Sukhoi Su-57 flight testing and development

WatcherZero said:
Arent those airframe G limits a bit small? Max 8g at low speed and 6g at supersonic speed.
Click to expand...
I'm more interested in range. 2800km even for 9.7t fuel is way too little. For example, it's less than Su-30SM, that has much worse drag and same amount of fuel. Unless they forgot to mention that is with some load.

Deino said:
What about these claims, Russia has signed a first contract at Zhuhai for the Su-57E?

So far I found it only on the typical unreliable sites often posting any rumour as a fact just to gain attention!
Click to expand...
https://www.interfax.ru/russia/992475
 
Last edited:
I wonder who are these contracts with, aside from VKS, I’m putting my bet on Belarus and/or Algeria
 
Scorpion82 said:
That's the one I had in mind for the MTOW and range.
Click to expand...
WatcherZero said:
Arent those airframe G limits a bit small? Max 8g at low speed and 6g at supersonic speed.
Click to expand...
The primary distinction between the Su-57 and Su-57E is the IFF, cockpit instrumentation, and labeling, the air vehicle and propulsion system are the same. The current performance figures may reflect the AL-41F-1, while the Su-57M with the AL-51F-1 is expected to increase MTOW, range, and other characteristics.
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
The primary distinction between the Su-57 and Su-57E is the IFF, cockpit instrumentation, and labeling, the air vehicle and propulsion system are the same. The current performance figures may reflect the AL-41F-1, while the Su-57M with the AL-51F-1 is expected to increase MTOW, range, and other characteristics.
Click to expand...
The thing that current range spect doesn't make any sense at all, wither with 117 or 30 engines.
As I pointed above, Su-57 has less range than Su-30MKI despite having more fuel efficient engines, almost same amount of fuel. By that data Su-57 drag is somehow worse than that of Su-30, which is the second worst in Flanker family.
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
The primary distinction between the Su-57 and Su-57E is the IFF, cockpit instrumentation, and labeling, the air vehicle and propulsion system are the same. The current performance figures may reflect the AL-41F-1, while the Su-57M with the AL-51F-1 is expected to increase MTOW, range, and other characteristics.
Click to expand...
MTOW is typically not driven by engine thrust and 29t of thrust should be good enough for an 38t MTOW.
 
Could also be the result of Sukhoi attempting a difficult and risky structural design for the Su-57 by have big internal weapons bays in tandem, so two big structural "holes" in the centroplane, while also not being structurally too thick above the bays for aerodynamics. In fact in Bill Sweetman's 2013 article on AvWeek after MAKS airshow, he highlighted the structural risks and challenges especially for centroplane. In fact the patch of metal reinforcements that first showed up on T-50-4 is still there even on serial production aircraft. So slightly reduced MTOW and overload limits may be meant to reduce structural weight. The T-50 did have an entire structural redesign after the 5th prototype because of cracking early on. That's why there's "Stage 1" and "Stage 2" aircraft. And to be fair even the most maneuverable fighter only sustain 9 G at low altitude and having all that vaunted maneuverability is increasingly of questionable use in modern air combat.
 
Last edited:
Range is always a dubious figure, anyway. Is it best speed/altitude, no payload? Because nothing will fly into combat that way. And figures when provided are rarely given much context. I've also seen "range" and "radius" figures used incorrectly in print.

In a fighter, what's the range with a X-time worth of reserve for combat engagement using afterburner and with what payload, external tankage, what margins for diverting to another field or meeting with a tanker, weather, etc, etc. Same with strike aircraft. Supersonic sprint? Altitude during the legs on ingress/egress? Payload?

You usually only see figures like that from customers, and then rarely. It's even more rare to find any context at all from the marketing department. Could mean anything. I'd take all of it with a grain of salt.
 
Recently came across this bit of very interesting info re Su-57 AAMs, this after a while further back i found something similar in russian regarding AAM loadouts including alleged service designations for most.

I will write some details about AAM and ASM ,and also about bombs for the Su-57. Su-57 got in fact 6 new AAM's : Izdeliye or Product 171-1 is a modification of actual R-77-1 ( Product 170-1).Su-57 can carry max 8 of them ,2 under air intakes and 6 under wings ( inner under wing launcher has double rails). It can not be carried inside of two fuselage weapon bays ,'cause those lattice stabilisers are not foldable. Product 171-1 has special 'windows' in its wings.Then there is Product 180 but it is not K-77M/R-77M, in fact ,military designation is R-87 and it is completely new AAM with supersonic ram-jet(scramjet) propulsion.Su-57 can carry max 10 of them, 4 inside fuselage weapon bays and 6 under wings/air intakes.Product 270 or R-47 is that white-red AAM based one the R-77E ( Product 190 as export version of the old Soviet R-77).That AAM has combined aerodynamics and gas dynamics control surfaces, famous lattice stabilisers,TVC in the nozzle and special mini-boosters in the central part of the missile's body ( centre of the mass) for sharp turning and maneuvering. With that AAM it is possible to engage fighters which fly in the rear hemisphere of the Su-57. Su-57 can carry max 8 of them under wings/air intakes .Then we have Product 300M ( for now military designation is unknown), for anti-AAM/SAM defence.Product 760 or R-74M2 is for close-in combat like actual Product 750 or R-74ML ). AAM's Product 300M and 760 are the only that can be carried inside of the underwing weapon compartments. Product 810 is also completely new AAM. It is a heavy, very long range hypersonic AAM with military designation R-97. Besides foldable stabilisers it has eight wings ,yes 8 . Su-57 can carry up to 10 of them. By the way ,Su-57 does not carry R-37M ( Product 610M ). Note: all AAM's except R-74ML have AESA based active/passive radar seekers. R-74ML has IR guidance.
Click to expand...
From here:

http://charly015.blogspot.com/2024/10/el-grafico-del-arsenal-del-su-57.html
Scroll down to see Aviator 69's post quoted above.

So we have new missiles like R-47, R-87, R-97 etc. My question to our russian friends, if OPSEC permits, is if the above info/designations are accurate? Judging by previous images, it seems R-87 does not have a ramjet engine though, contrary to what is claimed above.
 
lancer21 said:
Recently came across this bit of very interesting info re Su-57 AAMs, this after a while further back i found something similar in russian regarding AAM loadouts including alleged service designations for most.


From here:

http://charly015.blogspot.com/2024/10/el-grafico-del-arsenal-del-su-57.html
Scroll down to see Aviator 69's post quoted above.

So we have new missiles like R-47, R-87, R-97 etc. My question to our russian friends, if OPSEC permits, is if the above info/designations are accurate? Judging by previous images, it seems R-87 does not have a ramjet engine though, contrary to what is claimed above.
Click to expand...

Is the part about ASMs available as well?

EDIT: Just saw that it's from the comments section of that link.
 
lancer21 said:
Recently came across this bit of very interesting info re Su-57 AAMs, this after a while further back i found something similar in russian regarding AAM loadouts including alleged service designations for most.


From here:

http://charly015.blogspot.com/2024/10/el-grafico-del-arsenal-del-su-57.html
Scroll down to see Aviator 69's post quoted above.

So we have new missiles like R-47, R-87, R-97 etc. My question to our russian friends, if OPSEC permits, is if the above info/designations are accurate? Judging by previous images, it seems R-87 does not have a ramjet engine though, contrary to what is claimed above.
Click to expand...
There are things about that I don’t believe in the slightest. 180 with scramjet is nonsense… 300M for “anti-aam or sam defence”???? This is just stupid. Other parts of text seem believable and/or reasonable.
Only time will tell if the said designations are correct, I personally expect 810 to be called R-37BM or R-37M2 (based on “trust me bro” words from a friend, you may disregard this)
 
I still don’t understand why the rear visibility is so bad; their concepts had a cockpits similar to the f-22
 
I’m not
QuadroFX said:
Remember Pogosyan's "model on windowsill"(3Б2 i believe)? It's rear view is even worse than on a real plane.
Click to expand...
I’m not following QuadroFX why did they limit the visibility to the back? Is that due to radar signature?
 
SibNIA PAK FA early desain ???
310010924_500963392040033_3779921558549853619_n.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 310046616_500963358706703_3472668268651303516_n.jpg
    310046616_500963358706703_3472668268651303516_n.jpg
    59.2 KB · Views: 119
  • 309891297_500963395373366_8662583004850482068_n.jpg
    309891297_500963395373366_8662583004850482068_n.jpg
    62.8 KB · Views: 100
  • aaaca9b48198f066e7998a4c5f8d4182.jpg
    aaaca9b48198f066e7998a4c5f8d4182.jpg
    178.4 KB · Views: 119
There is a post from 2020 by Flateric claiming that the design study is from the late 1990s. Not entirely impossible as the F-22 was planned to have cheek arrays and the X-44 MANTA project would've been contemporary (even if the 602 looks very modern).
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom