Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #7

GarryB wrote:Stealth deployed drones to attack targets and perform SEAD attacks.... surprised the west didn't think of that first...

Not so different to MALD or SDB if you think about it... in fact they could pack them similarly to SDBs and a single Su-57 could maybe carry 32 of them or 16 + partial AAM load for self defence. Enough to overwhelm almost any target.

What I mean is, will they use a drone only attack, or will the drones support an Su-57 attack, or will they attack with Su-34s and Iskanders and drones and AS-11s from Su-57s as well as other platforms...

I guess it would depend on the target and how well it is defended and how close to the front  line it is.

I see no reason why they would not be able to network all those devices and have them support each other. The drones can be decoys, loitering ammo or swarming mini CMs. Almost any piece of equipment is going to have two-way datalinks and the tactical management systems will get the automation / AI needed to coordinate the different elements in response to the development of the tactical situation in real time, that is the point of it all.

Didn´t the boss of the Kronstadt company mention that the Su-57 could carry up to 8 Molnyas?

Sorry if reposts.  Just thought they were great pics worth sharing maybe even again.





@LMFS you're right about the lack of flap usage on take offs. I think the Su-35S has the same ability and only the large and powerful horizontal stabilizers do the needed work which doesn't seem like much to get them airborn with those large wings AND wide body lift design,

Hole wrote:Didn´t the boss of the Kronstadt company mention that the Su-57 could carry up to 8 Molnyas?

I read that it could be carried by the Su-57, but I did not find them saying in what number

Gomig-21 wrote:@LMFS you're right about the lack of flap usage on take offs. I think the Su-35S has the same ability and only the large and powerful horizontal stabilizers do the needed work which doesn't seem like much to get them airborn with those large wings AND wide body lift design,

Good picks! Normally I've seen the Su-35 deploying flaps for takeoff, but maybe you have seen it doing it without them? The tails are used for the rotation, but in fact they detract from the plane's overall lift when used to pitch the nose up. If you realize, the deflection on the Su-57 is minimal (the plane has a high static instability) and sometimes, as peregrinefalcon proved us, the LEVCONS are used to pitch the nose up too. I am rather impressed by the ease with which the plane can take off, it is a proper STOL aircraft indeed.

LMFS wrote:
Good picks! Normally I've seen the Su-35 deploying flaps for takeoff, but maybe you have seen it doing it without them? The tails are used for the rotation, but in fact they detract from the plane's overall lift when used to pitch the nose up. If you realize, the deflection on the Su-57 is minimal (the plane has a high static instability) and sometimes, as peregrinefalcon proved us, the LEVCONS are used to pitch the nose up too. I am rather impressed by the ease with which the plane can take off, it is a proper STOL aircraft indeed.

When you mentioned how the Su-57 seems to take off without the usage of flaps, it made me think if the Su-35S does as well since their building the (supposedly 30 aircraft for Egypt) and so most of my observations were of the Egyptian ones currently being tested and I believe that between 6 or 10 have already been delivered so I tool a look at a couple of the Egyptian ones and hardly any deflection of the flaps if any.



Then a couple of other Russian ones also, hence the assumption and I bet that because of the width of the body and wings that it probably doesn't need to use its flaps and just the H-stabs to push the back down and raise the nose and there it goes up in the air.

Hard to see for sure but doesn't look like any flaps lowered.



https://img.rt.com/files/news/1f/71/80/00/bourget-show-russian-exposition-.jpg

Interesting phenomenon but I don't want to be the cause of being "bullocked" again! lol

BTW, years ago I remember watching a video where a MiG collector was filming inside his cockpit prior to take off and he was meticulously going through the checklist and when he got to testing the stick movement of the moveable surfaces, he said you barely need to pull the stick back a few degrees for takeoff and need to be super careful because you go beyond that certain threshold, the plane will not only take off, it will do a back flip!  This was on a MiG-15!!  Those H-stabs really give the aircraft quite the pitch with minimal movement it seems.

@Gomig-21

I don't think it is impossible for the Su-35 to take off without flaps, simply they seem to have established a certain deployment angle for the TO run and speed they apply. Nothing wrong in that, and it is the case normally for almost all planes, but as said, the Su-57 seems to be an exception, it only deploys them for landing. BTW the pictures you provide show a certain angle for the flaps as far as I can see.

LMFS wrote:@Gomig-21

I don't think it is impossible for the Su-35 to take off without flaps, simply they seem to have established a certain deployment angle for the TO run and speed they apply. Nothing wrong in that, and it is the case normally for almost all planes, but as said, the Su-57 seems to be an exception, it only deploys them for landing. BTW the pictures you provide show a certain angle for the flaps as far as I can see.

Yeah, it seems they're really marginal deflection, almost like they don't even need them. Such great aircraft. Hey imagine doing a backflip on takeoff in a MiG-25?!

That also explains a lot of the cockpit videos we see of either the 35 or 57 and a rather minimal use of pulling that stick back. It doesn't take much.

I don't know if this video has been posted before, it contains fragments of an air battle between Su-57 and Su-35:

From the 0:40 mark onwards there is a turn by both planes, it seems as if the Su-57 has a much faster onset. Maybe I am wanting to see too much in it, but it seems as if the instability of the plane allows it to pitch the nose and turn with the additionally won lift in a very immediate way, with almost no apparent deflection of the tail.

LMFS wrote:From the 0:40 mark onwards there is a turn by both planes, it seems as if the Su-57 has a much faster onset. Maybe I am wanting to see too much in it, but it seems as if the instability of the plane allows it to pitch the nose and turn with the additionally won lift in a very immediate way, with almost no apparent deflection of the tail.

Probably the Su-35S pilot being cautious and taking a much more relaxed turn since he could easily turn into the Su-57 and cause a major collision.

Need to see some new pics I haven't seen any come out lately.

Pilot talking after flight:
Right one: Do you used after burner in this vertical turn?
Left one: i use it up.
Right one: all the way?
Left one: no, just when i was on top (probably meaning, top of the circle)
Right one: very powerful!
Left one: yes, it is....

Reminder that even with stage 1 engines , the thrust to weight ratio on the su-57 is still at the very least on par with any fifth gen and exceeding fourth gens.
Of course while having that very long supersonic range.

The Su-35 has an estimated weight of ca. 18.5 t empty, and engines that produce 14.5 tf each. The Su-57 is "guesstimated" at 18-18.5 t weight empty and the engines produce 15 tf. Yet the pilots report a significant difference in acceleration and by the performance in airshows it indeed looks smaller and lighter. We don't have numbers, Sukhoi may surprise us with a plane lighter than expected, but in any case I agree the TWR seems pretty high already. People forget that the main reason for the izd. 30 is the supersonic cruising performance and not specifically TWR in max settings, though they will will most likely also grow.

Gomig-21 wrote:
When you mentioned how the Su-57 seems to take off without the usage of flaps, it made me think if the Su-35S does as well since their building the (supposedly 30 aircraft for Egypt) and so most of my observations were of the Egyptian ones currently being tested and I believe that between 6 or 10 have already been delivered so I tool a look at a couple of the Egyptian ones and hardly any deflection of the flaps if any.

It also depends on the overall fuel load and other loads.....

kvs wrote:
F-35:

Thrust/weight: 0.87 at gross weight (1.07 at loaded weight with 50% internal fuel)

Su-57:

Thrust/weight:

   AL-41F1: 1.02 (1.19 at typical mission weight)
   izdeliye 30: 1.15–1.2 (1.36 at typical mission weight)

F-35 engine is lot better just on specs

LMFS wrote:The Su-35 has an estimated weight of ca. 18.5 t empty, and engines that produce 14.5 tf each. The Su-57 is "guesstimated" at 18-18.5 t weight empty and the engines produce 15 tf. Yet the pilots report a significant difference in acceleration and by the performance in airshows it indeed looks smaller and lighter. We don't have numbers, Sukhoi may surprise us with a plane lighter than expected, but in any case I agree the TWR seems pretty high already. People forget that the main reason for the izd. 30 is the supersonic cruising performance and not specifically TWR in max settings, though they will will most likely also grow.

Too bad the take off length for the su 57 is classified. We know it's better than the su 35

LMFS wrote:I don't know if this video has been posted before, it contains fragments of an air battle between Su-57 and Su-35:

BTW, notice from the first second to 0:14 is the first time EVER that I have seen the doors on those under-wing missile containers fully open.  Now I don't know if that is a mockup or a real Su-57, either way, we're getting there just thought I would let you know!

Backman wrote:Too bad the take off length for the su 57 is classified. We know it's better than the su 35

Strelets talked about the landing distance of the Su-57 being half of that of the Su-35, but for the take off I have not seen any clear statement. What needs to be considered as said above is that it regularly takes off without flaps, that could be a very effective way of "sandbagging" the performance of the plane in its public appearances and hide the real minimum TO distance.

Gomig-21 wrote:BTW, notice from the first second to 0:14 is the first time EVER that I have seen the doors on those under-wing missile containers fully open.  Now I don't know if that is a mockup or a real Su-57, either way, we're getting there just thought I would let you know!

It is a weak 3D model, and I am not seeing any open bay door, just the panel being darker isn't it? Unless you are talking about the landing gear bay doors. In any case, the topic of the bays is a closed case as far as I can see, there is no half acceptable technical reasoning suggesting they cannot be what they are stated to be. We can question any technical data any manufacturer has not demonstrated, and that means essentially every useful parameter in modern planes.

LMFS wrote:It is a weak 3D model, and I am not seeing any open bay door, just the panel being darker isn't it? Unless you are talking about the landing gear bay doors. In any case, the topic of the bays is a closed case as far as I can see, there is no half acceptable technical reasoning suggesting they cannot be what they are stated to be. We can question any technical data any manufacturer has not demonstrated, and that means essentially every useful parameter in modern planes.

You're right, the angle confused me a bit and it was just a few seconds it looked like those bay doors were open. The other point that made me notice it more is that door outline itself on the bay is colored differently, almost like a mirror panel to delineate it more and that made it appear to be open as well.

Yeah I'm not questioning it anymore, I'm a believer just would like to see more of it in operation. In due time.

There's a lot of banter going on about the missile bay at paralay. I think these are just ideas and possibilities going around.

The weapons bay capacity is not a closed case.

Paralay quote
The size of the compartment allows a lot, but the suspension scheme of the UVKU and its dimensions significantly reduce the ability to deploy medium-range missiles. In the future, this may change, it is stated that the internal suspension of the Su-57 may be up to eight UAVs (long 1.5 meters each)

Backman wrote:The weapons bay capacity is not a closed case.

Paralay quote
The size of the compartment allows a lot, but the suspension scheme of the UVKU and its dimensions significantly reduce the ability to deploy medium-range missiles. In the future, this may change, it is stated that the internal suspension of the Su-57 may be up to eight UAVs (long 1.5 meters each)

How could the Americans design a missile ejector in the 90s that could be small enough to stuff 6 amraams in the F-22s bay but the russians are incompetent enough to design an ejector that wastes so much space that only 2 R-77s can be stored per bay? This doesn't sound believable