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

[screambowl]

Russian air combat doctrine is to use air defence like S500, S400 against stealth and use aircrafts to go hot, chase and hunt down in WVR. USAF brought in BVR to avoid direct contact with Russian aircrafts because Russian aircrafts have superior kinematics. But it just the matter of few minutes that BVR turns into WVR engagement. There you can't escape Russian aircrafts with powerful radars, no matter if it is F22, F35 or any thing.

 

[Hyperactive ADD]

F404 powers a 6.5 ton aircraft and M88-4E powers a 9.5 ton aircraft. I don't see the problem here.

LCA Mk1A
empty weight = 6.5 tons
thrust = 8.62 tons
TWR = 1.32

Rafale C
empty weight = 9.5 tons
thrust = 7.65 tons x 2
TWR = 1.61

Su-30MKI
empty weight = 18.4 tons
thrust = 12.55 tons x 2
TWR = 1.36

So what's the problem?

That’s not how the math works, kiddo.

First of all, let’s establish the baseline scenario: to satisfy the operational profile of 2 minutes at full afterburner plus 35 minutes at maximum dry thrust for a round-trip combat patrol, the fuel fractions required are highly specific.

Su-30MKI, it must carry 7,600 kg of fuel. Combined with an ordnance package of 4x R-77s and 2x R-73s totaling 980 kg, and an empty weight of 18.8 tons, we look at the official performance charts. Under these exact parameters:

At 6,000 meters / Mach 0.8: The dual AL-31FP engines put out a combined 160 kN of thrust, yielding an overall thrust-to-weight ratio (TWR) of 0.60.
At 6,000 meters / Mach 1.5: The ram effect spikes the total dual-engine thrust to 240 kN, pushing the TWR to 0.90.
At 12,000 meters / Mach 2.0: The thin air drops total thrust to 114 kN, leaving a TWR of 0.43.


Rafale C under the exact same operational profile. It demands 5,500 kg of fuel. Since its internal fuel capacity maxes out at only 4,700 kg, it is forced to bolt on a 115 kg supersonic drop tank. Factor in an air-to-air loadout of 4x MICA and 2x Magic II missiles totaling 1,152 kg, and cross-reference the exact same flight regimes. The Rafale C’s dual-engine thrust figures clock in at 116 kN, 170 kN, and 76 kN, yielding TWRs of 0.73, 1.07, and 0.48, respectively.

Tejas Mk1A. To fulfill this mission, it requires 3,200 kg of fuel. Given its abysmal internal fuel capacity of just 2,458 kg, even assuming it can magically integrate the Rafale's 115 kg supersonic drop tank, you must add that 115 kg penalty. Slap on 4x Astra Mk1s and 2x R-73s totaling 836 kg, and check the charts. Under the identical three test conditions, its total thrust collapses to 47 kN, 60 kN, and 20 kN, resulting in pathetic TWRs of 0.45, 0.57, and 0.19.

Keep in mind, these raw numbers don't even factor in Sukhoi’s massive aerodynamic advantages—such as its Blended Wing-Body (BWB) lift generation and thrust-vectoring superiority—nor do they account for the severe parasitic drag and aerodynamic degradation inflicted on the Rafale and Tejas by forcing them to haul external drop tanks just to stay airborne.




Furthermore, why on earth are you using the Su-30MKI—a heavy, twin-seat strike fighter—as your baseline comparison?

If you look at a single-seat Su-27SM3 paired with the AL-31FM1 (which shifts the entire thrust curve upward by 5% to 10%), the aircraft's empty weight drops to just 16.X tons. Under the exact same mission profiles, its estimated TWRs rocket to 0.73, 1.06, and 0.51, completely obliterating the Rafale across the entire envelope.

Your version of 'armchair physics' is completely disconnected from actual aerospace engineering.

View attachment 52256

So what's the problem?

The root of the problem is that you lack even the most basic aviation common sense.

You take a few flat, isolated numbers off a Wikipedia page and forcefully shoehorn them into your own imaginary, fictionalized universe. You don't even grasp the elementary concept that an engine outputs entirely different thrust levels at varying altitudes and speeds, which means a fighter jet's thrust-to-weight ratio fluctuates constantly under different flight regimes. Instead, you just blindly copy-paste that worthless, sea-level, Mach 0.4 thrust data over and over again, sitting there looking utterly smug about your own ignorance



Are you honestly suggesting that the pathetic, underwhelming Rafale can achieved a thrust-to-weight ratio that outclasses the Su-27—the absolute gold standard of heavy-class supermaneuverability? Or that the F/A-18, that hilarious joke of a 'subsonic brick,' could have its engines ripped Half out and still seamlessly trade blows with a Su-30MKI?

To leap out and look so utterly proud of yourself after concocting such an absurdly bizarre conclusion is truly a sight to behold.

Before anything else, you might want to go back to school and learn how to comprehend the endless pile of PPTs you’re throwing around.

 

[Hyperactive ADD]

小家伙，数学可不是这么算的。

首先，让我们确定基准场景：为了满足往返战斗巡逻中 2 分钟全加力燃烧加上 35 分钟最大干推力的运行要求，所需的燃料比例非常具体。

苏-30MKI战斗机必须携带7600公斤燃料。加上4枚R-77火箭弹和2枚R-73火箭弹共计980公斤的武器载荷，以及18.8吨的空重，我们来看一下官方性能图表。在这些具体参数下：

在 6,000 米/马赫 0.8 处：两台 AL-31FP 发动机共产生160 kN的推力，总推重比 ( TWR ) 为0.60。
在 6,000 米/马赫 1.5 时：冲压效应使双引擎总推力达到240 千牛，推重比达到0.90。
在 12,000 米/马赫 2.0 处：稀薄的空气使总推力下降到114 千牛，推重比为0.43。


在完全相同的作战模式下，阵风C型战斗机需要5500公斤燃油。由于其内部燃油容量最大仅为4700公斤，因此必须外挂一个115公斤的超音速副油箱。再加上4枚MICA导弹和2枚Magic II导弹（总重1152公斤）的空对空挂载，并参考完全相同的飞行状态，阵风C型战斗机的双发推力分别为116千牛、170千牛 和76 千牛，对应的推重比分别为0.73、1.07和 0.48。

Tejas Mk1A 战斗机要完成这项任务需要3200 公斤燃料。鉴于其内部燃料容量仅为 2458 公斤，即使假设它能神奇地集成 Rafale 战斗机的 115 公斤超音速副油箱，也必须加上这 115 公斤的额外重量。再加上 4 枚 Astra Mk1 发动机和 2 枚 R-73 发动机，总重 836 公斤，然后查看图表。在相同的三个测试条件下，其总推力分别骤降至47千牛、60 千牛和 20 千牛，导致推重比仅为可怜的0.45、0.57和0.19 。

请记住，这些原始数字甚至没有考虑到苏霍伊巨大的空气动力学优势——例如其混合翼身（BWB）升力产生和推力矢量优势——也没有考虑到阵风和光辉战斗机为了保持飞行而被迫携带外部副油箱所造成的严重寄生阻力和空气动力学性能下降。




此外，你究竟为什么会选择苏-30MKI——一款重型双座攻击战斗机——作为基准比较对象？

如果将单座苏-27SM3与AL-31FM1发动机搭配使用（该发动机可将整个推力曲线提升5%至10%），则飞机的空重将降至仅16.X吨。在完全相同的任务剖面下，其推重比预计分别飙升至0.73、1.06和0.51 ，在整个飞行包线范围内都彻底超越了阵风战斗机。

你所谓的“纸上谈兵的物理学”与真正的航空航天工程完全脱节。

View attachment 52256







问题的根源在于你连最基本的航空常识都缺乏。

你从维基百科页面上摘取几个冷冰冰的数字，硬生生地把它们塞进你自己臆想出来的虚构世界里。你甚至连发动机在不同高度和速度下输出的推力完全不同的基本概念都搞不明白，这意味着战斗机的推重比会在不同的飞行状态下不断波动。相反，你只是盲目地一遍又一遍地复制粘贴那些毫无价值的、海平面、0.4马赫的推力数据，然后坐在那里，一脸沾沾自喜地炫耀自己的无知。



你真的认为那架可怜兮兮、性能平庸的“阵风”战斗机能够达到超越苏-27——重型超机动性战斗机的绝对标杆——的推重比吗？或者你认为那架滑稽可笑的“亚音速砖头”F/A-18，即使发动机被拆掉一半，也能与苏-30MKI轻松交锋？

想出如此荒谬离奇的结论后，还能跳出来一副无比自豪的样子，真是令人叹为观止。

在此之前，你或许应该回学校好好学习一下，如何才能看懂你到处乱扔的那些没完没了的PPT。

Apologies, I spoke too soon on the last post. I misread the graph and mistook the AL-31F's thrust at Mach 1.6 for Mach 1.5, which unfortunately lowballed the Su-30MKI's actual performance. But hey, even with my data accidentally dialed down, it still completely ran circles over your little paper jet.


↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓

 

[screambowl]

Now Indians can calmly forget GE414. Su57 will come and then there is plenty of time to develop indigenous engine. May be fly AMCA with leased Izd177 only for test purpose if that fits in.

 

[Hyperactive ADD]

So what if AMCA or its engine is not ready, it's a development program that will begin soon. I don't get the point of you attacking AMCA. It serves no purpose. IAF decided to go after AMCA instead of Su-57 because AMCA has been designed to surpass it. If it fails to do that, the IAF will import.

And what's Rafale or Su-30's canards got to do with J-20 or J-10? Canards add more lift, that's all. It's got nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. If your airframe has sufficient lift and controls well at high AoA, then don't add canards. Or else add canards. Rafale adds canards to generate more lift, Su-30 adds canards to stabilise center of gravity due to the heavy nose. The J-10 and J-20 will have canards for their own reasons.

The F110 see a 25% loss in thrust when it's installed in the F-15E. And it's around 20% for F-16 with F100. That's why you get 22000 lbs for F-15E and 24000 lbs for F-16.

When the F-15E starts its engines and goes full burner, the pressure loss in the inlet is 5%, which translates into a direct thrust loss of 10%. Once you take away bleed air for cooling and mechanical energy for electricity generation and other losses, the overall thrust loss is at 25%. So 29500 lbs becomes 22000 lbs at the exhaust.

Here: Mig-29.
View attachment 52252

Your pet jet here's delivering 13600 kgf of installed thrust versus it's uninstalled thrust of 16600 kgf. That's almost 20% loss in thrust.

So what now?

This is not an engine problem, it's an airframe problem.

And who cares what engines the Chinese have ripped off, the only thing that matters is if the performance goal was achieved. If it wasn't, then it failed. But if it has, it doesn't matter if it's of worse quality or better 'cause overhaul doesn't matter when you are fighting. Quality is for peacetime, performance is for wartime.

A 25% installed thrust loss'—you really just love pulling numbers straight out of thin air, don't you?

Like I said before,
every single time you post, you just invent a brand-new lie just to cover up your previous one.

At this point, it’s a statistical nightmare trying to find even two correct sentences in that entire mountain of garbage you just typed

As for exactly how much power the RD-33 loses inside the MiG-29's intake—this exact chart spells it out in black and white. The dashed lines represent the uninstalled thrust, and I’ve highlighted the low-altitude ones in blue.



And for your further education, this is the exact comparison chart showing the uninstalled thrust of the AL-31F versus the actual installed thrust curves of the Su-27.
↓↓





To claim this somehow reaches a 25% loss from F110-GE-129 is downright delusional.

Just to be absolutely sure, I’m going to keep pressing you on this: what exactly does that 22,000 lbs in your picture equate to in metric tons of thrust? Did GE explicitly leave a footnote telling you that this number already accounts for your imaginary '25% installed loss' or whatever nonsense you're preaching?

Oh, so according to your twisted logic, the gap between the Su-27's installed thrust and test-bench thrust is a mere 500 kg, but somehow the American F-15E suffers a catastrophic 25% loss? Are you seriously trying to tell us that American engineering is that incompetent?