PAK-FA / Sukhoi Su-57 - Updates and Discussions

[batman]

Looks like you missed-






Based on what points?
Stealth & sensor fusion are the 1st things in 5+gen. If the jet is largely visible & cant survive BVR then what kinematics & other features willit use?


- Please don't throw my own words at me. I try to be technical with points, pic, diagrams, graphs, calculations.


- Please speak for yourself rather seeing opportunity to join hands with others to ambush & pressurize others.


- The reality & facts & some speculation have been put in the table.
- You can give your own version of the table.
- Some people wanna accept points of Su-57 but not F-22 even after red-marking in pics & diagrams.


- Please avoid personal philosophical comment & focus on your technical inputs.

Thanks & regards.

Just try rereading @Hyperactive ADD points, I currently don't have the mental to explain to you and hyperActive guy was more than willing to teach you some things which you wont listen.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

Just try rereading @Hyperactive ADD points,

Sure, it can be seen what kind of pics & analogy have been shared by us.
Except on RCS, i've also supported Su-57 but you guys wanna put down F-22 like hell like it doesn't exist.

> If we remove RCS from focus, then Su-57 is certainly better overall in most aspects - agility, weapons, multiple radars, countermeasure, HMDS, etc.

What more do you wan't?

I currently don't have the mental to explain to you and hyperActive guy was more than willing to teach you some things which you wont listen.

Please speak for yourself & focus on your inputs.
Thnks & regards.

 

[Hyperactive ADD]

Based on what points?
Stealth & sensor fusion are the 1st things in 5+gen. If the jet is largely visible & cant survive BVR then what kinematics & other features willit use?

“Stealth & sensor fusion are the 1st things in 5+gen.”


Well, the key issue is that you said stealth capability ranks number one... This comes from the objective document guiding the design of the U.S. 4-generation fighter ATF (F-22/YF-23).

In Russia's 5-generation frontline fighter (Su-57), this ranks only third.



And sensor fusion is not mentioned at all in the objective document guiding the design of the U.S. 4-generation fighter ATF (F-22/YF-23) (which is why it's so terrible, penalized when it comes to low-observable detection means, infrared detection means, L-band radars, side-mounted phased arrays, and the messy multi-level target data sharing function that the MiG-31 already had).



And this indicator ranks fifth in Russia's 5-generation frontline fighter (Su-57)...



So in general, your judgment orientation is based on American standards and your own fantasies...



Since American standards are so perfect, then please let the Americans continue to justify themselves using 4-generation fighter methods from now on.

 

[batman]

Indian EW + Radar combo comes later though. This is currently between Israeli radar and the 8222SB pod.

We can't even indigenise our Tejas in time let alone the 4th gen Su30MKI to modern standards with indian hardware and we wanna do something similar to a much more advanced 5th gen platform.

Here is why this is gonna cause plenty of issues down the line based on what I've come across online.

See the core reason why the Su-30MKI cannot serve as an inspiration for modifying a Su-57 is cause of the evolution of avionics computing.

SU30 like jets utilize a Federated Avionics Architecture built around a standard multiplex data bus (typically MIL-STD-1553B)... In this, the radar, EW suite, and targeting pods each possess an independent processing computer...+++

subsystems only talk to each other via finalized data products feeded so we can intercept the data bus, place an open-architecture interface like our mission computer we put and cleanly swap a Russian box for an Israeli or Indian sensor.

Su-57 uses a Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) framework which uses a centralized processor called the IUS-57

Instead of individual computers for every sensor, raw data from all over the airframe is routed via fiber optic buses directly into a central core.

The centralized IUS-57 executes the processing tasks, radar waveform generation, and electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) simultaneously within a unified software...

According to Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute of Instrument Design the radar functions as unified under the the Sh121 Multifunctional Integrated Radio Electronic System (MIRES).

Not as a single entity

The system consists of five radars
N036-1-01: The main forward-looking X-band
N036B-1-01 (Left and Right): Two side-looking X-band cheek arrays (404 T/R)
N036L-1-01 (Left and Right): Two L-band AESA arrays mounted used for (IFF) and counter-stealth target

software processing of the X and L signals is executed entirely within a shared computing inside the IUS-57.... So if Indian GaN radar (like Virupaksha) replaces the main radar it creates disconnect. Our radar operates on its own software logic, processing code, and profile.

Also modern jet have integrated ECM/ECCM suites so they need shared use of apertures between the radar and the EW suite. On the Su-57, the L402 Himalayas ECM suite uses just use its own dedicated antennas; it can do jamming signals through the N036 Byelka radar... ++

This requires complex Waveform Interleaving. The central computer must mathematically time the transmission of radar pulses and EW jamming signals down to prevent the aircraft from blinding its own sensors or burning out its hardware components...(SENSOR DECONFLICTATION) ++

Inserting a foreign radar into the nose we will need source code of the L402 Himalayas suite and the IUS-57 kernel, else Indian radar would be completely unsynchronized....

The Su-30MKI has EW and extra sensors, but they are treated like independent add-ons:
The EW is in a Pod: If India wants heavy jamming on the Su-30, they hang an Israeli Elta or a Russian SAP-518 pod on the wingtips.
The IRST is a Standalone Eye: The OLS-30 Infra-Red Search

SU57 has a 101KS Atoll electro-optical suite and the L402 Himalayas EW suite integrated into the whole system itself
101KS-V: The main Infra-red search and track (IRST) right in front of the cockpit.
101KS-U: missile approach warning sensors ++
101KS-O (DIRCM)

3 X Band + 2 L Band radars

See like If MAWS detects the flash of an incoming missile from the side,It tells the DIRCM laser to and blind the missile.
It can tell the N036 AESA radar (nose or cheek arrays) to instantly track

Modern jets have a locked architecture... Mutiple radars... Different band... EW suite integrated+... Passive and active sensors all feed data to one thing... All work on 1 architecture... You can't place your architecture at one point...

SU30 gen was much simpler

To put Indian Radar and avionics as many demand it means stripping out the central IUS-57 computer, all five radar arrays, and the entire L402 EW architecture, and rebuilding a new, unified ecosystem from scratch.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

This is a military exchange forum, not an IT exchange forum. I don't understand why you're emphasizing IT engineers—what are you even trying to do?

I know you're agonizing over what profession the people who've made you suffer in reality have—what's that even for? You could simply think of me as unemployed. If that makes you happy, so be it.

I tried to appreciate you initially but if you keep offending passing personal provocative comments, then others'll defend & let you know that they also have some credibility based on their qualification, industrial experience, while you can't give a basic intro.

Look at what i said -

You've shared some good tech data so far

- No matter how loud the voice, heavier the propaganda, how big the wealth, nobody's putting a gun to head of any forum member or to professionals of any civillian & military domain to search, think, analyze, perceive, decide.

- We all are fans, enthusiasts, so everybody can have their perception where data is missing.

- It's ok if you or me or any member don't have idea of something. Who is aero-pro here? And many things about these military products are meant to be secret while people can guess endlessly. So let me make my guess & you can make yours.

Now look at your personal & useless comments -

other people aren't like you—many of them might actually know a thing or two about this field. But in my nearly 30 years of surfing the internet, you are genuinely the first person to equate the F‑22's 1–2 GHz radio comms gear with Russian L‑band radars, and then proceed to compare them with a straight face—truly, a stroke of genius.

Your American daddy

you keep babbling about.

how spectacularly filial of you, still fantasizing

Don't know if IT engineers are really all that hot stuff these days, but the level of confidence is certainly extraordinary.
Or is it that people in your line of work reckon

are you gambling on me, betting that I'm just another "ordinary enthusiast" like you? Betting that I can't do anything more than Google（the same to you）?

"IT engineer" is more accurately dubbed a "network migrant worker" (code monkey).

When it comes to military matters, you guys are nothing but rank amateurs.

You'd be better off just sticking to your own industry and grinding out some basic C++. Why even bother debating military aviation?

IT engineers live in such a hopelessly narrow bubble.

=========================================================================================================

J-20
Trash: The only one using canards.
Trash: One of only two lacking an internal gun.
Trash: One of only two lacking thrust-vectoring nozzles.
Trash: Powered by a knock-off F110.
Trash: Features a weapon bay too thin and cramped.

J-35
Trash: Broader than a Su-33.
Trash: One of only two lacking an internal gun.
Trash: One of only two lacking thrust-vectoring nozzles.
Trash: Powered by a knock-off RD-33.
Trash: Features a weapon bay too thin and cramped.

J-36
A stunning 3-engine piece of trash.
A stunning 3-engine piece of trash.
A stunning 3-engine piece of trash.
(Three engines, so it deserves three repeats).
Still a piece of trash with no thrust-vectoring.

J-50
When the Su-57 debuted, J-20 fanboys called its RCS trash because of the seam on its underbelly. Now that the J-50 copied that exact same underbelly seam, following the old tradition, it's officially just more trash.
……This logic seems to manifest itself within you as well
...That's what I said. I don't know what you're trying to express. Are you implying that because my IP is Chinese, I have to think this is good?

- What can we do if you being Chinese don't like your own jets? You can put these things in Chinese thread to discuss.
- Perhaps you can share a drawing how you envision a good jet & put it in Chinese thread.

- I've always said that stealth = RAM+RAS+geometry+EW+tactics, but it's a fact that round surface is worst RF reflector, hence planform shaping.
- I shared a CAD by an artist with angular belly from front to back which looks much better.

Everything has objective distinctions of quality; the inferior is generally called garbage, particularly in life‑and‑death battles，They are all spending vast amounts of taxpayer money

Yes they're spending huge tax money & after that we can see the pace of R&D of all jets & when a particular feature got implemented in the inducted jet.
In life & death battle the entity more visible on the outside gets seen & attacked 1st, no matter how good inside.


===========================================================================================
Before proceeding keep in mind what i said -

> If we remove RCS from focus, then Su-57 is certainly better overall in most aspects - agility, weapons, multiple radars, countermeasure, HMDS, etc.

.
.
.

F-22 and Su-57 combat performance?
Air superiority combat: Su-57 wins

Su-57 could be a better gunfighter with superior TVC, 50-50 chance with CCMs, but in BVR, like i said above " the entity more visible on the outside gets seen & attacked 1st, no matter how good inside."

Interception: Su-57 wins

F-22 is qouted M 1.8 SuCr while Su-57 quoted M1.3-1.6

Close air support against soft targets: neither is suitable

Today CAS doesn't mean diving with gun like A-10 Thunderbolt.
They can drop GPS guided bombs like JDAM & small smart bombs like SDB.

Ground strike against hard targets: Su-57 wins

Anti-ship warfare: Su-57 wins

Ok.

Has information on the R-100/Ks-172 been blocked here?

Not blocked, but Su-57 cannot carry even 1 R-100 internally, while F-22 will carry 6x AIM-260 internally.
R-100 under wings'll expose Su-57.
And look at metrics - size, weight, range, etc -
- R-100 has 300-400 Km range, weighs 750 Kg. Range/Kg = 400/750 = 0.53 Km/Kg
- While AIM-260 under testing is speculated to reach 200-300 Kms, expected to weight 150-220 Kg. Range/kg = 300/220 = 1.36 Kms/kg
- PL-17 weighs 500 Kg, with range 300-500 Km. Range/Kg = 500/500 = 1 Km/kg

And to fire a weapon it should have a direct lock or indirect guidance & with much lower RCS a jet would have much better chance to break the lock.

Having these technologies is certainly better than not having them. For example, the side-looking phased array radar—the F-22 was originally planned to have it installed during its design phase, but it later fell through. This fully demonstrates that the F-22's designers considered it to be very useful

For example, on Chinese forums, fans of the J-20 all criticize the Su-57 for being loaded with a bunch of useless junk—after all, the American F-22 and the Chinese J-20 don't have them, so that proves it's junk. But then when the J-36 started having them installed, they suddenly went silent and played dead

- I did mark the side radar aspect in the table as "may be in MLU" in RED, then why're you raising this point again & again?
- And bcoz it was originally planned but not implemented, hence i speculated may be for MLU. What's the big fuss in it?

Currently, the chips used in fighter jets—whether in the F-22 or the Su-57—cost far less than a bag of cat food.
There is no difficulty in acquiring them and no performance bottleneck. I don't understand why this is even being discussed.

- It's not about just 1 or few chips but a complete system which is very costly to R&D. These are way beyond even the costly servers in datacenters.
- CPU, cache memory, PCB, etc are among most expensive components in any computer system.
- Ultimately their computing capabilities are different, 3 BIPS Vs 10.5 BIPS as per current search.
- We've been doing performance analysis in datacenter since 20 years & it's the toughest & most tricky task. Many times the bottlenecks occur in the most unexpected parts, even after the manufacturers did so much R&D to make the components & setup.
- There are computing & network architecture & topologies, efficiency of OS, protocols, etc to be considered.
- YF-22 & many jets so far crashed due to system glitch.
- A lagger country with limited money, R&D, perhaps dependent on import, has to remain satisfied with whatever it can arrange.
- The leader country with highest R&D will enjoy better quality, capability, at more cost bcoz quality comes with price, but it's still affordable to the leader nation even in less numbers as they sell& generate revenue but not equally to lagger nations.

The kind Westerners invest huge amounts of money, and then the Chinese, Indians, Russians, and North Koreans get to enjoy it all happily.

> Like i said above, to lead, huge investment is needed & ultimately 1 day by trial & error success is achieved & customers line up generating revenue, what we call ROI or Return On Investment.
> IDK about China, but non-computer manufacturing nations, dependent on West, don't seem to be happy at all. They fear their IT industry can collapse if West does arm twisting.

The most advanced server chips and AI graphics cards that are subject to restrictions are only products that are new within the past 3 to 5 years. With Moore's Law scaling, these things become obsolete quickly. It does affect the profits of IT companies, but it is of little consequence to the military industry—for military equipment, 650 nanometers is still considered good.Micron-scale chips are still mainstream

> This is contradiction bcoz -
- if things get obsolete quickly then already older, higher NM, less capable CPUs may suffice for few years but with lesser performance & will need upgrade.
- Military equipment is very generic term, with numerous size, scale, need, performace, etc, needing variety of chips, custom to the platform.
- Lesser the nanometer, more dense the CPU becomes, more the MIPS/BIPS, more avionics can be accomodated, better the radar/sensor performance, more targets can be simultaneously scanned, tracked, locked, better the sensor fusion, better the data sharing.

> The idea is that higher capable system takes advantage over lesser capable one.

“Stealth & sensor fusion are the 1st things in 5+gen.”
Well, the key issue is that you said stealth capability ranks number one... This comes from the objective document guiding the design of the U.S. 4-generation fighter ATF (F-22/YF-23).
In Russia's 5-generation frontline fighter (Su-57), this ranks only third.
And sensor fusion is not mentioned at all in the objective document guiding the design of the U.S. 4-generation fighter ATF (F-22/YF-23) (which is why it's so terrible, penalized when it comes to low-observable detection means, infrared detection means, L-band radars, side-mounted phased arrays, and the messy multi-level target data sharing function that the MiG-31 already had).
And this indicator ranks fifth in Russia's 5-generation frontline fighter (Su-57)...
So in general, your judgment orientation is based on American standards and your own fantasies...
Since American standards are so perfect, then please let the Americans continue to justify themselves using 4-generation fighter methods from now on.

Again going in circle. We all are judging & giving opinion based on something. So it's your misunderstanding that i'm supporting USA, while i'm simply focussing on tech aspects & R&D state. So there's no need to get entangled in gen #, standard & document, bcoz that doesn't change RCS, IRS.
- I already said that except RCS, Su-57 seems better.
- However, a good jet needs to be good both in & out. More visible outside means 1st to be seen & attacked.
- Also, detecting a faint object is 1 thing & confirming a genuine target & getting a lock for firing solution is another thing.
- Both Su-57 & F-22 have wing mounted sensors, the paint patch for sensors are grey color, which your eyes want to intentionally ignore & deny.
- Su-57 radar being newer could have higher detection range than F-22 for same RCS object, but with F-22's RCS as target that range reduces a lot.
- Su-57's IRST range is qouted 50 Kms against non-afterburning head-on targets, far less than radar ranges.
- So F-22 needs to detect, lock, fire on Su-57 b/w 50-150 Kms range. It can win BVR in this range otherwise it'ld loose mostly within 50 Kms.
- Under-wing stealth IRST pod & AN-AAR-56 replaced by TacIRST will tilt overall chances in F-22's favor.
- Also, round IRST worse than angled one, hence F-22's under-wing IRST are angled. There's speculation that Su-57 might have EOTS like cover for IRST.