Su-57 Program Cancelled

[Beny Karachun]

This is unbelievable, it was you eyeballing and making claims how the SU-57 sucks and F-22 is better. I gave precise examples where the SU-57 has some advantages over the F22/F-35, are my claims are verifiable claims that do give the SU-57 advantages. Such advantages as side cheek radars which will improve situational awareness which both US aircraft lack, I also mentioned longer range cruise missiles such KH-59MK2 which would increase survivability due to its longer standoff distance.


So it was you boasting and trolling and me giving you an education lesson. Now pull up a quote were you asked me to prove something and I refused.

Wow. You are so smart you are smarter than Sukhoi engineers. NOT!

Ironic,
Says the guy that denies stealth overall, and that claims the F-16 has a smaller RCS than the F-35.

 

[nahtanbob]

The leading edge extension (LAVCONs as you call them) are NOT canards, and do not behave like them. They are not an active flight control surface like stabilizers are. I have posted video evidence that you continue denying.


Notice the shape of the SU-57s leading edge extensions are similar to that of the F-22.


View attachment 520863 View attachment 520864



Notice how both aircraft have their leading edge extensions line up parallel to leading edge flaps as well as other areas. Having something there like a LEVCON/leading edge extension doesn't mean it will magically make the aircraft appear on radar. The SU-57 designers clearly incorporated platform alignment.


View attachment 520862

View attachment 520866



It is however clear both you and @nahtanbob are trolls, and extremely challenged/mentally delayed.

if the su-57 is stealthy look for russia to make a lot of sales to foreign countries
in the absence of sales i have to conclude otherwise

 

[Ultima Thule]

The leading edge extension (LAVCONs as you call them) are NOT canards, and do not behave like them. They are not an active flight control surface like stabilizers are. I have posted video evidence that you continue denying.


Notice the shape of the SU-57s leading edge extensions are similar to that of the F-22.


View attachment 520863 View attachment 520864



Notice how both aircraft have their leading edge extensions line up parallel to leading edge flaps as well as other areas. Having something there like a LEVCON/leading edge extension doesn't mean it will magically make the aircraft appear on radar. The SU-57 designers clearly incorporated platform alignment.


View attachment 520862

View attachment 520866



It is however clear both you and @nahtanbob are trolls, and extremely challenged/mentally delayed.

Dude main difference in between LAVCON and leading root extensions are first one is movable and other is fixed respectively, and i would like to say F-22 has no leading root extension but i would like say its more like intake extensions, leading root extensions are bad for stealth, leading root extension are on JF-17 and F/A 18 and J-20 but LAVCON does behave like CANARD and as for your information leading root extension is only for lift, they are not able to increase agility/maneuverability of jets @ptldM3 get out your falsehood @ptldM3

 

[gambit]

I explained to you about LEVCONs, what you are claiming is defying all known physics.

Actually, how you are describing the -57's levcons is that defiance of physics.

The LEVCONs are not extra anything, they are leading edge detentions, they are part of the airframe and they stay in a fixed position. Every aircraft is a complex design with dimensions varying greatly.

No, the levcons are not fixed. They displace their positions.

I have no problems repeating post 385 page 26...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/su-57-program-cancelled.567534/page-26#post-10957864

There are three rules in designing a radar low observable body:

- Control of quantity of radiators
- Control of array of radiators
- Control of modes of radiation

Whenever the levcons move, the -57 becomes less obedient to Rule 2: Control of ARRAY of radiators.

When the engineers designs the F-22, F-35, B-2, or Su-57, they frets over sizes down to the mm. For each panel, the quantity of fasteners are precisely calculated under Rule 1 and their positions on the panel under Rule 2.

This...

...Is what happens with a panel fastener, be it a screw head or a rivet head, when a radar signal impact the skin. Rules 1 and 2.

So if there are gaps between the -57's levcons and the fuselage -- and there are gaps -- the entire aircraft becomes less obedient to Rules 1 and 2. The levcons are major ACTIVE flight controls elements. It does not matter if the levcons moves or not. The seeking radar may see those gaps in one second but does not see them in the next second. But that is not the point of those rules, which is that radiators must be controlled in quantity and relationships to each other no matter what.

Lets look at the F-22, it has larger vertical stabilizers thus it has "more surface" or at the least that's what a subject person would claims if they had the same talking points as you.

How the F-22's vertical stabs are arrayed to each other and to the fuselage falls under Rule 2. They are in a corner reflector configuration, but not in the 90 deg type. So while their surface area are important, they would be EM visible only if the seeking radar is perpendicular to either of them.

What about the B-2? It would be even worse since its airframe is one large wing surface.

Actually, the B-2 is more obedient to the three rules than ALL of the current 'stealth' platforms out there. For its size, its RCS is probably comparable to the F-22. The only way any seeking radar can detect the B-2 is from a PERPENDICULAR position, topside or underside, which is extremely rare in flight.

This is why the B-2 is terrifying. It does not matter what Zoltan Dani said or did back in Yugoslavia. He got lucky. Simple as that.

Every aircraft is complex, the challenge is controlling EM energy by redirecting it and to an extent absorbing it. Throwing out wild claims about surface area and LEVCONs makes you a dishonest troll since you arnt even trying to be fair or subject.

I challenge the levcons.

Whatever you want to call it--LEVCON or leading edge extension, both aircraft have it.

No, the F-22 do not have the same thing.

 

[JohnWick]

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

TRANSLATION: I cannot figure out how to make a stealth aircraft work

Pffft. You think only Americans can make stealth aircraft? What a joke. There's no such thing as stealth aircraft. The only way that can work is if there is cloaking device.

The leading edge extension (LAVCONs as you call them) are NOT canards, and do not behave like them. They are not an active flight control surface like stabilizers are. I have posted video evidence that you continue denying.

That's right. They just don't get it. Su-57 uses rear flaps instead of canards. LEVCON Is part of LERX. They do not move except during dogfight to increase agility. They do not increase RCS except during dogfight.

Notice how both aircraft have their leading edge extensions line up parallel to leading edge flaps as well as other areas. Having something there like a LEVCON/leading edge extension doesn't mean it will magically make the aircraft appear on radar. The SU-57 designers clearly incorporated platform alignment.


View attachment 520862

View attachment 520866

That hardly makes any difference. Radar waves are spread across a broad area. Electromagnetic waves are not particles or lines. They are holistic. As soon as they hit something, they register. WW2 planes were shaped in all sorts of ways and they all got easily detected by radar. You have to have LOTS of angles, I'm talking about THOUSANDS, to be able to scatter radio. Think clouds. Millions even billions or trillions of tiny water droplets and pieces of ice can't even scatter all the radar waves let along a plane which only have a very few angles, a sand on the beach compared to a cloud.

 

[gambit]

Pffft. You think only Americans can make stealth aircraft?

No, but we make the best.

What a joke.

That would be YOU. And we are laughing.

There's no such thing as stealth aircraft.

Then why is your China making one?

That's right. They just don't get it. Su-57 uses rear flaps...

The correct phrase is 'rear horizontal stabilators'. Not rear flaps. When you did not bother to do basic research, it is YOU who did not 'get it'. That is why by now, everyone including your fellow Chinese, knows you are nothing but a low IQ troll.

That hardly makes any difference. Radar waves are spread across a broad area. Electromagnetic waves are not particles or lines. They are holistic. As soon as they hit something, they register. WW2 planes were shaped in all sorts of ways and they all got easily detected by radar. You have to have LOTS of angles, I'm talking about THOUSANDS, to be able to scatter radio. Think clouds. Millions even billions or trillions of tiny water droplets and pieces of ice can't even scatter all the radar waves let along a plane which only have a very few angles, a sand on the beach compared to a cloud.

Complete garbage. You do not know what you are talking about.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

No, but we make the best.

BS. Stealth aircraft don't exist.

Then why is your China making one?

We never claimed we have a stealth aircraft.

 

[ptldM3]

Actually, how you are describing the -57's levcons is that defiance of physics.

You are more then welcome to pull up a source that prove i am somehow defying physics. You clearly either misread what I wrote about LEVCON or you are mixing me up with someone else.

No, the levcons are not fixed. They displace their positions.

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.

They don't dehave like conards or stabalizers or flop around like some people insinuate in fact they can't even move horizontally past the fixes position which they stay at during cruise or during maneuvers, only a handful of photos exist with some depression in the LEVCON, we can only speculate what the designers were checking but most video show the LEVCONS stayed fixed during cruise/maneuvers.

I have no problems repeating post 385 page 26...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/su-57-program-cancelled.567534/page-26#post-10957864

There are three rules in designing a radar low observable body:

- Control of quantity of radiators
- Control of array of radiators
- Control of modes of radiation

Whenever the levcons move, the -57 becomes less obedient to Rule 2: Control of ARRAY of radiators.

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. The LEVCON behave very much like a slat as apposed to a active flight congrol surface.

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

the engineers designs the F-22, F-35, B-2, or Su-57, they frets over sizes down to the mm. For each panel, the quantity of fasteners are precisely calculated under Rule 1 and their positions on the panel under Rule 2.

This...

...Is what happens with a panel fastener, be it a screw head or a rivet head, when a radar signal impact the skin. Rules 1 and 2.

I have mentioned that before, I was one of the first that that mentioned that the LEVCON creates a discontinuity (were LEVCON is attached to airframe). I have also stated before that


-Elevator
-Aileron
-Slats
-Flaps
-Rudder
-Access panels
-Bay doors


..... All are discontinties.

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 stated this long ago, and a SU-57 engineer recently said something similar.

So I am still confused as to what you even quoted me for.

So if there are gaps between the -57's levcons and the fuselage -- and there are gaps -- the entire aircraft becomes less obedient to Rules 1 and 2. The levcons are major ACTIVE flight controls elements. It does not matter if the levcons moves or not. The seeking radar may see those gaps in one second but does not see them in the next second. But that is not the point of those rules, which is that radiators must be controlled in quantity and relationships to each other no matter what.

Once again I was one of the first to admit this, i never claimed the SU-57 can defy the rules of physics as you accused me of. I never claimed it to be more or less stealthy then anything, 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.




I clearly stated LEVCONs are discontinuity but cautioned that all aircraft have discontinuities in different areas and that the challenge was trying to control or minimize any adverse effects from them.

Here I say it:

https://defence.pk/pdf/posts/10958108/

, the B-2 is more obedient to the three rules than ALL of the current 'stealth' platforms out there. For its size, its RCS is probably comparable to the F-22. The only way any seeking radar can detect the B-2 is from a PERPENDICULAR position, topside or underside, which is extremely rare in flight.

Again I mentioned something similar when I spoke about balancing performance and minimal radar returns. I have always stated a flying wing with no vertical stabilizers would be superior to any current "stealth" aircraft but all aircraft make compromises for performance. You are trying the lecture me on points we both agree on, if you want to debate something that makes absurd claims about physic and in general trolls, speak to Pakistanipower or whatever he calls himself.

No, the F-22 do not have the same thing.

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.

Both the F-22 and SU-57 create a low pressure boundary layer.

Dude main difference in between LAVCON and leading root extensions are first one is movable and other is fixed respectively, and i would like to say F-22 has no leading root extension but i would like say its more like intake extensions, leading root extensions are bad for stealth, leading root extension are on JF-17 and F/A 18 and J-20 but LAVCON does behave like CANARD and as for your information leading root extension is only for lift, they are not able to increase agility/maneuverability of jets @ptldM3 get out your falsehood @ptldM3

It has nothing so do with fixed or movable, we are not talking about a canard. We are talking about a discontinuity in which even your hero Gambit stats that much, in fact we (Gambit) seem to have similar conclusions with LEVCONs and discontinuities and general aircraft design philosophy.


As for your claim about leading edge extensions "not able to increase agility/maneuverability of jets"

You are completely disconnected from reality. They absolutely increase maneuverability.


Someone is lying and it's no me, but continue defying physics.

http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/LEXS04.ppt

 

[nahtanbob]

Pffft. You think only Americans can make stealth aircraft? What a joke. There's no such thing as stealth aircraft. The only way that can work is if there is cloaking device.

That's right. They just don't get it. Su-57 uses rear flaps instead of canards. LEVCON Is part of LERX. They do not move except during dogfight to increase agility. They do not increase RCS except during dogfight.



That hardly makes any difference. Radar waves are spread across a broad area. Electromagnetic waves are not particles or lines. They are holistic. As soon as they hit something, they register. WW2 planes were shaped in all sorts of ways and they all got easily detected by radar. You have to have LOTS of angles, I'm talking about THOUSANDS, to be able to scatter radio. Think clouds. Millions even billions or trillions of tiny water droplets and pieces of ice can't even scatter all the radar waves let along a plane which only have a very few angles, a sand on the beach compared to a cloud.

americans have no monopoly on anything. i am sorry if you feel that way.

at the end of the day countries line up to purchase the F-35 which is a problem ridden aircraft by reports of the media.
nobody wants the Su-57. you claim to be a logical person. tell me what can you infer from this.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

at the end of the day countries line up to purchase the F-35

Very few orders outside America.

 

[Ultima Thule]

It has nothing so do with fixed or movable, we are not talking about a canard. We are talking about a discontinuity in which even your hero Gambit stats that much, in fact we (Gambit) seem to have similar conclusions with LEVCONs and discontinuities and general aircraft design philosophy.


As for your claim about leading edge extensions "not able to increase agility/maneuverability of jets"

You are completely disconnected from reality. They absolutely increase maneuverability.


Someone is lying and it's no me, but continue defying physics.

http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/LEXS04.ppt

LAVCON has discontinuities, LAVCON is not part of main wing, its a modified version of Canards, at extreme agility/maneuverability slight changes in LAVCON angles will exposed Su-57 to enemy radars in dogfights

And as for leading edge root extension does increase maneuverability/agility but not that much like Canards/TVC its basically high lift device to improve lift, get out of your falsehood kid @ptldM3

 

[Akasa]

Very few orders outside America.

UK: 138 F-35B
Australia: 100 F-35A
Turkey: 100 F-35A
Italy: 60 F-35A & 30 F-35B
Norway: 52 F-35A
Israel: 50 F-35I
Japan: 42 F-35A
ROK: 40 F-35A
Netherlands: 37 F-35A
Denmark: 27 F-35A

673 international orders, not counting future options and potential buyers such as Canada.

The Su-57/35, on the other hand...

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

UK: 138 F-35B
Australia: 100 F-35A
Turkey: 100 F-35A
Italy: 60 F-35A & 30 F-35B
Norway: 52 F-35A
Israel: 50 F-35I
Japan: 42 F-35A
ROK: 40 F-35A
Netherlands: 37 F-35A
Denmark: 27 F-35A

673 international orders, not counting future options and potential buyers such as Canada.

The Su-57/35, on the other hand...

673 is very tiny number. Guess how many planes were built in WW2? Just Germany alone built more than 50,000 no?

 

[Akasa]

673 is very tiny number. Guess how many planes were built in WW2? Just Germany alone built more than 50,000 no?

A "tiny number", compared to what? The Su-57 & Su-35's international sales figures?