Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 103

Thread: Su-57 (PAK FA) News, Discussion and Pics

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northern Scandinavia
    Posts
    450
    Yes, the IFR doors were changed as well.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Snufflebug
    Yes, the IFR doors were changed as well.
    Do you mean to say that the in-flight refueling probe doors were changed again within the 2nd stage? Because that was what I was referring to with the comment about rear landing gear doors, which were changed subtly first with the early 2nd stage frames T-50-6-2 and T-50-8 and then changed again starting from T-50-9 (in fact technically T-50-1 got updated with the same change for its landing gear doors before 50-9 flew, although the 50-1 doors retain the original 1st stage shape beside that specific sawtooth). I don't see any additional changes to the refueling probe doors apart from the obvious big revision with second stage starting from T-50-6-2.

    And if you meant that just as a general comment about 2nd stage door changes, then it would be odd not to include the weapons bay doors.
    To be exact to my understanding the rear landing gear, weapons bay and refueling probe doors changed. Frontal landing gear doors and the side weapon bay doors didn't change as far as I can see.

    Landing gear doors:

    Weapons bay doors:

    Refueling probe doors:

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellum
    Those pictures are showing the repainted first stage prototypes T-50-4 and T-50-5R, which have neither RAM nor canopy treatment. Second stage prototypes have partial RAM treatment as can clearly be seen on certain photos and metallization on the rear part of canopy. Only the latest prototype to fly, T-50-10, has visible treatment on the whole canopy. Although the first stage prototypes have doors shaped with RCS reduction clearly in mind, almost all those were revised on the second stage and the sawtoothing is now a bit different. And even within the second stage they again changed at least the rear landing gear doors for more sawtoothing from T-50-9 on.
    Thanks

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northern Scandinavia
    Posts
    450
    Today.


  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,702
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,134
    Is it just me or TR1 posted nothing! I can't see anything.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,860
    It's just you (or your firewall)
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    698
    Need to see Su-57 with 2 Izd-30 :3

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,290
    I thought we'd have more pics from Victory day

  10. #70
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    224
    Any pics with open weapons bay..?

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,290
    ^Are you alleging that there is no internal weapons bay ?

  12. #72
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    224
    I'm just asking for some bloody pics of a Pak-Fa with its weapons bay open, bruh, how in the world did you jump into "alleging" nonsense?

  13. #73
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    183
    There has to be some reason for the secrecy around the weapons bays.

    Either the bays have features they don’t want western analysts seeing, such as the bays being deeper than previously indicated or there’s a technical issue they are still working through.

    Technical issues could be somrhing like the components that open the doors are not big or strong enough to open the doors at high speed/high AoA or something. Remember how the tunnel provides 30% of the aircraft’s lift (on the flanker at least, but this is the same layout), perhaps pressure in the tunnel is extremely high while turning, causing issues with weapons separation, or maybe just damaging to the doors themselves when open.

    Analysts may see something like that from the photos which may inform the tactics to use against the pak fa.

    Maybe they’re banking on materials development to solve the issue which is why external weapons carriage seems to have been focused on first.

    One piece of info already known about the aircraft is that if you want to detect Su-57s earlier, then structure your radars so any Su-57 flights are illuminated on their right hand side. A lot more corner reflectors and unstealthy Components on that side (side f the irst, gun cover).
    Last edited by OooShiny; 13th May 2018 at 23:57.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,873
    We have lost two former Pak-Fa threads (Su-57) on this forum, we have lost one very good poster on Russian equipment due to the loss of those threads.

    Why? Incessant trolling, and the incipient moron brigade responding, bickering. Can we follow some common rules of decency? Everyone will know when pictures of the Su-57 with fully open weapons bays emerge. Or maybe we won’t because there will be no intelligent Russian posters left on here to post them due to the above. That will be a shame.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,324
    Fbw@
    Is there any good reason the missiles going into Su-57 W-bays cannot be seperation based on spring pressure or even with high pressure gass seperation. It would make any missile clear the W-bays in a hurry when launched.
    Thanks

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,873
    The F-22 and F-35 use pneumatic launchers pushing the weapons down (40 g’s I believe). Missiles probably wouldn’t be an issue, but bombs or large AtG ordinance? I would imagine wind tunnel testing would have found any major issues with airflow around the weapons bays early on. Even with advanced computer simulations, as done with the F-35, weapons bay atmospheric conditions and vibration issues were found. You would expect to see baffles on one of the test aircraft if they expected separation issues due to flow with bays open.

    The simple fact is that since information spigot on the program has turned from a steady flow to a trickle. We don’t even know what weapons are to be initially integrated in full, what has been tested, what is slated to be integrated (other than some infographics without dates). I do find it odd that in all the separate components displayed from the Pak-Fa program, a mock-up of any launcher was never shown. It may simply be that the “roadmap” for testing priorities doesn’t cater to what we expect to see, and may be longer than official statements suggest.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    27
    @FBW: was it ever explained why those threads were deleted? Not that I found very enlightening certain discussions but forums tend to have many of those, never found them to be too over the top here actually (maybe I am not too exigent)

    Regarding the launchers: I remember reading the names of the launchers being developed somewhere, don't recall seeing any pictures.

    Regarding the weapons: apart from AAMs, pretty much everything supposedly being developed for the PAK-FA is like 4.2 m long and max. 40 cm in diameter. Since space inside the bays is extremely restrictive, I am reasonably sure that anything close to those sizes is intended to be compatible with the aircraft. Not 100% conclusive but a good orientation IMHO. I also have the feeling that the development roadmap of the weapons will go many many years in the future, maybe not much has been done yet. Plane is intended for the next 40 years at least, they are (unlike us enthusiasts) not in a hurry AT ALL

    @OooShiny: I would simply theorize that from pictures of the bays tactically relevant information like number of carried AAMs could be established. Also type of pylons and therefore launching envelope limitations etc. This is not something you want everybody everywhere knowing. Not to talk about innovative aspects or testing related to developments of i.e. future, more compact weapons, which I think should be fairly intense at some point of time on the PAK-FA. There may be issues with the development but also simply reasonable info disclosure restrictions. Russians are you know, kind of secretive with secret information
    Last edited by LMFS; 14th May 2018 at 03:22.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,259
    Regarding the launchers: I remember reading the names of the launchers being developed somewhere, don't recall seeing any pictures.
    УВКУ-50Л and УВКУ-50У

    http://paralay.world/pakfa/pakfa.html


  19. #79
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    We have lost two former Pak-Fa threads (Su-57) on this forum, we have lost one very good poster on Russian equipment due to the loss of those threads.

    Why? Incessant trolling, and the incipient moron brigade responding, bickering. Can we follow some common rules of decency? Everyone will know when pictures of the Su-57 with fully open weapons bays emerge. Or maybe we won’t because there will be no intelligent Russian posters left on here to post them due to the above. That will be a shame.
    How is stating fact trolling? The right hand side of the aircraft has components (large ones) which clearly are not present on the left. I did not say that these make it stand out like dogs b...ls, merely that if you want to exploit every weakness as an IADS operator, you’d alter your doctrine to try and catch Su-57s from their right side (of course from the front at long range would be the preference).

    It would take someone who’s gone full r...d to state that the right aspect has a better RCS than the left.... simple.

    Sorry I missed a memo, is “RCS” now banned by the self proclaimed thought moderators on this thread?

    The F-35A has the same thing, the gun bump, although the angle of its surfaces match the platform design (unlike the examples I gave).

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    27
    @Paralay: fantastic, it cannot not get much more detailed than that...
    @FBW: more pictures of launchers and description incl. weapons carried at the site posted by Paralay

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,324
    Isnt the gun on Su-57 more positioned inside the airframe. And the F-35A gun more on the outside?
    If your best argument is that the 30mm gun makes the PakFa a weakness..

    Really!? These are "fact" from an internet.. poster, which has zippo credibility.

    ZoomyGod! Deathspiral;

    http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic....394360#p394360

    Alltough you seem to belong above, you can continue to mess around here. Idc.
    In the meantime i will stick around and remind you and others of your "facts" as they surface.

    And why would seperation of missiles be so difficult from Su-57 main W-bays, when Flankers can launch R-77's from their two senter hardpoints

    And looking at the w-Bay Doors of F-35 and Su-57.
    LM somehow magical design for the F-35 to mount a AIM-120 on its big wbay Doors.. and Sukhoi cannot get around their Design.. really!?
    As in the whole history of Sukhoi's Aerodynamic inovation is whishfully subpar with any other aviation design brand!
    Ah the bittersweet feeling of debating ignorant people..
    Last edited by haavarla; 14th May 2018 at 12:53.
    Thanks

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,873
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    And why would seperation of missiles be so difficult from Su-57 main W-bays, when Flankers can launch R-77's from their two senter hardpoints

    And looking at the w-Bay Doors of F-35 and Su-57.
    LM somehow magical design for the F-35 to mount a AIM-120 on its big wbay Doors.. and Sukhoi cannot get around their Design.. really!?..
    Wow, you go off on blissfully ignorant and post the above? Come on, does anyone really need to explain to you the difference between mounting a weapon on the engine tunnel and a weapons bay? You realize when you open up a hole to the airstream that might create eddies and vibration problems right?
    Ever open a window in you car and get that strange harmonic vibration?

    Sorry but if your going to castigate another person on stupidity, do some thinking as well. Weapon bay design doesn’t require “magic” but they do require good CFD programs, wind tunnel time, drop pit testing, then separation test for every weapon. It’s not “just drop weapon out of hole”.

    By no means am I suggesting that Sukhoi had any issues with the bay. I am saying we don’t know what has been cleared in testing. We don’t know if they encountered any adverse thermal/vibration issues like in the F-35. We haven’t seen any baffles around the bays on any prototypes; which would suggest there either aren’t any airflow issues, or weapons testing on internal bay isn’t far along.

    Truth is, we don’t really have much hard information on those bays at all (except, as solarwarden likes to point out every month, “we” the public have not seen inside them).

    And Paralay, the patents are nice, but you don’t know if those were the launchers chosen, if they were modified, if there are different types for missiles and bombs. Again, they have not been shown in public.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,324
    Not you FBW... the other guy.
    I was responding to the other guy "facts".
    Last edited by haavarla; 14th May 2018 at 13:01.
    Thanks

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,873
    Not you FBW... the other guy.
    I was responding to the other guy "facts".
    I know, I understood who you were addressing the post to. I don't understand why your arguing with him in suppositions rather than facts. In reality, ejecting weapons from an internal bay isn't as straightforward as from fuselage pylon/adapters. The US has had missile bays on fighters since the 1950's and still ran into design/bay environment issues with the F-22/35. It isn't a matter of Sukhoi being incompetent from a design perspective (obviously they aren't), but even with the advanced state of CFD modeling, problems can arise in testing.

    No one can state exactly how far the Su-57 has progressed in testing of the weapons bay other than some vague comments made two years ago about the prototypes progressing to weapons tests (launching from external and internal bays). One would think the Victory day parade would be a perfect time to unveil the Su-57's weapon bays with missiles in them. Alas, it didn't happen. So we wait, and it is perfectly normal to hypothesize that they've encountered some issues (without trolling), or that all is fine.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,324
    Those APU50 launcher has been described as a patent for several year now.
    Problem is, we don't know if they go in the SHAAM Bay or main Bay. My take is SHAAM bays if any.
    Point is seperation test has mostly been done at Tzagi wind tunnel complex where they have a great deal of knowledge of Aerodynamic research. And as seen in one of those Sukhoi promo vids, their computer simulation was spot on as far as external weapon seperation goes.

    The slogan "seeing is believing" has been beaten to death so many times when it comes to PakFa. The early T-50 prototypes were developed ahead of its intended engines (as was T10M which first flew with AL-21F!)
    Still people kept driveling about it not being up to the challange.. it went on and oon and ooon..
    Later on we subtly saw some flight test of new nozzle and engines.. and that debate all of a sudden went quietly away, does this sound familiar?

    The theme now seems to be W-bays.. like Sukhoi take their sweet time and resources to go ahead with this Massive program and not have plans for every details..
    Just because this PakFa program is less transparent, it does not mean the program is in trouble or a failure.

    When i said some people are ignorant about certain history in Aviation.. i stand by this.
    If you felt struck by this, so be it.
    Last edited by haavarla; 14th May 2018 at 16:04.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,873
    And vice-versa, the fact that the program has become increasingly opaque does not mean there hasn’t been issues. We know of some early structural problems. Odds are, they have had issues. Why? Name a modern clean sheet fighter design that hasn’t had development problems (especially software development).

    I was one of the first to point out the significance of the nozzles (albeit they turned out to be different than the ones flight tested) when displayed. Not patting myself on the back, but there is a difference between critical analysis, trolling, and blind faith. The first one being the whole point of discussion on a forum like this.


    P.S.- Berkut get yourself a new email address and get back here. Not like anyone monitoring would pick up in it.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,259
    Those APU50 launcher has been described as a patent for several year now.
    Problem is, we don't know if they go in the SHAAM Bay or main Bay. My take is SHAAM bays if any.
    Large weapons bay

    UVKU-50L, width 340 mm, height 195 mm, weight 80 kg.
    Suspension of the following products is possible, 180, 180PD, 270, 181C and K047

    UVKU-50U, height 200 mm, weight 117 kg, left and right UVKU, respectively, are interchangeable in places of installation and fastening, as well as docking of electro-erasers with the object. Light weight - ed.180, 180PD, 270, 181C and K047., Heavy cargo - ed 65, D7USHK and 810.

    For the K047 product, there are two possible reset options, with the pulse being applied and without the pulse being applied.

    180 - medium-range missile, R-77 without grilles
    180PD - missile with direct-flow engine of increased range
    270 - long-range missile
    181C -?
    810 - 400 km range, anti-AWACS and anti-satellite

    izd.65 - X-38 or X-59MK2
    Д7УШК - Х-58УШКЭ
    K047 - KAB-250S
    Last edited by paralay; 14th May 2018 at 16:20.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,702
    Yawn, thread has turned into drivel again, because insecure fanboys can't help but to share their "analysis".

    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    288
    I really don't mind the analysis.. the attitudes however:



    How hard can it be to respectfully reply to an opinion or analysis you do not agree with? How hard can it be to proofread your post and/or edit it a bit to remove the emotional bravo-sierra?

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,702
    Nice:

    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 9 users browsing this thread. (2 members and 7 guests)

  1. Bellum,
  2. Blitzo

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES