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

[randomradio]

Lol 500+... a grand total of 76 have been ordered that to after putting pressure on RuAF which didn't wanted this s**t either & it being on same league as F-22/F -35 is your wet dream only.

They buy in tranches based on time-based plans.

If the plan period is between 2025-30, they calculate the production that can be done within that period and order only that many. So if they can build 10 jets over 5 years, they order 50.

Russia makes 1, 3, 5, and 10-year plans. The current 10-year one is called SAP 2027 or GPV 2027 and that will end in 2027. So by 2027, they plan to buy 76 jets. Then they will start a new plan from 2028 onwards with a new set of orders. It's updated every 5 years.

Now we have to wait and see in 2027-28 what their GPV 2037 will be like.

Na but they also didn't want to buy this crap & instead went for Rafale...... Which itself don't stand a chance against F-22/F-35 in real combat no matter how hard fanboys try to spin it.

We did not put FGFA on hold due to technical reasons, but because we couldn't independently verify what Russia said they would develop for us. We asked for technical documentation of the T-50 and we also wanted to fly it, neither were possible because the Russians claimed the current version was specific to the Russians.

The IAF's objective was not to develop FGFA using Russian hands, but Indian hands. But HAL said they do not have the ability to do that. So workshare decreased from 50% to 25% and then just 15%. It became pointless in terms of developing the Indian industry. When the IAF approached DRDO, they said they can develop all the technologies in-house, which is why AMCA became more advanced in its current avatar. Before that, it was supposed to be powered by F414, semi-stealth and no supercruise. So it no longer made sense to just give the Russians R&D money.

So we told them we will make a decision after they make their version operational. So now the Russians are using their own funds to develop a new version of the FGFA.

And notice I said FGFA was put on hold, not canceled. The govt is yet to make a decision on its cancelation. It's a different story that the politics around Russia makes large deals untenable for the moment. But with MRFA and AMCA given greater priority, there's still a lot of time left for a Su-57 decision.

Also, in upcoming variants, the Su-57 family will be more than a match for the F-22. The F-35 isn't even in the contest, it can't compete. Stealth isn't enough for the air dominance mission, the F-35 is only useful against SAMs and ground targets.

Rafale deal was independent. It had nothing to do with the success or failure of the Su-57. Some would say there were financial reasons, but neither jets at the time were even meant for the same timelines. FGFA (2023+) was supposed to be produced after Rafale (2013+) production was over.

Basically, the Rafale deal was untenable so GTG was initiated, and FGFA was put on hold for totally different reasons, which was a good judgment call at the time. The IAF likely believes the new AMCA can replace FGFA. But until the govt officially cancels FGFA, it's only on hold. However there's a possibility 2 or 3 squadrons can still be bought in a more advanced form, but that's something for post-MRFA, especially if the IAF is gonna climb up to 60 squadrons.

 

[randomradio]

Flat nozzles won't help as long as the engine nacelles/pods still protrude below the airframe.

View attachment 41792
It's a classic feature of the Su-27/30/35 that has carried over to the Felon. They probably stuck with it to reduce dev risk but it ultimately affects RCS. Slapping on more RAM won't do much. Unless you're talking about the mythical plasma stealth tech that the Russians were supposedly working on.

That's not the definitive engine.

This will be the end version.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Thread explaining why Su-57 is VLO.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1903273083995140433

And as mentioned, the later versions will match or exceed the F-35. FGFA was always supposed to exceed the baseline Su-57 by a significant margin.

These are just computer ran simulations(which have gotten far accurate now than before), the real Felon is even far more stealthier than what the results show here.

@Speedster1

Our 2-seat FGFA version was supposed to be far more stealthier than the baseline Felon.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Flat nozzles won't help as long as the engine nacelles/pods still protrude below the airframe.

View attachment 41792
It's a classic feature of the Su-27/30/35 that has carried over to the Felon. They probably stuck with it to reduce dev risk but it ultimately affects RCS. Slapping on more RAM won't do much. Unless you're talking about the mythical plasma stealth tech that the Russians were supposedly working on.

Nope, the nacelles are like that to allow twin tandem internal weapons bay. Plus the tunnel gives huge body lift to enhance maneuverability.

With radar blockers and AL-51F having innate stealth features, such intake design for a VLO jet is quite novel yet effective.

Felon, once fully mature, will be a better jet than F-22/35 just like MKI is to F-15/16/18 etc.

 

[randomradio]

These are just computer ran simulations(which have gotten far accurate now than before), the real Felon is even far more stealthier than what the results show here.

@Speedster1

Our 2-seat FGFA version was supposed to be far more stealthier than the baseline Felon.

True. But it compares one jet to another using the same methods in order to get sufficient data for comparison. And it tells us the Su-57 is only slightly less stealthy than the F-35. That debunks the non-stealth myth perpetuated by Ajai Shukla.

 

[Speedster1]

Nope, the nacelles are like that to allow twin tandem internal weapons bay. Plus the tunnel gives huge body lift to enhance maneuverability.

With radar blockers and AL-51F having innate stealth features, such intake design for a VLO jet is quite novel yet effective.

Felon, once fully mature, will be a better jet than F-22/35 just like MKI is to F-15/16/18 etc.

The Russians were clearly aiming for a good mix of maneuverability and stealth. But the compromises (wrt airframe structure and layout) they've made will be hard to rectify unless the basic design is re-engineered. This would essentially make a notional Su-57MKI a new design with all the risks that entails.

Also, Russian avionics and ew continue to lag behind the West. I doubt it'd have anything (sensor fusion, EOTS, DAS) that the Rafale F4/5 doesn't already have/planned to have, except DIRCM perhaps.

 

[randomradio]

Also, Russian avionics and ew continue to lag behind the West.

Not true. Russian/Belarussian tech is first class. We chose a Belarussian EW pod for the Mig-29K over multiple other choices.

And avionics depends on how much you are willing to spend.

Unlike what you have heard before, the SU has consistently maintained a lead in fielded electronics compared to the West. They compensated for lower quality with better technology. The first battle tank to go digital was the T-64. The Mig-29 was designed to be unmanned. Their space shuttle Buran was unmanned, a feat that was regarded as impossible during the time by the Americans. Similarly, they compensated for the superiority of the American MS radar on the F-15 with a better performing PESA radar on the Mig-31 and Flanker.

The fall of the SU led to stagnation, but the Russians plan on maintaining that system of introducing higher grade of technologies before the West does. That's why Armata and S-500/550 have no equivalents. Similarly, the Su-57 in various variants will keep moving up the value chain with new technologies.

Pretty much all negative news you hear about the Russians or anti-West powers are practically tailored propaganda. Great powers and aspiring superpowers are not stupid enough to introduce junk.

 

[Hydra]

The Su-57 Felon isn’t invisible to Patriot, NASAMS & SAMP/T

bulgarianmilitary.com

 

[South block]

The Russians were clearly aiming for a good mix of maneuverability and stealth. But the compromises (wrt airframe structure and layout) they've made will be hard to rectify unless the basic design is re-engineered. This would essentially make a notional Su-57MKI a new design with all the risks that entails.

Also, Russian avionics and ew continue to lag behind the West. I doubt it'd have anything (sensor fusion, EOTS, DAS) that the Rafale F4/5 doesn't already have/planned to have, except DIRCM perhaps.

The design was made intentionally flawed because they wanted it to sell to foreign countries but making sure it didn't match there western counterpart.

 

[Hydra]

The design was made intentionally flawed because they wanted it to sell to foreign countries but making sure it didn't match there western counterpart.

USSR used to do that, but for Russia they don't need to make any flawed designs any more. They lags behind west, china, & even India & Turkeys in many area.

 

[Speedster1]

The design was made intentionally flawed because they wanted it to sell to foreign countries but making sure it didn't match there western counterpart.

Infact, Su-75 is meant for export with better stealth than the Felon. But sadly it's still a paper design. For Su-57, stealth was not the primary design factor. Else Sukhoi would have given it a flat underside with blended inlets/nacelles like J-20/F-22.

I wouldn't put it down to lack of experience becoz Sukhoi had done some work on stealth designs with the Okhotnik UCAV and S-47 Berkut. It was a deliberate design choice.

 

[randomradio]

Else Sukhoi would have given it a flat underside with blended inlets/nacelles like J-20/F-22.

There's no relation. An X band signal is just 3 cm. So shaping is at the micro-level, not macro.

By your logic, this is not stealthy then.

 

[Speedster1]

There's no relation. An X band signal is just 3 cm. So shaping is at the micro-level, not macro.

By your logic, this is not stealthy then.

View attachment 41807

The YF-23's belly is nearly flat. Only the inlets are on the underside while the rest of the nacelles/ducts are upwards. Sorta like a vertically inclined serpentine intake vs horizontal (as on AMCA, et all). The Su-57 inlets are completely in line with its engines because of the twin IWBs in the middle. Compare that to the YF-23s bays positioned ahead of the intakes.

In any case, it's a poor argument because for all its merits YF-23 never made it into production.

 

[randomradio]

The YF-23's belly is nearly flat. Only the inlets are on the underside while the rest of the nacelles/ducts are upwards. Sorta like a vertically inclined serpentine intake vs horizontal (as on AMCA, et all). The Su-57 inlets are completely in line with its engines because of the twin IWBs in the middle. Compare that to the YF-23s bays positioned ahead of the intakes.

In any case, it's a poor argument because for all its merits YF-23 never made it into production.

View attachment 41808

What's funny is reality is the opposite of what you are stating.

Flat isn't good. Round is good for stealth.

The F-117 uses flat. B-2 uses round.

Why? Flat results in more specular reflections while round helps deal with creeping waves. It basically means, most of the flat bodies you see on the underside are not good designs. Designers consider it a risk worth taking due to the low probability of radars on the sides and rear of the aircraft in real world conditions, and even that's being eliminated in newer designs.

That's why only the F-35 and Su-57 have managed to get rid of flat undersides by making their designs more complex. Look up photos of the F-35's underbelly, it's very similar to the Su-57.

So flat is bad.

YF-23 had better stealth than the F-22, the USAF chose the latter because the YF-23 was too advanced for their needs and thereby more risky.

 

[Speedster1]

Why? Flat results in more specular reflections while round helps deal with creeping waves. It basically means, most of the flat bodies you see on the underside are not good designs

Lol. Better tell the Russians that they're better off without those fancy flat engine nozzles then. While theoretically it is possible to plug the ventral fuselage gaps (edges, corners, etc) nothing can be done about the large tail sting.

The Su-57 is the only 5G design to not have a flat underside and to have protrusions/fairings at the wing-body junction. While it does have some stealth shaping, it's not VLO in my book.

 

[randomradio]

Lol. Better tell the Russians that they're better off without those fancy flat engine nozzles then. While theoretically it is possible to plug the ventral fuselage gaps (edges, corners, etc) nothing can be done about the large tail sting.

The flat nozzles reduces tip and corner diffraction by reducing the number of flat surfaces from many to just a few. That's how it helps reduce RCS. And with larger edges, it works better with longer waves than the traditional nozzle with sawtooth.

But more importantly, it spreads exhaust gases around so it cools down faster thereby reducing IR signature.

The tail sting is less threatening than the nose cone. Even B-2 and -21 have tail stings.

The Su-57 is the only 5G design to not have a flat underside and to have protrusions/fairings at the wing-body junction. While it does have some stealth shaping, it's not VLO in my book.

It may not meet "your" definition of stealth, but it's still VLO comparable to the F-22/F-35.

The nozzle is the biggest clue that the Su-57 is VLO because it would be useless if the aircraft was easily visible on radar. It's expensive, heavy, and reduces thrust, all to ensure the jet is VLO from the rear too. Which is why they hide it from view on new jets when publicly revealed. The same reason they hide submarine propellers. That's why we do not have rear images of the S-70 and F-47. B-21's was shown from a distance.

New Image of B-21 Bomber Tail Shows Different Exhausts, Rear Deck from B-2

A new image of the B-21 bomber, the first of its rear area, shows its exhausts and tail differ significantly from those of the B-2.

www.airandspaceforces.com

Similarly we have only seen a prototype version of the nozzle on a Su-57 prototype rather than a production model.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Lol. Better tell the Russians that they're better off without those fancy flat engine nozzles then. While theoretically it is possible to plug the ventral fuselage gaps (edges, corners, etc) nothing can be done about the large tail sting.

The Su-57 is the only 5G design to not have a flat underside and to have protrusions/fairings at the wing-body junction. While it does have some stealth shaping, it's not VLO in my book.

As the computer simulations show, while it may not be as stealthy as F-35, it certainly is VLO. And computer can't simulate the exact RAS/RAM that the Russians have used in the production model. So, the real Su-57 is even much more stealthy than what has been simulated here.

The future Su-57M and Su-60M(KI/FGFA) would be even stealthier.

 

[Rajput Lion]

@Speedster1, @South block, @Lolwa, @Hydra, @Innominate and other guys who doubt the stealth of Su-57. Well here the best analysis of its stealth especially in comparison with F-35.

Give it a thorough read:

What is the RCS of the SU 57?

Jack's answer: So, what is the RCS of the SU57? Is it 0.1m2 (-10dbsm)~1m2 (1dbsm) since a lot of people say that the SU57 has the same RCS size of an F/A 18 and Rafale aircraft. Saying that the SU57 has a less/no RAM coating with exposed rivets, back part of the engine nacelles, intake with no r...

www.quora.com

Don't think anyone has done any better analysis than this guy.

 

[South block]

@Speedster1, @South block, @Lolwa, @Hydra, @Innominate and other guys who doubt the stealth of Su-57. Well here the best analysis of its stealth especially in comparison with F-35.

Give it a thorough read:

What is the RCS of the SU 57?

Jack's answer: So, what is the RCS of the SU57? Is it 0.1m2 (-10dbsm)~1m2 (1dbsm) since a lot of people say that the SU57 has the same RCS size of an F/A 18 and Rafale aircraft. Saying that the SU57 has a less/no RAM coating with exposed rivets, back part of the engine nacelles, intake with no r...

www.quora.com

Don't think anyone has done any better analysis than this guy.

Good for RuAF .... IAF should persevere with AMCA

 

[Speedster1]

The flat nozzles reduces tip and corner diffraction by reducing the number of flat surfaces from many to just a few. That's how it helps reduce RCS. And with larger edges, it works better with longer waves than the traditional nozzle with sawtooth.

But more importantly, it spreads exhaust gases around so it cools down faster thereby reducing IR signature.

The tail sting is less threatening than the nose cone. Even B-2 and -21 have tail sting

The tail sting on the Felon extends quite a bit beyond the engines possibly to give the rear-facing radar antenna a decent FoV. Bad for RCS though.
Even with the new nozzles, the engine ducts/nacelles still have a curvy mid-section. Only the inlets are faceted.