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

Speedster1 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Russian camo is suitable for their skies. We use Tipnis grey.

The T-50 prototypes flown outside Russia are all non-stealth versions from the first stage. They haven't received the full treatment.
 
Lolwa said:
I'd rather want a private consortium led by the ADA members and the air chief deal with SCAF and the same private partner being involved with the French who will be producing the rafale. HAL & ADA can focus on the su-57 and AMCA. That was always the priority.
From what I've found Under the partnership, Tata Advanced Systems is setting up a production facility in Hyderabad to manufacture the Rafale's key structural sections, including the lateral shells of the rear fuselage, the complete rear section, the central fuselage, and the front section.
So they should be the main Indian partner for the FCAS too. With L&T, Bharat forge (likely AMCA joint development partner) as support partners integrating the AMCA to the Rafale and SCAF. And TATA, L&T and Bharat forge have enough ability to replace Airbus in FCAS for developing
Click to expand...

ADA is already running AMCA, so that's fine. I'm talking about after. I want them to continue developing India's aerospace industry from scratch instead of having to depend on a foreign R&D house.

I'm sure the partner that gets Rafale will have a greater chance than anyone else for SCAF. But I am not worried about that, my only concern is if ADA is roped in for SCAF, then they will end up relying on the French tech stack rather than create a fully Indian tech stack for future fighters. I don't want that to happen.

When it comes to engines, we are developing a French stack and an Indian stack via AMCA engine and Kaveri, so we have that going on.

If we end up relying on a foreign tech stack then the foreign OEM will permanently stay ahead and we will only chase after them. This is why Elon Musk also offers all his IP as open source, so everybody ends up on Tesla's tech stack. Any company that fails to develop their own tech stack will always chase after Tesla 'cause they will create the standards for the future.

That's why I'm not a fan of the JV with ADA.

And I'm not a fan of the JV overall too, 'cause we will overspend and get very little in return. No matter what, the French are not gonna give their avionics tech, and the Indian private partner will not have the expertise to contribute to the airframe. So what's left? Nothing. It will just be a repeat of FGFA. IAF will see the bill, look at the workshare for the private company and then start having second thoughts while DRDO starts attacking the program for being too expensive when they can develop all of it themselves and recommending a stopgap import instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paro and Rajput Lion
Hyperactive ADD said:
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
Click to expand...

By the way, I figured it out. Both are max burner, but both are at different standards.

The AL-31F thrust diagram is for uninstalled thrust. It's tested on a test bench with no losses, hence full power of 123 kN.

The F110 thrust diagram is for installed thrust where the engine is powering an aircraft. The loss comes from inlets and exhaust, bleed air for cooling, electricity generation, and aircraft and engine drag. So uninstalled thrust is 131 kN and installed thrust is 99.7 kN. The remaining 31 kN is all due to losses at sea level.

Uninstalled thrust is that measured on a test stand under carefully controlled conditions, with no cowlings, covers, fins, flaps, etc. attached.

Installed thrust is that measured with the propulsion unit attached to the vehicle which means any interference with its operation caused by the shape of the cowling, the presence of a wing nearby, the profile of the air intake scoop and the length of the inlet ducting, etc. are represented. Installed thrust is always less than uninstalled thrust because of the losses caused by that interference.
Installed thrust = uninstalled thrust – installation effects– drag contribution assigned to the propulsive system

So the entire time you have been comparing two entirely different engine states. On the F100 diagram I posted, the Y axis says "installed thrust."

The thrust curves rise sharply after mach 0 because of ram effect. That's why the increase in thrust is far higher as speed increases.

So this solved your conundrum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom