Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #8

Scorpius wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Interior actually looks like aircraft factory now?

How far have we come

well, this is quite a normal state of the final assembly shop. Not much different from what I saw more than 10 years ago.

Still credit where credit is due

And that Felon looks sweet from that angle

Backman wrote:Does anyone know where to find the original production schedules for aircraft like the F-15 or F-18 or 16? I heard that they didn't produce very many at the start. And I'd like to compare it to the su 57

There is a 50 years and two or three generation of technology between them and the su-57.

There is nothing valuable to learn. You can compare it with f-35 which was bought and produce in large quantities but wasn't finish and still has huge issues.

"Issues"    Understatement of the week.

Augustine's law Number XVI: "In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3-1/2 days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.".

Not the same value. 10k$ in 1945 aren't worth 10k$ 70 years after.

Look at the production rates for aircraft. The cost keeps going up and the amount of produced aircraft keeps going down.

5195 F-4 Phantom, 1198 F-15 Eagle, 195 F-22 Raptor.

Sure there is inflation but prices don't go up 10x every 20 years.

lancelot wrote:Look at the production rates for aircraft. The cost keeps going up and the amount of produced aircraft keeps going down.

5195 F-4 Phantom, 1198 F-15 Eagle, 195 F-22 Raptor.

Sure there is inflation but prices don't go up 10x every 20 years.

They are also technologically more advanced. USSR produced thousands of fighters in the 50s and only hundreds of the last generations like su-27 or now now Russia with su-57.

That's true for anyone. Modern jets involve more companies in their production and can do more alone with more weapons.

Ships also decreased in numbers when they became technologically more advanced. Which means more expensive.


A su-57 will destroy tens of mig-17 easily. You can't compare them.

I do not think an F-22 is 6x more effective than an F-15. Not by a long shot.
And that is before you consider its atrocious mission capable rate.

lancelot wrote:I do not think an F-22 is 6x more effective than an F-15. Not by a long shot.
And that is before you consider its atrocious mission capable rate.

Which f-15 ? Because if it is the A version that cost 20 million back in 1970 with a shitty radar and old Sparrow missiles then f-22 will keep flying and destroying them all day long.

Last versions of f-15 cost more than f-35 but is far better equiped than A version and has more chances against a f-22.

You are comparing a twin engine (F-15) to a single engine (F-35).
What is surprising is how the F-35 continues being so expensive when it was supposed to be a replacement for the F-16.

Isos wrote:

Backman wrote:Does anyone know where to find the original production schedules for aircraft like the F-15 or F-18 or 16? I heard that they didn't produce very many at the start. And I'd like to compare it to the su 57

There is a 50 years and two or three generation of technology between them and the su-57.

There is nothing valuable to learn. You can compare it with f-35 which was bought and produce in large quantities but wasn't finish and still has huge issues.

Thats not the point. The pint is, F-35 is the outlier. The previous US aircraft were similar to the su 57 production schedule and not this concurrency BS

lancelot wrote:You are comparing a twin engine (F-15) to a single engine (F-35).
What is surprising is how the F-35 continues being so expensive when it was supposed to be a replacement for the F-16.

Last version of f-16 are not any cheaper.

Number of engines are not taken into account in US prices anymore. It's all about corruption.

It took 8 years from first flight to introduction in service of Su-27. 10 years for Su-57. 8 years for F-22.

There is nothing particularly abnormal about Su-57 development process.

Especially when you consider that Su-57 is a lot more sophisticated than F-22.

Deputy Prime Minister Borisov: The Russian military is using the latest Su-57 fighters in Ukraine

The Russian military is using the latest fifth-generation Su-57 fighter jets in combat operations in Ukraine. And this is not about any single case.

This was announced at the economic forum in St. Petersburg (SPIEF) by the agency Interfax Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov, who oversees the Russian defense industry.

Repeatedly involved - and single sorties, and several aircraft in coordination, in information interaction used aviation means of destruction

- said a senior official.

He claims that the new combat aircraft during the military operation to protect the republics of Donbass and their population demonstrated their high efficiency in practice and received good feedback from the Russian military. This applies not only to the fighters themselves, but also to the weapons placed inside their fuselages.

https://en.topwar.ru/197946-vice-premer-borisov-rossijskie-voennye-primenjajut-na-ukraine-novejshie-istrebiteli-su-57.html

if you read Ben Rich's book about Lockheed after he retired
he specifically lays the blame at the level of "Colonel" "Product Managers"
at the Pentagon who endlessly add new "missions" to new aircraft

when I read the drivel by American armchairs experts about NGAD
"oh my gaaaaard, its going to be sooooooooooo Stelthay ...... and soooooooooooo manoeurvable ..... oh maaaa Gaaarrdd !"

.......... wankers

I reckon NGAD is going right back to the F-117
basically a private airforce ...... low volume
hand made .... and serviced by Lockheed .... mission specific

why the f..k do you need an entire air force of stealth fighters ? exactly

next ....

I fell about laughing when I saw that German military moron "oh by 2030 we will have 600x fighters in za Baltic mein feuhrer !"
yes ..... with hypersonic missiles .....
your pilots will have a nano-second as they "race" towards their "stealth" fighters for combat before they are vapourised ....
along with their "stealth" fighters
..... they are pretty easy to see parked on a runway

at least they will save their relatives the cost of a cremation service ....

such utter delusional drivel .... EU wankers

Gazputin wrote:


when I read the drivel by American armchairs experts about NGAD

.......... wankers

I reckon NGAD is going right back to the F-117

I agree. They might try and find a way to delete the vertical stabilizers just to show how new age it is. But that will limit its flight envelope. Just like the F-117.

GarryB
This was the T-10 original Su-27 prototype...

Its amazing how right then ended up getting it. As the Millennium7 guy said on Youtube, it is the peak of purely aerodynamic design.

And they say the Cobra Maneuver has no military application value, ha!  Even Tom Cruise couldn't shoot the Su-57 down with a clear shot because of it!

Some ex-Royal Navy F-4 Phantom pilot who posts a bunch of aircraft pics and generally is a rather unbiased British fella with some pretty cool and rare pics every once in a while, went a bit off the rails and posts this familiar and infamous photo, with this rather absurd caption:

Russia’s Su-57 “stealth” fighter has a radar cross section comparable to clean F/A-18 Super Hornet, and around a thousand times bigger than F-35. Russia’s fleet of Felons consists of 12 hand-made prototypes with varying degrees of finish and just two production jets…



I was so pissed off, especially at the quotation marks around the word stealth so I felt compelled to at least challenge his erroneous information on the number of production jets and even prototypes I believe.  On one hand he dramatically short-changes the number of production jets and on the other he raises the prototypes by 1 (according to my knowledge, anyway) and not sure what the motivation behind all that was, except the ever so prevalent anti-Russian sentiment out there as of late.  So I said that there were actually 11 prototypes and 6 production models (from the info I learned on this thread) and then some A-hole replies "source, trust me, bro" loool.  What a clown and the sad part is he got a lot of support for that idiotic comment.  

BUT, a couple of others caught on and one of them posted the first pic, while the other posted the 2nd and I have a feeling many more will catch on!  I thought these were pretty cool to share along with the stupid story that went with them lol.

This guy said "Here's your source!" I'm guessing these don't include the 1st production jet that unfortunately crashed?  So there's 5.



The next fella just tagged me with this pic, showing 11 prototypes.  Those were great!

Gomig-21 wrote:Russia’s Su-57 “stealth” fighter has a radar cross section comparable to clean F/A-18 Super Hornet, and around a thousand times bigger than F-35.

This BS has already been refuted here:
https://www.russiadefence.net/t4799p225-su-35-vs-f-22-f-35

Now go back and show this uninformed idiot that he doesn't know the BASICS about RCS.

Belisarius wrote:

Gomig-21 wrote:Russia’s Su-57 “stealth” fighter has a radar cross section comparable to clean F/A-18 Super Hornet, and around a thousand times bigger than F-35.

This BS has already been refuted here:
https://www.russiadefence.net/t4799p225-su-35-vs-f-22-f-35

Now go back and show this uninformed idiot that he doesn't know the BASICS about RCS.

Just tell him to look at the surface area of the vertical tails on the Super Hornet, and F-22, and the Su-57.
Which ones are largest, and which ones should show up more on radar. Uh?
Also tell him to consider that next time he hears the claim that the Su-57 only has frontal aspect stealth.
With those huge tails on the other aircraft, which ones does he think will show up more on radar looking sideways at it?

As for the S-ducts, it is like I said, and like the guy on Millenium7 said, the damned things make the aircraft fatter, you get larger frontal area, thus worse drag coefficient, and it kills aircraft top speed and acceleration. You are basically flying a brick at that point.
In addition, because of all the gymnastics the air flow to the engine has to do with the S-duct, you get worse air flow to the engine, and even less performance. That and the fixed inlets are why the F-35 cannot supercruise and it cannot reach Mach 2. It is a piece of crap aerodynamically. It is a flying brick.

The Su-57 uses a smoother S-duct, with less of a bend, it achieves some reduction of frontal engine profile, without killing performance too much, so it can go over Mach 2, and it can supercruise, even with the first stage engines. The engines also have a radar blocker in the intake to reduce RCS. Finally it can apply the engine mesh screens to further reduce radar profile of the engine in case you need to, at cost of speed, and the second stage engine will have composite fan blades, and treatments to reduce RCS of the engine in the frontal aspect even without the mesh screens being engaged or without having S-ducts.