@FighterJock : If that was for training, why would they bear some form of RCS reduction when they could be more traditionally shaped aerodynamically for low drag? Wouldn't it make more sense?
Sukhoi Su-57 flight testing and development
- Thread starter overscan (PaulMM)
- Start date
FighterJock
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 29 October 2007
- Messages
- 7,267
- Reaction score
- 8,578
Got me even more confused now TomcatVIP, this is the first time that I have seen such pods on Russian fighters.
I wonder if they are not some sort of Multi-spectral jammer (filtered flood light in effect) or IR cold laser. You can guess there is no sophisticated electronics due to the various attachement positions and small enclosed volume but they still seems to have pod like sensor in front.
You would use them to beam surveillance aircraft like P-8 or MQ-9 without altering the physical integrity of the airframe and crew (what laser or HPMW jamming would do).
Alternatively, and more probably, this could also be a refined anti-DAS system with the multiplicity of pod being used for complex aspect approaches.
You would use them to beam surveillance aircraft like P-8 or MQ-9 without altering the physical integrity of the airframe and crew (what laser or HPMW jamming would do).
Alternatively, and more probably, this could also be a refined anti-DAS system with the multiplicity of pod being used for complex aspect approaches.
Acatomic
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 18 October 2020
- Messages
- 300
- Reaction score
- 861
I'm basing this on two things:
- in various news it is always stated that the final decision to engage the target will be made by a human (human in the loop).
- LPI Communication is more likely between two aircraft that were built with stealth and sensor fusion in mind from the day one.
Su-34 is valid point and maybe it could be used in some missions with Okhotnik, but i only see Su-57 (PAK-DA?) actually fulfill this two requirements.
haavarla
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 29 June 2010
- Messages
- 200
- Reaction score
- 255
Eighter way, i'd see this as a future concept. For now, Okhotnik would have to work properly with a Ground Controller, and then move on to a Air assets, like AWACS. To have a singel crew jet controlling this thing seems too early.
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 4,251
- Reaction score
- 8,373
FighterJock
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 29 October 2007
- Messages
- 7,267
- Reaction score
- 8,578
Until one of our Russian friends on this forum can translate for us, the strange pod will have to be an air to ground training pod until we get more information about its true purpose.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 10,603
- Reaction score
- 18,184
Sounds like a possible equivalent to the TESS simulators used by the United States:
https://inter-coastal.com/ice_aviation.html
It looks like two separate pods. The ones on the Flankers look like some type of EO aperture while the ones on the Su-57 have what looks like two RF apertures. The ones with the RF look a lot like the Israeli DRFM jamming pods. No clue about the other.
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 12,290
- Reaction score
- 15,123
With all my due resdpect, this is not the same pod.
This one is circular with a cylinder geometry ended by a cone when the other has a rectangular section with triangular rear profile.
The pod we discuss seems to have less internal volume.
I do understand that they could be two iterations of the same design but this is conjunctural.
This one is circular with a cylinder geometry ended by a cone when the other has a rectangular section with triangular rear profile.
The pod we discuss seems to have less internal volume.
I do understand that they could be two iterations of the same design but this is conjunctural.
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 12,290
- Reaction score
- 15,123
I didn't say they are the same. I posted link for public can put description into Google translate.
But it's from the same manufacturer and may be just variation of design, both having EO aperture.
http://kbavia.ru/news-post10.html
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 10,603
- Reaction score
- 18,184
Hypothetically, to simulate weapons while keeping the cockpit "buttonology" consistent with the non-simulated operations -- pilot initiates a "launch" as normal, the aircraft systems send a signal to a specific pylon indicating a launch, and the pod on that pylon then does whatever it does to simulate the weapon. If you tried to do that
QuadroFX
Russia, Chelyabinsk
Second Su-57 made its first flight.
Last edited:
FighterJock
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 29 October 2007
- Messages
- 7,267
- Reaction score
- 8,578
Excellent news QuadroFX, I hope that the first flight was a success after the first production Su-57 crashed during its first flight. By the way are there any pictures or videos of the first flight?
flanker
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 20 March 2008
- Messages
- 936
- Reaction score
- 261
S-2 was planned to be handed over to MoD 30 october so they are running a bit behind schedule. But obviously better safe than sorry, like the first time... No pictures/videos yet, i wouldnt expect any really until the ceremony.
EDIT; Also, someone who works at KnAAZ claims today's flight was atleast 4th flight of S-2, not first. I think that is about how many flights S-1 did before crashing few days before the official handover.
EDIT; Also, someone who works at KnAAZ claims today's flight was atleast 4th flight of S-2, not first. I think that is about how many flights S-1 did before crashing few days before the official handover.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 4,251
- Reaction score
- 8,373
QuadroFX
Russia, Chelyabinsk
No, it is Т-50-5R(repaired), not an actual Su-57-2. There is no in flight pictures of Su-57-2 yet.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 11 February 2010
- Messages
- 1,719
- Reaction score
- 3,180
Yep it is T-50-5R. That is the same image from 2015.
View: https://twitter.com/Missilito/status/663385566587822080
View: https://twitter.com/Missilito/status/663385566587822080
LMFS
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 19 March 2019
- Messages
- 578
- Reaction score
- 1,022
Source: the first serial Su-57 will be handed over to the Ministry of Defense in December
The interlocutor of the agency clarified that the supply of fighters with a second stage engine is planned to begin in 2022.MOSCOW, November 2. / TASS /. The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation will receive the first serial fighter of the fifth generation Su-57 in December during a single day of acceptance of military products. TASS was informed about this on Monday by a source in the military-industrial complex.
"In December of this year, during a single day of acceptance of military products, the military department will receive the first serial Su-57 with a standard engine of the first stage, in 2021 - four more such aircraft," the source said.
According to him, in the future, the rate of delivery of the Su-57 to the military department will increase up to 15 vehicles per year. "As a result, the contract for 76 Su-57s signed in 2019 until 2028 will definitely be fulfilled on time," the source said.
The interlocutor of the agency specified that deliveries of fighters with a second stage engine are planned to begin in 2022.
The fifth generation fighter Su-57 is designed to destroy all types of air, ground and surface targets. The aircraft has a supersonic cruising speed, internal armament, radio-absorbing coating ("stealth" technology), as well as the latest complex of onboard equipment.
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/9891981
Second stage already in 2022!!
I think it would sound right like this:
The first production airframe with two installed second-stage engines will be submitted for testing.
LMFS
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 19 March 2019
- Messages
- 578
- Reaction score
- 1,022
I am not sure what do you mean Evgeniy, the tests of izd. 30 are ongoing on the LL, once a serial production airframe is equipped with them, what kind of testing would be performed? The type test or the unit test? I assume just the later, so little later the unit would be delivered to VKS isn't it? It would need also to be seen, whether the rest of the second stage upgrade program would happen also at the same time, that was at least what I was supposing until now.
Well, I mean, there will be a test plane with two engines installed, not one. And then he will go to the final stage of testing in the troops. Moreover, the glider itself will be new, and not some of the old T-50.
LMFS
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 19 March 2019
- Messages
- 578
- Reaction score
- 1,022
So you say the "Su-57M" would be a VKS plane, unlike the T-50 prototypes previous to the conclusion of the state tests of the type? How long do you think those tests would take?
I have noticed before that MoD performs modernizations and basic development according to different procedures, that is, they accept sometimes to buy modernized equipment even before finishing their tests and they also accept to perform those tests on their own airframes. That must be certainly conditioned to the technical risk of the updates being assessed as relatively low and restricted to integration issues, as the new systems have probably been thoroughly tested on their own.
I think that the Su-57 is still very far from the letter "M".
I say that this will be the first flight with two second stage engines. And not as before with one.
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 15,039
- Reaction score
- 24,291
David Axe living up to his surname here. Actually to be fair to him he’s just reporting someone else here.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...l-kinda-stinks/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
This is report he’s quoting from:
https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/russian_and_chinese_combat_air_trends_whr_final_web_version.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...l-kinda-stinks/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
This is report he’s quoting from:
https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/russian_and_chinese_combat_air_trends_whr_final_web_version.pdf
haavarla
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 29 June 2010
- Messages
- 200
- Reaction score
- 255
When it comes to risk assesment. The Risk reduction starts as early as when you run the engines in bench mode. The Risk decrease is not linear, but by the time you get one engine running on a flying jet(prototypes), things are looking quite good.
Perhaps they hit a good breakthru, and we will see something in 2022.
LMFS
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 19 March 2019
- Messages
- 578
- Reaction score
- 1,022
Well, I talk about the results of the project "Megapolis":
Super-Sukhoi will take off in two years. Tests of the first modernized fifth generation fighter will begin in the summer of 2022. Officially, the product is called "Su-57 of the second stage". But among the military and aircraft manufacturers, the car received the nickname "Super-Sukhoi". In addition to a completely new engine, the aircraft will be equipped with a package of modern avionics and onboard systems. It is planned to complete the development work at the end of 2024, which will allow the transition to the production of an improved modification of the fighter.
https://iz.ru/1028035/anton-lavrov-...khim-istrebitel-su-57-ozhidaet-modernizatciia
Actually, it all makes sense: first tests of the modernized, second stage or call it what we want Su-57 in 2022, finish of the tests by 2024, and possibly they can be performed on a production unit as you say. So they would not be actually delivering before schedule, since that unit would not be immediately entering service. I have not heard nothing about the tests being restricted to just one engine before that, but may be the way things are done with the LL, I don't know.
Yeah, Axe is just a journalist with a decidedly non-professional target audience, I'm more worried about the guy who's being quoted - he should know better. As "Research Fellow for Airpower and Technology in the Military Sciences team" it's his freaking job to!
Is it ok for me to rant? No? Bad luck:
Justin Bronk said:
No. Just - no.
Justin Bronk said:
Which is qualitatively different in RCS impact to the (perfectly usual) moving leading edges on the wings of, you know, each and every other stealth fighter?*
Justin Bronk said:
What does Mr. Bronk know here that Northrop did not with the (Y)F-23?*
Justin Bronk said:
Which are thereby at least hidden from threats below the aircraft, unlike the cooling air scoops on the F-35, or the ECS intakes in the BL diverter cavities of the F-22. Admittedly, the latter is also a pretty clever location - it's a RCS hotspot anyway - but the point is that if you're going to need air scoops on a stealth fighter, putting them at the base of the vertical tails is actually a good solution!*
Justin Bronk said:
What about its location makes it more deleterious than the EODAS enclosure under the nose of the F-35? I mean, the IRST on the Su-57 IS in fact a signature problem, but that's patently not the reason!
Justin Bronk said:
What about the would-be F-32 or Boeing's ATF entry? A decent blocker, coupled with the favourable pressure loss from short, straight ducts should deliver similar overall aerodynamic performance and radar cross section. Prove. Me. Wrong.
Again, there are legitimate issues with the intakes on the Su-57 (the need for FOD screens, the variable ramps). But he cheerfully blows past those and criticizes features that have been seen on other LO designs, and are therefore very likely not as big a problem as he makes them out to be.
But it gets better:
Justin Bronk said:
Last time I checked, Russia (Sukhoi in particular, even) does have experience in designing serpentine inlet ducts for RCS reduction - *cough* Su-47 *cough*. So what's the basis for assuming the solution chosen for the Su-57 will be an inferior compromise?
His criticisms of the aircraft's avionics suite are even less well-sourced, so it is hard to give them any credit at all.
Some more, just for fun:
Justin Bronk said:
Thing is, unlike most other aerobatic teams, the Russian Knights nominally ARE a combat unit. IIRC they've even performed on airframes taken ad hoc from other squadrons on occasion, as their own aircraft are also fully equipped in combat-capable trim. Of course the aerobatic rehearsals mean less operational training, but they very much have a fighting role.
Justin Bronk said:
No, it doesn't. The export RVV-BD does, but even the predecessor of the current R-37M (the basic R-37) demonstrated a range 50% greater than that *in a live fire test* no less than 25 years ago. And does high and fast mean "MiG-31 high and fast"? Because...
Justin Bronk said:
... since when does the West have any operational fighter whatsoever (let alone one equipped with Meteor) that could match the MiG-31 in that department?
I'm actually a big fan of Meteor and, taken all round, do consider it the best AAM currently available, but come on.
* I realize that not having an external canopy frame or not having LEVCONs is better from a LO perspective than having them - even if they are properly designed for signature reduction. I even agree that the Su-57, compared to its peers, has more than its fair share of these moving parts, but that only makes it all the more baffling why he seizes on problems that aren't actually very problematic. There objectively is plenty of opportunity to criticize, so why essentially make things up? Just say that the aircraft is excessively complex mechanically and nobody would have any grounds for complaint.
No word either on by far the biggest stealth problem on the Su-57, the lack of edge alignment and serrations on panel joints.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 27 March 2006
- Messages
- 1,992
- Reaction score
- 2,148
I am going to put this as nicely as I can.....but Justin Bronk doesn't have a good history when reporting on Russian aircraft projects.
He allows his "analysis" to be political, and he relies heavily on various sites on the internet known for their "hit" stories, which sadly proliferates on the internet.
You know the ones...that rely on conjecture, opinion, prejudice, or outright misinterpretation/ mistranslation. A brief perusal of his analysis over the years on many projects from certain geographical locations will demonstrate what I mean.
I learned a while back to not rely on his analysis when he is sought out in various articles. He does more than his share of "hit" pieces.
Tridents illustrations above are par for the course, I'm afraid.
He allows his "analysis" to be political, and he relies heavily on various sites on the internet known for their "hit" stories, which sadly proliferates on the internet.
You know the ones...that rely on conjecture, opinion, prejudice, or outright misinterpretation/ mistranslation. A brief perusal of his analysis over the years on many projects from certain geographical locations will demonstrate what I mean.
I learned a while back to not rely on his analysis when he is sought out in various articles. He does more than his share of "hit" pieces.
Tridents illustrations above are par for the course, I'm afraid.
Last edited:
Why are we even discussing this here, my friend?) Posting those kinds of articles, let alone trying to analyse them, is IMO is much lower bar than this forum deserves.
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 15,039
- Reaction score
- 24,291
Please clarify you say Mr Bronk but I wasn’t aware he was a journalist?
I wasn’t aware you were a moderator to tell people what they should or shouldn’t post here.
Wasn't telling others what to post, just expressed my opinion. That's why there's "IMO" there ya know.
Well, that's exactly what I mean.
flanker
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 20 March 2008
- Messages
- 936
- Reaction score
- 261
What? Where do you see lack of edge alignment on T-50? Su-57 is coated by thicc RAM and panels that are to be accessed a lot are serrated. Is it perfect solution? Probably not, but it probably gets 99,9% there with far less complexity and cost.
EDIT; In other news, it is probably nothing, but in case it isnt nothing... Zvezda's 1/48 Su-57 with weapon bays and three ejectors...
Last edited:
Why don't we wait to see what the new prototype looks like before calling it crappy? it is really pointless to eye-meter the stealth of a prototype. Let's not forget the Russians are building this thing to satisfy their needs and not the Western airforces. Honestly, do you imagine an f-22 type operating in Russia? Left outside during the cold winter and then taxing in runways full of grass, rocks, ice, and then have some young kids work on it? I don't see it happening or staying pristine. Maybe they deem it stealthy enough to be practically useful without breaking the bank, especially since they don't spend the same amount of money other countries do. I also think this is their new "su-27" and they hope to evolve to new "su-30, 35, 34s" levels.
The joints marked on the following photos are gaps between separate panels (as opposed to rows of fasteners within the bounds of an individual panel) and as such should be aligned/serrated. As you say, they ARE coated with RAM on the most recent prototypes, but the F-22, F-35 and J-20 use both alignment and RAM for such seams.
[Two things to note on the final image: 1) it shows something that the Su-57 does do remarkably well, especially compared to the J-20 - its top surface is largely comprised of a small number of HUGE panels, with correspondingly few edges. 2) this is the first airframe, from mid-fuselage aft the final prototypes differ significantly, but I couldn't find a decent photo - as far as I can tell from the stage II static test specimen, alignment did not get any better though.]
EDIT; In other news, it is probably nothing, but in case it isnt nothing... Zvezda's 1/48 Su-57 with weapon bays and three ejectors...
Would be good news!
- Joined
- 11 February 2010
- Messages
- 1,719
- Reaction score
- 3,180
EDIT; In other news, it is probably nothing, but in case it isnt nothing... Zvezda's 1/48 Su-57 with weapon bays and three ejectors...
Paralay must be happy XD
Similar threads
-
Sukhoi Su-57 / T-50 / PAK FA first flight - pictures, videos and analysis [2010]- Started by flateric
- Replies: 872
-
Sukhoi Su-57 / T-50 / PAK FA - flight testing and development Part I [2010-2012]- Started by Matej
- Replies: 760
-
-
Sukhoi PAK FA news and speculation (T-50, I-21) Part I [2006-2008]- Started by overscan (PaulMM)
- Replies: 455
-