"Rostec" accidentally published a snapshot of the new secret fighter "Sukhoi"


On the morning of Monday, July 19, the Russian state corporation Rostec announced on YouTube a presentation of a new secret fighter aircraft of the Sukhoi Design Bureau. The video's splash screen featured a photo of a secret fighter jet from the exhibition pavilion.


The announcement of the presentation was soon deleted, but the photo of the combat aircraft managed to spread on social networks. According to some Internet users, the new fighter will be called the Su-59.

Previously "Rostec" demonstrated engine images of its fifth generation single-engine fighter. According to experts, the engine of the aircraft will be "Product 30", originally intended for the Su-57.

In addition, within the framework of the International Air Show, which will be held in Zhukovsky near Moscow from July 20 to 25, a model of the Strizh supersonic passenger aircraft will be shown. According to the designers' ideas, the cruising speed of the aircraft can reach 1800-1900 km / h, the flight altitude is more than 15 thousand meters.
  • Photos used: Rostec
30 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 19 July 2021 17: 16
    +1
    Accidents are not accidental.

    (master Ugway)
    It looks like people will rush to the exhibition as a sale.
    1. Alexander K_2 Offline Alexander K_2
      Alexander K_2 (Alexander K) 19 July 2021 18: 26
      -9
      Will you rush to buy SU-59 pictures?
      1. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 19 July 2021 21: 08
        +6
        Will you rush to buy SU-59 pictures?

        Kind of like the Su-57 ... Well, okay. Show you a picture of the Crimean bridge? Fresh directly from Mosfilm smile
  2. Rum rum Offline Rum rum
    Rum rum (Rum rum) 19 July 2021 17: 52
    +8
    That's interesting.
    They completely abandoned the stabilizer, due to the spreading of the keels and UHT.
    And about the weapons compartment is not clear (after all, under the fuselage the air channel of the engine).

    By the way, comrade Kirill, tell us how fat he is like the Fe-35 and how he looks like a Boeing goblin.
    Throw something else on the fan.
    You’re in this pro.
    1. Susul Offline Susul
      Susul (Yuri) 20 July 2021 08: 55
      0
      most likely the armament ossek was hidden by narrowing and bending the air duct, at the same time the compressor blades were hidden
    2. boriz Offline boriz
      boriz (boriz) 20 July 2021 11: 55
      +1
      Compartments to the right / left of the engine and duct. It's not the 1950s now, the fuselage is not round. Look at how far from the engine the stabilizers are attached. The places there are more than ...
      And so, the airplane looks both elegant and expedient. First of all, because it was not designed as a VTOL aircraft, without space for a fan.
  3. Alexander K_2 Offline Alexander K_2
    Alexander K_2 (Alexander K) 19 July 2021 18: 24
    -8
    Well, you surely KAPUT NATE, out of fear, or out of laughter?
    1. chemyurij Online chemyurij
      chemyurij (chemyurij) 19 July 2021 20: 38
      +1
      Quote: Alexander K_2
      out of fear, or out of laughter?

      They will laugh from fear to death.)))
  4. After 3D Element (After 3D Element) 19 July 2021 19: 07
    -9
    ROS-LAUGHTER will not do bullshit. Ypta-Fon alone from Rossmech was worth what!
  5. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 19 July 2021 20: 39
    -10%
    By the way, comrade Kirill, tell us how fat he is like Fe-35.

    "By the way" is written together, by the way :)

    tell us how fat he is as Fe-35

    What for? I am not a hurray-patriot, for me the F-35 is not fat at all. Quite the optimal ratio of height and length of the profile.

    like a Boeing goblin.

    But, yes, it looks like it - the layout is the same (no horizontal tail, the ventral air intake, displaced forward, the weapon compartments will most likely be lateral).

    Well, the fact that the X-32 is inflated (which I absolutely do not deny) is because it is a VTOL aircraft. Try into a new Russian aircraft with such a layout, stuff the system for vertical take-off and landing - you will be a little surprised by its shape :)
    1. Rum rum Offline Rum rum
      Rum rum (Rum rum) 19 July 2021 21: 12
      +5
      What for? I am not a hurray-patriot, for me the F-35 is not fat at all. Quite the optimal ratio of height and length of the profile.

      Yes Yes.
      You are not a patriot, but a liberal Karlsoln with a fan.
      This happens.
      For layout see Yak-41.
      And all sorts of penguins and goblins are obtained when they try to make "three in one", but there is no tyama to synchronize two small lifting motors, you have to put a huge fan and inflate the fuselage.

      And yes. The yak was super sonic.
      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 19 July 2021 22: 12
        -8
        For layout see Yak-41.

        So the Yak-41 had air intakes on the sides, which made the task somewhat easier :)

        and there is no thrust to synchronize two small lifting motors, you have to put in a huge fan and inflate the fuselage.

        laughing 2 lifting motors took up no less space than one fan :) Plus, they increased fuel consumption.

        see schemes Yak-141 and F-35



        Now let's compare the characteristics:

        The Yak-141 has a maximum speed at an altitude of 1800 km / h, at the ground: 1250 km / h (1,05 M);

        The F-35B has a maximum speed at altitude of 1930 km / h. Count it up, yes, it's supersonic too.

        That is, they are approximately equal in speed.

        Now we look at the combat radius:

        The Yak-141 has a combat radius of up to 900 km, and the F-35B has 860 km (without PTB and refueling). That is, they are again similar in this parameter.

        Now we look at the maximum combat load:

        At the Yak-141: with a takeoff run of 120 m - 2600 kg, with a vertical takeoff - 1000 kg

        F-35B - 9100 kg

        And the last characteristic that any hurray-patriot should wash the palms of - I'm talking about maneuverability:

        The Yak-141 has a maximum operating overload of 7g, the F-35B - 7,5g

        Oh, how is it, how is it that the "loser F-35B" is not inferior to the great Russian Yak-141 in flight range and speed, and even surpasses in maximum combat load and maneuverability. How so :)

        And yes. The yak was super sonic.

        So is the F-35 supersonic.

        And, well, the Yak-141 was 35 meters longer than the F-2 and half a meter higher :)

        Who was there that said about "inflation" of the fuselage?)
        1. smersh chek Offline smersh chek
          smersh chek (smersh chek) 19 July 2021 23: 31
          +3
          Vertical thrust allows the F-35B to take off and land vertically with a low combat load and incomplete fuel tanks. With a higher load, the vertical thrust for takeoff is not enough and takeoff is carried out with a small takeoff run (the so-called short takeoff). Landing can also be carried out. In practice, due to the fuel consumption in flight, the takeoff weight of the aircraft turns out to be much higher than the landing weight. Therefore, as a rule, takeoff is performed short, and landing is vertical. In view of this, aircraft like the F-35B are called in the English literature Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft - an aircraft with a short takeoff and vertical landing. In Russian-language sources, the abbreviation "SKVVP" is not used, and "short take-off and landing aircraft" denotes light aircraft for operation from unprepared sites. Therefore, the F-35B is often called VTOL or SVP, although the capabilities of vertical takeoff are realized with a reduced aircraft load ...

          https://naukatehnika.com/problemyi-s-lopatkami-dvigatelej-na-istrebitelyax-nevidimkax-f-35.html

          That is, with a shortened takeoff, he can take 4 missiles, that is, 0,8-1 tons and at the same time the tank is incomplete (the combat radius becomes even smaller), but this is all bullshit compared to the burnout of the blades, the f35 engines are disposable))

          1. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 19 July 2021 23: 56
            -3
            - that is, with a short takeoff, he can take 4 missiles, that is 0,8-1t and at the same time the tank is incomplete (the combat radius becomes even smaller),

            Where do these numbers come from? Can I have a source?

            but this is all bullshit compared to the burnout of the blades, the f35 engines are disposable

            Not "disposable". The problem is earlier by compared with the estimated wear of the turbine blades due to. How much "earlier" it is - is known in comparison with the power plants on other aircraft.
        2. smersh chek Offline smersh chek
          smersh chek (smersh chek) 19 July 2021 23: 36
          +4
          pilots f35 and f22 suffocate at altitude, and there are restrictions on supersonic sound, already 3 f35 pilots have died
          1. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 20 July 2021 00: 09
            -6
            pilots f35 and f22 suffocate at altitude

            This has only been noticed in some aircraft and the problem has been resolved as far as I know.

            already 3 F35 pilots have died

            For 10 years of combat operation and with more than 600 units produced, these are small numbers.

            For comparison, on the MiG-31 in the first 10 years there were 6 disasters with the death of the crew, and even more - with a successful ejection or emergency landing at the airfield.

            And the Su-27 for 6 years of operation - from 1990 to 1996 - 6 accidents with the death of the crew.

            Well, we also don't forget about the awkwardly crashed first serial Su-57 :)
            1. Object.F7 Offline Object.F7
              Object.F7 (Object.F7 TV) 20 July 2021 07: 22
              +1
              Interesting statistics. Can you tell us about the Su-35 and F-15?
              1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                Cyril (Kirill) 20 July 2021 07: 28
                -2
                Fortunately, the Su-35 has no fatal accidents yet. But only 112 pieces were produced. The F-15, with 1500 copies issued, has 180 accidents (with and without crew deaths) - approximately one per 50 flight hours.
                1. Object.F7 Offline Object.F7
                  Object.F7 (Object.F7 TV) 20 July 2021 08: 06
                  +2
                  The Yankees have too many losses, F-15, F-16, F-18, more than 10% of those released, and if you recall the problematic F-14 and F-111, it is generally gloom. Su-35 against their background an alien guest, how could this be built in Russia
                  1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                    Cyril (Kirill) 20 July 2021 11: 01
                    -2
                    Su-35 against their background an alien guest, how could this be built in Russia

                    Against their background, the Su-35 simply practically does not fly and is produced piece by piece :) The more often the plane flies, and the more units are produced, the greater the percentage of accidents. It's natural.
                    1. Object.F7 Offline Object.F7
                      Object.F7 (Object.F7 TV) 20 July 2021 11: 30
                      0
                      More than a hundred aircraft is an acceptable sample and 10 years in service is also a figure, half of this period covers the Syrian theater of operations plus joint operations with strategists over considerable distances. I often revisit Bogdan's performance at Le Bourget 2013, this is something special. And according to rumors in Akhtubinsk, equipment is not spared. The Chinese are one hundred percent chasing them on exercises against the J-20. Here I must admit, it turned out to be an extremely successful bird.
                      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 20 July 2021 11: 49
                        -2
                        More than a hundred boards is an acceptable sample and 10 years in service is also a figure,

                        If we analyze the reliability of the Su-35 separately, then yes. If we compare its reliability with other aircraft, then we need to bring it to a common denominator. Because the same F-15 has been flying in various modifications since the 70s. You can, of course, take modifications of both aircraft that are comparable in terms of time of use and activity of use - and compare. sure,

                        No one disputes that the Su-35 is a wonderful aircraft. But in order to obtain objective data in comparison with other aircraft, you need to correctly compare them.

                        That is why, at the very beginning, for comparison, I gave a rough calculation of the number of accidents (accidents, incidents - whatever) for the first 10 years of operation of the MiG-31. It fell more often than the F-35.
                2. akarfoxhound Offline akarfoxhound
                  akarfoxhound 20 July 2021 10: 11
                  +3
                  You always go to the wrong place, sometimes into the wrong organic holes, or into the wrong topic! laughing Wikipedia, where you get your "digital" inspiration, is ruled by the same loafers who are far from aviation, like you. Firstly, there are no catastrophes without human casualties (I suspect that this lie was obtained from you from the same distant topics of TV presenters of state channels).
                  According to the guiding aviation documents, there are AI - an aviation incident, AIS - a serious aviation incident, AIP - a serious aviation incident with an aircraft breakdown, AK - an aircraft accident, an emergency - an emergency. And everything has its own definition, indicating the nuances, such as, for example, what is a breakdown in the same APS, on which days after the incident the victim died, that the incident cannot be an AK, well, etc.
                  Secondly, aviation security statistics do not count the number of accidents by the number of hours worked, this is also a journalistic fool! AIs are considered according to 3 groups of factors:
                  1- human factor;
                  2-failure of aircraft;
                  3- another group of factors (anything that is not related to the first two is entered into it)
                  The documents indicate: "According to the 1st group of factors in the II quarter of 2021 in the state aviation of the Russian Federation (for example) there were" "incidents, namely AIS -, SAIP-, etc.
                  For the 1st, there are usually 70-80% of incidents in the world, for the 2nd 15-28%, there are no incidents per year.
                  Aircraft reliability is determined by the number of flights per AT failure (any unit, if it is simplified). The most reliable in Soviet aviation was the Su-15, it had 2800 hours of flight time per failure; in civil aviation, the Il-18 was legendary without failure, which was taken out of service by one high-ranking government leader after the AK according to the 1st group of factors.
                  Do not refer to "Vicky" - for the most part, crap is a crap (this is such a taftology wink
                  1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                    Cyril (Kirill) 20 July 2021 11: 16
                    -4
                    You always go to the wrong place, sometimes into the wrong organic holes, or into the wrong topic!

                    Who would say

                    Firstly, there are no catastrophes without human casualties (I suspect that this lie was obtained from you from the same distant topics of TV presenters of state channels).

                    Yes, thanks, really inaccurately used terminology. However, he explained so that it was clear what the speech was about.

                    Aircraft reliability is determined by the number of flights per AT failure (any unit, if it is simplified).

                    True, but this information for individual aircraft is difficult to find in the public domain.

                    Therefore, the number of failures per number of "raids" or simply the number of failures due to technical reasons for a certain period of time - albeit a less accurate indicator, but quite allowing to judge the reliability of the aircraft.

                    Do not link to "Vicky" - for the most part, crap is crap

                    In Wiki, information is given in an extremely concise manner, which is convenient. To check this or that position, you can follow the links that are there.
                3. Kedrovich Offline Kedrovich
                  Kedrovich (Alexa980) 20 July 2021 14: 10
                  +1
                  1500? Why waste time on trifles - write 15000 at once.
                  1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                    Cyril (Kirill) 20 July 2021 14: 26
                    -1
                    In third place are F-15 fighters (949 aircraft, 7% of the total number of combat aircraft in the world).

                    This data is for 2019. Excluding already decommissioned aircraft of early modifications.

                    If you don't like this number, show it differently.
    2. boriz Offline boriz
      boriz (boriz) 20 July 2021 12: 01
      +2
      Try into a new Russian aircraft with such a layout, stuff the system for vertical take-off and landing - you will be a little surprised by its shape :)

      So our people don't try, so as not to be surprised. Why put an owl on a globe? This is in our distant past, the pernicious influence of Tukhachevsky. It was he who was a champion of stupid universalization: a divisional gun / anti-aircraft gun / anti-tank gun in one bottle. They shot him late.
      And the epic with a universal aircraft based on the F-35 looks like a successful GRU special operation.
      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 20 July 2021 12: 09
        -3
        So our people do not try, so as not to be surprised.

        First, there is the F-35 without vertical takeoff and landing.

        Secondly, Russia needs a VTOL aircraft.

        And the epic with a universal aircraft based on the F-35 looks like a successful GRU special operation.

        The F-35B version works quite well. Moreover, it simplifies the creation of carrier-based aircraft - you can look at the Japanese who, with the help of the F-35B, turn helicopter carriers into aircraft carriers.

        And the "argument" like "yes, we don't need this" is for the rogue. It is necessary, even as necessary
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. AND Offline AND
    AND 20 July 2021 15: 26
    +1
    Quote: Cyril
    So our people do not try, so as not to be surprised.

    First, there is the F-35 without vertical takeoff and landing.

    Secondly, Russia needs a VTOL aircraft.

    And the epic with a universal aircraft based on the F-35 looks like a successful GRU special operation.

    The F-35B version works quite well. Moreover, it simplifies the creation of carrier-based aircraft - you can look at the Japanese who, with the help of the F-35B, turn helicopter carriers into aircraft carriers.

    And the "argument" like "yes, we don't need this" is for the rogue. It is necessary, even as necessary

    Well, you are a dancer, there is a plug in every hole. You yourself are not funny "pseudo-patriot". Such a malevolent person, one negative against Russia ...
  8. dub0vitsky Offline dub0vitsky
    dub0vitsky (Victor) 20 July 2021 15: 55
    +1
    So who pierced? Petrov or Boshirov?