Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Share
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 916
    Points : 910
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  LMFS on Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:12 am

    dino00 wrote:
    The Su-57 fighter will receive an ultra-long-range air-to-air missile

    The aircraft will carry an air-to-air missile R-37M of long range on an external suspension.

    The fifth-generation fighter Su-57 (PAK FA) will receive the latest ultra-long-range R-37M missile. This was reported by Interfax with reference to Boris Obnosov, General Director of Tactical Missile Arms Corporation.

    "Well, yes, of course, on the external suspension," said Obnosov.

    The P-37M product is 4.06 meters long and weighs more than 500 kilograms. The maximum launch range is about 300 kilometers, the height of the targets being hit is from 15 meters to 25 kilometers.

    More
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201809261047-6tvm.htm
    That is disappointing, considering dimensions it would fit internally... I wonder what the reasons are
    avatar
    x_54_u43

    Posts : 195
    Points : 213
    Join date : 2015-09-19

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  x_54_u43 on Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:27 am

    LMFS wrote:
    dino00 wrote:
    The Su-57 fighter will receive an ultra-long-range air-to-air missile

    The aircraft will carry an air-to-air missile R-37M of long range on an external suspension.

    The fifth-generation fighter Su-57 (PAK FA) will receive the latest ultra-long-range R-37M missile. This was reported by Interfax with reference to Boris Obnosov, General Director of Tactical Missile Arms Corporation.

    "Well, yes, of course, on the external suspension," said Obnosov.

    The P-37M product is 4.06 meters long and weighs more than 500 kilograms. The maximum launch range is about 300 kilometers, the height of the targets being hit is from 15 meters to 25 kilometers.

    More
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201809261047-6tvm.htm
    That is disappointing, considering dimensions it would fit internally... I wonder what the reasons are

    The new long range missiles for PAK-FA have been stated over and over on many places that they were intended to be internally carried, and the fact that they have folding fins for internal carriage makes it blatantly obvious.

    I don't think two lines in one small article invalidates all of the above, it is probably just wrongly translated/written/false.

    EDIT: It also might have been saying that the first tests of the missile would be external, again, no way to really know, but I'm 99% sure that these new long-range missiles would be internally carried, especially since they went to all that effort to make them so large that they could fit 800-1000 km class cruise missiles.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18885
    Points : 19441
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:40 am

    The missile launch pylon includes a pneumatic ram to throw the missile downwards clear of the aircraft before the rocket motor starts.

    This is to ensure a clear separation from the aircraft before it heads on its way as the slipstream flowing past the missile sort of holds it against the aircraft... so without the ram there is a risk that the missile might hit the aircraft during launch.

    The R-77 has a similar ram arm to throw it down before launch too.

    I rather suspect the external carriage of the missile might be because it leaves internal space for more missiles... I seem to remember a claim it could carry four R-37M missiles internally in the main weapon bays... two rows of two... but that space could be better filled with R-77s.

    Unrealistically speaking, agree that it would be extremely cool on a legacy light single-engine plane. On a F-16 it would be insane, maybe they should buy some cheap airframes somewhere and make a Russian version (and of course sell it abroad cheaper than the US), now they are under all kinds of sanctions there is little revenge to fear

    MiG-23MLDM?

    Its acceleration was already much better than the MiG-29s, but with this much more powerful engine.... its acceleration would be eye watering... Smile
    avatar
    dino00

    Posts : 362
    Points : 407
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Location : portugal

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  dino00 on Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:39 am

    This is from UAC so official  right?




    There are some mistake like export version missiles, maybe R-37M Will be esternal until izdeliye 810 which Will be internal


    Last edited by dino00 on Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:42 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Image)
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2489
    Points : 2483
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  Isos on Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:43 pm

    dino00 wrote:This is from UAC so official  right?




    There are some mistake like export version missiles, maybe R-37M Will be esternal until izdeliye 810 which Will be internal

    Thanks to its stealth, su 57 can go closer to awacs without being detected. New r-77 should have a range of 200km when launched at high speed high altitude against big planes like transport or awacs so it doesn't need r-37.

    Su-35 and mig-31 can carry them to clean the airspace if needed. But no need to increase the su-57's rcs with external weapons.
    avatar
    dino00

    Posts : 362
    Points : 407
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Location : portugal

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  dino00 on Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:15 pm

    You can see from the post That idzleye 810 is meant to BE internal and the wheigt is the same as R-37M
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 872
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 30
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  Stealthflanker on Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:19 pm

    Or the missile is simply not tested or cleared yet for internal storage.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2489
    Points : 2483
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  Isos on Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:24 pm

    dino00 wrote:You can see from the post That idzleye 810 is meant to BE internal  and the wheigt is the same as R-37M

    This thing is biased. They claim r-77M is 110km while they officialy said it's something like 200km.

    I was talking about the r-37M externally carried that is useless for su-57. It can be carried by su35 or mig 31 and su-57 has stealth to get closer to any target without being detected, at least for now and launch r-77M.

    Izd.810 is provavly for future targets that will be harder to get close like new awacs wih anti stealth tech. In this case an internaly carried long range missile will be needed to keep rcs low and have a LRAAM tgat doesn't increase rcs.

    But for now su57 with r-37M is able to take down any threat at long range without rusking its life.

    Labrador

    Posts : 130
    Points : 130
    Join date : 2018-09-24

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  Labrador on Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:40 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    dino00 wrote:
    The Su-57 fighter will receive an ultra-long-range air-to-air missile

    The aircraft will carry an air-to-air missile R-37M of long range on an external suspension.

    The fifth-generation fighter Su-57 (PAK FA) will receive the latest ultra-long-range R-37M missile. This was reported by Interfax with reference to Boris Obnosov, General Director of Tactical Missile Arms Corporation.

    "Well, yes, of course, on the external suspension," said Obnosov.

    The P-37M product is 4.06 meters long and weighs more than 500 kilograms. The maximum launch range is about 300 kilometers, the height of the targets being hit is from 15 meters to 25 kilometers.

    More

    That is disappointing, considering dimensions it would fit internally... I wonder what the reasons are

    It is a monster as R-33 and AIM-54 Iranians use again and normal with wings 70 cm… weapons bay do i have 90 but could to be possible internaly 2 one in both
    Reason possible modifications necessary from 2 to 1 HPs in each bay or ? normaly as it is a new no wiring/software problems.

    And for tactical use as Su-57 is stealth better to have 4 x R-77 keep very long stick not in ghost vs no stealth fighters and AWACS
    and useless have R-37 vs stealth
    In addition i have more than heavy doubts a fighter even if he can detect ( and extremely few are able to this range ) can shoot down one other to 300 - 400 km ! about 200 km max seems more reasonnable


    So what we have for internal weapons now :

    I have… :

    Main weapons bay
    HPs for 700 kg max x 4 so 500 kg bombs
    4,6 x 0,9 m each

    AAMs :
    R-77 x 4 or more ? i have always see 4
    R-73 x 2

    A2G/Surface :
    Kh-59MK2 x 4

    Bombs
    KAB-500
    Others ?
    LGB ?
    SGB ?
    avatar
    dino00

    Posts : 362
    Points : 407
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Location : portugal

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  dino00 on Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:17 pm

    Isos wrote:
    dino00 wrote:You can see from the post That idzleye 810 is meant to BE internal  and the wheigt is the same as R-37M

    This thing is biased. They claim r-77M is 110km while they  officialy said it's something like 200km.

    I was talking about the r-37M externally carried that is useless for su-57. It can be carried by su35 or mig 31 and su-57 has stealth to get closer to any target without being detected, at least for now and launch r-77M.


    I Said it have mistakes but is from UAC oficial Twitter acount
    I think they Will have a very long range air to air missile launched from internal bay
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 916
    Points : 910
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  LMFS on Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:14 am

    GarryB wrote:I rather suspect the external carriage of the missile might be because it leaves internal space for more missiles... I seem to remember a claim it could carry four R-37M missiles internally in the main weapon bays... two rows of two... but that space could be better filled with R-77s.
    Paradoxically all indicates Su-57 can carry currently only 4 x R-77M. Potentially with folding wings there would be space for 8 but who knows. Same goes for R-37M, everything seems to be ok for internal carriage but by now this statement points in the other direction.

    I guess the plane and its armament still have a long way to go. We know very little of the new missiles. And also have seen double external pylons, so it is clear many things are going on.

    MiG-23MLDM?

    Its acceleration was already much better than the MiG-29s, but with this much more powerful engine.... its acceleration would be eye watering...  Smile
    Literally!  Laughing  3G plane with 5G engine, that would be an interesting mutant hehehe... I still personally think the F-16 is more "Russian" than the MiG-29, the project for the smaller single engine 4G MiG would have been a thing to see. But now the US is making it easy with the F-35, Russia should make use of the occasion and compete in the light fighter market.

    Labrador wrote:It is a monster as R-33 and AIM-54 Iranians use again and normal with wings 70 cm… weapons bay do i have 90 but could to be possible internaly 2 one in both
    Reason possible modifications necessary from 2 to 1 HPs in each bay or ? normaly as it is a new no wiring/software problems.

    And for tactical use as Su-57 is stealth better to have 4 x R-77 keep very long stick not in ghost vs no stealth fighters and AWACS
    and useless have R-37 vs stealth
    In addition i have more than heavy doubts a fighter even if he can detect ( and extremely few are able to this range ) can shoot down one other to 300 - 400 km ! about 200 km max seems more reasonnable
    All missiles for internal carriage have folding wings, only the smaller have not. It makes no sense carry air in the weapons bays, so I guess development will go in the direction of making missiles better adapted to the bays (Kh-59MK2 is a perfect example).

    4 x R-37Ms will always have a huge potential since you can keep your enemies away. The missile can be guided based on targeting data coming from many sources and activate its powerful seeker only in the end. It is highly unlikely that a missile with 60 kg warhead coming your way at Mach 6 is not going to put everyone to run.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18885
    Points : 19441
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:07 am

    Paradoxically all indicates Su-57 can carry currently only 4 x R-77M. Potentially with folding wings there would be space for 8 but who knows. Same goes for R-37M, everything seems to be ok for internal carriage but by now this statement points in the other direction.

    The folding rear grid fins are from the outset intended for internal carriage, and the arm launcher for the missiles throws the missile downwards at launch so you could stagger the missiles like bullets in a two stack magazine...

    I would suspect the idea is that when attacking something like AWACS or JSTARS, or even a troop transport aircraft it could carry R-37M externally because from 400km away its stealth is likely good enough... and then when those missiles have been launched some way of hiding the launch pylons could allow it to then operate as a stealth fighter with internal weapons only...

    It could also be used to extend range if drop tanks are carried and dropped...

    With the R-37Ms they could be conformally mounted on the wing like they are on the belly of the MiG-31M, so after they are launched they leave no pylon hanging down adding to the RCS...

    I guess the plane and its armament still have a long way to go. We know very little of the new missiles. And also have seen double external pylons, so it is clear many things are going on.

    I remember in the 1990s that they had a display that showed all new AAMs projected for the new stealth fighter that were long and slim and just white with small tail fins... a small, medium, and large missile.

    Literally! Laughing 3G plane with 5G engine, that would be an interesting mutant hehehe... I still personally think the F-16 is more "Russian" than the MiG-29, the project for the smaller single engine 4G MiG would have been a thing to see. But now the US is making it easy with the F-35, Russia should make use of the occasion and compete in the light fighter market.

    Interesting idea, but it would not work because any F-16 user wanting to add a Russian engine would end up like Turkey wanting a Russian SAM system, or Venezuela... with total loss of support for spares... and grounded F-16.

    It would need to be a very complete support package... replace everything... and then that would compete with MiG-29M2 sales...


    4 x R-37Ms will always have a huge potential since you can keep your enemies away. The missile can be guided based on targeting data coming from many sources and activate its powerful seeker only in the end. It is highly unlikely that a missile with 60 kg warhead coming your way at Mach 6 is not going to put everyone to run.

    Imagine a version with an IIR seeker and a datalink... you could launch it and it could activate its passive IIR sensor immediately without alerting the enemy like an ARH seeker would.

    As it flys along it could look for IR signatures and compare them with 3D IR signatures in its own database and if it finds one like an F-35 or B-2 or F-22 it can target it specifically. At launch using L band it could be loaded with several potential stealthy targets to engage, with a priority list... mostly AWACS and JSTARS platforms would be the highest priority, but as it flys through enemy territory... up to 400km it could pass some interesting targets it could datalink information back to the launch aircraft about...

    F-22s and F-35s and B-2s would also obviously be serious targets but IIR guided R-77s could be used for those instead... they don't need a 60kg HE enema...

    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1303
    Points : 1303
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  Hole on Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:24 am

    R-77M has conventional fins.



    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18885
    Points : 19441
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:30 pm

    Yeah.... yuk.

    They are trading terminal manouver performance for long range low drag design...

    It means it will fly further, but when it gets there it wont be as hard to evade...

    Personally I would have gone for a compromise... rear grid fins for optimum manouver performance that don't pop out till it has reached the target area... so all the way it has tiny rear fins for stabilisation and general steering to get it near the target and then have the grid fins pop out for high performance terminal manouver capability...
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1303
    Points : 1303
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  Hole on Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:48 pm

    It was done to reduce drag and RCS ( dunno ). According to Vympel its Performance would be as good as that of the R-77-1.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 872
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 30
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  Stealthflanker on Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:20 pm

    Really ? does this "R-77M" real ?

    The concept has been around for a while but so far nothing concrete..not even mock ups were made.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2489
    Points : 2483
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  Isos on Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:58 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:Really ? does this "R-77M" real ?  

    The concept has been around for a while but so far nothing concrete..not even mock ups were made.

    Of course it is. R-77-1 can't fit into weapons bays. They need new missiles.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 916
    Points : 910
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  LMFS on Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:55 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The folding rear grid fins are from the outset intended for internal carriage, and the arm launcher for the missiles throws the missile downwards at launch so you could stagger the missiles like bullets in a two stack magazine...
    Not sure there is a clean way with a R-77 of current design to do this. But with folding wings you would not need to stagger them. The extra vertical space would be needed for a double launching pylon attached to the existing two suspension points in each bay. No idea if this is feasible due to min. clearances but it looks thinkable at least.

    I would suspect the idea is that when attacking something like AWACS or JSTARS, or even a troop transport aircraft it could carry R-37M externally because from 400km away its stealth is likely good enough... and then when those missiles have been launched some way of hiding the launch pylons could allow it to then operate as a stealth fighter with internal weapons only...

    It could also be used to extend range if drop tanks are carried and dropped...

    With the R-37Ms they could be conformally mounted on the wing like they are on the belly of the MiG-31M, so after they are launched they leave no pylon hanging down adding to the RCS...
    Triangular section pylons may be a way of keeping them without them adding too much to RCS. But we have not seen anything like that in F-22. The F-35 has some special pylons for SRAAM IIRC...

    I remember in the 1990s that they had a display that showed all new AAMs projected for the new stealth fighter that were long and slim and just white with small tail fins... a small, medium, and large missile.
    Pretty much like that drawing of the Izd. 180. But no real news yet...

    Interesting idea, but it would not work because any F-16 user wanting to add a Russian engine would end up like Turkey wanting a Russian SAM system, or Venezuela... with total loss of support for spares... and grounded F-16.

    It would need to be a very complete support package... replace everything... and then that would compete with MiG-29M2 sales...
    Hahaha yes of course it is an idea for a parallel universe... but it would be soo cool to "russianize" the F-16   Laughing  

    The fact that US may actually ground Turkey's F-16 because of the S-400 is only an incentive to offer support, not the other way around. With the amount of F-16 operators "flirting" with Russia, it may even be good business. Think Venezuela, Pakistan, Irak, Turkey...

    BTW, these "old" airframes may be of more interest than some think. VLO may well end up being discredited and with difficult economic conditions many nations could end up just needing cheap and efficient fighters with modern engines and avionics that they can buy in numbers.

    Imagine a version with an IIR seeker and a datalink... you could launch it and it could activate its passive IIR sensor immediately without alerting the enemy like an ARH seeker would

    As it flys along it could look for IR signatures and compare them with 3D IR signatures in its own database and if it finds one like an F-35 or B-2 or F-22 it can target it specifically. At launch using L band it could be loaded with several potential stealthy targets to engage, with a priority list... mostly AWACS and JSTARS platforms would be the highest priority, but as it flys through enemy territory... up to 400km it could pass some interesting targets it could datalink information back to the launch aircraft about....
    Or double radar-IR seeker, I think there is already an Israeli design like that. R-37 is a big, expensive missile for high-value targets so it would make sense to make it more resistant to countermeasures. DIRCM are only going to improve.

    Not sure though it makes  sense to launch a missile like the R-37 without concrete target. But a missile with different kinematics (first stage subsonic, second stage highly supersonic) that would do the same thing may work, pretty much like a mini UCAV

    F-22s and F-35s and B-2s would also obviously be serious targets but IIR guided R-77s could be used for those instead... they don't need a 60kg HE enema...
    True, warhead is massive and it may be overkill with certain targets. I know the R-27 has IR seekers but don't know of this for the R-77...
    Also a R-37 version with smaller warhead and more fuel or double seeker could be designed against stealth fighters. Bays in the Su-57 are bigger than those on F-22 or F-35 and it is an advantage that should be exploited with longer-ranged missiles than the US fighters.

    Hole wrote:R-77M has conventional fins.
    Just to avoid misunderstandings, I did that model only to explore the possibility of a R-77 version of which 4 could fit in each Su-57 bay (for 10 AAM internally carried), with folding wings. No idea if this is really feasible in any way. But the conventional shape of the rear fins I took from existing R-77M drawings.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 872
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 30
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:32 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Of course it is. R-77-1 can't fit into weapons bays. They need new missiles.

    This is what needed


    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18885
    Points : 19441
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:21 pm

    It was done to reduce drag and RCS ( dunno ). According to Vympel its Performance would be as good as that of the R-77-1.

    That was its purpose, but the result would be it will not have the same ability to turn in its terminal end game flight regime with tiny triangle control surfaces...

    Of course it is. R-77-1 can't fit into weapons bays. They need new missiles.

    The rear grid fins fold forward for internal stowage, with the fins flipping out and locking on launch... all they need to do is fair over the folded grid fins and fit fins at the rear that fit into the control areas so at launch and for most of the first part of the flight the small fins are in the air stream and controlling the missiles flight, but when the missile gets close to the target the small fins pop off and the grid fins flip out and lock and for the terminal phase the gridfins are used to manouver the missile...

    Not sure there is a clean way with a R-77 of current design to do this. But with folding wings you would not need to stagger them. The extra vertical space would be needed for a double launching pylon attached to the existing two suspension points in each bay. No idea if this is feasible due to min. clearances but it looks thinkable at least.

    If you have two evenly spaced with missiles on them and you put pylons between them that hang lower then you could possibly fit up to four missiles in a place you would normally only get two missiles into as long as the space is deep enough... and it needs to be quite deep anyway for the R-37 or Kh-31 type weapons to fit.

    BTW, these "old" airframes may be of more interest than some think. VLO may well end up being discredited and with difficult economic conditions many nations could end up just needing cheap and efficient fighters with modern engines and avionics that they can buy in numbers.

    Well photonic radar, and new super powerful engine and all of a sudden you can have a really cheap widely available airframe that previously everyone was trying to get rid of so they could buy enormously expensive F-35s... if the new radars make stealth useless then an F-16 is better than an F-35... more weapon pylons, better performance in speed, range and manouver performance... and much much cheaper to operate...

    Not sure though it makes sense to launch a missile like the R-37 without concrete target. But a missile with different kinematics (first stage subsonic, second stage highly supersonic) that would do the same thing may work, pretty much like a mini UCAV

    Without its ARH it wont be so expensive, but certainly you would not be banging them off in just any old direction... L band radar detection where the x band sees nothing would be worth a shot...

    I know the R-27 has IR seekers but don't know of this for the R-77...

    It would definitely need IIR seekers, but in this case R-27s are probably more suitable for the job... an IIR seeker with Morfei is intended to be a short range lock on after launch IIR guided missile intended to be launched at an incoming threat from an internal weapons bay with no IIR lock before launch.

    A datalink would allow the launch fighter to pick a priority target, but the missile itself should have a 3D database of IR signatures so the missile can identify a range of targets itself and prioritise... ie incoming AMRAAM would be very high on the threat list for fighters and bombers carrying the missile, but a datalink should allow overrides if necessary...

    Also a R-37 version with smaller warhead and more fuel or double seeker could be designed against stealth fighters. Bays in the Su-57 are bigger than those on F-22 or F-35 and it is an advantage that should be exploited with longer-ranged missiles than the US fighters.

    Quite true... they had enormous numbers of variants of R-27 missiles and they need to continue that tradition of flexible missile family types for a range of different threats and scenarios...

    This is what needed

    That was the original R-77 design which was designed all along to be carried internally in a weapon bay and thrown down and clear for launch...

    In fact I think it was on Keypub forums that I suggested that a solid rocket booster stage should be fitted to the rear with a fairing that covered the folded rear grid fins, but with limited movement normal simple fins at the very back... the solid rocket booster was only relatively small and would only work for a few seconds but would cover the rear grid fins and allow smaller simpler fins with lower drag to allow the missile to travel further than it normally would... the main rocket engine would then fire through the rear booster which would mostly fall away except the simple single fins and the fairing over the rear grid fins so the missile accelerates again and then coasts to the target area before the fairing falls away and the grid fins deploy.

    It would mean low RCS till the terminal phase but the ARH radar would be operating then so low RCS would be meaningless and improved turning performance would be more important than low drag...

    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 916
    Points : 910
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  LMFS on Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:21 pm

    GarryB wrote:If you have two evenly spaced with missiles on them and you put pylons between them that hang lower then you could possibly fit up to four missiles in a place you would normally only get two missiles into as long as the space is deep enough... and it needs to be quite deep anyway for the R-37 or Kh-31 type weapons to fit.
    Yes exactly.

    Double pylons:

    Interpretation of bays' dimensions:


    Well photonic radar, and new super powerful engine and all of a sudden you can have a really cheap widely available airframe that previously everyone was trying to get rid of so they could buy enormously expensive F-35s... if the new radars make stealth useless then an F-16 is better than an F-35... more weapon pylons, better performance in speed, range and manouver performance... and much much cheaper to operate...
    Agree, airframe is better in many ways and costs are simply in another category. Martyanov surprised me lending ears to claims that ROFAR will be ready in few years, if that was the case then programs like F-35 would be failures of epic proportions, B-21 could still be cancelled before the big expenses are done but in general the whole USAF approach would need to be thought again. That would be massive.

    Without its ARH it wont be so expensive, but certainly you would not be banging them off in just any old direction... L band radar detection where the x band sees nothing would be worth a shot...
    Ok I see.

    It would definitely need IIR seekers, but in this case R-27s are probably more suitable for the job... an IIR seeker with Morfei is intended to be a short range lock on after launch IIR guided missile intended to be launched at an incoming threat from an internal weapons bay with no IIR lock before launch.

    A datalink would allow the launch fighter to pick a priority target, but the missile itself should have a 3D database of IR signatures so the missile can identify a range of targets itself and prioritise... ie incoming AMRAAM would be very high on the threat list for fighters and bombers carrying the missile, but a datalink should allow overrides if necessary...
    Is it difficult to detect per radar an incoming AMRAAM and get it shot down with an IR-SRAAM or radar-guided MRAAM? I thought IR seekers for MRAAM missiles were rather to create a salvo for which the countermeasures are less effective, not to shoot down incoming missiles which are not so heavy on ECM. So in future I would still see this approach as correct, with two non-excluding improvement possibilities:
    > Double seeker as said, increasing the cost of the single missile but reducing the cost of the salvo due to higher Pk
    > Cooperative attack of the missiles comprising the salvo, with info sharing to discriminate the target even when countermeasures are used.
    To shoot down incoming threats small cheap missiles are being developed in US IIRC, this would make sense for Russia too. For example, guided rockets launched angled from a container in the weapons bays could provide a big number of interceptors and form a defensive cloud difficult to pierce.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18885
    Points : 19441
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:58 pm

    Part of the sales pitch of the R-77 was that it could detect and shoot down incoming SAMs and medium to large AAMs...

    Remember these aircraft have DAS type systems and can automatically detect an incoming missile... what is the difference between activating flares and chaff and jammers and DIRCMS and launching a small AAM?

    An incoming missile should have a significant IR signature because of its speed, and for many fighters or bombers it might be just easier to launch a missile to defeat a threat rather than jam it and broadcast your location with an AESA based jammer...

    These self defence Morfei missiles are supposed to be rather small but very manouverable and will an imaging IR seeker... it is supposed to be a cross platform missile so the air force would use it as a self defence missile for aircraft (fighters and bombers and strike aircraft and potentially recon platforms too), drones and helicopters, while the Army will use it as a point defence system against munitions, and the Navy will use it as a CIWS missile with vertical launch in the case of Army and Navy use to defend against mainly munitions and missiles.
    Initially the seekers wont be cheap but over time their price should come down to the level of CCD chips... a few dollars each... and the computer processing and video processing capacity is equivalent to a mobile phones power... so cheaper too.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 872
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 30
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  Stealthflanker on Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:20 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    Agree, airframe is better in many ways and costs are simply in another category. Martyanov surprised me lending ears to claims that ROFAR will be ready in few years, if that was the case then programs like F-35 would be failures of epic proportions, B-21 could still be cancelled before the big expenses are done but in general the whole USAF approach would need to be thought again. That would be massive.

    Well this is kinda hard to believe. Given the infacy of quantum radar technology. Research does exist yes, but no prototype so far. Remember the Zhuk AE Saga... and we haven't see any serial production and this is a mature product which supposedly ready for flight.


    Is it difficult to detect per radar an incoming AMRAAM and get it shot down with an IR-SRAAM or radar-guided MRAAM? I thought IR seekers for MRAAM missiles were rather to create a salvo for which the countermeasures are less effective, not to shoot down incoming missiles which are not so heavy on ECM. So in future I would still see this approach as correct, with two non-excluding improvement possibilities:
    > Double seeker as said, increasing the cost of the single missile but reducing the cost of the salvo due to higher Pk
    > Cooperative attack of the missiles comprising the salvo, with info sharing to discriminate the target even when countermeasures are used.
    To shoot down incoming threats small cheap missiles are being developed in US IIRC, this would make sense for Russia too. For example, guided rockets launched angled from a container in the weapons bays could provide a big number of interceptors and form a defensive cloud difficult to pierce.

    The question is not in detection but will you spent your precious RVV-SD warload on an AAM, especially it's AMRAAM which basically same price and same size. Might be wasteful use of AAM.

    The Active system idea is attractive with some example developed for helicopter but a question can be asked whether the plane will have the space to carry the required number or whether the interceptors can be made small enough. Large aircrafts like AEW might have space but fighter aircraft would need to be built from the ground with that system in mind. Upgrade older aircraft with it may pose challenge mainly to ensure safe separation of the interceptor munitions and to ensure the protection system does not eat up space or pylons.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2835
    Points : 2817
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  miketheterrible on Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:46 pm

    Actually prototypes does exist, Rostec stated so and it was said in my link (link was in new technologies thread).

    http://tehnoomsk.ru/node/2522

    Fighter based radar maybe not.  But ground  based for sure.

    Plus. please refrain from being stupid.  Zhuk-A radar and MiG-29/35 have nothing to do with this.  We have seen N036 fly a lot more than Zhuk, got more false equivalencies there Flanker? Why not state that it is impossible to build such a radar in Russia while they are still using T-72 tanks?
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 872
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 30
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  Stealthflanker on Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:03 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:Actually prototypes does exist, Rostec stated so and it was said in my link (link was in new technologies thread).

    http://tehnoomsk.ru/node/2522

    Fighter based radar maybe not.  But ground  based for sure.

    Yeah. so how about being real and stop relating ROFAR thing with Su-57 as we know that the radar wont be flying for maybe years or decades.



    Plus. please refrain from being stupid.  Zhuk-A radar and MiG-29/35 have nothing to do with this.  We have seen N036 fly a lot more than Zhuk, got more false equivalencies there Flanker?  Why not state that it is impossible to build such a radar in Russia while they are still using T-72 tanks?

    Problem i see here is alot of attempt of Leap of Faith by hyping stuff that are still in research or development. Quantum radar. yes.. does it make stealth fails ? Really ? Without even a single grain of explanation on how that fucking things work. Plus it's not a secret that the science behind it are still in infacy.

    My point is that Zhuk story can happen. and i believe we all must be aware of that and remain on the earth.

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #5

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:28 am