• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Sukhoi Su-57 / T-50 / PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II [2012-current]

paralay

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
170
Reaction score
121
«… У АЛ-41Ф был регулируемый смеситель. Этого недостаточно для эффективного управления двухконтурностью, это был первый шаг. Кстати, в процессе испытаний до него не добрались, он на всех 28 машинах стоял на упоре (не работал).

А недостаточно этого было вот почему. Просто грубо затыкать дырку на выходе второго контура не требует перераспределения работы газогенератора между турбиной вентилятора и турбиной компрессора. Этим и занимаются регулируемые НА ТНД (Направляющий Аппарат Турбины Низкого Давления). Поворачиваясь на закрытие, они увеличивают перепад давления на ТНД, а соответственно и работу на ней. Увеличение располагаемой работы приводит к увеличению расхода воздуха. При этом желательно ещё регулировать и входные сечения обоих контуров после вентилятора. В общем, нужна развитая механизация проточной части, а это вес, надёжность, да и электроника в те времена хреновая (плохая) ещё была. Вкратце так. »
 

Attachments

  • 41.png
    41.png
    504 KB · Views: 159
Last edited:

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
344
Reaction score
344
I am a little confused here, so this question is more like a survey. The F-35, NGAD and Russia's 6th gen I am assuming are heading for a 3 stream cycle engine design, correct? Is the FCAS really going for SABRE and Tempest going for reaction engines for near hypersonic speeds or will they just settle down for a 3 stream cycle engine design? I see more promise with a 6th gen interceptor Mig-41 getting detonation engines https://tass.ru/ekonomika/11103513 https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?lang=RU&nid=516338&rid= for a near hypersonic design than I do of the other two in my own opinion.
 

paralay

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
170
Reaction score
121
The Russians won't be the first to build a hypersonic plane. This requires enormous expenses not only for the creation of such an aircraft, but even more for its operation.
Let the Americans, if they can, or the Chinese, first step into this "puddle"
 

Geo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
62
Reaction score
81
I am a little confused here, so this question is more like a survey. The F-35, NGAD and Russia's 6th gen I am assuming are heading for a 3 stream cycle engine design, correct? Is the FCAS really going for SABRE and Tempest going for reaction engines for near hypersonic speeds or will they just settle down for a 3 stream cycle engine design? I see more promise with a 6th gen interceptor Mig-41 getting detonation engines https://tass.ru/ekonomika/11103513 https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?lang=RU&nid=516338&rid= for a near hypersonic design than I do of the other two in my own opinion.

No more dreaming about pulse-detonation technology for PAK DP.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20210526_205636.jpg
    Screenshot_20210526_205636.jpg
    255.2 KB · Views: 149

LMFS

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
173
Reaction score
240
«… У АЛ-41Ф был регулируемый смеситель. Этого недостаточно для эффективного управления двухконтурностью, это был первый шаг. Кстати, в процессе испытаний до него не добрались, он на всех 28 машинах стоял на упоре (не работал).

А недостаточно этого было вот почему. Просто грубо затыкать дырку на выходе второго контура не требует перераспределения работы газогенератора между турбиной вентилятора и турбиной компрессора. Этим и занимаются регулируемые НА ТНД (Направляющий Аппарат Турбины Низкого Давления). Поворачиваясь на закрытие, они увеличивают перепад давления на ТНД, а соответственно и работу на ней. Увеличение располагаемой работы приводит к увеличению расхода воздуха. При этом желательно ещё регулировать и входные сечения обоих контуров после вентилятора. В общем, нужна развитая механизация проточной части, а это вес, надёжность, да и электроника в те времена хреновая (плохая) ещё была. Вкратце так. »

So, the izd. 20 was intended as a VCE but it never got the variable BPR feature actually working? How true are the values reported in an article above about BPR being variable between 0.2 and 0.4?

Ideally the max BPR value for izd. 30 should be a bit higher for optimal subsonic flight and given the engine manages to at least maintain the TSFC of the AL-31F, probably a BPR of at least 0.5 looks realistic in my perfectly ignorant opinion...
 
Last edited:

flanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
900
Reaction score
140
From what i have read, not much of anything worked on Izd.20...

Attached just a nice pic. The first, and the last prototype. (although technically T-50-10 flew after -11)
 

Attachments

  • 1731691140_0 0 3072 2048_1440x900_80_1_1_e5b6b5877249143df1a704986c358ff1 2.jpg
    1731691140_0 0 3072 2048_1440x900_80_1_1_e5b6b5877249143df1a704986c358ff1 2.jpg
    341 KB · Views: 131

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
344
Reaction score
344
I am a little confused here, so this question is more like a survey. The F-35, NGAD and Russia's 6th gen I am assuming are heading for a 3 stream cycle engine design, correct? Is the FCAS really going for SABRE and Tempest going for reaction engines for near hypersonic speeds or will they just settle down for a 3 stream cycle engine design? I see more promise with a 6th gen interceptor Mig-41 getting detonation engines https://tass.ru/ekonomika/11103513 https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?lang=RU&nid=516338&rid= for a near hypersonic design than I do of the other two in my own opinion.

No more dreaming about pulse-detonation technology for PAK DP.
1. Wont change the fact that lyulka developed the detonation engine. 2. The co-development 6th gen project that mikoyan and sukhoi are developing is separate to the 6th gen project mikoyan is developing for a interceptor.

@GARGEAN

darn that sucks https://www.defensenews.com/global/...cialist-reaction-engines-with-new-investment/
 
Last edited:

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
344
Reaction score
344

MOSCOW, May 30. /TASS/. The defense-industrial complex is preparing for a new stage of modernization of the Russian fifth-generation Su-57 fighter. This was stated by the Minister of Industry and Trade 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, only supplied, and we are already thinking and preparing for a new stage of modernization. This is an ongoing process," Manturov said, answering questions from journalist Pavel Sarubin.
 

haavarla

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
85
Reaction score
84
Its like the F-35 Block upgrade path. Expecting it be sensors and software driven.

Edit: About new engines, i think they will get installed as soon as they are ready, it doesn't really hinge on any block upgrade here.
 
Last edited:

LMFS

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
173
Reaction score
240
I assume Manturov refers to the Megapolis project to change the engines, actuators and cockpit, probably they will integrate also new weapons that have been in development for a while.
 

KimIrSen

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 29, 2021
Messages
7
Reaction score
8
I assume Manturov refers to the Megapolis project to change the engines, actuators and cockpit, probably they will integrate also new weapons that have been in development for a while.
are you referring to Izdeliye 30? or are they planning another engine further down the line?
 

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
344
Reaction score
344

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.
 

Acatomic

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Messages
42
Reaction score
64
When talking about the future of the Russian Navy he mentioned an aircraft based on Su-57:

- You said about a promising deck fighter. If it's not a Mig-29K or a Su-33, what?
- That's what aviation specialists should tell us. The Su-57 can be taken as a base, but the designers will have to count everything as the base of the aircraft on the ship. First of all, it is a folding wing, elements related to brake devices, because a conventional aircraft will not be able to perceive the dynamic loads associated with the hook when landing behind the hook.


 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,025
Reaction score
4,760
First of all, it is a folding wing, elements related to brake devices, because a conventional aircraft will not be able to perceive the dynamic loads associated with the hook when landing behind the hook.
Does he mean it will be a Variable-Geometry design?
 

icyplanetnhc

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
128
Reaction score
53
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
I've recently received Piotr Butowski's Su-57 book, and there are some rather interesting pieces of program history that I wasn't aware of. In no particular order I'll list a few of them off below, although it's by no means exhaustive.

During the now-defunct Indo-Russian FGFA saga, it seemed like the Indians from the beginning preferred the smaller Mikoyan E-721 design over the Sukhoi T-50; when the partnership was forming in 2005, Sukhoi's design was largely finalized, and India would rather pursue a less "mature" design like the E-721 where they can have more input into the design. Whether the FGFA cooperation was doomed to failure from the start is unknown, but there was definitely friction from the very beginning between India and Russia.

Unlike previous Sukhoi fighters, integration of mission systems and other onboard systems was performed by Sukhoi itself, rather than the traditional RPKB of Ramenskoye.

It appears that the AL-41F1 (izdeliye 117) is not quite as "interim" as many have believed; while I think there was always a longer term goal of equipping the aircraft with new engines, it appears that the plan has always been for the PAK FA to enter production and serve in combat units with the AL-41F1, and this was decided as far back as 2004. In fact, it appears that Sukhoi's T-50 submission for the PAK FA had the AL-41F1 from the very beginning. This is an interesting contrast with the Su-27, where the T-10 prototypes used the AL-21, but the revised T-10S and the production aircraft were equipped with the AL-31 from the beginning.

Apparently, weapon firing from internal bays didn't occur until March 2016.

The Su-57 has certainly suffered from weight creep compared to what was originally planned. I recalled the original goal was for an aircraft to be somewhere between the MiG-29 and Su-27 in size, in an effort to rein in cost. Certainly the Su-57 that's in production today is much closer to the Su-27 in terms of size, and especially after the "second stage" structural rework.
 
Last edited:

flanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
900
Reaction score
140
It appears that the AL-41F1 (izdeliye 117) is not quite as "interim" as many have believed; while I think there was always a longer term goal of equipping the aircraft with new engines, it appears that the plan has always been for the PAK FA to enter production and serve in combat units with the AL-41F1, and this was decided as far back as 2004. In fact, it appears that Sukhoi's T-50 submission for the PAK FA had the AL-41F1 from the very beginning. This is an interesting contrast with the Su-27, where the T-10 prototypes used the AL-21, but the revised T-10S and the production aircraft were equipped with the AL-31 from the beginning.
I mean, yeah? That was well known for anyone who has followed the program decently and knows about Al-41F1 beyond the meme of iT iS jUsT a SoUpEd uP Al-31F. It has supposedly very different characteristics at altitude (aka for "supercruise") for example and 80% of the parts are all new. Back when T-50-1 first flew and RuAF higher ups were so optimistic they claimed there would be 50 serial T-50's by 2020, all powered by Al-41F1.

Also, the capital U in the title of that book annoys me to no end. It is Su-57 goddamit. It is always Su.
 

icyplanetnhc

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
128
Reaction score
53
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
Also, Sukhoi's approach to the PAK FA competition at the program level was fundamentally different from Mikoyan's. Mikoyan had planned for a more collaborative consortium-like approach between the design bureaus, while Sukhoi believed that it can win the competition by itself and directly contacted avionics and propulsion suppliers as well as research facilities to create a "complete system" from a program perspective.

Also, the capital U in the title of that book annoys me to no end. It is Su-57 goddamit. It is always Su.

To be fair, the book's title is in all capital letters, so it's merely a stylistic choice.

I did a quick overhaul to the Wikipedia article, the word "interim" is no longer in there. :D
 
Last edited:

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
812
Reaction score
561
The Su-57 has certainly suffered from weight creep compared to what was originally planned. I recalled the original goal was for an aircraft to be somewhere between the MiG-29 and Su-27 in size, in an effort to rein in cost. Certainly the Su-57 that's in production today is much closer to the Su-27 in terms of size, and especially after the "second stage" structural rework.

Empty weight wise ?
 

icyplanetnhc

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
128
Reaction score
53
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
The Su-57 has certainly suffered from weight creep compared to what was originally planned. I recalled the original goal was for an aircraft to be somewhere between the MiG-29 and Su-27 in size, in an effort to rein in cost. Certainly the Su-57 that's in production today is much closer to the Su-27 in terms of size, and especially after the "second stage" structural rework.

Empty weight wise ?
Almost certainly. Originally, the target normal takeoff weight (presumably air-to-air load and a certain percentage of internal fuel) was 22-23 metric tons, whereas now it's 25 metric tons by most accounts. The book also stated that the "second stage" structural rework has also increased weight somewhat.
 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
812
Reaction score
561
Almost certainly. Originally, the target normal takeoff weight (presumably air-to-air load and a certain percentage of internal fuel) was 22-23 metric tons, whereas now it's 25 metric tons by most accounts. The book also stated that the "second stage" structural rework has also increased weight somewhat.

I see. guess the Sukhoi was aiming at Su-27P figures (22500 Kg normal TOW with operating empty weight of some 16300 Kg). This left the payload of about 6200 Kg for Su-27P.

Assuming the same figure for Su-57 with 25000 Kg of normal TOW. Then the empty weight for the current iteration of Su-57 would be about 18800 Kg.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,010
Reaction score
2,431
doesn't the Super Hornet also use a similar blocker? and if so does it make a similar sound to the 57?
Only problem with other aircrafts carrying blockers (besides the Su-57) I cant find patents for or what physical features they carry in shape if they compare to the su-57.
Super Hornet
7ba23d14c6c8.jpg

B-1B
060721-F-4983M-012.JPG
 

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
344
Reaction score
344
I know this has to be a feature of the Su-57 which is what I want for this new aircraft and that is turning the side radars and Himalayas system into passive detection mode while having the main radar nose active. https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/rwresm-and-passive-geolocation/

Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #7 - Page 25 Defeat10



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.

Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #7 - Page 25 F-16_r10

Problem doing S-shape maneuvers in front over another aircraft just using 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 screwed whatever they do. I am sure a certain user is going to be pissed here because I am using their blog for my own means which they usually love to go spam a bunch of pictures from.

I know that main nose radars on aircrafts can go active/passive but probably not both at the same time which I am assuming the Su-57 might do as an idea, than the job of other two aircrafts where one just emits radio waves and the other just receives radio waves sharing radar information with each other against that one target. Its good for its radars to receive radio waves from adversary at different time intervals than the main radar that is also turned on getting targeting information. Can the MIRES do this? Just for a better understanding can a aircraft have its main nose radar and RWR on at the same time? Getting new avionics but don't know the extent of it, it definitely has to have superb receiver sensitivity.
 

TMA1

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
40
Reaction score
38
Whether or not the first stage engine was a temporary solution, superdry is seemingly in place to fairly quickly replace the first stage engine.
 

Geo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
62
Reaction score
81
I've recently received Piotr Butowski's Su-57 book, and there are some rather interesting pieces of program history that I wasn't aware of. In no particular order I'll list a few of them off below, although it's by no means exhaustive.

During the now-defunct Indo-Russian FGFA saga, it seemed like the Indians from the beginning preferred the smaller Mikoyan E-721 design over the Sukhoi T-50; when the partnership was forming in 2005, Sukhoi's design was largely finalized, and India would rather pursue a less "mature" design like the E-721 where they can have more input into the design. Whether the FGFA cooperation was doomed to failure from the start is unknown, but there was definitely friction from the very beginning between India and Russia.

Unlike previous Sukhoi fighters, integration of mission systems and other onboard systems was performed by Sukhoi itself, rather than the traditional RPKB of Ramenskoye.

It appears that the AL-41F1 (izdeliye 117) is not quite as "interim" as many have believed; while I think there was always a longer term goal of equipping the aircraft with new engines, it appears that the plan has always been for the PAK FA to enter production and serve in combat units with the AL-41F1, and this was decided as far back as 2004. In fact, it appears that Sukhoi's T-50 submission for the PAK FA had the AL-41F1 from the very beginning. This is an interesting contrast with the Su-27, where the T-10 prototypes used the AL-21, but the revised T-10S and the production aircraft were equipped with the AL-31 from the beginning.

Apparently, weapon firing from internal bays didn't occur until March 2016.

The Su-57 has certainly suffered from weight creep compared to what was originally planned. I recalled the original goal was for an aircraft to be somewhere between the MiG-29 and Su-27 in size, in an effort to rein in cost. Certainly the Su-57 that's in production today is much closer to the Su-27 in terms of size, and especially after the "second stage" structural rework.

Thank you. Interesting and useful information. Hopefully, there will be more info about this history in the new book by Yefim Gordon.
Unfortunately the E-721 is still classified, because there are some chances, that derived design will be materialized (UAE, Russian Navy...).
 

TMA1

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
40
Reaction score
38
I truly think foreign interest in a new fighter design wont be serious until the izd 30 materializes. If it does, especially if along the current timeline, I think foreign interest will be considerably greater. Especially so if the stealth and avionics characteristics of Russia's su-57 prove their worth. Honestly I am starting to think it is a more capable aircraft than many had at first realized. And If as I said, izd 30 comes close to the current timeline, this will really hit home I think.

This is good to see as it will only get us to stop resting on air laurels and start jumping ahead of the game in substantial ways.
 

LMFS

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
173
Reaction score
240
I truly think foreign interest in a new fighter design wont be serious until the izd 30 materializes. If it does, especially if along the current timeline, I think foreign interest will be considerably greater. Especially so if the stealth and avionics characteristics of Russia's su-57 prove their worth. Honestly I am starting to think it is a more capable aircraft than many had at first realized. And If as I said, izd 30 comes close to the current timeline, this will really hit home I think.

This is good to see as it will only get us to stop resting on air laurels and start jumping ahead of the game in substantial ways.
Why would US not export F-22 but Russia should be ready to do it with the Su-57 + izd. 30? If the reality follows leaked info, it is a state secret and too good to be exported.
 

AGS-1787

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 4, 2020
Messages
58
Reaction score
42
Well, looking at the su-57 it has some serious wing area, being clean and fast I figure it would give its missiles a boost to get more range. Also, it should turn pretty good. The question is how good is the radar and avionics. The f-22 might be still classified due to its performance and ability to mess with other airplane's radars.
 

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
344
Reaction score
344
Well, looking at the su-57 it has some serious wing area, being clean and fast I figure it would give its missiles a boost to get more range. Also, it should turn pretty good. The question is how good is the radar and avionics. The f-22 might be still classified due to its performance and ability to mess with other airplane's radars.
Good news is new avionics for 2022, Mikheeyev was an advisor of KRET that showcased articles in 2014 wanting to equip the Su-57 with ROFAR, I believe he was quoted again but from VEGA when they showcased the photonic radar antennas in 2020, the Yakhroma radar is in question based on the frequency ranges it would operate in along with mm waves, even the head of their ABM shield was talking about terahertz ranges involving these kinds of radars.

2014 Rostec presented 3 EW GaN MMIC airborne jammers and when I started talking about those airborne jammers being mounted all after 2014 everyone got pissed, So to avoid that drama here I will pretend as a bet that the Su-57 will get those for the himalayas for its 2nd upgrade to appease users here and avoid myself unnecessary headaches. 2009 was when the radars were showcased and considering where we are all its already a safe bet that radars would have to be upgraded in 2022 if they haven't already by now is secret(software company cooperating with sukhoi labeled the radars as N036M instead of N036). With Himalayas + 2,268 t/r modules I am sure the RWR sensitivity of this aircraft finding an emitting target will be splendidly beautiful in fact I say its superior than other existing 5th gens and it wont just stop there if they feel like making an announcement of what they have changed in terms of avionics.
 
Top