By: secondparttohel
- 23rd February 2010 at 21:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi,
I just read something from paralay's forum and a statement is made by Pavel from Paralay that PAK-FA will carry 8 in the 2 weapon bays and 6 short range AAMs somewhere else. Is Pavel the person with inside information :eek:
If it's the case, they should either found out some ways to scramble 4 in each missile bay or create new type of missile with similar characteristics and smaller size :)
By: Sens
- 23rd February 2010 at 21:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the drawing is accurate, which I can't doubt it is, I would presume that the PAK-FA, like its predecessor is really a flying fuel tank. WTF? The Su-27/30 has fuel tanks even inside the vertical tails...
On the other hand, we have no clue on its new engines' consumption rate. Any speculations?
With a bypath-ratio <0,5 it is ~0.80 kg/(daN·h) in dry and ~1,8 kg (daN·h) in wet.
By: HAWX ace
- 23rd February 2010 at 22:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi,
I just read something from paralay's forum and a statement is made by Pavel from Paralay that PAK-FA will carry 8 in the 2 weapon bays and 6 short range AAMs somewhere else. Is Pavel the person with inside information :eek:
If it is true, then we are not talking about a fighter but rather about a flying artillery piece.
However, we have all seen pictures of the PAK-FA, the places to hide AAMs are too specific and that's just between the engines, no other bays appearently. So he probably refers to external carriage which, let's face it, isn't exactly news.
As for 8 internally, I guess it remains to be seen. I think it would be difficult to stash 4 whatever current russian missiles in those bays.
If it's the case, they should either found out some ways to scramble 4 in each missile bay or create new type of missile with similar characteristics and smaller size :)
Yes, that is a good probability IMO.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 23rd February 2010 at 22:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I cannot see where would they fit six short range missiles elsewhere than in the weapon bays. :confused:
By: sferrin
- 23rd February 2010 at 23:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Any news on a folding fin version of the AA-12? :confused:
New
Posts: 1,403
By: Otaku
- 23rd February 2010 at 23:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fwiw, I think the T-50's bay doors are significantly wider than the S-37's (i.e. the latter's modified test bay is not a T-50 scale replica- it was probably down-sized to fit the S-37's internal structure, and still protrudes somewhat).
By: QuantumFX
- 24th February 2010 at 00:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just to avoid repeating ourselves, I have stated I don't feel the underwing pods are meant to house missiles; of course I can't prove but neither can those who support the idea. So that remains to be seen.
.
.
.
Well, thats fair enough. We will have to wait and see....
By: Roylarson
- 24th February 2010 at 00:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi,
I just read something from paralay's forum and a statement is made by Pavel from Paralay that PAK-FA will carry 8 in the 2 weapon bays and 6 short range AAMs somewhere else. Is Pavel the person with inside information :eek:
That could be held externally when flying in non-stealth mode.
By: Roylarson
- 24th February 2010 at 00:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just to avoid repeating ourselves, I have stated I don't feel the underwing pods are meant to house missiles; of course I can't prove but neither can those who support the idea. So that remains to be seen.
Detachable fuel cartridges instead of drop tanks:confused:
By: HAWX ace
- 24th February 2010 at 00:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fwiw, I think the T-50's bay doors are significantly wider than the S-37's (i.e. the latter's modified test bay is not a T-50 scale replica- it was probably down-sized to fit the S-37's internal structure, and still protrudes somewhat).
Hence, 3 R-77Ms (staggered) should be feasible.
I gave it a try, and appearently, 2 R-77Ms is perfectly feasible, but 3, in an asymmetric manner, like R-37s on MiG-31Ms, is not. 3 x R-73Ms is also feasible.
I made two models with two possible configurations, in the first one, it is impossible to fit 3 R-77s asymmetrically. The missile models were picked up here: Of course it was made in a hurry and I certainly don't claim a prize for accuracy-to-scale, but I think it roughly corresponds to the dimensions with the presupposition that the bays are lengthy enough, but not lengthier than necessary, to acommondate R-77s.
This reinforces my claim that 8 missiles as it is, is highly unlikely. The way I see it, the only way to fit more missiles, is by inserting them deeper. Any correction/suggestion is welcome.
Detachable fuel cartridges instead of drop tanks:confused:
Another member claimed a few pages ago that they might be EW pods. I think it is much more likely. Too small to be fuel tanks, and too much internal fuel to need external fuel tanks anyway.
By: ZIL
- 24th February 2010 at 01:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I gave it a try, and appearently, 2 R-77Ms is perfectly feasible, but 3, in an asymmetric manner, like R-37s on MiG-31Ms, is not. 3 x R-73Ms is also feasible.
Do you guys think that the external pod will affect RCS even if had enough RAM treatment?
Also, another issue is that how will it affect maneuverability? Since in the picture show that it will store the short range AAMs for WVR so the pilot can not cut them loose to prepare for dogfight.
I think that the weapon bay in the drawing is also too shallow since the bay should be able to accommodate long range AAMs, or KH-58 for anti ship purpose.
Look at this picture from paralay:
Do you think that the outer diameter of the engine on Su-27 and PAK-FA is the same? I think the one on PAK-FA looks bigger or is it just the size of picture is deceptive or PAK-FA looks shorter therefore its engines look fatter?
By: dionis
- 24th February 2010 at 07:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Do you guys think that the external pod will affect RCS even if had enough RAM treatment?
Also, another issue is that how will it affect maneuverability? Since in the picture show that it will store the short range AAMs for WVR so the pilot can not cut them loose to prepare for dogfight.
I think that the weapon bay in the drawing is also too shallow since the bay should be able to accommodate long range AAMs, or KH-58 for anti ship purpose.
Look at this picture from paralay:
Do you think that the outer diameter of the engine on Su-27 and PAK-FA is the same? I think the one on PAK-FA looks bigger or is it just the size of picture is deceptive or PAK-FA looks shorter therefore its engines look fatter?
The engine nozzle size changes with thrust - so who knows? Almost impossible to accurately assess.
By: Robertone139
- 24th February 2010 at 07:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Weapon Bays Lottery
I believe that the forward bay houses a six shots rotary launcher, in that area the fuselage is clearly deep enough.
The aft bay may be reserved for two larger weapons, possibly ASMs, or three staggered BVR missiles.
As far as the wings fairings, they seem too small for any BVR weapon, perhaps housing one IR snapshot each.
Even the Raptor only carries two Sidewinders.
Thanks for pointing that out, although this has been posted before. However I get the impression that the R-77s are either too minimised, or not given enough space at the edge for a safe extension and launch. But I'm not sure. Check the following pic and rational:
I can't help but think that 3 R-77s side by side simply do not fit. I don't have time right now to make a comparison sketch with R-77s from the second pic, but that's just what it seems to me.
Do you guys think that the external pod will affect RCS even if had enough RAM treatment?
Yes, but to a lesser degree than any other conventionally designed pod.
Also, another issue is that how will it affect maneuverability?
Not much I suppose, certainly far less than any externally carried R-73 on a legacy fighter.
I believe that the forward bay houses a six shots rotary launcher, in that area the fuselage is clearly deep enough.
The aft bay may be reserved for two larger weapons, possibly ASMs, or three staggered BVR missiles.
As far as the wings fairings, they seem too small for any BVR weapon, perhaps housing one IR snapshot each.
Even the Raptor only carries two Sidewinders.
Sounds credible enough. Plus the rotary launcher could host any combination of R-73/R-77, not sure about the 6 figure though. But again, that remains to be seen. AFAIK the only experience in rotary launchers on russian aircraft is with Tu-160s and Tu-22s, but these mechanisms are huge....
By: snafu352
- 24th February 2010 at 09:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd think that'd be obvious but maybe you don't do "obvious". How about extra cost, extra weight, extra drag, and it's all for nothing? Are you really so dense you can't see that? Better yet, let's hear some fact-based justification for insisting that more is ALWAYS better and that there is no such thing as dimminishing returns. Do you have a 2000 gallon gas tank on your car? Well why not?
Actually they haven't. But read what you want I suppose. :rolleyes:
(awaiting yet another post where Snafu completely misses the point and continues to shout "more, more , MOOOOOORRRRREEE".) Sheesh.
The only person who has done any shouting in this "debate" is you.
Your constant over simplification and mis-representation of the points others make yet again proves your utter boorishness.
By: haavarla
- 24th February 2010 at 09:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A rotary launcher inside those weapons bays is highly unlikely.
Why?
Because they would steal a lot of space in the first place, its more likely the missiles are stacked somehow, perhaps some missile will be mounted inside on the very bay doors..
Thanks
New
Posts: 1,403
By: Otaku
- 24th February 2010 at 11:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I gave it a try, and appearently, 2 R-77Ms is perfectly feasible, but 3, in an asymmetric manner, like R-37s on MiG-31Ms, is not. 3 x R-73Ms is also feasible.
I made two models with two possible configurations, in the first one, it is impossible to fit 3 R-77s asymmetrically.
Are you sure? I read somewhere that the Su-35S will have dual (abreast) launchers for the R-77M between the nacelles. Question is, how wide are those bays on the T-50?
By: HAWX ace
- 24th February 2010 at 12:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are you sure? I read somewhere that the Su-35S will have dual (abreast) launchers for the R-77M between the nacelles. Question is, how wide are those bays on the T-50?
Not wide enough I'm afraid. I have read about that dual belly R-77 launcher myself, but never seen a pic or sketch whatsoever.
I posted the pic in my previous post BTW. :)
A rotary launcher inside those weapons bays is highly unlikely.
Why?
Because they would steal a lot of space in the first place, its more likely the missiles are stacked somehow, perhaps some missile will be mounted inside on the very bay doors..
Posts: 49
By: infografica - 23rd February 2010 at 21:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Compliment. Good Drawing.
Posts: 117
By: secondparttohel - 23rd February 2010 at 21:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi,
I just read something from paralay's forum and a statement is made by Pavel from Paralay that PAK-FA will carry 8 in the 2 weapon bays and 6 short range AAMs somewhere else. Is Pavel the person with inside information :eek:
If it's the case, they should either found out some ways to scramble 4 in each missile bay or create new type of missile with similar characteristics and smaller size :)
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 23rd February 2010 at 21:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With a bypath-ratio <0,5 it is ~0.80 kg/(daN·h) in dry and ~1,8 kg (daN·h) in wet.
Posts: 694
By: HAWX ace - 23rd February 2010 at 22:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If it is true, then we are not talking about a fighter but rather about a flying artillery piece.
However, we have all seen pictures of the PAK-FA, the places to hide AAMs are too specific and that's just between the engines, no other bays appearently. So he probably refers to external carriage which, let's face it, isn't exactly news.
As for 8 internally, I guess it remains to be seen. I think it would be difficult to stash 4 whatever current russian missiles in those bays.
Yes, that is a good probability IMO.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 23rd February 2010 at 22:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I cannot see where would they fit six short range missiles elsewhere than in the weapon bays. :confused:
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 23rd February 2010 at 23:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Any news on a folding fin version of the AA-12? :confused:
Posts: 1,403
By: Otaku - 23rd February 2010 at 23:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fwiw, I think the T-50's bay doors are significantly wider than the S-37's (i.e. the latter's modified test bay is not a T-50 scale replica- it was probably down-sized to fit the S-37's internal structure, and still protrudes somewhat).
Hence, 3 R-77Ms (staggered) should be feasible.
[ATTACH]182382[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]182383[/ATTACH]
Posts: 1,912
By: QuantumFX - 24th February 2010 at 00:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, thats fair enough. We will have to wait and see....
Posts: 242
By: Roylarson - 24th February 2010 at 00:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That could be held externally when flying in non-stealth mode.
Posts: 242
By: Roylarson - 24th February 2010 at 00:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Detachable fuel cartridges instead of drop tanks:confused:
Posts: 694
By: HAWX ace - 24th February 2010 at 00:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I gave it a try, and appearently, 2 R-77Ms is perfectly feasible, but 3, in an asymmetric manner, like R-37s on MiG-31Ms, is not. 3 x R-73Ms is also feasible.
I made two models with two possible configurations, in the first one, it is impossible to fit 3 R-77s asymmetrically. The missile models were picked up here: Of course it was made in a hurry and I certainly don't claim a prize for accuracy-to-scale, but I think it roughly corresponds to the dimensions with the presupposition that the bays are lengthy enough, but not lengthier than necessary, to acommondate R-77s.
This reinforces my claim that 8 missiles as it is, is highly unlikely. The way I see it, the only way to fit more missiles, is by inserting them deeper. Any correction/suggestion is welcome.
Another member claimed a few pages ago that they might be EW pods. I think it is much more likely. Too small to be fuel tanks, and too much internal fuel to need external fuel tanks anyway.
Posts: 96
By: ZIL - 24th February 2010 at 01:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?style=12&p=63095#p63095
Posts: 117
By: secondparttohel - 24th February 2010 at 03:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Do you guys think that the external pod will affect RCS even if had enough RAM treatment?
Also, another issue is that how will it affect maneuverability? Since in the picture show that it will store the short range AAMs for WVR so the pilot can not cut them loose to prepare for dogfight.
I think that the weapon bay in the drawing is also too shallow since the bay should be able to accommodate long range AAMs, or KH-58 for anti ship purpose.
Look at this picture from paralay:
Do you think that the outer diameter of the engine on Su-27 and PAK-FA is the same? I think the one on PAK-FA looks bigger or is it just the size of picture is deceptive or PAK-FA looks shorter therefore its engines look fatter?
Posts: 1,856
By: dionis - 24th February 2010 at 07:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The engine nozzle size changes with thrust - so who knows? Almost impossible to accurately assess.
Posts: 7
By: Robertone139 - 24th February 2010 at 07:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Weapon Bays Lottery
I believe that the forward bay houses a six shots rotary launcher, in that area the fuselage is clearly deep enough.
The aft bay may be reserved for two larger weapons, possibly ASMs, or three staggered BVR missiles.
As far as the wings fairings, they seem too small for any BVR weapon, perhaps housing one IR snapshot each.
Even the Raptor only carries two Sidewinders.
Posts: 694
By: HAWX ace - 24th February 2010 at 08:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for pointing that out, although this has been posted before. However I get the impression that the R-77s are either too minimised, or not given enough space at the edge for a safe extension and launch. But I'm not sure. Check the following pic and rational:
Nice pic, thanks for posting. Now, looking at this pic, and consequently at this one:
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u225/adux21/MKI-Armed-11AAMs.jpg
I can't help but think that 3 R-77s side by side simply do not fit. I don't have time right now to make a comparison sketch with R-77s from the second pic, but that's just what it seems to me.
Yes, but to a lesser degree than any other conventionally designed pod.
Not much I suppose, certainly far less than any externally carried R-73 on a legacy fighter.
Sounds credible enough. Plus the rotary launcher could host any combination of R-73/R-77, not sure about the 6 figure though. But again, that remains to be seen. AFAIK the only experience in rotary launchers on russian aircraft is with Tu-160s and Tu-22s, but these mechanisms are huge....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tu-22M_Backfire_loads_AS-16_Kickback.jpg
http://modelism.airforce.ru/reviews/ru/tu-160/Photo_34.jpg
http://media.photobucket.com/image/tupolev%20rotary%20launcher/kilomuse/artists%20conceptions/DD-ST-89-11754.jpg
Posts: 2,248
By: snafu352 - 24th February 2010 at 09:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The only person who has done any shouting in this "debate" is you.
Your constant over simplification and mis-representation of the points others make yet again proves your utter boorishness.
Hugs
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 24th February 2010 at 09:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A rotary launcher inside those weapons bays is highly unlikely.
Why?
Because they would steal a lot of space in the first place, its more likely the missiles are stacked somehow, perhaps some missile will be mounted inside on the very bay doors..
Thanks
Posts: 1,403
By: Otaku - 24th February 2010 at 11:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are you sure? I read somewhere that the Su-35S will have dual (abreast) launchers for the R-77M between the nacelles. Question is, how wide are those bays on the T-50?
Su-30MKI for reference:
Posts: 694
By: HAWX ace - 24th February 2010 at 12:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not wide enough I'm afraid. I have read about that dual belly R-77 launcher myself, but never seen a pic or sketch whatsoever.
I posted the pic in my previous post BTW. :)
Points taken, check these out nonetheless:
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/7805/su47esquemaoo1.jpg
http://media.photobucket.com/image/rotary%20launcher/Superflanker_EVA/Escalasmight.png
Bottom line is: Impossible is nothing :D