dark light

secondparttohel

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 113 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2430065
    secondparttohel
    Participant

    Any reason why they didnt choose a 2D Flat TVC nozzle to strive for all aspect stealth and rather than go for 3D Circular Nozzle and opted for enhanced manouverability over all aspect stealth which was also achievable ?

    I thịnk it’s more about the preserving efficiency of the engine, I guess the circular design can better preserve/reduce the loss of engine power when using thrust vector.

    in reply to: Russian Aviation News – Part Deux #2430252
    secondparttohel
    Participant

    I think they may use RAM-coat for it?
    I am not really sure if geometry or S-duct is needed since they already capable of using RAM on the inlet and compressor face to half the radar signature of the Su-35.
    I also think that using geometry or putting S-duct on a Mig-29 might be a waste of resources since it’s not a stealthy design to begin with.
    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=801988&postcount=4

    in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2430311
    secondparttohel
    Participant

    http://paralay.iboards.ru/download/file.php?id=9566&t=1
    by typhoonzsmk

    How accurate is this picture do you think QuadroFX?
    If it’s accurate, we may have some deep weapon bay since the spine is pretty big.
    Thank you.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2430863
    secondparttohel
    Participant

    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.

    I think that that 6 in a weapon bay is a little bit too much.
    I draw a basic layout as follow:
    http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h196/napster90/rotarylauncher.jpg
    Assume that the diameter of the biggest area of a R-77 is 350mm and the driving fin at the end of the missile is foldable.
    If it’s the case, the weapon bay depth will be greater than 1050mm which is not really feasible.
    I guess that the weapon bay depth will be around 700-800mm to allow it accomodate R-33 type or X-58 type missile and the width will be around 1.2-1.4m.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2430956
    secondparttohel
    Participant

    http://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?style=12&p=63095#p63095

    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:
    http://paralay.iboards.ru/download/file.php?id=9475&mode=view
    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?

    in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2431044
    secondparttohel
    Participant

    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 😮

    Source: http://www.paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1104&start=570
    Рискну ответить за Хозяина сайта. Потому что ракет 8, плюс еще минимум 6 малой дальности.

    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 🙂

    in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2431345
    secondparttohel
    Participant

    I believe there has been info that the bays will also be able to accomondate heavy antiship missiles (1,500 kg?). That’s well over 700 kg, not to mention long range AAMs of the R-37 class, so I don’t think weight is a real problem.

    Also, I doubt whether 4 R-77s can fit inside these bays and be able to launch safely, I would think that’s only possible for three in assymetric layout, such on the MiG-31’s belly for R-37s. As for foldable wings, I believe R-77s already have foldable wings on the back. Also you should consider the place that will probably be taken by the arms of some hydraulic mechanism that will open the doors, that should make a few extra milimeters to bare in mind on your calculations.

    Finally, the more I look the wing pods, the more I doubt they are meant to house missiles. But that remains to be seen.

    Hi HAWX ace
    Do you think they will might use the rotating dispenser with R-77s on it in they bay in order to fit 4 R-77s in a bay?
    I think it’s quite possible to do that given the estimated width of the door, but I am unsure about the depth of the bay though.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2431444
    secondparttohel
    Participant

    Personally I think the bay that was tested on the Su-47 is a smaller version of the PAK-FA’s weapon bay. In that case I think that the bay on the PAK-FA will be able to accomodate at least 6 R-77s and two short range R-73/74s in the small pod under the wing and that will bring them 8AAMs in internal storage.
    Let’s look at these pictures:
    http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/9168/su47view.jpg
    http://pilot.strizhi.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/KOD-016-300110_s.jpg
    Proportionally, the weapon bay on Su-47 is roughly 1/14th to 1/15th of the wing span which brings it to the width of around 1m (Su-47 wing span is ~15m)
    On the PAK-FA, the weapon bay is roughly 1/10th of the wing span, which will result in the width of around 1.4-1.5m (PAK-FA estimated of wing span of 14.8m)
    Hypothetically if the weapon bay of PAK-FA has the estimated width of 1.4-1.5m, the chance that it will be able to hold 4 R-77s each bay is quite possible since the R-77 wing span is 350mm and the version on PAK-FA should have foldable wings. Also, the weight of a normal R-77 is 175kg, so if it’s 4 R-77 each bay it will be 700kg which corresponds to some earlier speculation that each pay can hold up to 700kg of payload.
    Just some of my thought. What do you guys think? 🙂

    in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2431531
    secondparttohel
    Participant

    Regarding the S-37’s new weapons bay – IMO a replica of the T-50’s – there’s a picture published in the latest Fug Revue (03.2010 / page 14) with the open bay right from the bottom … sadly my scanner is out of order and therefore only via the camera.

    Does anyone have a better one … or even the original one ??

    Deino

    Base on this picture, if the PAK-FA is using this compartment, its ability to carry weapons will be very limited. And I think the requirement for the PAK-FA is 6-8 R-77 in the weapon bay.
    The weapon bay that is tested on Su-47 looks like it can only two 2 R-77 in my view.
    So do you guys think that this will be the compartment for PAK-FA or either the Su-47 tested a smaller version of the weapon bay ?

    in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2431910
    secondparttohel
    Participant

    😮 … via “flateric” (Secret Projects Forum !!)

    Deino 😀

    Can you get us the link of the fullsize one? I can’t find one 🙁

    in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2431989
    secondparttohel
    Participant

    How about Su-22, Su-24, Su-30, Su-34, Yak-38 and Tu-28?? Are they not russian fighters?

    I agree it’s premature to assign a number though, when not even Sukhoi has, officially anyway.

    I think what Vympel refers to is the first aircraft of a family was often named the way he has mentioned.
    Su-22 is in the same family with Su-17/20/22
    Su-30/Su-35 is in the same Su-27 family.
    The Su-24, Yak, Tu cases I am not really sure. But it seems that the aircrafts in VVS with even number are often more ground-mission-oriented compare to the aircrafts that were assigned odd numbers.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2389771
    secondparttohel
    Participant

    The B-2’s stands NO chance against S-300PMU-2’s (probably against the PMU-1’s and I enfisice “probably”) and Pansir-S1/Tor-M2-3/Buk-M2/3’s

    For Pete’s sake the B-2’s need to be escorted by at least 50 planes!!!!

    Honestly I think it’s a quite bold statement 😀 I hope so because my country have S-300 PMUxx but it’s quite hard to believe honestly 🙂
    I think S-300 may be able to detect F-22/B-2 only with good strategy and careful combination of radar system 😉

    Also, great work Ken 😀

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2389831
    secondparttohel
    Participant

    If you understood what the S-300PMU-2’s Tor/BukM2/3’s could do you’d simply buy enough to give you overlapping coverage of your nation, with no less than 4k missile (for relauching) and you’d woop U.S.A’s ass, believe it or not it really IS that simple.;)

    Personally I believe that no nation will have that much of missiles except Russia itself and probably China. Also the chance that USA and its allies attack such nation is extremely low because of potential losses.
    I think may be just 1/10 of that number of missiles (~400 of 48N6 family) is quite significant since I think they will not use those missiles to shot down Tomahawk or JDAM 😀 they are for more valuable target such as fighters.
    So in the case that theoretical nation has adequate SAMs(S-300, Tor/Buk and AA guns network), will USA and its allies bring in their stealth fighter such as B2/F-22 to practice SEAD? What kind of tactics may be used to minimize the casualties ?

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2393845
    secondparttohel
    Participant

    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=94384

    Post #16 😉 Always makes me laugh when the fanboys go on about the “revolutionary” IRST on the Flanker.

    Care to elaborate why they were no longer used on present US fighter? I think IRST is really handy at least when it comes to WVR when it was combined with HMS and capable short-range AA (R-73, AIM-9X) ?
    Also, any sources about the specs of AAS-42? I am kind of doubt about its performance since if it’s true, it’s close to the performance of the current F-14 radar and it has the advantage of the passive sensor system.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2394711
    secondparttohel
    Participant

    I suspect there’s a whole load of funky things going on in that jet pipe.

    Has anyone mentioned the round ball behind the cockpit by the way?

    http://www.aviapedia.com/files/fighters/PAK_FA/PAK-FA-1.jpg

    Odd looking yoke… I immediately thought of the rear facing camera on Clints wonderjet..

    Any speculation? Could it be another IRST?

    I think it’s another IRST too, after all there should be something to compensate the some-what limited vision draw-back of the canopy 😀
    and an IRST might work better than mirrors 😀
    Also there’s a rumor that T-50 will have two 30-mm guns on board, is there anyone here found the second? I only found one.

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 113 total)