I rather suspect they are revealing the aircraft now to get interest at an event where a lot of countries interested in Russian products attend... why wouldn't they?
Exactly. What for the West is doing business and creating wealth, for Russia is being beggars. These people are always half a step away of being outright nazis.
It was requested by a country with the money to fund the programme, but likely if it is the UAE they are not going to buy thousands of these planes so it would be natural for them to try to find other customers to purchase the finished product rather than help with the development.
Yes, UAE want to turn into a relevant player in the aerospace sector and for them investing the Russian industry is a golden opportunity of gaining experience and a stake in the market at ridiculous prices. They are already investing strong in civilian sector with VR Technologies, they signed the MoU in 2017 for the light fighter too. Maybe it is not them, but it would make sense if they are.
Made worse by the knowledge that the west is not some homogenous thing and that while the US made F-22s and F-35s.... neither is a shining success really, and there are no 5th gen fighters in Europe yet either, so the very idea that Russia might have the Su-57 and this new design... but more importantly might have them both for export to countries that the west might not want them to sell them to is probably quite upsetting so they can't take this plane at face value... an example of what the F-35 should have been... but isn't.
They live immersed in cognitive dissonance and that is pretty irritating... as said, they don't allow their brains to work and prefer to live instead with their heads deep up their assess. Worse for them, they will have to learn the hard way and I don't give a damn anymore about them, they are just self serving losers without any sort of moral compass in life.
they could probably buy 1000 for the difference in purchase and operational costs....
7 times less than the F-35 was the estimation by UAC. Granted it depends on the operator, but I kinda agree the difference may be very big, once you detract the monopolistic element from the F-35 way of doing things. The user of those planes is a complete hostage even for the smallest detail, and even in the US the whole maintenance business was removed from the air force and handed to the manufacturer, so the prices skyrocketed. This is essentially a welfare program for the industry, so just by being moderately decent servicing costs should be reduced to a low fraction of what they are.