PAK-DA: News

But if its subsonic won't that make it extremely vulnerable to modern ADS for dropping guided and general purpose bombs?

It wont be used if there is a chance it could be shot down.

If there is a theatre conflict where the enemy has decent air defences then cruise missiles can be used to wear down the defences.

Looking at previous conflicts Russia could have used it over Chechnia or Afghanistan with impunity where its exceptional long range and large payload would allow it to support units for days with responsive and accurate fire power.

Even in the conflict with Georgia operating it with dedicated jammer aircraft should have allowed it to attack Georgian airfields with impunity for fairly high altitudes with a couple of cheap glonass guided bombs... of course a couple of Su-35s or Mig-35s could have done the same.

I personally really think supercruising or at least supersonic is the way to go. Like Garry said not too much added expense and there's also experience flying such aircraft but with much more mission versatility and survivability.

Plus there is commercial value in developing such technologies for commercial aircraft...

For maritime patrol I think they should focus more on the Be-200 and make an ASW MS-21 or Tu-204 variant.

They would be fine for replacing the Be-12 Mail and Il-38 May, but to replace the Tu-142 you would need a rather bigger aircraft like an Il-96 or PAK DA.

Although a large subsonic flying wing could be a good AWACs aircraft.

Plus its heavy payload capacity could be used for extra fuel in the tanker role.

But a supersonic PAK DA would be able to do another mission : Long range heavy interception. I think reviving the concept of the Tu-160P is a good idea.

Perhaps a modified version with scramjet engines added with a greater wing sweep?

Actually the SR-71 was canceled because the plane became next to Useless once Satellite Technology Improved.. on top that Russia could shut down them anyway with their Migs.

The SR-71 was brought back into service several times because it is just much more flexible than satellites.

Satellites in geostationary orbits are too high up to get a good view and lower flying satellites only spend a max of about 6 minutes over a target area every 90 minutes. In comparison the SR-71 can orbit around an area of interest and change direction etc.

Even today there are only a few systems that would reliably defeat an SR-71 and they are expensive and not widely deployed.

They are actually developing the SR-72.. So clearly your mistaken ,they have the funding.. not only for that but for more other expensive projects...

Spy drone... clearly large high speed manned aircraft are still too expensive... why should Russia waste all that money if even the US wont... and we know how the US likes to waste money...

And create a Dozen of Hypersonic bombers that could fly very High Altitudes in space beyond 95% of the competition defenses.. if not 100%.. Because Aegis Missiles Defenses cannot counter targets with high maneuverability.

If a dozen was enough then they have 13 odd Tu-160s. The point is to replace them because they are not numerous enough to be a viable force and are expensive to maintain and operate.

A fleet of about 80-100 PAK DAs would be ideal... especially if there were another 50 tanker models and 15-20 AWACS models and a couple of jammer and recon models.

But really i believe it will be better for Russia to invest in game changing Weapons that could be used in any minor or major conventional conflict against a hostile Nation, and not expensive Nuclear Submarines that will never be used.

It is interesting that the Russian navy is useless and can be written off yet the US navy is all powerful and should be the main focus of the Russian military...

The thing is that with Sigma on every Russian Navy vessel and modern SAMs and AESA radars the new Russian Navy is going to be one big AEGIS system with the addition of the legenda satellite system to support it.

The introduction of hypersonic bombers will result in the development of airborne and ground base laser systems (hypersonic platforms will fly high and be detectable at extended ranges using IR technology). Not cheap but able to shoot down a dozen or so bombers fairly easily... and then you have no navy and little else to defend yourself because you spent all your money on fast planes.

Unlike the US, Russia doesn't need hypersonic bombers to kill people globally within hours... that is a US goal... not a Russian goal. Russia just needs to make sure it can destroy any enemy that attacks it... which means long range bombers carrying cruise missiles, plus SLBMs and ICBMs.

Trying to keep up with the US's capacity to murder people anywhere within hours is pointless and counter productive... and expensive.

The Russians must go for something hypersonic. If not a bomber, than a multirole fighter able to hunt and shutdown a SR-72.

A hypersonic aircraft will be able to manouver... but not like a fighter... a S-500 battery should be able to deal with any hypersonic bomber.

Interesting... would add horizontal tail surfaces to improve control and also potentially add future growth potential as super cruising bomber...

(passing through the sound barrier results in a serious shift in centre of gravity... which means lots of tail down/tail up control authority is needed... a flying wing doesn't have that level of control so supersonic flight is not possible AFAIK.

The second plane from the left looks rather a lot like this one does it not?




Of course the above is just a wind tunnel model testing shape.

There is a smaller photo of the above design with podded engines beneath the fuselage which suggests a civilian transport derivative could be developed... which would certainly reduce costs and improve commonality if it shares other non secret features.

The top of this page photo has too large a tail structure, the second photo with the butterfly tail (ie 45 degree angle tail surfaces that perform the same function as both horizontal and vertical tail surfaces) would be an improvement and could perhaps allow transonic flight... a very low drag design could be made to supercruise at perhaps mach 1.4 which would vastly improve performance without making it enormously expensive (like hypersonic speed would).

Still if they can make a mach 4.3 MiG-31 replacement then perhaps new engine technology could produce a double speed Blackjack...     

What's funny about those pics of the models with the kids is that their designs at once suggest something like flying ramjets with wings; which is a contradiction as ramjets are associated with hypersonic speeds while large control surfaces, especially in the form of those huge wings on the middle model - suggest a much lower speed.
It's as if the the aircraft is compromise between a high-speed design and a low-speed design, which doesn't make sense; although thinking deeper; it's just the optimal configuration for a very low-drag aircraft as GazB mentioned.

Modifying a mig31 with the sole purpose to make mach 4 at operational altitude and fly high climb fast characteristics and some stealth capabilities is not as expensive as it may sound.
Whether it would be a step forward is an other matter though.

Doubling the flight speed of an interceptor greatly increases the area it can cover and defend. Added stealth performance is superfluous and not worth any investment... a huge big AESA on the other hand would be well worth the money.

What's funny about those pics of the models with the kids is that their designs at once suggest something like flying ramjets with wings; which is a contradiction as ramjets are associated with hypersonic speeds while large control surfaces, especially in the form of those huge wings on the middle model - suggest a much lower speed.

Ramjets suggest very high speed, but actually some of the first aircraft tested with Ramjets were I-15 Polikarpov Biplanes, whose flight speed was boosted by about 55km/h with the use of two ramjets under the lower wings.

Of the two aircraft visible in the photo above I would say the left has a relatively small wing and is likely a very high speed design, while the design on the right is basically a flying wing and would likely be subsonic.

Remember TSAGi only test shapes and are not responsible for any particular aircraft program... their job is to test shapes at different speeds to find optimum shapes for low drag and high lift in different speed ranges.

These models probably don't have any propulsion developed for them yet, though I would expect variable cycle turbojet/scramjet for the left and turbofan for the right.