PAK-DA: News

eehnie wrote:
The people need to open the mid to very significant improvements from the Tu-160 to the Tu-PAK-DA. We will see all the technological improvements of 40 years in a single step.

Do not expect small changes. We will see very important improvements. Hipersonic speed? Maybe.

Militarov wrote:

max steel wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Is it PAK-DA ?

max steel wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Is it PAK-DA ?

Militarov wrote:Most common render tho is this one and alike:



They are all naturally made by artists and aviation enthusiasts.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:
The people need to open the mid to very significant improvements from the Tu-160 to the Tu-PAK-DA. We will see all the technological improvements of 40 years in a single step.

Do not expect small changes. We will see very important improvements. Hipersonic speed? Maybe.

Actually judging by reports from last few years PAK-DA will be subsonic. Flying wing designs cant be super/hypersonic by default anyways.

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:
The people need to open the mid to very significant improvements from the Tu-160 to the Tu-PAK-DA. We will see all the technological improvements of 40 years in a single step.

Do not expect small changes. We will see very important improvements. Hipersonic speed? Maybe.

Actually judging by reports from last few years PAK-DA will be subsonic. Flying wing designs cant be super/hypersonic by default anyways.

In the US would be very happy if this is true. After 40 years Russia going one step back...

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:
The people need to open the mid to very significant improvements from the Tu-160 to the Tu-PAK-DA. We will see all the technological improvements of 40 years in a single step.

Do not expect small changes. We will see very important improvements. Hipersonic speed? Maybe.

Actually judging by reports from last few years PAK-DA will be subsonic. Flying wing designs cant be super/hypersonic by default anyways.

In the US would be very happy if this is true. After 40 years Russia going one step back...

Well B2 is subsonic, so will be Northrop Grumman B-21. Their speed might be subsonic, but that allowed them other advantages like longer range, bigger payloads and lesser signature in both radio and IR spectrum. Should reduce operational costs too at least in theory. Anyways PAK-DAs has main goal to replace Tu-95 which is subsonic, probably partially TU22M but supersonic bomber roles will be, at least we hope, performed by new built TU160M2.

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:
The people need to open the mid to very significant improvements from the Tu-160 to the Tu-PAK-DA. We will see all the technological improvements of 40 years in a single step.

Do not expect small changes. We will see very important improvements. Hipersonic speed? Maybe.

Actually judging by reports from last few years PAK-DA will be subsonic. Flying wing designs cant be super/hypersonic by default anyways.

In the US would be very happy if this is true. After 40 years Russia going one step back...

Well B2 is subsonic, so will be Northrop Grumman B-21. Their speed might be subsonic, but that allowed them other advantages like longer range, bigger payloads and lesser signature in both radio and IR spectrum. Should reduce operational costs too at least in theory. Anyways PAK-DAs has main goal to replace Tu-95 which is subsonic, probably partially TU22M but supersonic bomber roles will be, at least we hope, performed by new built TU160M2.

I think you are getting too short in your expectation. Do you think Russia needs about a decade of research and development to make a subsonic strategic bomber?

We can not be talking seriously about the new Tu-PAK-DA having lower performance and capabilities than the current Tu-160. Russia has not designed a subsonic strategic bomber since 1959. Russia is designing supersonic strategic bombers even before this data. I do not expect Russia returning back to subsonic strategic bombers after 65 years (in 2024).

The US follows their own military strategies, that sometimes are different, and not always are the best option. I have never been too impressed with the B-2 bomber, because when its radar hidding capabilities be surpased it will be very very vulnerable and as consequence, severely outdated.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:
The people need to open the mid to very significant improvements from the Tu-160 to the Tu-PAK-DA. We will see all the technological improvements of 40 years in a single step.

Do not expect small changes. We will see very important improvements. Hipersonic speed? Maybe.

Actually judging by reports from last few years PAK-DA will be subsonic. Flying wing designs cant be super/hypersonic by default anyways.

In the US would be very happy if this is true. After 40 years Russia going one step back...

Well B2 is subsonic, so will be Northrop Grumman B-21. Their speed might be subsonic, but that allowed them other advantages like longer range, bigger payloads and lesser signature in both radio and IR spectrum. Should reduce operational costs too at least in theory. Anyways PAK-DAs has main goal to replace Tu-95 which is subsonic, probably partially TU22M but supersonic bomber roles will be, at least we hope, performed by new built TU160M2.

I think you are getting too short in your expectation. Do you think Russia needs about a decade of research and development to make a subsonic strategic bomber?

We can not be talking seriously about the new Tu-PAK-DA having lower performance and capabilities than the current Tu-160. Russia has not designed a subsonic strategic bomber since 1959. Russia is designing supersonic strategic bombers even before this data. I do not expect Russia returning back to subsonic strategic bombers after 65 years (in 2024).

The US follows their own military strategies, that sometimes are different, and not always are the best option. I have never been too impressed with the B-2 bomber, because when its radar hidding capabilities be surpased it will be very very vulnerable and as consequence, severely outdated.

Why do you think building supersonic bomber takes more time to develop compared to subsonic one? As an engineer i find this logic very weird. And how exacly subsonic equals less advanced than supersonic. Its just perspective of approach. Speed was favoured during Cold War for high and low lvl air defence penetration, today speed wont rly help you much aganist integrated air defence systems.

GarryB wrote:For a strategic bomber speed is not as important as most seem to think.

Assuming it will be used for a WWIII scenario by the time a subsonic bomber has flown half way around the world to a launch position for its missiles the ICBMs and SLBMs will have already hit the enemy country a few hours before so there likely wont be any interceptors or SAMs opposing them when they launch long range subsonic cruise missiles or high speed hypersonic missiles to deal with what is left.

Speed just makes things more expensive and effects performance.

Of course as mentioned a flying wing needs a tail... a horizontal tail at least because as a plane moves from subsonic to supersonic the centre of gravity will shift so it needs lots of ability to use tail surfaces to change trim to maintain forward flight.

A butterfly tail like the YF-23 would be enough however and a flying wing would offer very low drag high volume for long range high speed flight.

In my opinion the cheapest lowest cost option would be the Tu-160M for supersonic strategic bomber that could be useful for conventional attacks too, and the PAKDA being a flying tailed bomber with super cruise capabilities.

Very few supersonic aircraft are designed to be supersonic all the way... even the Tu-160 would fly high subsonic cruise to and from the target area with a supersonic dash over the danger zone to minimise exposure to enemy air defences... a replacement for the Bear that could supercruise at mach 1.3 or 1.5 would dramatically reduce flight times to target area and make interception actually very tricky as most fighters would need full AB to intercept such a target.

Supercruising flying wing would be very cost effective for now but offer potential for future variable cycle jet engines to combine turbojet and turbofan and scramjet performance to allow much higher speeds to be achieved later on when needed.

Obviously all the problems of materials and heat need to be worked on, and of course scramjets themselves but they could fly a supercruising bomber very soon with the right engines... and would be relatively cheap to buy and operate.  ....a hypersonic bomber would take two decades and would be very expensive.

GarryB wrote:For a strategic bomber speed is not as important as most seem to think.

Assuming it will be used for a WWIII scenario by the time a subsonic bomber has flown half way around the world to a launch position for its missiles the ICBMs and SLBMs will have already hit the enemy country a few hours before so there likely wont be any interceptors or SAMs opposing them when they launch long range subsonic cruise missiles or high speed hypersonic missiles to deal with what is left.

Speed just makes things more expensive and effects performance.

Of course as mentioned a flying wing needs a tail... a horizontal tail at least because as a plane moves from subsonic to supersonic the centre of gravity will shift so it needs lots of ability to use tail surfaces to change trim to maintain forward flight.

A butterfly tail like the YF-23 would be enough however and a flying wing would offer very low drag high volume for long range high speed flight.

In my opinion the cheapest lowest cost option would be the Tu-160M for supersonic strategic bomber that could be useful for conventional attacks too, and the PAKDA being a flying tailed bomber with super cruise capabilities.

Very few supersonic aircraft are designed to be supersonic all the way... even the Tu-160 would fly high subsonic cruise to and from the target area with a supersonic dash over the danger zone to minimise exposure to enemy air defences... a replacement for the Bear that could supercruise at mach 1.3 or 1.5 would dramatically reduce flight times to target area and make interception actually very tricky as most fighters would need full AB to intercept such a target.

Supercruising flying wing would be very cost effective for now but offer potential for future variable cycle jet engines to combine turbojet and turbofan and scramjet performance to allow much higher speeds to be achieved later on when needed.

Obviously all the problems of materials and heat need to be worked on, and of course scramjets themselves but they could fly a supercruising bomber very soon with the right engines... and would be relatively cheap to buy and operate.  ....a hypersonic bomber would take two decades and would be very expensive.

GarryB wrote:

You need to tell this to the Americans then because they have gone backwards two times... with the B-1B being rather slower and smaller than the B-1, and the B-2 and now B-21 being slower still.

Strategic bombers are not first strike weapons... if you need fast then ICBM and SLBM are fast. Strategic bombers approach the edge of the enemies air space and launch 5,000km range cruise missiles to destroy population areas and anything that might have survived the first strikes by ballistic missiles.

the PAK DA will be subsonic or super cruising, but will carry hypersonic cruise missiles the enemies air defences wont be able to intercept.

To suggest such an aircraft will be obsolete is amusing when over the last few months subsonic Bear aircraft have successfully attacked ground targets with subsonic cruise missiles without being shot down... the difference is that the PAK DA should be able to carry more weapons further.

GarryB wrote:

Do not expect small changes. We will see very important improvements. Hipersonic speed? Maybe.

Supercuising would be an enormous leap forward for bombers... it would dramatically increase flight performance without the increased cost and range reduction of having to use ABs for supersonic speed. Most current and projected non Russian interceptors would have difficulty intercepting a mach 1.6 bomber as they would have to use full AB to keep up which burns through fuel rapidly.

GarryB wrote:

In the US would be very happy if this is true. After 40 years Russia going one step back...

First of all who cares what the US thinks.

...

Time is THE most important factor for a strategic bomber, speed is very much a factor in time.

You need to tell this to the Americans then because they have gone backwards two times... with the B-1B being rather slower and smaller than the B-1, and the B-2 and now B-21 being slower still.

GarryB wrote:

I think you are getting too short in your expectation. Do you think Russia needs about a decade of research and development to make a subsonic strategic bomber?

Money is currently a bit tight, but I think you are underestimating the Russians... they don't need a hypersonic first strike bomber... they need one they can afford to put into service in large enough numbers to be an effective deterrent. Actions in Syria suggest they might even use them operationally in a conventional role.

GarryB wrote:

2; Both Senior Peg and Senior Ice had tails. Ice lost it but Peg kept it. They were both subsonic, always. So you are writing complete and utter nonsense.

I didn't know anything about either project when discussing supercruising flying wing designs, so how can anything related to those projects have any bearing on what I wrote?

Berkut wrote:

GarryB wrote:

2; Both Senior Peg and Senior Ice had tails. Ice lost it but Peg kept it. They were both subsonic, always. So you are writing complete and utter nonsense.

I didn't know anything about either project when discussing supercruising flying wing designs, so how can anything related to those projects have any bearing on what I wrote?

I dont care whether you knew about them or not - what they do is to show your assumption is wrong. So it has plenty of bearing. Having tails on flying wings =/= that they are then magically supersonic and ignore all the other million considerations.

PAK-DA will be subsonic. Period. Should be extra obvious now with the Tu-160M2...

Berkut wrote:

GarryB wrote:

2; Both Senior Peg and Senior Ice had tails. Ice lost it but Peg kept it. They were both subsonic, always. So you are writing complete and utter nonsense.

I didn't know anything about either project when discussing supercruising flying wing designs, so how can anything related to those projects have any bearing on what I wrote?

I dont care whether you knew about them or not - what they do is to show your assumption is wrong. So it has plenty of bearing. Having tails on flying wings =/= that they are then magically supersonic and ignore all the other million considerations.

PAK-DA will be subsonic. Period. Should be extra obvious now with the Tu-160M2...