Sukhoi Su-57 flight testing and development

Well some stats for the Su-57 like range and super cruise performance along with situational awareness capabilities that the 2nd version is better than the 1st version or the discontinued F-22. Dont think economic factors have stopped their progress in engines, avionics and designs.

I am assuming the reason most assume izdelie 30 was considered variable cycle is that high bypass ratio engines were common for their 4th gens because of territory size meaning range over speed. But it seems they are keeping that advantage along with bumping up the thrust to the advantages of a low bypass engine. Trying to find the source of the official that stated fuel efficiency of AL-31F.
 
Last edited:
icyplanetnhc said:
That variable bypass offers superior performance on paper is not being debated. I am questioning the assertion that the izdeliye 30 will be variable cycle; I haven’t seen this to be the case, and statements claiming this were usually made by journalists rather than from officials themselves.
Click to expand...
I know no direct statement, but we know indeed it is not three streams. I said likely, so mine was no assertion. In the N+1 interview Marchukov was essentially saying the 5G engine is VCE, and izd. is considered 5.5G, so the hint is rather strong, more knowing the background of the research in YF120/izd. 20 by the end of last century. Then the provided engine performance is IMHO far from trivial with a fixed BPR. But as said, if any expert can enlighten us in that regard I would be a happy man, this is one the big remaining questions about PAK-FA.

icyplanetnhc said:
I don’t see much benefit in the Su-57’s operating envelope. The airframe is designed with a maximum speed of about Mach 2, and like the F-22, mainly due to materials rather than drag limitations. A variable inlet’s benefit in this regime is marginal.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't have access to the plane's requirements, but when the patent states an intake optimized for M = 2 to 3, I suspect maybe they do plan to go beyond 1.5 M. We know the F-22 max speed is also above 2 M. I would need to check, but I think that, in general, the fixed intakes are already starting to lose performance strongly from M 1.5 onwards.

icyplanetnhc said:
30% bigger capture area? Source? In any case, large capture area tends to have little to do with supercruise performance and pertains more to low speed engine performance; large capture area can lead to increased spillage drag, since an engine “consumes” as much air as it needs; this can be mitigated to some extent by the variable ramps.
Click to expand...
My own measurement with blueprints. To be honest, I am not sure anymore whether the exact value was 20 or 30%, but it was quite significant in any case. I would assume max thrust at very high altitude does require to maximize the airflow to the engine. I also assume there might be an element of growth reserve, specially if three streams engines are developed for the Su-57, which seems indeed in the plans from what we know about both the aircraft's and the izd. 30's development roadmap. These would greatly mitigate any possible spillage issues the oversized intakes may create with the first stage engine.

@tequilashooter:

Look at the N+1 interview with Marchukov
 
Last edited:
LMFS said:
trose213 said:
Except for stealth, which is a core requirement of being defined as a 5th gen fighter.
Click to expand...
The mods here were smart enough to create a children's corner
Click to expand...
That's ad hominem. Debate the aircraft, not the person.

DWG said:
If your victory is dependent on your airframe kinematics, you're doing it wrong, because that implies you're seeking out a "fair fight", when that's precisely the thing you should be avoiding. If you aren't cheating you aren't trying hard enough. And sensor fusion is a major step towards getting the information necessary to do that, and to get inside your opponents OODA loop. Hell, Ogarkov's Military Technological Revolution is a Russian idea, not an American one, though the US grabbed it with both hands as the Revolution in Military Affairs.

(The idea of stuffing an old airframe full of new avionics isn't as simple as you seem to think. And that's for any old airframe, a stealth airframe makes it massively more difficult).
Click to expand...
When someone speaks about kinematics and good old physics, the Western reaction is to assume that means they are disregarding SA somehow. Since this is not what I have said, you may want to reconsider your reasoning.
[/QUOTE]

If it comes down to kinematics, what did you do wrong that let it come down to kinematics? If you're citing kinematics as dominant, it suggests you've missed something. Kinematics are the backup to the backup to the backup. See the enemy, shoot the enemy before he knows you're there. If you don't get him with that shot, disengage, re-engage and repeat as necessary. If they try and force the merge, shoot them before they do. It's only once the merge is forced that relative kinematics becomes of measurable interest between combat aircraft. Basing your arguments of relative aircraft capability on kinematics says to me that you aren't focusing on what's actually significant.

Individual kinematics is of some relevance pre-merge WRT no-escape zones, but how two different designs compare kinematically is of interest only post-merge.

You realise that in all your assumptions that I'm attacking Russian aircraft, you've never asked me what I think of the F-22?
 
DWG said:
If it comes down to kinematics, what did you do wrong that let it come down to kinematics? If you're citing kinematics as dominant, it suggests you've missed something. Kinematics are the backup to the backup to the backup. See the enemy, shoot the enemy before he knows you're there. If you don't get him with that shot, disengage, re-engage and repeat as necessary. If they try and force the merge, shoot them before they do. It's only once the merge is forced that relative kinematics becomes of measurable interest between combat aircraft. Basing your arguments of relative aircraft capability on kinematics says to me that you aren't focusing on what's actually significant.
Click to expand...
If we go with .0000001m2 or .00001m2 estimates than I am guessing the closer aircraft's get the closer they will be engaging a dogfight where a little kinematics matter I suppose. I remember the hype of the F-22 stating RWRs can detect targets passively at 460 kms which sort of means you get a jump start on decision planning as a pilot on where the target is and where the target is heading to create a surprise attack on how you would target that aircraft. The Su-57 on the other is like a giant flying antenna considering the arrays and they even proposed Rostecs 2014 GaN MMICs for all we know can be placed on the back tail of the aircraft for project megapolis and such. Lets say the RWR passive detection range for the Su-57 is 550kms. However since both aircrafts have their passive/active detection on the Su-57 is aware where the F-22 is heading 1st takes the 1st course of action to turn its radar off, approach F-22 from its side and usually RCS can jump up 100-1000 times in size than compared to approaching the F-22 from the front and the Su-57 pilots knows when to turn its radar back on approaching the aircrafts blind side? The F-22 can throw S maneuvers but any irregularities in passive detection the active radar will activate and notice huge RCS spikes because S maneuvers expose the sides of the aircraft.

If advantages of stealth can be kept with new ideas and patents to keep extra kinematic perks than I dont see the issue.
 
Last edited:
DWG said:
If it comes down to kinematics, what did you do wrong that let it come down to kinematics? If you're citing kinematics as dominant, it suggests you've missed something. Kinematics are the backup to the backup to the backup. See the enemy, shoot the enemy before he knows you're there. If you don't get him with that shot, disengage, re-engage and repeat as necessary. If they try and force the merge, shoot them before they do. It's only once the merge is forced that relative kinematics becomes of measurable interest between combat aircraft. Basing your arguments of relative aircraft capability on kinematics says to me that you aren't focusing on what's actually significant.

Individual kinematics is of some relevance pre-merge WRT no-escape zones, but how two different designs compare kinematically is of interest only post-merge.
Click to expand...
I am actually talking mainly about BVR. Think about the following:
- How is a 0.9 M, 40 kft F-35 going to battle a 1.7 M, 60 kft F-22, that can engage and disengage at will, and shoot while remaining out of range itself.
- How having a perfect SA gives you the victory, when you have missiles coming your way and you cannot shoot back

Such kinematic advantage gives the F-22 the higher ground, that is the kind of unfair advantage a lesser airframe cannot attain. Unsurprisingly, the air superiority asset of the USAF is the F-22 and not the F-35.

BTW, talking about shooting before the enemy knows you are there in the time of the radars that see a plane in the runway at 3000 km demands to make certain assumptions I am not sure I agree with.
 
So it looks like it isn't the production model in the new clips but the eleventh prototype, which features much of what all previous iterations had tested. One question I have tho is does the 511 have the DIRCM? If so are the turrets able to extend and recess in and out of the aircraft?
 
icyplanetnhc said:
LMFS said:
My own measurement with blueprints. To be honest, I am not sure anymore whether the exact value was 20 or 30%, but it was quite significant in any case. I would assume max thrust at very high altitude does require to maximize the airflow to the engine. I also assume there might be an element of growth reserve, specially if three streams engines are developed for the Su-57, which seems indeed in the plans from what we know about both the aircraft's and the izd. 30's development roadmap. These would greatly mitigate any possible spillage issues the oversized intakes may create with the first stage engine.
Click to expand...
No, generally maximum Mach does not occur at service ceiling, as any cursory glance of various 1g envelopes would show. Furthermore, airflow to the engines is generally not a limiting factor in these conditions (where you actually have excess airflow that creates spillage drag), but rather drag, or in the case of aircraft like the F-22 and Su-57, materials. Sukhoi’s own patents and documentations even stated a reduction in maximum Mach to around Mach 2 in order to increase the amount of composite materials used.

I don’t dismiss the Su-57 as irrelevant, but I’m frankly seeing rather bold proclamations of the aircraft’s individual superiority (5.5 generation) based on components that are still under development, or even based on supposition or extrapolation, such as the supposed variable cycle nature of the izdeliye 30. I’ve not seen such claims from trustworthy sources such as Piotr Butowski (who makes very accurate predictions and even describes the number of fan and compressor stages of the izdeliye 30) or flateric.
Click to expand...

I could be totally wrong but i don't think izd 30 is VCE. What is the evidence for or against it being VCE anyways. Looked back in this thread a bit and I never could get an idea either way.

edit: had to un-bold my text!
 
LMFS said:
Look at the N+1 interview with Marchukov
Click to expand...
Thank you, https://vk.com/@pakfa-plazmennyi-motor-n-1-pogovoril-s-razrabotchikom-izdeliya-30 now just a random question to any viewers

"In the engine of the second stage for the Su-57, the developers applied a number of new design approaches and technologies, so that the "Product 30" in terms of specific fuel consumption approximately corresponds to the al-circuit engine AL-31F (670 grams per kilogram-force per hour in cruising mode), but surpasses it in terms of specific thrust. The AL-31F and its variants are among the most fuel-efficient combat aircraft engines in the world; such engines are put on the Su-27, Su-30 and Su-34 fighters, as well as on the Chinese fifth-generation fighter J-20."

https://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/su-27.htm
1626753754259.png

random google search gives me the Max weight on the Su-57 of 35,000kg and internal fuel of 10,300kg. Su-57 is a little heavier but has more internal fuel. Will the Su-57s max range be higher than the Su-27 along with the addition to supercruise? Trust me my curiosity for the F-22s ferry range on another thread was not of bad intention, I just love technology. :p
 
haavarla said:
Scar said:
tequilashooter said:
The F-22 has some nice rivets exposed with cracked RAM.
Click to expand...
Thing is that there is no point to bother about the rivets, skin quality and RAM on both: be it an F-22 of USAF demo-team(which is depicted on that photo) or T-50 flight prototype #510.

BTW, not so long time ago someone already posted here the difference in skin and coating between the #510 prototype and #01 production airframe.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Eighter people have very short memory, or they never actually read the stuff being posted here, only interesting in running a sh!tshow..

Anyway, the show must go on.
Do you think they get to sign more orders on Su-34 or Su-35S?
Click to expand...

? They already ordered more at Army-2020. Batch of 24 more Su-34, followed by 76 Su-34M.
Another Su-35 contract was signed, I think suspected number was around 30 air-frames.
And of course 21 Su-30SM2.
 
TR1 said:
haavarla said:
Scar said:
tequilashooter said:
The F-22 has some nice rivets exposed with cracked RAM.
Click to expand...
Thing is that there is no point to bother about the rivets, skin quality and RAM on both: be it an F-22 of USAF demo-team(which is depicted on that photo) or T-50 flight prototype #510.

BTW, not so long time ago someone already posted here the difference in skin and coating between the #510 prototype and #01 production airframe.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Eighter people have very short memory, or they never actually read the stuff being posted here, only interesting in running a sh!tshow..

Anyway, the show must go on.
Do you think they get to sign more orders on Su-34 or Su-35S?
Click to expand...

? They already ordered more at Army-2020. Batch of 24 more Su-34, followed by 76 Su-34M.
Another Su-35 contract was signed, I think suspected number was around 30 air-frames.
And of course 21 Su-30SM2.
Click to expand...
Apologies. I was not aware of the 2020 Army contracts.
So that amounts to what, 96 + 24 + 76 Su-34's ?
 
https://topwar.ru/185131-v-rosoboro...=website&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=group
As part of the international aviation and space salon MAKS-2021, which began in Zhukovsky near Moscow, Mikheev, answering a question from journalists regarding the export prospects of the Russian fifth-generation fighter Su-57, said that Russia is currently consulting with five foreign potential buyers of this aircraft at once.

The head of Rosoboronexport did not name the countries interested in the new Russian fighter, but earlier in an interview he also reported interest in the Su-57 from "five potential customers from southeast Asia."
 
LMFS said:
in the time of the radars that see a plane in the runway at 3000 km
Click to expand...

Name a radar with that performance. OTH-B radars have the range, but not the resolution.
 
I still wonder if Sergey Bogdan has any family relations to the Bogdan at the Pentagon for being responsible for funding the F-35.
 
LMFS said:
Unsurprisingly, the air superiority asset of the USAF is the F-22 and not the F-35.
Click to expand...

Warfare doesn't occur in a blank void. It is a constantly varying array of opportunities spread across the landscape, and getting inside the other guy's OODA loop allows you to choose your fight and concentrate forces where you need them. 200 F-22s can only be in 200 places at once (and more practically 50), against a larger force of F-35s that becomes a problem, and especially if situational awareness allows them to concentrate numbers where you are, or where you aren't. If you have less than 100 Su-57 that problem becomes even more critical (particularly given the size of Russia and the length of it's periphery. Numbers matter, affordability matters.
 
LMFS said:
DWG said:
Name a radar with that performance. OTH-B radars have the range, but not the resolution.
Click to expand...
The resolution for what, for knowing that a plane is there?
Click to expand...

The resolution for knowing where the aircraft is, not that there is an aircraft somewhere in the spread of their beam width at 3000km within a range accuracy of a few tens of kilometres.

And I've not heard any claim that OTH-B has the precise resolution to pick out an aircraft on the runway. Clearly they can pick out ships against the sea surface, but land tends to be a more cluttered environment.

I've also not seen any discussion of the vulnerability, or not, of OTH-B to ECM, which would be an interesting part of the discussion of their capabilities.
 
DWG said:
Warfare doesn't occur in a blank void. It is a constantly varying array of opportunities spread across the landscape, and getting inside the other guy's OODA loop allows you to choose your fight and concentrate forces where you need them. 200 F-22s can only be in 200 places at once (and more practically 50), against a larger force of F-35s that becomes a problem, and especially if situational awareness allows them to concentrate numbers where you are, or where you aren't. If you have less than 100 Su-57 that problem becomes even more critical (particularly given the size of Russia and the length of it's periphery. Numbers matter, affordability matters.
Click to expand...
Thus they have a lot of air defenses and new ground radars to que the Su-57s for 6 air to air missiles for every 6 aircraft. Even 4th gens can be used.
 
sferrin said:
If they're exposed they're not hidden.
Click to expand...
aircraft need rivets or screws to hold their shit together, rather if they use paint to cover it or not take pictures of it I dont really care if one is phased out from service and other was prototype.
 
haavarla said:
TR1 said:
haavarla said:
Scar said:
tequilashooter said:
The F-22 has some nice rivets exposed with cracked RAM.
Click to expand...
Thing is that there is no point to bother about the rivets, skin quality and RAM on both: be it an F-22 of USAF demo-team(which is depicted on that photo) or T-50 flight prototype #510.

BTW, not so long time ago someone already posted here the difference in skin and coating between the #510 prototype and #01 production airframe.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Eighter people have very short memory, or they never actually read the stuff being posted here, only interesting in running a sh!tshow..

Anyway, the show must go on.
Do you think they get to sign more orders on Su-34 or Su-35S?
Click to expand...

? They already ordered more at Army-2020. Batch of 24 more Su-34, followed by 76 Su-34M.
Another Su-35 contract was signed, I think suspected number was around 30 air-frames.
And of course 21 Su-30SM2.
Click to expand...
Apologies. I was not aware of the 2020 Army contracts.
So that amounts to what, 96 + 24 + 76 Su-34's ?
Click to expand...
More like 124 + 24 + 76. Also some pre-serials and early batch birds (not flying anymore).
 
Still not sure as to the nature of the big top plate over the HUD though.

Is it some sort of sun shade or just some integral frame to support the big display plates? The first HUD did not have it and it seems a questionable addition to me.
 
Perhaps its a ground shade to protect the HUD from Sun and heat while its on the ground?
 
I like the Su-57 cockpit, clean modern and notice the distinct lack of switches due to the big multifunction display.
 
tequilashooter said:
LMFS said:
Look at the N+1 interview with Marchukov
Click to expand...
Thank you, https://vk.com/@pakfa-plazmennyi-motor-n-1-pogovoril-s-razrabotchikom-izdeliya-30 now just a random question to any viewers

"In the engine of the second stage for the Su-57, the developers applied a number of new design approaches and technologies, so that the "Product 30" in terms of specific fuel consumption approximately corresponds to the al-circuit engine AL-31F (670 grams per kilogram-force per hour in cruising mode), but surpasses it in terms of specific thrust. The AL-31F and its variants are among the most fuel-efficient combat aircraft engines in the world; such engines are put on the Su-27, Su-30 and Su-34 fighters, as well as on the Chinese fifth-generation fighter J-20."

https://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/su-27.htm
View attachment 661063

random google search gives me the Max weight on the Su-57 of 35,000kg and internal fuel of 10,300kg. Su-57 is a little heavier but has more internal fuel. Will the Su-57s max range be higher than the Su-27 along with the addition to supercruise? Trust me my curiosity for the F-22s ferry range on another thread was not of bad intention, I just love technology. :p
Click to expand...
This is utter drivel from start to finish.

The Su-27 manuals are freely available and will give you the correct information.

Placard max speed is Mach 2.35 but limited to 5 minutes maximum above Mach 2.15.

Maximum takeoff weight: 33,000 kg (when KN-41 wheel with model 017A tyre and KT-156D wheel with model 2A tyre are installed)
Maximum takeoff weight: 28,000 kg (when KN-27 wheel with model 016A tyre, KT-156D wheel with model 2A tyre are installed)
Design takeoff weight: 23250 kg (2 x R-27 + 2 x R-73E, 5090 kg internal fuel, full non-removable equipment suite,150 rounds for gun).
Max fuel takeoff weight: 27,380 kg (2 x R-27 + 2 x R-73E, 9220 kg internal fuel (density = 0.785)
Maximum weight of load of R-27 and R-73E missiles – 1950 kg

The Su-27 doesn't use external fuel tanks. It doesn't have a Flash Dance radar or a TV sensor or a 'balistic bombsight". Ranges are all different from the ones quoted.

In short, any arguments made using figures from this page are utterly without foundation.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom