Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 09, 2012 1:49 am

    The level of ignorance in that article is very disappointing Austin...

    The Tu-160 and Tu-95 are exceptionally new in terms of builds, but technology has moved on and there is an opportunity to replace not just these two strategic bomber types, but also the Tu-22M3 theatre bomber type with just one aircraft... you know... the same as every other branch of the Russian military has been doing... taking advantage of the multipurpose capability of modern electronics to allow one modern type to replace older single function aircraft.

    The Tu-95MS is essentially just a flying platform which allows long-range cruise missiles to be launched from outside the range of the adversary’s air defenses. The archaic design of the aircraft (dating back to the early 1950s) and its turboprop engines make it relatively slow and highly visible to the enemy’s radars.

    Actually the Tu-95 had an aerodynamic redesign in the 1970s to the Tu-142 standard, and it remains the worlds fastest propeller driven aircraft and the only propeller driven aircraft to actually require swept wings.

    At high altitude it is only about 50km/h slower than the B-52, while at lower altitudes it is actually faster than a B-52. It is a stand off cruise missile carrier... its visibility to enemy radars is largely irrelevant unless they are over the horizon radars that can detect targets 5,000km away.

    As for the Tu-160, it has failed to live up to the promise of its designers, who envisaged it as a truly versatile aircraft.

    Rubbish. It was designed and built as a supersonic cruise missile carrier and that is exactly what it is... the supersonic speed is not to allow it to penetrate enemy air defences, it is to zip in and launch its long range cruise missiles and then rapidly leave the area at high speed to make the positioning of interceptors near anticipated launch areas ineffective.

    Owing to the limitations of its design and onboard systems which emerged after the bomber entered service, it has almost never been used to stealthily approach the target at extra-low altitudes.

    Its primary weapon was a 3,000km range cruise missile... how close was it supposed to get to its target?

    The only role for which it is well-suited is to carry cruise missiles at high speed and high altitude.

    Which is exactly what it is designed for and what it does well... next they will be complaining because Russian ICBM warheads are not versatile enough... why couldn't they make an anti submarine version...

    The only role for which it is well-suited is to carry cruise missiles at high speed and high altitude.

    Which is not even very true actually... there were two primary weapons for the Tu-160, and they were the Kh-15 and Kh-55. The Kh-15 has a range of about 250km and it climbs to 40,000m and then dives onto the target at mach 5 with a rather significant nuclear payload. It is called Kickback in the west... it can carry 12 in one weapon bay leaving room for 6 Kh-55 3,000km range nuclear armed cruise missiles. Now flying over the north pole the Tu-160 will come across all sorts of ground based radars and air bases and while flying supersonically its main threats were going to be large area SAMs which as NATO has found in its various invasions are large and not very mobile and easy to spot and plot on a map to hit with cruise missiles or other weapons.

    Obviously the plan is for the Tu-160 to blast over Canadian territory launching Kh-15s at any airbase that shows any sign of life and any known major SAM or Radar position, on their way to their launch position for the primary weapon of their Kh-55s.

    Remember even flying at mach 2 all the way it will take at least 3 hours for the Blackjacks to get to Canadian airspace, which means all those ICBMs and SLBMs of both sides have already hit their targets and both air defence networks will be in tatters... I actually think the Blackjack still has a very good chance of getting through even today.

    The Russian Air Force therefore has an unmet need for a modern heavy bomber capable of reaching remote and well-protected targets, and attacking them using a broad range of high-precision nuclear or conventional airborne weapons. Another capability a future heavy bomber must have is to take on the enemy’s ships, especially American aircraft carriers and carrier groups, replacing the existing fleet of the Tu-22M3 long-range bombers.

    Not strictly true. Russia could soldier on with older technology bombers, the current upgrades should make them much more capable and useful in conventional engagements which will make them more useful than they have ever been before.
    The thing is that they have a military upgrade and overhaul program going on that is supposed to introduce all new stuff to replace Soviet designed material. Further this drive focuses on multirole platforms that can do the same job in much smaller numbers with fewer types and more fire power and capability.

    The Bear is relatively cheap to operate and there are plenty available but probably well worth replacing. The Tu-160 is much more capable, but also more expensive to operate and maintain, partially because many components were made in the Ukraine and also because there were so few actually built. The Tu-22M3 is a large aircraft for its role and has plenty of growth potential in it yet, but like the swing wing Blackjack is it not cheap to operate and despite being made by the same company (Tu) and having very very similar requirements and performance the engines of these two aircraft are not compatible... which just goes to show the problems created by all the different aircraft that could be solved with one new aircraft to steadily replace them all.

    Vladimir Putin has failed to modernize the Russian economic system and kick-start healthy growth, so there is simply not enough money in the treasury to finance the SAP-2020.

    Considering that many western economies around the world are showing fraction of single digit growth, I would suggest that Russian figures are actually pretty good. The question I want answered is why is Putin getting all the blame for this. There are no certainties in this world, and the solution to this uncertainty is to plan. If you want fixed rigid plans that never change then you need more certainty... which is hardly possible. The alternative is flexibility in the plan. So what if there needs to be certain cuts in the program? Who cares if the 70% goal is achieved in 2025 instead of 2020?

    The point is that you set goals and move to achieve them... it is that progress that is important, and even more importantly at various intervals along the way you evaluate progress to see how things are moving along... some things might need more money, while others might be worth cutting all together. Somethings might simply need to be put on hold for the moment so the funding for it can be moved elsewhere where it might be needed more.


    As the prospect of reigning in the scope of the program becomes inevitable, questions are being raised as to where exactly the axe will fall. The PAK DA is extravagantly expensive and will not deliver a usable product for at least a decade, so it appears to be one of the prime candidates.

    Again... what is it with this black and white attitude? A future strategic bomber program will not be cut... current aircraft will need replacement at some point. Delays are normal... especially when there is no real conflict that would demand their existence right now. The point is that the Blackjacks and Bears and Backfires will be available for the next couple of decades and with a decent upgrade they can be more versatile aircraft with capabilities tactical aircraft cannot match.

    The Russian political leadership probably cannot muster enough political will to cancel the PAK DA altogether – but its financing will have to be slashed, raising further questions about the feasibility of its deadlines (which were never very realistic to begin with).

    Very bad reporting... first you say the programme will get the axe... which means cancelled/killed, and then you admit that it probably wont be cancelled and will simply get its funding reduced.

    There was nothing unrealistic about its deadlines... flying prototypes by 2020, in service 2025-2030 are not that tight unless it is going to be a mach 20 atmosphere skipper...

    The problem is not unique to Russia; it plagues weapons project planning in every developed country, including the United States.

    The point you are missing is that a significant amount of Russian technology is developed via the military, and military exports generate a lot of income for Russia. Much of the spending on "defence" is spent within Russia and goes into the Russian economy which is also something this writer seems to be ignoring.
    Russia has just entered the WTO and the global recession wont last forever...

    The current plans are not set in stone and if they need to be revised they will be...

    It is therefore clear that the PAK DA is unlikely to receive sufficient funding, given Russia’s economic situation.

    How do you come to that conclusion?

    Although you have cut its budget many times in this article you don't fund the program, so in actual fact it is not clear there will be cuts to funding. Putin sees it as an important project and there are a few other areas they can cut funding if they believe that is necessary.

    It is therefore clear that the PAK DA is unlikely to receive sufficient funding, given Russia’s economic situation. Owing to a combination of financial and technical problems the program will probably fall well behind schedule. As a result, from time to time the PAK DA will come under massive political pressure and balance on the brink of closure. But the Russian government’s great-power ambitions may well help the program to survive nonetheless, with new moneys being thrown at it in each consecutive budget. Essentially, the PAK DA could degenerate into a typical graft-ridden state program, kept afloat for political motives, costing Russia an arm and a leg, and with any tangible deliverables always just beyond the horizon. Gen Zelin’s cautious projection of the new heavy bombers entering service with the Russian Air Force “some time in the 2030s” therefore looks fairly realistic, and maybe even a bit optimistic.

    Again with the weird writing method... start the paragraph saying the sky is falling, then mention that the sky has the support of the government so even if it starts to fall they will prop it up no matter what it takes.
    New bombers entering service in the 2030s is pessimistic, not optimistic.

    There is no urgent need for new bombers, but a new from scratch design that is simpler and more straight forward... ie no swing wings would be useful and help to reduce costs as having one type perform the mission of three current large aircraft should ultimately save a bit of money as well as improve general performance too.

    Finally, even if the PAK DA manages to deliver a minimally usable aircraft, it is not at all certain that the Russian Air Force will be able to buy them in large enough numbers. Owing to their astronomical price tag, the new bombers will probably become the Air Force’s very own white elephants, with only a few units bought for political and PR motives.

    They haven't even been built yet but they are already too expensive...

    This writer needs to go and dig himself a hole and bury himself now, because everything will always be more expensive in the future and he clearly can't deal with that.

    The PAK DA appears to be one of Russia’s most questionable, risky and unnecessary defense programs. It will inevitably cost a fortune, which could be usefully spent on much more pressing defense needs. The sole reason for the existence of this program is to underpin the Russian political and military leadership’s great-power ambitions, whatever the cost, even if the actual military and economic payout of such programs is minimal.

    The same could be said about all the money spent on SSBNs which do nothing for the economy and can't even be used in conventional wars... they just sit there soaking up money... like ICBMs do... perhaps Russia should get rid of its entire military and just rely on the kindness of others not to bully them? Rolling Eyes

    PAK DA offers investment in new engine and aircraft technology that could lead to future high speed civilian and military aircraft. If they invest in hypersonic bombers... that will not be cheap, but the resulting aircraft will pave the way for enormous steps forward in access to space... imagine a variable cycle engine that can act like a turbojet from a runway that will let the aircraft climb to altitude and then accelerate to enormous speeds to the point where the scramjet engines can be shut down and small rocket thrusters can guide the aircraft to dock at the international space station... waste of money my backside... pirat


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 09, 2012 2:52 am

    I'm starting to wonder about this one a bit. I can see a big case for Pak-Fa as a latest generation bomber eg in conventional conflicts. But as the 3rd stage of the nuclear trident, I AM starting to wonder about what will be needed in 10, 15, 20 years time ie the case for hypersonic planes.

    You are thinking about getting rid of the one leg of the nuclear triad that can actually be used in conventional conflicts?

    You want to get rid of the only high speed global reach mechanism that can use conventional warheads in a conventional conflict?

    The unification and standardisation has swept the Russian military and it has improved logistics and maintainence and support requirements.

    Personally I would like to see a greatly enlarged PAK FA but with the forward fuselage removed so you have a flying wing with tail section. In fact I would probably remove the vertical tail surfaces and equip the aircraft with thrust vectoring nozzles. This should improve long range flight cruise performance... at different speeds you are going to get different lift performance from the vessel... just like with a boat. The difference is that with a boat you can generally change the angle of the propeller... ie change the trim to reduce water drag and improve speed without changing the thrust setting.

    Thrust vector engines in a large bomber should allow optimisation of thrust to minimise drag and keep the aircraft properly trimmed.

    The remaining flying configuration should be fairly ideal for high speed flight, though the angle of the leading edge of the wings might need adjustment.

    Add perhaps 5 engine positions, where two are 30-35 ton thrust new 5th generation engines based on the PD-30 and the 3 positions on either side of the two engines fitted could be scramjet engines which will basically be wind tunnels optimised for burning fuel at supersonic speeds. The air intakes can be designed to block the scramjet tubes on takeoff and landing, but in flight it would be useful to be able to start the centreline scramjet engine with the two turbojets running and then once it is running to shut down the two turbojets and open up the two other scramjets for hypersonic operations.

    Obviously you would want the engine area on the PAK FA enlarged and moved back to allow for the 5 engine positions, which should free up space in the main wing for fuel, the crew, and weapons of course.

    The Bear and Tu-22 will certainly date over time. The Tu160 is fantastic, but has limitations.So to me, Russia has to consider both now and the next few decades. Probably its too early to say " we need a full fleet of hypersonic bombers by 2023". BUT, hypersonic planes may assist in the whole strategic nuclear issue, AND conventional warfare issue.

    The point is that work on scramjets and hypersonic platforms is already being worked on, so adding it to the PAK DA programme is just keeping up with new technology. It isn't going to be easy... it is a huge step from on paper and in wind tunnels to an operational aircraft, but the point is that if you don't start now when are you going to start.

    Some claim that because the T-95 was cancelled all the money spent on it was wasted. If no money had been spent on it then armata would not be possible because much of its design is based on the T-95. Equally without spending any money on T-95 then UVZ would know little about the situational awareness needed for a tank vehicle with an unmanned turret, and they wouldn't have much time now to work on 150+mm calibre tank guns let alone new ammo for the 125mm guns.

    The money invested in exploring new technology is not wasted even if the program is cancelled... there are lots of other areas it can be applied.

    I think the debate isnt "what is needed". Its more "what is needed in each timeframe".
    I wonder how quickly Pak-fa technology could be used in a Pak-Da programme

    There is always risk in development and planning, but large steps forward in technology need good planning and investment... or very urgent need like a war. The problem is that wars are expensive and the urgent"ness" of such developments generally mean it is very very expensive in terms of money and lives.

    I think the long term planning nature of this PAK DA programme is a very good thing... there is no panic, one way or the other... it is currently just a secret program to develop a single aircraft that could replace a range of aircraft currently in use in a range of roles and perhaps several new roles too.

    I mean there is the original strategic nuclear long range bomber role which replaces the Tu-160, and Tu-95MS, while there is also the long range strategic conventional bomber role to replace the Tu-160M and Tu-95MSM.
    There is also the threatre range conventional and nuclear roles where it would replace the Tu-22M3M, and the anti shipping theatre range strike role where it can replace the Tu-22M3, and maritime patrol aircraft role where it can replace the Tu-142 and Il-38, while its sensors and detection equipment might make it the sort of AWACS aircraft you could safely take into enemy territory with long range AAMs as a payload, and of course it might be equipped for a range of EW roles including perhaps high power jammmer and Jstars type roles.
    Then of course its long flight range and capacity to carry an enormous radar in the wing leading edge and large numbers of heavy AAMs it could perhaps enter service as a heavy interceptor to cover the vast expanses of Russia.

    Simplified unmanned versions could be used for very long range missions like maritime patrol or border patrol, and of course the obvious would be a civilian supersonic airliner, without the stealth, perhaps just a supercruising aircraft model to begin with...


    _________________
    “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

    Posts : 771
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Sep 09, 2012 11:09 am


    Very good and bright analysis GarryB, you put under the light the really crucial parametrical factors influencing efficiency of startegic bombers in theirs intended role (...above all not neglecting the most important of all : the involved TIME .....TIME !!), my vote to you.






    The article is very badly conceived and even worse written ,it found its entire rational skeleton on totally wronged assumptions on the REAL operational employment and CONOP of Startegic Aviation's long range bombers and that of theirs weapons, moreover, one more time, it attempt to twist the position of Rogozin as an atempt to cancel PAKDA , when obviously he fight to significantly raise the technological requirements of PAKFA, concentrating all the Russian Federation's investements and R&D efforts toward Hypersonic Technology, potentiqally capable to generate, thanks in particular to its civilian applications, incomes exceeding dozen of times the fund allocated for its achievement.....above anything rendering suddenly the actual world-leading position of Boeing and Airbus in Civilian Aviation and the entire western tradition and engineering proficiency in subsonic civilian aircraft fuselage's design and in turbofan engine's construction and efficiency TOTALLY IRRILEVANT [/b].




    Little note : In your very punctual analysis GarryB ,in a rethoric outburst you have written :
    next they will be complaining because Russian ICBM warheads are not versatile enough... why couldn't they make an anti submarine version...
    , i want only to point out that, like you well know, ICBM's RVs are immensely more efficient at destroying sumbmerged objects than them are of aerial of ground based targets because theirs native environmental element -water- is by very far the better detonation waves' conductor medium , capable literally to increase the kill radius of a thermonuclear explosion of some order of magnitude greater than that of air or ,much moire ,ground .

    With even only very rough positional coordinates of enemy subamrines you can potential take out ,with almost 100% success rate, the entire SBLM branch of an enemy nation with literally the RV's payload of single ICBM !!!
    The only asset today preserving SLBM from total obsolescence as an impoortant branch of nuclear Triad is theirs undetectability (real or.....presumed Wink ).


    Best regards.


    avatar
    TheArmenian

    Posts : 1715
    Points : 1872
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  TheArmenian on Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:23 pm

    I will add the following to the great points made in the above posts:

    Those who think that it is financially inconceivable for Russia to develop a new bomber or to build aircraft carriers during the 2020ies should start taking their heads off the ground and think more seriously.

    By 2020, Russia will have 8 new Borei class SSBNs that are currently entering service (or building or planned to build) and will have modernized the vast majority of its ICBM fleet. Once these programs are completed, the Defence Ministry is going to have to spend money on something new: Guess what, the money will not be used to plant flowers in the ICBM bases!!! It will be used to renew the strategic bomber fleet. If they can find the finances to build 8 Borei SSBNs and introduce the likes of new Yars, new large ICBM and new Bulava in the current 10 years, they can find the money to create new bombers during the next 10 years....Even without allowing for rapid economy growth, GDP growth and defense budget growth.

    Same goes for aircraft carriers. By 2020 they will have renewed a good chunk of the fleet and gotten rid of the old veteran vessels. They plan to have 70% of the armed forces equipped with modern weapons that are being introduced now ( Su-34, Su-35, Ka-52, Mi-28, Tornado-G, S-400, Pantsir etc.) or during the second half of the decade (Armata, Kurganets, PAK FA etc.). Once these targets are achieved, they can certainly find the necessary funds during the '20ies to build a few aircraft carriers if they think they are needed.

    If no new worldwide financial collapse or natural/man-made catastrophy or war happens, then I expect to see new Russian bombers as well as aircraft carriers during the 2020 - 2030 period.




    Austin

    Posts : 6335
    Points : 6735
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:06 pm

    Looking at Mikhail Barabanov reporting it seems he has an axe to grind against Putin.

    Indeed Mikhail is speculating on the already widely speculated PAK-DA program and creating a strawman to bring it down......Funny thing is no one really knows how the PAK-DA program will take shape.

    On funding ofcourse military funding is always a fight when viewed against the requirement to spend money on Education , Health Care , Social Security etc ....its a tight walk and there are many global variable that might come into play and sometimes you can predict those.

    Having said that a modest 4 % growth can still afford to spend on SAP 2020 , the issue to be most worried about is not to let these money get grabbed by few in their pockets but to make sure its spend well sort of put the money where the mouth is. It needs fine management to make sure few generals , MIC do not pocket most of the profit and money is well untilised.

    Again Funny the financial mess that NATO is in their should actually be spending very little less than 0.5 % of their budget in military and US Economy is in debt more than 100 % of GDP and yet she spends 4-5 % on Military Spending.

    Russia just spends under 3 % of her GDP on defence and she has 4 % GDP Growth and 10 % debt as respect to its GDP.

    Not sure what advise Mikhail Barabanov would give to NATO and US ...like disband your armed forces Laughing

    Austin

    Posts : 6335
    Points : 6735
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:48 am

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10535
    Points : 11012
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  George1 on Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:42 pm

    New Russian Bomber 'Will Not be Hypersonic'

    MOSCOW, November 14 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's future PAK-DA manned bomber project will not have hypersonic speed capability, Russia's bomber force commander said on Wednesday, in an apparent contradiction of claims by Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin earlier this year.

    "PAK-DA, currently under development, will not be hypersonic," Lt. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev told RIA Novosti on Wednesday.

    The first prototpe PAK-DA is due to enter service around 2020, he added.

    Hypersonic speeds are high supersonic, usually referring to Mach five and above, which can usually only be generated using advanced propulsion technology such as ramjet or scramjet engines. No manned aircraft has yet been flown using such technologies, which are on the cutting edge of aerospace know-how.

    Zhikharev's statement follows a protracted exchange in the media between senior air force officers, including himself, and Rogozin, who has special responsibility for the arms industry, over what shape PAK-DA should take.

    Rogozin repeated in August an earlier appeal for Russia to develop a hypersonic aircraft for its PAK-DA long-range bomber requirement.

    "I think we need to go down the route of hypersonic technology and we are moving in that direction and are not falling behind the Americans," he said on Rossiya 24 TV. "We will use this technology when developing a new bomber."

    In June, President Vladimir Putin ordered initial development of the new long-range bomber for strategic aviation. Speaking during a conference on defense orders, Putin said: "We have to develop work on the new PAK-DA long-range bomber aircraft for Long-Range Aviation. The task is not easy from a scientific-technical standpoint, but we need to start work."

    Rogozin initially said in June he saw no need for PAK-DA to replace the air force's aging Tu-95MS cruise-missile carriers and Tu-160 supersonic bombers.

    “These aircraft will not get anywhere. Not ours, not theirs,” he said in an interview with Izvestia that month. He later clarified his statement by saying he was in favor of developing a future bomber, but it should not just be a copy of the serving US Northrop B-2 and should employ hypersonic technology.

    In May, he called on Russia's defense industry to develop hypersonic air-breathing weapons as a future strike system. He cited American development work in the X-51, Falcon, HiFire and HyFly hypersonic programs as examples of what he described as the perspective threat posed by U.S. hypersonic development work.

    Some aerospace analysts RIA Novosti has previously spoken to say Rogozin's comments are more likely to be relevant to a future air-launched missile, rather than the bomber that launches it.

    http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20121114/177455565.html

    Austin

    Posts : 6335
    Points : 6735
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:34 pm

    Thankfully some sanity prevailed in the general staff and they are not dancing to hypersonic tune Rolling Eyes
    avatar
    Sujoy

    Posts : 903
    Points : 1069
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sujoy on Wed Nov 14, 2012 6:39 pm

    Hypersonic speeds are high supersonic, usually referring to Mach five and above, which can usually only be generated using advanced propulsion technology such as ramjet or scramjet engines.

    I am not sure if Russia needs a strategic bomber in the near future as sufficient number of TU 160s will more than suffice. Expediting work on a Pulse Detonation engine will be worth the effort.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:49 pm

    If the aircraft is to be entering service in 2020 then trying to make a hypersonic bomber would be very expensive... it would be much cheaper to simply reopen Tu-160 production.

    However I do think hypersonic technology will be very useful and improve Russian capabilities in a lot of areas but I don't think the cost is currently justified.

    Just to clarify unless they are being used as a first strike capability the bombers will most likely get through because their flight times mean that SLBMs and then ICBM warheads will have obliterated the enemies air defences already and there wont be much coming up to meet them... further more on strategic missions current Russian bombers will be carrying 5,000km range cruise missiles so will not need to get very close to their targets anyway.

    Personally I think a large super cruising flying wing with horizontal tail surface and some thrust vector capability to optimise trim and minimise drag would be the ideal future bomber solution. 5th gen engines, perhaps with a ramjet or scramjet booster for high speed sprints when needed, or perhaps long range low burn cruise.

    Hypersonic technology should be financially supported but the focus should start with missiles (both attack and defence... ie cruise and SAM). When the technology is perfected then it can be adapted for fighter and bomber use.

    Ultimately I would love to see a mixed 5th or 6th gen turbojet combined with a scramjet for operation from a conventional runway to orbit.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 1974
    Points : 2139
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Cyberspec on Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:31 am

    I don't think a hypersonic bomber was ever seriously considered apart from some sensationalist media articles. The focus should be (as said here before) on the bomber being armed with LR hypersonic missiles.
    avatar
    Sujoy

    Posts : 903
    Points : 1069
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sujoy on Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:52 am

    Cyberspec wrote:The focus should be (as said here before) on the bomber being armed with LR hypersonic missiles

    This work is almost done , laboratory hypersonic condition tests have been successful and within the next 4 years you will see TU 160s launch LR hypersonic missiles ( test launches) . The intention is to create a weapon which would not differ much from the existing BrahMos/ Yakhont missile in weight and dimensions. This way, the weapon can be used in existing launchers on ships or mobile launchers. Moscow Aviation Institute is fine tuning the scramjet for this hypersonic missile currently.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:51 pm

    I don't think a hypersonic bomber was ever seriously considered apart from some sensationalist media articles.

    During WWI many experts would laugh at the idea of aircraft becoming an important part of war let alone displacing battleships as the ruler of the seas.

    In 1939 the idea of a supersonic bomber would be absurd, and the idea of a supersonic fighter a bit gaga too.

    Of course the next few years saw a lot of concentrated effort and money but both became realities because of the jet engine.

    With perfected scramjet engines hypersonic bombers become a much more viable goal, though not without problems.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 1974
    Points : 2139
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Cyberspec on Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:27 am

    I agree in the longer term. 2020 isn't that far off though....but I won't be complaining if I'm wrong
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:32 am

    I must admit to being largely ignorant of the current state of the art in Russia concerning scramjet technology.

    I know they have some of the best hypersonic wind tunnels and that the Europeans use them when they can... but making a whole bomber supersonic requires a lot of energy and the first few models will not be cheap.

    I prefer a more conservative approach with a tailed flying wing configuration that perhaps uses supercruise capability that wont cost too much to build or operate and can be built in sufficient numbers to allow the Bear to retire and to have a single aircraft performing theatre and strategic conventional and nuclear missions.

    Once long range subsonic and hypersonic cruise missiles are perfected then I would love to see scramjet technology more widely applied including with fighters and bombers and also with civilian aircraft.

    It really is the technology that will get us into space much quicker and cheaper.

    It is good to aim high, but at the moment it is hard to justify the expense of a hypersonic bomber.

    A supercruising bomber or supercruising very large aircraft has promise in terms of long range interceptor and maritime patrol aircraft replacement.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10535
    Points : 11012
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  George1 on Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:24 am

    New Russian bomber taking shape

    The development of the Russian Perspective Aviation Complex of Long-Range Aviation (PAK DA) which is to replace Tupolev-95MC and Tupolev-22M3 planes, except the latest Tupolev-160, in the 2020s-2030s is being discussed in the press again.

    According to some reports, the Russian Air Force have already chosen the shape of the new plane. It is to be a small inconspicuous long-distance subsonic plane. The media report that the development of the new plane is being carried out by the Tupolev Design Bureau.

    Some information published by the media raises experts’ doubts. First of all, many experts do not believe that the Tupolev Design Bureau is capable of independently developing such a large-scale project. In this connection it is believed that one of the participants in the project, if not the chief developer, will be the Sukhoi Design Bureau. It has enough experience in designing heavy planes, though it has never designed long-distance bombers.

    It is believed that the PAK DA project could be based on the results obtained while making the T-50 fifth-generation fighter.

    It is not the ultimate truth either that the speed of the new plane would not exceed the speed of the sound. One should take it into consideration that the prospective bomber is not only to replace the strategic Tupolev-95 but also Tupolev-22M long-distance bombers one of whose tasks is fighting against the enemy’s Navy. In this case supersonic speeds are essential.

    Russia has inherited the USSR’s huge experience in the development and operation of the Air Force long-distance supersonic aircraft and naval missile-carrying supersonic aircraft. A platform for long-distance flights at maximum supersonic speeds could also be useful for reconnaissance and targeting in the Russian Navy. The Navy always stakes on the fire power of rocket launchers and submarines. For these vessels an outside firing pointer is of paramount importance.

    Hard to say how much this reasoning coincides with the train of thought of the Russian Defence Ministry or the United Aircraft-Building Corporation. However, it is not too long to wait now, as the new aircraft is to rise into the sky before the end of this decade.

    http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_03_10/New-Russian-bomber-taking-shape/
    avatar
    Sujoy

    Posts : 903
    Points : 1069
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sujoy on Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:52 pm

    China too has declared that it is working on developing a Strategic Bomber . The first picture ( artist's impression) were published by the Chinese Military aviation :



    The bomber tentatively named H X has been described by Chinese military as a stealthy flying wing configuration.China's 603rd Institute/Xian Aircraft Company will handle the development .

    The H-X bomber is expected to be powered by a non-afterburning derivative of the Shenyang Liming WS-10 turbofan, according the posting. The aircraft would also likely carry CJ-10K/CJ-20K air launched cruise missiles internally on a rotary launcher.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:59 pm

    Personally I would love to see a Russian flying wing that has the addition of a horizontal tail surface. The main purpose on the rear tail surface is to allow a shift in trim/balance to allow supersonic flight... not super high speed supersonic flight, I am thinking more of supercruising at mach 1.6-1.8 or so.

    This would be as serious problem for most current fighter/interceptors as they generally operate subsonically or high supersonically... the latter uses up their fuel very rapidly and reduces their flight performance. Exceptions being Mig-25/31 and F-22 of course, but I don't think the F-22 will supercruise fast enough and will have to burn fuel at a high rate to get to a good launch position.

    They could experiment with ramjet and even scramjet engines for the new supersonic bomber as a scramjet is just a empty space where air goes in, fuel is added and burned supersonically and exits to creates thrust... a variable cycle 5th gen bomber engine could have a scramjet air bypass stage...


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 809
    Points : 1305
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  nemrod on Tue Apr 09, 2013 6:40 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:Russia may renounce the development of a new bomber

    RIA Novosti, April 6. The modernized strategic bombers Tu-160 can replace the development of promising new set of long-range aviation, said Tuesday by the deputy defense minister for armament Vladimir Popovkin.

    "The Americans have decided to extend the resource B-52 to 70 years. We are not richer than them," - he said, replying to a question whether there was work to modernize the Tu-160 or the development of a promising new set of long-range aviation.

    RIA Novosti

    Wise and very intelligent decision.
    USA are in bankrupcy, and cannot afford to sustain a huge military-industrial complex for longtime. Their regim could be collapse. Why Russia, will have to follow blindly USA ? Does Russia want another Yetlsin's revolution as it happenned during 1990's. Russia had other priorities.
    However the research will have to continue.
    Russia is not a predator state, is not imperialist country, moreover, most US hardware are not directed against Russia, neither against China, but against weak regime -however rich countries- like Sudan, Libya, North Korea.
    F-22 too is operationnal not against Russia, neither China, but against Su-27 familly's proliferation.
    Iam surprised why Russia is trying to follow USA regarding this stealth aircraft.
    What Su-Pak Fa will bring more ?
    What are the benefits for Russia without regarding Research/Developpment ?
    Pak-Fa, must be a very good aircraft, russians will have to be proud of it, however industrials production is another question.
    Weapons industry will have to exist, and should be defense, in order to defend Russia, not to ruin another time again Russia.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1185
    Points : 1338
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:16 pm

    Although I do agree that as long as Russia has a good stock of nuclear warheads that makes it invulnerable against NATo aggression it does need to research into more advanced hardware if not build them in large numbers. the tu-160 replacement could be useful as a more survivable nuclear missile truck so cancelling it would be stupid IMO. As for the army it needs constant development on its effectiveness to destroy insurgents and naughty conventional armies like Suckasswilly's. Also having better APCs and tanks is a matter of national pride and respect. As for navy I think Russia should develop in more blue-water capability so it could assist overseas countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Serbia, Syria, etc. against western colonialism.
    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 809
    Points : 1305
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  nemrod on Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:59 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote: As for navy I think Russia should develop in more blue-water capability.....

    One the great challenge tomorow, is seas' presences. Since the begining of last century, the Russia's weak point -even soviet era- was Navy.
    It is one of Russias's top priorities, to enhance it capacities in all oceans, however in cooperation with China, as agessive USA is decided more than never to make troubles everywhere in the world.
    Russia has the capacity, but it will be more efficient with cooperations, for example with China, India, Brazil, even Germany. Indeed Berlin wants to break with Nato. Russia will have to exploit this card.
    In this circumstances, an expensive stealth bomber's program is not welcome, just only for Research/Developpment.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Viktor on Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:19 am

    Word of flying wing design reminds people of B-2. It is obviously difficult to imagine any other shape as most of the guys

    start accusing of copy-paste straight away. Most people forget that there can be many different flying wing design.

    Anyway there was one picture a concept art made by some guy but still based on the real project from SSSR and as most of Soviet/Russian

    design this one is rather interesting too. It might be that this or something like this is how future Russian bomber will look like.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:38 am

    Except that that design is actually older than the Tu-160.

    That is the T-4MS and was one of the alternative designs they considered before they built the Tu-160.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Zivo on Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:47 pm

    It's also supposed to be subsonic.

    If the requirements stated are actually correct, expect something like a B-2.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:41 am

    Of course the one genuine advantage of subsonic bombers is the ability to carry large strangely shaped weapons externally without heavily impacting performance.

    Such a thing would have a seriously negative effect on RCS but with a 5,000km range hypersonic cruise missile it wont matter.


    _________________
    “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

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:30 am