• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Sukhoi Su-57 / T-50 / PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II

flanker

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
847
Reaction score
21
Regarding the displayed missile launch, do I am the only one to think that what we see (missile with fins) doesn't seems to be able to fit inside the alleged side missiles bay?
Yes. It is just you. K-74M2 fits just fine in sidebay, you know, cause it was designed to fit in the sidebay. *taps head* But seriously, this has been measured up and down, left and right, it fits fine. Everything is compact, and part of the systems is inside of the fuselage obviously, but that is the point. As to the patent you are referring to, must be this one. It explains in reasonable detail how everything works. Sidebays are also referred to in other T-50 patents.

Also, when exactly do you plan to stop with this "alleged side missiles bay" nonsense? There is literally a patent for the sidebay and now footage of testfiring from it, and you are still on your alleged nonsense. We have known it was a sidebay literally since the first flight of T-50-1. Just drop it already.
 
Last edited:

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
1,574
Reaction score
395
Well, you should know that opinion is the panacea of the free men and cease to be only when proved irrefutably to be wrong. Then denial or negationism they can be.

Untill this day, you will have to let me say what I honestly think is a valid assersion my dear. Thank you.
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,657
Reaction score
352
Does anyone know what these bubble looking things in the canopy glass could be? Appears around 1:03.

1585303618749.png
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,141
Reaction score
1,425
Condensation or collected perspiration, I'd say.
 

flanker

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
847
Reaction score
21
Well, you should know that opinion is the panacea of the free men and cease to be only when proved irrefutably to be wrong. Then denial or negationism they can be.

Untill this day, you will have to let me say what I honestly think is a valid assersion my dear. Thank you.
Nice word salad with nothing said, babe. Stay ignorant.

Does anyone know what these bubble looking things in the canopy glass could be? Appears around 1:03.

View attachment 629839
Doesn't look like moving bubbles to me, imho some sort of production fault. Probably not material. I thought it was bubbles in the canopy too cause they didnt move as one would expect with water, however, if one looks at the 22s shot or so of the same cockpit they cant be seen. So either the shots were taken at completely different times with different canopies (extremely unlikely) or they are just water indeed.

Here is another video:
Same story there, no canopy bubbles seen. Also worth noting is that the dark grey camo T-50-8 has a different left intake under vertical stabs than the usual. I checked, and sure enough T-50S-1 had the same style intake.
 
Last edited:

Josh_TN

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
222
Reaction score
94
I believe on another forum I declared that the Russians would never *sell* Su-35; color me surprised. I think the entire order was two dozen airframes, which is a blatant technology transfer not an operational force. I've no doubt Su-57 will be a real thing that is produced by the dozens, but I think the 76 order won't be met anywhere near the 2025 end date that the Russians are floating. That would require at least an aircraft every month startying NOW. Seems exceedingly unlikely we get there until the end of the decade.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
980
Reaction score
297
2027. Not 2025.
The stated date appears to vary depending the source; the April 2019 Combat Aircraft Journal article, quoting an Kommersant article, stated 2028.
But I would agree with generally skeptical opinions being expressed - even if you do build that many Su-57s in this timescale given that it sounds like they’ll won’t be that many of them and they’ll have different engines, avionics etc. (and unlike as was the case for the F-35 this can’t be the start of many hundreds/ thousands of them).
This sounds more like the recipe for a small expensive “paper force” for “national moral” type reasons rather than the basis for a sensible procurement strategy.
 

flanker

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
847
Reaction score
21
I checked, and sure enough T-50S-1 had the same style intake.
Assembly photos?
Nah, early assembly video from ~May (iirc). See attached pic.

Shitty quality of canopy was long rumored for early articles.
Looks like we have a proof. Interesting that editors missed this.
See my correction, the "bubbles" are only seen in one shot, all the other shots of same frame with same pilot doesnt show them.
 

Attachments

icyplanetnhc

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
118
Reaction score
29
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
I checked, and sure enough T-50S-1 had the same style intake.
Assembly photos?
Nah, early assembly video from ~May (iirc). See attached pic.

Shitty quality of canopy was long rumored for early articles.
Looks like we have a proof. Interesting that editors missed this.
See my correction, the "bubbles" are only seen in one shot, all the other shots of same frame with same pilot doesnt show them.
I’m surprised that the production standard “Stage Two” Su-57 still has that many visible metal reinforcements. I was under the impression that it was supposed to have a reworked internal structure to avoid that?
 

Samoderzhets

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Messages
3
Reaction score
5
The contract is for procurement during the current rearmament program of 2018-2027. So through 2027, which can be expressed as "by 2028".

If we assume following production:

2020: 1
2021: 2
2022: 6
2023: 10
2024: 14
2025: 14
2026: 14
2027: 14

We get to 75 by 2028. And it is nothing unbelievable.

Su-35S production for comparison (includes frames for China):
2011: 2
2012: 8
2013: 12
2014: 12
2015: 14
2016: 14
2017: 20
2018: 20


About the RAM treatment of Su-57:

Rivets surrounded by RAM (2nd stage prototype T-50-8):


Rivets with no RAM surrounding them (1st stage prototype):


Contrary to the rather popular misconception that no PAK FA frame so far has a RAM treatment, actually all the 2nd stage prototypes have it. But the RAM doesn't cover all the surface areas. The borders of the RAM coverage are pretty clear on this picture of the first flying 2nd stage proto:

The first serial frame appeared to follow the same pattern:


One would imagine that in the areas with RAM treatment, the rivet holes in the RAM coverage could cause some disturbances for the electromagnetic wave, but that is probably not relevant if we are not talking about RCS in the range of 0.0001. While clearly in different category stealth-wise compared to Super Hornet, Eurofighter and Rafale, some finer RCS reduction measures are lacking compared to F-22 or J-20.
I wonder what kind of a bottleneck the first stage engine presents for RCS. Obviously the conventional nozzle alone affects it negatively from non-frontal sectors, but if the radar blocker is not meant to work optimally alone, needing 5th gen inlet guide vanes for proper results then the aircraft is handicapped from frontal sector as well with the old engines. That could explain why complete RAM coverage isn't useful for the current version. Of course it is also totally plausible, that a 0.0001 level (with its own drawbacks like the weight increase from more RAM) wasn't seen as optimal for a fighter designed to perform its most crucial role (defensive counterair i.e. defense of own airspace) within the framework of very powerful friendly IADS.

One would not be surprised to see some fighter design philosophy differences between the DCA leaning Russians and OCA leaning Americans.
 
Last edited:

flanker

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
847
Reaction score
21
UVKU-50L is for the main bays, hence for different weapons. And as seen, it is not a rail system but an ejector, R-73 family uses rails. Secondly, the door doesnt open like that, as seen both from the video and the patent, it opens towards the intakes. I could have sworn i have seen datasheet for the sidebay rail, but i cant find it...
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,657
Reaction score
352
It's all, all wrong - starting from the main weapons bay shapes and finishing with wrong launcher for a wrong missile...

In that Chinese CG or in the link added?
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
406
Reaction score
101
The Chinese CG.

It seems the patent that clearly depict how the missile is released is completely ignored and people just make things up. I wonder if the patent is not clear enough on the mechanism.

For me tho it is very clear. Prob i should try animate one.
 

flanker

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
847
Reaction score
21
It's all, all wrong - starting from the main weapons bay shapes and finishing with wrong launcher for a wrong missile...
Please remind me flateric, is there a datasheet for the sidebay rails out there in the open ala UVKU-50L/UVKU-50U? Again, could have sworn seeing it...
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
406
Reaction score
101
Well, dont beat me if my interpretation of the patent is still inaccurate. But here is the orientation of R-73 missile in Sidebay.

This is when the bay ois open and the missile is about to launch.



The launching position, so the launcher is lowered then the pylon part which handles the missile move bit forward to clear the seeker viewpoint.



From top side


Not depicted is of course the heat resistant plate which will resist and direct the initial blast from the launch.
 

Rhinocrates

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
246
Reaction score
105
Is this paint scheme supposed to be a camouflage and help avoid id? Really?
This is high resolution at close range in clear air in full daylight against a high contrast background. The opposite of all of these will apply in real combat situations. The idea is not to make the aircraft invisible, but to make it easy to misjudge its distance when making instant decisions.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,228
Reaction score
339
All in all a very nice looking fighter. Though I still like the SU-30(whatever) with the little flippy things up front better. :cool:
 
Top