Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Sukhoi Su-57 / PAK FA 5th Generation Aircraft

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by tariqkhan18, Jun 30, 2010.

  1. sunstersun

    sunstersun Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    667
    Likes Received:
    387
    Country Flag:
    Canada
    Dodging missiles with maneuverability is almost completely irrelevant.
     
  2. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,181
    Likes Received:
    6,295
    It's relevant.

    That's why they test missiles against maneuvering and non-maneuvering targets. Maneuvering degrades missile Pk drastically.
     
  3. Locke

    Locke FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2017
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    23
    Country Flag:
    United States
    It isn't, just look at the design. There are plenty of poorly shaped angles not to mention the finish which is typical Russian/Soviet quality. Stage two will get better engines that what is there now but you can't change the shape without a complete redesign.

    VLO depends on shaping and RAM for areas where shaping doesn't work well. RAS is qualitatively the same as RAM and in actual use there is no real distinction. By the way, about 40% of the F-22 is composite.

    Since the shaping is inadequate you'll have to make up for that with materials with are expensive, cutting edge and untested. Maybe it'd be better to refine the design?



    It says there will be increased use of composites. Again, trying to use materials to make up for a poor design.

    Active cancellation is right up there with plasma stealth. Nice ideas but they don't exist against modern radars. Against an old pulse doppler maybe there would be some effect, but not against AESA radars particularly when backed up with decent ESM.

    You don't. A 9g airplane isn't going to dodge a 50g+ missile. Thats what ECM is for.

    The expected A2A loadout is four R77 and 2 R73. Seems pretty much the same. If you mean the Kh-35UE, why would you need to carry it internally?

    While it was a nice idea, cost and actual value were the deciding factor. Since there are fitted for them with cooling and software code, they would have been added it it was thought they would be useful. And you can get much of any benefit by using a repositioner like CAPTOR-E or Selex ES-05.

    You're right I wrote S when I meant L. The thought is the same

    Russian industry has in no way caught up with the West, particularly in electronics. As of two years ago they were introducing 90nm, 200mm CMOS technology; IBM started using that in 2004! And at this they bought the technology because they couldn't develop it on their own.

    https://www.rbth.com/science_and_te...h-of-russias-microelectronics-industry_621421

    "Still, Alexey Belyakov, executive director of Skolkovo's space technologies and telecommunications cluster, believes that Russian microelectronic manufacturers are still a long way away from becoming world leaders.

    "In terms of microchip production we still considerably lag behind top companies such as TSMC, XFab, and others,'' said Belyakov. ``Our manufacturers are mainly working for the domestic market. This is probably not surprising considering that large investments are needed to build a modern production system."

    The Soviet Union spent a huge percentage of it's GDP on the military and even it couldn't complete in electronics by the 80s. Russia is no better.
     
  4. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,572
    Likes Received:
    3,386
    =>
    So when the Russians have it, it's a flaw, when the US doesn't have it, it's just a cost factor. Very unbiased and rational assessment. :disagree:

    And no you don't get the advantages with a repositioner, because the FoV with a re-positioner is less, you have one side always uncovered and it adds the probability for mechanical failures, which is counterproductive to AESA in fact.

    Four R77 per centerline bay and the KH35 is an anti ship missile, so carrying it internally gets you closer to the target and avoid detection, which is the prime aim of stealth.

    Btw India wants more composites, because we have a silly complex of using as much composites as possible. LCA has more composites than what you stated for F22, so does it mean LCA is stealthier or that the F22 design is flawed, like you concluded for Su 57?
     
  5. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,572
    Likes Received:
    3,386
    More Russian 6th gen possibilities:
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-be-russias-f-35-f-22-killer-22898
     
  6. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,181
    Likes Received:
    6,295
    Nah, man. The design is VLO.

    The finish is also fine. It's just painted with lighter colours so the rivets are much more visible. Look up a F-22 without paint, you will see the T-50 staring back at ya.

    RAS and RAM do something similar, but they are not the same. RAS is baked into the airframe structure while RAM is painted on.

    As for composites.
    http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f22/f226

    More than 90% of the F-22's stealth comes from shaping, not from materials.

    It's not poor design, it's the future of stealth. Shaping only stealth is bad because the signals have only been diverted elsewhere waiting to be picked up. What the Su-57 does is destroy the signals themselves.

    Both are real, both exist.

    Active cancellation is in fact already operational.

    Oh really? You need to use ECM and maneuvering together or else you will get killed. Maneuvering is still the champion of escape. Especially against much more maneuverable WVR missiles that's not affected by ECM, only flares.

    R-77 and R-73 are not the standard missiles of the Su-57. There are new missiles being made. The K-77M and R-74M2 are stop gaps until new missiles come in.

    Um... for stealth. And that's not the only missile. The Su-57 will see the development of 12 new weapons, not counting whatever is being made in India too.

    The cheek arrays on Su-57 have been designed primarily for ground scan. The shape tells you that.

    Microchip fabrication is something that belongs to Taiwan, not US or Russia. For example, the latest gen Intel i7 chips were designed in Israel and manufactured in Taiwan. Not the US or Russia, but both countries have access to cutting edge technologies for their military.

    There's basically two types of tech, one is commercially off the shelf (COTS), and the other is developed and used internally by companies, let's call is restricted. Now, COTS is the bleeding cutting edge tech that the Soviets did not have enough access to. So their restricted tech suffered. But that's not the case with Russia, they have access to all the hardware that the west uses today. So the only thing that matters more is design of the restricted tech and software. And in terms of both, they were at par even during Soviet times.

    The article you quoted speaks of COTS. By that standards, no one is ahead of Taiwan, even the US.
     
    Blackjay likes this.
  7. Shekhar Singh

    Shekhar Singh 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2017
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    68
    Country Flag:
    India
    How?
     
  8. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,181
    Likes Received:
    6,295
    By converting the signals to heat energy instead of simply reflecting them away.
     
  9. Shekhar Singh

    Shekhar Singh 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2017
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    68
    Country Flag:
    India
    Sir ji, wahi poochh raha hun. How it converts radar signals into heat?
     
  10. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,804
    Likes Received:
    15,567
    Country Flag:
    India
    They absorb the signals but the energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it only changes its form. Radar energy so absorbed gets converted to heat. This heat is dissipated by fuel of the aircraft to cool down the skin. The heated up fuel is than sent to engine for burning and that is how the whole cycle works.
     
  11. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,181
    Likes Received:
    6,295
    There are many techniques. In one them, you take iron balls and place them in a magnetic field. When the radar signal passes by these balls, it is subjected to different magnetic fields and starts oscillating and the signal energy is converted to heat.

    A highly effective RAM coating would be carbon nanotubes. The F-35 has some, but it's not widespread yet, but PAK FA is expected to have a huge amount of CNT based fibers baked into the airframe that can affect RCS up to 60 or 70 GHz and can reduce RCS by hundreds of times.

    CNT is one of the reasons why the F-35 has a smaller RCS than the F-22 even if the F-22 has better shaping.
     
  12. Shekhar Singh

    Shekhar Singh 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2017
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    68
    Country Flag:
    India
    I think americans have developed this iron ball paint coated with carbonyl iron technology in 1981 with first flight of f117 nighthawk. If it is that much effective like Russians claim then USA should have used it on F22 also.
     
    Darshan gohel likes this.
  13. lexa

    lexa FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2015
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    44
    Country Flag:
    Russian Federation
    In this patent http://www.fips.ru/cdfi/fips.dll/ru?ty=29&docid=2502643
    Sukhoi gives the strange unclear statement. They says "average" value, but in range 0,1-1( generally avg is a single value)
    and comparable values for SU-27 is 10-15 ("in giving angle" -- what angle?). In this context we can conclude
    that is frontal angle. BTW published RCS diagrams (math modeling) of f22 gives range ~0,0003-0,1 in frontal sector angles +-30
    [​IMG]
     
  14. lexa

    lexa FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2015
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    44
    Country Flag:
    Russian Federation
    "serial production version" are the keywords. In case of HMS in Rafale we have serial HMS (Elbit or Thales), serial Rafale and good experience
    Dassault and Thales in such integration. But i never can say what HMS in Rafale works better then HMS in other operational fighter
    if i haven't proven test results.
    I've said that "to be in service is one of the way to prove" bcz thats indirectly prove quality.
    Also Dassault has commercial obligations to deliver this option in next year.

    In case of SU-57 Sukhoi doesn't have such experience in the techs under discussion and doesn't have such obligations.


    That's lack of logics in this your statement. We have claims that SU-57 with "stealth deisgn" has the same level of rcs (passive)
    as Rafale with "normal deisgn".
    And we know that Rafale, F-22, F-35 and SU-57 have different weight of the goals to other requirements. For example Rafale
    has hard reqs for size and weight and i think that's the reason that Rafale doesn't have internal bays.
    But as you've wrote below Dassault make complex design with active EW omnidirectional reduction of RCS (i prefer the term "probability of interception" but it's more complicated).
    Sure internal bays is a good advantage but it has and disadvantage also -- limitation of weapon use. For example integration AIM-9X as internal weapon
    on f-35 not yet planned (may be after 2023 y)
    "Stealth shaped" airframe is a good method for air domination and strike mission against local area air defense, but in deep penetration
    mission when AD radar can be located from side of fighter is not so efficient bcz side RCS of f-22 >1m2 (from pulished RCS diagram even >10m2)
    The goal is to reduce "probability of interception" and shape, internal bays, EW, tactics with electronics help etc is just a methods.
    Do you think that Su-57 (and J-20) shape is more "stealth" than such of rafale bcz it looks like F-22?

    F4 anounced to partialy start from 2023 and i've said "GaN modules is in the flight tests" (ie not in service).
    BTW in your logic in can think that rafale already with distributed GaN AESA (bcz in flight) and DIRCM (bcz this planned)

    for compare you can know the state of GaN technology in NPP Istok (supplier TRM for N036) in the official bulletin "Microwave Engineering"
    for example english abstract of the article
    "A NEW GENERATION OF X-BAND HIGH-POWER AMPLIFYING HMICs ON A DIAMOND BOARD AND GALLIUM NITRIDE TRANSISTORS"
    is available
    http://www.istokmw.ru/uploads/files/static/101/UHF2017-2.pdf

    On current moment first HMIC in testing.
    I believe the first GaN TRM (optimistically) will ready for static test in 2020-2023 , when N036 on GaAs will achieve operational ready state (i suppose)

    At such moment 2nd generation Rafale AESA on GaN wil star in service. GaN TRM on Rafale in flight tests from 2012 (gap more 10 years)
    NB: they use french equipment Corial 200IL


    Sure and this also, but i talk about level in radio & electronic tech. In case of modern fighter where weight, size and thermal efficiency is very important
    I think that the reason why CAPTOR-E and ZHUK-A is not operational ready.

    Yes, you right SU-35 and MiG-35 (but mig is not in service today and it has unclear future) has MAWS and RWR but you wrong about number .
    Anyway a quantity is not equal a quality.
    6 MAWS and 2 LWR (su-57) seems to have worse coverage vs 2 MAWS and 3 LWR of Rafale (especially in rear view).


    The Su 57 possible will first fighter with DIRCM integrated. If it is settled in test prototype not means what is
    works properly. We will see

    Thanks! good advice! i will use one, although you need it more.
     
  15. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,181
    Likes Received:
    6,295
    Average value is taken for all aspect.

    When they say frontal RCS, it is actually the average of the frontal RCS.
     

Share This Page