PAK-FA / Sukhoi Su-57 - Updates and Discussions

[Hyperactive ADD]

I don't mind criticism, but it needs to make sense.

There is no logical flow to his opinions about engines. He's not making an apples-to-apples comparison.

For example, both F404 and M88-2 were designed for 71 kN and 75 kN compared to RD-33's 81 kN, and he's using these two engines to compare to a 98 kN F414, an engine known to blow all three engines outta the water.

And he's unable to relate the engines to the airframes they have been designed for. Like F110 maxing out performance at lower altitudes for multirole jets compared to AL-31F's higher altitude requirement. Or a 75 kN M88-4E being sufficient for the Rafale 'cause the canards generate up to 25% more lift.

To successfully offload industrial garbage like the M88 and F404 at a premium price, while simultaneously sandbagging a major competitor—oh, excuse me, a 'fine Western partner：indian'—is truly a beautiful piece of business.
In fact, the Chinese should be absolutely thrilled to see you guys end up with the F404 or M88

The F110 only manages to squeeze out decent thrust when crawling around at low altitudes. In stark contrast, achieving extended missile ranges and maximizing the strike distance of glide weapons demands the high-altitude, high-speed performance that the AL-31F delivers—a luxury Indian aircraft are biologically destined to never achieve.
Furthermore, since the canopies of the F-15 and F-16 can't even withstand the friction-induced heat of low-altitude, high-speed flight without literally melting, I genuinely fail to see where this supposed 'low-altitude, high-speed advantage' of yours actually lies. If this mythical advantage does exist, could you do me a favor and just make up another story on the spot

Let me guess: is this yet another case where India's aircraft can miraculously pull it off, but the Americans' own planes somehow fail to deliver? I wonder, is this sudden technological miracle a byproduct of indian 'political transparency,' or is it driven by some other mystical superpower?

Of course, before you go on inventing more stories, shouldn't you at least master the basic literacy required to read the very chart you posted?
And yet, you still haven't answered my question: what exactly does 22,000 pounds equate to in metric thrust?
Or, to make it even simpler for you: how many KN is that supposed to be?

If you could somehow manage to patch up this glaring hole in your logic with a proper conversion process, it might actually make your little fairy tales sound a bit more vivid and convincing

 

[Rajput Lion]

If we want to develop our own sixth gen we need to build a 160-200 kN engine if we really want to contend with serious powers like China Russia or America. Fact is the JV Zafran/RR Amca engine will not fulfill our requirement for future sixth gen unless we jugaad like the Chinese and build a j-36 like analog.

We most definitely plan to do that.

 

[Hyperactive ADD]

SCAF's engine is just 110 kN. AMCA's engine is 120 kN and we are developing a second model with 140 kN. So we can get a 14T class jet out of it. GCAP's likely to use a 130 or 140 kN engine too.

Don't be fooled by Su-30 and Su-57's specs. These jets have to sacrifice fuel for payload. The Su-57 can carry only 3T of payload while on full internal fuel. Su-35S carries 4T. But SCAF will be able to carry its fully rated full and payload at its 33T MTOW. AMCA's the same, its MTOW is with full fuel and payload.

These larger jets have to take off with very low fuel and then refuel mid-air for full range and payload.

Let’s do some basic math: a Su-57 internal loadout consists of 4 R-37M missiles plus 2 R-74s. That weight sums up to 4x600 + 2 x 120= 2.6 tons.
In real-world combat missions over Ukraine, the Su-34’s actual operational payload is 4 FAB-500 bombs. The total weight is 2 tons, and even if you factor in the pylons and UMPK glide kits, it doesn't cross the 3-ton mark. Alternatively, it carries a single FAB-3000.
So, I genuinely have no earthly idea what kind of '4-ton phantom cargo' you claim the Su-35S desperately needs to haul.
As for your beloved F-35, it carries two 2,000-pound bombs—that’s 2 x 910—plus two AIM-9X missiles, barely scraping past 2 tons in total.
Since you constantly whine that 3 or 4 tons of payload is 'not enough,' I must ask: just how many tens of tons of munitions do you expect these jets to carry?
Once again, a feat that both the Americans and the Russians find physically impossible has been effortlessly accomplished by you on your keyboard.

The AMCA will return to the global market as an absolute conqueror, being exported right back to the United States and Russia. This engineering marvel boasts a 140 kN thrust, a thrust-to-weight ratio that eclipses the Su-57 （By type 30） a staggering 15%（With specifications like these, it leaves the F-22 Raptor completely eating its dust, blowing it straight out of the water）, and a combat payload that leaves both the F-35 and Su-34 in the dust.
And hold onto your seats: All of this is miraculously achieved within an 'empty weight of just 12 tons,' alongside an 'RCS that is a mere one-tenth of the Su-57.'
It is time to deliver a dose of 'black-market sci-fi tech shock' to those uncultured backwoods peasants in Washington and Moscow！

 

[Hyperactive ADD]

And he's unable to relate the engines to the airframes they have been designed for. Like F110 maxing out performance at lower altitudes for multirole jets compared to AL-31F's higher altitude requirement. Or a 75 kN M88-4E being sufficient for the Rafale 'cause the canards generate up to 25% more lift.

Oh, I almost forgot your brilliant exposition on this: how the canards supposedly led to a catastrophic RCS on the J-20/J-10, to the point where China's next-generation J-50 or JH-36 designs are running as far away from them as possible, never daring to use them again.
But according to your masterful thesis, this layout is somehow the absolute, perfect match for the M88-4. Does that mean if it were paired with the AL-31F or any other engine, its mystical capabilities would wither away or cease to exist altogether? Honestly, I’m just too dense to comprehend your sheer genius.
Are you implying that installing the RD-33MK onto this specific airframe layout would somehow cause the performance of the RD-33 to degrade? Or what exactly is your point? Because frankly, I am utterly lost.
Or are you implying that your future aircraft are intentionally going to be modeled after the Rafale’s utterly pathetic maximum takeoff weight?
Oh, my bad—I suppose the French just chose not to build an engine like the AL-31F, because they simply didn't want a heavy-duty air superiority platform like the Su-27, right?

Furthermore, look at the aircraft powered by the F110: the F-16 and the later blocks of the F-15.
The former was born directly from the 'Fighter Mafia' as the ultimate, stripped-down dogfighter for pure air superiority. The latter famously entered service with the rigid doctrine: 'Not a pound for air-to-ground.'
So, I am profoundly curious: exactly which 'multi-role fighter' optimized for the F110 are you rambling about? Is it a classified masterpiece you personally dreamt up in your sleep last night

I mean, last time I checked, I wasn’t communicating in Chinese or some other exotic language. We are using the exact same 26 letters of the alphabet, yet why is it that the absolute nonsense you type out is so profoundly, mind-bogglingly incomprehensible?

 

[randomradio]

To successfully offload industrial garbage like the M88 and F404 at a premium price, while simultaneously sandbagging a major competitor—oh, excuse me, a 'fine Western partner：indian'—is truly a beautiful piece of business.
In fact, the Chinese should be absolutely thrilled to see you guys end up with the F404 or M88

F404 powers a 6.5 ton aircraft and M88-4E powers a 9.5 ton aircraft. I don't see the problem here.

LCA Mk1A
empty weight = 6.5 tons
thrust = 8.62 tons
TWR = 1.32

Rafale C
empty weight = 9.5 tons
thrust = 7.65 tons x 2
TWR = 1.61

Su-30MKI
empty weight = 18.4 tons
thrust = 12.55 tons x 2
TWR = 1.36

So what's the problem?

The F110 only manages to squeeze out decent thrust when crawling around at low altitudes. In stark contrast, achieving extended missile ranges and maximizing the strike distance of glide weapons demands the high-altitude, high-speed performance that the AL-31F delivers—a luxury Indian aircraft are biologically destined to never achieve.
Furthermore, since the canopies of the F-15 and F-16 can't even withstand the friction-induced heat of low-altitude, high-speed flight without literally melting, I genuinely fail to see where this supposed 'low-altitude, high-speed advantage' of yours actually lies. If this mythical advantage does exist, could you do me a favor and just make up another story on the spot

Let me guess: is this yet another case where India's aircraft can miraculously pull it off, but the Americans' own planes somehow fail to deliver? I wonder, is this sudden technological miracle a byproduct of indian 'political transparency,' or is it driven by some other mystical superpower?

The American airframes are very old, it's not an engine problem.

Of course, before you go on inventing more stories, shouldn't you at least master the basic literacy required to read the very chart you posted?
And yet, you still haven't answered my question: what exactly does 22,000 pounds equate to in metric thrust?
Or, to make it even simpler for you: how many KN is that supposed to be?

If you could somehow manage to patch up this glaring hole in your logic with a proper conversion process, it might actually make your little fairy tales sound a bit more vivid and convincing

22000 lbs = 9979 kg = 97.8 kN

I think overall you are confused. Su-27 is meant for high altitude, high speed flight. F-15E and F-16 are meant for low/medium altitude and low speed flight.

 

[lmaoxd]

F404 powers a 6.5 ton aircraft and M88-4E powers a 9.5 ton aircraft. I don't see the problem here.

LCA Mk1A
empty weight = 6.5 tons
thrust = 8.62 tons
TWR = 1.32

Rafale C
empty weight = 9.5 tons
thrust = 7.65 tons x 2
TWR = 1.61

Su-30MKI
empty weight = 18.4 tons
thrust = 12.55 tons x 2
TWR = 1.36

So what's the problem?



The American airframes are very old, it's not an engine problem.



22000 lbs = 9979 kg = 97.8 kN

I think overall you are confused. Su-27 is meant for high altitude, high speed flight. F-15E and F-16 are meant for low/medium altitude and low speed flight.

F15 is meant for high altitude mate.................

 

[randomradio]

Let’s do some basic math: a Su-57 internal loadout consists of 4 R-37M missiles plus 2 R-74s. That weight sums up to 4x600 + 2 x 120= 2.6 tons.
In real-world combat missions over Ukraine, the Su-34’s actual operational payload is 4 FAB-500 bombs. The total weight is 2 tons, and even if you factor in the pylons and UMPK glide kits, it doesn't cross the 3-ton mark. Alternatively, it carries a single FAB-3000.
So, I genuinely have no earthly idea what kind of '4-ton phantom cargo' you claim the Su-35S desperately needs to haul.
As for your beloved F-35, it carries two 2,000-pound bombs—that’s 2 x 910—plus two AIM-9X missiles, barely scraping past 2 tons in total.
Since you constantly whine that 3 or 4 tons of payload is 'not enough,' I must ask: just how many tens of tons of munitions do you expect these jets to carry?
Once again, a feat that both the Americans and the Russians find physically impossible has been effortlessly accomplished by you on your keyboard.

I'm not a fan of the F-35, but...

Israeli F-35s First To Use ‘Beast Mode’ In Combat

The “thousands of sorties” flown by Israeli F-35Is in the latest Middle East conflicts have included the first combat use of external offensive stores. The “thousands of sorties” flown by Israeli F-35Is in the latest Middle East conflicts have included the first combat use of external offensive...

www.twz.com

6 x 2000 lbs bombs. 2 inside the weapons bays. Almost 6 tons with 2 missiles.

The AMCA will return to the global market as an absolute conqueror, being exported right back to the United States and Russia. This engineering marvel boasts a 140 kN thrust, a thrust-to-weight ratio that eclipses the Su-57 （By type 30） a staggering 15%（With specifications like these, it leaves the F-22 Raptor completely eating its dust, blowing it straight out of the water）, and a combat payload that leaves both the F-35 and Su-34 in the dust.
And hold onto your seats: All of this is miraculously achieved within an 'empty weight of just 12 tons,' alongside an 'RCS that is a mere one-tenth of the Su-57.'
It is time to deliver a dose of 'black-market sci-fi tech shock' to those uncultured backwoods peasants in Washington and Moscow！

Sarcasm is silly when it flies in the face of facts.

Just one correction though, it's 120 kN. The rest, yes. AMCA has been designed to surpass the performance of the F-22 by a wide margin.

AMCA won't beat Su-34 in payload, but it will exceed Su-30MKI by 500 kg and Su-35S by 2000 kg. Since MKI carries lesser fuel, that's compensated by increased payload.

Simple calculation, MTOW - empty weight.
AMCA = 14 tons
MKI/Su-35S = 16 tons
SCAF = 18.5 tons

No matter how heavy a Flanker is, the medium weight AMCA with just 12 tons empty carries just 2 tons less weight compared to the 18.4 ton Flankers.

If we assume Su-57 is 17.5 tons empty and we know MTOW will be 33.5 tons, the difference is 16 tons. The same as the Flanker, inferior to SCAF, and only 2 tons difference between AMCA and Su-57.

The point I was making was heavy jets with a lot of power are becoming useless. SCAF carries more than Flankers and only requires 11 ton engines.

It's all about quality. Like how an ant can lift 50 times its body weight, Su-35S and MKI lift 1.9 times their body weight, AMCA lifts 2.2 times, SCAF lifts 2.1 times, and Rafale lifts 2.6 times.

 

[randomradio]

Oh, I almost forgot your brilliant exposition on this: how the canards supposedly led to a catastrophic RCS on the J-20/J-10, to the point where China's next-generation J-50 or JH-36 designs are running as far away from them as possible, never daring to use them again.

I see nothing wrong with canards on stealth jets.

It's just foolish Internet opinions.

The X-36 is proof of that.

You have a habit of putting words in my mouth, claiming things I've never said.

Are you implying that installing the RD-33MK onto this specific airframe layout would somehow cause the performance of the RD-33 to degrade? Or what exactly is your point? Because frankly, I am utterly lost.
Or are you implying that your future aircraft are intentionally going to be modeled after the Rafale’s utterly pathetic maximum takeoff weight?
Oh, my bad—I suppose the French just chose not to build an engine like the AL-31F, because they simply didn't want a heavy-duty air superiority platform like the Su-27, right?

Dude, sarcasm doesn't work against facts. Designs are always based around meeting specific purposes. And engines and airframes are designed for each other. Mig-29 does well with RD-33, but Rafale does well with M88-4E, both aircraft are matched to those engines. Inlet design is matched to the engine. There's no guarantee RD-33 will do well on Rafale.

RD-33 is a big and heavy engine too. It has a larger fan, has 13 stages versus M88's 9 stages. These engines are not from the same generation.

Just having high MTOW is meaningless. What you need to compare are fuel fractions and payloads.

Furthermore, look at the aircraft powered by the F110: the F-16 and the later blocks of the F-15.
The former was born directly from the 'Fighter Mafia' as the ultimate, stripped-down dogfighter for pure air superiority. The latter famously entered service with the rigid doctrine: 'Not a pound for air-to-ground.'
So, I am profoundly curious: exactly which 'multi-role fighter' optimized for the F110 are you rambling about? Is it a classified masterpiece you personally dreamt up in your sleep last night

F-15E.

The F-15E comes with 2 pilots and permanently fixed CFTs. It has a 60% redesigned airframe with new landing gears. What magical air combat performance are you expecting from it?

It was optimized for strike, that's why the name "Strike Eagle." That means it's designed for low/medium altitude, just like Su-34 was.

I mean, last time I checked, I wasn’t communicating in Chinese or some other exotic language. We are using the exact same 26 letters of the alphabet, yet why is it that the absolute nonsense you type out is so profoundly, mind-bogglingly incomprehensible?

You are not thinking. You are looking for things that don't exist in my posts.

 

[randomradio]

F15 is meant for high altitude mate.................

"Strike Eagle."

Two pilots, permanently attached CFTs, high structural strength with more weight...

All it has is speed and a big radar.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104499/f-15e-strike-eagle/

Primary function: Air-to-ground attack aircraft

 

[Hyperactive ADD]

You are not thinking. You are looking for things that don't exist in my posts.

Ah, yes. Spot on. We are indeed 'discussing things that do not exist.'
A 120 kN or even 140 kN engine—paper engines that don’t even have official designations yet—and an AMCA that hasn’t even seen the light of day as a physical prototype. You’ve finally stumbled upon the actual point.


As for your grand 'F110 vs. AL-31F' debate, it’s honestly not even worth discussing anymore. To be frank, the die-hard regime apologists on our Chinese internet parsed this to death years ago. After all, that piece of junk known as the WS-10 shares a deeply intertwined, incestuous lineage with the garbage F110. If these apologists could somehow mental-gymnastic the trashy F110 into beating the AL-31F via keyboard warfare, it would perfectly validate their narrative that Chinese domestic products are superior to Russian ones. Unfortunately for them, reality had other plans.

In the end, they dug up a chart of the AL-31F’s test-bench parameters with a static pressure ratio of zero from a 2016 Shenyang Aircraft Corporation maintenance paper on the J-11B. They hilariously mistook that curve for their own WS-10B, using it to 'prove' that the WS-10’s performance far exceeded the F110’s—especially in high-altitude, high-speed regimes. What a tragedy that they ultimately discovered they had accidentally proven the AL-31F itself was superior to the F110, turning the whole stunt into one of the greatest, most enduring laughingstocks on the Chinese web.





The same comedy applies to your desperate defense of the canard layout. The keyboard warriors on the Chinese internet are vastly more fanatical than a latecomer like you. After all, they had a desperate institutional need to prove the J-10 and J-20 were peerless. Yet, when China's own J-50 and JH-36 projects surfaced completely devoid of canards, this entire circus of failures hid under their blankets, too humiliated to utter a single peep.

then, I certainly didn’t see any canards slapped onto that crude AMCA PowerPoint presentation of yours—which, according to your convenient excuse, was made 'deliberately crude' for security purposes.
Honestly, you seriously need to take notes from your Chinese counterparts on how to properly boast. Your professional competence desperately needs an upgrade.
Your Chinese peers were far more desperate than you to prove the F110 was superior to the AL-31F, just so they could validate their profoundly idiotic operation of ripping engines out of 737 airliners to reverse-engineer them for fighter jets. They wanted so badly to prove that Chinese gear beats Russian hardware, but alas, reality backfired. Your Chinese peers were also far more desperate than you to prove the inherent superiority of the canard-delta configuration, yet reality backfired on them there too.
Your patch version is just painfully obsolete

 

[randomradio]

Ah, yes. Spot on. We are indeed 'discussing things that do not exist.'
A 120 kN or even 140 kN engine—paper engines that don’t even have official designations yet—and an AMCA that hasn’t even seen the light of day as a physical prototype. You’ve finally stumbled upon the actual point.


As for your grand 'F110 vs. AL-31F' debate, it’s honestly not even worth discussing anymore. To be frank, the die-hard regime apologists on our Chinese internet parsed this to death years ago. After all, that piece of junk known as the WS-10 shares a deeply intertwined, incestuous lineage with the garbage F110. If these apologists could somehow mental-gymnastic the trashy F110 into beating the AL-31F via keyboard warfare, it would perfectly validate their narrative that Chinese domestic products are superior to Russian ones. Unfortunately for them, reality had other plans.

In the end, they dug up a chart of the AL-31F’s test-bench parameters with a static pressure ratio of zero from a 2016 Shenyang Aircraft Corporation maintenance paper on the J-11B. They hilariously mistook that curve for their own WS-10B, using it to 'prove' that the WS-10’s performance far exceeded the F110’s—especially in high-altitude, high-speed regimes. What a tragedy that they ultimately discovered they had accidentally proven the AL-31F itself was superior to the F110, turning the whole stunt into one of the greatest, most enduring laughingstocks on the Chinese web.


View attachment 52250View attachment 52251


The same comedy applies to your desperate defense of the canard layout. The keyboard warriors on the Chinese internet are vastly more fanatical than a latecomer like you. After all, they had a desperate institutional need to prove the J-10 and J-20 were peerless. Yet, when China's own J-50 and JH-36 projects surfaced completely devoid of canards, this entire circus of failures hid under their blankets, too humiliated to utter a single peep.

then, I certainly didn’t see any canards slapped onto that crude AMCA PowerPoint presentation of yours—which, according to your convenient excuse, was made 'deliberately crude' for security purposes.
Honestly, you seriously need to take notes from your Chinese counterparts on how to properly boast. Your professional competence desperately needs an upgrade.
Your Chinese peers were far more desperate than you to prove the F110 was superior to the AL-31F, just so they could validate their profoundly idiotic operation of ripping engines out of 737 airliners to reverse-engineer them for fighter jets. They wanted so badly to prove that Chinese gear beats Russian hardware, but alas, reality backfired. Your Chinese peers were also far more desperate than you to prove the inherent superiority of the canard-delta configuration, yet reality backfired on them there too.
Your patch version is just painfully obsolete

So what if AMCA or its engine is not ready, it's a development program that will begin soon. I don't get the point of you attacking AMCA. It serves no purpose. IAF decided to go after AMCA instead of Su-57 because AMCA has been designed to surpass it. If it fails to do that, the IAF will import.

And what's Rafale or Su-30's canards got to do with J-20 or J-10? Canards add more lift, that's all. It's got nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. If your airframe has sufficient lift and controls well at high AoA, then don't add canards. Or else add canards. Rafale adds canards to generate more lift, Su-30 adds canards to stabilise center of gravity due to the heavy nose. The J-10 and J-20 will have canards for their own reasons.

The F110 see a 25% loss in thrust when it's installed in the F-15E. And it's around 20% for F-16 with F100. That's why you get 22000 lbs for F-15E and 24000 lbs for F-16.

When the F-15E starts its engines and goes full burner, the pressure loss in the inlet is 5%, which translates into a direct thrust loss of 10%. Once you take away bleed air for cooling and mechanical energy for electricity generation and other losses, the overall thrust loss is at 25%. So 29500 lbs becomes 22000 lbs at the exhaust.

Here: Mig-29.


Your pet jet here's delivering 13600 kgf of installed thrust versus it's uninstalled thrust of 16600 kgf. That's almost 20% loss in thrust.

So what now?

This is not an engine problem, it's an airframe problem.

And who cares what engines the Chinese have ripped off, the only thing that matters is if the performance goal was achieved. If it wasn't, then it failed. But if it has, it doesn't matter if it's of worse quality or better 'cause overhaul doesn't matter when you are fighting. Quality is for peacetime, performance is for wartime.

 

[Lolwa]

So what if AMCA or its engine is not ready, it's a development program that will begin soon. I don't get the point of you attacking AMCA. It serves no purpose. IAF decided to go after AMCA instead of Su-57 because AMCA has been designed to surpass it. If it fails to do that, the IAF will import.

And what's Rafale or Su-30's canards got to do with J-20 or J-10? Canards add more lift, that's all. It's got nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. If your airframe has sufficient lift and controls well at high AoA, then don't add canards. Or else add canards. Rafale adds canards to generate more lift, Su-30 adds canards to stabilise center of gravity due to the heavy nose. The J-10 and J-20 will have canards for their own reasons.

The F110 see a 25% loss in thrust when it's installed in the F-15E. And it's around 20% for F-16 with F100. That's why you get 22000 lbs for F-15E and 24000 lbs for F-16.

When the F-15E starts its engines and goes full burner, the pressure loss in the inlet is 5%, which translates into a direct thrust loss of 10%. Once you take away bleed air for cooling and mechanical energy for electricity generation and other losses, the overall thrust loss is at 25%. So 29500 lbs becomes 22000 lbs at the exhaust.

Here: Mig-29.
View attachment 52252

Your pet jet here's delivering 13600 kgf of installed thrust versus it's uninstalled thrust of 16600 kgf. That's almost 20% loss in thrust.

So what now?

This is not an engine problem, it's an airframe problem.

And who cares what engines the Chinese have ripped off, the only thing that matters is if the performance goal was achieved. If it wasn't, then it failed. But if it has, it doesn't matter if it's of worse quality or better 'cause overhaul doesn't matter when you are fighting. Quality is for peacetime, performance is for wartime.

Amca is not surpassing the su-57 in an real world situation. Let's get real here. The stealth gains will be minimal. AMCA will need a minimum of 1800 trm GaN aesa on it's fcr and a 0.001 sqm RCS if it actually wants to threaten the su-57? And I highly doubt we can reach that.

 

[randomradio]

Amca is not surpassing the su-57 in an real world situation. Let's get real here. The stealth gains will be minimal. AMCA will need a minimum of 1800 trm GaN aesa on it's fcr and a 0.001 sqm RCS if it actually wants to threaten the su-57? And I highly doubt we can reach that.

Su-57's RCS is not 0.001 sqm.

 

[PhotonVish]

The point I was making was heavy jets with a lot of power are becoming useless. SCAF carries more than Flankers and only requires 11 ton engines.

It's all about quality. Like how an ant can lift 50 times its body weight, Su-35S and MKI lift 1.9 times their body weight, AMCA lifts 2.2 times, SCAF lifts 2.1 times, and Rafale lifts 2.6 times

But isn't MKI can be much more menurable than Rafale with mtow ?

I mean, physics dont lie, a higher T/W ratio is indeed important for menurabality.

A su35 will definitely be much more menurable than Eurofighter or Rafale with heavy weapon load

And heavy fighter ate MKI or su35 dont need external fuel tank for long range mission which Rafale or Eurofighter requires ( and this is the reason why i dont like current AMCA design, its internal fuel capacity is even less than F-35 or J-35 which is shame )

 

[Lolwa]

Su-57's RCS is not 0.001 sqm.

The AMCA won't be able to take out the su-57 with a 0.5 SQM RCS with r-37 on it

 

[randomradio]

But isn't MKI can be much more menurable than Rafale with mtow ?

I mean, physics dont lie, a higher T/W ratio is indeed important for menurabality.

A su35 will definitely be much more menurable than Eurofighter or Rafale with heavy weapon load

And heavy fighter ate MKI or su35 dont need external fuel tank for long range mission which Rafale or Eurofighter requires ( and this is the reason why i dont like current AMCA design, its internal fuel capacity is even less than F-35 or J-35 which is shame )

I don't think there's much difference at MTOW. Only stealth jets with WB loadouts can retain full maneuverability. Stick external loads on them, they go back to being 4th gen.

AMCA will outrange the MKI. It should be able to match or come close to the F-35A's 3500 km range due to higher airframe efficiency and a more fuel efficient engine.

The only benefit of larger aircraft is long range, but that comes at much higher operations cost.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Amca is not surpassing the su-57 in an real world situation. Let's get real here. The stealth gains will be minimal. AMCA will need a minimum of 1800 trm GaN aesa on it's fcr and a 0.001 sqm RCS if it actually wants to threaten the su-57? And I highly doubt we can reach that.

AMCA will most definitely be more stealthy than Su-57. However, the Su-57 variant(60MKI) that will be locally manufactured at HAL Nashik would be more stealthy(from all-aspects), versus the current Su-57S.

Anyways, despite slighlty lower RCS, Su-57/60MKI will have far more combat efficacy than AMCA being a heavy-weight stealth jet. No matter what people may argue, but Heavy-weight jet>> Medium-weight jet >> Light-weight jet; especially when they belong to overall same generation.

 

[Rajput Lion]

The AMCA won't be able to take out the su-57 with a 0.5 SQM RCS with r-37 on it

People use this 0.5m2 patent figure for Su-57 and forget that they described F-22's RCS as 0.3m2 there as well. Real world RCS of Su-57 with latest RAM/RAS/RAP is an order of magnitude lower than that. Even computer simulations posted by @South block showed it had 0.001m2 frontal RCS in X band with IRST ball rotated back. Real world RCS figure would be even better than that.

 

[lmaoxd]

listen mate, ik your really excited about the su57 but when you make claims you gotta provide proof to said claims especially to claims as bold as these.

People use this 0.5m2 patent figure for Su-57 and forget that they described F-22's RCS as 0.3m2 there as well. Real world RCS of Su-57 with latest RAM/RAS/RAP is an order of magnitude lower than that. Even computer simulations posted by @South block showed it had 0.001m2 frontal RCS in X band with IRST ball rotated back. Real world RCS figure would be even better than that.

 

[batman]

People use this 0.5m2 patent figure for Su-57 and forget that they described F-22's RCS as 0.3m2 there as well. Real world RCS of Su-57 with latest RAM/RAS/RAP is an order of magnitude lower than that. Even computer simulations posted by @South block showed it had 0.001m2 frontal RCS in X band with IRST ball rotated back. Real world RCS figure would be even better than that.

Average RCS of almost all 5th gen is similar, its the ignorant wannabe fans who watch a YouTube short where they claim Su57 has RCS of school bus while F22 has that of bee thinking they know it all.

Like just think for a moment, do they think one of the leading fighter jet manufacturer and designer in the world who pioneered stealth doctrine wouldn't know how how to make a low observable jet? I know Americans and Europeans have an irrational hate towards Russia while they don't hold the same towards a certain nation who had a certain painter do some questionable actions against their country. The only reason American war machine toolkit spreads false propaganda against Su57's stealth is because their outdated F22 and fat F35 looses out in most relevant criteria. The F22 is an outdated fossil so I won't even waste my time comparing it with the Felon, let's take the F35, the Su57 has an superior aerodynamics shape, more combat range, more maneuverability, better sensor coverage, better IR missile counter measures, better Air Superior capability, is a multi role jet, has longer range BVR missiles and capability etc if you look at what is needed to fulfill a mission for your country, a squadron of Su57 will be much more capable than squadron of F35.