Yes, they are-- at least from the point of being an active control surface--not moving to keep the aircraft stable like other flight control surfaces.
No, the -57's levcons are not fixed.
To be 'fixed' is not the same as being 'stationary'. While the two words are synonymous, they do not have the same context. To be 'fixed' means cannot move
AT ALL. To be stationary means a temporary condition of not moving. The distinction is beyond mere words.
The -57's levcons are
MOVEABLE structure. They are not connected to the fuselage but to the wings and displace when there is a need for it.
They don't dehave like conards or stabalizers...
They do not need to.
Let me entertain your claim and pretend the LEVCONS behave like conards or stabalizers--which they obviously do not. The challenge engineers face is controlling radiators, however for some, LEVCONs have become the subject of trolling. The designers blended the LEVONS as to minimize returns, they used platform alignment and to some extent absorbers.
Regarding the highlighted, the three rules are:
- Control of
QUANTITY of radiators
- Control of
ARRAY of radiators
- Control of
MODES of radiation
At timestamp 00:59 this is what we see...
The levcons are leading edge (LE) down. Not fully deflected down as we have seen some images when the jet is on the ground. But in the above in-flight video at that timestamp, they levcons are LE down just enough to create a gap from the fuselage that is unacceptable for the F-22, F-35, F-117, and B-2. Those gaps falls under Rule 2: Control of
ARRAY of radiators.
The LEVCON behave very much like a slat as apposed to a active flight congrol surface.
Opposed? No.
I learned how to fly before I got my driver's license, so when I say 'active', based upon my yrs of aviation experience, in and out of the military, the -57's levcons are
ACTIVE flight controls elements. They move and affect aerodynamics? Then they are
ACTIVE. There is no 'opposed' about it.
Above you mentioned control of radiators. Do the following now bend the rules of physics?
All of the following are discontinuities and the challenge now becomes controlling those radiators, which are present on all aircraft including F-22/35.
-Elevator
-Aileron
-Slats
-Flaps
-Rudder
I do not dispute the items you listed as having negative effects on controlling total RCS on any aircraft. However, they are necessary flight controls elements. Not only that, they are
MAJOR structures. One major item missing from your list: fins
Of all the major structures, the F-22 have two wings, two vertical stabs, and two horizontal stabs. Total of six structures.
Of all the major structures, the Su-57 have two wings, two vertical stabs, two horizontal stabs, and the two levcons. Total of eight structures.
This make the -57
LESS OBEDIENT to Rule 1: Control of
QUANTITY of radiators.
We have seen visual evidence of the levcons being physically distinct from the wings and the fuselage. Those gaps from the fuselage maybe a few mm but they are just enough to raise the jet's total RCS to the point where the jet is more detectable than the F-22/35 at the same distance and same aspect angle.
I said 'are'. I did not say 'maybe'. I am that confident of my argument.
If the smallest possible RCS is the goal, in the perfect world a "stealth" aircraft would have no engines, intakes, flaps, or panels because all created "radiators". All aircraft including the SU-57 have compromise that balance kenetic performance, cost and stealth.
I agree to everything.
You cannot simply say all aircrafts have compromises. Of course all have compromises. However, the issue is the degree of obedience to the three rules. All of the items you listed contributed to the decreasing obedience to the rules. Some design will be less obedient than others.
I only claimed it was good enough to satisfy the RuAF requirements and Sukhoi. The engineers are pleased with the overall performance in which they clearly made sacrifices in 'stealth' to create an all around good platform that satisfies their requirements and not some imaginary stealth standards set by PDF armchair generals.
In military history, there are points where there is no turning back, meaning a certain tactic or technology cannot be missing from a military. If that tactic or technology is missing, that military will be defeated.
The machine gun, or more accurately, the repeating firearm is one such point. If an army does not have repeating firearm, it will lose.
So, if you are satisfied with the single shot rifle, does that mean you will win against an army that have machine guns?
The Su-57 may satisfy the Russian Air Force's requirements, but in a fight, how does that guarantee victory? This is not Russians against Russians. It could be Russians against Americans. And if our jets are less radar observable, you will lose.
Yes, they do, I was specifically speaking about what leading edge extensions do in regards to lift and maneuverability as well as the similar platform alignment and shape the F-22s leading edge extensions as well as the SU-57s "LEVCONS" have/provide.
No, the F-22 do not have the same LE flight controls structures like the -57.
In the above image, on the -57's port wing, there are two
PHYSICALLY DISTINCT ACTIVE flight controls elements: the LE flaps and the levcons. Energy wise, there
WILL be two spikes on port side, one from the levcon and one from wing's LE flap.
The F-22 have nothing similar. The F-22 do have LE extensions, but they are truly fixed and blended with the fuselage.
