Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:28 am

    So he is saying that a manned bomber is more flexible... it can use nuclear or conventional weapons and can be deployed and recalled.

    Suggesting making it of titanium alloys and with stealth in mind suggests it might be a faster aircraft... certainly a subsonic flying wing would not need Ti structures.

    As I have said before, I don't think they need B-2s, I think a flying wing shape would be stealthy and efficient aerodynamically, but with a horizontal tail surface it could generate the rear downward force needed to fly through the sound barrier and super cruise.

    Being able to supercruise would greatly improve performance and make it much harder to intercept than a subsonic aircraft while at the same time making it fairly fuel efficient and not needing enormous amounts of fuel to perform strategic missions.


    _________________
    “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 : 736
    Points : 919
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:16 pm

    Austin wrote: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"



    Shocked Shocked Shocked

    I am totally shocked !!!!

    Practically we have only two explanations for the delirious content of this interview released by Gen. Petr Deynekin :

    1) A very serious mental disturbance has hit ,lately, the brain of Gen. Deynekin, preventing to it to correctly execute even the most elementary process of information's collection, ,analysis, and correlation.
    2) It is COMPLETELY UNAWARE of the basis concept or ,even only, of the most simple meaning of the word high hypersonic in-atmosphere manoeuvring flying vehicles (in particular those conceived around magnetohydrodynamic solutions for both the propulsion, the thermal stress and radar observability problems) and of the current heated "querelle", around the world, on the future value and profitability (natutally against a major, advanced enemy) of the implementation in an offensive platform of some design solutions (such as "stealth") ,often even greatly limiting the overall potential of that platform in other directions .


    Those very deep doubts (for not say worse) on the efficiency of the "classical" offensive approach against a very advanced enemy has been highlighted not only in Russia (at example with the positions expressed by Rogozin), but also in the same USA (at example with the recent famous declarations of US. Navy Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert )

    www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-07/payloads-over-platforms-charting-new-course


    Naturally , how was totally clear for any person of this planet ....anyone except ,evidently, our unlucky Gen. Deynekin....the position of Rogozin (hardly debatable by anyone with a minimum of serious knowledge in the field) was that the classical approach to the design of strategic BOMBers and ,in particular, the USA '90 years road founded around a....supposedly.....low observable, low subsonic vehicle ,in need to penetrate enemy defences in order to deliver its short range payload ,would represent fatally a TRUE SUICIDE against any enemy equiped with today state of art level of air defences.

    Today Russian Long Range Strategic Aviation already adopt a "wide stand-off cruise missiles delivered by supersonic platform carriers" approach to the Strategic Aviation offensive roles , an approach that already today would ,obviously, not require the stealth features called for future PAKDA ; in fact a group of TU-95, Tu-160 or even TU-22M3 equipped with the 5500 km capable Kh-102 could target any target in 3/4 of continental USA ,in the entire Europe and Middle East with salvo after salvo of nuclear, low observable, cruise missiles remaining well within Russian Federation borders !!! .
    The problem obviously is that the mission TIME linked to the operations of the third branch of nuclear triad are ,at today, completely irreconcilable with that of beginning and resolution of a full scale thermonuclear war between major enemies (around 20-27 minutes) an element that has put the relevance of the deterrent potential of the strategic aviation -the so called third branch of nuclear triad- more and more in jeopardy and in a corner in the latest 15-20 years .

    The unique solution that ,in perspective, would allow to preserve (or even promote its primacy in the nuclear triad) the strategic relevance of long range aviation in the future military world ,maintaining contemporaneously its survivability against the very fast growing performances of Air/Space defence system , is the CREATION OF ADVANCED MANOEUVRABLE HIGH HYPERSONIC VEHICLES armed with long range HIGH HYPERSONIC WEAPONS .

    I repeat ,one more time, this is the clear trend in military scientific institutions not only in Russian Federation ,but also among major competitors worldwide

    http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2012/07/06.aspx



    Now the greater question :

    WHAT ,in the hell, HAS TO DO THE ROGOZIN'S PROPOSE OF A FUTURE HIGH HYPERSONIC BOMBER armed with HIGH HYPOERSONIC WEAPONS designed around "new", still not exploited, physics and engineering solutions WITH ROCKETS , SILOS OPEN OR CLOSED or (moreover comically wronged Laughing Laughing ) ASSUPTIONS ON THE SUPPOSED VULNERABILITY OF.... BALLISTIC VECTORS ???

    And the element more grotesque of the question is that a similar dinosaur ,devoid even only of the most elementary notion of modern military systems ,CONOPS and problematics get also the face to accuse the Rogozin ideas to be out of date !!!!

    Laughing Laughing Laughing

    An exemplary ,self-embarassing case of Dunning-Kruger Effect.


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:47 am

    Mindstorm with due respect to your view Gen. Petr Deynekin is a professional that has spend more time in Strategic Aviation on different bomber that SU/Russia had then Rogozin would have spent in NATO HQ twiddling files and placing Topol-M dummy over there Laughing


    Deynekin can be accused of being biased towards his own Triad which is Strategic Bomber but he is no dreamer but a practical guy with tons of experience under his belt on this subject , what he is saying makes every sense purely from Technological/Risk Prespective and Economic viability.

    What Russia needs and I think what they will get is a Supersonic Stealth Bomber with good EW capability , Range and Payload with newer standoff weapons that operate in Hypersonic Regiem of flight.

    All the talk of CREATION OF ADVANCED MANOEUVRABLE HIGH HYPERSONIC VEHICLES armed with long range HIGH HYPERSONIC WEAPONS are just fictional talk at the moment and whose time has not yet arrived yet , we can take such a topic say 30-40 years from now when enough technology , materials and knowledge on Hypersonic aircraft is available via such Missile , UCAV and other test platforms.

    We can then dwell into the subject of CREATION OF ADVANCED MANOEUVRABLE HIGH HYPERSONIC VEHICLES for Manned Aircraft.

    DARPA is a good scientific organisation doing some good research on this field but with due respect ,translating Test Hypersonic Platform to Affordable Production one for USAF is a distant dream put it simply the idea is good but the time has not yet come.

    Such platform might look good on CG of Lockheed Martin or Norththrop Grumman hell bent on bankrupting USAF but even the USAF is looking for Stealthy Bomber of Subsonic Type in NGB.


    The stages in evolution of Hypersonic Program will be Hypersonic Missile , Hypersonic X-47 type vehical , Higher Speed Hypersonic Missile and Platform ( Mach 12-13 ) , Hypersonic UCAV and later on Hypersonic Manned Bomber its clearly 30-40 years away from reality as military will find it feseable and economically practical to produce.

    Rogozin is just venting the views of Almaz Antey that would have great interest in Bomber getting cancelled and funding for new S-500 or any new program in the guise of SAM can take any new Bomber so no point in building.

    Recollect how Rogozin changed his statement from We dont need Bomber because neither they or we can fly in face of advanced AD to we need Hypersonic Bomber ......seriously what is Rogozin smoking these days need to try it its very potent Laughing Razz

    Well once i smoke what Rogozin does then I start walking at Hypersonic Speed Shocked

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 736
    Points : 919
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:34 pm

    Gen. Petr Deynekin is a professional that has spend more time in Strategic Aviation on different bomber that SU/Russia had then Rogozin would have spent in NATO HQ twiddling files and placing Topol-M dummy over there


    Austin i can assure you that D. Rogozin (in spite of its three degrees in different fields...at least that is what is passed to public) has far, far more specific technical knowledges on those subjects than 90% of Generals in service (and in particular those promoted to higher charges in the disastrous B. Yeltsin' era....), and here i don't talk merely of someone on the lowest level of technical proficiency such as the our Gen. P. Deynekin ,but of Generals with immeasurably greater scientifical knowledges than it.

    D. Rogozin is literally grown and has breathed ,since its childhood ,in a military scientifical environment among books and publications on those subjects and anyone knowing it personally know that it is a worthy son of Oleg Konstantinovich ( a famous Soviet Union Hero and central figure and leading scientist at Academy of Science ) former Deputy Chief of arms of the Ministry of Defence ; it is possible to say that Dmitry ,today, simply continue to follow the fatherly tracks.




    What said by Petr Deynekin is totally undefendeable by anyone not merely under a strict technilcal point of view but ,more simply, a rational one.

    Question: Я глубоко переживал споры в отношении перспективного комплекса Дальней авиации и не понимаю позицию Рогозина в отношении этой концепции.

    Gen. Deynekin's response : Самолеты по сравнению с ракетами обладают таким неповторимым свойством, как способность переносить свои усилия на всем громадном пространстве территории России, дежурить практически в любом удаленном военно-географическом районе.

    Shocked Shocked Shocked

    If it would not be a critical subject for the future military safety of Russian Federation and to the choices shaping the same foundation of its strategic structure it could even appear as an extract from a comical piece ,where one make a question and the other comic ,feigning to be uncapable to understand ,respond with an assertion totally out of line.

    And this one ?


    Межконтинентальная ракета может быть свободно уничтожена как на восходящей траектории или высоко в космосе, так и на нисходящем участке полета.

    Shocked Shocked Shocked

    Austin do you realize what it say here without a grain of shame? Laughing Laughing
    Any scientist working in the missile defence sector would simply disintegrate someone offending the very hard ,decade long ,frantic work by part of dozen of thousands of the best minds around the world , with a similar stellar idiocy.

    And this one ?

    А упреки в том, что самолеты не способны преодолевать ПВО и могут быть уничтожены задолго до выполнения поставленной задачи, в еще большей степени распространяются на ракеты, которым противник не даст даже открыть пусковую шахту.

    Razz Razz

    I) think that any further word on the "unlucky" (for not say worse) declarations of Petr Deynekin would be ,at this point, completely pointless.





    What Russia needs and I think what they will get is a Supersonic Stealth Bomber with good EW capability...

    Austin ,you have more time demonstrated to be an intelligent and attentive person ,therefore i encourage and invite you to try to examines those requirements -Stealth and advanced EW capabilities- for the new strategic bomber ,not into void but employing empyrical scenario ,ok ?

    Let put that today (i repeat TODAY, not 10-15 years in the future from now) the order to obliterate Elmendorf Air Base with cruise missiles (nuclear or conventionally tipped) is ,hypothetically proclaimed ; a squadron of strategic bombers Tu-95 or TU-160 or also TU-22M3, armed with ,let put, Kh-102s take-off .
    Them reach the delivery point and return to the base (to eventually mount another cargo of Kh-102 to target other enemy strategic targets destroy).
    Now Austin, do you know what would be a delivery point (one among millions literally) to attack this particular targets ? Nadym !!!

    http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadym

    I am sure that you have already perfectly understood , the TOTAL ABSURDITY , of similar requirements for strategic vectors like those just mentioned designed around a weapon-centric and not a platform-centric philosophy (a question that has captured ,lately, also the focus of USA environment of the sector) , in fact ANY type of EW system present on those airplane even TODAY would be TOTALLY USELESS 100% of the times for strategic missions and even a B-52 englobed in Luneberg reflectors would be TOTALLY INVISIBLE to any enemy radar at this distance.

    Is evident that similar measures become usefull only if the design and CONOPS of your strategic bomber encompass the direct confrontation and crossover in areas defended by enemy IADS and/or Air Force.

    I repeat the problem of relevance of third branch of nuclear triad is almost exclusively linked to the TIME factor; EW or Stealth will not add to strategic Aviation even a single point in enhancing strategical bomber's relevance or efficiency in respect to today.

    Hypersonic,in this perspective optic, is not an option but a forced choice .


    seriously what is Rogozin smoking these days need to try it its very potent

    I have an idea : a variably ionized gas mixture...a type of "smoke" to receive the "recipe" of which (for so say) 90% of the scientists around the world would quietly give both
    hands ( yes ,it is surely much ,much more desired than cannabis in some environments Razz Razz )


    Well once i smoke what Rogozin does then I start walking at Hypersonic Speed

    Yes ,i also believe you would... or,at least you would do it much,much better Very Happy Very Happy



    Best regards.


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9438
    Points : 9930
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  George1 on Fri Jul 20, 2012 3:13 pm

    New long-range Russian strategic bomber potentially in the works

    Russia’s Long-Range Aviation Commander Lieutenant General Anatoly Zhikharev has said the Air Force has moved on with its project for a new strategic bomber (PAK-DA), which has entered its construction phase. The statement proves that a possible PAK-DA configuration has already been confirmed. What remains to be seen are its future prospects and when the new stealthy bomber will enter the Russian air fleet.

    It is of note, however, that both the plane’s concept and its main characteristics remain an enigma wrapped up in a mystery, and neither the United Aircraft Corporation, its design bureau, nor the Air Force are willing to lift the veil just a little bit more – but it is possible to take a guess.

    Scenario No. 1 – or “stealthier, slower, cheaper” – implies a long-range subsonic bomber that could slip under the enemy’s radar and break though its anti-missile defense. This kind of a plane would probably be “optionally piloted”, in the sense that it is optionally manned or unmanned. This configuration follows the design of the American Northrop Grumman stealthy bomber, created to replace the B-52 and B-16 planes. Its Russian counterpart would come in place of the subsonic Tupolev Tu-95 jet and probably be equipped with cutting-edge Kuznetsov NK-65 engines.

    Scenario No. 2 – or a “reasonable balance” – infers the best possible implementation of know-how acquired during the construction of the fifth-generation T-50 fighter. In this case, we will see a supersonic jet featuring T-50’s radar station and four, instead of two, fighter engines. The bomber’s maximum takeoff weight could even be increased to twice as much as that of a fighter, up to 120-130 tons, bringing it up to par with the Tupolev Tu-22M strike bomber. At the same time, efficient modern engines can allow PAK-DA designers to create a bomber capable of carrying a similar war load over much greater distances, possibly equaling those of the Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack hornet.

    Scenario No. 3 – or “ultimatum” – is largely hinged on the TU-160’s war load, all thanks to revamped Kuznetsov NK-65 engines, which are expected to hit the production line again. In this case, PAK-DA’s main performance attributes would close in on those of the Tu-160, while its engines, revolutionary construction materials, and design would increase its range, boost stealth capabilities and, sadly enough, skyrocket its cost. This scenario is therefore the least likely.

    Such predictions seldom pay off, but it’s worth trying anyway. Here are some of the clues that Aviation Commander Lt. Gen. Zhikharev gave us. Chiefly, he said: “We have already passed the point of laying down tactical and technical characteristics [of the plane] and are getting on to their construction and tests.”

    Just two weeks earlier, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Forces, Major General Alexander Chernyaev, declared that the new bomber will be built ahead of schedule: “I think the first serial PAK-DA bombers will be delivered to the Air Force by 2020,” he said in an interview, published on the webpage of the Defense Ministry’s press-office.

    The general attributed such an optimistic forecast to the fact that the concept of PAK-DA had already been formed and was being brushed over. “At present we have everything to build the jet in time and deliver it to the Air Force along with Tu-95MS, Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 aircraft, which have already proven their reliability,” Maj. Gen. Chernyaev pointed out. The previous deadline was set for the mid-2020s.

    All what remains is to sit, wait, and hope that the Air Force will have some more details to share about the brand-new “flagman” bomber in its anniversary year.

    http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_07_20/New-long-range-Russian-strategic-bomber-potentially-in-the-works/

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:45 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:Austin i can assure you that D. Rogozin (in spite of its three degrees in different fields...at least that is what is passed to public) has far, far more specific technical knowledges on those subjects than 90% of Generals in service (and in particular those promoted to higher charges in the disastrous B. Yeltsin' era....), D. Rogozin is literally grown and has breathed ,since its childhood ,in a military scientifical environment among books and publications on those subjects and anyone knowing it personally know that it is a worthy son of Oleg Konstantinovich ( a famous Soviet Union Hero and central figure and leading scientist at Academy of Science ) former Deputy Chief of arms of the Ministry of Defence ; it is possible to say that Dmitry ,today, simply continue to follow the fatherly tracks.

    Well true a guy who spent reading books and obtained 3 degrees and spend time reading books and publication knows more that the person who has commanded the third arm of triad and spent most of his time flying and commanding the bombers.

    Well what has the world come to these days , I too then qualify to know more then the Generals in my country coz i have read books and publications Laughing


    Question: Я глубоко переживал споры в отношении перспективного комплекса Дальней авиации и не понимаю позицию Рогозина в отношении этой концепции.

    Gen. Deynekin's response : Самолеты по сравнению с ракетами обладают таким неповторимым свойством, как способность переносить свои усилия на всем громадном пространстве территории России, дежурить практически в любом удаленном военно-географическом районе.

    If it would not be a critical subject for the future military safety of Russian Federation and to the choices shaping the same foundation of its strategic structure it could even appear as an extract from a comical piece ,where one make a question and the other comic ,feigning to be uncapable to understand ,respond with an assertion totally out of line.

    He is just asserting on what is know about strategic bombers they can be mobile delivery platforms and you can employ tactical flexibility in employing them , plus use it in precision conventional bombing role ......if required strategic bombers can remain in air for 48 hours via refulling.

    No other arms of Triad be it Land Based ICBM or SSBN can afford this flexibility and dual role of nuclear and conventional bombing ........bang for buck Strategic Bombers are more useful and cost effective and is also survivable.


    Межконтинентальная ракета может быть свободно уничтожена как на восходящей траектории или высоко в космосе, так и на нисходящем участке полета.

    And this one ?

    А упреки в том, что самолеты не способны преодолевать ПВО и могут быть уничтожены задолго до выполнения поставленной задачи, в еще большей степени распространяются на ракеты, которым противник не даст даже открыть пусковую шахту.


    I) think that any further word on the "unlucky" (for not say worse) declarations of Petr Deynekin would be ,at this point, completely pointless.


    He is just saying those to bloster his claim as i said before its an inter-service war for resource and these wars are quite common among all the armed forces of the world ......every one wants their project funded and supported.


    What Russia needs and I think what they will get is a Supersonic Stealth Bomber with good EW capability...

    Austin ,you have more time demonstrated to be an intelligent and attentive person ,therefore i encourage and invite you to try to examines those requirements -Stealth and advanced EW capabilities- for the new strategic bomber ,not into void but employing empyrical scenario ,ok ?

    Let put that today (i repeat TODAY, not 10-15 years in the future from now) the order to obliterate Elmendorf Air Base with cruise missiles (nuclear or conventionally tipped) is ,hypothetically proclaimed ; a squadron of strategic bombers Tu-95 or TU-160 or also TU-22M3, armed with ,let put, Kh-102s take-off .
    Them reach the delivery point and return to the base (to eventually mount another cargo of Kh-102 to target other enemy strategic targets destroy).
    Now Austin, do you know what would be a delivery point (one among millions literally) to attack this particular targets ? Nadym !!!

    Mindstorm you too are quite intelligent and attentive person .....you are aware that future cruise missile carried by such bombers for time sensitive targets will be Hypersonic type Zircon-A and then at a later stage cruise missile of Mach 12-13 speed being researched by Tactical Missile Bureau.

    For conventional role and non time sensitive fixed targets they can always use the stealthy Kh-101 and Kh-555

    I repeat the problem of relevance of third branch of nuclear triad is almost exclusively linked to the TIME factor; EW or Stealth will not add to strategic Aviation even a single point in enhancing strategical bomber's relevance or efficiency in respect to today.

    Hypersonic,in this perspective optic, is not an option but a forced choice .


    Let me tell you if time is such an important factor then they can keep some Strategic Bombers Flying all the time in safe international airspace over neutral waters or inside the vast space of Russian territory , keeping it fully armed with nuclear weapons thats what US SAC used to do during cold war and it will cost good money

    Another cost effective thing you can do is disperse these bombers across few secured airfields and keep some bombers in high state of alert needs just few minutes for take off after warning

    Let me tell you no one can predict a bolt from blue strike .....thats why you have SSBN force on deterrent patrol to deal with such sudden surprise strike .......even land based ICBM from fixed silos are vulnerable to such sudden well planned strike. But for the rest Strategic Bombers would suffice.


    I hope i cannot emphasies any more than saying the time of Hypersonic Bomber is atleast 30-40 years away , just because DARPA has some project to work does not mean that the project will be technically possible and economically feasible ...... such Hypersonic Bomber at the cost they are projected even if remotely successful and reliable will bankrupt USAF.

    Even USAF is smart and knows that the next bomber NGB will be stealthy , subsonic and affordable

    Affordable is the key word here with next bomber should not exceeding $500 million per aircraft .........but I am sure Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman will cross the per bomber price tag easily for stealthy ,subsonic bomber Smile

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 21, 2012 3:39 am

    The critical thing here is cost.

    Enormous speed is of course useful, but it is much more cost effective to have hypersonic and stealthy weapons than to have a hypersonic and stealthy bomber.

    I think with improved engine technology that a super cruising strategic bomber is affordable in a tailed flying wing form, with a large internal volume for a heavy weapons payload for conventional strike and also for enormous amounts of on board fuel plus a strategic payload for strategic missions.

    The problems of penetrating air defences is moot because enemy air defences will be in tatters after the ICBMs and SLBMs have hit. the standoff range of long range cruise missiles... whether stealthy or hypersonic will only compound the problems of the air defences.

    The main stumbling block to hypersonic speeds is that conventional turbojet engines choke on supersonic airflow, so a mature scramjet engine design is what is needed for a hypersonic bomber... lets get a few hypersonic missiles using scramjets into service and perfect their design and performance before we take the risk of a strategic bomber using scramjet engines.

    Even scramjet powered UCAVs should come before a scramjet powered bomber.

    The purpose of the strategic bomber should be as a flexible leg of the nuclear deterrent triad, the only one that actually gets used (in conventional operations).

    I think work should be done on hypersonic aircraft, but interceptor/recon aircraft would benefit from this technology first, and when it is mature then look at strategic bombers.


    _________________
    “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 : 736
    Points : 919
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:23 pm



    Well true a guy who spent reading books and obtained 3 degrees and spend time reading books and publication knows more that the person who has commanded the third arm of triad and spent most of his time flying and commanding the bombers.

    Of course Austin is so, and sometime the knowledge's gap become so crushing that someone feel truly embarrassed for the declarations that those brass hats release without a bit of shame (a very common instance when a person don't know what it don't know).
    Austin and that, of course, don't happen only with some Russian Generals but with French, Australian ,USA ,UK ones ; this "gallery of horrors" include samples coming from any place of the planet there exist only the embarrass of choice Very Happy Very Happy


    Well what has the world come to these days , I too then qualify to know more then the Generals in my country coz i have read books and publications.


    Austin i highly doubt (rather i am totally certain) that you, even under the effects of hallucinogenics, would ever conceive a similar "Frenkstein".

    "General Nikolai Makarov cited the following data at the hearings in the Public Chamber : the fire range of the Israeli tank Merkava MK4 makes six kilometres, whereas the fire range of the Russian tank T-90 – only 2.5 kilometres. The US rocket artillery system HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) hits the targets at a distance of 150 kilometres, and the fire range of the Russian artillery rocket system makes 70 kilometres."

    The reality is that any professional journalist recording similar self-embarrassing assertions by part of a general of any country at world (i could bring the examples, even more comic , of "monsters" by part of US Generals on F-15E ,JDAM , PAC-3 etc... Laughing Laughing ) should simply stop and say that:

    " General ,i will feign that your last assertion was never uttered ,and will completely avoid to transcribe it, ok ? Now you have the chance to reformulate it (if you have any chance to access quickly to the required informations) or leave a part the subject completely.
    That will prevent to you to offend the respectability of the Nation you have sworn to defend and of the same Uniform you wear"



    Mindstorm you too are quite intelligent and attentive person .....you are aware that future cruise missile carried by such bombers for time sensitive targets will be Hypersonic type Zircon-A and then at a later stage cruise missile of Mach 12-13 speed being researched by Tactical Missile Bureau.

    For conventional role and non time sensitive fixed targets they can always use the stealthy Kh-101 and Kh-555


    Austin probably mine example has been not clear.

    Mine reference to Nadym as a possible delivery point (for TODAY stand-off low observable cruise missiles of TODAY Russian strategic bombers) useful at obliterate a critical USA target such as Elmendorf Air Base, was NOT aimed at highlight the TIME intervening between salvo of Kh-102s' release and effective destruction of Elmendorf AB ,but to show the TOTAL IRRELEVANCE of any "STEALTH" feature or high end ELECTRONIC WARFARE system implemented in a strategic platform capable to employ similar stand-off weapons and conceived to ,almost exclusively, carry on similar strategic missions.

    To be even more clear : There wouldn't been ANY DIFFERENCE AT ALL in efficiency ,reliability or survivability between a future PAKDA and a today TU-160 or Tu-22M3 in executing a similar strategic attack employing TODAY strategic cruise missiles -such as Kh-102- and there wouldn't been ANY DIFFERENCE AT ALL executing the same mission employing FUTURE strategic range hypersonic cruise missiles (if them would even only merely have 3M-25A's performances !!).
    The unique substantial difference that would be present for stratergic missions would be only that PAKDA would be much more costly and much more maintaining-intensive than actual TU-160s and TU-22M3s (wanting to be silent on the enormous economic and intellectual resources wasted in the R&D and construction phases).

    The UNIQUE feature capable to really add strategic operative relevance (and here we talk of a true titanic leap with increase in strategic mission efficiency some order of magnitude greater...) to strategic bombers is only a shift toward sub-orbital HIGH HYPERSONIC PLATFORMS.


    If instead the "focus" ,of those measure is to assure a secondary tactical bombing capability anyone can easily realize how with a very little fraction of the resources allocated for the R&D of a "low end" PAKDA would be possible to construct several hundreds SU-34s more and equip them with cutting-edge weapons and EW systems capable to carry on similar tasks infinitely better and without putting a risk a very, very costly national strategic asset.



    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  flamming_python on Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:12 pm

    GarryB wrote:The critical thing here is cost.

    Enormous speed is of course useful, but it is much more cost effective to have hypersonic and stealthy weapons than to have a hypersonic and stealthy bomber.

    I think with improved engine technology that a super cruising strategic bomber is affordable in a tailed flying wing form, with a large internal volume for a heavy weapons payload for conventional strike and also for enormous amounts of on board fuel plus a strategic payload for strategic missions.

    The problems of penetrating air defences is moot because enemy air defences will be in tatters after the ICBMs and SLBMs have hit. the standoff range of long range cruise missiles... whether stealthy or hypersonic will only compound the problems of the air defences.

    The main stumbling block to hypersonic speeds is that conventional turbojet engines choke on supersonic airflow, so a mature scramjet engine design is what is needed for a hypersonic bomber... lets get a few hypersonic missiles using scramjets into service and perfect their design and performance before we take the risk of a strategic bomber using scramjet engines.

    Even scramjet powered UCAVs should come before a scramjet powered bomber.

    The purpose of the strategic bomber should be as a flexible leg of the nuclear deterrent triad, the only one that actually gets used (in conventional operations).

    I think work should be done on hypersonic aircraft, but interceptor/recon aircraft would benefit from this technology first, and when it is mature then look at strategic bombers.

    Question is - what exactly would this hypothetical new aircraft be able to offer, that the Tu-160 cannot?
    A new bomber program will be hideously expensive anyway; whether it attempts to maximise stealth or maximise speed. And maximising speed would be a lot more useful for Russian requirements; such bombers could prove highly difficult to intercept or hit, and against any lesser countries they may not be able to be intercepted at all.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 736
    Points : 919
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:29 pm


    Enormous speed is of course useful, but it is much more cost effective to have hypersonic and stealthy weapons than to have a hypersonic and stealthy bomber.


    An high hypersonic nuclear missile's vector (bomber is truly a word of the past for those perspective vehicles) don't need any stealth feature to be ,in perspective, several hundreds times more survivable than the more stealthy vehicle operative today or in work for future in any place of the planet ,also USA scientists are perfectly aware of that and have resolutely taken this road (even if is worth to notice,here, that the Russain approach to the resolution of the sustained hypersonic regime of flight's problem would allow to obtain ALSO a enormous reduction of the ultimate radar detectability of such a strategic vehicle....).

    About cost-efficiency factor of the two choices, the difference is obviously evident : an high hypersonic vector for hypersonic weapons would represent a solution immeasurably more cost-efficient than a supersonic vector with hyopersonic weapons..

    In facts to obtain startegic mission efficiency even only near to the former option you should equip a supersonic platform with high hypersonic weapons with ranges near to today Kh-102 missiles (in the 5500 km class at least) a factor that would render those missiles not only much more big and heavy ,therefore reducing enormously the number of enemy strategic targets engageable by each of those bombers) but would also cause theirs price-tag to skyrocket to the stars -in facts the price of all such hypersonic vehicles grow almost exponentially at the growing of sustaining time of the hypersonic flight regime ,an element which would render the cost of similar long range hypersonic missiles not significantly lower than those of a long range hypersonic vector !.

    A long range high hypersonic vector,on the other side , allow to you to transfer in the cost of construction of the platform itself the enormous costs related to allow an hypersonic weapon to cover the same distance ,allowing effectively to a similar "bomber" to carry a significantly larger amount of immensely less costly hypersonic weapons each of which reatin,moreover ,the same destructive potential of the long range version employed by the supersonic counterpart.

    I repeat the difference in both mission efficiency and economic profitability of the two options is SIMPLY CRUSHING in favour of an high hypersonic vector.



    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:29 am

    Mindstorm let me ask you a simple question , Does Russia have the technology to develop Hypersonic Bomber ?

    Right now they dont have a single hypersonic cruise missile that uses Scramjet engine , there is Ziron-S under development which will take 5-7 years of development.

    Can you list out the technologies needed to develop a Hypersonic Bomber , in what time frame it can be developed and how many and what cost it will be to develop such bomber.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 736
    Points : 919
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:26 am

    Mindstorm let me ask you a simple question , Does Russia have the technology to develop Hypersonic Bomber ?


    Short Response : YES , absolutely .

    Overall ,the scientific knowledge in this specific sector ,both theoretical and experimental, is likely greater than that of the rest of the world combined!
    Take into account that not less than 80-90% of the explorative or technology demonstrator researchs executed or still in work around the world in Europe and USA are strongly based on scientific knowledges or experimental emergences (very often at lest 10-15 years old for domestic standards) coming from Russain scientific Institutes when not from direct collaboration with them !! (including NASA, EADS, ONERA, INCIM etc..with TsAGI ,Raduga, TsNIIMash, CIAM, Vympel, etc.. )

    Even highly publicized and now "available" foreign products in the sector ,such as the recently completed Meteor AAM, has been effectively allowed only by the Russian -CIAM mostly- technology (anyhow outdated for that available to the Institute at the time) sold to ONERA in the '90 years.
    The latest of those "collaborations" with foreign institutions is that between Russian Lavrentiev Institute of Hydrodynamics and EADS Innovation Works for Continuous Detonation Wave Engine Technology .

    The only real problem (one that have its roots even in plain Soviet times!!) is that those knowledge ,very often representing the benchmark at world level, are segmented among tens of different Scientific Institutions none of which is ready to share them with the others in the hope that big National projects....and the relative economic resources.....will be committed to them in virtue of theirs specific "knowledge's pool" in the sector.


    Can you list out the technologies needed to develop a Hypersonic Bomber , in what time frame it can be developed and how many and what cost it will be to develop such bomber.

    I can only say to you that three Scientific Institutions cited in this response and two others, own already today all the technologies in need to realize a cutting edge systems of this type , the problems and the necessary breackthrough ,instead, should be achieved ,at limit, only in the engineering phase of the project .....that is the sector where USA truly lead the rest of the world (it is the quality that has allowed in the past to them, only to provide two well known examples, to transform Ufimtsev's equations in metallic flying products such as F-117 and B2 or the Yakovlev's revolutionary solutions in the actual "unique" F-35B engine ).


    Merging this enormous capital of scientific knowledge under the "flag" of a big national program would allow ,in the middle term, not only to acquire a very wide MILITARY lead against any potential enemy worldwide both in the offensive and defensive department, but also ,in perspective, to open a true new era in CIVIL AIR TRASPORTATION, allowing effectively to capsize completely the current equilibrium in this immensely lucrative market (capable by itself to repay ,in few years, the entire cost of the project !! ) ,rendering suddenly totally obsolete not only the entire enormous Boeing and Airbus aircraft fleets but also theirs entire related construction's know-how and tradition slowly collected in all those years.




    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  flamming_python on Sun Jul 22, 2012 1:25 pm

    I am sure that the theoretical knowledge exists.

    However the materials and engineering/manufacturing would be a problem. Russia's industry is advancing reasonably rapidly, and new composite materials production, high-tech electronics factories, etc... are opening in Russia; many of these are absolutely world-class and as good as anything that is made in the US, Europe, Japan, etc...

    However hyper-sonic materials are on a different level and are quite different to say - stealth. They are more comparable to the sorts of materials that Russia uses in its space program I would imagine - but many of them would be completely new and something that is not made anywhere in the world. Over the last few years the Russian economy and engineering industries have displayed their capability to catch up with the West. But as actually innovating and putting some for now theoretical parts and technologies into production - well this remains to be seen. This would be tough I would imagine, to build such parts and materials and to the required quality, without having the benefit to learn from anyone else's experience; especially as Russia is still catching up to the West in manufacturing technologies; and some things such as computer processors - it's still behind in.

    The other problem is that for such an expensive, tech-heavy bomber to be successful, it would need very good quality control. This is another area where the Russian military-industrial complex is behind the West. Comparing Russian and European defense products lets say - the Russian ones may be more innovative and high-tech, but at the same time will be rougher around the edges, there will be a higher proportion of defective models, the production quality won't be as high, etc... although the difference is pretty much marginal or often negligible - for a hypersonic bomber it can quickly become vital.

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

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

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sujoy on Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:54 pm

    At the November 2010 APEC conference in Japan , New Zealand Prime Mininster John Key( who sometimes behaves like a child in a candy store when meeting leaders of large nations) asked the then Russian president Dmitry Medvedev - "how long it would take a Russian missile to reach New Zealand ? " The former Russian president asked a staffer who made a quick calculation. Medvedev turned to Key and said, “Twenty-two minutes,” (and added reassuringly, “but I will call you in advance.”)

    Now, the only reason I share the above anecdote is to highlight the fact that Russian ICBMs can still target almost any location , anywhere in the world virtually unopposed at very short notice ( and probably the same can be said about US ICBMs) . So that begs the question , why this sudden need for a Hypersonic Bomber / Missile ?

    Conventional wisdom suggests that if Russia ( or the US / China ) is to launch an ICBM ( with a conventional warhead)to carry out a prompt strike anywhere in the world it would immediately trigger the Early Warning Systems of USA and China. Therefore, an ICBM launch will incite a crisis larger than the one that it was meant to solve.The armed forces are certain that in the near future it will need to operate with this kind of speed against threats that appear and disappear in a flash. However, the technology that goes behind designing hypersonic bombers/missiles have not reached a stage , till date , where they can be used successfully against high value targets at the blink of any eye. Here is why .

    The technology to :

    (a) boost the hypersonic vehicle to near space .... Exists
    (b) to insert the aircraft into atmospheric hypersonic flight .... Exists
    (c) achieve the desired control during the aerodynamic phase of flight ..... Does Not Exists


    US military planner believe that a warhead flying through the atmosphere might be harder to intercept than one carried into space by a missile. Hypersonic vehicles need to cut through the atmosphere, and the dynamics of how to do that have not been found yet in any corner of the world. And all this billions of dollars poured into a program to get hold of a vehicle that will have a throw weight which will pale into insignificance before the 1210 kg throw weight of the RS 24.






    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:14 pm

    Mindstorm , Although many technologies exist in bits and pieces with different scientific institute , to gather them and make into a Aerodynamic capable , hypersonic bomber and a reliable platform that can meet the rigiours of day to day flight that a strategic bomber does will take around 20-25 years.

    So yes russia can make hypersonic bomber but thats a 20-25 years task of dedicated research and multibillion dollars poured into it.

    I suspect that though a Hypersonic Bomber will be the ultimate goal intermidate they will build a supersonic stealth bomber while they will keep Hypersonic research on funds permitting.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:18 am

    The potential usefulness of a hypersonic bomber is enormous because if you can get to hypersonic speed in a bomber then what you are saying is that you have a bomber that could be modified eventually to take off from a conventional air port and dock with the international space station and then land again.

    The main barrier to this is the heat generated by travelling that fast inside the atmosphere and engines and structures that can survive and operate at those temperatures.

    It is not possible with a jet engine or a ramjet, you need a scramjet and rocket propulsion.

    I agree that Russia should explore such technologies, and should build air launched missiles with high speed and long range, such things are becoming attainable right now, but without a fully working scramjet engine, or in fact a variable cycle engine that allows the aircraft to take off and accelerate to very high speed and very high altitude and then maintain that high speed and high altitude for hours is not available now... except in nuclear ram jet engines.

    To make a hypersonic bomber for the 2020 period the Russian designers would need a lot of money spent on scramjet propulsion and variable cycle engines... unlike Brahmos II they wont be able to fit a rocket engine to accelerate it up to speed for launch they will need to develop new engines that can operate low and slow and accelerate to a reasonable height and speed for the ramjet to take over. Not ramjets don't need high speed to run and generate thrust though they are much more efficient at high speeds and high altitudes. I remember seeing ramjets being tested on an I-16 Polikarpov fighter. The ramjets added about 45km/h to the aircrafts top speed, which is pretty impressive considering the extra weight and drag those ramjets created.
    In addition they are going to have to solve problems of heat and the entire aircraft will likely need to be made of Titanium... which is a very expensive material to build aircraft with, and difficult to make and maintain.

    Pumping fuel through the hot bits could be one option to manage the heat but a lot of work needs to be done.

    I would think the easier goals of hypersonic missiles and perhaps a hypersonic recon drone would be a much cheaper idea to work through the problems with the PAK DA being a large flying wing with a more swept wing than the B-2... something more akin to the Tu-160 with a moderate sweep back used for supersonic flight, plus a horizontal tail surface to allow supersonic cruising for most of its flight.

    This should give much higher average speed than a subsonic cruise and supersonic dash near the enemy territory of the Tu-160, and would be much faster than the Tu-95 subsonic all the way there and back.

    It would be an in production bomber that could replace all in service heavy strategic and heavy theatre bombers in service now and its low cost to buy and operate should make it more useful. And of course for strategic missions hypersonic and stealthy cruise missiles will allow a stand off launch range that will keep them relatively safe while in conventional conflicts those same weapons would do the same against enemies with real AD networks and against those without like separatists a high altitude flight profile with a large weapon load of a range of guided weapon types would make it very versatile.

    Even today the US can't afford to keep the SR-71 in service, and it is pretty much the only titanium aircraft that made service... though the B-2, F-22, and F-35 could be called gold plated Twisted Evil

    I am not against a hypersonic bomber, I just think the current and near future political situation doesn't warrant such an expensive endeavour right now.


    _________________
    “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

    Firebird
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 909
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Firebird on Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:51 am

    On the question of the 3 "bomber" variants.

    1)I cant see the attraction of the subsonic to replace Tu-22 and Tu160.
    Ok maybe it can replace some Bears. And IF it can be subtsnatially more stealthlike than a supersonic bomber, then maybe that has advantages.

    2)A 4 engined development from the Pak Fa would be interesting and probably quite cost effective.
    My question is does this restrict range - like the Tu 22 is restricted. Also, are there payloads that could not be carried on this option that could be carried on a "new Tu 160" replacement

    3)Also the Tu 160 is fantastic craft. I wonder how much Tu160 work can be used in a Tu160 replacement?
    How far towards a stealth variant could it be modified?

    4)My last query is, what would happen if 6 engines from the Pak fa were used, instead of using a modified Tu160 engine?
    Is this viable?

    In comparing the 3, I'd say that supersonic is vital. The rest depends on budget, objectives, the state of ABMs, missiles available, even bases available. So many factors.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:03 pm

    The advantage of subsonic would be low operating costs where instead of having a fast bomber to penetrate air defences or a stealthy bomber to penetrate enemy air defences, you have even faster missiles or even stealthier missiles that would be better able to penetrate those defences from standoff distances.

    Let me be clear the B-2s stealthiness only has value as a first strike weapon and even then that first strike capability is questionable against first class air defence networks.

    The US is looking at hypersonic bombers presumably to penetrate the future Russian air defence network and if they succeed in creating such a bomber then the obvious defence weapon is a semi mobile laser, whose speed of light interception performance means that even mach 8 plus targets can be intercepted as they manouver inside or outside the atmosphere.

    High speed is expensive and requires new engine technology and exotic materials like Titanium.

    5th gen engine technology is low bypass high thrust engines and with the equivalent 5th gen bomber engine you could easily and cheaply achieve supercruise performance in a bomber sized aircraft. This could also translate to civilian airliners travelling at mach 1.5-1.8 perhaps burning not much more fuel than a subsonic aircraft of similar size and arriving much quicker.

    A four engined bomber the size of the Tu-22M3 already exists and is called the B-1B and is a significant step backwards from the Tu-160.

    In terms of stealth the Tu-160 is actually pretty good, but a thorough redesign that removes the swing wing component that is heavy and complex and adopts a new sophisticated fixed wing design that allows super cruising performance could lead to an aircraft that is perhaps a little bigger, but much cheaper to operate and use with better performance and that can be produced in numbers that make it a viable replacement for the existing types, so instead of having two strategic bombers and one theatre bomber they could have one bomber for strategic nuclear and conventional missions and also for theatre conventional bombing missions.

    Regarding a 6 engined bomber, it is not ideal and would still have less thrust than the current Tu-160 with 4 engines even if the thrust of each engine was increased to 16 tons that would be 96 tons of thrust, but with 6 engines mounted and all the extra piping and wiring. Personally I think upgrading the existing NK-32 engine and adapting it so it can be fitted to both the Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 for the moment would save a lot of money in the near term by replacing over 300 engines with a newer more powerful and more fuel efficient engine.

    With a super cruising flying wing design with a rear tail surface you could probably get away with three engines instead of 4 and you could probably design a long range interceptor aircraft based on the same design for the VKKO too.

    Remember just because the flying wing with a rear tail surface is a super cruising aircraft doesn't mean that for certain periods in its flight it couldn't engage the ABs and put in a supersonic dash here or there either.

    In fact you could design it so that it could fly very fast because in the space made vacant by the removal of one engine you could put a single scramjet position, or perhaps you could arrange the three engines so there are two large spaces between the three engines and at high speed you could open the airflow between the engines and shut down the three turbojets and use scramjet engines in the gaps between. This means you take off with the three normal jet engines and climb to altitude and then supercruise in dry thrust most of the outward trip and then shut the intakes to the jet engines and open the ramps to two scramjet engines and accelerate through to mach 4 or more.

    The speed limit for most jets is the lack of thrust as you get faster and faster because turbojet engines choke on supersonic air. The engines of the Mig-25 and Mig-31 is what limit those aircraft to Mach 2.83. The SR-71 pretty much blocks the air going through its turbojet engines and uses bypass air as a ramjet for propulsion up to about mach 3.5... A large heat protected aircraft powered by scramjets would be limited by how much heat it could take...


    _________________
    “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

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9438
    Points : 9930
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  George1 on Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:43 pm

    New Russian bomber: needless expenditure or future necessity?

    On the threshold of the 100-year anniversary of the Russian Air Force, holiday events are steadily increasing in number. A round table with the participation of the most prominent Russian military analysts, devoted to the development of a potential new bomber for the Russian Air Force, has taken place in Moscow. However, while estimating the need for “aircraft of the future”, the specialists have differed in their views.

    There was at least one thing on which all the participants of the round table, which was held in the Rosbalt information agency, have agreed upon: Russia should continue maintaining the existing fleet of strategic aircraft in a proper condition and continue to upgrade them. The resources for the Tupolev Tu-95MS, Tu-160, and Tu-22М3 allow these aircrafts to remain in service for many years. In these conditions, the improvement of their equipment and weapons is one of the key tasks.

    Such works are under way now. The Tupolev Tu-95MS and Tu-160 fighters are undergoing modernization and the first upgraded Tu-22М3М has already been handed over to the troops. Updated aircraft can use modern weapons, including non-nuclear precision-guided munitions, which makes them very useful in case of local conflicts. It is noteworthy that Russia currently has approximately 200 long-range aircrafts, including 66 Tupolev Tu-95MS and 16 Tupolev Tu-160s (the rest are Tupolev Tu-22М3s), and it is at the very least wasteful to leave all these heavy combat aircrafts without the possibility of carrying out non-nuclear tasks in local conflicts.

    Despite the capabilities of the modernized Russian bombers, their resources are not infinite. They are to be replaced in 2030-2050 due to wear and tear on the airframes. Meanwhile, taking into account modern combat aircraft’s terms of development and serialized production, it is necessary to start development now in order to get a new aircraft by the beginning of 2030s. However, some specialists do not support this point of view. During the round table, Deputy Director of the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies Andrey Frolov was the main opponent of new strategic aircraft development.

    “At this stage, maintaining the full-fledged nuclear triad is very burdensome for Russia. In this connection, developing a new long-range aircraft of the fifth generation may become one of the programs that do not make sense, but demand a lot of financial resources,” Frolov stated.

    Other participants of the discussion supported the development of new aircraft. “Russia needs strategic bombers of the fifth generation, first of all, in order to support its status of a nuclear power,” the National Defense magazine Editor-in-Chief Igor Korotchenko said.

    According to the analyst, it is “the aviation component of the strategic nuclear forces that is most adaptable to the task of sending signals to the opponents in critical moments, reminding them of the fact that the Russian armed forces are capable of solving any problems in case of a war.”

    The head of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis Alexander Sharavin has also supported the new development: “I do not oppose the idea of upgrading old aircrafts. But what shall we do in 30 years? It is clear that such aircraft as the PAK DA project cannot be produced in three, five, or even ten years. Such tasks take many years to be fulfilled.”

    The fate of PAK DA – the Prospective Air Complex for Long Range Aviation – is not clear yet. Arguments of all the participants contain a core of common sense. It seems that the general conclusion from all the above can be formulated as follows:

    1. Today, maintaining the classic nuclear triad – long-range aviation, land-based missiles, and nuclear underwater missile carriers – is a topic for discussion.

    2. Nevertheless, the development of a new long-range combat aircraft seems to be necessary. Given the length of Russian borders and the need to respond to potential threats, which may occur in different regions, Russia needs a unit of aircraft capable of readily hitting targets beyond the range of tactical aircraft without refueling in the air.

    3. Until it comes to serial production of the new aircraft type, its development is not unduly wasteful, and it may be stopped, slowed down, and resumed at any point without special expenses.

    4. Until convincing proof is received that new types of weapons – such as remotely piloted delivery systems and other aircrafts – can effectively replace the classic long-range bomber, this work should be continued. Development of an aircraft up to the moment of launching a series usually takes 10-15 years. It is a sufficient term for determining the prospects of the program.

    http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_07_30/New-Russian-bomber-needless-expenditure-or-future-necessity/

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9438
    Points : 9930
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  George1 on Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:07 pm

    Russia Develops Requirements for Future Long-range Bomber

    Russia is developing requirements for its Future Aviation Complex for Long-Range Aviation (PAK DA) next-generation bomber, according to air force commander Gen. Victor Bondarev. “The defense ministry is working on a complete range of requirements for the PAK DA, and after these are firmed up the industry will be able to complete the technical [design] of this aircraft,” Bondarev told reporters at the Russian air force centennial celebration earlier this month at Zhukovsky airbase near Moscow.

    The PAK DA bomber would supplement and partially replace the Tu-160s, Tu-95MSs and Tu-22M3s in service with the long-range aviation establishment in charge of Russia’s land-based strategic bomber aircraft. Russia plans to fly the PAK DA in 2022, said Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev, commander of the strategic bomber force. A basic design has been completed and accepted, and industry is beginning full-scale research and development of the aircraft.

    A first-phase modernization and upgrade of the current fleet of Tupolev bombers will extend their service lives, by up to 30 years in the case of the Tu-160. Ten of the swing-wing, supersonic Tu-160s will undergo a second phase of modernization starting in 2016. “This will turn it into a completely different airplane, with new instruments and avionics,” Zhikharev said.

    By year-end, four Tu-22M3s will be outfitted with the SVP-24-22 avionics suite already in use on Sukhoi Su-24M front-line bombers and tested on a Tu-22M3. The ministry of defense has awarded contracts for the work to the Gefest ET avionics development company in Zhukovsky. The upgrade improves the accuracy of navigation and strike systems, and allows operations into airfields lacking glideslope guidance. Earlier this year, the air force said it intends to upgrade about 30 Tu-22M3s during the next eight years. Reportedly, between 50 and 60 of these “Eurostrategic” strike aircraft remain airworthy.

    The Red Star, the official publication of the Russian defense ministry, reports that all Tu-160 commanders are flying more than 100 hours a year; Tu-95 crews are logging twice that amount; and some Tu-22M3 commanders are flying more than 300 hours a year. The newly released figures provide evidence that the country’s long-range aircraft are flying considerably more than in the past.

    http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2012-08-24/russia-develops-requirements-future-long-range-bomber

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:02 am

    This article raises some good points... just because they are developing the PAK DA does not mean they will have to scrap perfectly good aircraft.

    The Tu-160s can continue to be used, and the Tu-95s are still relatively young aircraft that are cheap to run.

    The Tu-22M3s have a problem that although their engines have very similar performance to the engines used in the Tu-160, they are actually different and not compatible.

    A new unified engine that can be used in upgraded Tu-22M3Ms and Tu-160Ms and also the PAK DA makes a lot of sense economically and in terms of performance.

    Just the same as unified engines with PAK FA and the Flanker family.

    Remember that the Flanker family is actually larger in size and weight than the PAK FA, but the 5th gen engines for the PAK FA are so much more powerful for the different requirements they fit the larger Flanker family quite well and improve their performance too.

    When designing aircraft you can't just put in any old engine... if it is too big it will probably burn up the on board fuel too quickly and leave the aircraft short ranged. Too small and performance can be adversely effected.

    Extra engines means better reliability and lower purchase cost because more engines means they can be less powerful than if you were only fitting one... you can of course make a 50 ton thrust engine and fit it to a Tu-22M3, but it is likely to be huge and less efficient than the two 25 ton thrust engines currently fitted.

    It generally all comes down to the engine.

    If you could make a 50 ton thrust turbojet engine that wasn't too heavy and was efficient then fitting it to a Tu-22M3 would improve the design as long as it didn't burn more fuel than the current two engines, and was lighter overall, and wasn't too big.

    Some people look at twin engine designs and think that is twice the fuel consumption which means it is bad. In actual fact the only problem with twin engined aircraft is the larger frontal area that increases drag which is the real problem with twin engine aircraft.

    The larger frontal area on, say, a Mig-29, means it needs a slightly higher throttle setting than something like an F-16. With a similar fuel burn rate and a similar throttle setting both aircraft will burn the same fuel... the difference is that all the fuel is going into one engine in the F-16 which will have double the fuel consumption of the two engines in the Mig.

    Very simply if thust x is needed to keep both aircraft in the air there is only one engine in the F-16 so it has to provide all that thrust ie x. For the Mig-29 however it has two engines so each engine only needs to provide half of x or x/2 thrust each.

    In other words while cruising a 4 ton thrust setting on the F-16s engine would require a 2 ton thrust setting on the two engines in the Mig. The smaller lighter less powerful engines in the Mig can be designed to be as efficient as the big engine in the F-16 yet less expensive because you are talking about 8 ton thrust engines instead of 12 ton thrust engines.

    Of course two engines will cost more to operate because there are two engines to maintain and extra piping and cables etc, but a Mig pilot can do something an F-16 pilot can't... he can shut down one engine and fly home.

    Also when you introduce thrust vector engine control with two engines you can greatly increase roll rate at any speed simply by differential use of the engines... ie point one up and one down to generate a roll force... even in a stall where no air is flowing over the wings to give you control of the aircraft.

    This means that in an aircraft with positive thrust (ie more thrust than weight) you can point your nose up and climb out of trouble just using engine power alone.

    BTW Imagine a twin engined Tu-160 with two 50 ton thrust 5th gen engines that would enable it to supercruise...


    _________________
    “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

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9438
    Points : 9930
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  George1 on Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:33 am

    Deputy PM Repeats Call For Hypersonic Bomber

    Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin repeated his appeal on Monday 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."

    Long-range military aviation is vital to Russia and "the question is will we copy the Americans' forty-year experience and create a [Northrop] B-2 analog...or will we go down a new, ultramodern technology route, looking to the horizon, and create a machine able to penetrate air defenses and carry out a strike on any aggressor," he said.

    Rogozin's latest comments come just days after a test of America's X-51 Waverider hypersonic unmanned test vehicle failed after a control fin broke up and the aircraft fell into the sea. The aim of the test was to prove Waverider could fly for around five minutes at hypersonic speed using a "scramjet" engine.

    Russian Air Force Long Range Aviation commander Lt. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev has previously said the first PAK-DA (an acronym for future long-range aircraft) bomber should enter service by around 2020, and its outline design is currently being devised. Russia's Tupolev design bureau, which designed most of Russia's serving bombers like the Tu-95MS, Tu-22M3 and Tu-160, is leading the program.

    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," Putin said.

    Rogozin initially said in June he saw no need for PAK-DA to replace the air force's ageing 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 in June. He later clarified his statement by saying he was in favor of developing a future bomber, but it should not just be a B-2 copy 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 picked out 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.

    "The undertaking of this work allows us to lay the basis for creation of a national competitor in hypersonic weapons," he said, adding development of such a weapon should be discussed at the highest levels of state.

    Aerospace specialists say Rogozin's comments are more likely to be relevant to a future air-launched missile, rather than the bomber that launches it.

    "I very much doubt it would be possible to make a hypersonic bomber by that time [2020]," he said. "And there is no point. A supersonic bomber would be useful, but not hypersonic. Probably, he is talking about a missile," said Maxim Pyadushkin, editor of the Russia/CIS Observer aviation magazine.

    "In the Soviet-era there was considerable research into high-speed weaponry, culminating in projects such as the Raduga Kh-90, which is sometimes referred to as GELA," said Douglas Barrie, air warfare analyst at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

    "None of the work resulted in an in-service weapon. Elements of this research could be re-invigorated as the basis for a weapon for the PAK-DA within the next 10-15 years. The PAK-DA - should the required substantial funding be made available - will be at best supersonic, if not a subsonic design with some stealth characteristics," he added.

    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120827/175461736.html

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:43 am

    If the new bomber is going to be subsonic then there is no need for it because the Bear already fills that role and it is relatively cheap to operate and good at what it does.

    A hypersonic bomber with strategic range will be very big.

    If you wanted to make such a bomber 40 years ago it would have been enormous and would have been ramjet powered and made almost completely from Titanium.

    In a few years time with scramjet technology, in terms of engine performance it should not be that hard to design and build... it will need big runways and it will burn very large volumes of fuel and the main problems in design will be to make the hot bits able to withstand the heat generated just by flying through the air.

    With their super computers they should be able to test an enormous range of aircraft shapes and types... rapid prototyping.

    And they can test thousands as computer models and select a few dozen of the most promising designs to make real models of and give those real world scale tests because too the TSAGI labs still have some of the best hypersonic wind tunnels in the world.

    This option has the highest risk but also offers the greatest reward. There is no real speed limit for a scramjet because the fuel burns supersonically inside the engine (ie SCRAMJET = Supersonic combustion ramjet) there is no need for complicated intakes to strictly control air flow to make it subsonic so the engines don't choke.

    The other option I can forsee would be a flying wing designed for supersonic flight... which means a flying wing with a horizontal tail surface that allows supersonic flight. With very low drag and a modern wing design the aircraft should have very low drag but good lift and low RCS and perhaps the ability to supercruise.

    Very simply supercruising is like sticking to flat open roads and driving everywhere in top gear. It means maximum speed for minimum revs, because revs means fuel burn.


    _________________
    “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 : 736
    Points : 919
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:58 pm



    "I very much doubt it would be possible to make a hypersonic bomber by that time [2020]," he said. "And there is no point. A supersonic bomber would be useful, but not hypersonic. Probably, he is talking about a missile,"



    Now,THIS bright sample of the most comical, pure,self-embarrasing Incompetence should lead a Director to ,at least,sanction the author of a similar idiocy and publish the day after a disclaimer note to apologize with all the readers for the unwanted fit of laughers provoked.




    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

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

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sujoy on Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:17 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    Now,THIS bright sample of the most comical, pure,self-embarrasing Incompetence should lead a Director to ,at least,sanction the author of a similar idiocy and publish the day after a disclaimer note to apologize with all the readers for the unwanted fit of laughers provoked.


    But then Mindstorm , we do not need to read such bright sample of comical magazines , do we . Unless of course we start working for Lockheed or a Raytheon Very Happy

    Regards,
    -Sujoy

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:36 am


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:36 am