Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:22 am


    Rogozin return on its declarations on the Future System for Strategic Long Range Aviation (an expression that i strongly prefer to the classic "Long Range Bomber"....if we talk of a weapon system which would meet the requirements in a technological environment 30-40 years from now...) and clarify what was the meaning of its words .

    I can only add that what expressed by Rogozin represent by far the most enlightened, grounded and far-sighted position ,under both a a doctrinal and technical point of view, among all the Russian leading figures.


    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120619/174119742.html


    “I am for PAK DA but it should not be a copy of the B-2. We need to look at the horizon and develop hypersonic long-range aviation, civil and military,” Rogozin said on his Twitter blog on Tuesday afternoon. The B-2 is an American long-range stealth bomber developed by Northrop, which became the most expensive aircraft ever built and is in service with the U.S. Air Force in very small numbers."

    "I'm ready to insist on my point of view," Rogozin said on Tuesday on his Twitter blog. "With modern air defense systems, these targets will be destroyed on the way,".

    Low Subsonic aircraft, with limited payload ,in need to enter directly in the airspace of a major enemy defended by its IADS to accomplish its mission ,that can rely ,in order to survive, only on the delusional idea to don't be tracked, has been already a scorching ...and very, very costly...mistake for ours over Atlantic "friends" (with an entire VLO strategic bomber project suddenly bended, in the work, to a low flying terrrain following profile bomber and ,after, discontinued at only 21 aircraft , becoming so the most expensive aircraft designed to conduct first day bombing in a....Libya/Kossovo-like airspace).


    Russian Federation cannot live on the bet that ,in the next 20-25 years, Air Defense systems on the level of the most modern domestic available today will not be widely deployed by Western powers to defend theirs most critical military installations ; the devastating outcome would be fatally only one :" ....these targets will be destroyed on the way ."


    Americans have never commited the same mistake two times in a row in theirs entire history and anyone can easily realize on what them point today for theirs future strategical offensive mean.
    In some critical segments of this new "road" Russia can even boast some pasted fundamental scientifical achievements and breakthroughs which could put it in a distinctive advantage ,if properly capitalized.
    To the contrary the temptation to choose, today ,the option with the lowest financial and technical requirements will, on the long, reveal itself as the most horrible planning mistake of the last two decades.





    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:03 am

    Like I said before Russia does not need a B-2 copy.

    They don't need a first strike bomber.

    What they could use is a long range aircraft that is not so visible to radar that gets to where it is going fairly quickly and can be used in a range of roles and situations.

    Hypersonic bombers would be a real challenge and I think would be a step too far for the next decade or so.

    I think for the strategic role however a combination of stealth and very high speed is the solution to modern air defences, so a hypersonic long range missile and stealthy subsonic cruise missiles would be the ideal combination of weapons that will allow the new bomber to perform its strategic role at minimal risk and cost.

    The added bonus is that the aircraft will be cheaper and can be used in smaller conflicts either also delivering long range cruise missiles of different types, or in cases where there is no air threat as in Afghanistan etc it could deliver a range of guided air to ground weapons.

    Tu-160 could be modified for the same role, but it makes rather more sense to start a design from scratch with a more sophisticated fixed wing and stealthy flying wing design with a horizontal tail structure to allow super cruising... resulting in a platform they can built perhaps 300 of, with maybe 100 being strategic/theatre bombers, and the of the remainder perhaps 150 could be used as PAK DA-P or interceptor Mig-31 type replacement aircraft with a different configuration perhaps to allow higher speeds over shorter distances with a significant payload of long range AAMs and perhaps ABM missiles. This leaves about 50 aircraft that could be used as AWACS, high altitude JSTARS type aircraft, and even inflight refuelling tankers. Perhaps the non strategic bomber models can have a wing crank of a few degrees to make it clear from satellite that they are not the strategic bombers for verification purposes.

    As scramjet technology matures then experimental hypersonic versions could be tested for recon or other roles, but I think it would be inefficient to turn the standard Russian supersonic bomber into a hypersonic bomber.

    I think the best thing the Russian AF did was to start upgrades on its heavy Tupolevs to make them conventional bombers as well as cruise missile carriers.

    Initially they could fund the Brahmos II and perhaps this secret hypersonic long range missile we have heard snippits about and then from that they could build a long range hypersonic cruise missile... they already have the Kh-101/102 series weapons as stealthy long range cruise missiles for strategic use.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:20 am

    Like I said before Russia does not need a B-2 copy.


    I agree perfectly.



    What they could use is a long range aircraft that is not so visible to radar that gets to where it is going fairly quickly and can be used in a range of roles and situations.

    Also here i agree GarryB ,but the central question remain anyhow WHERE this bomber need to go in order to haev a chance to execute its startegical mission; the main problem of a "classical" VLO design is that it must carry its weapons internally and this element render very difficult (if not even impossible) to include among its option even only subsonic stand-off strategic cruise missiles ....for remain totally silent on stand-off supersonic missiles or perspective strategic hypersonic missiles.

    In a war against a major enemy also today the most crucial elements would become exclusively :
    1) Range of the nuclear cruise missiles delivered
    2) The speed of the delivering aircraft .

    Those elements would decide :

    1) How much far from your defended airspace your bombers should need to go in order to deliver theirs cruise missiles cargo (with the enormous impact on : sortie rate between nuclear cruise missile delivery , fuel/repair/crew's rotation requirements , options of attack's vectors for destroy a particular enemy target
    2) How much opposing aircraft -depending on theirs airbase geographical position- and with what chance of success are available to your enemy for intecept your strategical bombers before missile delivery (even with the aid of space based SIGINT and sensor assets)
    3) The chance of your bombers to evade from interception also after missile delivery ; in the event that enemy aircraft would choose to continue the enegagement against the delivering platforms.

    An old Professor of mine was never tired to repeat that also in very difficult problem almost anything could be reduced to : Space ,Time and Energy Potentials and that anyone that was convinved that some specific particular of that problem would be much important or have a bigger role than those was simply self-delusional.



    Hypersonic bombers would be a real challenge and I think would be a step too far for the next decade or so.

    GarryB on that i have a totally different opinion from you .
    At maximum here we talk to don't allow ,for the umpteenth time in the recent hystory to allow western powers to capitalize some of our most promising or even revolutionary scientifical achievements and breakthroughs strongly investing in theirs large scale applicative realization to feed theirs most perspective programs (the most recent examples of that being the entire modern theoretical architecture of "Stealth" technology which opened the possibility for F-117/B-2 and F-22's realization ,supersonic VTOL propulsion used today in F-35 and rocket ramjet engine propulsion allowing the realization of the European Meteor AAM).

    The problem here is simply to create a program capable to channel in the same direction ,instead to split, the efforts of the personel of dozen of different scientifical Institutes and ,above all, strongly support an efficient and prompt engineerization of any theoretical achievement .

    A project like that of which we talk here wasn't anymore a scientifical challenge in Russia already more than ten years ago ,not ten years from now ; to the contrary ,over the Ocean, some solutions and achievements ( some informations on which penetrated in the West after URSS's dissolution) was stimed not only simply revolutionary but opened the road for enormmous,and enormously funded, R&D/applicative project in the field.

    This video can give to you an hint of what we talk:
















    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3193
    Points : 3321
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Jun 21, 2012 1:19 am

    Stealthflanker wrote:
    milky_candy_sugar wrote:According to Wikipedia that new strategic bomber will be the update of TU-2000...they re launch the project with some modifications
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-2000

    wow... that's really something ....

    Yeah that's really some fantasy alright.

    milky_candy_sugar; keep dreaming Laughing

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:36 am

    The problem here is simply to create a program capable to channel in the same direction ,instead to split, the efforts of the personel of dozen of different scientifical Institutes and ,above all, strongly support an efficient and prompt engineerization of any theoretical achievement .

    Don't get me wrong, I think there should be funding for hypersonic aircraft, but I think the initial focus should be on hypersonic cruise missiles first and once the scramjet propulsion problems have been worked out then they could be applied to a later model replacement or upgrade for PAK DA.

    The T-4 was a mach 3 bomber developed by Sukhoi but when the program was handed to Tupolev to build they ended up with the much more conservative Tu-160 which was an amalgamation of the Tu-144 and other aircraft models they were working on the time. The only real risk was a swing wing aircraft of that size which is still an impressive result.

    I think the key for Russia is that you don't need stealthy or hypersonic bombers when you can have stealthy or hypersonic weapons.

    Even supercruising at mach 1.8 these bombers will not get to launch positions before the ICBMs and SLBMs have already laid waste to the enemy AD network. In a conventional role air superiority needs to be achieved before sending in bombers... the alternative would be UCAV bombers like Skat for hitting ground targets.

    The problems of internal carriage can be addressed with missiles with multiple warheads so even if the hypersonic cruise missile payload on a strategic mission is only two missiles the obvious response is to fit ten free fall warheads in each missile so it can fly high and fast and release 10 nuclear weapons over enemy territory each to compensate that there are only two missiles carried. It could be the same with very low flying stealthy cruise missiles that can drop delayed fuse warheads that don't detonate till the missile has left the area.

    The Russians don't need super accurate nukes... warheads to land on major cities to maximise the number of people killed should be the focus because the goal is not to win the nuclear war by taking out their nuclear weapons, it is to prevent a war in the first place by making the consequences too dire and frightening to even consider.

    I am sure that Russia could build a hypersonic bomber but the operational costs will be very high. The future potential for launching payloads directly into space is exciting, but the new engines required would make it quite expensive.

    I would like to see a 5th generation version of the NK-32 engines with increased thrust for supercruise potential, and a variable bypass that allows ramjet or even scramjet operation will require an ultra optimised low drag shape... a flying wing with a fairly extreme sweep would be useful, but it will need a horizontal tail surface for trans sonic flight.

    Personally I think a manned supercruising flying wing with horizontal tail structure with a detachable sharp arrow shaped hypersonic detachable UCAV carrying 20 small nuclear bombs that it can deliver from high altitude on its way through enemy territory could be the best compromise with the super cruising part used as both a theatre bomber including internal and external weapons and as a strategic bomber with the UCAV fitted conformally to attack targets at hypersonic speed.

    Or something different.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:21 pm

    Don't get me wrong, I think there should be funding for hypersonic aircraft, but I think the initial focus should be on hypersonic cruise missiles


    GarryB hypersonic cruise missiles are already in very very advanced stadium of work ,but the point continue to remain the same : an hypersonic missile with strategical range (at least in the league of today Kh-102) would have technical requirements and ,above all COSTS (in particular in reason the design solutions and very complex materials necessary to sustain the immense thermal, magnetic and kinetic sollicitations linked to high hypersonic speed regime for a very protracted span of time) that would produce a price tag for it not significantly lower than that of a startegical hypersonic bomber.

    Practically investing your resources in the design and construction of suborbital strategical hypersonic bombers (capable of speed in the order of Mach 15 - Mach 20 ), you effectively multiply of several orders of magnitude your nuclear delivery potential in respect to a full hypersonic missiles approach at expenditure 's parity.


    As already mentioned previously, domestic Scientifical Institutes can boast a very wide lead in experience, applications and validated knowledges in this field in respect to any other world-wide competitor, to the point that (as already happened in the past for other segments now become even the "defining" technologies of foreign military .... Very Happy ) the world trend in the field outside ex-URSS nations has been outlined or ,at least, heavily influenced by domestic publications or experimentation's results penetrated in...or even sold to....foreign scentifical community.

    Therefore a coordinated effort in this direction can result, in the long term, in the establishment of a completely new industrial sector ,military and civilian ,critical in progressively distantiate Russian Federations' economical grow potential from raw material market's fluctuations.








    Last edited by Mindstorm on Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:40 pm; edited 2 times in total

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3193
    Points : 3321
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:34 pm

    If anyone is interested we had an interesting discussion on the PAK-DA on mp.net starting round about here: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?197506-Russian-Armed-Forces-News-amp-Discussion-thread&p=6225296&highlight=#post6225296

    A lot of good points were raised, I of course had my own opinion, others had theirs, etc...

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:29 am

    GarryB hypersonic cruise missiles are already in very very advanced stadium of work ,but the point continue to remain the same : an hypersonic missile with strategical range (at least in the league of today Kh-102) would have technical requirements and ,above all COSTS (in particular in reason the design solutions and very complex materials necessary to sustain the immense thermal, magnetic and kinetic sollicitations linked to high hypersonic speed regime for a very protracted span of time) that would produce a price tag for it not significantly lower than that of a startegical hypersonic bomber.

    The fundamental problem is that a bomber flying at hypersonic speeds will not be able to manouver like a subsonic fighter, so that hypersonic bomber will be threatened by the same ABM systems threatening Russian ICBMs.

    The purpose of a triad of nuclear weapons platforms is that no one measure will defeat all three legs of the triad... making the bombers fly high and fast makes them too much like slow SLBMs and ICBMs.

    Another thing is that materials and technology including aerodyamics created for cruise missiles... even if they are only 1,000km range weapons that could be used to hit air bases and major Air Defence Network nodes in front of the bomber as it supercruises along at mach 1.5.

    Taking things in steps allows the technology to mature... you might not ever want to have hypersonic bombers but for now they can be a long term goal with hypersonic cruise missiles as shorter term goals along with subsonic stealthy low flying cruise missiles.

    Sure you could probably create one hypersonic bomber to replace all of those systems, but I think it would end up being too expensive for now... too big a step.

    I realise that mach 3 bombers were tested in the 1960s... but flying at mach 3 wouldn't make you that much safer than being able to dash to mach 2 over the target area, but it is much more expensive and creates a lot of problems to be able to get to mach 3 and beyond.

    I say again that a hypersonic bomber is a good long term goal because if we can deal with the problems and issues then a scramjet powered aircraft that can fly into orbit becomes a possibility... and that would be really cool.

    I think a supercruising mach 1.5-1.8 bomber that might have a sprint speed of mach 2 or more but that carries long range subsonic stealthy cruise missiles internally and can carry 4 or 6 further hypersonic cruise missiles with ranges of 1,000-2,000km with scramjet propulsion for strategic missions would be the ideal.

    A flying wing with horizontal tail surfaces (a bit like the YF-23 except using thrust vectoring and horizontal only tail surfaces) and new 5th gen bomber engines in the 35-45 ton thrust range that enables the aircraft to supercruise comfortably. Later modifications that can burn fuel in the bypass air allowing the engines to be used in a ramjet mode should enable high speed operation. Later developments in terms of scramjet technology will allow even higher speeds to be achieved.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:25 pm


    flamming_python wrote:If anyone is interested we had an interesting discussion on the PAK-DA on mp.net starting round about here: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?197506-Russian-Armed-Forces-News-amp-Discussion-thread&p=6225296&highlight=#post6225296

    A lot of good points were raised, I of course had my own opinion, others had theirs, etc...


    Flammyng Python an interesting discussion has ,as its prerequisite, elaborated, mature and evolved ideas and data's exchanges between comparably knowledgeable persons ; unfortunately in that particular place (which ,how i image you would have already noticed, is literally controlled by an organized group with a very precise mandate and agenda ...) the intelligence and knowledge of persons like Artjomh cannot compensate in any way for the titanic ,biased, ridiculous ignorance of Dunning-Kruger Effect-sickened posters like C.Puff.



    I can remember distinctively a very brief (and also very funny for me ,if i must be totally sincere... Laughing Laughing ) discussion with this perfectly preserved specimen of Neanderthal, some years ago ,on the total lack ,by part of US Navy not only of any type of supersonic ASCM - both highly manoeuvrable ,armoured sea-skimming with in-built countermeasures ,swarm attack capable ones and high flying powered-dive capable ones with spiral like approach and random speed variating ones - but even only of any type of target drones capable to effectively mimic similar missiles to, at least, attempt to develop and test some type of defences against them.


    Well C.Puff get the face to sustain that US Navy had absolutely no problem at develop supersonic cruise missiles but that it was a deliberate choice because had computed that the option with the low range/subsonic/scarcely manoeuvrable /unarmored /primitive Harpoon was more efficient Razz Razz .
    But ,even worse, it found the courage to sustain that US Navy had tested its defences against drones perfectly capable to mimic both Kh-22/Kh-15 types and SS-N-22 ,P-500,P-700,P-1000, Yakhont, Kaliber etc... missile types since years '70s with drones like.... AQM-37C and MQM-8G Vandal !!!! Razz Razz Razz
    Or that US Navy was not interested at all in the MA-31 drone some of which (very, very downgraded moreover) Russia had sold to US Navy at the point that discovered theirs backwardness had interrupted quickly the orders !!! Razz Razz Razz

    At this point i begun to play slowly and devilishly with him ,attentively choosing any statements that would have appeared to its naive ,ignorant and highly biased eyes : srange ,exaggerated or even uninformed such as :" '70's years ? What impudence ! US Navy had literally ZERO capability capability to test its air defence systems against any of those type of supersonic menaces at just two years ago" (then it was 2007) or " Not interested in Russian high altitude MA-31 drone ? But if US Navy had attempted literally anything to obtain 40 more ,after the first 18 received, and only Russian bureaucracy and changed political climate had stalled the deal !! ".

    Naturally the poor C.Puff fall in the trap like a blind elephant in a covered pit ; it begun to utter any sort of curse and low offence against me saying that only a true ignorant on the subject could bring similar idiocies, no-senses and inventions on the table.

    All that until i said to him that i was very, very impressed and surprised by the unbelievable amount of vulgar innuendo and offences it had been capable to produce against the competence and work of....... General Michael Williams and Prof. William Delaney , Directors and Co-Chairmens of the Department of Defense of Unites states -Defense Science Board Task Force on Aerial Targets- practically two of the most important American authorities of the field tasked by Us Navy to assess ,with the work of this ad-hoc survey - to assess both the actual status and deficiency of US target drones and the requirements for the future.


    http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA441466.pdf



    After that it , very strangely ,vanished literally into nothing from this forum ; equally strange also the whole thread with all its post was firstly locked and ,after, totally cancelled and after a pair of week the same forum completely disappeared !!


    Just a pair of month ago C.Puff (i image it is the same guy ) just at mp.net returned strangely at sustain without any shame the same self-embarrassing idiocies up-mentioned in this thread:


    http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?211053-Aster-30-missile-successfully-intercepts-supersonic-target/page2


    Flammyng Python please follow this advice (and if possible pass it to other intelligent/knowledgeable poster here ,such as Artjomh, possibly in private message): do a gift to yourself and leave that "misty" place at light speed Wink Wink



    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  TR1 on Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:35 pm

    C Puffs is Sferrin, a known troll, Russaphobe who has an American Flag shoved so far up his ass, the only thing he sees is the stars and striped.

    Just ignore him.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:49 pm

    The fundamental problem is that a bomber flying at hypersonic speeds will not be able to manouver like a subsonic fighter, so that hypersonic bomber will be threatened by the same ABM systems threatening Russian ICBMs.

    The purpose of a triad of nuclear weapons platforms is that no one measure will defeat all three legs of the triad... making the bombers fly high and fast makes them too much like slow SLBMs and ICBMs.



    GarryB ,i am sorry, but here i cannot image a statement more distant from reality than this one (up to its exact opposite) : a similar hypersonic vehicles and7or missiles would renderer completely useless and push in total obsolescence the whole NATO's East European ABM project and future structure (already conceived to try to find a quick remedy to the complete uselessness of Alaska ABM assets against Topol-M class ICBM after theirs boost phase !!!) for reasons immensely greater than those that have lead General Yuri Baluyevsky to sustain that the high hypersonic - about Mach 18 !! - highly maneuverable, far gliding ICBM's warhead ,tested in 2004 would render Russian nuclear delivery systems completely immune to any western ABM system for at least 40 years !!


    The realization of similar hypersonic projects (togheter with S-500 and the future perspective unified air-space defence system) will inflict to NATO the worse economical blow,by far, of its entire history ,and likely even a fatal one taking into acount future economical trend's analysis.









    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:10 pm

    A hypersonic manouvering bomber will require more drastic air defences likely including very high speed interceptors like particle beams (in space) and lasers. Such systems when eventually perfected will become a serious threat to MAD...

    Hypersonic and strategic are contradicting parameters... and both are expensive achievements.

    I still think Russia should look at a more conservative option of supercruising flying wing with horizontal tail surfaces with hypersonic and subsonic cruise missiles.

    Russia does not need a hypersonic or stealthy first strike bomber.

    It doesn't fit their doctrine, and it would be very expensive.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:33 am

    If anyone is interested we had an interesting discussion on the PAK-DA on mp.net starting round about here: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?197506-Russian-Armed-Forces-News-amp-Discussion-thread&p=6225296&highlight=#post6225296

    A lot of good points were raised, I of course had my own opinion, others had theirs, etc...

    I treat mp.net like I treat a good edition of playboy... look at it every day... but just for the pictures... Embarassed

    My account does not work there now anyway... when I try to post it says I need to speak to a mod or something... by that stage I have generally gone through my own head what replies I would get to my post and I decide not to bother.

    Beating a dead horse comes to mind.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:12 pm



    A hypersonic manouvering bomber will require more drastic air defences likely including very high speed interceptors like particle beams (in space) and lasers. Such systems when eventually perfected will become a serious threat to MAD...


    Yes GarryB , Direct Energy Weapons, when them will reach a precise threeshold of efficiency, will represent a true revolution in military warfare capable to potentially unbalance the equilibrium toward defensive systems for several decades ,but try to reason on this question :

    What would be more vulnerable (and above all at what ranges...) to a high power direct energy weapon , a ballistic object foillowing its computable trajectory in the space's void or a manoeuvrable hypersonic vehicle enclosed in a bubble of high-ionized gas in the Earth's atmosphere ?


    Direct energy weapons will allow ,in future, to engage and destroy, at a limited range, a virtually limitless amount of offensive objects (the limit being only disposable volume ,energy and cooling potential ,with a immense premium,therefore, on ground and ship-based systems) and will surely represent the perfect defensive systems for decades.

    The only factor that will allow ,at this point , to still engage a target protected by sismilar systems retaining some chance of success will be saturating attacks employing high hypersonic vehicles ,flying through atmosphere and including some type of screening from radiated beams ; in few words the only factor that will really matter in deciding the possible outcome of as similar saturating attack,in future, will be the Time Of Exposure for Single Target Neutralization.




    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:33 am

    Lasers are getting more and more powerful, and for particle beams the matter in the beams needs to be neutral... otherwise it will be badly effected by the earths magnetic field and would be very difficult to aim.

    Very high speed bombers will be a problem, but it is not hard to make even air borne lasers that can be used to do damage to objects large distances away... I just think that hypersonic bombers are an unnecessary escalation that would be destabilising.

    Sure develop the technology and use it for air travel and perhaps eventually cheaper and easier access to space, but making bombers would be expensive and confrontational and the countermeasures developed to defend from the threat might render your other deterrent options less effective too... which means they will need further money and development.

    I am not saying Russia should stick its head in the sand, I just think there are other areas they can spend money on right now that would be much more beneficial... one example would be a powerful multicore CPU for Russian military systems. Many military systems actually use 486 level technology because it is hardened from EMP and is proven and reliable. Having a modern multicore chip will greatly improve the performance of various systems without too much cost increase and at the same time make Russia less dependent on imports and foreign technology.

    Work on supercomputers helps design bureaus, work on new materials and chemicals, work on non oil based energy sources... here in New Zealand we have companies selling heating systems that use wood pellets made of the waste material from sawmills and the forestry industry that are efficient and because of their design can be made fairly clean. There are so many things Russia can invest its money into that will make things better for Russia and Russians... having the biggest bomber or fastest bomber wins you no prizes because we are talking about things that if they really do their job and we do ours will hopefully never be used in anger...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sujoy on Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:48 pm

    RIA NOVOSTI



    The outline for a design of the Russian Air Force's future strategic bomber, known as PAK-DA, has been worked out, Air Force commander Maj. Gen. Viktor Bondarev said on Wednesday.
    "The outline of this aircraft is already formed, and the technical and tactical characteristics are being set out," Bondarev told a news conference at RIA Novosti dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the Russian Air Force

    "I think we have the resources and funding to make the plane on time, so it is ready when we need it as a replacement or addition to our Tu-95 and Tu-160 strategic bombers," he added.
    The AF commander did not specify the number of new bombers expected to enter service with the Air Force after 2020.
    Bondarev also denied any knowledge about the ongoing conflict between Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who has responsibility for military-industrial affairs, and the Armed Force’s General Staff over the need for a new “traditional” strategic bomber.
    Rogozin said on his blog last week that it would be undesirable for Russia to "go down the American route," and produce a bomber like the Northrop B-2, and repeated his earlier calls for a hypersonic air vehicle system instead of a traditional long-range bomber.
    In earlier comments, Rogozin had appeared to dismiss the need for PAK-DA, saying long-range bombers would fall victim to air defense systems long before reaching their targets.
    Rogozin's comments came just days after President Vladimir Putin called on Russian industry to develop PAK-DA

    Russian Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bomber

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:00 am

    So many websites keep putting up the Tu-4MS as a potential "new" design, yet that design was rejected decades ago in favour of the Tu-160 shape.

    Swing wings are complicated and expensive and heavy but at the time they were the best compromise to get low take off and landing speeds combined with high speed flight and low drag high speed cruise performance.

    For the same reasons the Mig-23 had swing wings and successfully combined short field operations for a mach 2+ fighter interceptor.

    As shown by the more sophisticated wing of the Su-27 and Mig-29 however modern wing design can offer high speed and low takeoff and landing speeds without moving and new technology in wing shaping offers even better efficiency.

    The Su-33KUB has a deforming wing structure that is supposed to reduce drag and improve performance in takeoff and landing and cruising flight regimes.

    The next Russian strategic bomber will benefit from a flying wing design as this combines low drag with low RCS and with wing mounted radar antenna it offers new capabilities in AWACS and attack options. The main problem with a flying wing design is that there is no capacity for the extreme shifts in gravity created by an airfoil moving through transonic speeds.

    The secret for the F-86 and the Mig-17 was the all moving tail plane to generate sufficient down force to counter the shift in centre of gravity.

    A flying wing but with horizontal tail surfaces should be able to fly supersonically without increasing drag or RCS too much. Thrust vector engine technology is very well developed in Russia so its use to remove the need for vertical stabilisers will reduce drag and complexity and RCS.

    Having a tail area means more volume in the main wing area for fuel and weapons internally.

    A higher speed requirement for the Russian bomber would lead to a sharper wing sweep than that used for the B-2 and could in many ways resemble a very large YF-23 with a thicker wing structure and no fuselage and perhaps horizontal tail surfaces without the vertical aspect to them.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:57 pm



    The today selection between the different optional technical requirements for PAKDA is a truly critical choice: it will not only shape its design but also the basis doctrine and future CONOPS of the entire third branch of the Russian nuclear triad .


    The selection of a subsonic ,"VLO", defense penetrating, flying wing design will be ,on the short term, the less demanding approach under a technical ,financial and temporal point of view, but will become ,on the long term, by far the least paying under a scientific /industrial know-how potential, military capability's increase and deterrence relevance point of view.


    In reality (and to the contrary of opinions shaped by ,at best, de-relato or even warped or "guided" data) the relevance of the B2 design approach was in deep jeopardy already during its development phase, to the point that the first step taken by US military authorities was to modify its flight profile from high altitude (a true "must" for an aircraft supposedly undetectable by high end coevian enemy radars...have i said supposedly ? ) to low altitude terrain following/masking ..... Suspect Suspect ,the second step was its abrupt cancelation at only 21 airframes .

    Behind closed doors the elementary "problem" was very clear since beginning of '90 years, as son as American operatives was capable to test theirs most advanced stealth aircraft against theirs most sophisticated search and tracking radars (and at the time US officials was also totally unaware of the wide technological gap suffered in the long range, fully mobile, long wave/ multi frequency, area search and engagement radar sector, in comparison to Russian products of the field !!! A gap that today with the new monstrous fully AESA ,highly mobile ,multi frequency radars appear even significantly widened.)


    When asked how a U.S. carrier battle group would defend itself against a Soviet stealth aircraft, Nyquist told Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.), "...The Aegis radar can do the job ... That's why we're fielding the Aegis in our cruisers and in the Arleigh Burke class destroyers."

    Bumpers, who said he formerly backed the B-2 bomber, questioned the need for building stealth planes. He said, "If it is true that the Aegis is capable of picking up stealth technology, then isn't it also true that they (the Soviets) can establish such a technology?"

    Assistant Secretary of the Navy (R&D and Acquisition) Gerald Cann said that was a complicated question. However, he said that the issue in such a case is at what cost can the Soviets overcome that technology. Bumpers stated that cost was also an issue in the U.S.
    Cann defended the development of stealth technologies saying, "We have to make sure our forces are survivable and stealth is something I'd like to have."


    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_n33_v167/ai_n28592796/


    Naturally Russia will not have the luxury in 2020-2025 to transform ,in a first instance, PAKDA 's flight profile in a low altitude terrain following aircraft or worse discontinue the whole program at a pair of dozen of airframe ...with system unitary costs in the order of several billion dollars Laughing Laughing ... after having discovered ,at project completed, that its enemy had covered its most important strategic targets with sensors (ground/air and space based) and air defense systems even only at par with those present today in Russian Federation capable to render similar bombers almost totally useless.

    The recent Rogozin's words on that subject should be truly carved in platinum-iridium : With modern air defense systems, these targets will be destroyed on the way.


    The third option (and likely also the most probable) is an high supersonic ,not flying wing, bomber with a not classical approach to the low radar observability issue, armed with perspective nuclear very long range weapons ,capable to be employed also in the very long range maritime strike role and as vector for future ASAT-type weapons. .



    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:51 am

    The thing is that the next Russian bomber will be a dual use bomber... with both theatre and strategic roles.

    In my opinion stealth is really only for the theatre role as in the strategic role it would need to be being used as a first strike weapon to require stealth AND standoff range.

    I don't think Russia should put all its eggs in one basket and I don't think they will.

    Hypersonic bombers are interesting concepts right now and with the right propulsion technology they might become viable, but I rather think that the technology for scramjet propulsion is very new and that development and experience is needed before building long range bombers to use the technology effectively.

    By all means develop the technology... it will certainly be useful in a range of areas, but the fact that the B-52 will likely serve to 2040 or beyond suggests hypersonic super Russian bombers might be an extravagance that Russia cannot afford.

    If penetrating enemy air defences is so dangerous then send in some unmanned drones and cruise missiles to soften the defences. The enemy can either not engage, which means the cruise missiles will do some damage, or they can shoot things down which will allow standoff aircraft and satellites to plot the positions of enemy air defence assets that can be targeted directly in a theatre scenario... in a strategic scenario just use nukes to blast your way through with missiles like Kh-15 Kickback.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:42 pm

    If penetrating enemy air defences is so dangerous then send in some unmanned drones and cruise missiles to soften the defences. The enemy can either not engage, which means the cruise missiles will do some damage, or they can shoot things down which will allow standoff aircraft and satellites to plot the positions of enemy air defence assets that can be targeted directly in a theatre scenario...


    GarryB the usual approach to defensive anti-UAV operations (in particular anti-MALE/long range area surveillance UAV) in or near own territory ,by now firmly established among any advanced military force around the world, foresee , in this order :

    1) The engagements of similar UAVs used in long range reconnaissance missions far from friend forces -....effectively completely defenceless targets- with not high-end aircraft (which will be useful at maintain or contest air superiority against capable enemy air intruders) ; after positive ID them can be shoot down in big numbers even only by cannons .







    Even a CAS aircraft ,such as SU-25 ,in this particular operation, is perfectly capable to inflict horrible losses in a single sortie to enemy surveillance UAVs


    2) Engagements with point EW assets (both air and ground based). It is just a today news that a team of University of Texas has managed to reproduce the spoofing techique likely employed by Iranian operators to force down ,some months ago the stealthy USAF RQ-170 "Sentinel".

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18643134


    3) Engagement with highly mobile medium and short range SAM systems , at second of the type of UAV in question.
    Remember that 90% of the surveillance UAVs represent a very trivial target, totally within engagement range of old SHORAD systems of an advanced nation and that enemy Air Force's offensive units would be positioned ,at best, at several hundreds km far from those UAVs in reconnaissance mssions ,therefore completely incapable to capitalize the knowledge of the momentary position of similar Air Defense TELARs.



    The type of tactics at which you refere was very common and also efficient in pasted war against ...the typical immensely inferior enemy of NATO, equipped with export version of antediluvian SAM system .
    In particular them was used to trigger the illumination of the single channel engagement radar of fixed SA-2 and SA-3's sites , to discover where them had been re-deployed ; those same tactics would have resulted clumsily comical for any Air Defence operator of even only a middly powerful IADS opf those years .

    Moreover is necessary to remember that in any major war the main strategic advantage offered by a very powerful defence is to allow to excute concentrated attack, coming from high defended places, aimed at selectively destroy critical enemy offensive assets devoid of similar defences, obtaining in this way a progressively faster degradation of enemy offensive capabilities , (at theirs own time exponentially demoting opponet's possibilities to penetrate defences for attack own most critical assets) up to its complete neutralization.

    A very strong defence represent...at least in a major war between very strong opponent..., the most fearful "force multiplier" at disposition of an Armed Forces Commander in Chief .




    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:50 am

    The problem with UAVs is that by definition they have to be cheap, so putting expensive avionics defensive suites does not make sense.

    Perhaps the first wave of UAVs could be equipped with R-73s with their high offboresight capability could be used to defend the UAVs during their high speed low level flight into enemy territory...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sujoy on Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:45 am

    RIA Novosti

    The Russian Air Force may receive its first PAK DA next generation long-range bomber about 2020 instead of 2025 as initially planned, Russia’s acting deputy Air Force commander, Major General Alexander Chernyayev, has said.

    “I think the first models of the Prospective Air Complex for Long Range Aviation (PAK DA) will be supplied to the Air Force approximately by 2020,” Chernyayev said.

    The general look of the new strategic bomber has already been worked out, and engineers are currently finishing work on aircraft specific operational requirements, Chernyayev said.

    “We have everything today to develop the plane on time and put it into operation together with [Tupolev] Tu-95MS Bear, Tu-160 Blackjack and Tu-22M3 Backfire [strategic bombers], which have proven their high reliability,” he added.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered development of the new long-range strategic bomber to be sped up in mid-June.

    Currently, only Russia and the United States operate intercontinental range bombers. Most other nuclear-capable nations rely solely on intercontinental ballistic missiles, based on submarines or in land-based silos, or cruise missiles. The United States has expressed an interest in successor systems to its B-1, B-2 and B-52H long-range bombers.

    Chernyayev also said that the Russian Air Force was planning to modernize its Tu-95MS, Tu-160 and Tu-22MS bombers, as well as Ilyushin Il-78 Midas air-to-air refueling tanker aircraft.

    Russia’s strategic air forces operate a total of 63 Tu-95MS and 13 Tu-160 bombers. Altogether, they are capable of carrying 850 long-range cruise missiles.

    Firebird
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 915
    Points : 947
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    stealth PAK FA and hypersonic weapons

    Post  Firebird on Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:44 pm

    I've been thinking about strategic bombers, hypersonic craft etc.

    To me, a design has to meet these criteria.
    1)powerful
    2)fast - from prelaunch to target
    3)stealthy or hard to detect
    4)reliable
    5)cost effective/ flexible.
    6)meet other criteria which I won't elaborate on here eg chemical weapons might be unpalatable because they cause other problems.

    I think in the distant future, war will be about energy weapons as much as, or even more than projectiles.
    By this, I mean lasers and the like. However, we are not at that stage yet.

    The current debate seems to revolve around UAVs, stealth bombers/ planes, other bombers and hypersonic or space vehicles.

    My guess is that Putin wants to accelerate PAK DA because it is flexible and because there are question marks about the Bear's and Tu22's future effectiveness. Tho by no means completed, much of the technology is in place.
    Its a convenient assymetrical response to the USA ABM "defence" ( read aggressive nuisance). It can also be used in theatre roles.

    The only question with PAK DA, is what does Russia get for the expense. I don't think India are that interested in it. And I don't know what "spin off" benefits it can give. However, I think Russia does need a latest generation bomber/ aviation platform. Whilst it IS expensive, the full array of weapons can actually limit the need to spend too much in other areas.

    As an analogy, a boxer with a good right hand is a good opponent. But a boxer with 2 good hands is probably THREE or FOUR times as good. If he can kick, he's exponentially even more dangerous. And so it is with military defence.

    Moving into the issue of hypersonic weapons. Well ofcourse, this is the future. Or perhaps, part of the future.
    Very expensive yes, but again, maybe it will cut the need for massive expense in other areas. There are benefits in Russia staying at the forefront in this area. Maybe for satellite launches and even passenger vehicles as we look into the future.

    I think a successful system needs multiple methods of deployment. Hypersonic planes/ missiles could use plasma stealth. Additionally, it was interesting to read about hypersonic planes in the mesosphere( higher Earth atmosphere). Here, its hard for aviation missiles to get them and its hard for space launched missiles to get them.
    Largely because of the thinness of the mesosphere. You can read up on it at Wikipedia.

    Imagine an object at Mach 15 or more, with plasma stealth, piloted( or unpiloted), reusable, launching any type of missiles.AND its in a "netherworld" hard for space or ground/ air based missiles to hit. It could be launched from anywhere around the World - Siberia, Cuba, Venezuela.

    So the big question is should Russia produce fully operational hypersonic planes? To me, that depends on a lot of factors. Cost vs. what else the money could be spend on. Then you have to consider the geopolitical environment. Is one needed to counter foreign aggression or threats? Is there some form of payback in using one to defend allied states?

    You could argue doesn’t even need a hypersonic plane to work. Just the threat is enough in many cases. But timescales for development are a difficult thing to work out. There are too many unquantifiable factors.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:02 am

    The point is that Russia already has strategic bombers, and the main problem is the law of diminished returns applies here.

    Without a fundamental change in technology it will simply be too expensive.

    Let me put it in simpler terms... the start of WWII there were propeller driven planes.

    To make a plane in 1939 go faster was relatively simple as more powerful engines became available simply reducing excess weight, increasing engine power, improving streamlining and you could dramatically improve flight performance.

    However once you had made those improvements further improvements became much harder to achieve and more expensive because everything was already as good as you could get it, so you started looking at making the engine smaller and lighter but also more powerful, making the weapons lighter but also more effective, etc etc.

    The problem was that when you doubled the engine power you didn't double the speed and as you got closer to the limit (the speed of sound) doubling the engine power made even less difference to the top speed.

    And of course each time you double your engine power you are more than doubling the cost of the engine and development for new engines.

    The breakthrough was the jet engine, which removed the top speed limit of the sound barrier, but a lot of other technologies needed to be improved to achieve that, like area rule design of body shape of the aircraft, and of course all moving horizontal tail surfaces and adjustable air intakes and of course new materials and equipment and wing forms etc.

    A flying wing profile is excellent for low drag flight at subsonic speeds, but the shift of centre of gravity during flight through transonic speeds means you need the ability to create serious down forces at the rear of the aircraft... for most supersonic planes that is the taileron... or horizontal tail surface.

    The best way I think I can describe it is to think of the YF-23 with the fron fuselage chopped off and the main wing reformed into a flying wing and the rear tail surfaces flattened... and obviously greatly enlarged to strategic bomber size. It would be able to super cruise given the correct engines and would need a sharper wing sweep than a B-2 for the higher speeds.

    Most of the technology developed for the Mach 2 Tu-160 could be used in its development because in terms of materials they will be OK with the temperatures and stresses.

    Being a fixed wing design it will be cheaper and lighter than the Tu-160s structure, which has all sorts of benefits.

    A hypersonic bomber on the other hand will be expensive and short ranged just as early jets were expensive and short ranged. The new engines will take away speed limits but the airframe design will impose limits. Unless you want to make it out of heavy stainless steel, or expensive Titanium alloy it wont be going faster than mach 2.
    Heavy is cheaper but reduces performance. Light improves performance but makes it expensive to build and operate.

    More exotic options like synthetic materials with slush hydrogen fuel pumped through heated areas could be a solution, but there is no answer that you could realistically call cheap.

    A supercruising flying wing with tail empennage would be the best choice in my opinion as it would be cheap enough to build a force of 100-150 to replace the Tu-160 and Tu-95 with one aircraft type. A fully dual role strategic nuclear or conventional bomber and theatre conventional bomber would make it also a replacement for the Tu-22M3.

    An interceptor variant to replace the Mig-31 might be interesting too... they considered an interceptor version of the Tu-160 called the Tu-160P but important components of the Tu-160 were built in the Ukraine and no longer exist and the few Blackjacks there are are better used as strategic bombers for the moment.

    Indeed if the Blackjack and Backfire are properly looked after they could remain in service for a few decades to come, so if an effective PAK DA can be produced and put into service by 2020-2025 then the remaining Tu-22M3m and Tu-160M aircraft could concievably be converted into interceptor aircraft to replace Mig-31s.

    They could be fitted with the new 5th gen supercruising engines developed for the PAK DA which should greatly increase performance in terms of transonic flight range for both aircraft...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:37 am

    For Mindstorm and others who oppose new bomber , here is a rebutal and an interview from Airforce on the issue.

    Deinekin: "The bombers of the future must be a minimum of two pilot"

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:14 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 11, 2016 3:14 am