Sukhoi Su-57 flight testing, development & operations [2012-current]

FighterJock said:
If Algeria were to go for a future purchase of the Su-57 they should wait until the Su-57M is ready for export.
Click to expand...

They may think that there is a narrow window of opportunity to get a good deal, including a long term in-depth support package, off the Russians.
 
stealthflanker said:
Hmm sorry if repost.. but. This one is rare.

an RCS testing in Voronezh.
Click to expand...

I've seen another one from Voronezh as well but I can't find it at the moment (may have been a FLANKER even). You can tell it's Voronezh due to the lack of trees (this is looking southeast) and the circular mounting pad. Russia's other major RCS range at Tver is significantly different. Pretty sure I had a satellite image of an Su-57 at Voronezh at one point.
 
The Flanker image from that range can be found in an article summarizing Sukhoi's RCS reduction efforts that was posted online years ago. I have the Su-57 photo too, but don't remember where I got it.
 
Hy1ACCR.jpg
 
AGS-1787 said:
I just found this video, seems to be a translated version of a video already posted in youtube but in Russian, I haven't seen the whole thing, but they make some bold claims, I don't think necessary ones.
Click to expand...

I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but the first "bad translation" I picked up is when they're in the back of the AN-12 he says "we're at 30,000 ft." No you're not. If you were, you would be freezing and passed out. It's safe to say that was supposed to be 3,000 ft. Also, of course they will make bold claims, all weapons manufacturers do that, it's called marketing. I'm just watching it for the cool video of the T-50/Su-57 in flight. ;)

Edit 1: LOL, OK, they compare the Su-57 to the F-35. Apparently they have amnesia regarding the F-22. Probably because the F-22 was designed so long ago and they're just getting those capabilities. I guess the F-22 is also mentally stealthy. Oh, OK, they finally got to the F-22.

Edit 2: The T-50 can fly low! lol. It then flies over at around 100 to 150 ft above the ground and the announcer states it flew 15 ft above the ground.

Edit 3: Apparently the Russian designer doesn't understand the U.S. High Low Mix of fighters. There is a lot of boasting without evidence. "Note that the airplane is the Su-57, because if you add 35 to 22 it's 57 and this airplane is better than both." Yeah, some of the comments are that silly.
 
Last edited:
" Yeah, some of the comments are that silly".

Almost a requirement these days, possibly one of those areas where politics is so contentious and therefor not wanted here.
 
To be fair, the chief designers of Su-57, its engine etc can hardly go on National TV and say, "Yeah, its a bit crappy compared to the F-22/F-35 but hey its the best we could do". Don't think that'd be a good look in Putin's Russia....
 
Sundog said:
I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but the first "bad translation" I picked up is when they're in the back of the AN-12 he says "we're at 30,000 ft." No you're not. If you were, you would be freezing and passed out. It's safe to say that was supposed to be 3,000 ft. Also, of course they will make bold claims, all weapons manufacturers do that, it's called marketing. I'm just watching it for the cool video of the T-50/Su-57 in flight. ;)
Click to expand...

In the original Russian-language video from TV Zvezda that aired in 2018, he says at around 06:20 "our height above sea level is 1000 meters" (высота над уровнем моря тысяч метров), ie just over 3000 feet. The translator inexplicably decides to invent a number an order of magnitude higher...

Edit 2: The T-50 can fly low! lol. It then flies over at around 100 to 150 ft above the ground and the announcer states it flew 15 ft above the ground.
Click to expand...

The original Russian narrator/host says at 17:42 "about 5 meters" (около пяти метров), so about 50 feet, certainly not 15. Another nonsensical "translation" that completely changes the number stated. In addition they're actually higher than 50 feet in the accompanying footage, but they could conceivably have dipped that low.

As for the rest, it's just headache inducing. The translation is below all reasonable standards, and it amazes me that this is at least semi-official. The original host/narrator is somewhat annoying as it is, and with this bad and oftentimes entirely misleading translation into English it just gets even worse.

edit: Sorry, my bad, I somehow messed up in my own calculations (meters to feet and vice versa isn't something I instinctively know, being entirely engulfed in metrics) and I mistakenly converted *15* meters to feet, not 5 as the guy originally said. So it turns out that part of the translation was at least accurate, I admit, as 5 meters is about 16½ feet.

And conversely, that it is indeed an (original) exaggeration, at least vis-a-vis the footage we're seeing. And as noted, it's just skillful piloting to keep a plane in level flight real close to a long, flat runway. It doesn't have all that much to do with the plane itself, and it is irrelevant in most "real life" situations (except perhaps sea skimming, but that's the job of ASMs, not the planes themselves, not since the Falklands).

Ahem:
hqdefault.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sundog said:
There is a lot of boasting without evidence. "Note that the airplane is the Su-57, because if you add 35 to 22 it's 57 and this airplane is better than both."
Click to expand...

Okay, you have to admit that is a little bit hilarious!

P.S. The translators being bad with numbers reminds me of someone doing the voice over for a reasonably accurate video on ships ...except for the fact that the narrator read 'kts' as kilo-knots...
 
Other sides

(HUD had been removed)
 

Attachments

  • 50329896983_2e100ac730_o.jpg
    50329896983_2e100ac730_o.jpg
    2.4 MB · Views: 189
  • 50330569551_8b8893d9b0_o.jpg
    50330569551_8b8893d9b0_o.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 164
  • 50330569656_b598acd3d9_o.jpg
    50330569656_b598acd3d9_o.jpg
    2.4 MB · Views: 162
  • 50329897048_8c73f84622_o.jpg
    50329897048_8c73f84622_o.jpg
    2.9 MB · Views: 160
  • 50329897048_8c73f84622_o_resized.jpg
    50329897048_8c73f84622_o_resized.jpg
    115.2 KB · Views: 142
  • 50330569656_b598acd3d9_o_resized.jpg
    50330569656_b598acd3d9_o_resized.jpg
    207.1 KB · Views: 150
Sundog said:
Edit 3: Apparently the Russian designer doesn't understand the U.S. High Low Mix of fighters. There is a lot of boasting without evidence. "Note that the airplane is the Su-57, because if you add 35 to 22 it's 57 and this airplane is better than both." Yeah, some of the comments are that silly.
Click to expand...

Well, Strelets just said that it the name was not meant to refer the US fighters, but as a matter of coincidence 57 = 22 + 35, and that relates to the comments he made before about it being capable both as air superiority and strike fighter due to its layout / internal weapons volume advantage. A perfectly valid claim IMHO

As to Egorov, he is a journo doing what journos do, the only thing that I find regrettable is that he has the chance of talking to Strelets or Marchukov and cannot manage to make questions that are a bit more interesting. Nevertheless, listening the top technical guys talking about the plane and its systems is very interesting as there are always some bits of information and insight that can be taken.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
To be fair, the chief designers of Su-57, its engine etc can hardly go on National TV and say, "Yeah, its a bit crappy compared to the F-22/F-35 but hey its the best we could do". Don't think that'd be a good look in Putin's Russia....
Click to expand...

That wouldn't be a good look in anyone's America either.

In fact most military themed TV segments in the US make Zvezda look downright tame.
 
galgot said:
Such a nice plane. But please, please, please ... stop with that pixelated paint job. It ruins everything.
Click to expand...
seems like the Mi-26? next to it also has the same scheme.
will this be the standard on production Su-57s?
 
So my humble opinion is that as an airplane the su-57 as an "airframe" is more advanced that the f-22. Is it more effective as a combat machine than the raptor? it is debatable. It looks like it has more wing area than the f-22, which gives it several advantages over the other stealth jets, especially the f-35. Now the question is how draggy it becomes when turning? will it have an excellent sustained turn rate? How draggy it becomes when approaching post-stall maneuvers? I always wondered why they don't display the jet taking off from a complete stop and instead choose to do a rolling takeoff, the video mentioned before gives a hint why; Sukhoi don't want to reveal the take off distances yet.

The su-57 has several aerodynamic features missing from the f-22 and f-35; Levcons, full moving tails, the leading edge slats seem to also move independently to aid roll, and tvc that aids yaw. One thing I haven't seen the su-57 do is a high-speed high g turn, which makes me think that Sukhoi still has not lifted the g-restrictions for the jet. The f-22 does not seem to have a problem doing high-speed maneuvers. This brings to the question the structural soundness of the layout Sukhoi picked for the su-57.

Stealth is a hotly debated subject, to me, it looks like they took a practical approach rather than going for perfection, they seem to be building something easy to repair instead of having to bring an expert to do coating repairs. One thing that looks apparent from seeing the prototype is that they have big composite panels and the latest production airplane seems to be very smooth and with fewer panels than for example the j-20.

They did mention in the video that the su-57 has several receiving antennas through the body to aid detection of other aircraft, so far we know it has 3 radars on the nose, that is something the raptor was supposed to get. So I think if Sukhoi doesn't cheapen the avionics and the do a good job they have the chance of making a su-27 2.0 where the su-57 becomes a more advanced version and helps create a family of airplanes like the su-30, su-34 etc.
 
QUOTE:
Stealth is a hotly debated subject, to me, it looks like they took a practical approach rather than going for perfection, they seem to be building something easy to repair instead of having to bring an expert to do coating repairs. One thing that looks apparent from seeing the prototype is that they have big composite panels and the latest production airplane seems to be very smooth and with fewer panels than for example the j-20".

Completely agree.

It is also clear that the maintenance / hour of a 5 generation aircraft is complex, expensive and suffers from low and high temperatures. I am sure chre this was one of the basic requirements for the Su-57, as per Russian tradition.

I would very much like to discuss now how much the -DB (-10, -15?) of the pre-series (looking at the surfaces, the few rivets of 50002 compared to the first evaluations made with the prototypes.

The answer I believe is in the range of the new A2A missile.
 
Last edited:
AGS-1787 said:
The su-57 has several aerodynamic features missing from the f-22 and f-35; Levcons, full moving tails, the leading edge slats seem to also move independently to aid roll, and tvc that aids yaw. One thing I haven't seen the su-57 do is a high-speed high g turn, which makes me think that Sukhoi still has not lifted the g-restrictions for the jet. The f-22 does not seem to have a problem doing high-speed maneuvers. This brings to the question the structural soundness of the layout Sukhoi picked for the su-57.
Click to expand...

Earlier publicly disclosed information emphasized supersonic maneuverability as an important measure for countering SAM batteries... so they were emphasizing the fact that it is intended to sustain multiple high velocity course changes.

I suspect the reason we haven't seen high-g supersonic turns is that they aren't very good for airshows (actual pitch rates are small, the aircraft quickly becomes hard to see etc,)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom