SU-57, F-35 comparisons and upgrade questions for my self evaluation

a reply to: matafuchs

More like 10.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Rail guns are getting better, but they're not getting any smaller. There was an interesting article last week that more or less said the ones the Navy are working on will almost certainly never see service. They came out with a goal of 10 shots a minute in 2012 or 2013, and the last rapid fire test managed something like 4.6 in a minute.

Even if they manage to get them to the point where they can be used over and over without having to replace magnets and capacitors, I don't see them getting anywhere near small enough to put on a fighter in the next 20 years, at minimum.

a reply to: darksidius

What comes after the F-35 is the F-X which was reported to have an ADVENT for its design. That is already more promising as it seems than making an aircraft fly near space. They have most of the 6th gen features that was to be used on the SU-57 like smart skins, GaN MMICs, engine specs(not ADVENT), air to air missiles as AESA sensor warheads using digital arrays, etc. Only thing missing I believe is the design of what a 6th gen got to be and a DIRCM to destroy instead of blind missile warheads. If the SU-57 truly becomes operational like what the senators, the CEO of UAC and military officials say by 2019. Than a 6th gen design should be a peace of cake as long as they don't complicate it like using a near space engine or microwave weapons as part of its design than it will take forever.

There is also another amusing problem with the Russian military industry and that is not giving tech transfers to India for the SU-57 and I found out a few days ago there is a refusal for a tech transfer for Turkey regarding the S-400 sale......They also always sell downgraded military equipment for example Egypt getting Mig-35s with passive instead of active radars.

a reply to: wewuzkangz

There are a few flaws with your logic.

First, no one has defined what 6th Gen even is yet. There are some ideas out there but no firm definition.

Second, the difference between generations is a lot more than what you're talking about. There's a thread in this forum that breaks down the generations. You should read it. What you've described is maybe a 5.5 aircraft, but more likely a 5+.

Third, to develop all these amazing systems Russia says they have costs money. A lot of money. A lot more than Russia has been putting into their budget in recent years. So either they've been developed for free, or they aren't as developed as they claim.

As for the Egyptian MiGs, passive radar isn't a downgrade. It's actually somewhat of an advantage over active radar.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Hey thats interesting. What are the advantages to passive radar vs active. Immediatly i can think of not giving yourself away by broadcasting detectable signals.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

That's a huge one. Radar, unless it's LPI, can be detected far beyond its useful detection range. It's also fairly resistant to EW because it uses signals from outside sources. Passive radar can be set up to use almost any kind of signal, including satellites, although they kind of suck for that role.

Depending on the radar you can also have an active emitter such as an AWACS broadcast, and have receivers at various places at angles to the radar signal, and receive returns that were scattered by an LO platform.

a reply to: wewuzkangz

I assume you are referring to PESA (Passive Electronically Scanned Array) versus AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array)?

For anyone else, both are phased array radars which use phase shifting to electronically steer and "focus" the beam. AESA typically has over a thousand transmit/receive modules, each is basically a miniature radar. This is different to PESA in that each antenna is connected to a central receiver / exciter. AESA will typically have significantly higher performance, but isn't the only factor in radar performance.

Does Russia have an aircraft operational with an AESA yet? Nope.

It's worth keeping in mind the Super Hornet has had operational AESA since 2008 and the F-22 has had an operational AESA since 2005. Almost 13 years.

BUT RUSSIA STRONGK!!!

This thread may get a full response from me but not sure if it's worth it. It's also much harder to be for something than it is to be against. So kudos to wewuzkangz.

a reply to: Zaphod58

"First, no one has defined what 6th Gen even is yet. There are some ideas out there but no firm definition." Than let me express some of those ideas.

scout.com...

"Analysts have speculated that as 6th generation developers seek to engineer a sixth-generation aircraft, they will likely explore a range of next-generation technologies such as maximum sensor connectivity, super cruise ability and an aircraft with electronically configured “smart skins.”"

"The Air Force Chief Scientist, Dr. Geoffrey Zacharias, has told Scout Warrior that the US anticipates having hypersonic weapons by the 2020s, hypersonic drones by the 2030s and recoverable hypersonic drone aircraft by the 2040s"-OK now I see why you are very doubtful about the mig-41 lol. Also western experts suggested 2035 instead of 2025.

aviationweek.com... The title is already self explanatory. But what I want to know is more specifications " The program is aimed at technology for a new combat-aircraft engine with 25% lower thrust-specific fuel consumption, but 5% more military power and 10% higher maximum thrust than Pratt’s F135." - I have explained earlier that the afterburner max thrust is 27% more than their previous engine 117. "“It validated the 25% fuel-efficiency goals set by AFRL which translates into a 30%-plus-range improvement for the platform,” he adds." - I have explained that they have a 42% increase in range minimum because the above 5,000km range is telling me its not passed 5,500 or 6,000km because they would have stated it. but that its not passed 5,500km but above 5000 km gives the engine a 42% increase in range minimum but no more than 57%.....Now the F-22 with 2 external fuel tanks is listed by wiki as 2,960km give or take but divide the fuel weight ratio of with or without fuel tanks gives it a 2,049km range. The F-X was intended to replace the F-18 and using those F-18 engines with ADVENT specs would not be fair I guess so I will lay off on this for now but they have already exceeded the specs given in few examples that I gave as of now.

hypersonic missiles was another mention of the F-X not to be a biased Ahole but looking at all the russian missile projects that have been done or under development I have more confidence on this statement with the mig-41 getting such weapons before the F-X with too many examples to give right now.

www.raytheon.com... I am guessing GaN MMICs are the new trend going on so assumptions be made this is what there 6th gen will possibly use. If not maybe purse radio optical arrays for their radars or ROFAR. Because I looked at the current operational 5th gen aircrafts they all have GaAS. So rather if my assumption on this is fair or not let me know

Second, the difference between generations is a lot more than what you're talking about. There's a thread in this forum that breaks down the generations. You should read it.- Well now I shall find this thread and see what the specifications are.

Third, to develop all these amazing systems Russia says they have costs money. A lot of money. A lot more than Russia has been putting into their budget in recent years. So either they've been developed for free, or they aren't as developed as they claim. - Our F-35 project was not all that cheap either that even our military explained about not wanting to start another program as of yet. But we still want to purse it. I have seen costs of developing avionics go down. But I will still remain unsure if new technology makes things cheaper regarding engines and program developments. I know your doubtful but my optimism is based off comparing their prototype having features that are not present on the F-35 for example which I have all stated before starting this topic.......Would your doubts be removed if most of these features were all present by 2019 along with lower costs?

a reply to: C0bzz

I don't think so. They have the Zhuk AE that they planned on putting into upgraded MiG-29s and Su-27s, and will be in the MiG-35, but I don't think they have an operational one.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Here is the operational ones www.deagel.com... later for now everyone will return later.

a reply to: wewuzkangz

Which is the radar that I was talking about. It is going to be installed in the MiG-35, and they were planning to install it in older aircraft, but I haven't found anything saying they ever did. The MiG-35 won't go operational until 2018.

originally posted by: wewuzkangz
scout.com...

Conceptual planning. They're defining what it is.

"Analysts have speculated that as 6th generation developers seek to engineer a sixth-generation aircraft, they will likely explore a range of next-generation technologies such as maximum sensor connectivity, super cruise ability and an aircraft with electronically configured “smart skins.”"

Some of the technologies that will go into a 6th Gen already exists and will be in use. They don't completely start from scratch when developing new aircraft.

aviationweek.com... The title is already self explanatory. But what I want to know is more specifications " The program is aimed at technology for a new combat-aircraft engine with 25% lower thrust-specific fuel consumption, but 5% more military power and 10% higher maximum thrust than Pratt’s F135." - I have explained earlier that the afterburner max thrust is 27% more than their previous engine 117. "“It validated the 25% fuel-efficiency goals set by AFRL which translates into a 30%-plus-range improvement for the platform,” he adds." - I have explained that they have a 42% increase in range minimum because the above 5,000km range is telling me its not passed 5,500 or 6,000km because they would have stated it. but that its not passed 5,500km but above 5000 km gives the engine a 42% increase in range minimum but no more than 57%.....Now the F-22 with 2 external fuel tanks is listed by wiki as 2,960km give or take but divide the fuel weight ratio of with or without fuel tanks gives it a 2,049km range. The F-X was intended to replace the F-18 and using those F-18 engines with ADVENT specs would not be fair I guess so I will lay off on this for now but they have already exceeded the specs given in few examples that I gave as of now.

Seriously, just give up on that. You have no clue what you're talking about and prove it over and over and over again. They're talking about a completely different engine than you are, and something completely new, while you're talking about a conventional engine. They're talking about more thrust in regular power modes, you keep bringing up afterburner.

hypersonic missiles was another mention of the F-X not to be a biased Ahole but looking at all the russian missile projects that have been done or under development I have more confidence on this statement with the mig-41 getting such weapons before the F-X with too many examples to give right now.

Biased? You? No!

And yet where are all the Russian hypersonic missiles? I freely admit that they're damn good with missiles, but if they're so great then where are all their hypersonic missiles? They currently have something like two, one of which is under development, both of which are cruise missiles.

Our F-35 project was not all that cheap either that even our military explained about not wanting to start another program as of yet. But we still want to purse it. I have seen costs of developing avionics go down. But I will still remain unsure if new technology makes things cheaper regarding engines and program developments. I know your doubtful but my optimism is based off comparing their prototype having features that are not present on the F-35 for example which I have all stated before starting this topic.......Would your doubts be removed if most of these features were all present by 2019 along with lower costs?

No one has ever said the F-35 was cheap, but at the same time, the Russian budget, as is pretty much everyone else's is a fraction of ours. Even just the R&D budget.

My doubts will be assuaged when it can be shown these statements are accurate. I've seen far too many times when a Russian general made claims that six months or a year later were shown to be wrong.

Zhuk radars feature a maximum detection range from 110 to180 kilometers for airborne targets and 300 kilometers for sea targets.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: C0bzz

I don't think so. They have the Zhuk AE that they planned on putting into upgraded MiG-29s and Su-27s, and will be in the MiG-35, but I don't think they have an operational one.

And while it's based on that developmental radar, the new radar is going to consist of three or four different arrays they'll need to integrate and then present to the pilot in a meaningful way. They're doing a lot of things for the first time. Which doesn't mean they can't. It just means it will take time and money.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Whats going on in this forum I ask a questions that have a more technical premise such as does the US have GaN AESA on aircraft in developement, AESA on missiles using digital arrays, and the 1/2 weight reduction in comparison of latest radars that gets removed but not a comment that is as irrelevant as Japan getting their 1st AESA and user saying that country is more advanced than another country in AESA ignoring the technological developements of another country that acquired their AESA versions. ria.ru... They have got 30 on order but AESA is operational with technical preferences like seeing a 3m2 at 250km range. Hope the SU-57 will do the same later.

Checked the flights and dates of both F-35 and SU-57. What I simply want to understand is why does the item 30 have a higher thrust and range percentage than something that is still on paper for another country? even if i was using dry thrust in the equation instead of afterburner the results would be the same.

a reply to: wewuzkangz

Because engines have different thrust ratings. That doesn't make them better or worse. They're designed for a specific purpose and requirement. The F135 engine was designed around specific fuel burn and thrust requirements for the F-35.

You don't just build an engine that's the maximum thrust possible and stick it into an airframe. The new Su-57 engine was designed for specific numbers too. There's a reason for those numbers.

But seriously, just drop the comparison with ADVENT. You obviously don't care to understand why it's so important, and think it's just another normal engine. Until you can understand how it completely changes engine design you're going to get the same responses you've been getting.

Not all questions get answers. Some things are questions people don't want to answer, others are things people can't answer. If you're going to be around here for awhile, get used to it.

originally posted by: wewuzkangz If a SU-57 was to engage the F-35 in front to front confrontation. Would it still be difficult to get behind a supposedly more manueverable aircraft with a 240 degree radar azimuth?

if two stealth aircraft were to enter front to front confrontation BVR, would they even know the other aircraft was even there?

a reply to: choos
depends on specific range, rcs and sensors obviously
The F-35 uses DAS/EOTS and would presumably detect another aircraft sooner than anyone else.

a reply to: Zaphod58

"Because engines have different thrust ratings" I am still wondering why the thrust ratings and fuel efficiency with range are higher than the izdelie compared to an engine that is on paper and not out yet. Yes they are different because the item 30 exceeds the ADVENT. I am wondering whats wrong with the engine department as to why they cant go higher in ratings or dish out as of yet

"You don't just build an engine that's the maximum thrust possible and stick it into an airframe." I compared dry and afterburner thrust. Advent has a 10% thrust increase than previous engine. Why does the izdelie 30 have a way higher thrust rating than 10%......That is all I am asking for?

and think it's just another normal engine. " I am wondering why the special engine sucks at ratings. At this point i feel like this engine design in general is not that great.