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

[Hyperactive ADD]

You are assuming max thrust at zero and max thrust at high altitude. It would make more sense when there's a gradual increase in thrust to max thrust from min burner.

The thrust curves you posted in the second image for the AL-31F and F110 are both different. F110 climbs up straight without ram drag while AL-31F does. It's obvious both thrust curves have been tested for something specific.

View attachment 52182



It's normal specs for this generation. It's an efficiency-focused design compared to F-15A.

View attachment 52181

Throughout the entire history of aviation, absolutely no one has ever heard of this 'min burner' term you just pulled out of thin air. The diagram is clearly labeled right there: 'Maximum Thrust AB (Afterburner power) power.' It is written in black and white, crystal clear.

And as for that PowerPoint slide you posted — in the entire universe of PowerPoints, that has to be one of the crudest I’ve ever seen.
Honestly, the doodles I drew in the corners of my middle school English textbook were better than that.

 

[batman]

Lose what? You're saying we should import Su-57 over AMCA. Why on earth would I support that view?

Why not the F-35 then? It's even more ready than the Su-57?

Your reasoning is just dumb.

When did I make any of these claims? Are you perhaps demented or sadly suffer from schizophrenia? I would love if you could point me to such claims I never made.

Common sense. And because ADA said so.

Yeah, we're gonna need a better explanation and source for your claims and I would trust the pioneer of stealth doctrine to know what they are doing.

Yes, sir, whatever you say.

Thanks

Of course, you know more than ADA. Why didn't I see this coming? Oh, I did.

Lol, only one of us reveals about projects here which neither the MoD or Scientists from DRDO even thought about.

Sure, forget reality. Let's live in your world.

Lol, I don't wanna be rude to you, lets just agree to disagree, since you make an effort to be respectful to people who disagree with you and it's something I appreciate.

 

[batman]

These theories and arguments are an exact replica of the scenes on the Chinese internet years ago, when people were swearing and vowing over whether China should import the Su-35. I personally witnessed someone solemnly swear that if China ever bought the Su-35, they would literally eat their own computer screen. In the end, not a single one of them fulfilled their vows.
They especially love to brag that China’s electronics engineering and composite weight-reduction technologies are exponentially superior—by multiple orders of magnitude—to whatever 'Russian garbage' is out there.
After all, when every single tangible, hard parameter of their hardware gets absolutely demolished in the real world, they have no choice but to retreat into the nebulous, ethereal realm of 'electronics metaphysics' to salvage their pride

The most recent, catastrophic reality check for this exact crowd occurred just a couple of days ago, when Ukrainian hackers confirmed that the Chinese military had actually purchased Russian 2S25 Sprut-SD airborne tank destroyers. The entire Chinese internet erupted into a collective wail of despair, because for years, these people had spent countless hours boasting about how the domestic Type 15 and VT5 light tanks—with their supposed 'black technology'—could effortlessly slaughter any piece of Russian junk.
So, this naturally begs the question: is India currently hosting its own version of this 'Sprut barbecue' festival as well?


Today's debate is nothing more than pure 'Same'—using the PPT possibilities of a non-existent project to clash with the advanced capabilities of an already existing, tangible product. They operate on the absolute, blind conviction that a planned domestic product will inherently surpass an available foreign alternative, and then they use this delusion to engage in endless circular reasoning and self-referencing citation loops

Well said.

 

[randomradio]

Throughout the entire history of aviation, absolutely no one has ever heard of this 'min burner' term you just pulled out of thin air. The diagram is clearly labeled right there: 'Maximum Thrust AB (Afterburner power) power.' It is written in black and white, crystal clear.

Flying the Flanker (Topgun)

freerepublic.com

"We brought it back to min burner, but I'm cruising at 1.3 Mach," Gallop says.

You can read the article, it's interesting. It's about a USN Top Gun pilot flying a demilitarized Su-27UB.

Anyway, an afterburner has multiple stages, not to be confused with compressor stages. Stage 1 is called "minimum burner." Stage 2 to X are intermediate burners. And Stage X+1 is simply called "the zone."

Essentially, afterburners have multiple rings. Each ring is called a zone. And every time you need more thrust, you activate one of the zones, and you get thrust based on the number of zones that are open. For minimum burner, only 1 zone is activated. For max thrust, all zones are open.

So I'm saying the F110 started off with 1 zone open and progressively activated each zone. That's why when you said it's undulating due to variable intakes of the F-15E, it's actually just zones being activated before each trough in the graph.



You can see the concentric rings here, there are 4. This is probably the Adour engine on Jaguars. The 4 rings provide afterburner thrust in 4 stages. More advanced engines like F110 provide 5 or 6. More zones, the more efficiently you can burn fuel for thrust at different flight regimes.

For an efficient flight profile, you don't activate all zones at once. That's why AL-31F starts off at max thrust, they are testing something here, like absolute performance ceiling. And F110 starts off with minimum burner for real-world operations.

And as for that PowerPoint slide you posted — in the entire universe of PowerPoints, that has to be one of the crudest I’ve ever seen.

Honestly, the doodles I drew in the corners of my middle school English textbook were better than that.

That's DRDO. We have always made fun of their slides. But they use old PowerPoint software in order to maintain secrecy and only old software from the 90s and early 2000s is compatible with even their new operating system and it's locally hosted.

And they don't care about flashy, gimmicky presentations. They prefer having less distractions.

 

[Choice_of _inevitability]

That's fine. If you can play videogames with someone on the other side of the world, you can do this as well.

The operator is only making decisions for strategic employment, the tactical decisions will be made by the aircraft itself. He only needs the macro picture.

Plus I'm exaggerating for effect. Obviously within AMCA's timeframe, its operational environment will be within the IOR and in fact much closer, like Jodhpur or Bareilly or Gwalior to the border areas.

But this technology will be transferrable to longer ranged systems in case we eventually operate them, like Mig-41, B-21, or any new 7th gen fighter in the future with strategic range.

That's the thing. You can't. Even with fastest internet you get 60-millisecond ping for servers based in Singapore. European servers are unplayable because you get 197 to 300 ms latency.
For military, you get several hundred milliseconds is you use Geo-sync SATCOM. We can get it down to tens of milliseconds in the subcontinent operations because of fiber-optic based AFNET, it grows dramatically for operations outside of it because we don't have any LEO-based relays

 

[randomradio]

When did I make any of these claims? Are you perhaps demented or sadly suffer from schizophrenia? I would love if you could point me to such claims I never made.

Then what was the point of comparing Su-57 with AMCA?

Yeah, we're gonna need a better explanation and source for your claims and I would trust the pioneer of stealth doctrine to know what they are doing.

ADA said it themselves. Their goal is to deliver better stealth than what was offered for FGFA. And it was demonstrated. That's why FGFA got junked in the first place.

PDP completed in 2017, after IAF accepted the design at the end of 2016. FGFA got junked a year later.

So even the design in 2017 exceeded the FGFA. And then AMCA went through further refinements and PDR was cleared in 2020.

 

[Speedster1]

How come Su-57 does not have the matte grey exterior finish of counterparts like F-22/35 and J-20/35? Have the Russians discovered a novel form of CNT based RAM that goes with pixelated digital camo schemes?

The T-50 prototypes that flew to China and India last year would've been targeted by Western/Chinese ELINT/SIGINT the whole time. So they probably know the basic RCS of the airframe all too well by now. What makes the Russians so confident about their RAS/RAM tech, I wonder?

 

[randomradio]

That's the thing. You can't. Even with fastest internet you get 60-millisecond ping for servers based in Singapore. European servers are unplayable because you get 197 to 300 ms latency.
For military, you get several hundred milliseconds is you use Geo-sync SATCOM. We can get it down to tens of milliseconds in the subcontinent operations because of fiber-optic based AFNET, it grows dramatically for operations outside of it because we don't have any LEO-based relays

You are confusing tasking and decision-making with combat.

It's impossible to make real-time combat decisions remotely, that's handled by either the local pilot or AI. By the time all this is introduced, we are talking AI. But tasking and making decisions still rest with a commander.

If the commander is flying the plane himself, it's all well and good. But most of the time, the commanders are offboard, and are operating with limited information. They end up having to rely on what the pilot is seeing without any complex data overlays and sometimes with just voice.

The new stuff, even with high latency, will allow decision-makers make decisions with eyes in the cockpit. They will even be able to retask and prioritize targets on the go thereby directly assisting the pilot. Even performing EW. Essentially an offboard WSO.

Gaming latency is based on human reaction speed, 50 ms is 2-3 times faster than professional gamers and fighter pilots and about 5-6 times faster than normal people. But retasking and decision-making is fine with even a second long latency. I'm basically saying the kind of latency we already get is sufficient for this purpose. What's necessary is data rates. 6G requires hundreds of Gbps to a few Tbps, even via wireless, which is achieved with laser comm. The main impact for latency will continue to be range.

To deal with range, and multiplayer gaming, they can mitigate high latency with edge computing. But I'm not sure about it helping air combat. That's a different topic.

 

[batman]

Then what was the point of comparing Su-57 with AMCA?

You were the one who started the comparison first, go through this threat if you aren't sure and I'm sure you haven't forgotten the name of this thread.

ADA said it themselves. Their goal is to deliver better stealth than what was offered for FGFA. And it was demonstrated. That's why FGFA got junked in the first place.

FGFA and Su57 are different jets and we know our not so proud history of delivering what's asked, so again what's your actual evidence for any of your claims here?

PDP completed in 2017, after IAF accepted the design at the end of 2016. FGFA got junked a year later.

So even the design in 2017 exceeded the FGFA. And then AMCA went through further refinements and PDR was cleared in 2020.

There were multiple factors to the FGFA falling through but use it as an reason to go against my argument that Su57 havs better side and rear aspects stealth is funny to say the least.

 

[Hyperactive ADD]

Flying the Flanker (Topgun)

freerepublic.com

"We brought it back to min burner, but I'm cruising at 1.3 Mach," Gallop says.

You can read the article, it's interesting. It's about a USN Top Gun pilot flying a demilitarized Su-27UB.

Anyway, an afterburner has multiple stages, not to be confused with compressor stages. Stage 1 is called "minimum burner." Stage 2 to X are intermediate burners. And Stage X+1 is simply called "the zone."

Essentially, afterburners have multiple rings. Each ring is called a zone. And every time you need more thrust, you activate one of the zones, and you get thrust based on the number of zones that are open. For minimum burner, only 1 zone is activated. For max thrust, all zones are open.

So I'm saying the F110 started off with 1 zone open and progressively activated each zone. That's why when you said it's undulating due to variable intakes of the F-15E, it's actually just zones being activated before each trough in the graph.

View attachment 52187

You can see the concentric rings here, there are 4. This is probably the Adour engine on Jaguars. The 4 rings provide afterburner thrust in 4 stages. More advanced engines like F110 provide 5 or 6. More zones, the more efficiently you can burn fuel for thrust at different flight regimes.

For an efficient flight profile, you don't activate all zones at once. That's why AL-31F starts off at max thrust, they are testing something here, like absolute performance ceiling. And F110 starts off with minimum burner for real-world operations.



That's DRDO. We have always made fun of their slides. But they use old PowerPoint software in order to maintain secrecy and only old software from the 90s and early 2000s is compatible with even their new operating system and it's locally hosted.

And they don't care about flashy, gimmicky presentations. They prefer having less distractions.

So in other words, you are actually trying to rewrite the history of aviation by redefining what 'Maximum Thrust AB (Afterburner power)' means? Does your grand theory now include redefining how GE and Pratt & Whitney define engine performance as well?

What on earth do you even mean by 'maximum upper limit' and 'minimum upper limit'? Are you suggesting the manufacturers were just being 'kind-hearted' and chose not to tune that extra performance out for you? And cut the crap about 'efficiency'—by your flawed logic, there are plenty of test-flight versions of the D-30F6 that were tuned up to 20 tons.

You’ve been rolling around on the floor this entire time, completely devoid of logic, constantly moving the goalposts and switching concepts whenever it suits you. It’s so hilariously pathetic that people are literally doubling over with laughter.

Furthermore, where exactly is your concrete data showing that the F110 or F100 has better fuel economy than the AL-31F? Where is the empirical proof that the F-15 or F-16 possesses superior flight range and fuel efficiency compared to the Su-27?
Therefore, your absurd theory about 'gradually activating several burner rings to optimize fuel economy, unlike the AL-31F which unleashes maximum power right from the start' implies exactly what I’ve been saying: the F-15 and F-16 suffer from utterly atrocious lift coefficients, garbage aerodynamics, and an absolutely abysmal combat radius. Is that why they are forced to lug around those two hideous conformal fuel tanks (each weighing hundreds of kilograms) every single day?

I stated that the military static thrust of the American engine is only 10 tons.
You refused to accept it, insisting on pulling out your own diagram to prove me wrong.
But then, right there on your own diagram, it literally writes '22,000 pounds' in massive letters.
And now, suddenly, your own diagram is incorrect?

The people on this forum really have a staggering amount of patience to entertain your circus act all day long. And I must say, you guys sure are incredibly forgiving and accommodating when it comes to American products