Interesting and i have see " you " remove the hat
But eventualy Su-57 can be armed with R-37 ? as the Mig-31BM, i think but not sure this missile is operationnal now ?
Russian Su-57 Aircraft Thread (PAK-FA and IAF FGFA)
- Thread starter A Bar Brother
- Start date
But eventualy Su-57 can be armed with R-37 ? as the Mig-31BM, i think but not sure this missile is operationnal now ?
b787
Captain
I am not mixing images, i used the pictures to illustrate the R-77 with a diameter of around 30-40 cm and folded tail lattice fins does not take too much space for the main ventral weapons bay.
The first picture of R-77 is the ramjet engine one and the second is a rocket engine
Is it official the number of course not, i took a picture from a aeromodelist, if it carry 6 or 4 i do not know because AUC websites does not give any specification and that is a classified data.
The R-73 also is not big, and there is another missile called K-300, i have not seen it in Vympels`s displays at airshows, but it is a given the small R-73 or K-300 can gave folded wings.
RT also has a video where the interview people from Sukhoi and they illustrate it has side weapons bays
Just comment on the bulkhead.
It is critical. I have read quoted Sukhoi's words, that it was one major challenge of Pakfa design. The plane is designed around the center box (main weapons bay), everything else are attached to it. Sukhoi mentioned how they worked hard to make sure the side walls (titanium) being think and strong enough. From a structural engineering perspective, a long hollow box without a mid section support like Pakfa is impossible.
b787
Captain
It is partly true what you said, the PAKFA is designed to be more economical, to operate and make, it is designed to be more reliable.
Russia is a huge country, and today`s economy is relatively small, thus they need a very very economical engine, 117 is not that economical, type 30 it is supposed to allow long trips economically.
PAKFA has been designed with good frontal stealth, excellent maneuverability, good supercruise and max speed why?
Stealth for starters does not mean it is undetectable, Rafale and Su-35 already have IRST systems that very likely can track F-22 or F-35 in the 90-100 km range.
However weather can reduce that range.
PAKFA has been designed to jam the enemy missiles and out run them.
So it is Rafale and Su-35.
all these stealth fighters have limited weapons bays, and missiles do not hit 100% of the time their targets, specially if their enemy flies fast.
What does it mean, in the Russian philosophy dog fighting will not go away from history.
remember F-22 only carries 2 sidewinders, once they are gone it needs the gun.
what happens when you have a very expensive machine? first you buy less, only 190 F-22, they fly less, at a flight time of USD $30000 dollars well you can not expose them.
In close support visual identification is crucial, because of fratricides, mobility and the fact at close range both F-35 and F-22 are not stealthy, they are not suit to replace A-10.
the first problem is speed, F-35 will have less accuracy, second is loiter time, they can not fly long small bays means small fuel tanks.
and the stealth coating makes them unsuitable for the close support mission.
The Americans have been duped, F-35 is the new F-111 and new F-4, but in reality PAKFA can not do close support too.
So what you get is a fighter that needs to fire from long distances, so it gives plenty of time to scape to the targeted aircraft and enough time for the rocket to reduce its ability to chase.
In real combat situation, F-22 and F-35 stealth philosophy is impractical.
Thus PAKFA was designed for the Russians with enough stealth but with a more affordable philosophy in mind in their way of think
Thanks for that, I am lucky that I revisited this thread again today and come across this post.
However, I don't trust that model in its depiction of the "side bays". The launching rack looks attached directly to the win frame. The bump seems to be big enough ONLY to house the missile, not enough to add the rack. I still (as I posted long time ago in this thread) suspect that the launching mechanics includes extension bars going through holes in the wing box in a lateral fashion.
b787
Captain
I do not know if it is operational too it is a matter to look for pictures but it has foldable wings and its diameter is 38 cm, so is not that fat and it has a length of 4.2 metersInteresting and i have see " you " remove the hat
But eventualy Su-57 can be armed with R-37 ? as the Mig-31BM, i think but not sure this missile is operationnal now ?
It is possible they might be stacking K-30 in the wing weapons bays
Can you provide a link to the video of RT interviewing those Sukhoi employees. I already assumed the lattice fins in the tail of R-77 can be folded completely when I came up with numbers. The fins in the centre cannot. You can look at the screws in place when you see close ups. Side bays or not, that's something we can't be sure of for now but my money is in the no camp. Main bays cannot carry current R-77s in 6 total load.
Fuel costs is of zero concern to Russians. It is sooooo negligible since you are producing so much of it and have so many reserves. What is important is consumption rate. Iz. 30 may be focusing on improving efficiency for consumption rate and range not because of economic costs although they go hand in hand and it is a benefit of course. Russia's economic troubles are temporary and it makes far more sense fielding a good 5th gen fighter despite costs over a compromise.
Then I even less understand Your post.
We were discussing if these are side bays or not and what missiles can be carried and You post an image of a R-77 with folding fins that is not operational yet as proof that the main bays are not shallow .... however the R-77 is never able to be carried in these side bays simply since it is too long.
So why showing a non-standard R-77?? It's irrelevant.
That simply will not happen since the bay can hold only two AAMs per bay. Anyone who claims such things or expects this is a pure-boy.
Deino