PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

Hardpoints aren't limited anymore. This was evident for years on Su-35 and 30. There are 4 hardpoints on the wings as we are aware (unsure what looks like a capsule) and a few internally. The PAK FA is adjustable for the mission. Purpose of the jet is similar to Su-30. Multiroll in its finest.

I'm talking about internal stealthy hardpoints.

GarryB wrote:the R-77 is a long slim missile with folding rear grid fin flight controls

I was under the impression that they were producing an R-77 model with conventional fins, specifically for the T-50.

As stated by Wikipedia

K-77M (izdeliye 180) - Highly improved variant [of the R-77] for the PAK FA with AESA seeker, conventional fins, and two-pulse motor.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-77

In real world combat , nothing stop Russia from using both internal and external missiles
at same time to increase the fighting capabilities for longer and attack more enemies.
In situations that you are not invading enemy airspace and no stealth jets around to be afraid
that can be an option.

So you use first the non stealthy missiles deployed externally and later the internal ones.
In Syria case for example ..in Russia really wants to test pak-fa in Syria weather conditions,
or lets say in Egypt to bomb Lybia terrorist across border. Russia can arm a Pak-fa air to air weapons internally. and the air to ground externally. So once you drop in a surprise attack
all your external bombs on ISIS ,you can still have air to air combat and stealth capabilities intact , in case a NATO plane wants to pick a fight. then Pak-fa can drop all its external bombs.
for greater radar evasion capabilities.

Other situations could be in Russia territory to bomb terrorist concentrated in a zone.
and Russia wants to test Pak-fa is real combat .it can arm internally and externally the plane
with bombs. since stealthiness not need. SAme if asked for help by Belarus,IRAN or any other ally.  So those limitations of Pak-fa in weapons storage capability are only in cases ,where there
are other stealth planes from hostile nations in the zone or dangerous air defenses deployed ,that needs to evade pak-fa.  But i can see cases where Russia combine external and internal to increase the offensive capabilities to the ultimate limits.

Making long range missiles IR would be a mistake. Add to that, they can use various receivers that gain info from various radar sources. You still need the jet to lock on

GarryB wrote:The four internal hard points for heavy missiles are for R-37Ms.

In other words you can have 4 x 300km range AA missiles.

One presumes that if you are carrying smaller missiles like the R-77 then more can be carried... 6 or even 8 missiles.

The R-37M is a very large missile, while the R-77 is a long slim missile with folding rear grid fin flight controls... I would suspect that two mounted high and two mounted lower would allow four R-77s in each weapon bay... the R-77 launch pylon includes a ram arm that throws the missile downwards on launch, so the same mechanism on an internal weapons bay should be perfectly feasible...

Four per weapon bay means 8 internal AAMs of medium range or 2 long range and 4 medium range and two short range in the wing mounted internal bays.

The Morfei short range IIR guided missile will use a vectored thrust rocket motor with little to no need for multiple large external control surfaces...

And that is not even adding the external weapon points.

Of course the PAK FA will likely be operating with Su-35s with plenty of external weapons pylons anyway.

If what you're saying is true then the T-50 could have a total of 16 R-77s in internal hardpoints(4 per bay). That would be an unprecedented loadout. I really hope that this isn't an overestimation.

That said even if the numbers are lower that would still be the heaviest stealthy load put on a fighter.

miketheterrible wrote:Making long range missiles IR would be a mistake. Add to that, they can use various receivers that gain info from various radar sources. You still need the jet to lock on

Won't the F-22/35's AESA radar burn out the ARH antenna on a missile, making it unguided?

miketheterrible wrote:Making long range missiles IR would be a mistake. Add to that, they can use various receivers that gain info from various radar sources. You still need the jet to lock on

The R-27T and ET are already medium-long ranged AAMs which rely on IR guidance. And in cooperation with the aircraft's IRST, there is no need for radar at all. What's more, is that IR guidance means that the theoretical target's RWR will not sound, and so an IR missile is considerably more subtle than a radar guided missile.

That said, the EOS on the T-50 far exceed that of the Su-27 and its family members. Instead of the ~40km rear hemisphere limit that the Su-27's EOS had, the T-50 may have something substantially bigger. Just for ballpark numbers, the French Rafale has a similar EOS with a detection range marked at 90km. Assuming that's not BS, the T-50 ought to have something near that, if not outright exceeding it.

In conclusion, a long ranged IR missile may be of benefit, otherwise, why implement an EOS on the T-50. Sure, you could argue it is for the closer engagements with the R-73s and Co. but that would be a very narrow sighted view when the system could potentially add much more to the table.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Making long range missiles IR would be a mistake. Add to that, they can use various receivers that gain info from various radar sources. You still need the jet to lock on

Won't the F-22/35's AESA radar burn out the ARH antenna on a missile, making it unguided?

Fantasy much?  The radars on them are not powerful enough and the T/R modules have a usual failure rate of about 10% or higher.  At that, if they "burned" like that, then they light up like a Christmas tree anyway for any kind of sensor system.

Cheetah wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Making long range missiles IR would be a mistake. Add to that, they can use various receivers that gain info from various radar sources. You still need the jet to lock on

The R-27T and ET are already medium-long ranged AAMs which rely on IR guidance. And in cooperation with the aircraft's IRST, there is no need for radar at all. What's more, is that IR guidance means that the theoretical target's RWR will not sound, and so an IR missile is considerably more subtle than a radar guided missile.

That said, the EOS on the T-50 far exceed that of the Su-27 and its family members. Instead of the ~40km rear hemisphere limit that the Su-27's EOS had, the T-50 may have something substantially bigger. Just for ballpark numbers, the French Rafale has a similar EOS with a detection range marked at 90km. Assuming that's not BS, the T-50 ought to have something near that, if not outright exceeding it.

In conclusion, a long ranged IR missile may be of benefit, otherwise, why implement an EOS on the T-50. Sure, you could argue it is for the closer engagements with the R-73s and Co. but that would be a very narrow sighted view when the system could potentially add much more to the table.

Distance the issue. Launch it, missile will have a hard time keeping track of the target especially if it changes position. That is the major problem with long range IIR systems. Hence why most of them are short range. For something longer range, you need a system that will be monitoring the skies frequently and scanning it. IRST on the plane can but it cannot scan at the same ranges nor as quickly as the onboard radar.

miketheterrible wrote:Distance the issue. Launch it, missile will have a hard time keeping track of the target especially if it changes position. That is the major problem with long range IIR systems. Hence why most of them are short range.

Who is to say? shouldn't this existence of missiles such as the R-27ET (Which have been seen on Russian aircraft in Syria) refute that? IR and radar guided missiles are not so different as you make them seem. They both track an emission based on the electromagnetic spectrum. The major difference is that radar missiles are an active seeker, while IR missiles are a passive seeker. My point being that both technologies could be theoretically refined to the point where they perform equally as well as each other. Give an IR missile a sensitive seeker and some complex software and it'll track just as well as a radar guided missile, with the added advantage of it being a passive seeker, meaning that it will not inform the target of its tracking.

It seems to me that IR seekers are becoming more and more advanced, such to the point that countermeasures such as flares are becoming obsolete as the seekers are becoming more sensitive and harder to fool. So why not employ this at longer ranges? why not refine a seeker design so that it is capable of functioning at longer ranges?

Muse for a moment on the theoretical scenario of the potential for such a missile when employed against an F-35, which by the way, does little to cover its infrared tracks. A long ranged IR missile may just keep lock where a radar missile would fail.

Cheetah wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Distance the issue. Launch it, missile will have a hard time keeping track of the target especially if it changes position. That is the major problem with long range IIR systems. Hence why most of them are short range.

Who is to say? shouldn't this existence of missiles such as the R-27ET (Which have been seen on Russian aircraft in Syria) refute that? IR and radar guided missiles are not so different as you make them seem. They both track an emission based on the electromagnetic spectrum. The major difference is that radar missiles are an active seeker, while IR missiles are a passive seeker. My point being that both technologies could be theoretically refined to the point where they perform equally as well as each other. Give an IR missile a sensitive seeker and some complex software and it'll track just as well as a radar guided missile, with the added advantage of it being a passive seeker, meaning that it will not inform the target of its tracking.

It seems to me that IR seekers are becoming more and more advanced, such to the point that countermeasures such as flares are becoming obsolete as the seekers are becoming more sensitive and harder to fool. So why not employ this at longer ranges? why not refine a seeker design so that it is capable of functioning at longer ranges?

Muse for a moment on the theoretical scenario of the potential for such a missile when employed against an F-35, which by the way, does little to cover its infrared tracks. A long ranged IR missile may just keep lock where a radar missile would fail.

I guess you could but they have to be within a certain range to be able to pick up the IR signature of the plane, which could be very short and a very narrow field while Radar has a much larger scanning field and much longer range in detection and tracking.

More about Pak-fa Radio photonic radars by KRET...
really Interesting cool stuff must read... probably one area
where Russia will be revolutionize the world of modern warfare.

Radio-photonics is a promising scientific field that in the future will determine the development of dual-use technologies throughout the entire world,” said Nikolai Kolesov, CEO of KRET. “For Russia, this is a huge scientific and technological breakthrough that will facilitate the transition to the sixth technological generation."

By 2020, with the help of the latest technologies, KRET plans to create effective and advanced two-way radio, radar, and other radio-frequency systems that will replace those currently in existence. For example, the use of systems of radio-optical phased array antennas in the long term will enable the construction of a network of unique, synchronized space and ground radio-telescopes and will also be used to cover the fuselage of aircraft and helicopters with a new kind of “smart” skin.

Radars based on radio-optical phased array antennas will be installed on Russia’s fifth-generation PAK FA fighter and a number of other manned and unmanned aircraft, as well as naval platforms such as radar stations of ships and submarines.

Radio-optical phased array antenna systems will reduce the weight and size of electronic equipment by 5-7 times. Moreover, these modern antennas will also serve as a future radar.



Thanks to radio-optical phased array antennas, the resolving power of communications systems and radar will increase tenfold. If modern radar has a radar radiation frequency of 10 GHz, with a 3 cm wide range of 1-2 GHz, then the radio-optical phased array antennas will be able to simultaneously operate at this frequency at a range from 1 Hz to 100 GHz.

In other words, radio-optical phased array antennas will be capable of carrying out a kind of "X-ray vision" of planes located at a distance of over 500 kilometers, producing a detailed, three-dimensional image.  Moreover, since the signal is able to penetrate any obstacle, including a lead wall a meter thick, this technology can look inside a target to find out what equipment it carries, determine how many people are there, and even see their faces.

http://rostec.ru/en/research/tecnology/4517645

So this report the full version one ,states ,that Russian scientist are working/believe
that is possible to bypass the decades of leadership of the west in microelectronics , and takes
things to a whole new Level ,with a much superior form of transfer of energy and communications. that literary give any equipment 10x times for power and a Xray like vision
up to 500km away. and that this form of communications cannot be jammed ,manipulated or be interfered . with any previous modern generation electronics.. Because Photons do not have electric charge contrary to electrons and cannot be interfered by Magnetic fields or lighting or any electronic attacks.  Imagine such a thing.. in security will be epic. .Russia will have the capability to monitor what is inside NATO warships ,if they are armed with nukes and how many people inside. This also means the end of Submarine stealth ? Since such technology radio photonics,will be able to detect submarines deep under water as if was a very powerful xray scanner. and detect how many people are inside.. truly amazing. Also terrorist will be
unable to hide in forest. or inside caves.  In Syria this will be totally Revolutionary for combat.


Imagine this hellicopters or tanks with Radio Photonics will be able to see inside houses with xray vision ,and see if there are terrorist inside ,if there are armed with rocket grenades ,if there are civilians and even see their faces.  

so powerful are photonic radars , that multi story buildings radars Russia use ,for long range
distance ,can be replaced with a pickup TRuck and produce the same power. in a photonic version of it.

So no longer ISIS will find a place to hide. not inside cities ,not behind any hill ,houses and neither underground in tunnels.  Not mentioning underwater scuba divers will be dead meat.

terrorist they will be detected either by tanks or hellicopters or drones photonic radars if look on their direction. Wow!!!and this does not end here. this will be able to detect suicide bombers from far away distances to see if they carry explosives in their car. and the radars displays of photonic scanners ,should be even more impressive ,because the type of plane flying will be seen in radar by visual representation. in 3d.. This means that F-22 or F-35 stealth technology will become totally useless and be seen as if they were world war 2 planes. because the radar evasion tactics will not work with photon long distance scanners. and not mentioning Russia can also block enemy communications and theirs not blocked.  This will totally be a game changing weapon in world battlefields.  can't wait.

Isos wrote:

JohninMK wrote:
RussianDefence.com‏ @Russian_Defence 10h10 hours ago
Replying to @Russian_Defence

More #MAKS2017 by Marina Lystseva. Note #PAKFA 052 with a new pair of LERX/blended canards http://fotografersha.livejournal.com/912208.html

The rear nose is different. I suppose the yellow one is the final design but the other seems to be for testing new equipement, maybe electronic warefare ?

The more pointed and conical rear belong to T-50-1, the first prototype, it houses a small parachute to recover the plane from deep stalls and spins to test the aerodynamic and controlability limits of the aircraft. All other prototypes have the flater rear, which is the standart.