Sukhoi Su-57 flight testing and development

Last edited:
Null said:
not saying the twitter user could be wrong but I remember hearing infrared and UV detection and not just UV detection for the Su-57's MAWS. Not trying to be funny but the number of radars the Su-57 has all around it might count as tracking non-burning missiles as well.
Click to expand...
I thought the ir maws was just being prototyped on a t-50 and not on serial production su57s
 
snne said:
Informative thread on 101KS-U's potential performance
Click to expand...
LWIR.jpg
Tbh, slightly reluctant to read as EAODAS is a system of MWIR sensors (which is precisely because it's both imaging and maws system); LWIR extension is promised on block 4.
kizvy said:
I thought the ir maws was just being prototyped on a t-50 and not on serial production su57s
Click to expand...
Original design relies on UV(and maybe swIR) spherical coverage to trigger everything else.
IR band is covered by 3 imaging IRSTs, which in scanning mode are responsible for just that. Plus, of course, radars - which are great, but have blind cones(270/360 deg coverage, not 720).

There's a chance that Su-57M(and now apparently T-75) will have imaging IR EODAS, based on even larger optical windows we saw, but this is pure speculation on F-35 setting the logical trend.
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
View attachment 792807
Tbh, slightly reluctant to read as EAODAS is a system of MWIR sensors (which is precisely because it's both imaging and maws system); LWIR extension is promised on block 4.

Original design relies on UV(and maybe swIR) spherical coverage to trigger everything else.
IR band is covered by 3 imaging IRSTs, which in scanning mode are responsible for just that. Plus, of course, radars - which are great, but have blind cones(270/360 deg coverage, not 720).

There's a chance that Su-57M(and now apparently T-75) will have imaging IR EODAS, based on even larger optical windows we saw, but this is pure speculation on F-35 setting the logical trend.
Click to expand...

You meant this one ?

Su-57M 511 blue mod.jpg
 
kizvy said:
Sorry, should’ve clarified for flanker/su-57/su-75 class engines. From what I remember, al-31fp, al-41-f1s and al-31f serie 3 all have emergency mode that’s around 500 kgf (although I think serie 3 is slightly lower)
Click to expand...

Example:

''Силовая установка состоит из двух двухконтурныхреактивных двигателей Д-30Ф6 (изделие 48) со степеньюдвухконтурности 0,57. Тяга без форсажа составляет 93,16кН (9500 кгс), а расход топлива - 0,073 кг/Нч (0,72 кг/кгс.ч), с форсажом - 152,0 кН (15500 кгс) расход топлива- 0,194 кг/Нч (1,9 кг/кгс.ч).На чрезвычайном режиме двигатель может развить тягу 186,3 кН (19000 кгс). Массасухого двигателя составляет 2416 кг.''

''The power plant consists of two D-30F6 (article 48) dual-circuit jet engines with a bypass ratio of 0.57. Thrust without afterburner is 93.16 kN (9,500 kgf), and fuel consumption is 0.073 kg/Nh (0.72 kg/kgf.h), with afterburner - 152.0 kN (15,500 kgf) fuel consumption - 0.194 kg/Nh (1.9 kg/kgf.h). In emergency mode, the engine can develop a thrust of 186.3 kN (19,000 kgf). Dry weight of the engine is 2416 kg.''

Of course ,we are talking about max static thrust values on the MP and Full AB mode .

One detail : AL-41F-1 is more than 1000kg lighter than D-30F-6 !
 
Judging from Su-35 loadouts - a couple of Izdeliye 810 and a couple of Kh-58UShK might be a pretty common operational loadout. I wonder if there is really need for internal carriage of Izdeliye 180 class missiles given that tendency...? More magazine depth has attractions, but it looks like the tendency towards heavier missiles is becoming ingrained.

But then there is the question of the claims made about the Su-75 weapon bays...
 
Avimimus said:
Judging from Su-35 loadouts - a couple of Izdeliye 810 and a couple of Kh-58UShK might be a pretty common operational loadout. I wonder if there is really need for internal carriage of Izdeliye 180 class missiles given that tendency...? More magazine depth has attractions, but it looks like the tendency towards heavier missiles is becoming ingrained.

But then there is the question of the claims made about the Su-75 weapon bays...
Click to expand...
Ten Izd 180's can be carried. Four inside of the two FWC and six under the wings/air intakes.

Su-57 sa 10 Izd 180.jpeg
 
Yes, I was talking in an all internal load for patrol (2xRVV-MD, 2xRVV-BD, 2xKh-58UShKE or maybe if permitted 2xRVV-MD, 3xRVV-BD, 1xKh-58UShKE).
 
Pilot Sergei Bogdan: The Su-57E's weapons bays amaze specialists with their size

The Russian Su-57 fighter jet is being showcased at international exhibitions for the third time. At the Dubai Airshow 2025, the aircraft was displayed for the first time with open cargo bays for weapons. As usual, Sergei Bogdan, a distinguished test pilot and chief pilot of the Sukhoi Design Bureau of the United Aircraft Corporation Rostec, piloted the fifth-generation aircraft. In an interview with TASS, he discussed the new elements of the program and how it differs from the presentations of foreign competitors.

tass.ru

Летчик Сергей Богдан: отсеки вооружения Су-57Э поражают специалистов габаритами

Российский истребитель Су-57 в третий раз показывают посетителям зарубежных выставок. На международной выставке Dubai Airshow — 2025 машина впервые была представлена с открытыми грузовыми отсеками ...
tass.ru tass.ru
 
The aperture near the cockpit is huge. Clear window so either just a placeholder or indicating sapphire glass which is optimized for MWIR sensors.
 
Nortrop said:
No. 6 pieces of R-77M can be placed inside. Su-75 5 pieces. Through an adapter or additional attachment points.
Click to expand...
Su-75 is slightly different, as it can fit 3 r77ms in main bay and 2 r77ms in its side bays while su-57 is limited to 2 max in each bay, and its side bays don’t support r77ms
 
No. They are unified to cut costs as it was known from the beginning. Again, what we do mean under commonality? Common drive units, bay doors? Because internal structure - frames, ribs, walls etc will be different anyway.
It was said above that T-50 and T-75 apparently have quite different weapons bay area flow conditions to start with.
 
Last edited:
Avimimus said:
Judging from Su-35 loadouts - a couple of Izdeliye 810 and a couple of Kh-58UShK might be a pretty common operational loadout. I wonder if there is really need for internal carriage of Izdeliye 180 class missiles given that tendency...? More magazine depth has attractions, but it looks like the tendency towards heavier missiles is becoming ingrained.

But then there is the question of the claims made about the Su-75 weapon bays...
Click to expand...
"Thick" VLRAAMs are not really universal - their performance up close and especially low(launch conditions) can be rather marginal. It's explicitly a long range weapon, to be launched from as high up as possible.
Normal MRAAM covers almost all situations, short of point blank.
 
Ainen said:
"Thick" VLRAAMs are not really universal - their performance up close and especially low(launch conditions) can be rather marginal. It's explicitly a long range weapon, to be launched from as high up as possible.
Normal MRAAM covers almost all situations, short of point blank.
Click to expand...
While I agree that the MRAAM would be more efficient on the border between WVR and BVR due to their better maneuverability, I don't agree that the VLRAAM's performance would be marginal under the same conditions. That would be the same as saying that the bigger SAM missile's performance would be marginal at similar ranges and altitudes.
We have an example of the MiG-31M in 1994 launching 4 R-37s at the 4 MiG-21s that were maneuvering during the course of an engagement, and all 4 MiGs were destroyed even though the MiG-31M was at about 5 km altitude during the launch sequence. All 4 MiGs were flying at different altitudes, ranges, and azimuthal spacing.
The new R-37M is superior compared to the old R-37 missile, and one thing that sets it apart from the MRAAMs is its huge warhead. It is able to hit maneuvering targets at extremely low altitudes, and somewhat lower maneuverability compared to the MRAAMs is compensated by the big blast radius. This was obvious during the SMO where almost all pilots whose planes were hit by the R-37M were unfortunately killed due to the devastating power of its warhead.

Here is the video of the Ukraine Mig-29 hit at extremely low altitude deep inside the Ukraine territory by the R-37M:

View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hEver44Ny2k
 
Avimimus said:
Yes, I was talking in an all internal load for patrol (2xRVV-MD, 2xRVV-BD, 2xKh-58UShKE or maybe if permitted 2xRVV-MD, 3xRVV-BD, 1xKh-58UShKE).
Click to expand...

In the stealth configuration for SEAD/DEAD missions ,Su-57 can carry two Izd.760 and e.g. two ARM Kh-59UShK-TP and two Izd.180 or 810.Maybe that weapon combo is also possilbe 'cause both missiles are heavy and can be attached only on UVKU-50U ( up to 750kg of weight).
 
Sorry for the random question, but does anyone know why the Su-57 has its engines angled outwards? As far as I can tell, this is a fairly unique arrangement that hasn't been used on any other aircraft. What's the advantages of that arrangement?
 
Citation from Twit :

''NIR + UV should be able to do most of these with proper software behind them. In fact for some it has a better potential. But it cannot work for aircraft detection and it cannot detect missiles after they burn out.''

This source tell that it can...

''101КС-У (ультрафиолетовый внешний модуль) - всеракурсная система обзора в ультрафиолетовом спектре, служит для обнаружения и определения координат реактивных двигателей (самолётов и ракет) в УФ-спектре и для выдачи ЦУ 101КС-О.''

''101KS-U (ultraviolet external module) - an all-aspect surveillance system in the ultraviolet spectrum, used to detect and determine the coordinates of jet/rocket engines (aircraft and missiles) in the UV spectrum and to issue the 101KS-O targeting command.''

Оптико-электронный комплекс 101КС "Атолл" - ВПК.name

vpk.name vpk.name

So data from the 101KS-U will be transfered to 101KS-O which btw possess IRST and maybe work in MWIR band ? With two optical blocks in those two modules they have 360° coverage of upper and lower 'hemisphere' of the Su-57. We had opportunity too see how fast those optical blocks rotate.After data is processed, laser will do the work.
 
Elysium said:
Sorry for the random question, but does anyone know why the Su-57 has its engines angled outwards? As far as I can tell, this is a fairly unique arrangement that hasn't been used on any other aircraft. What's the advantages of that arrangement?
Click to expand...

Since the engines are placed far apart, in the case of one engine failure, the thrust from the other engine would produce strong yaw moments, so the engines are angled a few degrees (two, if memory serves me well), and in that case, the thrust force would be located much closer to the center of gravity.
 
Squirrel said:
So data from the 101KS-U will be transfered to 101KS-O which btw possess IRST and maybe work in MWIR band ? With two optical blocks in those two modules they have 360° coverage of upper and lower 'hemisphere' of the Su-57. We had opportunity too see how fast those optical blocks rotate.After data is processed, laser will do the work.
Click to expand...
Aircraft also has 360 X-band tracking coverage as well
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PeregrineFalcon said:
Since the engines are placed far apart, in the case of one engine failure, the thrust from the other engine would produce strong yaw moments, so the engines are angled a few degrees (two, if memory serves me well), and in that case, the thrust force would be located much closer to the center of gravity.
Click to expand...
I think the f-14 had them a bit angled too
 
Null said:
Aircraft also has 360 X-band tracking coverage as well
Click to expand...

Of course,for aircraft /missiles detecting-tracking, Su-57 has four centimetric X-band AESA .Is it exactly 360° or maybe not,maybe very close to it ? Three antennas in the front section have total FoV 270° by azimuth and rear one in the tailboom has 110° azimuthal FoV.
 
Last edited:
snne said:
How reliable is Jane’s nowadays with Indian matters?

https://www.janes.com/osint-insight...ir-force-chief-unveils-new-modernisation-plan
Click to expand...
What about Bloomberg?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1995115995594166616
View: https://x.com/business/status/1995115995594166616?s=20

Imagine a country fielding both Rafales, a Western 4.5th gen jet, and Su-57s, a Russian 5th gen jet... LOL

This just adds to the evidence that, while the Rafale is a very capable jet, its procurement by the IAF is a strategic mistake in the long term...
 
Last edited:
^

Maybe and finally it is time for the great Su-57E deal. Right now IAF has no alternative especially after what happened to IAF fighters during 'Operation Sindoor' when Pak AF fighters engaged them from about 200km away with Chinese PL-15E. IAF heavy fighters like Su-30MKI which radars btw have max detection distance of 400 kms ,possess only R-27ER1 and R-77-1EL with max launch ranges 100-150km.

First ,they have no 5th gen (stealth) fighters at all and second, they have no real (very) long range AAM.With the Su-57E(D) ,they would get all of that. Only India can make 'Su-57E' as real deal, to buy them in great number with licence or not.
 
Squirrel said:
So data from the 101KS-U will be transfered to 101KS-O which btw possess IRST and maybe work in MWIR band ? With two optical blocks in those two modules they have 360° coverage of upper and lower 'hemisphere' of the Su-57. We had opportunity too see how fast those optical blocks rotate.After data is processed, laser will do the work.
Click to expand...
By logic, 101KS-U should see in the same band in which it jams. It jams same bands where seekers work. Seekers work in MWIR.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom