Sukhoi Su-57 flight testing and development

First Look Inside the Su-57 Felon’s Weapons Bay​


''The open weapon bay appears to show two weapons stations, which can hold either two air-to-air or air-to-ground weapons. Another similar weapon bay lies ahead, between the air intakes, and two side bays are near the wing’s root.

What the image shows​

The design shows that there is a weapon station covered by each of the doors, although it is unclear if the Su-57 can open a single door to release a weapon or it has to open both. This translates into a ventral store payload capacity of four missiles, and a total of six considering the two side bays.''

Source: https://theaviationist.com/2025/10/18/first-look-su-57-weapon-bay-open/
 
Last edited:
PeregrineFalcon said:
I hope you will understand why I don't take that leaflet too seriously since they were not able to even spell the units for range correctly, and there is basically not a single official leaflet of the Su-57 that provides the same technical specifications:
Click to expand...
This is the FIRST OFFICIAL _UAC_ SU-57E leaflet. This is ONLY leaflet with number of internal hardpoints released.
You probably don't understand a painstacking process of multi-stage coordinating of open numbers published in official UAC trade leaflet or what PDTK is (and how designer girls affect the process). OK, you can believe whatever you want.
 
flateric said:
Level of The Aviationist expertise is overwhelming as always.
Click to expand...

Of course both doors must be open....

www.twz.com

Russia's Su-57 Fighter Launches A New Cruise Missile From Its Weapons Bay

Russia's new super fighter appears to be in the process of receiving a missile that will drastically improve its deep strike capabilities.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

flateric said:
Sukhoi aeroacoustics be like:
Click to expand...

Everything can be simulated just as we can see from 16 min.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsuoz8WixaU


Opened doors of the rear FWC ,from 23 min (2018) :

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCh9-3CCYTE&t=1465s
 
flateric said:
This is the FIRST OFFICIAL _UAC_ SU-57E leaflet. This is ONLY leaflet with number of internal hardpoints released.
You probably don't understand a painstacking process of multi-stage coordinating of open numbers published in official UAC trade leaflet or what PDTK is (and how designer girls affect the process). OK, you can believe whatever you want.
Click to expand...

Have you missed the part where I have said this:

"That being said, I have no doubt that the Su-57 has six internal hard points and twelve hard points in total, but that doesn't necessarily reflect the same number of missiles the plane can carry internally or externally, as seen in this photo:"
Click to expand...

You were talking about the number of missiles, not the number of hardpoints:

I advise you to recall recent official Su-57E leaflet with a number of missiles.
Click to expand...

Why the difference? I will tell you ... one day.
Click to expand...

As seen, the Su-57 can be fitted with external double rack pylons, which implies that it can carry more missiles than the number of hard points. The same thing could be applied to internal hard points, as was the case with the Su-75, and I have also posted the video where officials at the ARMY 2022 confirm that the Su-57E internal pylons are reconfigurable.
I will repeat again, I don't claim that the current operational planes have that option installed, but the option is there.

So, instead of acting haughty, you could provide us with information about the subject you claim to have?!
 
PeregrineFalcon said:
As seen, the Su-57 can be fitted with external double rack pylons, which implies that it can carry more missiles than the number of hard points.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the airflow behavior during weapon release is likely to differ substantially between externally and internally carried stores.
Besides, 4 R-37M is far better choice than 6 R-77
 
flateric said:
Option for Sidekick for F-35A "was there" since '00s but _something_ turned out to be not so _easy_.
Click to expand...

True, but I think there is a difference since the Su-75 and Su-57 have basically identical main weapon bays, and that solution with three air-to-air missiles per bay is apparently working on the Su-75 (at least according to officials who advertise the plane as such).
So, from a technical point of view (internal mechanism), there should be no problems installing the same triple missile rack on the Su-57.
If you are implying that there is actually a problem detaching the missiles safely from the weapons bay in that configuration, that will also most likely translate to the Su-75.

LhFzMqkNC_E-2.jpg

We can see that the doors, the size, shape, and the number of hinges are the same, including the door actuators. It would be really strange if the same technical solution worked on the Su-75 but not on the Su-57. The only way that could be possible, in my opinion, would be due to different airflow properties between the two planes since the Su-57 weapon bays are placed between the inlets and engines. But that might be offset when the doors are fully opened?

Ronny said:
To be fair, the airflow behavior during weapon release is likely to differ substantially between externally and internally carried stores.
Besides, 4 R-37M is far better choice than 6 R-77
Click to expand...

Yes, but my point was about the fact that the number of hard points, be they external or internal, doesn't necessarily reflect the maximum number of missiles the plane can carry.
The main reason I'm questioning this subject is the fact that the Su-75 (which has the same weapons bay) can carry three air-to-air missiles, and Sukhoi officials have stated that the internal pylons for the Su-57E are reconfigurable.
But I might be wrong?!
 
PeregrineFalcon said:
The main reason I'm questioning this subject is the fact that the Su-75 (which has the same weapons bay) can carry three air-to-air missiles, and Sukhoi officials have stated that the internal pylons for the Su-57E are reconfigurable.
But I might be wrong?!
Click to expand...
While Su-75 might use the same weapon bay as Su-57, its bay is not inside a tunnel, so the airflow behavior likely different.
 
Ronny said:
To be fair, the airflow behavior during weapon release is likely to differ substantially between externally and internally carried stores.
Besides, 4 R-37M is far better choice than 6 R-77
Click to expand...

Neither of those AAMs cannot be carried inside of the two FWC's.
 
Squirrel said:
Neither of those AAMs cannot be carried inside of the two FWC's.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I should have said 4 Izdelie 810 is better than 6 izdeliye 180. But their name is ways too long so I often just say the name of their predecessor instead.
I mean isn’t Izdelie 810 a version of R-37 with different wing arrangement?
IMG_1625.png
IMG_1626.png
Vs
IMG_1627.jpeg
 
Ronny said:
Yeah, I should have said 4 Izdelie 810 is better than 6 izdeliye 180. But their name is ways too long so I often just say the name of their predecessor instead.
I mean isn’t Izdelie 810 a version of R-37 with different wing arrangement?
View attachment 789558
View attachment 789559
Vs
View attachment 789560
Click to expand...

Izd. 810 is the completely new heavy very long range AAM and it differs from the Izd 610M .From new even eight smaller wings, new stabilisers, new dual-pulse rocket engine ,new active-passive radar seeker based on the AESA etc. So Izd 810 ( R-97) is not some 'version' of the Izd 610M ( R-37M). Izd 610M is produced by the PO Strela company in Korolev and Izd 810 is produced by the GosMKB Vympel in Moscow. Also there is that Izd 180 and as we can see there are differences between that AAM and the R-77-1/R-77M. But this is not the AAM's topic of course.

Yet another photo from 'the mouse perspective' ....

Su-57 2.jpg
 
Last edited:
PeregrineFalcon said:
True, but I think there is a difference since the Su-75 and Su-57 have basically identical main weapon bays, and that solution with three air-to-air missiles per bay is apparently working on the Su-75 (at least according to officials who advertise the plane as such).
So, from a technical point of view (internal mechanism), there should be no problems installing the same triple missile rack on the Su-57.
If you are implying that there is actually a problem detaching the missiles safely from the weapons bay in that configuration, that will also most likely translate to the Su-75.

View attachment 789532

We can see that the doors, the size, shape, and the number of hinges are the same, including the door actuators. It would be really strange if the same technical solution worked on the Su-75 but not on the Su-57. The only way that could be possible, in my opinion, would be due to different airflow properties between the two planes since the Su-57 weapon bays are placed between the inlets and engines. But that might be offset when the doors are fully opened?



Yes, but my point was about the fact that the number of hard points, be they external or internal, doesn't necessarily reflect the maximum number of missiles the plane can carry.
The main reason I'm questioning this subject is the fact that the Su-75 (which has the same weapons bay) can carry three air-to-air missiles, and Sukhoi officials have stated that the internal pylons for the Su-57E are reconfigurable.
But I might be wrong?!
Click to expand...
Observation pertaining to the bay doors drive system::

1. The power drive unit seems to have a single rotary drive output only. Normally, the PDU would have dual outputs, one on either side.
2. The circled gearbox seems to allow drive interfacing to both the left and right bay doors.
3. Does not seem to be a true 360 deg drive system (loss of a single drive shaft will still allow for full drive capability).
4. There seems to be another gearbox (right angle) in the right hand forward corner to drive the right bay door.
 
Geo said:
The first event is most likely related to the export of the Su-57, so we may see the first "E" for "012"(?) in Zhukovsky.
The second event is probably related to the Megapolis or Shmel' projects.
Click to expand...
I know of Megapolis being a big avionics/systems upgrade, but what is Shmel? Seems i'm not quite up to date with recent developments.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From left to right .

Upper row : '052' with Izdeliye 30,lightning and two letters 'LL' for Flying Laboratory. Then '052' with the engine that have flat TVC nozzle with lightning and the emblem for the Su-57M ( Su-57 silhouette with the Sukhoi logo in the circle ). '053' for the flying tests of the S-70 Ohotnik-B UCAV with lightning and Su-57/S-70 silhouttes .

Lower row : '058' as the second flying prototype of the Su-57M, new emblem on the unknown prototype (for now) with the Sun and the Su-57 silhouette and the '511' as the first flying prototype of the Su-57M.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Squirrel said:
From lef to to right ...


'052' with Izdeliye 30, '052' with the engine that have flat TVC nozzle ( with emblem for the Su-57M), '053' for evolution of the S-70 Ohotnik-B UCAV. Than '058' as flying prototype of the Su-57M, new emblem on the unknown prototype ( for now) and '511' as the first flying prototype of the Su-57M.
Click to expand...
Was it the "053" that shot the S-70 down after losing control of it?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1842547922598285540
View: https://x.com/Flankerchan/status/1842547922598285540
 
I know the horse is dead which I'm beating here, but with the recently published photos by George N. we got some proper close ups for comparisons. And the Su-57S has a surface treatment that's certainly on par with the other heavy stealth fighters in service, at least as far as photos is concerned. I suppose this can be seen as the definitive end of the "debate" (aka misinformation being deliberately and blissfully spread).

retouch_2025102820464769.jpg
retouch_2025102820530933.jpg
retouch_2025102820485383.jpg
 
Last edited:
The only difference between them at this point is that satin-ish half-metallic kind of shine, that has become the tell-tale attribute of modern RAM treatment (seen covering that new Korean machine as well, et cetera), but that particular "skin"-look was indeed quite evident on one of the T-50s back in the day. Then it seemingly vanished, and the recent 57s just look plain matte.

EmoBirb said:
I know the horse is dead which I'm beating here, but with the recently published photos by George N. we got some proper close ups for comparisons. And the Su-57S has a surface treatment that's certainly on par with the other heavy stealth fighters in service, at least as far as photos is concerned. I suppose this can be seen as the definitive end of the "debate" (aka misinformation being deliberately and blissfully spread).

View attachment 789768
View attachment 789769
View attachment 789770
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom