Sounds like a you problem, no one has questioned it but you.
didnt questioned but simply gave a better view of image who dont lead into false understanding. idc if you post anything except that if you post false leading thing, expect to be corrected you like it or not. its just how the military forum is, one have better source then the other. not forgeting that with all you knowladge of russia weapons, you still got it wrong and didnt even try to understand.
i expected better from someone with a russian plane nametag
1 Like
how did you get 7200kg ?
510x12= 6120kg
plus thats not possible as only 8 pylon of the su35 can carry weapons with 500kg or more wieght.
( 4 / 12 / 10 / 1 / 2 / 9 / 11 / 3 )
My idiotic *ss thought it was about the su-57, my bad
1 Like
Thats exactly the point. If someone develops a missile alongside a fighter jet, and that missile doesn’t even fit inside the fighter, you really start to wonder what was going on in those guys heads.
Small problem: izdeliye 170 isn’t an AIM-152 equivalent, its closer to an AIM-120C analogue…
Nah, you either rage baiting or nitpicking due to personal aversion. R-77- was never developed for internal carry on Su-57, it was developed as a ARH missile for Russias current fleet of aircrafts. Su-57 was gonna come with completely new set of pretty much every type of weapons, be it A2A or A2G (Kh-58UShK as a most recent example). But until it comes into service (which might take decades, because Russia can’t just supercharge their economy with fake money like US) Russia needs its own domestic missile of current generation that isn’t produced in a country that goes more radical anti-Russia with each passing year. So they literally took already existing missile, swapped components for the ones produced domestically, slightly upgraded it where they could and accepted in service as R-77-1. Su-57 doesn’t really show up in this story outside of being able to use them from external pylons.
1 Like
But completely by coincidence, this missile ended up with folding grid fins.
So instead of developing one missile for everything, they ended up making two different missiles.
1 Like
They are made for storage. Initial design for R-77 way back might had the idea of fins unfolding after launch, but it was never followed trough.
One missile for everything gonna be R-77M. If this makes more sense to you, think about 77-1 as a stopgap solution, because it was needed right now (using SARH missile as your main BVR weapon was outdated more than a decade ago at that point). R-77M right now is being used on Su-35S, and will most likely come to Su-30 fleet once produced in sufficient quantity.
The whole point was for this missile, with folded fins, to fit inside the internal bays of a next-generation fighter. Making folding fins just for easier storage would be completely absurd.
Yeah, sure. First they spent 10 years developing a “stopgap solution,” then another 10 years developing a replacement for that very same “stopgap solution.” Totally normal practice… At least until you remember that, while this “stopgap solution” was being developed, they were already testing the Su-47 with an internal weapons bay as part of the T-50 program back in the mid-2000s.
1 Like
And you most certainly have a proof of that, right? Maybe even documentation for R-77 that says so, right?
And the engines for the Izdelie 180 (aka R-77M) tests were delivered in 2006, same mid 2000s. R-77-1 was already ready at that time, but was waiting 4 years for Su-35S which was a main platform for this missile to be available for final tests.
where did you get that from? Order for R-77-1 development came in 2003, in december 2005 first prototypes were ready for tests. In 2006 trials were opened, but as i said above, 4 years passed until Su-35S was available to conduct the tests. In 2010 right after the tests that ended in success mass production of the missile started.
1 Like
As far as I remember, this R-77 feature was constantly mentioned in military-adjacent media throughout the 90s and 2000s. Sure, you can assume russian engineers were so stupid that they never realized fins can simply be removed for storage, so instead they decided to build complicated folding mechanisms with locking joints…
Wait, so in 2003 they ordered a missile that was supposedly “needed right now,” then, before even finishing it, they immediately started developing the next one? (Why couldn’t the new izdeliye-180 motors just be fitted into the izdeliye 170-1?) And this “stopgap solution” was apparently so urgently needed that they still waited 4 years for the Su-35S. Why? What for? Do they need a brand new aircraft every time they introduce a new missile? They already had older aircraft available. Why make two missiles instead of one? What the f am I even reading?
no you cant remove the fins if you intend to fire the missiles from a weapons bay
And yet not a single time it was featured to use said “folding fins”. Even Su-47 weapon bay tests never had a missile inside, why would they not just put them there if its so easy?
if you can actually prove that this mechanism is more complicated than removing and reattaching fins - i believe you.
Maybe, just maybe, because R-77-1 can’t be placed inside the weapon bays of PAK FA? That’s why they decided to make a different missile with conventional fins instead without pushing modernisation of R-77-1?
Because development never goes smoothly. Such a hard concept to understand, i know.
3 Likes
No, there is a difference between fins that folk for storage and fins that fold before launch. The R-77-1 does not fly in a folded position before launch. The R-77-1 isn’t used because the Su-57 had several missiles and weapons designed specifically for it.
Okay.
The T-50 program started before 2003, so why did they develop a missile that wouldn’t even fit inside it? Was this some kind of sabotage?
But you yourself said the development went smoothly and they already had the missile by 2006. So why wait another 4 years? They already had Su-30s, Su-27SMs, hell, even older Su-27s and MiG-29s. The missile was supposedly urgently needed, right?
I genuinely can’t tell if you’re trolling me at this point.
1 Like
So what is this, then? A consequence of corruption in defense procurement or what?
1 Like
What is wrong with designing missiles specifically for one plane? The US has done this several times.
Extra spending on two separate programs and additional logistics problems, for example? Why make different missiles for different aircraft? Especially considering that we’re not even really talking about completely different missiles here, but rather different variants of the same missile.
what’s AMRAAM has to do with R-77?
because T-50 was nowhere close to being in service, while Su-35S that would be in service much quicker doesn’t even have a missile to begin with.
For the missile, not for Su-35S or T-50, are you even trying to read or you are just here to bait?
The fact that R-77-1 might be phased out eventually by R-77M never hit this mans brain
2 Likes