Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 10, 2010 3:38 am

    I thought the proposed interceptor and jammer models of the Tu-160 that never got off the drawing board looked cool.

    Imagine the size of radar that could be fitted in the nose of the Tu-160, with R-37s in the rotary internal bays.

    Just off the top of my head the R-37 should be about the same size as the Kh-15 Kickback so the Tu-160 should be able to carry 24 missiles internally and be capable of supersonic sprints with a flight radius of 12,000km or so.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Viktor on Sat Apr 10, 2010 4:47 pm

    GarryB wrote:I thought the proposed interceptor and jammer models of the Tu-160 that never got off the drawing board looked cool.

    Imagine the size of radar that could be fitted in the nose of the Tu-160, with R-37s in the rotary internal bays.

    Just off the top of my head the R-37 should be about the same size as the Kh-15 Kickback so the Tu-160 should be able to carry 24 missiles internally and be capable of supersonic sprints with a flight radius of 12,000km or so.

    I allways liked the idea of Tu-22M3 being fitted with AESA radar an rotary K-100 missiles besides some Kh-22M.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 11, 2010 7:46 am

    Yes.

    Keep the crew of 4 and put a huge AESA radar in the nose, modify the internal rotary weapon rack to carry long missiles plus with 4 external load bearing points for weapons should allow quite a few weapons to be carried.

    Half the number of engines and probably cheaper to operate and the chance of having lots of spare airframes is rather better than with the Blackjack due to the numbers in service.

    If the changes are made permanent and the air to ground capacity is completely removed then the inflight refuelling capability could be reinstated too.

    The belly could be reconfigured to look like the belly of the Mig-31M for semi conformal carriage of large AAMs like R-37 and other proposed weapons.

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Stealthflanker on Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:59 am

    there were also concept of "B-1R" in US serving pretty much same purpose as Counter air variant of Tu-160's.

    However i wonder why neither of these concept came into materialization

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Apr 13, 2010 4:58 am

    I think the Tu-160 is good for what we need. Slap on a RAM coating, LO the outlets, and an engine upgrade will do it just fine. Remember its primary role is a standoff nuclear carrier. With a 3000km missile range, it doesn't have to penetrate at all. The Su-34 is going to be the mainstay of tactical bombing, add aerial refuelling and it can be used in a strategic role. We can use PAK FA for preliminary strike missions.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:22 am

    However i wonder why neither of these concept came into materialization

    Most likely cost really. The Mig-31 is smaller and shorter ranged, but you actually get better coverage with a lot of smaller interceptors than you do with a couple of big ones.

    The Tu-160 is a very expensive aircraft.


    I think the Tu-160 is good for what we need.

    I agree but lots of parts for it were made in the Ukraine.
    I have been told that major structural components needed for the swing wing were made in the Ukraine and it would not be so easy or cheap to make a lot more.
    The 15-16 you have is a very small force for just one type.

    They are actually making more Ka-50 helicopters even though the Mi-28N won the competition for replacement helo for the Hind because the one and a half dozen or so Ka-50s made in the mid 1990s is not a viable force. They are also making Ka-52s but these seem to be for the heavy recon role so they are really replacing the Mi-2s in service in the recon role.

    Slap on a RAM coating, LO the outlets, and an engine upgrade will do it just fine.

    Actually the Tu-160 was the first Soviet aircraft that took into account of radar cross section. It already has RAM coating and although the engine intakes are not S shaped to hide the front engine fan blades they have actually applied RAM material to the front fan blades to reduce their radar return.
    The Tu-160 is said to have a RCS similar to the much smaller B-1B, which in itself is impressive because the B-1B had lots of RCS measures applied.

    Remember its primary role is a standoff nuclear carrier. With a 3000km missile range, it doesn't have to penetrate at all.

    Quite true and the new missile it is carrying is the Kh-102 with a range of 5,000km.
    Russia and the Soviet Union only have one heavy bomber in the form of the Tu-22M3, with the Tu-95 and the Tu-160s being cruise missile carriers.

    All three aircraft however have been going through upgrades to make them all guided air to ground weapon capable for precision attacks in all weathers day and night.

    The Su-34 is going to be the mainstay of tactical bombing, add aerial refuelling and it can be used in a strategic role.

    When it was being developed it was described as a replacement for the Su-24, the Tu-16, and the Tu-22M3 on its shorter missions.

    There is something to be said however for the Tu-22M3, which can carry an enormous load over shorter theatre mission ranges. 24 tons of guided weapons over a mission radius of over 2,000km would be impressive for any aircraft. The fact that 24 tons of weapons means reduced fuel also means that if you restore inflight refuelling you can actually increase that flight radius by topping up on the fuel you off loaded to get airborne with the extra weight.

    More than that the Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 are beautiful looking aircraft.

    But I am biased
    cheers

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:04 am

    GarryB wrote:

    I agree but lots of parts for it were made in the Ukraine.
    I have been told that major structural components needed for the swing wing were made in the Ukraine and it would not be so easy or cheap to make a lot more.
    The 15-16 you have is a very small force for just one type.

    Talk has been made of starting up production again at Kazan to bring the number to 30.

    http://www.kommersant.com/p-11537/r_500/Tu-160_resume/

    They are actually making more Ka-50 helicopters even though the Mi-28N won the competition for replacement helo for the Hind because the one and a half dozen or so Ka-50s made in the mid 1990s is not a viable force. They are also making Ka-52s but these seem to be for the heavy recon role so they are really replacing the Mi-2s in service in the recon role.

    Ka-50 production is ended once the already signed orders are finished. 30 Ka-52 will be produced to fill special operations roles. Mi-28N is the main attack helo of the VVS.

    Actually the Tu-160 was the first Soviet aircraft that took into account of radar cross section. It already has RAM coating and although the engine intakes are not S shaped to hide the front engine fan blades they have actually applied RAM material to the front fan blades to reduce their radar return.
    The Tu-160 is said to have a RCS similar to the much smaller B-1B, which in itself is impressive because the B-1B had lots of RCS measures applied.

    Tu-160 was developed long before the advent of Russian RAM coatings. This is a new thing only going on the Su-35BM currently in production. Tu-160 was not incorporated stealth technology...


    As noted Zhikharev, stealth technology planned for the first time to apply for Tu-160. The design of the aircraft used by new composite materials, as well as the principle was applied to the angles of refraction of reflection of radar beams. According to the commander, for this reason that the effective reflecting surface as a measure of invisibility from the Tu-160 would be much smaller than other aircraft.

    However, as recalled by Anatoly Zhikharev, work to improve the aircraft was brought to the end, because the Tu-160 was designed in the 70-ies. First vehicles entered service in the Russian army only in 1987, when the industry was unable to fully realize stealth technology.

    http://www.newsru.com/russia/22dec2009/stels.html


    The new missile it is carrying is the Kh-102 with a range of 5,000km.

    Kh-101 was tested a decade ago but came to naught. Its seeker technology was incorporated into Kh-555 which is now the mainstay LACM of the VVS. Kh-55 still used for nuclear.


    Russia and the Soviet Union only have one heavy bomber in the form of the Tu-22M3, with the Tu-95 and the Tu-160s being cruise missile carriers.

    Tu-95 and Tu-160 also carry bombs. The modernisation incorporates this into the mission.

    All three aircraft however have been going through upgrades to make them all guided air to ground weapon capable for precision attacks in all weathers day and night.

    Tu-22M3 is getting the bombing computer added to the Su-24SM, but not smart munitions. As the Su-34 comes online they will be withdrawn from service.

    There is something to be said however for the Tu-22M3, which can carry an enormous load over shorter theatre mission ranges. 24 tons of guided weapons over a mission radius of over 2,000km would be impressive for any aircraft. The fact that 24 tons of weapons means reduced fuel also means that if you restore inflight refuelling you can actually increase that flight radius by topping up on the fuel you off loaded to get airborne with the extra weight.

    Tu-22M3 entered service in the early eighties and production ended in 1986. Its production facilities are long gone and no one wants to restart its production. As demonstrated over Georgia, it is highly susceptible to enemy fire so no one in command wants to bring it back as a bomber. Its best role is as a naval strike, it is the fear of all planners trying to keep naval parity. Hopefully it will serve long in this role until 2030.

    More than that the Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 are beautiful looking aircraft.

    Nothing is more beautiful to watch than the White Swan floating over Red Square.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 20, 2010 6:43 am

    Talk has been made of starting up production again at Kazan to bring the number to 30.

    http://www.kommersant.com/p-11537/r_500/Tu-160_resume/

    Yes, I have seen that. I have been told that a central beam specially made from special al alloy is structurally central to the design and that was made in the Ukraine.

    30 would make a much more viable force, and the improvements applied on its upgrade make it an excellent tool for the job. 45 tons of conventional ordinance if needed after the upgrade is a lot of bombs on targets.

    Ka-50 production is ended once the already signed orders are finished.

    Yes, sorry I wasnt very clear about that. They are finishing incomplete aircraft to make a viable force of Ka-50s in service. Armed with Hermes missiles they should be rather nice attack helos. Their coaxial design means they are more efficient in hot and high conditions so the few units of Ka-50s will probably be based in such places to take advantage of their design.

    Tu-160 was developed long before the advent of Russian RAM coatings. This is a new thing only going on the Su-35BM currently in production. Tu-160 was not incorporated stealth technology...

    I didn't mean stealth, I meant LO. It has reduced RCS. I have seen pictures of Su-25s in the 1980s with a coating of materials on it to reduce radar signature, and a book about the Tu-160 that describes interviews with the makers talking about the RCS reduction techniques they applied. Including RAM coating to the front engine fan blades.
    It wasn't stealth, because stealth is expensive and it was always a cruise missile carrier and was never intended to penetrate air defences and fly over the target area... it was supposed to fly to its launch point and fire its cruise missiles well away from enemy fighters and SAMs. By the time the Tu-160 got to its launch point ICBM warheads and SLBM warheads will have dealt with any defences.

    Kh-101 was tested a decade ago but came to naught. Its seeker technology was incorporated into Kh-555 which is now the mainstay LACM of the VVS. Kh-55 still used for nuclear.

    That doesn't make sense? The guidance was good enough for a LACM but wasn't good enough to replace the existing main weapon?
    The Kh-101 was the conventional CM while the Kh-102 was supposed to replace the Kh-55. Did it actually fail while having a guidance that was good enough for the Kh-555?
    Sounds to me like they just saved money by using the new guidance with old missiles for a conventional capability and just kept the Kh-55 in service rather than producing Kh-102s for the nuclear option just to save money.
    The Kh-101/102 were also rather larger and heavier than the Kh-55 so for example the Tu-95MS16 can carry Kh-55s in its rotary internal bay only and must carry the Kh-101/-102s externaly with 10 under the wings. The Tu-160 can carry 12 of either missile internally.
    Do you know why it was considered a failure and can you say?

    Tu-95 and Tu-160 also carry bombs. The modernisation incorporates this into the mission.

    I thought the modernisation was unified between all three aircraft (Tu-95, Tu-22M3, Tu-160) and was supposed to add all sorts of guided bombs including satellite guided weapons.

    Tu-22M3 is getting the bombing computer added to the Su-24SM, but not smart munitions. As the Su-34 comes online they will be withdrawn from service.

    I thought the Su-34 only took over some of the shorter range roles of the Tu-22M3?
    They will obviously have to rather increase their order of Su-34s and start making more than 2 a year then.

    The withdrawl of the Tu-22M3 seems strange with it getting upgraded along with the Bears and Blackjacks, or has that been cancelled?

    Also are Naval Aviation Backfires being withdrawn for Fullbacks too?

    Tu-22M3 entered service in the early eighties and production ended in 1986. Its production facilities are long gone and no one wants to restart its production. As demonstrated over Georgia, it is highly susceptible to enemy fire so no one in command wants to bring it back as a bomber. Its best role is as a naval strike, it is the fear of all planners trying to keep naval parity. Hopefully it will serve long in this role until 2030.

    It is such a big aircraft with presumably lots of potential. The size and power of electronic jammers you could fit to it and the other bits it could carry. Add to that good range and a four man crew it should have lots of potential.
    Regarding its age, it is just a child compared to the US's B-52s. (an old joke about them is they are very good old aircraft... they have just had 3 new wings and 2 new airframes, and the avionics is all new too... Smile )

    Nothing is more beautiful to watch than the White Swan floating over Red Square.

    I have only recently seen photos of it taking off in AB and always impressed with its sleek shape.

    brudawson
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 8
    Points : 8
    Join date : 2010-06-05

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  brudawson on Sat Jun 05, 2010 1:41 pm

    This new bommer based on the technology of stealth technology. And is expected to enter service in 2025-2030. Stealth technology will make the new aircraft difficult to detect by radar, although it is impossible to make airplanes of this type completely invisible. The new bomber will replace the Tu-95MC Bear and Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bombers, and Tu-22M3 Backfire long-range bombers currently in service with Russia's strategic aviation.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:15 am

    One of the better and authoritative book on Stealth I have come across

    Introduction to RF Stealth (Scitech Radar and Defense)
    David Lynch (Author)

    http://www.4shared.com/document/cfYX1clO/SciTech_-_Introduction_to_RF_S.html


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:08 am

    No new Russian strategic bomber until at least 2025

    It will take 15-20 years to develop an advanced aircraft system for strategic aviation and the new aircraft will be built in Kazan, head of the Unified Aircraft Corporation Alexei Fyodrov said.

    “Together with our main contractor, the Defense Ministry, we have started thinking of new models of strategic bombers, aircraft for strategic aviation. A lot of time will be spent on the development of fundamentally new aircraft, of course. This will take, probably, 15 years and maybe even 20,” he said at the Kazan air show.

    Fyodorov said that the aviation industry should be “starting now” in order to be prepared to produce the new aircraft in 15 years.

    “One should be thinking of the concept of the aircraft, choose the basic technologies and new components that will be employed in the aircraft,” Fyodorov said.

    He said that the new aircraft will be built at the Kazan Aircraft Production Association which previously produced the Tupolev Tu-160 strategic bombers.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:12 pm

    I think the amount of time they are taking this is a design from scratch bomber , Certainly they would take the virtues of existing top of line bomber like the Tu-160 which offers decent payload , supersonic speed and long reach and build upon those strength.

    I think a flying wing offers the optimium bet in Range, Payload and Stealth .. but making them supersonic also makes them expensive.

    It is interesting that the US NGB focusses on B-2 type design albeit with better stealth and affordability although they still tend to remain subsonic.

    Wonder if Russia could break the subsonic barrier with a supersonic flying wing design and still make it affordable that is where the challenge lies.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:05 am

    We have seen 5th generation fighter jet engines, what we haven't seen yet is a 5th generation bomber engine. Imagine a 35 ton class fuel efficient jet engine developed from the engines used in the Tu-160, you could use two instead of 4 in a very low drag flying wing configuration that super cruises at mach 1.5-1.8 or so for very long ranges.
    Build it with lots of composite materials to greatly reduce the structure weight of the aircraft.
    Load it with an enormous capacity bomb area that allows huge loads to be carried medium ranges, and for strategic roles allow for lighter cruise missile payloads and fill the rest of the internal weapon bay space with extra fuel to become strategic.

    The need is not urgent, but a good solution could be used to replace the Tu-95, the Tu-142 (in the maritime patrol role), the Tu-22M3, the Tu-160, you could even extend the wing mounted radar antennas for 360 degree radar surveillance and use it as an AWACS aircraft as well. The enormous fuel load could have internal fuel storage and it could be used as an inflight refuelling aircraft as well.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:32 am

    Well I suppose they can use the new PAK-FA engine which is said to be in 18T class for the new Bomber , there is no point in developing a new engine for the bomber.

    What they need to do is to develop a good engine "Variable Cycle Engine" that works efficiently in all flying conditions ( subsonic, transonic and supersonic ) with a growth potential of 20 to 30 %.

    They can use 4 of this engine to power the PAK-DA and a pair to power the PAK-DA, it will also help in streamlining the logistics.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:34 am

    Well I suppose they can use the new PAK-FA engine which is said to be in 18T class for the new Bomber , there is no point in developing a new engine for the bomber.

    Of course there is a point in developing a new engine for a bomber.
    All your next generation stuff for military usually ends up in civilian use... design a new jet engine for the bomber and then take the AB section off and use it for large military transport aircraft.
    Look at the 777... it reduces operational costs by having two engines instead of 4.
    Imagine an An-124 with two engines instead of 4 that still has the power of the 4 old engines but better fuel efficiency... plus lower drag, and of course less weight.
    Obviously reliability is an issue.

    An 18 ton class engine would reduce the performance of existing Russian bombers... both the Tu-22M3 and the Tu-160 have 25 ton class engines.

    Regarding hypersonic speed aircraft, the dividends are appealing but the cost will be enormous. You really have two clear options... either go with a hypersonic aircraft that drops bombs... because a hypersonic aircraft will be smaller and cheaper if its payload is smaller and lighter... for the 2.2 tons of the Kh-102 you could carry 15 moderate size nuclear bombs so instead of trying to carry 12 missiles you could carry 30-40 nuclear bombs of much less weight. The problem there is that the capacity for conventional weapons becomes pathetic even over shorter ranges.
    Or you can go for hypersonic missiles, which means large internal or even external carriage. It means the plane itself can be much cheaper to buy and to operate and more flexible (nobody needs a hypersonic refuelling aircraft or AWACs or Maritime Patrol Aircraft). Large internal capacity would allow for supercruise capability and also mean that for strategic missions internal capacity could be used for fuel and subsonic missiles, and also room for stuff for other roles like radar for AWACs or fuel for refuelling etc etc.
    The reality is that making a scramjet powered long range hypersonic missile would be a fraction of the cost of making a bomber able to fly at hypersonic speeds.
    A bomber that is cheaper to operate is more important than a bomber that will get through because a small hypersonic missile is easier to make able to get through than any bomber.
    A mix of hypersonic and stealthy subsonic missiles offers the best chance of enemy defence penetration and is probably attainable with the work being done on fast cruise missiles.

    The point is that the Tu-22M3 and the Tu-160 are designed for sprint speeds of mach 2, if that was relaxed to a more modest mach 1.5 or so then you could probably get away with 4-6 engines in the 18 ton thrust class for a strategic bomber.
    I just think that applying 5th gen technology to the Al-31 results in a 13 ton engine going to 18 ton that applying that same technology to the NK-321 might result in similar gains in power and efficiency that it is worth doing.

    At the moment the Russian AF has the Tu-22M3 with two 25 ton class engines and the Tu-160 with 4 25 ton class engines that are not compatible. Building a new engine in the 32-35 ton class range and reducing their spec requirements to the mid mach 1.5s you cold get away with reducing the Tu-22M3 to a single engine aircraft and the Tu-160 to 3 or 2 engines and extend range performance without upsetting other capabilities except for top speed.

    The Tu-22M3 is a handy theatre strike aircraft and is also used in the maritime strike role. When you need to deliver 24 tons of bombs to a target 2,000km away it is the ideal choice.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:48 pm

    Pentagon Bomber Evolution Underway

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat Sep 11, 2010 4:35 pm

    Austin wrote:One of the better and authoritative book on Stealth I have come across

    Introduction to RF Stealth (Scitech Radar and Defense)
    David Lynch (Author)

    http://www.4shared.com/document/cfYX1clO/SciTech_-_Introduction_to_RF_S.html


    aaah thanks a lot .. it's a great Very Happy

    currently related to stealth i rely on Knott and tuley's "RADAR Cross Section 2nd Edition" and Dr Jenn's "RADAR and LASER Cross section engineering" ..however somehow those books are too advanced to me to understand properly

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:03 am

    Russia's Kazan aircraft plant to build next generation bomber

    The Kazan aircraft maker will start manufacturing a new strategic bomber, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday.

    The plant will continue upgrading Tu-160 and Tu-22 long-range bombers and will then "start assembling a new-generation strategic bomber," he said.

    He offered no indication of the new bomber's specifications or exactly when production would start.

    Another Kazan-based enterprise - a helicopter plant - will start production of a new Mi-38 helicopter and continue making Mi-8, Ansat and Aktai helicopters that have already proved their worth, Putin also said.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:20 am

    That is interesting that he said they will continue to upgrade the Tu-22.

    Perhaps that means the Tu-22M3 does have a future... I have always wondered why they put different engines in the Tu-160 and the Tu-22M3.

    Some 5th gen engine with fewer parts that is simpler and lighter, with 30% more thrust but also more fuel efficient makes sense for these aircraft because it will improve takeoff performance at heavier weights and also perhaps increase range and payload.

    For the Bear increased thrust is a waste of time because it will not get much faster.
    With turboprop aircraft you run into the law of diminishing returns.
    In other words with 15,000 hp turboprop engines the Bear is the worlds fastest propeller driven aircraft. To increase its speed x amount will need double the power. If you double the power again you wont get a speed increase of 2x, but 1.5x. If you double the power again you will get an increase of speed (over the 15,000hp model) of maybe 1.75x. All these increases in power will have a terrible effect on your fuel consumption so you will never break that supersonic barrier and your flight range will reduce.

    Of course that is also an advantage of subsonic aircraft that because you will never fly supersonic you can carry lots of stuff externally without effecting top speed as drastically as with a supersonic aircraft.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Fri Sep 17, 2010 6:52 am

    During Soviet standardization was not really on top of the agenda , so they had different type of engine for each aircraft.

    Since PAK-FA is developing a new 5th Gen 16.5T thrust engine with Flat nozzle , it would make sense to tweak the same engine with higher thrust specially in non-afterburning mode and use four of these on the new Bomber which is standardisation at its best.

    I also expect the new bomber to use significant composite material which will make it much lighter with substantial weight reduction , considering PAK-FA will have 30 % composite by weight and the new civil liner MS-21 has 40 % composite by weight.

    A composite use of atleast 40 % by weight is achievable for new bomber requiring much lower thrust.

    What will be interesting is if the new Bomber will be Stealth Wing Shape Subsonic or a Variable Wing Tu-160 stealth derivative supersonic bomber , USAF is hell bent on getting subsonic for new bomber with longer loiter time and extereme stealth ~ -70dB for its new bomber.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 17, 2010 7:44 am

    Well that is true to a degree, though it is rather difficult to understand in this case.
    I could understand why the Su-9 and Su-11 used different engines from the externally similar Mig-21 because the Su-9 and Su-11 were interceptors that needed fast acceleration and high top speed... and aircraft design bureaus had close relationships with particular engine and radar and avionics design bureaus.

    ...but the Backfire and the Blackjack were both Tupolevs you'd think they would want to adapt the Tu-22M3 to the engine developed for the Blackjack.

    Still part of the upgrade of the Blackjack is an engine upgrade to improve performance and reliability so perhaps as part of the Tu-22M3 upgrade they can adapt the aircraft to use the Blackjacks new upgraded engine?

    With the naval Backfires included they have rather more Backfires than Blackjacks so it makes sense to make their engines the same to reduce costs.

    The point is that the current engines used by the Blackjack and Backfire are both 25 ton thrust class engines designed for supersonic flight, which means high exhaust speed. If the new bomber is going to be a flying wing either 25 ton class engine could be turned from a turbojet into a high bypass ratio turbofan with lower exhaust speed but enormously larger airflow to make it a 40 ton thrust class engine that the bomber would only need two of.

    Personally I think a 5th gen version of the Blackjacks engine would make a nice 30-35 ton class high exhaust speed engine that might allow a flying wing configuration aircraft to supercruise at very high speed, with no draggy tail or fuselage and of course all internal weapons carriage it should be very easily attainable.

    The simple fact is that even today Russian engine makers have gaps of power models that lead to them having to go to the Ukraine for engines.

    I would think a new powerful engine of the 5th gen type would be very useful for heavy transports and long range airliners so that 2 engines could be used to make them more efficient and cheaper to operate than they would be if they had to use 4 engines of lower power, because more engines = more weight and drag.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:01 pm

    This new comprehensive document makes a nice read

    http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/jfq-57/kopp.pdf

    As extensive as the Russian investment in the development of VHF-band counterstealth systems may be,these will be almost completely ineffective against the B–2A Spirit, as its physical size yields effective shaping in
    the VHF-band, and the depth of its leading edge absorbent structures is sufficient to remain effective in the meter wavelength bands.The same would also be true of the New Generation Bomber, should it eventually be developed.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Sun Sep 26, 2010 8:20 am

    Based on the ineffectiveness of meter band VHF counter stealth radar on B-2A which makes it invulnerable to any band of RF that a potential enemy could employ.

    Will it will possible that B-2A would have actually entered Russian Airspace or even fly near russian airspace with Russians having no clue if there was an aircraft or not simply because it was undetectable.

    If that is the case then the NGB which is being developed as ELO with a LO rating of -50 db and more would take stealth to a total new level and an unmanned variant will be flying over Moscow and they wont have any clue Shocked

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sun Oct 03, 2010 6:36 pm

    Austin wrote:Based on the ineffectiveness of meter band VHF counter stealth radar on B-2A which makes it invulnerable to any band of RF that a potential enemy could employ.

    Will it will possible that B-2A would have actually entered Russian Airspace or even fly near russian airspace with Russians having no clue if there was an aircraft or not simply because it was undetectable.

    If that is the case then the NGB which is being developed as ELO with a LO rating of -50 db and more would take stealth to a total new level and an unmanned variant will be flying over Moscow and they wont have any clue Shocked

    nope the B-2 will still be detected.. the question is "in what distance" , beside I'm not sure that Russian will only relies on VHF Band to detect something stealthy, maybe they will have a new generation of IR based sensor to help balance things out .

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:31 am

    Indeed, at the Paris airshow a Rapier 2000 unit had no problems getting an IR lock on a B-2 from memory in the 1990s. Annoyed the Americans no end of course, but hints at why all modern Russian fighter designs have IRSTs and BVR IR guided missiles.

    You also need to take into account that over the horizon radars tend to see aerial targets at very steep angles so instead of seeing the B-2 front on... where even visually it looks rather smaller, it will see it from above at a fairly steep angle.

    The Russians have radars that track paint chips in space so there is not too much question about whether they could track a B-2.

    I am not suggesting they could track it from takeoff to landing, but detection of a very small RCS target crossing into Russian Airspace would lead to aircraft being sent to investigate and when they detected the target with their IRSTs the brown stuff will hit the fan.

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 4:05 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 4:05 am