Russian Su-57 Aircraft Thread (PAK-FA and IAF FGFA)


Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Is there even a hard point near the side bay area? It looks very much like the missile was launched from the side bay from Deino's screen cap.

However, I am confused by how far the missile sticks out of the front of the bay. Is there a trapeze structure that juts it forward when deploying the missile?
I doubt seriously that any trapeze mechanism would attempt to also project the missile forward out of the side bay, I believe stanisslas picture does illustrate a pylon launch? since we've never seen any detail of the side bay mechanism on the Su-57? (odd isn't it) I tend to lean toward our friends observation?

Does someone have an official source leading you to believe it was a side bay launch...
 

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
I doubt seriously that any trapeze mechanism would attempt to also project the missile forward out of the side bay, I believe stanisslas picture does illustrate a pylon launch? since we've never seen any detail of the side bay mechanism on the Su-57? (odd isn't it) I tend to lean toward our friends observation?

Does someone have an official source leading you to believe it was a side bay launch...
There's an image of the underside of that particular fighter at least what appears to be the launching fighter where there's a significant burn mark and worn paint right next to the right side bay. It seems to suggest the missile gets "trapezed" laterally further to the right and due to the wing sweep angle, it appears to be nearly as far out as where the levcons are. Everything fits. I'm surprised the side bays can hold a SRAAM. Perhaps they launched the smaller dedicated Su-57 SRAAM.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
They clearly didn’t launch the new model. Check the stills @Deino pulled you can see the tail section of the missile. The compact model again from only 6 months back has Grid fins the one launched has conventional planar cruciform fins.
The question isn’t if this was the same unit. By numbers alone it likely is. Only a few of the late prototypes would have the ability to carry weapons and as yet they don’t have a second “production” unit done after the first smacked into terra forma.
So I am fine if you want to say that that scorching is the same jet. The question is did it have the missile in the bay or did as I suspect a bit of slide of hand happen. Where we saw footage of perhaps even the same jet in the clean then cut to other footage of the jet with a externally mounted weapon firing then other footage maybe of the same fighter in flight post firing with either the doors reinstated or the bay closed and pylon ejected. That’s my slide of hand conjecture.

We have seen the Russians pull RR stunts with T50 before, when they claimed to have deployed it to Syria. It just sat on the ramp therethen flew home.


Humorous aside, the title of the Video is “Beyond the laws of Physics”
Well it seems to be living up to that.
 

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
They clearly didn’t launch the new model. Check the stills @Deino pulled you can see the tail section of the missile. The compact model again from only 6 months back has Grid fins the one launched has conventional planar cruciform fins.

The question isn’t if this was the same unit. By numbers alone it likely is. Only a few of the late prototypes would have the ability to carry weapons and as yet they don’t have a second “production” unit done after the first smacked into terra forma.
So I am fine if you want to say that that scorching is the same jet. The question is did it have the missile in the bay or did as I suspect a bit of slide of hand happen. Where we saw footage of perhaps even the same jet in the clean then cut to other footage of the jet with a externally mounted weapon firing then other footage maybe of the same fighter in flight post firing with either the doors reinstated or the bay closed and pylon ejected. That’s my slide of hand conjecture.

We have seen the Russians pull RR stunts with T50 before, when they claimed to have deployed it to Syria. It just sat on the ramp therethen flew home.


Humorous aside, the title of the Video is “Beyond the laws of Physics”
Well it seems to be living up to that.
Don't think that's true. Where the scorch marks are means if what you suggest has taken place, there must've been a pylon positioned where that scorch mark is. That really doesn't seem likely just to pull a fast one on military fanboys. What would be the point of such a cheap PR stunt.

It's more likely they hid the mechanism action from view for now. The missile if a real launch, would have probably been ejected from the side bay. It just surprises me how such a petite bay has the volume for something like an R-74 unless the missile is a newly developed one. The cutting into the wing idea doesn't convince me. The wing has a lot of material taking up volume for reinforcing the structure. Having a huge void to supplement the space of the canoe shaped area doesn't seem sensible. The wing doesn't look like it's got that much volume to spare from photos. It's not like the thickness of an Airbus or Boeing wing root.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Don't think that's true. Where the scorch marks are means if what you suggest has taken place, there must've been a pylon positioned where that scorch mark is. That really doesn't seem likely just to pull a fast one on military fanboys. What would be the point of such a cheap PR stunt.
the Video would be the PR stunt the actual launch would be a valid test firing. The position fits for the known bay.
It's more likely they hid the mechanism action from view for now. The missile if a real launch, would have probably been ejected from the side bay. It just surprises me how such a petite bay has the volume for something like an R-74 unless the missile is a newly developed one. The cutting into the wing idea doesn't convince me. The wing has a lot of material taking up volume for reinforcing the structure. Having a huge void to supplement the space of the canoe shaped area doesn't seem sensible. The wing doesn't look like it's got that much volume to spare from photos. It's not like the thickness of an Airbus or Boeing wing root.
DD0A3CBD-763E-4D91-AB33-899F204049CE.png
The canoe is the known side bay because of the inlets and secondary inlets they have to place them that far out. Closer to the body doesn’t work because it would suck exhaust gasses into the intake that would flame out the engine.
the only structure behind that on the nacelles are the landing gear which being Russian demands some strong thick legs (hair optional) to land in the worst ice packed permafrost laden Siberian Air base.
The Canoe isn’t actually in the wing proper but the extension of the wing root from behind the Levon. You don’t see other structures that could fill this function.
if we look at the missile head sticking out from behind the wing the canoe is were it would have been. 05C39E43-6D2D-4BE5-9A5F-ACC06E4EB484.png
this in mind is why I say slide of hand. They may have fixed the door to remain open or better yet removed it for the test firing then mounted the missile to the hard point with a modified conventional pylon. Since this would have been more of a test to the FCS and ability to talk to the missile rather than full up test of the missile they wouldn’t have needed the full system up and running.
Remember that the compact SRAAM was only revealed in November. It’s more likely to be test fired off a Flanker or Fulcrum than Su57. With only maybe 8 months of testing it’s not ready for prime time live demonstrations off another prototype yet.
 

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
However, I am confused by how far the missile sticks out of the front of the bay. Is there a trapeze structure that juts it forward when deploying the missile?
As the patent shows, yes:

547zeshdtj.png

I doubt seriously that any trapeze mechanism would attempt to also project the missile forward out of the side bay, I believe stanisslas picture does illustrate a pylon launch? since we've never seen any detail of the side bay mechanism on the Su-57? (odd isn't it) I tend to lean toward our friends observation?
Well, you can doubt all you want, but it really does precisely that!

there are smokes stains around right pylon...
Note how the pylon appears to have shielded the wing outboard of itself, however - why would the exhaust not leave residue on either side of the pylon axis? As the bay door faces outward on the canoe, that the smoke stains from an internal missile launch are primarily outboard is not a surprise. Particularly since (based on the patent) the firing position has the missile nozzle pointed inwards, so there is probably a deflector on the launch rail to direct the plume outwards, like on the F-22.

It just surprises me how such a petite bay has the volume for something like an R-74 unless the missile is a newly developed one. The cutting into the wing idea doesn't convince me.
The patent drawing says that's exactly the way it is, and the area on the LERX above the canoes is marked with "No Step" on the actual aircraft, like the main wheel wells on the Flanker.

Remember that the compact SRAAM was only revealed in November. It’s more likely to be test fired off a Flanker or Fulcrum than Su57. With only maybe 8 months of testing it’s not ready for prime time live demonstrations off another prototype yet.
There are good reasons to believe the compact SRAAM is actually no such thing. There are old photos of the R-77 production line which show missiles temporarily assembled with the rocket motor section missing, presumably for easier handling (only one piece to move around the factory).

8PSF5Aa.jpg

As your picture shows, the canoes are considerably longer than the R-74 (which is less than 3m), at least as long as the main bays which have an interior length of 4.2m. Within that envelope it should be quite feasible to provide a roughly constant cross section over sufficient length for a missile with a fin span 20% shorter than the AIM-9M.
 
Last edited:

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
CG modeling by Chinese military enthusiast approximating where the missile was stored.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Accurate. Visually shows what I tried to type in words. The scorch marks basically verify this. Assuming there is no attempt to lie and to be honest there's no point to lie here.

I still don't get what sleight of hand is being referred. It seems pretty clear what the launch shows. They just don't want to show the mechanism in action. They've already shown the Kh being dropped from main bays.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
As the patent shows, yes:

View attachment 58728



Well, you can doubt all you want, but it really does precisely that!



Note how the pylon appears to have shielded the wing outboard of itself, however - why would the exhaust not leave residue on either side of the pylon axis? As the bay door faces outward on the canoe, that the smoke stains from an internal missile launch are primarily outboard is not a surprise. Particularly since (based on the patent) the firing position has the missile nozzle pointed inwards, so there is probably a deflector on the launch rail to direct the plume outwards, like on the F-22.



The patent drawing says that's exactly the way it is, and the area on the LERX above the canoes is marked with "No Step" on the actual aircraft, like the main wheel wells on the Flanker.



There are good reasons to believe the compact SRAAM is actually no such thing. There are old photos of the R-77 production line which show missiles temporarily assembled with the rocket motor section missing, presumably for easier handling (only one piece to move around the factory).

View attachment 58729

As your picture shows, the canoes are considerably longer than the R-74 (which is less than 3m), at least as long as the main bays which have an interior length of 4.2m. Within that envelope it should be quite feasible to provide a roughly constant cross section over sufficient length for a missile with a fin span 20% shorter than the AIM-9M.
And thank you very much for your instruction my friend, this has been instructive on many different levels, so you are positing that the "canoe" serves as a lower wing skin, with an actual "bay" under each wing? I'm supposing that would be below the main spar and between the ribs?

As well the "canoes" are on the outboard leading edge of the "booms" supporting each, of the all flying vertical stabs, and no doubt have some relatively heavy supporting structure, so they do indeed appear to have enough depth to allow a hollowed out bay above each canoe?

One final question as I now clearly see the "trapeze", and thank you, how is the trapeze/missile thrust into the slipstream/retracted? electrical, electro hydraulic?, it will be instructional when we do finally see the workings of this mechanism...
 

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
Why did they not design an S-duct into this fighter. Does it mean the fan blocker is definitely effective? Western commentary on this S-duct issue seems to suggest that Russian engines are not able to deal with the "turbulence" from S-ducts or they just simply can't do it. This is obviously hard to believe given how many other fighters in Soviet and Russian arsenal had S-ducts, not to mention the J-10 and J-20 both fly with S-ducts while using AL-31s.

Seems like a real oversight but there's gotta be more to it. Radar blockers? Offset fan surfaces? If it's possible to design stealthy bomber and fighter airfoils, it's possible to design stealthy fan surfaces. Personally I think given the slightly offset angle of the engines and the position they occupy from almost all frontal angles, the blades are designed to bounce energy off some internal sections which either absorbs and/or reflects the energy further away from source.
 

Top