Su-57 Program Cancelled

[Ultima Thule]

The photo you posted from Russian state-run sputnik news which is CGI impression rather than actual photograph. Here is the truth about Su-57
https://exoatmospheric.wordpress.com/2018/04/30/russias-su-57-is-a-su-35-beneath-a-new-airframe/

every website sees its own glasses but that's true that Su-57 is the worst LO design all among 5th gen stealth jets @polanski

 

[ptldM3]

its not a VLO design like F-22/J-20 are, hence easy target practice for long range SAMs, BVR @ptldM3

I was not aware I was so easy to measure the RCS from eyeballing. I will tell Sukhoi they wasted millions by investing in anechotic chambers and scientists. It's interesting you also know that this aircraft can be so easily shot down

The SU-57 has many innovations and advantces. None you were aware of, it's clear by your agenda that you are here to troll.

 

[ptldM3]

The photo you posted from Russian state-run sputnik news which is CGI impression rather than actual photograph. Here is the truth about Su-57
https://exoatmospheric.wordpress.com/2018/04/30/russias-su-57-is-a-su-35-beneath-a-new-airframe/

That was a crean shot from a combat operation in Syria. It's not CGI, it was released by the Russian Defense Ministry. As for the "truth", you just posted a wordpress webpage from some random person. I will rather take the word of the Chief designers and engineers at Sukhoi as truth rather then random morons on the internet that have zero access to the program. The SU-35 and SU-57 have radically different radars, engines, and weapons but some random idiot makes a Wordpress page claiming false narratives and you actually post it as "truth".

not litte bit but lot big Nozzles are not LOAN type which means it will be attacked different angle with SRAAM and IR SAMs,

Bellow is the 'serrated' nozzles which is exactly what is on the F-35 and J-20, regardless I am again amazed that you are able to eyeball RCS without ever using anechoic chambers or any other observable scientific methods.

In the real world wars are fought asymmetricly. Even with old conventional aircraft simple mission planning, right munitions and support from other assets such as AWACS can insure that a mission is carried out without the enemy ever having any idea of an attack before they are dead.

Even if some missile was able to get a shot off at the SU-57, the aircraft is designed to detect and defeat the threat.


Afterall it has a MIRS, DIRCM, and electricinc warfare capabilities, meaning the SU-57 would know if an incoming threat is heading its way and likely jam or disable the threat. The worst case scenario is that it would have to perform evasive maneuvers and deploy counter measures in which it is excellent at doing. In any case it was designed to hit targets at long range, it's unlikely that it would even be seen by powerful AWACS platforms, let alone fighter aircraft once it released its weapons from some 300kms away.

You are assuming the designers at Sukhoi and its subsidiary's are that dumb and only you and a handful of other random people on the internet are smarter.

LAVCON also gives extra surface to radars @zzzz

No it doesn't, there is no such concept. Nothing can give "extra surface" if it's already presently part of the aircraft. Either you are speaking of a discontinuity or a moving flight control surface.


Firstly discontinuity:

If the SU-57 LEVCONs are so problematic of a discontinuity then so are the F-35s panels, bays, etc.you can't have it both ways. What's bad for the SU-57 should be equally bad for the F-35, unless physics suddenly started to bend the rules in favor of one aircraft.


If you speak of a moving flight control surface. All aircraft including the F-22 use FBW to keep the aircraft from falling out of the sky, in other words it's flight controls are constantly moving to keep the inherently unstable aircraft airborne. Where you are very mistaken is believing the LEVCON is s amflight control surface--it's not. It doesn't move like a stabalizer to keep the aircraft stable, it only moves slightly depending on airspeed.

 

[nahtanbob]

I have waited since 2011 to see this jet get operational. I am truly heart broken if this news is true.



Is it? Can you confirm.



Russia may not have the necessary funds. But tech capability? Do you suggest that the company which made Su 35 can't create a stealth jet? What does it require to attain the necessary technological know how to produce an effective stealth fighter. How did Lokheed achieve it? Besides, what kind of manufacturing and quality control does it require to produce a stealth jet? Why can't Russian production facilities handle the manufacturing process?

Su-35 is state of the art based on early 1990 technology. Russians have suffered enormous brain drains since the end of the cold war.

 

[ptldM3]

Su-35 is state of the art based on early 1990 technology. Russians have suffered enormous brain drains since the end of the cold war.

Stop trolling. The SU-35 was developed in the 2000s and not the 1990s and didn't enter service until 2014 so no it does not use 1990s technology. As for "brain drain" Russia has always produced more college graduates then anyone in the world per capita, with many studying engineering.

 

[Ultima Thule]

I was not aware I was so easy to measure the RCS from eyeballing. I will tell Sukhoi they wasted millions by investing in anechotic chambers and scientists. It's interesting you also know that this aircraft can be so easily shot down

The SU-57 has many innovations and advantces. None you were aware of, it's clear by your agenda that you are here to troll.

Whatever you say it has only upper front (head on) stealth only ,rest air frame is garbage, it not even clean profile like F-22/J-20 has, you admit it or not @ptldM3

Bellow is the 'serrated' nozzles which is exactly what is on the F-35 and J-20, regardless I am again amazed that you are able to eyeball RCS without ever using anechoic chambers or any other observable scientific methods.

for specific bands like C, K specifically for SAMs not like F-22 LOAN type nozzles that have much broadband capabilities than F-35/J-20/Su-57 nozzles design capabilities @ptldM3

No it doesn't, there is no such concept. Nothing can give "extra surface" if it's already presently part of the aircraft. Either you are speaking of a discontinuity or a moving flight control surface.


Firstly discontinuity:

If the SU-57 LEVCONs are so problematic of a discontinuity then so are the F-35s panels, bays, etc.you can't have it both ways. What's bad for the SU-57 should be equally bad for the F-35, unless physics suddenly started to bend the rules in favor of one aircraft.


If you speak of a moving flight control surface. All aircraft including the F-22 use FBW to keep the aircraft from falling out of the sky, in other words it's flight controls are constantly moving to keep the inherently unstable aircraft airborne. Where you are very mistaken is believing the LEVCON is s amflight control surface--it's not. It doesn't move like a stabalizer to keep the aircraft stable, it only moves slightly depending on airspeed.

you can add extra surface to air frame, and the return (radar) will be extra, it a simple physics isn't @ptldM3 , and F-25 is not stealthy as F-22 is and American admitting it @ptldM3

 

[ptldM3]

Whatever you say it has only upper front (head on) stealth only ,rest air frame is garbage, it not even clean profile like F-22/J-20 has, you admit it or not @ptldM3

You don't know the basics of aircraft design or "stealth" so you are no one to talk about the SU-57.

for specific bands like C, K specifically for SAMs not like F-22 LOAN type nozzles that have much broadband capabilities than F-35/J-20/Su-57 nozzles design capabilities @ptldM3

You have been reading to much Karl Kopp. As I said before the aircraft is a weapons system, it was designed differently to the F-22 depent on the RUAF needs. The SU-57 designers decided to give it better situational awareness with 3 radars, it then was given all optical electric warfare means available to detect and jam enemy aircraft, it then was given extreme maneuverability and the ability to hit targets from further distances. The fact is if the SU-57 target the enemy at 300kms it doesn't need to be as 'stealthy', since the further an aircraft is from a threat the less likely it is to be detected and successful shot down.

you can add extra surface to air frame, and the return (radar) will be extra, it a simple physics isn't

Please be quiet and stop making a fool out of yourself. By that definition the B-2 would not qualify as stealth due to all its surface area and what do you define as extra surface? The SU-57 LEVCONs are as much part of the aircraft as the F-22s nozzles and wings are apart of it. Every part of an aircraft adheres to physics, stealth is achieved by incorporating techniques that reduce RCS. There is no more or less but rather controlling what EM energy does.

@ptldM3 , and F-25 is not stealthy as F-22 is and American admitting it @ptldM3

What is the F-25? And the Americans, whoever they are, can think or claim anything they like. Until they actually get a physical SU-57 to test they are blowing hot air.

 

[Ultima Thule]

You don't know the basics of aircraft design or "stealth" so you are no one to talk about the SU-57.








You have been reading to much Karl Kopp. As I said before the aircraft is a weapons system, it was designed differently to the F-22 depent on the RUAF needs. The SU-57 designers decided to give it better situational awareness with 3 radars, it then was given all optical electric warfare means available to detect and jam enemy aircraft, it then was given extreme maneuverability and the ability to hit targets from further distances. The fact is if the SU-57 target the enemy at 300kms it doesn't need to be as 'stealthy', since the further an aircraft is from a threat the less likely it is to be detected and successful shot down.








Please be quiet and stop making a fool out of yourself. By that definition the B-2 would not qualify as stealth due to all its surface area and what do you define as extra surface? The SU-57 LEVCONs are as much part of the aircraft as the F-22s nozzles and wings are apart of it. Every part of an aircraft adheres to physics, stealth is achieved by incorporating techniques that reduce RCS. There is no more or less but rather controlling what EM energy does.








What is the F-25? And the Americans, whoever they are, can think or claim anything they like. Until they actually get a physical SU-57 to test they are blowing hot air.

Whatever you believes, but its shoot and scoot garbage, you're just blabbering and face saving mode nothing else @ptldM3

 

[ptldM3]

Whatever you believes, but its shoot and scoot garbage, you're just blabbering and face saving mode nothing else @ptldM3

If it was shoot and scoot it wouldn't need maneuverability. The only one blabbering is you, the SU-57 has impressive performance and capabilities not seen on other aircraft but to you it's "garbage" which just solidifies that you are trolling and wasting time.

 

[Ultima Thule]

If it was shoot and scoot it wouldn't need maneuverability. The only one blabbering is you, the SU-57 has impressive performance and capabilities not seen on other aircraft but to you it's "garbage" which just solidifies that you are trolling and wasting time.

Design is soo dump that's all @ptldM3

 

[nahtanbob]

Stop trolling. The SU-35 was developed in the 2000s and not the 1990s and didn't enter service until 2014 so no it does not use 1990s technology. As for "brain drain" Russia has always produced more college graduates then anyone in the world per capita, with many studying engineering.

as far as i go the su-35, su-30 and su-27 are variants of the same plane
the fact it entered service in 2014 reflects the complete collapse of russian military spending in the 1990s

there is a huge brain drain to USA and Israel. i have met tons of russian engineers in both countries

 

[polanski]

That was a crean shot from a combat operation in Syria. It's not CGI, it was released by the Russian Defense Ministry. As for the "truth", you just posted a wordpress webpage from some random person. I will rather take the word of the Chief designers and engineers at Sukhoi as truth rather then random morons on the internet that have zero access to the program. The SU-35 and SU-57 have radically different radars, engines, and weapons but some random idiot makes a Wordpress page claiming false narratives and you actually post it as "truth".












Bellow is the 'serrated' nozzles which is exactly what is on the F-35 and J-20, regardless I am again amazed that you are able to eyeball RCS without ever using anechoic chambers or any other observable scientific methods.

In the real world wars are fought asymmetricly. Even with old conventional aircraft simple mission planning, right munitions and support from other assets such as AWACS can insure that a mission is carried out without the enemy ever having any idea of an attack before they are dead.

Even if some missile was able to get a shot off at the SU-57, the aircraft is designed to detect and defeat the threat.


Afterall it has a MIRS, DIRCM, and electricinc warfare capabilities, meaning the SU-57 would know if an incoming threat is heading its way and likely jam or disable the threat. The worst case scenario is that it would have to perform evasive maneuvers and deploy counter measures in which it is excellent at doing. In any case it was designed to hit targets at long range, it's unlikely that it would even be seen by powerful AWACS platforms, let alone fighter aircraft once it released its weapons from some 300kms away.

You are assuming the designers at Sukhoi and its subsidiary's are that dumb and only you and a handful of other random people on the internet are smarter.


View attachment 520556






No it doesn't, there is no such concept. Nothing can give "extra surface" if it's already presently part of the aircraft. Either you are speaking of a discontinuity or a moving flight control surface.


Firstly discontinuity:


View attachment 520557


If the SU-57 LEVCONs are so problematic of a discontinuity then so are the F-35s panels, bays, etc.you can't have it both ways. What's bad for the SU-57 should be equally bad for the F-35, unless physics suddenly started to bend the rules in favor of one aircraft.


If you speak of a moving flight control surface. All aircraft including the F-22 use FBW to keep the aircraft from falling out of the sky, in other words it's flight controls are constantly moving to keep the inherently unstable aircraft airborne. Where you are very mistaken is believing the LEVCON is s amflight control surface--it's not. It doesn't move like a stabalizer to keep the aircraft stable, it only moves slightly depending on airspeed.

Butt hurt detected. You can't hide the fact and you can't tell the truth either. Russia can't build a new fighter jet. Russia can't build an aircraft carrier and a destroyer. Adventure in Crimea hurts. Now you're selling the Navy ships which have Ukrainian marine propulsion to India. You try to dump Su-57 on India and India dumped you.

You guys even sunk an aircraft Carrier. Cash poor Russia has to sell anything with ToT to India, China, Kazakhstan, Myanmar and Bangladesh because no one wants to buy your junk.

1970s F-16 shoot down Sukhoi over Syria and you claim that Russia built high tech fighter jets. Do you know why India uses Western Avionics and radar on Su-30MKI because Russian electronics sucks.

I go on and on. You are the one who is running propaganda in PDF because you have propaganda quotas to fulfill.

 

[Akasa]

The thorn in the side of the Russian defense industry isn't so much the lack of talent or infrastructure as it is the lack of funds. Regardless of your engineer pool or the equipment in place to develop these weapons platforms, development grinds to a halt if the MoD cannot supply enough contracts.

 

[ptldM3]

Butt hurt detected. You can't hide the fact and you can't tell the truth either.

Says the guy that started cursing at me after I debunked his BS

Russia can't build a new fighter jet. Russia can't build an aircraft carrier and a destroyer. Adventure in Crimea hurts. Now you're selling the Navy ships which have Ukrainian marine propulsion to India. You try to dump Su-57 on India and India dumped you.

The butt hurt troll is going on a rant again. Why don't you come up with counter arguments? If I remember correctly you made a complete idiot out of yourself by making up fake claims, I counted everything and now you went on a trolling rampage

You guys even sunk an aircraft Carrier. Cash poor Russia has to sell anything with ToT to India, China, Kazakhstan, Myanmar and Bangladesh because no one wants to buy your junk.

Russia is second in the world in arms sales and no Russian aircraft carriers ever sunk but American warships can go a month without collisions.

1970s F-16 shoot down Sukhoi over Syria and you claim that Russia built high tech fighter jets.

It was an unarmed ground attack aircraft that was ambushes. Russia shot down plenty of American aircraft during the Cold War that intruded into its territory and thousands of American fighters were downed in Vietnam.

Do you know why India uses Western Avionics and radar on Su-30MKI because Russian electronics sucks.

The MKI uses a Russian radar idiot the majority of the avionics are Russian and the Indian SU-30Ks that made a mockery of F-15s in Cope India had all Russian avionics:

 

[gambit]

The thorn in the side of the Russian defense industry isn't so much the lack of talent or infrastructure as it is the lack of funds.

Aahh...Yup...I was invited to this forum back in '09. For as long as I have been here, I have always praised Soviet/Russian aerodynamicists as often they have taught US more than just a few things about designing extraordinary aircrafts, at least on the aerodynamics front, anyway. But Russian defense manufacturers, just like Western counterparts, cannot simply sell their wares on the open market. They need government approval. So when the Russian economy cannot support domestic defense manufacturers and these companies cannot sell abroad, innovations suffers.