The PAK-FA Saga Episode IV

[sferrin]

More things to go wrong, yes. OTOH, a door failure only affects 1/6th the weaponry, not 50% or more, like the Rapter.

You pays your money, and makes your choices.

Matt

Given that Lockheed Martin has pretty much all the practical experience when it comes to internal AAM carriage (F-102, F-106, YF-12A) I'm guessing they're familiar with the issues.

[bring_it_on]

Less side RCS, but a notable increase in fore/aft RCS. I think they are, in fact 6 seperate bays. Not ideal, in my mind, but I suspect the large number of small doors has a smaller effect on RCS than the big US style doors. It does limit the overall size of the weapons that can be deployed, however.

The effect on RCS is for a very short period of time , the snapping open and close of the AMRAAM doors is very quick and soon the RCS is restored , i think this is really a moot point beacuse we dont know what the BUMPED up RCS is and wether with smaller doors it makes any difference (remember if return from smaller doors is still suffeceint to send info back to fighters 40-50 nm ahead then they are of no use) but then again they are only open for few seconds at the most.

More things to go wrong, yes. OTOH, a door failure only affects 1/6th the weaponry, not 50% or more, like the Rapter.

That is where you test the system to death and see if the technology (which isnt really rocket sceince by an means) allows enough reliability whereby you can pretty much take it for granted .

[GarryB]

Having the front bay and the larger main rear bay suggests to me that it is all one big bay.
The front bay will be used when long weapons like Kh-31 and Kh-58 weapons are carried... the internal folding wing versions of those two weapons have been displayed already with the Skat UAV. Add to that the Kh-38 and the likely load is two long weapons in the centre and two to four smaller weapons beside them at the rear.

In the air to air role those long centre bays might have multiple medium sized missiles or perhaps multistage long range AAMs.

[UAZ]

Given that Lockheed Martin has pretty much all the practical experience when it comes to internal AAM carriage (F-102, F-106, YF-12A) I'm guessing they're familiar with the issues.

And the Big three US auto makers have 100 years experience in buiding vehicles. Their cars never break down:diablo:

[bring_it_on]

And the Big three US auto makers have 100 years experience in buiding vehicles. Their cars never break down

And that relates to the F-22 or aviation how ?

[Otaku]

That is where you test the system to death and see if the technology (which isnt really rocket sceince by an means) allows enough reliability whereby you can pretty much take it for granted .

Which means no rotary launcher...unless designed by me of course (patent pending):

[bring_it_on]

Which means no rotary launcher...unless designed by me of course (patent pending):

Its simple , if one can proove (through Demonstration----> testing) that the rotary launcher can go through cycles without

A) Breaking down and/or

B) Being a maintaince hog

Then i really dont see any reason why it shouldnt be used if it is part of design where having it (incorporating it in the design) is better then not having it . I bet they would have studied (Both ATF program (LMA) and the PAKFA designers) various configurations and reached the best all round one .

[sferrin]

And the Big three US auto makers have 100 years experience in buiding vehicles. Their cars never break down:diablo:

So by your rational it's better to have NO experience?

[Distiller]

Sorry if I necro-link, but did anybody see this?
I completely missed it (probably been travelling).
Russia and Brasil to do PAK-FA?
http://www.kommersant.com/p-12361/r_500/G5_Brazil/

[Trident]

The reference is to a psych ink-blot test. Basically I'm asking are we seeing what we expect to see/want to see or are there in fact serrations? I'm not seeing anything resembling them at all (due to lighting quality on the photo) so I'm assuming someone has seen or heard of their being serrations from other sources.

Actually, I think I can see serrations in that photo. More evidence is provided by this side-on view with the bays apparently open:

http://paralay.com/s37/otsek.jpg

The black paint certainly makes it very hard to see details like that, shadows from projecting parts don't provide adequate contrast and flush panel lines are almost impossible to discern without specular reflections.

[Sintra]

Sorry if I necro-link, but did anybody see this?
I completely missed it (probably been travelling).
Russia and Brasil to do PAK-FA?
http://www.kommersant.com/p-12361/r_500/G5_Brazil/

Brasil and Russia signed a MOU covering a huge number of topics, one of those was collaboration on a fifth generation fighter. But knowing a bit about Brasilian military acquisition procedures i would advise caution to anyone who starts imagining Sukhois flying with the FAB colours. It can happen (actually it´s quite a real possibility) but let´s just say that it was easier for the Indian Airforce to choose, buy and operate an AJT than for the FAB to get a modern fighter jet...
Sometimes, the Brasilian Government and MOD can be bloody complicated. Well to be honest, most governments and MOD´s can be bloody complicated.

Cheers

[LoofahBoy]

Since we're on the topic of the Su-47 and rotary launchers...



So, I'm guessing that Sukhoi has considered rotary launchers before; was the Su-47 intended to have rotary launchers or is this just a fan/book drawing?

EDIT: I'm not familiar with rotary launchers; what advantages would they have to standard internal weapons bays like the F-22? Seems like a lot of space would be taken up by the rotary launcher itself; space that could be used to hold more missiles/bombs.

[bring_it_on]

EDIT: I'm not familiar with rotary launchers; what advantages would they have to standard internal weapons bays like the F-22? Seems like a lot of space would be taken up by the rotary launcher itself; space that could be used to hold more missiles/bombs.

My guess would be that given that they would have to leave space for the thing to rotate and accomodate for the unusual space for the rotary mechanism + cramped wiring etc that the advantage would be maximum of 8 missiles (adv of 2) as opposed to 6 on the raptor (this is ofcourse assuming same ammount of real estate given to both designs) . The rotary launchers would ofcourse be deeper to cover for the shape of the rotor.

[hexpop]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the rotary launcher is not suitable for missiles with fins because a lot of free space is required for rotation. Cruise missiles have folding wings and fins.

[Hyperwarp]

Actually, I think I can see serrations in that photo. More evidence is provided by this side-on view with the bays apparently open:

http://paralay.com/s37/otsek.jpg

The black paint certainly makes it very hard to see details like that, shadows from projecting parts don't provide adequate contrast and flush panel lines are almost impossible to discern without specular reflections.

Dr. T,

Bit like this?

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3.../su-47-se1.jpg

[SOC]

Since we're on the topic of the Su-47 and rotary launchers...

So, I'm guessing that Sukhoi has considered rotary launchers before; was the Su-47 intended to have rotary launchers or is this just a fan/book drawing?

EDIT: I'm not familiar with rotary launchers; what advantages would they have to standard internal weapons bays like the F-22? Seems like a lot of space would be taken up by the rotary launcher itself; space that could be used to hold more missiles/bombs.

That's just a speculative drawing. I'm not sure they've sized the R-33s right, for one!

[Otaku]

The rotary launchers would ofcourse be deeper to cover for the shape of the rotor.

Hmmm...incidently, the fairing added to the S-37 recently (with the serrated doors), was probably because the original bay wasn't 'deep' enough...maybe they are going rotary! or maybe they'll have one rotary bay & the others with conventional release/launch mechanisms- for mission redundancy.

Excellent avatar LoofahBoy, btw

[RSM55]

Hmmm...incidently, the fairing added to the S-37 recently (with the serrated doors), was probably because the original bay wasn't 'deep' enough...maybe they are going rotary! or maybe they'll have one rotary bay & the others with conventional release/launch mechanisms- for mission redundancy.

Sorry to be a party pooper again - but the Berkut has no bomb bay - just fairing demonstrators and an internal launch test mechanism. It is not a proper bomb bay in any case.
In any case: bear in mind that other mechanisms exists that "look like" a bomb door and bear in mind that there could be other solutions to push a missile out of a bay than the rotary launcher or the normal railed (passive or pneumatic) solution.

[over G]

I never liked the idea of a bay, anyway..also had some doubts about the s-37 bays..

In any case: bear in mind that other mechanisms exists that "look like" a bomb door

Like what? (covered conformal bays?)

i still think that a weapon bay is a bad idea, if ppl are so worried about the weapons RCS signature the best idea would be to put bomb rails on a fuselage "tunnel" -like in mig-29/su-27-, to put the bombs there and cover the front with RAM modules /pannels, and only use that module on strike missions

Anyway seems the pakfa will get these bays

[bring_it_on]

i still think that a weapon bay is a bad idea, if ppl are so worried about the weapons RCS signature the best idea would be to put bomb rails on a fuselage "tunnel" -like in mig-29/su-27-, to put the bombs there and cover the front with RAM modules /pannels, and only use that module on strike missions

One can use semi recessed or fully recessed carriage which is ok for drag and for frontal radars like those of fighters however whith the Ground based radars its effect would be greatly reduced so it is much better to go with full bays if STEALTH is a priority that you really value and want your 5th gen fighter to have as a primary requirment .

[Otaku]

Sorry to be a party pooper again - but the Berkut has no bomb bay - just fairing demonstrators and an internal launch test mechanism.

You're probably right RSM55, so you're saying the 'bay' is only as deep as the fairing itself. That would make for an ultra-compact internal launch test mechanism, with no room for test missiles? so what would they use- dead weight? but what use would that be for high speed release testing of munitions' aerodynamics, boundry layer etc.etc.

PAK-FA round-up, and MiG's LMFS refuses to die:

http://www.ato.ru/rus/cis/archive/20-2008/def/def3/

[Hyperwarp]

You're probably right RSM55, so you're saying the 'bay' is only as deep as the fairing itself. That would make for an ultra-compact internal launch test mechanism, with no room for test missiles? so what would they use- dead weight? but what use would that be for high speed release testing of munitions' aerodynamics, boundry layer etc.etc.

PAK-FA round-up, and MiG's LMFS refuses to die:

http://www.ato.ru/rus/cis/archive/20-2008/def/def3/

That is great news!
*Hyper hands over procedings to loof *

So much talk about Sukhoi, but remember who brought MiG-15, MiG-21, MiG-25/31, MiG-29 to the world.... Hope the LMFS works-out on serious way....

[flex297]

That is great news!
*Hyper hands over procedings to loof *

So much talk about Sukhoi, but remember who brought MiG-15, MiG-21, MiG-25/31, MiG-29 to the world.... Hope the LMFS works-out on serious way....

Not the brightest idea, IMHO. Russia has trouble financing one 5th gen project, not speaking about two. They would be better off developing one deadly serious opponent instead of two average ones.

[bring_it_on]

Not the brightest idea, IMHO. Russia has trouble financing one 5th gen project, not speaking about two. They would be better off developing one deadly serious opponent instead of two average ones.

Wrong . You are reffering to SU times when cash was in short supply , now russia is generating a lot of cash , and is one of the richest in the world and can renegotiate old treaties

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/cr...ow_dog_shoot-0
A crazy Muscovite shoots dogs. He has already tried to kill several dogs. Moscow pet-owners are shocked.

[Distiller]

Be sssserious! There are no such things as a rotary launcher for fighters.

[flex297]

Wrong . You are reffering to SU times when cash was in short supply , now russia is generating a lot of cash , and is one of the richest in the world and can renegotiate old treaties

LOL..

[Otaku]

There'll be NO 5G MiG, I guarantee it- simply no money.

It was Fyodorov's pet project and he's still peeved at losing the tender. Once MiG is swallowed-up by UAC/OAK later this year, you'll never hear of it again (unless the Chinese do another 'Lavi').
It underlines opinion that PAK-FA is a heavyweight fighter of F-22 class, though.

Having said that, MiG may still win the UCAV tender.

[paralay]

[LoofahBoy]

PAK-FA round-up, and MiG's LMFS refuses to die:

http://www.ato.ru/rus/cis/archive/20-2008/def/def3/

Here I was getting all excited until I read it's not scheduled to fly (if at all, even) until 2016? Going by russian scheduling, that means it probably wont fly until 2025! Dammit, I'll be old and icky by then!!

And hyper, you put the dreaded banana in your emoticon party!! For I am not worthy enough to remark about the almighty dancing banana.

[over G]

One can use semi recessed or fully recessed carriage which is ok for drag and for frontal radars like those of fighters however whith the Ground based radars its effect would be greatly reduced so it is much better to go with full bays if STEALTH is a priority that you really value and want your 5th gen fighter to have as a primary requirment .

I dont get it, anyway the top/underneath surfaces are too big to "hide" it, unless the plane is well aligned to the source, of course there are designs that would need an internal bay

I understand that radar has it expansive properties, but if the module is well designed, and the bombs/load have a good arragment the difference of the return wouldnt be important, of course a complete sealed bay would be "stealther" but again is about these fetichisms against a practical design ( cargo load, simplicity, etc..)