Sukhoi PAK FA

[Arihant Roy]

It obviously has RAM there so it kind of a moot point



I'm a bit skeptical of that while Su-57 might use CNT RAM similar to F-35, the air inlet of Su-57 seem to be made from aluminum based on the need for anti corrosion coating
Su-57 inlet:

Su-34 aluminum frame:

Isn't Su-57 inlet operation pretty much the same as F-15?
View attachment 69734

You are wrong .
With ram treatment over an intake wall which already acts as a RAS, the attenuation of the incident signal will be much more for a given depth of ram coatings.

Conversely, with a RAS structure, the depth of the RAM structure can be less to achieve a given dB figure ...


Now coming to the yellow primer, have a look at these pictures .

Every portion painted yellow in the above pic is made fr Cfc composites . Not a single gram of metal - aluminum , duralumin alloys have been used in the yellow portions.

Besides the splitter plate and intake cowl which is made from an aluminium alloy, everything else in this pic which has been painted yellow is made from composites .


Yes the ramp operation is similar but Sukhoi kas taken it to another level. Flanker and Eagle ramp operation principles are similar. The ramp op mechanism coupled with the angular surfaces inside the inlet tunnel not only aids in shock formation but plays a role in pressure recovery. Jo had gone to great lengths about it. I have to find them .

And I will soon post the patent and the pic of ramp operation in the Su-57 . Just wait for some time.

 

[StealthFlanker]

The double multiplication was made based on Borisovs statement the new 6 missiles being received will surpass the previously new created 6 missiles that were made. K-77ME of range being delivered......uhm no had a damn clue that ramjet K-77M was even considered a thing or even a serious project until last October. There have been R-77 and K-77M ramjet proposals but none were seen as serious projects until getting test fired. You can find multiple sources all over the web stating the max range as over 193kms stating K-77M not K-77ME. There of course are undisclosed missile projects(K-77ME) like the giant black missile online images have shown of the mig-31 was carrying 3 of the 6 new missiles in developement are already showing the promises made by Borisov. He also named 3 of the previous created 6 missiles which all were air to air so that makes it very easy what the re-maining 3 missiles are and they are air to ground. That leaves the other 3 missiles which seem to be the RVV-MD, Kh-58 and kh-35. KH-35 had its engine last updated in 2012, kh-58 did not have a engine replacement since its introduction in 2007, cant find a date of RVV-MD creations but an article states it back in 2009. Than of course there is the Su-57 from 2022-2024 getting new missiles, avionics and engines sums up a good chance that the newer missiles will exceed those ranges based on Borisov's statements. kh-59mk had a article statement back in 2010, mk2 domestic which came four months after Borisov's statement in 2018 pretty much got the range to be twice as much as the kh-59mk. They were talking about a internal kinzhal ammunition being created back in February 2020(might be the supposedly new 6 missiles that Borisov stated the su-57 will get in 2020, like its all coming together) but your anti-radiation missile story inspired me the same might happen to the kh-58.

I know you get the range by basically make the double multiplication on all longest missile range that you can find, and I'm telling you that is not the correct way to do an analysis, because Borisovs didn't specified an exact missile that get the double range treatment and he didn't specified the exact "old" version he compare the new missile to. It is too optimistic and oddly convenience to assume they all get double the range

The only reason I state this is I do not know how far you are in terms of information regarding Russian related military weapon projects. Examples include the Klevok-D2 project, Pantsir-SM having twice the missile and radar range of previous Pantsir-SM range but with ability to handle smaller size drones and loitering ammunition, Tor-m2 getting cheaper and smaller missiles that cost less than drones themselves project claims, different S-400 radars sets and new one in development, new EW systems that surpass the krasukhas, etc and some of that can be detrimental to the F-35s SEAD or DEAD operations. Russia defense net is like F-16.net but there a slightly different kick to it, they do not ban members that have different views like yourself creating an account there. For example I do browse F-16.net and secretprojects in terms of U.S. weapon projects even when when I got slapped with a ban.
This is exactly the reason why I want you to have a Russia defense net account, not because I think its funny that you will be butting heads with people over there. https://qr.ae/pNganJ(not trying to boost my view counts, I already have enough

I don't need to go to Russian defense to read about Russian equipment. There are various site that can give the same information and googling new information doesn't take much time. As I said before, a forum is interesting for me if they have members who understand the technical aspect of weapon, I don't need someone else to read the brochure to me because anyone can read. I would rather having someone who can understand the physics part.
There are others users with favor Russian view on secretproject and F-16.net but they didn't get banned because of how they do analysis and made a claim. TR1 has favorable view of Russian weapon, stealthflanker (the other one, not me) has favorable view of Russian weapon, Trident and SOC also has favorable view of Russian weapon and yet as you can see others pro US members respect them a lot and they never get the banned treatment. Because they know how to argue and they know how to filter the bs from tabloid. Whether you prefer Russian weapon or Western weapon isn't as important as how you process information. For example: anyone can google search and tell you that the G limit of F-16 is 9G, Member A say F-16 can always pull 9G because he read that on nationalinterest and "F-16 is the best..etc", Member B know a little more about aerodynamic so he say the G limit is also affected by altitude, weight and speed, Member C know even more than member B and he have seen the E-M diagram of F-16 so he can tell you the exact G limit of F-16 at each altitude , speed and weight. Who do you think people prefer to talk to?. Most people would prefer to talk to C and B instead of A. It is not about how many link and how many quote that you can cite but how you understand them.

Yeah I know we still have disagreements with the other missile projects but just look at the Klevok-D2 section and what is known is that it is the same length as the 100km Hermes, has a over 100km range claim but based on the ramjet portion and 210mm booster I am getting a 157.76kms range give or take distance, also carries twice the warhead payload weight, Klevok-D2 is estimated to still weigh a little less than the original 100km Hermes, speeds of 7000 km/hr are claimed at the ramjet portion of its flight. Of course this missile is going to be a very big pain in the ass to create based on those requirements which is why they estimate 2025 testing and entering the army by 2030. But bringing up to air to air missiles I sort of have a reason to do so because the AIM-120D is estimated as a 180mm diameter and 3.7 length meter missile. Me using the 210mm booster stage and assuming the ramjet is also 210mm and not like the 130mm sustainer stage. I will assume the entire diameter is 210mm and the length is easy because it has to fit in a 3.5 meter tube. Aim-120D weighs 152kg while the new Klevok-D2 based on source is said to weigh less than 150kg, Klevok-D2 is of course a surface to surface kind of missile but I am very very sure that, you can decrease the diameter to increase the length a little more(assuming that the ramjet taking over the sustainer stage is still 210mm and not 130mm) which might decrease the range by a little, but you can definitely lower the huge warhead payload weight to meet air to air missile requirement with the addition of being air launched as well we would get some pretty significant range with those speeds blasting ahead.

Firstly, Klevok-D2 doesn't exist yet, it is about 99.99% on paper, there is little point discussing it. There is no previous Klevok for us to make any estimation
Secondly, because Klevok-D2 doesn't exist yet even as a prototype any claim about speed and range should be taken with grant of salt but as I told you earlier, ramjet engine are not magic. They have better range than common solid rocket motor because of two reasons: they don't need to carry oxidizer and they can reduce the thrust in cruise stage while rocket motor normally have a fixed thrust level. When you reduce thrust, you can reduce the fuel consumption and due to that, you can fly further. But thrust go down will reduce speed. So a ramjet missile can fly fast, or they can fly far, but they can't do both at the same time.
Finally, Klevok-D2 and AIM-120 have very different aerodynamic you can't extend the length and change the shape then expect the performance to be predictable.

the image presentation of that RVV-BD 200km range(Borisov was there himself) was shown at 2015. But Borisov also stated the air to air missile as the previous created sample in 2018(which is that missile) where a new sample exceeds the previous sample twice the range. And of course sources even from before have estimated the K-37M as 400kms so any new created sample would give the 2nd variant su-57 a 400km air to air missile..

All he say is new missile double the range of previous missile, he didn't say which missile or which version he compare to, it can be and internal version of RVV-BD, it can be Kh-52MK2, or it can be neither. Sure, R-37M can fly 400 km but it was expected to launch from Mig-31 with very high speed and altitude. The version for Su-57 need to fit internally and Su-57 so there maybe other requirement instead of range. I'm not saying that your 400 km is either wrong or right my point is that you shouldn't do analysis base on general claim

Do you have any sources of the AIM-120D max range because all it takes is a simple google search that goes AIM-120D max range and it would immediately throw 160kms in front of my face. I was hoping that you had a similiar source to the meteor with a unpowered flight showing 220kms. I cant even read that chart, I mean all I see is a line going from 0 to a little over 40 on the left and 0 to a little over 120kms on the right. I dont even think copy and pasting that image to yandex file image upload would even translate that to english because the damn Cryillic looks a little worn out.
"The AIM-120D (P3I Phase 4, formerly known as AIM-120C-8) is a development of the AIM-120C with a two-way data link, more accurate navigation using a GPS-enhanced IMU, an expanded no-escape envelope, improved HOBS (High-Angle Off-Boresight) capability, and a 50% increase in range. "
google search • AIM-120C-5: >105 km so being 50% more gives it a 52.5kms + 105 = 157.5km range? Is that why I keep getting 160kms whenever I search aim-120D max range?
I cannot re-edit my answer but in that missile graph is that saying 20km as in a 20km flight ceiling? and is that line passed the 120km range at a 26 or 27km height? I dont think i can translate that page but if that is the case I dont think there is any aircraft with that kind of flight ceiling which is why they gave a 105km range for aim-120C source. I never expected you do be the kind of person to proudly reference a Russian source regarding a US missile anyways.

Missile range, especially air to air missile range is affected by altitude of launching aircraft, the altitude of target , speed of both and the aspect.
In the chart for AIM-120, you are looking at missile range against head on (on the right) and rear aspect target (on the left)
Line passed 120 km at 22 km and passed 130 km at 25 km, those are possible cruising altitude of aircraft like Mig-31 and Mig-25 the range is shorter against conventional aircraft at lower altitude. However the chart is for AIM-120A/B instead of AIM-120C-5which already get a range improvement from previous version.
But the chart is something I want to emphasize to you, air to air missile range change a lot depend on altitude and aspect, so all the number you see on the internet for their range doesn't mean anything unless it show the altitude and aspect

 

[StealthFlanker]

Looks to me in that image that a lower altitude aircraft will be above the earth in the clear region not at the clutter zone. There is also a clear region where ground clutter does not occur. But if the F-35 for example does want to fly in a ground clutter region at lower altitudes this will lose its air to air missiles range to climb up because it is even lower than before along with depending which airspace it is in to be more targetabble from any SAMs down below.

It all depend on distance and altitude, but most of the time target lower than you will be in clutter region, the image is for illustration purpose because fighter radar range isn't as long as the earth diameter.
It is true that missile climb up will expense more energy than missile going down, however air is also thinner at higher altitude so that make it harder for your aircraft to sustain turn to dodge missile, and flying higher also increase your radar horizon and make you more detectable from longer range

RAM is better? does not seem like it here more like equal in absorption and its still considered an ongoing field for countries pursuing it like photonic integrated circuits https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/app.47241 Also reading the latest 2020 articles from the Chinese and Russians(with italian colleagues) I am getting a little dejavu reading what both have to say.

Yes in term of maximum absorption rating then RAM are much better
Absorption of Magnetic RAM such as Fe3O4 RGO can reach 70 dB in maximum reflection loss between 2-18 GHz, that mean they can reduce reflection loss by as much as 10.000.000 times or 99.99999%
Fe3O4 can reach 30 dB in maximum reflection loss between 1-18 GHz, that mean they can reduce reflection loss by as much as 1000 times or 99.9% and very wide bandwidth

For comparison with metamaterial, the reflection loss are between 90-99% which is about 10-20 dB reflection loss, and they are mostly effective between 4-12 Ghz or 8-12 Ghz

*note: maximum rating in both case refer to narrow proportion of the bandwidth, the average absorption is much less

Both 2020 Chinese and Russian articles literally state why the fuck do we have to sacrifice aerodynamic performance for RAM and shaping when this can help resolve that(I see why your not a big fan of metamaterials). They also talk about it being a part of the antennas not only for increased stealth but better radar performance. Talk about alot of similarities between the articles. I cannot copy any text from the cached version(original version gives me 404 error code)

View attachment 69863

This is a notable example of Journalist who doesn't understand what the fuck they are writing about
Firstly, Jaumann and Salisbury absorber thickness requirement isn't 1/2 the wavelength, it is 1/4 the wavelength, and that requirement is based on the point where the electric field reached maximum when it strike the metal surface at normal incident. The sheet transform the short circuit at the back material into open circuit at the sheet and because the impendence of the sheet is equal air then you have no reflection. By contrast, if it has half wavelength thickness or any multiple of half wavelenth spacing, then a short circuit happened again and you will have perfect reflection

Secondly, no one use Jaumann and Salisbury on aircraft, ever. Because they are too thick compared to magnetic RAM and their capability depend a lot on incident angle.
Thirdly, no RAM need to be 10 times thicker than the wavelength they supposed to absorb

compressor blades are inside inlet, question is where did you get information that inlet is made out of aluminum since that claim passed to the blades, everyone took that as true while some said that was completely false. As always a pleasure to talk to you.

Inlet and compressor have very different requirement of load and operating temperature. I didn't have information about the material for inlet and the compressor of Su-57, that why I asked Arihant roy to provide the link because I don't think these part are made fully from CNT.

 

[panzerfeist1]

I know you get the range by basically make the double multiplication on all longest missile range that you can find, and I'm telling you that is not the correct way to do an analysis, because Borisovs didn't specified an exact missile that get the double range treatment and he didn't specified the exact "old" version he compare the new missile to. It is too optimistic and oddly convenience to assume they all get double the range

Well he seems to have specified the 3 air to air missiles being the RVV-SD, MD and BD and of course two of those 3 missiles based on the newest and latest versions still in testing seem to exceed twice the range of those said two previously created new missiles. This now leaves the kh-35, kh-58 and kh-59 and one of those three after Borisov's statement seems to exceed twice the range of the previous one. So it is decided that there are 3 newer missiles not mentioned, two different sources on occasion have mentioned a internal hypersonic missile being created since this past February and I can already take a lucky guess what that is which might seem to be the replacement of the kh-58. You do not have to agree or disagree.

I don't need to go to Russian defense to read about Russian equipment. There are various site that can give the same information and googling new information doesn't take much time. As I said before, a forum is interesting for me if they have members who understand the technical aspect of weapon, I don't need someone else to read the brochure to me because anyone can read. I would rather having someone who can understand the physics part.
There are others users with favor Russian view on secretproject and F-16.net but they didn't get banned because of how they do analysis and made a claim. TR1 has favorable view of Russian weapon, stealthflanker (the other one, not me) has favorable view of Russian weapon, Trident and SOC also has favorable view of Russian weapon and yet as you can see others pro US members respect them a lot and they never get the banned treatment. Because they know how to argue and they know how to filter the bs from tabloid. Whether you prefer Russian weapon or Western weapon isn't as important as how you process information. For example: anyone can google search and tell you that the G limit of F-16 is 9G, Member A say F-16 can always pull 9G because he read that on nationalinterest and "F-16 is the best..etc", Member B know a little more about aerodynamic so he say the G limit is also affected by altitude, weight and speed, Member C know even more than member B and he have seen the E-M diagram of F-16 so he can tell you the exact G limit of F-16 at each altitude , speed and weight. Who do you think people prefer to talk to?. Most people would prefer to talk to C and B instead of A. It is not about how many link and how many quote that you can cite but how you understand them.

Do not want to bring up a different subject but if you remember our kinzhal arguements in the past, I have even stronger proof than before with the iskander and YARs missile to get you into an agreement on what the kinzhal can do all thanks to that forum's abundant amount of information. You do not have to interact with users there but get notifications on the latest news posted there. Searched Lee ryo and I keep getting some random South Korean twitter pages. Maybe the reason you dont have a Sino or Russian defense net account is because of fuck communism?

Firstly, Klevok-D2 doesn't exist yet, it is about 99.99% on paper, there is little point discussing it. There is no previous Klevok for us to make any estimation
Secondly, because Klevok-D2 doesn't exist yet even as a prototype any claim about speed and range should be taken with grant of salt but as I told you earlier, ramjet engine are not magic. They have better range than common solid rocket motor because of two reasons: they don't need to carry oxidizer and they can reduce the thrust in cruise stage while rocket motor normally have a fixed thrust level. When you reduce thrust, you can reduce the fuel consumption and due to that, you can fly further. But thrust go down will reduce speed. So a ramjet missile can fly fast, or they can fly far, but they can't do both at the same time.
Finally, Klevok-D2 and AIM-120 have very different aerodynamic you can't extend the length and change the shape then expect the performance to be predictable.

You just destroyed your own credibility, let me remind you what you have told me a way while back. https://www.navyrecognition.com/ind...ssile-extended-range-f-a-18-super-hornet.html

"The Navy's FY 2016 budget included funding for an extended range AARGM-ER that uses the existing guidance system and warhead of the AGM-88E with a solid integrated rocket-ramjet for double the range. Development funding will last to 2020. The AGM-88 HARM (High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile) is a tactical, air-to-surface anti-radiation missile designed to home in on electronic transmissions coming from surface-to-air radar systems."

With what you have just posted to me do you not see the problem here? Hint: everything you have said about the Klevok-D2 in that post should also apply to this missile you have taken pride in responding to me about in the past about having twice the speed and range. I was going to refute those points but I dont see it neccessary now since I could not pass up the golden oppurtunity of seeing that you have just tied a rope around your neck, or were you even aware of the new missiles said engines? Did I miss something? and If I did I will go back as to where I got the information of the ranges and speed of that ramjet.

All he say is new missile double the range of previous missile, he didn't say which missile or which version he compare to, it can be and internal version of RVV-BD, it can be Kh-52MK2, or it can be neither. Sure, R-37M can fly 400 km but it was expected to launch from Mig-31 with very high speed and altitude. The version for Su-57 need to fit internally and Su-57 so there maybe other requirement instead of range. I'm not saying that your 400 km is either wrong or right my point is that you shouldn't do analysis base on general claim

Sure, but he named the current air to air missiles as his previously claimed new missiles did he not? And be it the 193km+ k-77m or ramjet version being a farther range which was test fired on October 2020 seems to show some very good promises of being twice the range of the RVV-MD you know the missile he stated as one of his previously created new missiles? This is pretty much the same as my 1st quote above on you do not have to agree or disagree.

Missile range, especially air to air missile range is affected by altitude of launching aircraft, the altitude of target , speed of both and the aspect.
In the chart for AIM-120, you are looking at missile range against head on (on the right) and rear aspect target (on the left)
Line passed 120 km at 22 km and passed 130 km at 25 km, those are possible cruising altitude of aircraft like Mig-31 and Mig-25 the range is shorter against conventional aircraft at lower altitude. However the chart is for AIM-120A/B instead of AIM-120C-5which already get a range improvement from previous version.
But the chart is something I want to emphasize to you, air to air missile range change a lot depend on altitude and aspect, so all the number you see on the internet for their range doesn't mean anything unless it show the altitude and aspect

Each box in that graph is going up in terms of 5kms, a google search for the F-22 flight ceiling shows like 19,800 something meters. Ironically you can tag along to Russian sources of that missile while I tag along with the U.S. sources of that missile. But you dont seem to provide me if this source is like from sukhoi, mikoyan or some missile company, etc and to me it is doubtful if the U.S. or Russia would legitimately use that as a reference point to decide max ranges on air to air missiles.

It all depend on distance and altitude, but most of the time target lower than you will be in clutter region, the image is for illustration purpose because fighter radar range isn't as long as the earth diameter.
It is true that missile climb up will expense more energy than missile going down, however air is also thinner at higher altitude so that make it harder for your aircraft to sustain turn to dodge missile, and flying higher also increase your radar horizon and make you more detectable from longer range

Does not look like most of the time less than half is shown in that image with ground clutter, while more than half above that radar beam shows it is not effected with ground clutter or the clear region being clear. That image is very counter-productive to your own argument because flying to a ground clutter region you are helping your aircrafts air to air missiles lose more energy climbing up.......I am also absolutely 110% sure that ground clutter is based on the altitude heights of the aircraft as well which can decrease ground clutter. I do not want to force you to do anything you don't have to but do you have some kind of thing similar to like that radar horizon calculator that shows from the ground to altitude up on what the height of the ground clutter is based on a radar beam dependent on the height of the aircraft?

Yes in term of maximum absorption rating then RAM are much better
Absorption of Magnetic RAM such as Fe3O4 RGO can reach 70 dB in maximum reflection loss between 2-18 GHz, that mean they can reduce reflection loss by as much as 10.000.000 times or 99.99999%
Fe3O4 can reach 30 dB in maximum reflection loss between 1-18 GHz, that mean they can reduce reflection loss by as much as 1000 times or 99.9% and very wide bandwidth

Basically your going ha, I have found the highest absorption beat that. Well I can do the same doing the Uniform and non‐uniform short strip pair metamaterial which does not give a decibel reading but says near zero permittivity which I am sure you know what that means based on what I am reading? there is 0 0.1 based on given decibels, near zero sounds like its at the perfect zero which means invisibility. This is the definition I see of it. Dielectric Permittivity — GPG 0.0.1 documentation (geosci.xyz)

This physical property impacts the attenuation, wavelength and velocity of electromagnetic waves as they propagate through a material. Dielectric permittivity is defined as the ratio between the electric field (→E) within a material and the corresponding electric displacement (→D): →D=ε→E

Inlet and compressor have very different requirement of load and operating temperature. I didn't have information about the material for inlet and the compressor of Su-57, that why I asked Arihant roy to provide the link because I don't think these part are made fully from CNT.

Look, I get it that the Su-57 is every Chinese and US pro-aviationist's favorite benchmark aircraft to shitpost on when comparing 5th gens that has been made abundantly clear many times. If you did not have information on the inlet than why did you assume it was aluminum than concluded another aircraft having a smaller signature in that regard?

 

[Neptune]

Look, I get it that the Su-57 is every Chinese and US pro-aviationist's favorite benchmark aircraft to shitpost on when comparing 5th gens that has been made abundantly clear many times. If you did not have information on the inlet than why did you assume it was aluminum than concluded another aircraft having a smaller signature in that regard?

To perfectly frank some of those people have valid points, at least in terms of RCS, even though many may be clueless nationalists that know nothing about RCS and instead regurgitate many talking points from others that may be legitimate or misinformation.

I will name a few troubling areas:

Inlet: The SU-57 inlet is not the best design for signature reduction. There is zero debating here. In terms of what the intake is made of, we don’t know. But I am talking about the design itself. All those ramps, gaps, sharp corners, and radar blockers are just extra opportunities for radar waves be sent back to the enemy radar. I’m not saying the intake will cause the SU-57 to be seen on radar but instead that it has a larger RCS then say an intake from an F-35 or F-22 where there is nothing causing destructive interference. In other words the smoother the surface the less chances the radar signals will reflect back.

LEVCONs: The LEVCONs are another discontinuity, not only that they actually move in flight and have sharp corners. They help with lift and probably marginally help in maneuverability? However, they add weight from hydraulics, actuators, and extra wiring, they certainly add to cost because of those extra components. Similarly they add cost into development since designers hade to design all those components and then test them under different lab and and in flight conditions. This is overly complicated and not necessary, in my opinion. That money and effort could have been used to reshape the IRST or add more serrated panels or whatever. I think the guys at Sukhoi are just obsessed with maneuverability and showing off how maneuverable their aircraft are.


IRST and other sensors: It doesn’t take a scientist to figure out the IRST and two 101-KSO sensors have zero effort or thought put into them. Sukhoi didn’t make any effort at all. The IRST has a 90 degree corner on the starboard side and a large gap aft of the IRST. Compare that to the careful and well thought out shape of the EOTS of the F-35 or the equivalent system on the J-20. The Americans and Chinese didn’t go through all that trouble for no reason.

Canopy: The Canopy is completely traditional and it’s shape is poor for RCS. The reason the F-22, F-35 and J-20 have trapezoid shaped canopies as well as a single piece canopy is because it, 1. Redirects radar waves and 2. Eliminates discontinuities by having one piece.

Serrations. Sadly the SU-57 has virtually no serrated panels besides the weapons bays, front landing gear, and a few panels for sensors up front. Again if we compare it with aircraft like the F-35, F-22 and J-20 which have probably thousands of serrated panels, it becomes clear the designers at Sukhoi were either lazy, didn’t want to spend the extra time and maybe marginal cost on serrations.

The SU-57 is a strange aircraft, with a low enough RCS to probably kill conventional fighters with ease and in general capable with its sensors. Many will argue the SU-57 is over engineered with the intakes and LEVCONs, and at the same time the aircraft has a lot of unique avionics such as side radar, S-70 wingman, new engines, new weapons, new helmet (although not seen outside the lab) and so on but they could not add more serrations or re-shape the IRST? Or the canopy? It seems like the designers were clashing and they compromised. It’s almost like they were going to add serrated panels everywhere and then someone opposed it and instead they just did a few panels.

This is what i mean by lack of serrations:

Now compare:

Even the Rafale has hundreds of serrations. Some are not hard machined serrations but rather a type of stamped serrations:

 

[StealthFlanker]

Well he seems to have specified the 3 air to air missiles being the RVV-SD, MD and BD and of course two of those 3 missiles based on the newest and latest versions still in testing seem to exceed twice the range of those said two previously created new missiles. This now leaves the kh-35, kh-58 and kh-59 and one of those three after Borisov's statement seems to exceed twice the range of the previous one. So it is decided that there are 3 newer missiles not mentioned, two different sources on occasion have mentioned a internal hypersonic missile being created since this past February and I can already take a lucky guess what that is which might seem to be the replacement of the kh-58. You do not have to agree or disagree
Sure, but he named the current air to air missiles as his previously claimed new missiles did he not? And be it the 193km+ k-77m or ramjet version being a farther range which was test fired on October 2020 seems to show some very good promises of being twice the range of the RVV-MD you know the missile he stated as one of his previously created new missiles? This is pretty much the same as my 1st quote above on you do not have to agree or disagree.

I think we just have to agree to disagree here because we are going in circle without adding anything useful.
For me unless he specified the exact missile and the version that he comparing with, it is just too dubious to make the multiplication. But you can have your reason as well. Some people might choose to trust my words, some might choose to trust your. It doesn't really matter.

Do not want to bring up a different subject but if you remember our kinzhal arguements in the past, I have even stronger proof than before with the iskander and YARs missile to get you into an agreement on what the kinzhal can do all thanks to that forum's abundant amount of information. You do not have to interact with users there but get notifications on the latest news posted there. Searched Lee ryo and I keep getting some random South Korean twitter pages. Maybe the reason you dont have a Sino or Russian defense net account is because of fuck communism?

Firstly, I have a sino defense account, I don't go there often but I have an account there. I actually find their discussion relatively decent.
Secondly, my internet name isn't my real name , just something I find catchy and I'm not Korean.

You just destroyed your own credibility, let me remind you what you have told me a way while back. https://www.navyrecognition.com/ind...ssile-extended-range-f-a-18-super-hornet.html
"The Navy's FY 2016 budget included funding for an extended range AARGM-ER that uses the existing guidance system and warhead of the AGM-88E with a solid integrated rocket-ramjet for double the range. Development funding will last to 2020. The AGM-88 HARM (High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile) is a tactical, air-to-surface anti-radiation missile designed to home in on electronic transmissions coming from surface-to-air radar systems."
With what you have just posted to me do you not see the problem here? Hint: everything you have said about the Klevok-D2 in that post should also apply to this missile you have taken pride in responding to me about in the past about having twice the speed and range. I was going to refute those points but I dont see it neccessary now since I could not pass up the golden oppurtunity of seeing that you have just tied a rope around your neck, or were you even aware of the new missiles said engines? Did I miss something? and If I did I will go back as to where I got the information of the ranges and speed of that ramjet.

Firstly, AARGM-ER isn't a ramjet missile, it is a solid fuel rocket missile

Secondly, we know a lot more about AARGM-ER than we do about Klevok-D2. We know the length, the increased diameter, we can estimate the volume of its solid rocket fuel based on the official cutaway, the kind of guidance it use, we know it removed the mid body wing to reduce drag and the mid body actuator for added fuel. The nose cone also have added thermal protection

There are physical mock ups of AARGM-ER and recently a captive carry flight of the missile

by contrast, we don't know much if anything about Klevok-D2, there isn't even a physical mock up of it.

Finally, OTK specifically stated AARGM-ER will double the range and the speed of AARGM whereas there is no official comparison between Klevok-D2 and K-77ME were made by any manufacturer, they are two very different missile with different aerodynamic, sensor, operating environment, flight profile. There is nothing to make any comparison

Each box in that graph is going up in terms of 5kms, a google search for the F-22 flight ceiling shows like 19,800 something meters. Ironically you can tag along to Russian sources of that missile while I tag along with the U.S. sources of that missile. But you dont seem to provide me if this source is like from sukhoi, mikoyan or some missile company, etc and to me it is doubtful if the U.S. or Russia would legitimately use that as a reference point to decide max ranges on air to air missiles.

The chart came from a Soviet manual, I will try dig it up for you, but that not the main point I want to emphasize to you, air to air missile range change a lot depend on altitude and aspect, the fancy number that you can find on Wikipedia and any other website doesn't mean much because they lack the context on how you get that range. The same way that you can come up with 195 km range for K-77M, I can come up with 195 km range for AIM-120D. But neither of these value have significant operational impact.

Does not look like most of the time less than half is shown in that image with ground clutter, while more than half above that radar beam shows it is not effected with ground clutter or the clear region being clear. That image is very counter-productive to your own argument because flying to a ground clutter region you are helping your aircrafts air to air missiles lose more energy climbing up.......I am also absolutely 110% sure that ground clutter is based on the altitude heights of the aircraft as well which can decrease ground clutter. I do not want to force you to do anything you don't have to but do you have some kind of thing similar to like that radar horizon calculator that shows from the ground to altitude up on what the height of the ground clutter is based on a radar beam dependent on the height of the aircraft?

Firstly, like I said earlier, the image is for illustration purpose because no aircraft has radar range as long as the earth radius. If one aircraft at 70k ft, the other at 40k ft, the radar horizon is 1057 km
Secondly, the altitude of the lower altitude aircraft affect the amount of clutter that it can take advantage of.
Finally, missile climbed to high altitude will trade kinetic energy for potential energy. However, once climbed to high altitude it can coast in thin air whereas a missile dive down to lower altitude will have to fly in high density air in terminal phase. One usual tactic to defeat BVR is dive down the deck to make it fight air density. This might sound counter productive because one would think missile get additional kinetic from gravity when it dive down. But that actually still not enough to counter the much thicker air down the deck.
It is quite hard to understand without visual so I suggest you try some flight simulator such as DCS

Basically your going ha, I have found the highest absorption beat that. Well I can do the same doing the Uniform and non‐uniform short strip pair metamaterial which does not give a decibel reading but says near zero permittivity which I am sure you know what that means based on what I am reading? there is 0 0.1 based on given decibels, near zero sounds like its at the perfect zero which means invisibility. This is the definition I see of it. Dielectric Permittivity — GPG 0.0.1 documentation (geosci.xyz)
This physical property impacts the attenuation, wavelength and velocity of electromagnetic waves as they propagate through a material. Dielectric permittivity is defined as the ratio between the electric field (→E) within a material and the corresponding electric displacement (→D): →D=ε→E

Firstly, you need to understand the component of radiowave and how radar absorbing material operate.
Radio wave made up from 2 components: the electric field and the magnetic field perpendicular to each other. Some materials can absorb the energy of radio wave that pass through them, this ability is called the loss of the material. All type of loss can be divided into two groups: permeability and permittivity.
Permittivity is the ability of material to store electrical energy
permeability is the ability of material to store magnetic energy

The higher the permeability and Permittivity, the more radio wave energy will absorbed when they pass through the material. You might think that mean the bigger permeability and Permittivity is always better but that isn't the whole story. There is a quantity called the impendence that equal electrical field/magnetic field , impendence of air is 377 ohms, when the impendence of a material matched air, no reflection occurred when radio wave travel from air and hit the material boundary, instead the wave pass into the material. But the problem is that the permittivity of air is very near 0. So when you have a material with the same impendence as air, then radio wave won't reflected off the surface but they can't absorb any radiowave energy either and the radio wave ended up reflected back whatever underneath that layer. But if you have a material with different impendence so that it can absorb the radio wave, then a fraction strike the surface will reflected back. The way to get around that in the most basics RAM like Salisbury screen is by putting the layer with same impendence as air on top, and underneath it are bulk absorber with high permittivity. What Iam telling you is that there is nothing special with near zero permittivity, it doesn't do anything that previous RAM haven't already do and if you just put a layer of material with near zero permittivity on top of your aircraft, it doesn't do anything to reduce your RCS

 

[StealthFlanker]

Look, I get it that the Su-57 is every Chinese and US pro-aviationist's favorite benchmark aircraft to shitpost on when comparing 5th gens that has been made abundantly clear many times. If you did not have information on the inlet than why did you assume it was aluminum than concluded another aircraft having a smaller signature in that regard?

Firstly, every fighter get shitpost, F-22, F-35, J-20, Rafale, Eurofighter, Su-35 all get shitpost, Su-57 isn't some unique exception.
Secondly, I didn't conclude that Su-57 inlet made from alluminium, I told him that Iam skeptical of his claim that the inlet and the whole duct itself made from CNT. Because those material are highly expensive and not usual to use as load bearing structure. So that why I asked him to provide a source
Thirdly, I don't conclude F-35 has lower signature because of Su-57 inlet material, I conclude F-35 has lower signature based on various design choice of the two, some are highlighted by Neptune . That doesn't mean I'm shitting on Su-57, it just mean Su-57 has different requirement from F-35 so it emphasized different things.
Finally, as I told you earlier, making a part of air plane transparent to radar wave isn't how you reduce its RCS, because unlike a small missile, fighter has many wiring, electrical equipment, sensor, load bearing structures inside them. Unless you managed to make them all radar transparent, then making the skin transparent could be counter productive. You know, normal fighter canopy is transparent to radar wave, but the total RCS of fighter will reduce when you coat the canopy with a thin reflective gold coating. That basically one of the thing they done in Have glass program for F-16. That because when the canopy is transparent radar wave get inside and reflected off the pilot, the cockpit, the seat , all have many corner and as a result have much higher RCS. You have the similar situation with Su-57 duct, assuming you can make the duct transparent to radar, can you make all the wiring and internal sensor transparent to radar? can you make all compressor stage radar transparent?

 

[panzerfeist1]

To perfectly frank some of those people have valid points, at least in terms of RCS, even though many may be clueless nationalists that know nothing about RCS and instead regurgitate many talking points from others that may be legitimate or misinformation.

I will name a few troubling areas:

Inlet: The SU-57 inlet is not the best design for signature reduction. There is zero debating here. In terms of what the intake is made of, we don’t know. But I am talking about the design itself. All those ramps, gaps, sharp corners, and radar blockers are just extra opportunities for radar waves be sent back to the enemy radar. I’m not saying the intake will cause the SU-57 to be seen on radar but instead that it has a larger RCS then say an intake from an F-35 or F-22 where there is nothing causing destructive interference. In other words the smoother the surface the less chances the radar signals will reflect back.

LEVCONs: The LEVCONs are another discontinuity, not only that they actually move in flight and have sharp corners. They help with lift and probably marginally help in maneuverability? However, they add weight from hydraulics, actuators, and extra wiring, they certainly add to cost because of those extra components. Similarly they add cost into development since designers hade to design all those components and then test them under different lab and and in flight conditions. This is overly complicated and not necessary, in my opinion. That money and effort could have been used to reshape the IRST or add more serrated panels or whatever. I think the guys at Sukhoi are just obsessed with maneuverability and showing off how maneuverable their aircraft are.


IRST and other sensors: It doesn’t take a scientist to figure out the IRST and two 101-KSO sensors have zero effort or thought put into them. Sukhoi didn’t make any effort at all. The IRST has a 90 degree corner on the starboard side and a large gap aft of the IRST. Compare that to the careful and well thought out shape of the EOTS of the F-35 or the equivalent system on the J-20. The Americans and Chinese didn’t go through all that trouble for no reason.

Canopy: The Canopy is completely traditional and it’s shape is poor for RCS. The reason the F-22, F-35 and J-20 have trapezoid shaped canopies as well as a single piece canopy is because it, 1. Redirects radar waves and 2. Eliminates discontinuities by having one piece.

Serrations. Sadly the SU-57 has virtually no serrated panels besides the weapons bays, front landing gear, and a few panels for sensors up front. Again if we compare it with aircraft like the F-35, F-22 and J-20 which have probably thousands of serrated panels, it becomes clear the designers at Sukhoi were either lazy, didn’t want to spend the extra time and maybe marginal cost on serrations.

The SU-57 is a strange aircraft, with a low enough RCS to probably kill conventional fighters with ease and in general capable with its sensors. Many will argue the SU-57 is over engineered with the intakes and LEVCONs, and at the same time the aircraft has a lot of unique avionics such as side radar, S-70 wingman, new engines, new weapons, new helmet (although not seen outside the lab) and so on but they could not add more serrations or re-shape the IRST? Or the canopy? It seems like the designers were clashing and they compromised. It’s almost like they were going to add serrated panels everywhere and then someone opposed it and instead they just did a few panels.

This is what i mean by lack of serrations:

Discussing aircraft features is not really my fortay I am sure users like LMFS, Archangeliski, Mindstorm,Jo Asakura(besides key aero he started an account on paralay boards) among other users that have hanged out on Su-57 threads at keyaero can put up a better debate for you and Stealthflanker besides me but each have their preference of forums but sadly india defense net not his not a part of that

However the inlet does have RCS reducing features There are partial S-ducts as demonstrated on the patent itself. Meaning the fan blades are not completely exposed but partially which is still regarded as an RCS reducing feature.
RAM is applied in the inlet so that is regarded as another RCS reducing feature.
Patent and image shows radar blockers to reflect radio waves away from radar source and covering fan blades so that is another RCS reducing feature.
There is an anti-radar grading installed inside the air channel and guess what, that is another RCS reducing feature.
Fan blades are made of composite materials which again is an RCS reducing feature.
Image of inlet vanes along with patent which are behind the blades are seen as being designed a particular way to lower RCS and being made of composites as well. Do not know that value as to how this compares to the S-duct they rejected that was on the Su-47, nor is there any determination if the Mikoyan LMFS that got cancelled(seems to have plans of getting revived) would have or not have them. So besides saying S-ducts just on opinions do you have a numerical RCS estimate of how much these features reduce radio waves in comparison to just an S-duct feature? Please no my opinion is better than your's argument because I had to drop such pointless arguments in the past with stealthflanker and ironically could have enough screenshots for a lifetime of these same interactions he has with other users.

marginally help is there something you know that you want to discuss here? All I am hearing is that it can provide trim and improve high angle of attack behavior, quick stall recovery if thrust vectoring system fails. Dont know where you or a certain user he get values but opinion here really dont cut it without any value added. I think maneuverability is still helpful because afterall I think there is a specific reason why the design of CUDA was implemented where the missile itself can have better chances of dealing with maneuverable targets at a short and long range distance but like you and stealthflanker that is all an opinion that hasnt been proven.

The IRST sphere based on size gave calculations seems to appear as a 6 inch diameter(anyone here can come up with their own values if they like) has an RCS of 0.018m^2 and that does not include the RAM further reducing the values. Also what is bad about the 101KS-O, you probably wont criticize the F-35 IF they get a DIRCM later and I am assuming at this rate after the Advance EOTs gets tested and implemented the DIRCM and minauture missile APS will be next. I am sure that the F-35 without EOTs will have a smaller signature than one with EOTs.

Hell they can fly without one, Israel even proved that, will that feature be a stealth reduction(I just wanted to be funny)? Overall I am hearing canopies needing to keep getting replaced along with RAM getting peeled off reports while some new glue I guess is to fix that, but the question is how much better is this RAM compared to the 70-90 nm thick metal oxide layers the Su-57 uses. Even the YF-23 has a different shaped canopy from the F-22.

Your not really being helpful in stating your cases like some people I know here talking about something being aluminum without sources but hoping someone else would provide it. For starters can you list and count where all those serrations you speak of the aircrafts have. Its a little unfair you draw red lines for one aircraft but not the other? If having more Serrations are crucial, dont worry that might be what the 2nd Su-57 might be about. Rafael lack faceting, planform alignment, slanting of inlet lips, blending of the canopy to the fuselage and door shaping. All opening doors on the Su-57 employ the same zigzag shaping as other stealth aircrafts. Rafale’s air refueling probe is fixed on an extended exposed position, whereas PAK FA’s probe is hidden inside the fuselage behind zigzag doors. Rafale’s radar is vertical while the Su-57’s radar is tilted by 15 degrees (similarly to other stealth aircrafts).

Your not even showing the serrations on the back of the Su-57(yes features were actually changed on the aircraft, your choosing old pictures) nor showing the ones that were ironically shown in those VR/ hologram or whatever videos that were posted like here https://www.russiadefence.net/t7978p825-su-57-stealth-fighter-news-6. Again I do not give a shit about features because they do not give me any numerical value from anechoic chambers but there are users far better than me in this discussing this as mentioned above. You might as well create an account over there and mention the same things I have mentioned but I am guessing you do not want to because their responses might be more unpleasant than mine.

 

[panzerfeist1]

Firstly, I have a sino defense account, I don't go there often but I have an account there. I actually find their discussion relatively decent.
Secondly, my internet name isn't my real name , just something I find catchy and I'm not Korean.

I guess your from England?

Firstly, AARGM-ER isn't a ramjet missile, it is a solid fuel rocket missile

The problem is once you make bold claims you would want to stick with them no matter what(according to me the is your worst weakness) The only difference I share with you is that I do not go 110% but give predictions based on previous results and thats it. The entire jist you made earlier about you need more range by decreasing speed but by increasing speed you lower range is already the worst thing you could have ever stated. I will gladly bring up the Brahmos-NG or Onyx-M and give you an example of how their speeds have increased with range(staying the same or increasing) along with one of them downsizing and other maintaining the same size and mentioning those missiles here is not going to be any more favorable for you than just the Klevok-D2 missile. solid fuel ramjet, liquid fuel ramjet any and all air breathable missiles require a 1st stage boost. And of course do you have any source stating the AARGM-ER is solid fuel rocket missile, because I have plenty having word ramjet attached to it.

Secondly, we know a lot more about AARGM-ER than we do about Klevok-D2. We know the length, the increased diameter, we can estimate the volume of its solid rocket fuel based on the official cutaway, the kind of guidance it use, we know it removed the mid body wing to reduce drag and the mid body actuator for added fuel. The nose cone also have added thermal protection

Second, the only thing we know about the AARGM-ER is the twice range and speed agreement we have based on the source you have shown me based on a credible person named Stuart. Speed and range of AARGM-ER have yet to be proven. https://iz.ru/1081898/anton-lavrov-...hii-voennye-poluchat-giperzvukovye-minirakety

"the new ammunition can be used from a variety of platforms, both ground and air. The launch weight in the transport and launch container will not exceed 150 kilograms. The caliber of 207 mm taken from "Hermes" will not change either. A warhead weighing 57 kg should be enough to destroy both armored vehicles and light shelters or individual buildings."

"According to sources, the rocket will be equipped with wings that unfold after launch. After taking off with the help of a detachable launch stage and giving the initial acceleration, the flight will continue on the cruise ramjet engine. On it, it will accelerate to several thousand kilometers per hour in 40 seconds."

These are some pretty nice details I would say if not maybe a little more specific than the ones given by the AARGM-ER. Only thing I wish for is size of ramjet being the same as the sustainer stage or bigger despite weighing less.

Finally, OTK specifically stated AARGM-ER will double the range and the speed of AARGM whereas there is no official comparison between Klevok-D2 and K-77ME were made by any manufacturer, they are two very different missile with different aerodynamic, sensor, operating environment, flight profile. There is nothing to make any comparison

https://en.topwar.ru/176806-kakim-budet-giperzvukovoj-raketnyj-kompleks-klevok-d2.html "The project "Klevok-D2" is proposed by the Tula Instrument Design Bureau named after Academician Shipunov and provides for a deep modernization of the existing Hermes complex. Despite the very early stages of work, the main features of the project are already known, which allows us to make the first predictions."

Your expecting speeds to be slower for the K-77ME like the Meteor for increased ranges but the Klevok-D2, Onyx-M and Brahmos-NG will probably prove likewise for the K-77ME so I am just disagreeing on a Meteor like missile of this missile until the official missile information gets released probably with the 2nd su-57 variant.

The chart came from a Soviet manual, I will try dig it up for you, but that not the main point I want to emphasize to you, air to air missile range change a lot depend on altitude and aspect, the fancy number that you can find on Wikipedia and any other website doesn't mean much because they lack the context on how you get that range. The same way that you can come up with 195 km range for K-77M, I can come up with 195 km range for AIM-120D. But neither of these value have significant operational impact.

Ehh I guess we can agree to disagree on any news information of regarding air to air missiles.

However, once climbed to high altitude it can coast in thin air whereas a missile dive down to lower altitude will have to fly in high density air in terminal phase. One usual tactic to defeat BVR is dive down the deck to make it fight air density. This might sound counter productive because one would think missile get additional kinetic from gravity when it dive down. But that actually still not enough to counter the much thicker air down the deck.
It is quite hard to understand without visual so I suggest you try some flight simulator such as DCS

Glide bomb ranges, like the higher you are the longer your range will be say other wise even there are even missile graphs that show higher altitude aircrafts have a longer air to air missile reach than lower altitude aircraft launching a missile to a higher altitude aircraft. http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2019/03/aim-120c-study-using-missile-sim-part-3.html Besides this I have seen another simulation involving two aircrafts where the higher aircraft altitude has longer range engaging lower altitude aircrafts.

The higher the permeability and Permittivity, the more radio wave energy will absorbed when they pass through the material. You might think that mean the bigger permeability and Permittivity is always better but that isn't the whole story. There is a quantity called the impendence that equal electrical field/magnetic field , impendence of air is 377 ohms, when the impendence of a material matched air, no reflection occurred when radio wave travel from air and hit the material boundary, instead the wave pass into the material. But the problem is that the permittivity of air is very near 0. So when you have a material with the same impendence as air, then radio wave won't reflected off the surface but they can't absorb any radiowave energy either and the radio wave ended up reflected back whatever underneath that layer. But if you have a material with different impendence so that it can absorb the radio wave, then a fraction strike the surface will reflected back. The way to get around that in the most basics RAM like Salisbury screen is by putting the layer with same impendence as air on top, and underneath it are bulk absorber with high permittivity. What Iam telling you is that there is nothing special with near zero permittivity, it doesn't do anything that previous RAM haven't already do and if you just put a layer of material with near zero permittivity on top of your aircraft, it doesn't do anything to reduce your RCS

Got it, I will just continue on wathcing the breakthroughs of the Chinese and Russian researchers on this field, and maybe some hints from the U.S. Could Harry Potter’s Invisibility Cloak Become a Reality? – Now. Powered by Northrop Grumman I have only presented the 2018 materials, but the information breakthroughs on the material in 2020 might show significant changes compared to the last information that was presented. But the results I am getting from super power nations is that they find it better.

 

[Neptune]

However the inlet does have RCS reducing features There are partial S-ducts as demonstrated on the patent itself. Meaning the fan blades are not completely exposed but partially which is still regarded as an RCS reducing feature.

RAM is applied in the inlet so that is regarded as another RCS reducing feature.

Patent and image shows radar blockers to reflect radio waves away from radar source and covering fan blades so that is another RCS reducing feature.

There is an anti-radar grading installed inside the air channel and guess what, that is another RCS reducing feature.

Fan blades are made of composite materials which again is an RCS reducing feature.

Image of inlet vanes along with patent which are behind the blades are seen as being designed a particular way to lower RCS and being made of composites as well. Do not know that value as to how this compares to the S-duct they rejected that was on the Su-47, nor is there any determination if the Mikoyan LMFS that got cancelled(seems to have plans of getting revived) would have or not have them. So besides saying S-ducts just on opinions do you have a numerical RCS estimate of how much these features reduce radio waves in comparison to just an S-duct feature? Please no my opinion is better than your's argument because I had to drop such pointless arguments in the past with stealthflanker and ironically could have enough screenshots for a lifetime of these same interactions he has with other users.

Before I start let me begin with saying. I followed the SU-57 from its first flight. I studied it closely, I studied its RCS (at least in terms of what is possible from open sources). I firmly argued for the aircraft where it deserved it and I still think in terms of capabilities it’s one of the most capable on earth but I won’t pretend that it has no issues with RCS compared to aircraft like the F-35. Does it have a small RCS? Yes...is it as small as the F-35? No.


This is why Intake ramps and such are problematic:

Now moving on...I was not saying the fan blades are exposed. I’m sure the radar blockers work well or good enough to satisfy Sukhoi. I am also aware that at many angles the fan compressors/radar blockers are not seen at all or are only partially seen.

What I am saying is that an inlet from something like an F-35/22 would have a lower RCS. What we do know is that the smoothest surfaces are the best at minimizing EM energy from being sent back to the receiver. The SU-57 has inlet ramps and gaps from those ramps. The radar blockers themselves would also cause some issues because the inlets are perpendicular.

marginally help is there something you know that you want to discuss here? All I am hearing is that it can provide trim and improve high angle of attack behavior, quick stall recovery if thrust vectoring system fails. Dont know where you or a certain user he get values but opinion here really dont cut it without any value added. I think maneuverability is still helpful because afterall I think there is a specific reason why the design of CUDA was implemented where the missile itself can have better chances of dealing with maneuverable targets at a short and long range distance but like you and stealthflanker that is all an opinion that hasnt been proven.

The SU-57 did not need those LEVCONS. It already has an advanced FBW system, TVC engines, incredible thrust to weight ratio and high wing loading. The system is redundant, it may provide some small benefits but they will never outweigh the negatives such as increased RCS, higher development cost, higher purchase price, higher maintenance cost and more weight. The F-22 does not have have any movable LEVCONS yet it has incredible maneuverability and performance, same with the SU-35.



The chief engineer at Sukhoi is obsessed with maneuverability. The man’s priorities are not in the right place, he could have put more emphasis on RCS reduction.

The IRST sphere based on size gave calculations seems to appear as a 6 inch diameter(anyone here can come up with their own values if they like) has an RCS of 0.018m^2 and that does not include the RAM further reducing the values.

Yes but aft of the IRST ball there is a large gap, and the starboard side of the IRST is basically a flat 90 degree surface. Even if the IRST only had a RCS of 0.018m^2 it begins to add up when we take into account the 101KS-O, lack of serrations and so fourth.

Also what is bad about the 101KS-O, you probably wont criticize the F-35 IF they get a DIRCM later and I am assuming at this rate after the Advance EOTs gets tested and implemented the DIRCM and minauture missile APS will be next. I am sure that the F-35 without EOTs will have a smaller signature than one with EOTs.

What is bad about the 101KS-O is that it has zero shaping. Sukhoi did not put any effort into it. If the F-35 had 2 or 3 large half sphere like sensors then i would equally criticize it. Yet so far the F-35 has ever sensor blended and or enclosed in something like the EOTS.

Even the YF-23 has a different shaped canopy from the F-22.

It was just a prototype. It would have had an F-35/22 style canopy if it went into production. Even the X-35 (F-35 prototype) had a tradition canopy.

Your not really being helpful in stating your cases like some people I know here talking about something being aluminum without sources but hoping someone else would provide it. For starters can you list and count where all those serrations you speak of the aircrafts have. Its a little unfair you draw red lines for one aircraft but not the other?

The picture I showed illustrated areas where the SU-57 have no serrations, the reason the F-35 picture did not illustrate any none serrated areas is because the F- 35 does not have any none serrated areas. Let me show you another picture of the F-35, notice even all the small access ports under the wings have serrations while most access panels on the SU-57 is square:


Serrations everywhere:

Now compare even the serial models of SU-57, lack of serrations in many places. Although I admit the quality and smooth surfaces are as good or better then many western aircraft.

If having more Serrations are crucial, dont worry that might be what the 2nd Su-57 might be about.

I don’t think so, i myself though that eventually the SU-57 would have fully serrated panels everywhere, but as prototype after prototype rolled out, it became clear that nothing was changing. Even the serial batch have the same square access panels. If Sukhoi wanted fully serrated panels it would have done it years ago when the aircraft was still in development. It makes no sense for Sukhoi to start adding those serrations on serial aircraft, out of the blue. Hopefully in the future, maybe with the second stage engine a upgraded version of SU-57 will be introduced.

Rafael lack faceting, planform alignment, slanting of inlet lips, blending of the canopy to the fuselage and door shaping. All opening doors on the Su-57 employ the same zigzag shaping as other stealth aircrafts. Rafale’s air refueling probe is fixed on an extended exposed position, whereas PAK FA’s probe is hidden inside the fuselage behind zigzag doors. Rafale’s radar is vertical while the Su-57’s radar is tilted by 15 degrees (similarly to other stealth aircrafts).

I know the Rafale’s RCS is large, I only mentioned that even the Rafale incorporated serrations to help reduce its frontal RCS. In no way was I implying the Rafale was anywhere near the SU-57 in terms of RCS...from any angle.

Your not even showing the serrations on the back of the Su-57(yes features were actually changed on the aircraft, your choosing old pictures) nor showing the ones that were ironically shown in those VR/ hologram or whatever videos that were posted like here https://www.russiadefence.net/t7978p825-su-57-stealth-fighter-news-6.

The picture I showed were of the latest prototypes. Those serrations in the video have been around from the very first prototype. (the serrations are in front of the rear landing gear bay doors). I didn’t say the SU-57 did not have serrations but rather it has many places without serrations.



I’m also not aware of any serrations in the back of the SU-57 besides a few small access ports in-between the engines. The future stage 2 engines will have serrations but the cowlings were the engines go, have no serrations.

Again I do not give a shit about features because they do not give me any numerical value from anechoic chambers but there are users far better than me in this discussing this as mentioned above. You might as well create an account over there and mention the same things I have mentioned but I am guessing you do not want to because their responses might be more unpleasant than mine.

Those features will make a difference in RCS. It’s science, perpendicular panels/structures will cause EM energy to return back to the emitter. This is why the SU-57 has a trapezoid design and at least some panels serrated, it’s why the F-22, F-35, B-2, F-117 and J-20 and even the Rafale has serrations.

This is why some congenital aircraft even started adding serrations:

 

[panzerfeist1]

@Neptune

Based on the multiple spam images with no relevance of RCS value(winged _on space battle accused stealthflanker here of that among other users) same kind of argument stances is this your 2nd account stealthflanker? There was a reason why I posted a forum.eagle.ru thread of garrya saying F-35 100kw after here brought up the F-35 100kw on this su-57 thread, and also why I brought up same images of meteor specs garrya mentioned along with Ronny from space battle forum spamming same meteor images (stealthflanker here) on this thread just for fun(I have examples for days). So just out of curiosity do you have other accounts on other forums. A certain user here like me has accounts across key aero, india, sino, secret projects,f-16.net,spacebattle forum and I am trying to tell him that walking into russia defense is not like walking into a lions den when he creates an account over there.

If you dont have a Russia defense net account, why not start one over there instead of trying to talk to me about it here? Users over there don't bite, if you persist on not having an account over there tell me all the problems you see of the Su-57 so I can list all those problems in that thread? For example I already lost my interest with you the moment you mentioned the 101ks-o bulbs and IRST on top of that as being bad while the F-35 based on image demonstration is more than likely to carry the same bulb like appearances if DIRCM is really planned. Lockheed has demonstrated an external carry of HAWC while the Su-57 has had other plans of carrying a hypersonic missile internally. I take it that you also stopped talking about the Levcons here being a insignificant addition because in that thread it showed a user PeregrineFalcon showing what the significance of Levcon is. I just need your permission if you want me to post what you said over that forum?

 

[Neptune]

@Neptune

Based on the multiple spam images with no relevance of RCS value(winged _on space battle accused stealthflanker here of that among other users) same kind of argument stances is this your 2nd account stealthflanker? There was a reason why I posted a forum.eagle.ru thread of garrya saying F-35 100kw after here brought up the F-35 100kw on this su-57 thread, and also why I brought up same images of meteor specs garrya mentioned along with Ronny from space battle forum spamming same meteor images (stealthflanker here) on this thread just for fun(I have examples for days). So just out of curiosity do you have other accounts on other forums. A certain user here like me has accounts across key aero, india, sino, secret projects,f-16.net,spacebattle forum and I am trying to tell him that walking into russia defense is not like walking into a lions den when he creates an account over there.

If you dont have a Russia defense net account, why not start one over there instead of trying to talk to me about it here? Users over there don't bite, if you persist on not having an account over there tell me all the problems you see of the Su-57 so I can list all those problems in that thread? For example I already lost my interest with you the moment you mentioned the 101ks-o bulbs and IRST on top of that as being bad while the F-35 based on image demonstration is more than likely to carry the same bulb like appearances if DIRCM is really planned. Lockheed has demonstrated an external carry of HAWC while the Su-57 has had other plans of carrying a hypersonic missile internally. I take it that you also stopped talking about the Levcons here being a insignificant addition because in that thread it showed a user PeregrineFalcon showing what the significance of Levcon is. I just need your permission if you want me to post what you said over that forum?

I’m not Stealth Flanker, in fact I am Russian. My only other active (non active) account was at a Russian speaking forum and i have not posted in years and only made a few posts there to begin with, and none of it was even aviation related. I have lurked at Russian Defense Forum, it’s pretty terrible, the level of fanboyism and delusion makes F-16.net look normal.


Why make it personal? Why does it matter who I am or who Stealth Flanker is? Judge content of our posts by dissecting and countering with facts and different view points/perspectives.

Notice, nothing I said was a lie. I gave examples and some sources demonstrating everything I said. I never argued that the SU-57 has a large RCS, in fact I still insist it will be hard to detect on radar. My only criticism was with the total lack or care that Sukhoi put in to the shaping of sensors and other details such as full serrations.

 

[panzerfeist1]

I’m not Stealth Flanker, in fact I am Russian. My only other active (non active) account was at a Russian speaking forum and i have not posted in years and only made a few posts there to begin with, and none of it was even aviation related. I have lurked at Russian Defense Forum, it’s pretty terrible, the level of fanboyism and delusion makes F-16.net look normal.


Why make it personal? Why does it matter who I am or who Stealth Flanker is? Judge content of our posts by dissecting and countering with facts and different view points/perspectives.

Notice, nothing I said was a lie. I gave examples and some sources demonstrating everything I said. I never argued that the SU-57 has a large RCS, in fact I still insist it will be hard to detect on radar. My only criticism was with the total lack or care that Sukhoi put in to the shaping of sensors and other details such as full serrations.

Ahh fuck I guess it is inevitable that once the HAL AMCA gets shown besides china and the U.S. the Su-57 will be the next benchmark aircraft to shitpost on. Look as you can tell I barely give a shit about what the aircraft has or doesn't have because there is no RCS value for me nor do I own a anechoic chamber. As someone that barely gives a shit about physical appearances on aircrafts I think it is pretty embarrassing atleast for your on calling out the un-stealthiness of DIRCM bulbs when an F-35 aircraft will acquire such shapes based on demonstrations I have seen. I do not know why you have hold so much praise on f-16.net(this along with the DIRCM bulbs already destroys your own credibility talking about Russian aircrafts XD), but based on 4chan /k/ thread surveys among other things everyone calls that forum an echo chamber with few experienced pilots and shills that immediately ban any pro-Russian aviation claims. I can sort of see the shill part being correct based on how upset that board was about Turkey and the S-400, along with Gripen sales.

Also the other reason why I am not too hell bent on stealth is that there is going to be a moment in time later that certain aircrafts might require close hypersonic speeds with very high altitude claims. Such as I have seen ramjet detonation engines for an aircraft from Russia being tested on the ground back in January 2018, developing fly wing rockets like the krylo-sv, testing randomes on hypersonic aircraft projects, Head of Sukhoi and Mikoyan claiming near space aircraft, etc. Since you do not want to create an account over there this question remains, can I post what you have posted here to over there? As hard as it is to believe I think you might have brought some good points, so may i please? I do not want to feel like I want to embarrass you or not over there which is why I kindly ask permission.

 

[Neptune]

Ahh fuck I guess it is inevitable that once the HAL AMCA gets shown besides china and the U.S. the Su-57 will be the next benchmark aircraft to shitpost on. Look as you can tell I barely give a shit about what the aircraft has or doesn't have because there is no RCS value for me nor do I own a anechoic chamber. As someone that barely gives a shit about physical appearances on aircrafts I think it is pretty embarrassing atleast for your on calling out the un-stealthiness of DIRCM bulbs when an F-35 aircraft will acquire such shapes based on demonstrations I have seen. I do not know why you have hold so much praise on f-16.net(this along with the DIRCM bulbs already destroys your own credibility talking about Russian aircrafts XD), but based on 4chan /k/ thread surveys among other things everyone calls that forum an echo chamber with few experienced pilots and shills that immediately ban any pro-Russian aviation claims. I can sort of see the shill part being correct based on how upset that board was about Turkey and the S-400, along with Gripen sales.

Also the other reason why I am not too hell bent on stealth is that there is going to be a moment in time later that certain aircrafts might require close hypersonic speeds with very high altitude claims. Such as I have seen ramjet detonation engines for an aircraft from Russia being tested on the ground back in January 2018, developing fly wing rockets like the krylo-sv, testing randomes on hypersonic aircraft projects, Head of Sukhoi and Mikoyan claiming near space aircraft, etc. Since you do not want to create an account over there this question remains, can I post what you have posted here to over there? As hard as it is to believe I think you might have brought some good points, so may i please? I do not want to feel like I want to embarrass you or not over there which is why I kindly ask permission.

Nock yourself out, post whatever you like over there. I suspect some people will have a hard time excepting some of those basic concepts such as edge diffraction which is rooted in science.

 

[StealthFlanker]

I guess your from England?

View attachment 70262
View attachment 70263

I lived there but that not my nationality

The problem is once you make bold claims you would want to stick with them no matter what(according to me the is your worst weakness) The only difference I share with you is that I do not go 110% but give predictions based on previous results and thats it. The entire jist you made earlier about you need more range by decreasing speed but by increasing speed you lower range is already the worst thing you could have ever stated. I will gladly bring up the Brahmos-NG or Onyx-M and give you an example of how their speeds have increased with range(staying the same or increasing) along with one of them downsizing and other maintaining the same size and mentioning those missiles here is not going to be any more favorable for you than just the Klevok-D2 missile. solid fuel ramjet, liquid fuel ramjet any and all air breathable missiles require a 1st stage boost.

I don't think you understand my comment and how ramjet engine work
A normal rocket motor such as the one on R-77-1, AIM-120C, has a fixed burn rate, that mean the thrust remain relative constant regardless of velocity , altitude. You always burn through your fuel for the same amount of time, in short the burn time is a constant value. But this as a disadvantage, once missile climbed to high altitude, you don't need high thrust because the drag is lower, so your high thrust is wasted
A two thrust rocket motor such as the one on K-77M, AIM-120A/B has two mode of operation, the boost stage and the sustain stage. After the missile is boosted in the initial acceleration, the boost stage run out and you have the sustain stage to save fuel for high altitude flight. But just like before, you can't adjust the fuel flow rate. The burn rate of both your boost stage and your sustain stage are different but they are also a fixed value. However, the air density isn't a constant variable but it change with altitude. 30k ft, 45k ft, 60 kft all have different air density so with a fixed burn rate your fuel flow isn't optimized
A ramjet engine is an air breathing engine, it doesn't carry oxidizer inside so you can carry more fuel. Secondly, a ramjet engine like any air breathing engine, can adjust its thrust by changing the fuel flow rate. This ability to control the fuel flow is called the throttle ability. If the missile is at low altitude, then the thrust can remain high, if the missile is at high altitude then the it reduce the thrust. If target is 20 km from your aircraft then the thrust is very high for acceleration. If target is 200 km from your aircraft then the thrust is low for sustain. For example, F-15 has top speed of Mach 2.5 and maximum combat radius of 2037 km but do you think it can fly the maximum combat radius with top speed?. It doesn't. Maximum range isn't achieve with maximum speed and vice versa. How much your missile can reduce fuel flow depend on a quantity called the turn down/throttle ratio, the bigger this ratio is, the wider range of thrust that your missile can operate at. The lower the thrust, the lower the fuel consumption, but come with that is lower speed. To sum up, your ramjet missile, whether it is K-77ME, Meteor, Klevok-D2 , Onyx-M or Brahmos, you can either have the range or the speed, but not both at the same time.

And of course do you have any source stating the AARGM-ER is solid fuel rocket missile, because I have plenty having word ramjet attached to it

Have you looked at AARGM-ER itself? ramjet are air breathing engine, AARGM-ER doesn't have any air inlet. And like I said before, there were many plan for AARGM-ER and ramjet was one of that, but in the end they didn't use it

Second, the only thing we know about the AARGM-ER is the twice range and speed agreement we have based on the source you have shown me based on a credible person named Stuart. Speed and range of AARGM-ER have yet to be proven. https://iz.ru/1081898/anton-lavrov-...hii-voennye-poluchat-giperzvukovye-minirakety

"the new ammunition can be used from a variety of platforms, both ground and air. The launch weight in the transport and launch container will not exceed 150 kilograms. The caliber of 207 mm taken from "Hermes" will not change either. A warhead weighing 57 kg should be enough to destroy both armored vehicles and light shelters or individual buildings."

"According to sources, the rocket will be equipped with wings that unfold after launch. After taking off with the help of a detachable launch stage and giving the initial acceleration, the flight will continue on the cruise ramjet engine. On it, it will accelerate to several thousand kilometers per hour in 40 seconds."

These are some pretty nice details I would say if not maybe a little more specific than the ones given by the AARGM-ER. Only thing I wish for is size of ramjet being the same as the sustainer stage or bigger despite weighing less.
https://en.topwar.ru/176806-kakim-budet-giperzvukovoj-raketnyj-kompleks-klevok-d2.html "The project "Klevok-D2" is proposed by the Tula Instrument Design Bureau named after Academician Shipunov and provides for a deep modernization of the existing Hermes complex. Despite the very early stages of work, the main features of the project are already known, which allows us to make the first predictions."

Mike Stuart is Orbital ATK’s director of business development for strike weapons and defense electronics, Orbital ATK is the company that make AARGM-ER
I said there isn't much know about Klevok-D2 because there are many thing you don't know. Max weight is 150 kg and warhead is 57 kg, but do you know how heavy is the seeker? how heavy is the pop out wing?. Even if we ignore these details, a ramjet engine can't start operation from stand still like a rocket motor, it must be accelerated to about Mach 2 by the booster before the ramjet engine can start working, do you know how heavy is the booster compared to the ramjet stage?. And their references is "according to sources" ??? what sources exactly?
Secondly, AARGM-ER already done the captive carry test where as there isn't even a physical mock up of Klevok-D2 yet so information about AARGM-ER is more reliable and fixed while information about Klevok-D2 can change

Klevok-D2 isn't even half as mature and or likely to go to to full scale production as this thing:

Your expecting speeds to be slower for the K-77ME like the Meteor for increased ranges but the Klevok-D2, Onyx-M and Brahmos-NG will probably prove likewise for the K-77ME so I am just disagreeing on a Meteor like missile of this missile until the official missile information gets released probably with the 2nd su-57 variant.

No missile can escape physic unfortunately. If you want more speed, you need higher thrust. And higher thrust will consume fuel at a faster rate

Glide bomb ranges, like the higher you are the longer your range will be say other wise even there are even missile graphs that show higher altitude aircrafts have a longer air to air missile reach than lower altitude aircraft launching a missile to a higher altitude aircraft. http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2019/03/aim-120c-study-using-missile-sim-part-3.html Besides this I have seen another simulation involving two aircrafts where the higher aircraft altitude has longer range engaging lower altitude aircrafts.

For example:, your target is at 20k ft, you have one fighter at 30k ft and another at 60k ft then the fighter at 60k ft can attack target from longer distance
But if you have a fighter at 40kft and one target at 20kft and another at 60k ft then you can attack the target at 60k ft from longer range.
It is very hard to imagine without visual tool, so I think you can try in a simulator like DCS to find out for yourself.

Got it, I will just continue on wathcing the breakthroughs of the Chinese and Russian researchers on this field, and maybe some hints from the U.S. Could Harry Potter’s Invisibility Cloak Become a Reality? – Now. Powered by Northrop Grumman I have only presented the 2018 materials, but the information breakthroughs on the material in 2020 might show significant changes compared to the last information that was presented. But the results I am getting from super power nations is that they find it better.

The thing is, you taking your information from magazines and newspaper. Majority of journalists doesn't understand the physics of what they wrote about and they only care about attracting reader. So when you read about new inventions they always parrot the same thing: this technology is 1000 times better than the previous one, that technology will revolution the world as we know...etc, they never talk about the drawback and the issue with the inventions because most of the time they don't understand it and they want to click bait their reader. Most people will be attracted to a title like " this invisible cloak will make all sensor useless" or " this radar will render the trillion dollars fighter garbage" than something like " scientists have invent something not quite useful but fundamentally different"

 

[StealthFlanker]

@Neptune
Based on the multiple spam images with no relevance of RCS value(winged _on space battle accused stealthflanker here of that among other users) same kind of argument stances is this your 2nd account stealthflanker? There was a reason why I posted a forum.eagle.ru thread of garrya saying F-35 100kw after here brought up the F-35 100kw on this su-57 thread, and also why I brought up same images of meteor specs garrya mentioned along with Ronny from space battle forum spamming same meteor images (stealthflanker here) on this thread just for fun(I have examples for days). So just out of curiosity do you have other accounts on other forums. A certain user here like me has accounts across key aero, india, sino, secret projects,f-16.net,spacebattle forum and I am trying to tell him that walking into russia defense is not like walking into a lions den when he creates an account over there.

Not everyone whoever disagreed with you is a version of me can you stop the victim mind set ?
I literally have a heated discussion with Neptune not so long ago in this same thread

Sukhoi PAK FA

Wrong, the DAS is a discontinuity. Which creates corner reflectors from obtuse angles as well as edge diffraction. Even rough flat surfaces create RCS spikes. Everything on an aircraft has a potential to be seen on radar depending on angles, range and frequency. A ground based radar is more...

defenceforumindia.com

and in F-16 vs Mig-21 thread as well

MiG-23 MLD vs F-16 and contemporary fighter aircraft

They certainly didn't have any issue when admitting F-18 got shot down by Mig-25 or when F-16 got shot down by SA-3. And friendly fire aren't an exactly rare occurrences on the battlefield, for example: AH-64 did destroy a friendly APC, F-16 did launch HARM at a PAC-2 site, India did shot down...

defenceforumindia.com

 

[Cruise missile]

Ahh fuck I guess it is inevitable that once the HAL AMCA gets shown besides china and the U.S. the Su-57 will be the next benchmark aircraft to shitpost on. Look as you can tell I barely give a shit about what the aircraft has or doesn't have because there is no RCS value for me nor do I own a anechoic chamber. As someone that barely gives a shit about physical appearances on aircrafts I think it is pretty embarrassing atleast for your on calling out the un-stealthiness of DIRCM bulbs when an F-35 aircraft will acquire such shapes based on demonstrations I have seen. I do not know why you have hold so much praise on f-16.net(this along with the DIRCM bulbs already destroys your own credibility talking about Russian aircrafts XD), but based on 4chan /k/ thread surveys among other things everyone calls that forum an echo chamber with few experienced pilots and shills that immediately ban any pro-Russian aviation claims. I can sort of see the shill part being correct based on how upset that board was about Turkey and the S-400, along with Gripen sales.

Also the other reason why I am not too hell bent on stealth is that there is going to be a moment in time later that certain aircrafts might require close hypersonic speeds with very high altitude claims. Such as I have seen ramjet detonation engines for an aircraft from Russia being tested on the ground back in January 2018, developing fly wing rockets like the krylo-sv, testing randomes on hypersonic aircraft projects, Head of Sukhoi and Mikoyan claiming near space aircraft, etc. Since you do not want to create an account over there this question remains, can I post what you have posted here to over there? As hard as it is to believe I think you might have brought some good points, so may i please? I do not want to feel like I want to embarrass you or not over there which is why I kindly ask permission.

I like your positivity

 

[Neptune]

@panzerfeist1 since you posted my reply on Russian Defense. Net I had to respond to the following from a member:


“I mean , look at it. The guy is saying that the LEVCONS are a problem but in same breath , he gives the J-20's F-16 wing sized canards a full endorsement.”

This guys need some education, firstly I never mentioned J-20 canards let alone “F-16 wing size”. Secondly this guy needs to understand the difference between something like intake ramps, and the discontinuities they create (perpendicular discontinuities at that) and something like a canard. This is basic science, something that can be easily proven with open sources, something I have done many times before.


The intake with perpendicular intake ramps, gaps from those ramps, hinges from those ramps and perpendicular ‘radar blockers’ will have a higher RCS then a smooth intake. Some people are in complete denial and ignorant; some people think physics don’t apply to their favorite aircraft.

 

[Neptune]

Someone from Paralay posted this:

http://www.knaapo.ru/upload/iblock/188/2020%20%E2%84%966.pdf

 

[FOXBAT ALOK]

New technology makes Su-57 pilots break all limits

SOURCE : Defenceview

Despite mass production, Russia’s fifth-generation Su-57 fighter remains an experimental platform with continuously improved characteristics.


However, there are two revolutionary and less talked about developments designed to improve Russia’s newest fighter jet’s manoeuvrability. This will greatly increase the Su-57’s chances of victory in a dogfight against any enemy, said Military Watch.

The ability to change direction easily and quickly was a trademark of Soviet and Russian fighters, starting at least with the first fourth-generation fighters.

The first prototypes of the Su-57 resembled the Su-35 – long held the title of the most manoeuvrable fighter in the world. Fifth-generation aerospace technology can improve them with more powerful engines and composite airframe, helping to optimize the thrust-to-weight ratio.

pilots of Su-57 will have a special assistance system that helps overcome the limits of overload
However, the perfection of technology lies in the human factor. No pilot is able to withstand an overload of more than 9G – he will simply pass out. Russian engineers intend to overcome this limitation in two ways.


First, in parallel with the manned version of the Su-57, an unmanned version is also being created – in May 2020, it was reported that a robot fighter was equipped with AI. The test has already started.

The press claims that the pilot on the ground will control the drone manually during the most difficult phase of flight: take off and land, the rest of the time, the pilot’s function will be monitoring the status of onboard systems.


Another more radical method is liquid breathing. The overburden problem is that the lungs are forced out of the air, the brain is oxygen-starved, and the pilot faints. This problem can be solved by teaching pilots to breathe oxygen-enriched liquids instead of gas – this is how infants breathe in the womb.

Russia’s Advanced Research Foundation has developed liquid breathing technology since 2016. It helps divers avoid hypotension when going up urgently from depth. In the aerospace industry, liquid breathing will bring the manned fighter features closer to the drone.


There is a good reason for the pursuit of manoeuvrability of Russian designers. During the big war, long-range air-to-air missiles can be unreliable. Electronic jamming, destroying satellites, and attacking the network will lead to the fact that fighters cannot remotely determine which target is an enemy and which is not (this is a problem facing US airlines. during the Gulf War).

This will force the pilots to target with the naked eye, that is, to get closer to them. And in melee combat, a more manoeuvrable fighter will have a significant advantage.

Manoeuvrability also increases the probability of a vehicle’s survival in long-range battles, as an agile fighter has a better chance of evading a ground-launched missile or other aircraft.