Sounds pretty cool. Is there papers describing this? Just wanna see out of curiosity.
It would be appropriate to add civilian airliners together with the su-15 in the same update. Then again with the recent 3 gorges dam ripoff we got our answer about that.
I think the Su-15TM would be great a great addition to the game. I am still on the fence about the Mig-25. The Mig-31 can totally be in the game imo, even right now.
The Su-15TM has the double delta, gun pods, R60’s & Kaliningrad K-8 missiles infrared & radar homing versions. Also has 44,00 ft climb out the box. That is a Kfir C.7 spaded climb rate in game.
There was also a Su-15 Bis preproduction model 1972 that came after the Su-15TM with upgraded avionics & R-25-300 engines of 69.9 kN (15,652 lb) afterburning thrust. It was cleared for serial production, but unfortunately due to shortage of engines it was cancelled.
They can even add the Su-15 Flagon-A or the Su-11 (would be cool too) at even lower BRs to compete against the F-104 Starfighters that currently running wild with no equal. The Su-7 & Su-17 are not sufficient imo. They are heavy & acceleration is not comparable to the F-104. They are better suited to support the ground armies.
That was a long read, but I finished. Very cool.
Thats cool that Flagon pilot & Blackbird pilot met & are probably now friends & can talk for hours. Reminds me of the Luftwaffe Focke-Wulf Fw 190 pilot Franz Stigler & American B-17 pilot Charles “Charlie” Brown who met years after the war & became friends.
Paper isn’t needed, the aircraft’s inherent stability or want for pitching the nose would depend on the trim devices angle of attack. Leading edge flaps, leading edge root extensions, the movable intake, these all contribute to the stability in the same fashion as the LEVCONS of the Su-57.
Look at the Mirage 2000, the aircraft is neutrally stable until there is small angle of attack and leading edge flaps are deployed… Then it naturally pitches and requires negative trim or camber from the trailing edge wing surfaces. The same idea applies here.
The Sukhoi Su-27 is inherently unstable or is it stable until certain conditions are met? @BBCRF
The Mirage 2000 does not have leading edge flaps. It has leading edge slats.
It is important to understand these technologies and how they differ when attempting to determine capability. They are all not equal.
The M2k uses inferior leading edges compared to the leading-edge droop flaps of the Su-27, Mig-29, F-16, Gripen, F-22, Su-57 etc.
Droop flaps are superior because they rotate the entire leading-edge section downwards creating optimal wing camber for increased lift & allowing greater enhanced airflow at angles of attack while slats create a gap between the slat body and the wing leading edge.
Slats are far less effective than Droop Flaps in both wing camber & high alpha flight.
Leading edge slats are a design of an older generation of fighters. It highlights the advanced age & obsoletion of the M2k design & why is no longer produced.
You’re right, slats. The functionality is the same though in regards to their use in managing the relaxed stability.
This is true, it is older. I was just explaining the various trim devices used by aircraft with relaxed stability and how the F-15’s movable intake would fit in.
The Mirage 2000’s leading edge slats are actually the most modern iteration of such a mechanism… they can deploy differentially and there are two sets on the wing. They create a dogtooth / vortex generator when deployed. You’ll see footage of the Mirage, when they deploy the nose pitches without input from the trailing edge control surfaces. This is the result of the relaxed stability being augmented and the slats being used as trim devices. Simple and clever way to make a pure delta safe to fly with borderline negative stability.
Likewise, the Su-57 is fully unstable and the margin of instability is higher than any other airframe to date produced by Russia it seems. This is possible because the new design features (LEVCONS) make it possible to augment the stability level and recover from stalls in spite of the tailed configuration. This benefits energy maneuverability as well as high alpha flight without any drawbacks seen on canards or aircraft with leading edge root extensions alone.
Unstable aircraft with elevators instead of canards become MORE unstable at high alpha flight and deep stall because the deflection of the elevator and subsequent loss of lift from the rear moves the overall center of lift too far forward - resulting in pitch-out departures. Levcons prevent this by redirecting airflow and removing a forward source of positive lift at will.
Functionality is the same. But they are not equally effective.
One is completely obsolete in fighter design of the 4th+ Generation & 5th generation.
The leading-edge slat is completely obsolete in high alpha flight. It’s a 3rd Generation technology trend.
Yes I agreed with you, thanks for the corrections
Somewhat of a curiosity (y’all seem to know a lot of stuff…) but how’s the stealth performance of the SU-57 like?
I’ve seen plenty of claims and most of them are on the lower side of effectiveness but there’s plenty of negative bias when it comes to the SU-57 so I would love to hear a different kind of opinion…
Also is there a reason why the production of SU-57s is so slow? Or is it still in some kind of first batch pre-production phase?
Patent of the prototype PAK FA T-50 said average RCS was 1m² but obviously the production aircraft is quite different and likely has a much lower number. There are no current tests or evaluations worth their salt on the subject for the Su-57. Visually it is obvious that it would be inferior to the F-22 or F-35, but it could very well be a trivial matter as the sensors would pick one up likely before the radar does.
The facility to mass produce has not been built and they are not closing down lines for the other premier fighters to retool them for the Su-57 yet. Production pace will exceed the F-22’s in the next decade more than likely.
Hasn’t the production of F-22 stopped?
Su-57 still didn’t get phase 2 engines, but allegedly should get this year
Yeah I’ve seen some pictures but most of them seem to be heavily photoshopped…
Pls go here whenever discussion starts going off topic, just take message from here and respond in new thread
Appreciate it, bro.
From what I know its low observability is most prevalent & looking at it from the front. which makes sense. However. Some analyst & USAF pilots note that the exposed IRST & canopy bow of the cockpit are exceedingly detrimental to its RCS. The canopy bow on of the J-20 is mentioned as well. I expect the canopy bows will be removed from both in the near future.
Also, do keep in mind these aircraft are not truly stealth, neither is the F-22 or the F-35. They are not supposed to be. They are designed to be low observable & most importantly difficult to track.
There are certain unremovable qualities of a fighter (4th & 5th generation) that limit them from ever achieving true stealth capability such as the B-21 Raider & B-2 Spirit. For example, a fighter’s overall shape, their cockpit & canopy, intakes, advanced flight control surfaces, conventional flight control surfaces & engines etc.
Therefore, detection is not the primary concern for 5th generation fighters. Because low-frequency radars operating in the VHF and UHF bands can detect low-observable aircraft.
The primary objective of the technology is to reduce the ability & range that an enemy can track you & effectively target you.
The Su-57 does not need to be stealth. It just needs to be low observable enough to reduce the range he can be successfully targeted to safely & effectively deploy his ordinance off first. Same concept with the F-22 & F-35.
The Su-57 & Chinese J-20 are equipped with much longer ranged active missiles that cover ground much quicker.
This is an issue for the US because this means it does not matter how less “stealthy” the Su-57 & J-20 are compared to the F-22. They can remain well beyond the range of the Aim-120 & far enough from any other 4th generation aircraft to remain effectively low observable & unable to track. Of course, this all will come down to the radars.
Which the US does not truly know to a certainty how capable the N036 of the Su-57 is or the Type 1475 (KLJ-5) in the J-20 is.
So, to answer your question. Yes, the RCS of the Su-57 is much greater than the F-35 & F-22.
However, if we consider the Su-57’s long-ranged capabilities compared to the medium-ranged capabilities of the F-35 & F-22… A need to be just as “stealthy” as the F-22 Raptor does not seem so relevant anymore.
Remember, the F-22 was literally built & limited for medium range. The aircraft was entirely built around the Aim-120. Therefore, its RCS is required to be as low as it is because it is more susceptible to detection & tracking.
The F-22 & F-35 both operate & engage entirely at medium range or below where tracking much easier.
I believe the Su-57 is just as low observable as it needs to be. Same with the J-20.
If the US can manage to produce a hypersonic missile small enough to fit in the weapons bay of the F-22 & F-35. Then things may be different. We will have to wait & see.
Money is predominately the reason. Now it’s access to specialized components, which Russia can still get its hands on, just takes additional time & more money.
I honestly doubt they will be producing any new aircraft for a while let alone the Su-57.
As for serial production, the RuF just received a Su-57 delivery not too long ago iirc.
Also Su-27LL
https://otvaga2004.ru/kaleydoskop/kaleydoskop-air/5-6-pokoleniye-5/
In your video, the AL-31FM-1 engine
AL-41F1S -Часть 2. Двигатель V поколения как объективная реальность