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.

Those guys look suspicious:

[IMG*]http://paralay.iboards.ru/download/file.php?style=12&id=9462%5B/IMG]

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?

Completly hypoteticaly.
I think if US would face a Airforce like the RuAF or perhaps PLAA, USAF would allso go with 2 missile fired simult!

Hypothetically, of course! Because a conflict at such a level has never happend, not even close. USAF for instance has only been fighting adversaries who are either inferior, or outnumbered or (mostly) both.

The F-35 will also be able to carry the JSOW-ER internally.

Yes, you are right, thank you, it’s just that this was not always the case. 🙂

Once again for those in the cheap seats. My “arguement” is that nobody has used 8 in a single mission. Therefore whining that a fighter doesn’t carry MORE than that is idiocy. Clear enough?

Crystal! Except one thing, nobody whined for the PAK-FA needing MORE than 8 missiles. Fantasising, fantasising, fantasising, fantasising and again: Fantasising. Oh, did I also mention fantasising?

Do keep up. You don’t contribute to the discussion, but at least it’s entertaining.

:rolleyes:
The point is that there have been missions when all available aam’s have been used. Thus the aircraft concerned has had to dis-engage and retire.
Therefore it seems a reasonable suggestion that as many aam’s as possible is better, not “you only need x.”
But you know that was the point; you just don’t want to acknowledge it as it doesn’t fit your arguement. 😉

Thank you, it’s really as simply as that. 🙂

Now if you excuse me, I don’t have any other time to waste on a single member’s viciousness.

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.

I think that would be the only possible way to do the job, but it would vastly depend on the depth of the bay, which in turn would depend on the level of sacrifice in internal fuel the Russians would be willing to do.

Mind you it does mention Bill Sweetman in the notes of the article so you will probably dismiss it…

Oh, well, it’s a waste of time I know, but… for the shake of other members reading the thread, here’s another source which *does not* cite Bill Sweetman. A few interesting extracts:

F-4s over Vietnam

“Lts Hawkins and Dose took of from USS Constelation (CV64) on a CAP mission with their F-4Js carrying 4 AIM-7Fs and 4 AIM-9Ds each.

<…>

“Dose then fired a second AIM-9D. Because of the battle’s frustration, he thought it was his third AIM-9D and was disappointed to have only one left, so he considered disengaging.”

<…>

“In total, 4 AIM-9Ds were fired until this point with all failing to hit their targets. For a moment Hawkins considered using his AIM-7Fs, but he was unable to due to too much clutter in his screen. He even thought of wasting one just to distress the MiG pilot’s attention to bring him in a more favourable poistion for AIM-9D shot.”

<…>

“Hawkins by now had only two AIM-9Ds, but the situation was now against him”

<…>

“His RIO Jim McDevitt realised they were out of AIM-9Ds and could not fire AIM-9Fs and at the same time they were running low on fuel due to continous use of afterburners. Eventually they called KA-6 aircraft to manage their disengage”

Source: Airplane Magazine, issue 69, Aerospace Publishing.

Completely apples to crescent wrenches. May as well be comparing fighter load out to 9mm rounds in a magazine, it’d be about as relevant.

Sorry to let you down, but it’s no good to (try to) reject an argument as irrelevant just because it happens to blow you claim.

That “philosophy” is based on firing IR and radar-guided versions of the same missle back in the 60s & 70s. I don’t see them firing off one AA-12 and one AA-11 at each target these days.

Except one thing: I never said anything about R-73s. But it’s ok, I understand. After all, you do have a history of fantasising things other people never said.

I was referring to IR-version R-77s, last time I checked there was one in developement.

You mean like Vietnam or the opening days of Desert Storm? Or perhaps the Bekaa Valley in ’82? Or do you only consider WWII-type 1000-plane raids “major” air battles?

You are right, I was wrong and therefore I rephrase: In the cases you mention plus the war over Yugoslavia, there have been instances in all four cases of fighters depleting all of the missiles they were carrying.

Thanks for making my point!

The fact remains that when carrying weapons internally every missile more than what you need extracts a MUCH higher cost than simply slapping on another pylon.

If you desperately want to say something, then of course, many facts remain.

The Kh-31 is most certainly not going to be covered.

The Kh-58USHKE will fulfill this roll, which would include anti-ship strike on an emitting vessel.

KAB-1500 I’m not sure, I haven’t seen a length published for the weapon.

The situation with the PAK-FA weapons-wise is the exact same as with the F-35: at the first years in service they will only fly with limited variety of weapons, just because of weapons bays’ size limitations. But gradually this will change as more weapons will be developed with the bays’ dimensions in mind. The F-35 was criticised for the lack of an internally carried cruise missile, but that will change with the development of at least the NSM.

As for KAB-1500, I believe Paralay posted a sketch a few pages ago also portraying it.

The good thing about the S-37 bay is that it can possibly carry 2 R-33/37 size missiles (Paralay’s sketch).

We ‘ve seen at least one sketch with 3 R-37s and 4 R-77s. I don’t believe it, but it makes appearent sense.

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc123/Hawkwood_777/Russian%20weapons/PAK_FA_color.jpg

Ahhhhhrrrrgggg…! True! The MiG-31M can carry 6x R-37. My mind was on the older MiG-31 carrying 4x R-33. Still 4 R-33/R-37 type missiles internally is impressive (assuming the T-50 bays are the same as the S-37 bay). T-50 is required to carry large A-to-G munitions internally (Kh-38, Kh-58 and IIRC KAB-1500, kh-31 etc). Would be interesting to the the arrangements..

Your assumption of 4 R-33s however totally leaves out small range IR dogfighters. That would make it pretty well a return to Su-15/MiG-25 configurations…

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:
[*IMG]http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/9168/su47view.jpg%5B/IMG]
[*IMG]http://pilot.strizhi.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/KOD-016-300110_s.j…]
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? 🙂

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.