Jump to content

The Su-57 are arriving


Recommended Posts

I still can't get over how large it is. I haven't read anything about it, maybe because I haven't really looked, but doesn't the shape of the engine's and the nozzles themselves render the stealth plane's effectiveness? I just remember that when the F-22 was developed and put into service, and the F-117 before, a lot of the talk was that part of the stealth technology laid in the shape of the engines to keep it's signature low as possible.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, whiskey said:

I still can't get over how large it is. I haven't read anything about it, maybe because I haven't really looked, but doesn't the shape of the engine's and the nozzles themselves render the stealth plane's effectiveness? I just remember that when the F-22 was developed and put into service, and the F-117 before, a lot of the talk was that part of the stealth technology laid in the shape of the engines to keep it's signature low as possible.

 

From what I know, the Su-57 is only intended to be stealthy from the front; the exhausts are not optimized for stealth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Phantome said:

 

From what I know, the Su-57 is only intended to be stealthy from the front; the exhausts are not optimized for stealth.

That would make sense - I think the craters in your runway might give the game away that you've been calling :lol:

 

EDIT: Something just popped out of the morass that is my memory about them intending to fit more stealthy vectored thrust engines later on? :hmmm:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And not a lot of stealthy aircraft, if any, are stealthy to long-wave radars. I remember reading some thirty years ago how Canadians detected F-117 with some of their old radars, which were of slightly improved, but still basically WWII design. Also, that is how Serbs brought down F-117 in 1999, tracking radars of S-125 Neva M missile divizjon switched to low frequency long-wave range. Cheers

Jure

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jure Miljevic said:

And not a lot of stealthy aircraft, if any, are stealthy to long-wave radars. I remember reading some thirty years ago how Canadians detected F-117 with some of their old radars, which were of slightly improved, but still basically WWII design. Also, that is how Serbs brought down F-117 in 1999, tracking radars of S-125 Neva M missile divizjon switched to low frequency long-wave range. Cheers

Jure

 

Long wave though isn't very useful for tragetting and tracking, the serbs got lucky, as the F117s flew the same fixed routes everyday so they ahead of time knew where to aim. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mick4350 said:

Anyone doing it in styrene ?

Well to my untutored eye it looks very much like the Zvezda T-50. Doubtless Flankerman will stroll by and give isthe benefit of his knowledge.

 

But who told them to use digital camouflage? Have they no idea how many problems it will cause to modellers?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, Mick4350

To some degree, plastic/resin Su-57 options has been discussed here:

Nigel Bunker, I followed external links Serge provided in topic linked to above, and I am under impression that digital camouflage has only been applied to early pre-production aircraft. I believe in service the paint scheme is going to consist of of three colours on top surfaces, much like late Su-27 series aircraft.

PhantomBigStu, in 1999 it certainly did not help F-117 aircraft to take the same exit route for a third or a fourth night in a row. However, AA defences still deserve its due credit. A description of this particular incident was given in Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter book by Paul F. Crickmore, published by Osprey, which I highly recommend. Basically, lowest possible frequency for P-18 radar had been used and divizjon acquired four LO targets almost immediately. Divizjon CO decided not to switch off his radar after 20 seconds as he had planned earlier, as no non-LO targets had been detected and risk of being attacked by HARM missiles was considered low. One target entered the engagement zone and, after briefly loosing a signal, Low Blow tracking radar acquired a steady lock. Vega 31 (F-117's call sign that night) dropped her bombs on target and entered hard left turn to leave the target area. Two SAM-3 missiles had been fired, and while the second one failed to lock on target, the first one did and blasted most of the F-117's left wing off.

This is an extract as I am a bit nervous about posting big chunks of copyright material on the forum. If you wish to read more about it, here is the link to an on-line book.

https://issuu.com/arielbarbuio/docs/osprey_air_vanguard_016__lockheed_f

At the time (in 1999), Lockheed F-117 was becoming obsolescent, and so was the S-125 Neva M (SAM-3) system. I have no idea how the latest LO aircraft types would perform in combat against each other or against the latest AA defence systems. Given that that could be only learned for certain in major military conflict, I would rather die in ignorance, preferably of old age. Cheers

Jure

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PhantomBigStu said:

 

Long wave though isn't very useful for tragetting and tracking, the serbs got lucky, as the F117s flew the same fixed routes everyday so they ahead of time knew where to aim. 

 

That's not lucky, mate, it is considered prediction. I've seen those remains in Belgrade. The Serbs are proud of them ;)

 

Martin

Edited by RidgeRunner
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a striking resemblance to the YF-23.....With regard to the Serbs and F117, a senior French Officer was arrested after supplying details to the Serbs which meant they knew exactly where the F117 was going to be at exactly the time it was going to be there. I would say that gave them an unprecedented advantage.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not - in theory, it's very dependant on designs being ahead of the detection systems of the time, hence the US already appears to have the next generation replacement for the B2 flying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stealthman said:

No it's not - in theory, it's very dependant on designs being ahead of the detection systems of the time, hence the US already appears to have the next generation replacement for the B2 flying.

The replacement for the B-52H, B-1B, and B-2A will be the B-21 Raider. There isn't even a prototype built, much less one flying. Initial operational capability isn't scheduled to occur until 2030.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who aren't clued-in, the Su-57 is the T-50. Su-57 is the newer/service designation for the type.

 

And although I started to shiver at the thought of replicating it, doesn't that pixelly paint scheme look nice on it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2018 at 11:17 AM, whiskey said:

...doesn't the shape of the engine's and the nozzles themselves render the stealth plane's effectiveness? I just remember that when the F-22 was developed and put into service, and the F-117 before, a lot of the talk was that part of the stealth technology laid in the shape of the engines to keep it's signature low as possible.

One of the critical areas is the rotating blades at the front of the engine. If this can be hidden then there is a good reduction in signature. The B-117 used "mesh shields" over the intakes and the F-22 has an interesting intake trunking that "S" turns nicely, hiding the front of the engines.

Does not appear that the T-50 follows that approach though as the underside view above^ shows a straight intake. Hmmm....

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, hairystick said:

One of the critical areas is the rotating blades at the front of the engine. If this can be hidden then there is a good reduction in signature. The B-117 used "mesh shields" over the intakes and the F-22 has an interesting intake trunking that "S" turns nicely, hiding the front of the engines.

Does not appear that the T-50 follows that approach though as the underside view above^ shows a straight intake. Hmmm....

So in theory then, the T-50 maybe rendered useless as it's engines still give it a large signature?

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, hairystick said:

One of the critical areas is the rotating blades at the front of the engine. If this can be hidden then there is a good reduction in signature. The B-117 used "mesh shields" over the intakes and the F-22 has an interesting intake trunking that "S" turns nicely, hiding the front of the engines.

Does not appear that the T-50 follows that approach though as the underside view above^ shows a straight intake. Hmmm....

The rotating turbine blades at the back of the engine and the flameholder for the reheat are a major problem too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, whiskey said:

So in theory then, the T-50 maybe rendered useless as it's engines still give it a large signature?

Who knows (apart from the engineers who built it), there might be "something" down the intake that helps, or simple engineer magic?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, whiskey said:

So in theory then, the T-50 maybe rendered useless as it's engines still give it a large signature?

 

11 hours ago, hairystick said:

One of the critical areas is the rotating blades at the front of the engine. If this can be hidden then there is a good reduction in signature.

No prodlem! ;)

It's "little" part have name radar blocker for Su-57 engine:

KFgYxD7.jpg

Not Russian idea, but still work! As example radar blocker on Super Hornet:

26500333_nRjJ6-M.jpg

 

Resource photo:

http://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2933&sid=99b3ffe1122b2812cadccdc050b90494&start=8370

 

http://forums.airbase.ru/2013/09/t69703_14--malozametnost-v-mirovoj-praktike.html

 

 

B.R.

Serge

 

Edited by Aardvark
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, Serge

I followed links you provided and I think I understand it now. To me it looks like an oversized pre-stator stage with internal S-chanelling to mask the first stage of engine's fan/compressor. Probably also helps reducing intake air speed to subsonic. I guess radar reflection of this contraption is further diminished by its slightly concave front end. I wonder how such arrangement influences engine's thrust. Cheers

Jure

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1 hour ago, Jure Miljevic said:

wonder how such arrangement influences engine's thrust.

I don't know.... many hollywar on Russian forum about this.

Someone "expert" former soviet citizen who now emigrant on west, trolling  russian fan Su-57 about engine with radar blocker

-  thrust is down. 

Where did this information  a pensioner from Israel, I do not know.

But all "know" what this country world leader research & made in 5 generation fighter and jet engine. :):)

Some post in topic from Russian user say what engine's with radar blocker thrust is up on 5%.

Who right I don't know.

I don't know too for what this razor on nozzle perspective jet engine "izdelie 30" for Su-57:

regnum_picture_1512729744136918_big.jpg

https://topwar.ru/127750-v-seti-poyavilos-foto-aviacionnogo-dvigatelya-predpolozhitelno-dlya-su-57.html

 

Maybe for down temperature characteristic, maybe for sound waves down  characteristic, I don't know, but razor on nozzle we see....

 

B.R.

Serge

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, VMA131Marine said:

The replacement for the B-52H, B-1B, and B-2A will be the B-21 Raider. There isn't even a prototype built, much less one flying. Initial operational capability isn't scheduled to occur until 2030.

The photographs taken of 3 unidentified aircraft bearing a striking resemblance in some ways ( but differing crescent wing shape) to the B2 flying high over Amerillo in Texas appear to show a brand new aircraft. When challenged the USAF denied the presence of any B2s in the area and all airframes were accounted for. After too much publicity the USAF then staged a flight of 3 x B2s (virtually unheared of due to availability) in order to put folks off the scent. The F117 had been flying for 4 years before it was unveiled to the public. The Black budget is huge and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find the B21 already exists. The public is only ever told what the Military decides to tell it, if and when it chooses to do so.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13.03.2018 at 11:04 PM, Stealthman said:

The photographs taken of 3 unidentified aircraft bearing a striking resemblance in some ways ( but differing crescent wing shape) to the B2 flying high over Amerillo in Texas appear to show a brand new aircraft. When challenged the USAF denied the presence of any B2s in the area and all airframes were accounted for.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18997/b-21-raider-officially-heading-to-edwards-air-force-base-for-testing

On 13.03.2018 at 2:57 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Stealth is not an absolute.

For fighter I absolute and almost agree! For bomber or spy plane I don't know.

But I think that everyone will agree that stealth is completely useless for transport or attack plane! :):)

 

B.R.

Serge

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...