Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #7

Trollkin Imbecile No 1 wrote:Most aerodynamic pos I have ever seen.  Simply incredible!

Yup. Couldn't agree more.  

Sorry George1...  I just had to get that one outta my system.  I'll be good now...  honest....

Deleted his account and deleted his posts... shall we continue?

Obviously someone not happy about losing at chess...

Checkmate was clearly too much but enough said...

GarryB wrote:Deleted his account and deleted his posts... shall we continue?

Obviously someone not happy about losing at chess...

Checkmate was clearly too much but enough said...

Aww man, I always miss the good stuff. Didn't get to read any of that troll's drivel before he got deleted

It's funny to Think that there are a lot of lurkers in this forum and quite an amount of them really hate the conversation as there are actual argument against bad ruski planes. Someone now perhaps felt offended.

GarryB wrote:Checkmate was clearly too much but enough said...

Checkmate (which BTW I give that name an A on the grade sheet) to keep NATO or what is it you call it, HATO?lol in check; pun intended with such a name with a meaning that will force them from not being able to issue one of their insulting names as now there won't be a need for it since the Russians FINALLY smartened up and gave one of their great creations a great name as well and didn't leave the easy honor to HATO to have the pleasure of naming it something like the Fagot or the Felon.  Jackasses.

But I digress.  And I just noticed 53 has an unique and interesting paint job and judging by the tattoo on its V-stab, this is the one they're testing the Okhotnik (loyal wingman) with?







That radar signal will slice right through that flat and narrow body and split in two while top half will wither up and bottom half will bellow down.  She might be a better stealth shape than any anticipate just by that pure thinness.

Some crazy gun test photos I think some of these were posted before. Twice is nice anyway.

Actually, the su-27 was nicknamed "crane" by the pilots.
But the name is as usual heavily overshadowed by the nati name.

It's like the Mig-21 being known as fishbed instead of Balalaika (the musical instrument).

If it enters service with the Russian AF or Navy they wont call it Checkmate, their naming convention has fixed rules that include that a fighter aircraft's name must start with an F, and being a jet aircraft needs two syllables...

The purpose is so that it can be used over radio link that might be poor quality that is distinct and obvious and not used by anything else.

For instance they couldn't call a Soviet or Russian plane Fox Fire because that means something else.

They will make some nasty ignorant name for it if it enters service, but the rest of the world will now know what it is.

It is the same with western model books (ie the Airfix kind, not the skinny bitch who needs a good feed kind)... when they do an article on the I-16 they call it the Rat, which is what its enemies called it in the Spanish civil war... and they claim to love planes and aviation...

Stopped caring what HATO calls Russian stuff... stopped calling HATO by its western name... HATO is Russian Cyrillic... the H is an N in english the rest of the letters are the same.

This comment from the guys developing the adaptive engines in US reinforce my impression that the izd. 30 is a two stream VCE, an updated Russian YF120 of sorts:

“The YF120 engine was an adaptive-cycle engine focused in a totally different area,” McCormick said. “The ADVENT and AETD are primarily focused on fuel efficiency, certainly there is additional thrust capability for the AETD as well as significant improvements in thermal management. But the YF120 engine it was an adaptive cycle engine focused very much on the supercruise requirement of the aircraft.”

https://news.usni.org/2014/06/23/next-generation-engine-work-points-future-u-s-fighter-designs

That is, the three stream engine based on the izd. 30 core will be even better in regards of subsonic SFC and thermal management, but for the stated goal of izd. 30 (allow the Su-57 to supercruise), the substantial increase of specific thrust coupled with decent SFC at the level of the AL-31F family seems a very reasonable goal for the time being (a 5.5G engine in words of its designer), being the follower the propulsive basis of the 6G fighters

Freshly painted Su-57 at the Gagarin Aviation Plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur.



Under construction

The second photo is extremely interesting because it shows us "what is behind the curtain", as we talked about last time about assembling lines.
It is made head-on perspective.
We clearly see two additional production stands.

Arrow wrote:Su 57 during Army 2021.


https://youtu.be/DGyRn5biuB4

Outstanding! Great performance and it didn't even do any of the ultra impressive maneuvers that it is well capable of performing yet it put on quite a show.

I have a question for any and all the members in the now-how and I know this was asked before but a really good answer was never given only because most people took offense to the question, but I sincerely hope that this final time, more so than allowing any butt-hurt to take control for whatever reason aside (I am NOT TROLLING....) and speaking objectively about the question and really looking for the answer if it is known and creating a clear cut discussion about the matter. Or no discussion, just the answer would suffice if it makes sense. Now know that this might have had the living hell beat out of it since probably 2010 or maybe earlier since IIRC, the first flight was sometime in February 2008, yes?

Oct 03, 2019 · The first prototype of the new jet—called the T-10BM—made its first flight on February 18, 2008. ... solution until the Su-57 PAK-FA was ready. ... Su-57—with some relatively minor avionics ...

So this is the common info available on Wiki and Quora I believe and it is accurate from what I remember as I was up late that night with probably millions around the world knowing they would be releveling this major part of history of the take off & landing and filming of that successful flight test that went very well and Sergei Bogdan got his usual and great Russian tradition of being bounced around by other pilots/crew members for 3 or 4/5 times singing something These posts were installed in the ground in case someone drew more strength than needed and tried to fling him all the way to Siberia from excitement instead of just an upward fling. But it is and was a great Russian tradition that went off without a hitch.

But back to my question and I apologize (AGAIN) to those who think it might offend since I'm originally from Egypt living in the US and desperately hoping the EAF requests a HUGE batch of this magnificent aircraft and offers to pay for more to help with any further development progress which I'm undoubtedly guessing will have a lot to do with the new AESA radar they have completed and my question is, besides the one shot of the missile from the right, underwing closed pylon which was all we barely saw and nothing more like the enclosed pylon opening up and missile was already protruding ready to be fired, followed by the firing and then closing the pylon after the firing of the missile. But in a full decade of testing this aircraft, we have not seen any of the belly weapons bays being tested whatsoever and we are coming to an end of this process of testing and one would think that that process has been tested to the maximum and the results documented under extreme secrecy for some unknown reason for further analysis

So without upsetting any of the powers to be, does anyone know or think they know why the Russians testing this process have elected to keep a lid on that operation and not show it at all? It's rather perplexing and very curious as to why they chose to maintain secrecy all the way to this point -- and still are -- and if anyone knows or wishes to offer an explanation, I would be ever so grateful and hope no one else gets upset since there really is no reason for that to happen. I would really love to know what the ultimate strategy is behind this secrecy. Thank you!

Hehehe yes it seems that sometimes it is not to easy to get a straight answer - as one would have expected!

The short and simple answer for me would be why would they want to reveal the insides of a prototype? Early prototypes might not even have all the goodies to properly operate certain things that are not required for that particular development process. They certainly won't do it for the sake of a good snap shop for eager spotters around an airfield. You will most likely only see that kind of detail once the aircraft is in service. My 2 cents worth.

Given the F-35s limited maneuverability and energy retention, I would guess the R-37M will be the staple BVR weapon for the Su-57 not only against large aircraft, but stealth fighters too.

limb wrote:Given the F-35s limited maneuverability and energy retention, I would guess the R-37M will be the staple BVR weapon  for the Su-57 not only against large aircraft, but stealth fighters too.

The primary customer for the R-37M's would be to destroy the command and control elements of the enemy - basically AWACS and JSTAR type aircraft - "blinding" the fighting capability of the enemy. True stealth fighters can only be detected at much shorter ranges so the R-77's and other medium to short range missiles would deal with those fighters.

Mir wrote:True stealth fighters can only be detected at much shorter ranges so the R-77's and other medium to short range missiles would deal with those fighters.

Even when air battles do not really happen at many hundreds of km and R-77 seems a valid weapon indeed, currently there is no such thing as "true stealth fighters"

https://ria.ru/20210826/anoshko-1747223211.html

LMFS wrote:

Mir wrote:True stealth fighters can only be detected at much shorter ranges so the R-77's and other medium to short range missiles would deal with those fighters.

Even when air battles do not really happen at many hundreds of km and R-77 seems a valid weapon indeed, currently there is no such thing as "true stealth fighters"

https://ria.ru/20210826/anoshko-1747223211.html

Yes you're right a "true stealth fighter" would be invisible - even to the naked eye!

Anyway what I meant is that "true stealth" planes have a much reduces RCS so it will only be visible on the radar at at fairly short range. Using a R-37M would be a waist of it's true capabilities - but if that is the only missile you have left - fire away!

Mir wrote:Yes you're right a "true stealth fighter" would be invisible - even to the naked eye!

Anyway what I meant is that "true stealth" planes have a much reduces RCS so it will only be visible on the radar at at fairly short range. Using a R-37M would be a waist of it's true capabilities - but if that is the only missile you have left - fire away!

I mean that the context is everything here. If you are in the Western MD where Conteiner (and BTW other low frequency radars) operates, you know there is a "stealth" plane incoming since it was on the runway and you can most likely fire a R-37M at max range against it. It also allows a MiG-31BM to do a killing dash through the enemy fighters without falling into traps set by LO planes to catch it (it would be otherwise a relatively easy target due to its high speed and altitude of flight and very reduced manoeuvrability in those conditions). Stealth today vs. Russia has lost the surprise element and been rendered largely irrelevant, even when X band radars onboard the fighters are still affected by it. I don't think the word "stealth" applies in the context of Russian AD anymore, actually.

That is all probable yes and BVR has improved a great deal over the years but even so - history is not on it's side. Actually I do think the US is making a huge mistake here in that they mainly rely on BVR combat these days. BVR gives you the time to react to counter whatever is coming your way. Over shorter ranges things happen a lot quicker and it becomes much harder to evade. However AI can do a lot here to help you out in a tight spot but you probably won't have that luxury at your disposal all the time - esp in a heavy ECM environment.

Talking about context: If my radar detects a flight (4) F35's taking off on a strike mission from an airfield and also a flight of F22's on CAP in the area with an AWACS in support. My priority target would always be the AWACS.

Mir wrote:Hehehe yes it seems that sometimes it is not to easy to get a straight answer - as one would have expected!

The short and simple answer for me would be why would they want to reveal the insides of a prototype? Early prototypes might not even have all the goodies to properly operate certain things that are not required for that particular development process. They certainly won't do it for the sake of a good snap shop for eager spotters around an airfield. You will most likely only see that kind of detail once the aircraft is in service. My 2 cents worth.

Well, so far you're the only one who offered an answer to my question which means only 2 things, either what you say is what it is or none of the other fellows know or care to share their opinion which is also perfectly fine.

However, to get back to your point, aren't they way passed the prototype stage now and in fact the assembly stage? Assembly stage means that everything is all set and ready to go with the exception of removable items that can be replaced with upgradable ones just as engines, radars and other little stuff.

I doubt they plan of changing anything in the way they'll be firing any missile or dropping any laser or GPS guided ground munition out of the belly bays, just my opinion.

It reminds me of the days the USSR kept the records of their shattering Mach speeds for the MiG-21, the 23 and especially the 25 because of legitimate reasons. They obviously didn't want the west to know how fast these things can intercept an attack of any kind at anytime. Turns out the records went to aircraft like the F-4 Phantom II and the F-15 Eagle etc. but I'm sure the USSR was thinking who gives a rat's ass and rightfully so.

Here, with the belly bays of the Su-57, if they're interested in exporting the aircraft which they've eluded to on many occasions, why not show the damn thing firing away ay aerial targets and get these countries revved up to want to put orders. For what India did to "stain" the image of the Su-57 (and I don't care what some say that they don't think it matters what India said about the FGFA), because guess what, it did more damage to the bird's reputation than anything else and certainly anything positive. So PR wise, the people running the Su-57 program unless they don't care about exporting it, are not doing it any good service to be perfectly honest with you and this is just my opinion. No trolling or any of that shit!

Gomig-21 wrote:Here, with the belly bays of the Su-57, if they're interested in exporting the aircraft which they've eluded to on many occasions, why not show the damn thing firing away ay aerial targets and get these countries revved up to want to put orders.  For what India did to "stain" the image of the Su-57 (and I don't care what some say that they don't think it matters what India said about the FGFA), because guess what, it did more damage to the bird's reputation than anything else and certainly anything positive.  So PR wise, the people running the Su-57 program unless they don't care about exporting it, are not doing it any good service to be perfectly honest with you and this is just my opinion.  No trolling or any of that shit!

It's okay, Russia will pay them back by exporting the Su-57 to them, after China gets their shipment.

Gomig-21 wrote:

Mir wrote:Hehehe yes it seems that sometimes it is not to easy to get a straight answer - as one would have expected!

The short and simple answer for me would be why would they want to reveal the insides of a prototype? Early prototypes might not even have all the goodies to properly operate certain things that are not required for that particular development process. They certainly won't do it for the sake of a good snap shop for eager spotters around an airfield. You will most likely only see that kind of detail once the aircraft is in service. My 2 cents worth.

Well, so far you're the only one who offered an answer to my question which means only 2 things, either what you say is what it is or none of the other fellows know or care to share their opinion which is also perfectly fine.

However, to get back to your point, aren't they way passed the prototype stage now and in fact the assembly stage?  Assembly stage means that everything is all set and ready to go with the exception of removable items that can be replaced with upgradable ones just as engines, radars and other little stuff.

I doubt they plan of changing anything in the way they'll be firing any missile or dropping any laser or GPS guided ground munition out of the belly bays, just my opinion.

It reminds me of the days the USSR kept the records of their shattering Mach speeds for the MiG-21, the 23 and especially the 25 because of legitimate reasons.  They obviously didn't want the west to know how fast these things can intercept an attack of any kind at anytime.  Turns out the records went to aircraft like the F-4 Phantom II and the F-15 Eagle etc. but I'm sure the USSR was thinking who gives a rat's ass and rightfully so.

Here, with the belly bays of the Su-57, if they're interested in exporting the aircraft which they've eluded to on many occasions, why not show the damn thing firing away ay aerial targets and get these countries revved up to want to put orders.  For what India did to "stain" the image of the Su-57 (and I don't care what some say that they don't think it matters what India said about the FGFA), because guess what, it did more damage to the bird's reputation than anything else and certainly anything positive.  So PR wise, the people running the Su-57 program unless they don't care about exporting it, are not doing it any good service to be perfectly honest with you and this is just my opinion.  No trolling or any of that shit!

People who actually make decisions for purchasing foreign fighters for their military do not give a **** what shitty Indian tabloids run by utter morons have to say about the Su-57, and will be more informed by sending their own delegations to Russia to actually gain information on performance and such.

I can also guarantee you that when Su-57's get into a solid production rate and inclusion into the RuAF, you will see plenty of interest in the plane. After all, the main rule for export is that no one buys platforms that aren't in service with the host country, though there are very few exceptions.

x_54_u43 wrote:

Gomig-21 wrote:

Mir wrote:Hehehe yes it seems that sometimes it is not to easy to get a straight answer - as one would have expected!

The short and simple answer for me would be why would they want to reveal the insides of a prototype? Early prototypes might not even have all the goodies to properly operate certain things that are not required for that particular development process. They certainly won't do it for the sake of a good snap shop for eager spotters around an airfield. You will most likely only see that kind of detail once the aircraft is in service. My 2 cents worth.

Well, so far you're the only one who offered an answer to my question which means only 2 things, either what you say is what it is or none of the other fellows know or care to share their opinion which is also perfectly fine.

However, to get back to your point, aren't they way passed the prototype stage now and in fact the assembly stage?  Assembly stage means that everything is all set and ready to go with the exception of removable items that can be replaced with upgradable ones just as engines, radars and other little stuff.

I doubt they plan of changing anything in the way they'll be firing any missile or dropping any laser or GPS guided ground munition out of the belly bays, just my opinion.

It reminds me of the days the USSR kept the records of their shattering Mach speeds for the MiG-21, the 23 and especially the 25 because of legitimate reasons.  They obviously didn't want the west to know how fast these things can intercept an attack of any kind at anytime.  Turns out the records went to aircraft like the F-4 Phantom II and the F-15 Eagle etc. but I'm sure the USSR was thinking who gives a rat's ass and rightfully so.

Here, with the belly bays of the Su-57, if they're interested in exporting the aircraft which they've eluded to on many occasions, why not show the damn thing firing away ay aerial targets and get these countries revved up to want to put orders.  For what India did to "stain" the image of the Su-57 (and I don't care what some say that they don't think it matters what India said about the FGFA), because guess what, it did more damage to the bird's reputation than anything else and certainly anything positive.  So PR wise, the people running the Su-57 program unless they don't care about exporting it, are not doing it any good service to be perfectly honest with you and this is just my opinion.  No trolling or any of that shit!

People who actually make decisions for purchasing foreign fighters for their military do not give a **** what shitty Indian tabloids run by utter morons have to say about the Su-57, and will be more informed by sending their own delegations to Russia to actually gain information on performance and such.

I can also guarantee you that when Su-57's get into a solid production rate and inclusion into the RuAF, you will see plenty of interest in the plane. After all, the main rule for export is that no one buys platforms that aren't in service with the host country, though there are very few exceptions.

I know what gomig is saying tho. I remember seeing a few Indians react to the checkmate and were seriously complaining that it didnt use a side stick. Reminds me of when I was a kid and people were arguing about what game system was best and some kid said jaguar 64 was best because "it has 64 bits!".

Same mentality with stuff like sidesticks and diverterless intakes. They are seen as critical to any new design. It's the same with the "it has thr cross section of a marble!" people.