Sukhoi Su-57 / T-50 / PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II [2012-current]

The su-27 had 250, 150 Seems kinda limited unless the gunsight is much better and it is easy to track a target. Apparently, the su-27 gun packs a big punch and it is pretty accurate.
 
Many recent modern fighters have ammunition capacities around that mark.
The Gripen carries 120 rounds for its 27mm, the Eurofighter carries 150, F35 carries 180 for it's 25mm gun, Rafael carries 125 for it's 30mm.
About the only one differing is the F-22 with 460 rounds for its M61 20mm, but I doubt that would be repeated if the F-22 was designed these days. It would mimic the F35 I suspect.

The trend has been inexorably toward a single cannon with fewer rounds across the board for a few decades already.
 
The bay is square, but the skin of the plane is shaped to accommodate the serrated edges, no problem.

As to the picture of the engine inlet, where is this coming from? As far as I know, no such view of the izd. 30 has been shown yet, only the AL-41F1...
 
@Willythekid : The most probable explanation is that the plane has yet to be coated with ram material. The coating would include the corresponding serrations
 
Looks like a really practical way to make the serrated edges openings, no need for fancy openings, just have layers of the ram create the indentation for the door. Now the question is how durable is that ram? There are some photos of prototypes with some holes in the ram material, I don't know if anybody else noticed. Question... is Paralay down? It was my go-to site to see what the Russian enthusiast had to say about several topics.
 
AGS-1787 said:
The su-27 had 250, 150 Seems kinda limited unless the gunsight is much better and it is easy to track a target. Apparently, the su-27 gun packs a big punch and it is pretty accurate.
Click to expand...

There was a quote going around from a lead engineer saying something along the lines that if they'd known the laser rangefinder on the Su-27 had that much accuracy they'd have given it half the ammunition. Which suggests a lot of confidence in a hit on the first or second shot. I believe the cut-off to limit barrel damage on the Su-27 is 25 rounds per burst, so that is 6 bursts... and he was basically saying that two or four bursts should be enough.
 
Don't know where to post this:
english.pravda.ru

Sukhoi and MiG design bureaus to be abolished and merged into one

The forthcoming changes are to strengthen the economic stability of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), which includes MiG and Sukhoi
english.pravda.ru

The decision to merge Sukhoi, MiG and UAC into one single legal entity - the Corporate Aircraft Building Center - was made at the meeting held on March 16.Tupolev, Ilyushin and Irkut companies will be subordinated to the new center. The UAC staff will be cut by several thousands of PEOPLE. Personnel optimization will affect only the administrative and managerial personnel of the UAC, Rostec representatives said
Click to expand...
If you ever had a problem differentiating Sukhoi and MiG aircraft, rejoice. For the others that would have to fight those pesky airframe, C[R]ABC might well be suited after all...
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
Sad to see Sukhoi and MiG disappear into the Corporate Aircraft Building Centre, Mikoyan and Sukhoi must be spinning in their graves at this. :(
Click to expand...

umm exactly how?

MIG has been in an downward slope ever since the fall of SU.
They have no means to negate this, their market share has gone way down. The deal with Egypt was the best they could have hoped for and deals like that are basicly decade in between.
What has the idea of competiness and free market done for MIG all this time?

For Sukhoi, well they are currently standing on both feet, rather firmly.
That Rostec will merge the two is a completly logical way foreward in my mind.
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
Sad to see Sukhoi and MiG disappear into the Corporate Aircraft Building Centre, Mikoyan and Sukhoi must be spinning in their graves at this. :(
Click to expand...
They don't "dissapear". That decision goes for juridical names that are useless for a long time since both companies are subordinates of UAC. Bureaus themselves wont cease to exist.
 
I think Fighterjock is just lamenting the global trend of aircraft companies being absorbed into each other and nostalgic names disappearing.

US: no more McDonell Douglas, General Dynamics aviation, Vaught, North American, etc. its just pretty much LockMart, Boeing and Northrop Grumman

Europe: no more MBB, CASA, Sud-Aviation, etc.. a lot of it is now a part of Airbus or others

Russia was one of the last places we could see old names from the Soviet era, but finally they too are consolidating companies into larger ones to survive.
 
helmutkohl said:
I think Fighterjock is just lamenting the global trend of aircraft companies being absorbed into each other and nostalgic names disappearing.

US: no more McDonell Douglas, General Dynamics aviation, Vaught, North American, etc. its just pretty much LockMart, Boeing and Northrop Grumman

Europe: no more MBB, CASA, Sud-Aviation, etc.. a lot of it is now a part of Airbus or others

Russia was one of the last places we could see old names from the Soviet era, but finally they too are consolidating companies into larger ones to survive.
Click to expand...

I was helmutkohl. It makes me angry at what is going on with the aerospace industry worldwide nowadays. :mad:
 
Crap, I hope they still call the designs from Sukhoi a Sukhoi for marketing purposes. It is like merging fiat and Ferrari and getting rid of the Ferrari name. In my opinion, Mig missed the bus with the mig-29, They should have implemented upgrades before they did, and delivered good customer service.
 
AGS-1787 said:
Crap, I hope they still call the designs from Sukhoi a Sukhoi for marketing purposes. It is like merging fiat and Ferrari and getting rid of the Ferrari name. In my opinion, Mig missed the bus with the mig-29, They should have implemented upgrades before they did, and delivered good customer service.
Click to expand...

Same here AGS-1787, for the sake of commonality and historical reasons.
 
Don't think they would change any end product designation because of the merge tho.
 
As I understand it jsut the top level stuff being combine.

The Mig engineers and the SU engineers will still be separated with their brands still being a thing.

Think more of the US car company GM, Chevy/GMC/Bruick/Cadillac, then Boeing eating McDonald. All are the same company but with different branding factory and designer sub-units doing their own thing.
 
kaiserbill said:
Many recent modern fighters have ammunition capacities around that mark.
The Gripen carries 120 rounds for its 27mm, the Eurofighter carries 150, F35 carries 180 for it's 25mm gun, Rafael carries 125 for it's 30mm.
About the only one differing is the F-22 with 460 rounds for its M61 20mm, but I doubt that would be repeated if the F-22 was designed these days. It would mimic the F35 I suspect.

The trend has been inexorably toward a single cannon with fewer rounds across the board for a few decades already.
Click to expand...

The high ammo counts seem to be a US thing and is likely related to the standardization with the M61 Vulcan and its lighter 20mm rounds.
F-15C 20mm 940 rds
F-16 20mm 540 rds
F-18C 20mm 578 rds
F-4E 20mm 640 rds
F-105G 20mm 725 rds

Contemporaries:-
MiG-17 23mm 160 rds
MiG-21 23mm 200 rds
MiG-29 30mm 150 rds
MiG-35 30mm 100 rds
Draken 30mm 100 rds
Jaguar 30mm 300 rds
Mirage 30mm 250 rds
 
And info, when no. 02 for the RuAF will be handed over?
 
kaiserbill said:
Many recent modern fighters have ammunition capacities around that mark.
The Gripen carries 120 rounds for its 27mm, the Eurofighter carries 150, F35 carries 180 for it's 25mm gun, Rafael carries 125 for it's 30mm.
About the only one differing is the F-22 with 460 rounds for its M61 20mm, but I doubt that would be repeated if the F-22 was designed these days. It would mimic the F35 I suspect.

The trend has been inexorably toward a single cannon with fewer rounds across the board for a few decades already.
Click to expand...

Yep. Every single Dassault combat aircraft since, what, the Ouragan - had multiple guns; DEFA 550 series on the Mirages, invariably below the air intakes, so two of them.
The Rafale has thrown the towel and only has one gun, not two. And much less ammunition.
Note that even in Africa it has become risky to gun terrorist convoys at least for fast jets. That job is probably going to Tigre helicopters although in a much different context. In the days of unprotected Gazelles, things were.. different.
 
Are they testing the aerosol dispensers that are embedded within the turkeyfeathers in that video??
 
Firefinder said:
As I understand it jsut the top level stuff being combine.

The Mig engineers and the SU engineers will still be separated with their brands still being a thing.

Think more of the US car company GM, Chevy/GMC/Bruick/Cadillac, then Boeing eating McDonald. All are the same company but with different branding factory and designer sub-units doing their own thing.
Click to expand...
McDonnell

Sorry, I had to. :p
 
Willythekid said:
I never knew what we see in this video!

i0LhnY7.gif


:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Is that the Su-57 radar blocker or something completely different altogether? :confused:
 
When there is alpha (angle of attack), the sharp lower inlet lips create a recirculation vortex that induced a dead zone of air below the direct inlet airstream. In that zone, the pressure coefficient is inferior to that resulting from the air impacting the outside wall. The resulting pressure difference open the vane in that area and the outside air is sucked through the opening to augment the reduced airflow resulting from the angle of attack.

You use sharp leading edge lip to get a proper separation of the two modes (angle of attack dependent).
 
The PAK FA fuel system (II)
Images: © TV Zvezda
 

Attachments

  • 6dKIHeE.jpg
    6dKIHeE.jpg
    80.8 KB · Views: 37
  • TcXaOmA.jpg
    TcXaOmA.jpg
    89.1 KB · Views: 32
  • dbwiDNy.jpg
    dbwiDNy.jpg
    104.1 KB · Views: 32
  • GWsRuu1.jpg
    GWsRuu1.jpg
    108.7 KB · Views: 31
  • QO4BbPN.jpg
    QO4BbPN.jpg
    99.9 KB · Views: 34
  • Ypx3QpQ.jpg
    Ypx3QpQ.jpg
    90.4 KB · Views: 43
  • sJkb90n.jpg
    sJkb90n.jpg
    156 KB · Views: 49
  • PI7sPzw.jpg
    PI7sPzw.jpg
    137.6 KB · Views: 53
I thought the plane used an inert gas system for fuel storage, and a didn't have foam in its tanks like the older planes.
 
Is that a ram air turbine? I don't know if the camera is picking up a bad angle but the glass seems to give out some optical distortions, I wish I could see from the pilot's point of view to see if it is just the angle of the camera. Something that puzzles me is how good is the visibility to the rear hemisphere in the su-57, I kinda feel Sukhoi took a step backwards on the rear hemisphere in comparison the su-27; is it solely because they want to shield the pilot seat from radar waves?
 
Dude.. this is not something new, i would go on a limb and say everyone here saw this Combat Approved shortly after production.

I don't wanna sound like an Ahole, but that anchor in Combat Approved has a highly annoying aurora about him. He seems clueless..
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom