Sukhoi Su-57 flight testing and development

EmoBirb said:
So far there is only Su-57S (serial), Su-57M/Su-57M1 (same thing, different name, improved model) and the Su-57E (export model). The two seater model is patented and proposed. Everything else is to be ignored.

(Su-57P seems to refer to Su-57S)
Click to expand...
In USSR prefix “P”/“П” was used for interceptors/“перехватчик” for Air Defense (in Russian “ПВО”). For example Su-27P. But after 1998 Russia doesn’t have a separate “Air Defence” unit, so it’s really strange
 
WarplanesHistory said:
In USSR prefix “P”/“П” was used for interceptors/“перехватчик” for Air Defense (in Russian “ПВО”). For example Su-27P. But after 1998 Russia doesn’t have a separate “Air Defence” unit, so it’s really strange
Click to expand...

Well it,s no Strange because Su-27P and Su-27S have bit different on Weapon and Avionics

Su-27P only have air to air Weapon mode and can't use Air to ground weapon like bomb, Napalm ,rocket because Not add Air to ground mode capability ( Avionics ). Yes it, primary for interceptor.

Su-27S have both A2A and A2G because since Flanker Programs he was Multirole ( limited Air to ground weapon capability)

How about Su-57P idea
It,s waste time and Cost development T-50 again :v/
 
Life of Tyo said:
Well it,s no Strange because Su-27P and Su-27S have bit different on Weapon and Avionics

Su-27P only have air to air Weapon mode and can't use Air to ground weapon like bomb, Napalm ,rocket because Not add Air to ground mode capability ( Avionics ). Yes it, primary for interceptor.

Su-27S have both A2A and A2G because since Flanker Programs he was Multirole ( limited Air to ground weapon capability)

How about Su-57P idea
It,s waste time and Cost development T-50 again :v/
Click to expand...

The Su-27P was the result of the agreement for limiting conventional forces with attack/strike capabilities. Around 200 Su-27S operated by the PVO were stripped off their ground attack capabilities from 1989 onwards. It was therefor a retrospective measure, originally the PVO operated the same aircraft as VVS, incl. AG capabilities, even if they weren't exploited by the PVO.
 
Life of Tyo said:
Well it,s no Strange because Su-27P and Su-27S have bit different on Weapon and Avionics

Su-27P only have air to air Weapon mode and can't use Air to ground weapon like bomb, Napalm ,rocket because Not add Air to ground mode capability ( Avionics ). Yes it, primary for interceptor.

Su-27S have both A2A and A2G because since Flanker Programs he was Multirole ( limited Air to ground weapon capability)

How about Su-57P idea
It,s waste time and Cost development T-50 again :v/
Click to expand...
By "strange," I didn't mean the Su-27. I meant it's odd that the Su-57 is prefixed with "P," since Russia no longer has a separate air defense structure. Or perhaps it's a hint at some separate modification designed specifically for interception purposes.
 
Scorpion82 said:
The Su-27P was the result of the agreement for limiting conventional forces with attack/strike capabilities. Around 200 Su-27S operated by the PVO were stripped off their ground attack capabilities from 1989 onwards. It was therefor a retrospective measure, originally the PVO operated the same aircraft as VVS, incl. AG capabilities, even if they weren't exploited by the PVO.
Click to expand...
It is noteworthy that the first units to receive the Su-27 were the air defense forces, and the first air force unit to accept the Su-27 was based in Mirgorod, that is, in the Ukrainian SSR, and continues to operate these aircraft.
 
Some interesting details:

''Continuing Su-57 surface thread: quick access panels.To open a panel you simply take off the cover, insert the tool, rotate it 90° and it counts as open. All for maintenance simplicity & speed without damaging the RAM. Red line helps alignment.Similar solution on MiG-31(4 pic)''

''From left to right: quick access hatch without edge treatment, frequently opened panel edge(covered bolt-heads), another panel and S-111-N antenna cover(with edge treatment) and finally radome attachment(with edge .''

Photos are here :

https://twitter.com/x/status/1969063697139060930
View: https://x.com/GeorgeN28581/status/1969063697139060930


https://twitter.com/x/status/1968883654991462618
View: https://x.com/GeorgeN28581/status/1968883654991462618



Old photo, difference between the prototype and the serial aricraft.

T-50 i Su-57.png
 
difficult to imagine why the f they didn't put 3 slots inside this giga bay, it seems totally big enough, I think some media models even featured it
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lepespi said:
difficult to imagine why the f they didn't put 3 slots inside this giga bay, it seems totally big enough, I think some media models even featured it
Click to expand...
Probably because, according to the patent for the compartment, it includes six missiles.

RU2767213
https://disk.yandex.ru/i/wIrAQclOUkEVQw

At the end of the illustration on the placement of missiles in the compartment
 
Squirrel said:
Again about FWC-fuselage weapon compartments.There is place for max 4 UVKU-50U ( max 750kg) or UVKU-50L ( max 250kg). Four Izdeliye 180 or 810 can be attached inside of two FWC's.


View attachment 788399
Click to expand...

I have written several times before that, according to the law on state secrets, it is forbidden, up to a certain point, to disclose the characteristics of an object.
But something needs to be said, and therefore a certain line of voicing information is being developed, within which those who have subscribed can report something. At the same time, based on what I observe, outright lies are not usually used. Rather, it is a silence, the use of formulations that suggest certain thoughts, but if you look at them carefully, they can mean something completely different. Various phrases starting with let's say and others similar are used.
This phrase sounded a little different, namely that there are 2 mounting points on the compartment, on which either UVKU-50U (max 750kg) or UVKU-50L (max 250kg) can be placed.But if everything is clear with the UVKU-50U, then what prevents the lighter UVKU-50L from being placed on a dual launcher located at the same mounting point?In your photo below, you can see the twin launcher under the wing. There are plenty of examples of these, much more compact ones.

Squirrel said:
About Points 9A/9B and 10A/10B here is one interesting photo.

View attachment 788400
Click to expand...

Below are the drawings from the patent for the cargo hold.
It can be seen that even if we do not consider missiles number 1 and 6, then missiles 2, 3, 4, 5 are quite placed on twin launchers. The placement of missiles 1 and 6 looks quite well-developed.

The compartment is shown very schematically, for example, its height is small, just for accommodating medium-range air-to-air missiles. Although we know that it is designed to accommodate larger loads. And there is a margin in height.The second feature is the images of rocket tail. Namely, the tail extends beyond the missiles in the up/down direction (and we remember that there is a margin in height), and does not extend in the left/ right direction. Given the development of missiles for placement inside the compartment, this seems logical. When the rocket exits the compartment, the tail opens, but inside it allows you to compactly place the load.
According to the patent, the placement of missiles in the compartment looks quite well-developed and logical from the point of view of the desire to place them as many as possible.The placement of only two air-to-air missiles in the compartment raises only questions. Why did they put only two in such a large compartment?

If we try to compare the realism of the option of 2 missiles per compartment or 6 missiles per compartment, then the option with two missiles is definitely not realistic. Especially if you look at it through the eyes of the VKS leadership. I think if they had been told that more than two rockets couldn't fit into the compartment in any way, they would have found where to put these rockets to the designer as an incentive. As a fantastic version, the placement of missiles according to the patent appeared just after such a suggestion to think better.

And if you imagine that with such dimensions of the compartment, only two missiles were placed in it, because they couldn't, they didn't have enough competencies. Does this picture seem realistic to you? Especially against the background of the patent?
 

Attachments

  • image-0063.png
    image-0063.png
    32.2 KB · Views: 122
  • image-0068.png
    image-0068.png
    17 KB · Views: 154
flateric said:
kinda dimensions of the bay
Click to expand...
Were these dimensions of the designer's compartment planned so that more than two missiles would not fit into the compartment? Couldn't you adjust the dimensions in any way?And these are the same designers who later registered a patent for 6 rockets?
 
flateric said:
I feel I'm back in 2010...
Click to expand...
That's about how the manufacturers of the Su-57 answered simple questions.Yes, only 2 rockets. They couldn't do it anymore. The special geometry of the compartments. Yes, we designed the compartments. Yes, just such that no more than two would fit. Yes, that's how we engineers are. There's no other way.

At the same time, the more involved a person is in the aviation industry, the more vague the answers are.

I recently met an acquaintance with whom I worked together in a company unrelated to the defense industry.It turned out that he now works for a company that produces air defense and aviation missiles.

So I asked him a rhetorical question. You're probably working like hell right now, churning out rockets like pies.And in response, the silence is complete. He couldn't even laugh it off. The person is under a non-disclosure agreement.It came to me right away, looking at the reaction, we moved on to other topics - immediately another, talkative person.Well, you even answered. And the wrong shape was designed for the compartment, as it happened. And in general, it's like we got into 2010 again. They ask strange questions, how could it be designed so that nothing fits?
I understand.
 
the dimensions of the bay are certainly not the problem, they could certainly fit 3, I believe there's only 2 to standardize service, it can fit 2 Kh-58UShKE(TP), 2 Kh-69, 2 R-37M per bay, maybe changing the layout to accomodate 3 AAM would canibalize other ordnances
 
MSV said:
That's about how the manufacturers of the Su-57 answered simple questions
Click to expand...
An aircraft isn't just a sum of weapon bay and fuel tanks. There are a shit ton of stuff that need to all go into this extremely confined space that are dictated by RCS management (not just external, but internal real estate cost like S-duct inlet), aerodynamic considerations. Then all of these shit also have to take into account heat management, power management, and structural integrity to withstand high G force, landing etc.

Weapon bay itself has its whole set of issues to consider. A bay that take 8 missiles instead of 6 might need different design to reinforce structurally or might lengthen the time in which the bay doors open to release the weapon which lengthen the time in which its RCS is compromised. Who knows why the designers choose A or B. Just know that all options were considered in trade study. The final result is always the compromise made from hundreds of coffee cup throwing meetings between different engineering departments.
 
donnage99 said:
A bay that take 8 missiles instead of 6 might need different design to reinforce structurally
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly structural reinforcement was indeed an issue during development, due to the large, full length bays required for the weapons the aircraft was intended to carry. But that's something I read in passing on Russian language sites, so I may be wrong. But this discussion made me remember that point.
 
donnage99 said:
An aircraft isn't just a sum of weapon bay and fuel tanks. There are a shit ton of stuff that need to all go into this extremely confined space that are dictated by RCS management (not just external, but internal real estate cost like S-duct inlet), aerodynamic considerations. Then all of these shit also have to take into account heat management, power management, and structural integrity to withstand high G force, landing etc.

Weapon bay itself has its whole set of issues to consider. A bay that take 8 missiles instead of 6 might need different design to reinforce structurally or might lengthen the time in which the bay doors open to release the weapon which lengthen the time in which its RCS is compromised. Who knows why the designers choose A or B. Just know that all options were considered in trade study. The final result is always the compromise made from hundreds of coffee cup throwing meetings between different engineering departments.
Click to expand...
That's a good answer. But Bogdan answered even better. He said that due to the fact that the aircraft is made inconspicuous, it has problems with aerodynamics.
Other aircraft have no problems with aerodynamics, but the Su-57 suffered serious damage. Actually, it is precisely the affected aerodynamics that we observe at the airshow. Even an untrained eye cannot immediately understand how such an aircraft took off in the first place, with such problems in aerodynamics.
 
paralay said:
There are simple ways to increase the capacity of the weapon bay
Click to expand...
Yes. A very simple way. And interestingly, it works even for rockets that are not optimized for suspension in the compartment, when the tail extends beyond the size to the left and right. If you optimize the missiles by shifting the tail output beyond the size from the left/right direction to up/ down, then even in the size you have, instead of three missiles, four will fit. And there will still be room at the edges (for semi-submerged extreme rockets). But even without that, it's four. And with the simplest solution, without upgrading the missiles, three fit.But in response, we hear about a difficult choice from a set of compromises and only two missiles per compartment as a result.
 
Lepespi said:
the dimensions of the bay are certainly not the problem, they could certainly fit 3, I believe there's only 2 to standardize service, it can fit 2 Kh-58UShKE(TP), 2 Kh-69, 2 R-37M per bay, maybe changing the layout to accomodate 3 AAM would canibalize other ordnances
Click to expand...

When we consider AAM's ,we must count on one detail and that is stabilisers. Yes,on the UVKU-50U ( max 750kg), we can see only 4 ( as max) AAM's type R-97 or Izd. 810 with all four foldable stabilisers ,not R-37M because of its two lower non-foldable stabilisers. From ASM , we can see four Kh-58UShK-TP as ARM and Kh-69 as ALCM.

Now when we talk about that UVKU-50L (max 250kg), there is one AAM that can fit there also and it is Izd. 180.

Izdelije 180.jpg


bmpd.livejournal.com

Новые управляемые ракеты класса "воздух-воздух" "Изделие 180" на истребителе Т-50

В полной версии уже упоминавшегося видеосюжета по поводу отмечавшегося 100-летия 929-го Государственного лётно-испытательного центра Министерства обороны Российской Федерации имени В. П. Чкалова (929 ГЛИЦ), в числе прочего, продемонстрирован ряд небезынтересных материалов по истребителю пятого…
bmpd.livejournal.com bmpd.livejournal.com

R-77M which we could see several times on the Su-35S can not fit there because of its non-foldable new rhomboid stabilisers. Also R-77-1 or Izd. 170-1 has non-foldable grid stabilisers, so that AAM can not fit inside of the Su-57's FWC's . We already saw that there is place for max four Izd. 180.
 

Don't worry about that . UVKU-50L and UVKU-50U (Unifitsirovannoye Vnutrifyuselazhnoye Katapultnoye Ustroystvo as Unified Internal Catapult Launcher ):

UVKU-50L.jpg

UVKU-50L 1.jpg

UVKU-50U.jpg

UVKU-50U.jpeg

E.g. older AKU-170 and newer AKU-ASP ( Aviatsionnoye Sredstvo Porazheniya) for launching of R-77-1 and R-77M have special pyrotechnics catapult gear where is the goal to launch/reject the AAM even in the high-G conditions of the flight.

Sequence from 16:35 ....

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA2pewYPA8s
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I tend to believe that the Su-57 can store six medium/long-range missiles inside two main weapons bays.
There are two reasons for that.
The first reason is the fact that the Su-57 and Su-75 share the same weapons bay, and we know that the Su-75 can store three medium/long-range missiles inside, so I don't see why an operational Su-57 could not do the same.
The second reason is the fact that officials have said that the pylons are reconfigurable, whether for air-to-air or air-to-ground weapons load.
So, if you want ultra-long range air to air missiles, you can put two heavy load pylons for Izd.810, or three light load pylons for the Izd.180, for example.

Here is the video where they talk about that at 2:33.
Note that the translator is not the best at accurately presenting what was actually said.

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


MSV said:
That's a good answer. But Bogdan answered even better. He said that due to the fact that the aircraft is made inconspicuous, it has problems with aerodynamics.
Click to expand...

You have most definitely misunderstood what Bogdan said!
He stated in one interview that the requirements for low observability and aerodynamic performance are contradictory, but they have managed to make the plane even more maneuverable than existing fighters.

Other aircraft have no problems with aerodynamics, but the Su-57 suffered serious damage. Actually, it is precisely the affected aerodynamics that we observe at the airshow. Even an untrained eye cannot immediately understand how such an aircraft took off in the first place, with such problems in aerodynamics.
Click to expand...

This is probably the fruit of your imagination. What problems are you talking about? Can you point out some air show video where we can see what you are talking about?
 
PeregrineFalcon said:
The first reason is the fact that the Su-57 and Su-75 share the same weapons bay, and we know that the Su-75 can store three medium/long-range missiles inside, so I don't see why an operational Su-57 could not do the same.
Click to expand...
I advise you to recall recent official Su-57E leaflet with a number of missiles.
Why the difference? I will tell you ... one day.
 
About Su-57's FWC's , the story was that they are 'inherited' from the Su-47? Is that right? Of course, Su-47 has only one ,Su-57 has two fo them.

Su-47 trupni spremnik.jpg
 
flateric said:
I advise you to recall recent official Su-57E leaflet with a number of missiles.
Why the difference? I will tell you ... one day.
Click to expand...

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:

8ec57569ee3e1d874adfad8f78dfe6e14c655f35.jpeg
e.PNG

8493990c2ccd43b5e4832b5155967fefb42ff766.jpeg

eee.PNG

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:

Su-57 sa dvostrukim nosacem-lanserom ispod krila.jpg

You can put a double missile rack on one pylon if the requirement for that exists, and since a similar solution exists for internal placement, which is implemented on the Su-75, I don't think there are any technical obstacles to its implementation on the Su-57.

Something similar to what the Americans did with the F-22:

F-22_GBU39B_AIM-120_m02006120800117.jpg
Of course, there is a possibility that ВКС России didn't order the internal triple missile rack for some reason. Maybe they are waiting for the modernized version of the Su-57, or the Su-57 is using different missiles than the Su-75 is using. I don't know, but you have implied that you know, so please share the information you have.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom