No that totally fine (although i find it terribly, terribly boring), i mean stuff like Italy’s post.

I am sorry for bringing this up. As you can see when flateric said two missiles per bay, I accepted it. I am now curious and motivated to discuss the reasons behind such a design choice.

don’t mean to bore you, if that makes sense

Please, please let this stream of thruthiness end…

*cries manly tears*

Do you think there is no merit in discussing why the plane can only carry 4 missiles?

What math this is, where the 33% comes from? If there is two F-15 in the area for counter solo PAKFA, why the same ratio couldn’t be used for F-22 and Su-27?

What math is this?

you cannot see how 6 is 33.333% more than 4? and similarly 12 is 33.3333% more than 8 ? Really ?

6 is one third more than 4, that is >=33% are you clearer now?

How could I have misunderstood you? the PAK-FA can, if required, carry missiles externally. So, if the mission so requires and if stealth isn’t the biggest issue on hand, it can carry weapons internally AND externally. in which event, it may well carry as many as the F-15 does and be far stealthier, allowing it to perform a similar Air Superiority mission better and more effectively. I don’t think that the comparison even stands. You’re talking about a stealth fighter as opposed to a fighter with a cross section of 10+ m2.

I was going for Plane vs Mission comparison. Not Plane vs Plane

The greatest advantage I can see from 4 hard points inside MWB other than possibility to carry great variety of large caliber missiles is opportunity to carry 4 LRAAM in RVV-BD class.

Advantages:

+200km range – highest range for any current/future missile (version for MIG-31BM/SU-35S should have ~280km range)
That way PAK FA with powerful AESA radar is able to take first shot at enemy, especially at non VLO targets.

When fighting, either non or VLO targets, you have time/speed advantage because RVV-BD is hypersonic class missile. If the PAK FA and opposing VLO plane are able to see each other at about the same time/distance, faster missile should be able to cover that distance in much shorter time span.
In combination with larger ARH head with greater tracking range (especially for stealth targets) he could disengage much earlier in order to avoid incoming missiles.

In combination with side mounted radars PAK FA should give mid-course updates to the missile and at the same time he can run away from the incoming enemy missile maximizing its chances for survival.

Also, greater power of large ARH head should be able to burn through jamming more efficiently than the smaller one.

Such a big missile is maybe not as maneuverable as MRAAM`s but it can compensate that with 60kg warhead and high speed.

We all know that BVR missiles have very poor Pk but they pose undeniable tactical advantage. That way the plane that can shoot first dictates the “rules of engagement” and have undisputable advantage when entering the WVR fight. And at the ranges where VLO opponents can detect each other, you probably don`t have the time to fire all 4 missiles, so the number of missiles is not much of a concern. And judging by the potential PAK FA`s maneuverability that is the plan from the beginning when fighting VLO targets. Run your enemy down to WVR fight and finish him there with superior maneuverability.

Which seems to agree with the opinion I put forward a few posts before.

I agree exactly with what you posted, and essentially, I translate what you suggest into my explanation of what the T-50s primary mission profile might be.

It is not air superiority as is defined so far. But a hunter/killer of VLO targets that may be found in the engagement area.

You’re not taking into account that the F-15 carries all its weapons externally. the F-15 Silent Eagle carries 4 internally, but the rest are all external. if you want to call the F-15 as an Air Superiority fighter because of how many missiles it can carry, then what prevents the PAK-FA from carrying 4 BVR AAMs internally and another 4 externally plus a couple of WVR AAMs?

How does the F-22 become an Air Superiority fighter when it carries only 6 AMRAAMs + 2 AIM-9s internally?

I think you misunderstood me.

The fact that the F-15 is carrying its weapons externally has no bearing here.

Take into account the fact that to fulfil its mission of air superiority, a pair of F-15s has in its disposal a combined 12 MRAAMs and 4 SRAAMs

similarly to complete its mission a pair of T-50s has in its disposal 8 MRAAMs and 4 SRAAMs.

I am not even putting the two types in the same area or at the same time.

I am examining ability to perform mission in relation to payload.

If you want to make things harder, you could consider the T-50 going up against VLO targets which makes the lethality of the missiles deteriorate.

You have to remember than in terms of actually detecting a VLO target an F-15 with an AESA radar and a T-50 stand close. So the ability to direct a missile to a target is similar if not equivalent.

can you follow ?

Ask Kongsberg!

Besides, it was mainly supposed to be an illustration of how much room a 1.0m bay would provide and therefore how weird it would be to put only 2 MRAAMs inside.

We can dream all we want about more MRAAMS in the bays. The fact is that the missiles need their launch mechanisms too, capable of firing the missile at supersonic speeds. That is going to take up room and volume as well.

If Flateric -who knows best- says two per bay, that is it.

The point I am raising now, is, is it a tactically wise decision. I am just asking.

What are you ranting about!?
What have the Vietnam war and F-4 with the Pak-Fa and its missiles in common:confused:

It is just like Sens says. There are absolutly none whom can say that a fighter even get the chance to fire its missile before it is struck, let alone fire all its missile..

Try reading a book on the subject..
“F-15 Engaged’ is one of those books that explain how difficult it is to fire/deplete all your missiles when in air combat.
Unless you would fire all at one singel target..:rolleyes:
Mostly it has with totaly different issues like SA(situation awareness).

Every Engagement in air is different and can’t be magical copied on the next engagment. There are 100 if not 500 different variables to take into account. Pls stop oversimplify such complicated issues.
To say Pak-Fa has only four AMRAAMskie and cant be bothered called an Air superiority fighter, and thereby is degraded in its intended role.
I think you play too much flight sim..

First of all, I am not ranting

second, I have read the book.

Third, it is true that there is no guarantee that a plane will not be struck before firing any of its missiles.

But also there is no one to say that a plane will not fire all its missiles during its engagement.

And although every engagement might be different, there are some ground rules. More over, I was not implying that engagements are identical. I was saying what requirements a particular mission might have and if a given plane can fulfil it.

I do not want to be offensive but you are exhibiting a linear logic.

Having more ammo is always better! When weight is NOT an issue -(as in this case due to the large airframe), more ammo is always better.

if you cannot see the flexibility,effectiveness and survivability that gives you, It is not my job to make you see it.

Your comment on the Vietnam shows something.

In the Vietnam war, the F-4 carried 4 long range missiles, 4 VR missiles and NO cannon.

the pilots found themselves in quite a predicament when their missiles hit nothing and they ran out of ammo having not even cannons to defend themselves.

That is what I meant.

All I have seen so far is no argument, just some random hint that someone knows better. Perhaps they do, I am just debating.

Nothing wrong with that, is it? unless you are of course offended in some way that someone does not agree with you..