Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #6

PapaDragon wrote:
Sarmat doesn't have NATO designation yet

I thought it was getting the same name as the R-36, but with a 2 on the end.

If you are talking about SS-18 Satan it's the coolest name for a weapon ever given

When you consider who is firing it and who it is being fired at I think you will find the name rather unfitting. When it was used by the Soviets it was less silly, but still silly.

Perhaps Russia should name thier next missile utopian or liberator seeing as it's use would actually improve the world a fair bit.

When you consider who is firing it and who it is being fired at I think you will find the name rather unfitting. When it was used by the Soviets it was less silly, but still silly.

Satan was particularly stupid as a name for a missile used by athiests... the devil is part of the western religious delusion...

I remember in the 1980s when the west found out the Muj called the Mi-24 the devils chariot in Afghanistan... so they started calling it that... the problem was that it was a purely practical description for them on their holy war... the infidels are devils therefore everything they rode in was the devils chariot... BMPs, tanks, helicopters, etc etc which really makes the name meaningless...

GarryB wrote:the devil is part of the western religious delusion...

Western? How much do you even know about Russian culture?


The point I was making is that it is a really stupid name for a missile in Russian service and even in Soviet service it was still stupid considering who its targets were.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

GarryB wrote:the devil is part of the western religious delusion...

Western? How much do you even know about Russian culture?


The point I was making is that it is a really stupid name for a missile in Russian service and even in Soviet service it was still stupid considering who its targets were.

WTF. The tag "Satan" is pure NATzO BS and not Soviet/Russian. The SS-18 "Satan" is the properly tagged RS-36M Voevoda.

GarryB wrote:

When you consider who is firing it and who it is being fired at I think you will find the name rather unfitting. When it was used by the Soviets it was less silly, but still silly.

Satan was particularly stupid as a name for a missile used by athiests... the devil is part of the western religious delusion...

I remember in the 1980s when the west found out  the Muj called the Mi-24 the devils chariot in Afghanistan... so they started calling it that... the problem was that it was a purely practical description for them on their holy war... the infidels are devils therefore everything they rode in was the devils chariot... BMPs, tanks, helicopters, etc etc which really makes the name meaningless...

Um.....you do know the main religion within Russia is Orthodox Christianity, I believe its beginnings are in some versions of the new testament.

So yes garry they do believe in Satan and God etc.

Pretty ignorant to state its "Western delusion" when that is the second biggest religion in the world...your comment just shows how blind you are due to your hate, I wonder how much crap you blame on the West when you don't understand basic information....

Hey dickhead... how Orthodox Christian as Stalin... or the other Soviet leaders that followed him?

Communism was Athiest... probably its best feature in my opinion.

Show me a 2,000 year old book on mixing paint or building a house or keeping bees that makes sense in this day and age... what... none?

So why would anyone based their religious beliefs on a book written back then?

You wouldn't even accept what they say about personal hygiene but you think they had a direct line to talk to god?

Yeah.... I am the fool.

GarryB wrote:Hey dickhead... how Orthodox Christian as Stalin... or the other Soviet leaders that followed him?

Communism was Athiest... probably its best feature in my opinion.

Yeah, no need for food which saves money and helps protect the environment from pesticides used in agriculture

GarryB wrote:Show me a 2,000 year old book on mixing paint or building a house or keeping bees that makes sense in this day and age... what... none?

Keeping bees? Paint? Almost all of them

Vast majority of those remained useful for way longer than this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital

Honestly, I am -- and have been since the first flight by Sergei Bogdan back in 2010 I think it was -- quite skeptical that those two protrusions or whatever they're called by the LERX and kinda between the wing root and the LEVCONs if they're actually R-73 compartments. Has there been any information given by Sukhoi or any of the big wig generals or spokespersons that those two compartments are actual housings for missiles and most likely R-73s would seem to barely fit in there?

There's also the question of is there enough room for the bracing mechanism that holds the missile in place that would need to fit in there as well as extrude partially before it fires it. Doesn't seem to be enough room for all of that inside that space and wing thickness. So there are certainly some issues that go against those two protrusions being viable missile-holding compartments.

Can't wait to see this thing in its final, active status. It really is a sleek bird.

This looks pretty official to me... and notice the wing root location for weapon locations 6 and 5 which it states can carry one izd 760 missile, which is the R-74M2.

No other missile type there can be carried in that location in that weapon category at the moment.

I would think because of the size an shape restraints that such a missile could eventually be carried in twins or triples on external hard points 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 in the future... possibly in tandem triples depending on the length.

GarryB wrote:

This looks pretty official to me... and notice  the wing root location for weapon locations 6 and 5 which it states can carry one izd 760 missile, which is the R-74M2.

No other missile type there can be carried in that location in that weapon category at the moment.

I would think because of the size an shape restraints that such a missile could eventually be carried in twins or triples on external hard points 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 in the future... possibly in tandem triples depending on the length.

I can't possibly image something so against the Russian (after Soviet one) praxis than twin and triples on external points.

And i'm not so sure that the image indicate that just a single missile will fit in each of the 4 part in which the main bomb bay is divided.
Graphic rendering is different showing two missiles in two different spaces, not one in four different ones.
So I would read it as two missiles in each of 2&4 and two in each of the 1&3 rows.

That missile shot was so quick and when the video started, it looked like it was either on a rail or maybe, just maybe it had already come out of that supposed weapon's bay but definitely didn't see any doors open or anything to indicate it came out of there. But I will take all your words for it and I did see that graphic in that video that Gary posted and if that's an official graphic, then no one can argue with that for sure.

It's just a shame that here the Su-57 is entering serial production and we haven't seen a single conclusive video of any of the weapons bays functioning or firing any missiles. I'm not sure what the strategy is with that?! One would think that if Sukhoi wanted to showcase the fighter to its fullest limit, they would be showcasing the fighter firing away from every single bay and every single direction. Really can't understand what the strategy is for not showing the weapons testing? Why hide it so adamantly like that?

Blurry pic of the Su-57 with... something

Hole wrote:Blurry pic of the Su-57 with... something

Isn't that optical pods to observe weapon separation?

LMFS wrote:There is a patent that explains every detail of how the system works, if you have any doubt about that. In general is IMHO not advisable to listen too much to Western paranoia about the alleged shortcomings of the Su-57. If we were talking about a Western plane and we had all the information about those bays that we have for the Sukhoi, including a detailed patent available for many years now, nobody in their right mind would question that those bays exist and work as intended, but since presumption of guilt is what rules for Russia, here we are, 10 years discussing whether the plane's bays are fake or real...

I don't go by your presumptive notion of listening to western paranoia about alleged shortcomings to the Su-57.  Geez I would never have guessed that would even be an impression one would get out of my post.  I go by all the literature I read, the progress updates of all the prototypes to date and like I mentioned, I've been following this thing since it's first flight and the only thing I haven't been privy to is any Russian lingo videos since I don't understand the language.  

Sorry if it irritates you that here we are discussing it 10 years later, but no one is holding a gun and forcing you to engage in a public discussion TBH.  And frankly, I think it's actually an incisive discussion to bring such things to the open since before I posted this post, I  went through the entire thread to see if there was any discussion pertaining to those weapons bays and I didn't see any.  

Also, I never implied that they were fake whatsoever!  That is you making a false assumption for whatever reason.  As far as my thinking, they could be EW pods similar to the Su-35 wingtip ones except here they're designed in a stealthy manner for obvious reason or they could be any other type of built-in electronics pod/device etc.  Never said they were fake.  Again, you assumed incorrectly for some strange reason.

LMFS wrote:Well, the video of the of the side bays is completely conclusive to me, but I think you are answering yourself: they are clearly and for some reason not interested in showcasing the bays of the plane. US is designing NGAD right now, properly assessing the ultimate capabilities of the Su-57 lays at the very core of getting its needed dimensions and layout right. So if they ignore how many AAMs it can potentially carry, how fast it can release them etc., that is a bigger interest for Russia than showing off.

And I don't think that is a viable reason whatsoever.  If it's the US or even Russia or China looking to get similar info on such a thing, they wouldn't need YouTube videos of test firing missiles to find out with all their spying capabilities. Sorry, don't buy that one bit and if that's in fact the reason, so be it.  And for the sake of moving on, maybe someday we'll get to see them in action.

I can't possibly image something so against the Russian (after Soviet one) praxis than twin and triples on external points.

I agree to a point, but bare in mind that this missile is the small compact internal carriage missile... so it is not the R-3 /13 or R-73... it is the R-60 equivalent weapon as used on the MiG-23 which did get an external twin pylon mount, because it was small and light so a twin mount made sense, while the small size and light weight of the missile meant taking up a weapon pylon it was easy enough to mount more than one on the pylon available.

When I say small I don't mean physically small like the R-60 actually was... it was about 45kg in one version, but compact with small fins and control surfaces...

So having two side by side on a missile pylon wouldn't take up a lot of space like a twin mount R-27 would for instance.

Graphic rendering is different showing two missiles in two different spaces, not one in four different ones.
So I would read it as two missiles in each of 2&4 and two in each of the 1&3 rows.

I am assuming the green dots will be the normal loadout, presumably the green external pylons only carried when stealth is no longer an issue so a standard load out of two IZD 760 short range IR guided AAMs in the wing root internal weapon bays and four R-77M long range AAMs in the four main weapon bay positions will be the standard weapon layout... of course with the 30mm cannon and 150 rounds of ammo too.

They already fired r-74 from the weapons bay. Well, it looks like they did. And they also have this small r-77 on the top which seems to be for the small weapons bay.

I find that display of those three missiles rather confusing... the top missile seems to have the rear grid fins of the R-77... is it a 9M100?

The middle missile looks like an R-73 but seems rather too big compared with the R-77 below it.

And the R-77 below it has interesting body fins but standard rear grid fins which I thought they were getting rid of...

It's just a shame that here the Su-57 is entering serial production and we haven't seen a single conclusive video of any of the weapons bays functioning or firing any missiles. I'm not sure what the strategy is with that?! One would think that if Sukhoi wanted to showcase the fighter to its fullest limit, they would be showcasing the fighter firing away from every single bay and every single direction. Really can't understand what the strategy is for not showing the weapons testing? Why hide it so adamantly like that?

I suspect there are some details they want to keep secret for a while, but when they start pushing export sales of the aircraft they will likely have more details about weapon options if only for export...

Isn't that optical pods to observe weapon separation?

Could be, or could also be a targeting pod, for testing air to ground ordinance perhaps...

Both can also passively sense radio transmissions but in my opinion the Su-57 does that better with 2,236 modules or even more(These past 10+ years I take it that they have upgraded the radars) + GaN EW system Himalayas

With wingroot mounted L band AESA arrays the Su-57 can in theory detect HATO datalink communications which also work in L band...

The F-35 is said to later use a 100 kilowatt DIRCM which I take it can physically destroy an air to air missile and there is this MSDM Miniature Self-Defense Munition which will use midget missiles against incoming air to air missiles. AFAIK the Su-57 DIRCM can only currently blind infrared sensors

100 kilowatt lasers.... that is very impressive... but apart from appealing to fan boys on the internet what advantage does it offer above blinding the incoming missiles apart from using enormous levels of energy?

...F-35 so I decided to just break the ice here and compare its features and to what the Su-57 has.

The main problem I see is that claims for the F-35 seem to exceed reality... it is stealthy, but the Su-35 and Su-30 seem to track it just fine... it will be getting super DIRCMs... but with a 100Kw laser why would it need any other type of weapon... it could just blow missiles and enemy aircraft out of the sky with this laser couldn't it?

And proposed new ARM that is not that much superior to an ARM the Russians could have in service for 13 years already... and self defence AAMs... but again... with that laser.... why?

GarryB wrote:

I can't possibly image something so against the Russian (after Soviet one) praxis than twin and triples on external points.

I agree to a point, but bare in mind that this missile is the small compact internal carriage missile... so it is not the R-3 /13 or R-73... it is the R-60 equivalent weapon as used on the MiG-23 which did get an external twin pylon mount, because it was small and light so a twin mount made sense, while the small size and light weight of the missile meant taking up a weapon pylon it was easy enough to mount more than  one on the pylon available.

When I say small I don't mean physically small like the R-60 actually was... it was about 45kg in one version, but compact with small fins and control surfaces...

So having two side by side on a missile pylon wouldn't take up a lot of space like a twin mount R-27 would for instance.

Graphic rendering is different showing two missiles in two different spaces, not one in four different ones.
So I would read it as two missiles in each of 2&4 and two in each of the 1&3 rows.

I am assuming the green dots will be the normal loadout, presumably the green external pylons only carried when stealth is no longer an issue so a standard load out of two IZD 760 short range IR guided AAMs in the wing root internal weapon bays and four R-77M long range AAMs in the four main weapon bay positions will be the standard weapon layout... of course with the 30mm cannon and 150 rounds of ammo too.

They already fired r-74 from the weapons bay. Well, it looks like they did. And they also have this small r-77 on the top which seems to be for the small weapons bay.

I find that display of those three missiles rather confusing... the top missile seems to have the rear grid fins of the R-77... is it a 9M100?

The middle missile looks like an R-73 but seems rather too big compared with the R-77 below it.

And the R-77 below it has interesting body fins but standard rear grid fins which I thought they were getting rid of...

It's just a shame that here the Su-57 is entering serial production and we haven't seen a single conclusive video of any of the weapons bays functioning or firing any missiles. I'm not sure what the strategy is with that?! One would think that if Sukhoi wanted to showcase the fighter to its fullest limit, they would be showcasing the fighter firing away from every single bay and every single direction. Really can't understand what the strategy is for not showing the weapons testing? Why hide it so adamantly like that?

I suspect there are some details they want to keep secret for a while, but when they start pushing export sales of the aircraft they will likely have more details about weapon options if only for export...

Isn't that optical pods to observe weapon separation?

Could be, or could also be a targeting pod, for testing air to ground ordinance perhaps...

   Both can also passively sense radio transmissions but in my opinion the Su-57 does that better with 2,236 modules or even more(These past 10+ years I take it that they have upgraded the radars) + GaN EW system Himalayas

With wingroot mounted L band AESA arrays the Su-57 can in theory detect HATO datalink communications which also work in L band...

The F-35 is said to later use a 100 kilowatt DIRCM which I take it can physically destroy an air to air missile and there is this MSDM Miniature Self-Defense Munition which will use midget missiles against incoming air to air missiles. AFAIK the Su-57 DIRCM can only currently blind infrared sensors

100 kilowatt lasers.... that is very impressive... but apart from appealing to fan boys on the internet what advantage does it offer above blinding the incoming missiles apart from using enormous levels of energy?

...F-35 so I decided to just break the ice here and compare its features and to what the Su-57 has.

The main problem I see is that claims for the F-35 seem to exceed reality... it is stealthy, but the Su-35 and Su-30 seem to track it just fine... it will be getting super DIRCMs... but with a 100Kw laser why would it need any other type of weapon... it could just blow missiles and enemy aircraft out of the sky with this laser couldn't it?

And proposed new ARM that is not that much superior to an ARM the Russians could have in service for 13 years already... and self defence AAMs... but again... with that laser.... why?

As always they didn't have neither the 100Kw laser nor the MSDM nor the ARM missile, all of them are still in development with still a lot of work to do...
As a matter of fact today, 20 October 2020 they have not even a single operational F-35 able to carry 6 AMRAAM as they have not still implemented the double rack for them in their own main bomb bay lodging...
Even when they would finally implement it, it would be only on A & C version, as there is not space for installing it in B, nor they would be able to carry 6 Meteors instead than AMRAAM but just four as the current side mounted  missile rack is tailor fitted for AMRAAM only.
Same problem for integrally fitted ARM missile, F-35 has only two bomb /missile pylons so even by carrying just one they would forfeit half of their offensive potential.