Sukhoi Su-57 flight testing and development

[LMFS]

Aw, i feel bad for losing one of the defining character namely lattice fin on R-77's.

I rather feel good, those fins were not beneficial for the range of the R-77.

Do you remember where you heard this?

https://iz.ru/972679/anton-lavrov-r...abatyvaet-oruzhie-protiv-giperzvukovykh-raket

 

[Trident]

Also, Izd.180 at 10:20 in the video, screenshot attached.

That looks more like a Kh-38 to me.

 

[LMFS]

That looks more like a Kh-38 to me.

I think you are right, Kh-38ML(E) has different wings and could the missile in the picture above:

 

[flanker]

My bad, thank you for correction. Looks like Kh-38ML indeed looking the smaller orange dots next to exhaust and their fairings and a number of other differences.

 

[Ronny]

Can you please tell me which one of them is R-37M?

 

[TR1]

Can you please tell me which one of them is R-37M?

In that photo, none of them (unless you consider Izd 180 as encrouching on R-37M capabilities).
First two are short range missiles, and then R-77-1 and the follow on.

 

[Ronny]

Izd180 is ramjet R-77?

 

[Cool ice]

Interesting , wondering if the Iz-180 , being carried in packs of 4 internally , is a limit of the airplane, or is it because of the internal AKU launcher configuration being similar to when they fired the 40 cm wide cruise missiles in syria , Twice as much box width as the article 180.
Seems a bit odd if 2 180's , 20 cm of box width each , are a limit , especially considering that the bay is over 100 cm wide , considering how the same bay held bigger payloads before , and considering how 16 suspension points (thus 6 external + 10 intenal) was mentionned in numerous official interviews. Along with the capacity of carrying 8 folded wing MRAAMS.

The configuration in the picture is the one that has been known since the begining of the program, some of us think there can be developments increasing that capacity in the future, some don't. Sukhoi is to this day extremely secretive with the internal layout of the bays (still no image of their internals has been released, at least that I know) and there is a second stage being developed, so there might be more going on in regards of internal armament than what we know. There was talk about a future long range missile with multiple detachable warheads, that may be another option on increase the internal capacity without increasing the number of suspension points, but it would not be so flexible.

Do you maybe have a link where those 16 suspension points are mentioned by an official source?

Ill certainly share the link once i cile across once more. The man said something in the lines of "internal rockets: 10 pcs"

Indeed i agree that a lot of info is masked about the weapon bays. Let us not forget that missile ejectors are rated via the weight class that they carry. A missile such as Kh-59mk2 weighs nearly one ton , therefore it would need a beefier , perhaps more size consuming launcher than what the 170-1 may require. Just my thoughts.

 

[flanker]

Izd180 is ramjet R-77?

Nope, that is supposedly izd180-PD. Not sure if that thing is even alive. Attached is a small, probably old, but helpful guide from mr Unicornski. And 810 was supposed to be tested as far back as 2014-2015 at Akhtubinsk so yeah, weird that there is no mention of it on that particular layout composition. Su-47 did droptests with a mock up of it.

 

[Cool ice]

Russian missile companies are very secretive about what they make. Not much fuss was made about the 180 but now we can see its very real and existing. They also didnt make much noise about their lightweight armament series for UAV's but they do exist.
Keeping things under wraps is a general trend with Su-57. 101KS Has a total of six subsystems but up until now we only saw five. And they also hid the fact that 101-KS-O doubled as a 101-KS-V for significant period.

 

[framige]

Hi there, I am new here and find this threead very interesting. My contribution is related to the statement below-

I suspect that the 9a/9b and 10a/10b may actually refer to different adaptors - rather than the ability to carry two missiles on hard-point using a twin ejector racks.

Icidentally I found this screen capture of a video showing a twin ejector on a Su-57 :


The reference say it dates back to 2017
Keep the good job.

 

[Avimimus]

Hi there, I am new here and find this threead very interesting. My contribution is related to the statement below-

I suspect that the 9a/9b and 10a/10b may actually refer to different adaptors - rather than the ability to carry two missiles on hard-point using a twin ejector racks.

Icidentally I found this screen capture of a video showing a twin ejector on a Su-57 :

The reference say it dates back to 2017
Keep the good job.

Very interesting! Thank you!

 

[Cool ice]

Hi there, I am new here and find this threead very interesting. My contribution is related to the statement below-

I suspect that the 9a/9b and 10a/10b may actually refer to different adaptors - rather than the ability to carry two missiles on hard-point using a twin ejector racks.

Icidentally I found this screen capture of a video showing a twin ejector on a Su-57 :

View attachment 642056
The reference say it dates back to 2017
Keep the good job.

This goes a bit within the lines ive stated. Thanks for the find.Indeed its not just space it may be related to certain ejector configurations.
R-37M , for instance , is not present in the chart , despite being available at least for external carry.

 

[LMFS]

Ill certainly share the link once i cile across once more. The man said something in the lines of "internal rockets: 10 pcs"

Great, that would be very interesting. In fact most of what we know about modern Russian armament was disclosed several years ago, lately the sources have dried up massively.

Indeed i agree that a lot of info is masked about the weapon bays. Let us not forget that missile ejectors are rated via the weight class that they carry. A missile such as Kh-59mk2 weighs nearly one ton , therefore it would need a beefier , perhaps more size consuming launcher than what the 170-1 may require. Just my thoughts.

We know there are two different launchers for the ventral bays: the UVKU-L for loads up to 300 kg and the UVKU-U for those up to 700 kg

Icidentally I found this screen capture of a video showing a twin ejector on a Su-57 :

I saw this before but it is not clear to me whether this is not a simple double pylon for rocket launchers:



They resemble that one more than the known double ejector for AAMs:



Of course I am not denying that they could use those double ejectors in the last picture in the Su-57 too...

 

[haavarla]

Gimme a picture instead of picturing me.

"I was wrong." That simple, yet of course you will never do it because self imposed delusion is that hard to break apparently.

Heh, Tomcat is a nice guy at the end of the day

The real comedy was that loon @ Keypub who argued for years Su-57 would enter service with external weapons only.

Well atleast he was in a good company then - considering basically whole keypub was a bunch of loon's.

Ouch..

 

[haavarla]

Ill certainly share the link once i cile across once more. The man said something in the lines of "internal rockets: 10 pcs"

Great, that would be very interesting. In fact most of what we know about modern Russian armament was disclosed several years ago, lately the sources have dried up massively.

Indeed i agree that a lot of info is masked about the weapon bays. Let us not forget that missile ejectors are rated via the weight class that they carry. A missile such as Kh-59mk2 weighs nearly one ton , therefore it would need a beefier , perhaps more size consuming launcher than what the 170-1 may require. Just my thoughts.

We know there are two different launchers for the ventral bays: the UVKU-L for loads up to 300 kg and the UVKU-U for those up to 700 kg

Icidentally I found this screen capture of a video showing a twin ejector on a Su-57 :

I saw this before but it is not clear to me whether this is not a simple double pylon for rocket launchers:

View attachment 642082

They resemble that one more than the known double ejector for AAMs:

View attachment 642083

Of course I am not denying that they could use those double ejectors in the last picture in the Su-57 too...

If this is not a static display trick.. would not the left R-77 have to be launched first.. or the right one.. i'm not sure, lol! It would depend on how it seperate from the adaptors?
But they do look to be in conflict with its mesh fins.

 

[LMFS]

If this is not a static display trick.. would not the left R-77 have to be launched first.. or the right one.. i'm not sure, lol! It would depend on how it seperate from the adaptors?
But they do look to be in conflict with its mesh fins.

It would drop or eject the missile, not make a rail launch., I see no problem with it. The missiles are staggered so the fins do not make contact...

 

[haavarla]

If this is not a static display trick.. would not the left R-77 have to be launched first.. or the right one.. i'm not sure, lol! It would depend on how it seperate from the adaptors?
But they do look to be in conflict with its mesh fins.

It would drop or eject the missile, not make a rail launch., I see no problem with it. The missiles are staggered so the fins do not make contact...

If you say so. Most of the Russian A2A missiles launched from wing adaptors are Rail launched. Hense my train of thought

 

[Dr.Snufflebug]

If this is not a static display trick.. would not the left R-77 have to be launched first.. or the right one.. i'm not sure, lol! It would depend on how it seperate from the adaptors?
But they do look to be in conflict with its mesh fins.

It would drop or eject the missile, not make a rail launch., I see no problem with it. The missiles are staggered so the fins do not make contact...

If you say so. Most of the Russian A2A missiles launched from wing adaptors are Rail launched. Hense my train of thought

The R-77 is dropped (forcibly ejected) before it ignites, by the standard launcher (AKU-170). Don't see why the dual one would be different.

АКУ-170Е относится к пусковым устройствам поршневого типа. Оно состоит из силового корпуса, имеющего узлы подвески к самолету-носителю. Внутри корпуса размещены передний и задний гидравлические толкатели для катапультирования ракеты, приводимые в действие пиротехническим приводом (через механизм синхронизации) при использовании энергии пиропатрона ЭПК-28Т-2.

Besides, as there are two hardpoints in tandem in the Flanker "tunnel" that are often both occupied by medium-long range AAMs, they *have* to be dropped no matter which launches first. It's either that,
or suicide either way.

 

[Firefinder]

Then you have the Semi recess missiles on the belly of the Mig31. Those like the the F4 and the Flankers needs to dropped or else you will experience a significate emotional event.

 

[TR1]

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4165063.html
NAZ workload for the upcoming decade- including PTB-2000, PTB-3400 external tanks, as well as VTB-M and VTB-B internal tanks for Su-57's weapons bays.

 

[LMFS]

NAZ workload for the upcoming decade- including PTB-2000, PTB-3400 external tanks, as well as VTB-M and VTB-B internal tanks for Su-57's weapons bays.

I had not realized before that they specifically talk about tanks for the weapon bays, we speculated about them but now apparently their existence has been confirmed...

Is it known what the difference between the B and M models is?

 

[haavarla]

NAZ workload for the upcoming decade- including PTB-2000, PTB-3400 external tanks, as well as VTB-M and VTB-B internal tanks for Su-57's weapons bays.

I had not realized before that they specifically talk about tanks for the weapon bays, we speculated about them but now apparently their existence has been confirmed...

Is it known what the difference between the B and M models is?

Is it fair to say the internal fuel tanks for bays are actually for Ferry missions?

 

[LMFS]

Is it fair to say the internal fuel tanks for bays are actually for Ferry missions?

Not necessarily. Maybe you want to make a long CAP mission and prefer to exchange AAMs for persistence. Also in case stealth requirements are not mission relevant, externally carried AAMs will have a way smaller drag index than EFTs. Or in case mission weapons are mainly big, externally carried ordnance... the internal tanks can be useful in many occasions I think

A quick calculation shows ca. 1500 kg fuel capacity per bay should be possible

 

[haavarla]

Is it fair to say the internal fuel tanks for bays are actually for Ferry missions?

Not necessarily. Maybe you want to make a long CAP mission and prefer to exchange AAMs for persistence. Also in case stealth requirements are not mission relevant, externally carried AAMs will have a way smaller drag index than EFTs. Or in case mission weapons are mainly big, externally carried ordnance... the internal tanks can be useful in many occasions I think

A quick calculation shows ca. 1500 kg fuel capacity per bay should be possible

yes but how much fuel are we talking about, total now, 13000kg?

 

[LMFS]

yes but how much fuel are we talking about, total now, 13000kg?

This is unknown but your figure should not be off by much. All I heard from reliable sources is that almost every internal space in the plane is used as fuel tank, even the tail booms. I would find it retrograde for the Flanker's substitute to have less fuel / range than the older model, but that is just a personal opinion. If somebody has made a good 3D model it should be possible to get a good internal fuel estimation I think.

 

[flanker]

NAZ workload for the upcoming decade- including PTB-2000, PTB-3400 external tanks, as well as VTB-M and VTB-B internal tanks for Su-57's weapons bays.

I had not realized before that they specifically talk about tanks for the weapon bays, we speculated about them but now apparently their existence has been confirmed...

Is it known what the difference between the B and M models is?

Their existence was confirmed 4 years ago. I think i remember reference to them previously, but that is atleast when it was set in stone.

Less than two weeks til S-2 will be handed over to RuAF, in theory.

 

[stealthflanker]

Less than two weeks til S-2 will be handed over to RuAF, in theory.

Good news. and no rush.

 

[FighterJock]

Less than two weeks til S-2 will be handed over to RuAF, in theory.

Good news. and no rush.

Take all the time necessary Sukhoi, don’t rush the building of the new aircraft.

 

[GARGEAN]

don’t rush the building of the new aircraft.

Yeah, first one was enough...

 

[haavarla]

S-2 and S-3 should be pretty close, when delivered to the troops. Seeing them on the Floor at KnAAZ. Wonder how they ramp this up.. Next is 3 Airframes and then 4 etc

 

[haavarla]

Is it fair to say the internal fuel tanks for bays are actually for Ferry missions?

Not necessarily. Maybe you want to make a long CAP mission and prefer to exchange AAMs for persistence. Also in case stealth requirements are not mission relevant, externally carried AAMs will have a way smaller drag index than EFTs. Or in case mission weapons are mainly big, externally carried ordnance... the internal tanks can be useful in many occasions I think

A quick calculation shows ca. 1500 kg fuel capacity per bay should be possible

umm i'm not sold on this one.
I think it will be for two set of missions. Ferry mission out to a new theater(imo Syria, East-West Russia) or a Long recon mission in low intensity area, like Syria, where you need long hour on station time.

Having lots if fuel inside AND lots of wepons OUTSIDE does not compute for a 5th Gen platform mission profile.

Extra fueltank inside AND two large wetbags on wing station, that should make its fuel capacity right up with the Mig-31, around 16000kg of fuel. Saves you lots of Tanker support, and with that expenses.

 

[Ejajjs]

 

[Acatomic]

@haavarla

Maybe so it can keep up with Okhotnik's 6000km range? Maybe...

 

[LMFS]

Having lots if fuel inside AND lots of wepons OUTSIDE does not compute for a 5th Gen platform mission profile.

A big issue with stealth planes is that weapon bays detract a significant amount of internal volume that would be otherwise dedicated to carrying fuel and it may not be, depending on the mission, optimally used for carrying internal weapons. It does not make a difference if the plane is 4 or 5G, each mission calls for its own requirements and the Su-57 will sometimes require maximum stealth and/or aerodynamics, sometimes it will require payload or range/persistence, thre are many examples of mission types you can think of for each configuration. So it is only logical to have the added flexibility of optional fuel tanks for the bays and get a more adaptable and useful platform as a result.

 

[haavarla]

@haavarla

Maybe so it can keep up with Okhotnik's 6000km range? Maybe...

Well i don't see why this should be a requirement on Su-57.
If anything the WSO on Su-34 should have the opertunity to interact with Okhotnik. between them, they have similar mission profile.

 

[Ejajjs]

via Летун

 

[Avimimus]

I suspect that the huge amounts of range aren't for escorting drones, or for ferrying to theatre, or for combat in highly contested areas... that is thinking like an American (or Western European).

I strongly suspect the range as being for long endurance, long range patrol and interception missions over the Arctic... Siberia is huge and hard to defend... and there are real benefits to shadowing bombers near their assembly areas too... is it not most plausible that it is so it can replace the Mig-31/PAK-DA role with the Eastern/Northern PVO?

 

[Deino]

View attachment 642873View attachment 642874View attachment 642875

via Летун

Any idea what are these strange pods? These look like the same the PLAAF carries on their Su-35.

 

[FighterJock]

They are certainly unusual Deino. I suspect that the pods are for training pilots instead of carrying missiles like the Kh-29.

View attachment 642873View attachment 642874View attachment 642875

via Летун

Any idea what are these strange pods? These look like the same the PLAAF carries on their Su-35.

View attachment 642884View attachment 642885