Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Oct 04, 2010 9:01 am

    Well, just because you can track 1 inch class targets in space doesn't mean you can track -30 db targets at 15 km geek

    Here's a good read:
    http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/Anti-StealthTechnology.pdf


    So, to end this post I'm going to paraphrase Kopp: "IRSTs with QWIPs will have extreme levels of effectiveness over BVR distances against VLO airframes."


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:32 am

    Well, just because you can track 1 inch class targets in space doesn't mean you can track -30 db targets at 15 km

    A paint chip is not a 1 inch target.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Oct 05, 2010 10:15 am

    Now we're just getting into semantics here No


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:23 pm

    I don't think so.

    The American military like to compare the RCS of the B-2 to that of an insect, but there are an enormous variety of insects from so small they are hard to see to giants bigger than your hand.

    How does a paint chip compare to an insect in RCS terms?

    I think it is very relevant.

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Pervius on Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:47 am

    Hi all, a newby here.

    From what we saw of the B-2 crash the advanced carbon composites burn really really well. If you hit a plastic plane like the B-2 with a high powered laser and ignited it while in flight, would it keep burning while flying? Is there a downside to using plastic airplanes instead of metal skinned?

    Before Russia builds a new bomber wouldn't they first need to get some sort of control over the Space spectrum? It seems Russia isn't able to get much into space for defense. If the adversary has directed energy weapons in space they really wouldn't need bombers except to mop up after the important things were already destroyed. Thus the Bear would be sufficient for that low speed job.

    There's an American UFO guy named John Lear that says on his website America gave Russia a SR-71 to get them to let America do Gulf War 1. Did Russia really get a SR-71? If so couldn't a high speed bomber be made using that airframe as a pattern with lower speed engines to get munitions/cruise missiles on target faster than the Bear?

    If Russia can't get Space control a new bomber won't do any good. Why hasn't Russia forced a ban on HAARP yet? If the rumors of that technology are true it can alter atmospheric conditions to make your planes drop from the sky or hit thick air at high speed/like hitting a brick wall. Raise Earth's atmosphere so it causes drag on your satellites. Destroy your crops. It's worse than nuclear bombs. You can't see it being used. Except the twin sun sighting in China recently. Likely caused by atmosphere being raised above Earth causing drag on their satellites...resulting in mirage effect so people on the ground see two sun mirage from bulging atmosphere in space.




    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  nightcrawler on Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:20 am

    ^^
    There's an American UFO guy named John Lear that says on his website America gave Russia a SR-71 to get them to let America do Gulf War 1. Did Russia really get a SR-71? If so couldn't a high speed bomber be made using that airframe as a pattern with lower speed engines to get munitions/cruise missiles on target faster than the Bear?
    Laughing Do post this in Hilarious thread Laughing

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Pervius on Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:47 pm

    ""Do post this in Hilarious thread""

    Please identify this craft:

    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp35.jpg
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp38.jpg
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp56.jpg
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp57.jpg
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp78.jpg
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp100.jpg
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp133.jpg
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp163.jpg
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp174.jpg
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp177.jpg
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp202.jpg

    You can see propulsion line on surface of moon from explosion propulsion here:
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp53.jpg

    This was during Apollo mission times. Project Orion using explosive propulsion?

    Please identify what this is.




    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:22 am

    If you hit a plastic plane like the B-2 with a high powered laser and
    ignited it while in flight, would it keep burning while flying?

    Very much dependant on speed and altitude. Supersonic speed will put it out without question but the B-2 is subsonic. High altitude will also put it out from lack of O2, but the B-2 flys very low when penetrating defences like Russias'.

    Before Russia builds a new bomber wouldn't they first need to get some sort of control over the Space spectrum?

    Not really. Satellites are vulnerable to attack too. It seems their plans are currently to combine their air defence radar/sensor coverage assets with their space monitoring assets to form a unified air and space organisation to monitor for missiles threatening Russia from ground hugging cruise missiles to threats from space including ICBMs etc.

    If the adversary has directed energy weapons in space they really
    wouldn't need bombers except to mop up after the important things were
    already destroyed

    Personally I blame hollywood for the people thinking space based lasers are threats to humans on the ground.
    Your average laser beam spreads about 1mm per metre it travels, so a 5mm diameter laser beam from a satellite say 300km up will be 300,000mm wider when it gets to the ground... that is a beam 300m across!

    Lasers in space would be very effective against rockets in space because concentrating a beam of laser energy on one point on the outer skin of a missile would generate a lot of heat very quickly and there is no air to take the heat away like in the atmosphere... the energy would just keep building up till the material is destroyed or the beam reaches a fuel line or fuel tank and boom.

    ICBM warheads on the other hand are designed to enter the atmosphere and are covered in a heat resistant ablative material that burns off during re-entry which would be very resistant to laser energy.

    Lasers in space aren't actually as much use as they might first appear to be.

    There's an American UFO guy named John Lear that says on his website
    America gave Russia a SR-71 to get them to let America do Gulf War 1.
    Did Russia really get a SR-71? If so couldn't a high speed bomber be
    made using that airframe as a pattern with lower speed engines to get
    munitions/cruise missiles on target faster than the Bear?

    First of all Russia was never in any position to stop the US in Desert Storm. Second the US wouldn't give the UK an SR-71 let alone the Russians... the US government wouldn't even let US universities help the Russians with robots when Chernobyl had its melt down.
    Third the Russians have already had lots of Mach 3 plus designs through the last 40 years and rejected them all because none of them were fast enough to be uninterceptable and all of them were ridiculously expensive to make and to maintain in service. Why would it want an SR-71?
    And fourth at Mach 2.2 the Tu-160 is already much faster than the Bear.

    If Russia can't get Space control a new bomber won't do any good. Why hasn't Russia forced a ban on HAARP yet?If the rumors of that technology are true it can alter atmospheric
    conditions to make your planes drop from the sky or hit thick air at
    high speed/like hitting a brick wall.

    Clearly can only be two reasons. Either is it all rubbish that some Scifi nuts made up, or they have their own program and it has achieved the results they require.

    Except the twin sun sighting in China recently. Likely caused by
    atmosphere being raised above Earth causing drag on their
    satellites...resulting in mirage effect so people on the ground see two
    sun mirage from bulging atmosphere in space.

    The atmospheres shape does not create mirages... a mirage is the effect of light being bent as it passes from cold air to heated air near the ground. The light is bent so it appears that the sky is on the ground... which is usually mistaken as being water.


    Please identify what this is.

    A string of craters.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  nightcrawler on Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:25 am

    ICBM warheads on the other hand are designed to enter the atmosphere and are covered in a heat resistant ablative material that burns off during re-entry which would be very resistant to laser energy.
    Space based lasers if they are really will not target the warheads but a more potent adversary the BUS carrying the warhead. The speed of the warheads at reentry beside will render the targeting laser quiet improbable to take a clear shot. See the limiting factor isn't the speed of laser alone but the calculation-based hardware that will direct the laser to intercept coordinates....

    For pervius I think he has a reader of those Conspiracy Blogs pirat

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:05 pm

    For pervius I think he has a reader of those Conspiracy Blogs

    So lets consider it our job to fight fantasy with facts... Smile

    Space based lasers would have a terrible job of trying to track small dark warhead buses over thousands of kms of space. In space rockets are not used as thrusters as they are relatively inefficient. More commonly used are very high pressure gas thrusters using liquid nitrogen as it is not flammable and completely inert. It gives off almost no heat signature.
    The best time to intercept a target missile is during its main boost phase as there is an enormous IR signature from the main rockets taking the missile into space... aim at the cold thing in front of the very bright light.

    Once in space with the third stage bus the IR signature will drop to very low levels and a relatively small target over thousands of kms distance.

    The new Russian missiles will have no bus so by the time you are aiming at the warhead bus the warheads and decoys will have been released and instead of dozens of bus targets you have thousands of warheads and decoys to hit.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:23 am

    You don't need to have a Space-based ABM detection system to actually use the space-based laser. Just link with some OTH radars on the ground and just laze away.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:50 am

    To have your lasers in a position where they can lase the missiles they need a direct line of sight... which in a country that covers a large area of the Earths surface like Russia does means that there are likely places where ground based lasers can be positioned to shoot at space based lasers before they can be used.

    Also radars are generally not accurate enough for such a precision shot... a cluster of corner reflectors around the engine nozzles on a rocket would result in the radar centre of the target be shifted down leading to laser shots into the rocket plume.

    Anyway... back on topic... just read this:

    Strategic Bombers. The technical parameters of the new
    strategic bomber (PAK DA) will be determined in the next 2-3 years. At that
    point, the military will make a decision about procurement. The requirements for
    the aircraft include supersonic speeds, long range, stealth, and ability to use
    precision-guided munitions against both air and land targets.

    Now long range and supersonic speeds suggests 5th gen engines and super cruise. The ability to use guided weapons against both air and ground targets is interesting too...

    Are we going to see PAK-DA replacing the Bear, the Backfire, the Blackjack... and the Foxhound?

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:41 am

    PAK-DA will start replacing the Backfire first followed by Bear and Blackjack.

    The Russian authorities have mentioned quite a few times they Bear/Blackjack will serve Strategic Forces atleast till 2040 with suitable upgrades.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 10, 2011 5:16 am

    I agree they have said things like that but do we have any evidence that these aircraft are actually getting the upgrades that are promised?

    I guess it really depends on the performance of these new aircraft... because it really doesn't matter what they say now... if these new strategic bombers are classed as strategic bombers like the Bear and Blackjack are and the Backfire is not, then it will become a numbers game where they are allowed x number of strategic weapons platforms so they might want to retire the Backfires first but to keep with their strategic agreements they will have to get rid of some Bears to allow for the new strategic bomber airframes entering service.

    Personally I think if they can get strategic range out of these new supersonic stealthy bombers without needing their own escort tankers flying all the way with them then they might be useful maritime patrol aircraft to replace the Tu-142.

    This is speculation of course, but I would think a flying wing design with new 5th gen bomber engines might super cruise at say Mach 1.6-1.8 with 4 engines, now a two engined model with all the bombing stuff removed and MPA stuff fitted able to perform high subsonic cruise flights of 10,000km or more might be very useful.
    A similar four engined model could be used as an inflight refuelling aircraft, and a two engined model able to fly around for very long periods might be useful with a radar array embedded in its stucture to give 360 degree radar coverage.
    Another 2 engine model could be used for medium range strike and replace the Backfires.
    And a 4 engined supercruising model could replace the Foxhound as a long range interceptor.

    Eventually it could replace a wide range of aircraft with commonality of engines and parts etc.

    My reasoning for engine numbers is a super cruising strategic bomber will need 4 engines to get sufficient thrust to supercruise. A two engined version wont be able to supercruise, but that is ok for a maritime patrol aircraft as they spend a lot of time at medium and low level where super cruising is impossible anyway.
    The two engined version for strike is to scale back its performance so it doesn't get counted as a strategic bomber and therefore bound by the limitations in basing and use etc.
    Two engines should also be enough for an AWACS type as high speed is not as important as time on station and operating altitude.
    Four engines for the tanker not for speed but to allow for high takeoff weights to increase the amount of fuel it can offload to "customers", and of course for a long range interceptor it needs to be able to supercruise and also accelerate to higher speeds for certain missions so 4 engines are a must.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:08 am

    GarryB wrote:I agree they have said things like that but do we have any evidence that these aircraft are actually getting the upgrades that are promised?

    Evidence as in photos of the upgraded aircraft , cockpit , weapons/sensor suite , NO Razz

    Well atleast one Tu-160 is going through the upgrade program , I have not come across any news on Tu-95MS , and one or 2 backfire have already been upgraded with the SV-24 suite.

    I think we may not hear much on that front as openly , they would just do it quietly and all blackjack/bear will be upgraded by this decade.

    I guess it really depends on the performance of these new aircraft... because it really doesn't matter what they say now... if these new strategic bombers are classed as strategic bombers like the Bear and Blackjack are and the Backfire is not, then it will become a numbers game where they are allowed x number of strategic weapons platforms so they might want to retire the Backfires first but to keep with their strategic agreements they will have to get rid of some Bears to allow for the new strategic bomber airframes entering service.

    Actually the good thing about new START is that they have now allowed one bomber to be counter with one warhead , so this will allow them to actually increase the number of bombers without crossing the strategic limits or having any limitations.

    So they can have 400 strategic bombers and will be counted as 400 strategic warhead with the overall limit of 1600 warhead as per new start.

    So bomber boom so to speak with new START

    Personally I think if they can get strategic range out of these new supersonic stealthy bombers without needing their own escort tankers flying all the way with them then they might be useful maritime patrol aircraft to replace the Tu-142.

    I just hope they replace the Tu-142 with a Tu-204 aircraft thats the best aircraft to replace Bear and good on money.

    This is speculation of course, but I would think a flying wing design with new 5th gen bomber engines might super cruise at say Mach 1.6-1.8 with 4 engines, now a two engined model with all the bombing stuff removed and MPA stuff fitted able to perform high subsonic cruise flights of 10,000km or more might be very useful.
    A similar four engined model could be used as an inflight refuelling aircraft, and a two engined model able to fly around for very long periods might be useful with a radar array embedded in its stucture to give 360 degree radar coverage.
    Another 2 engine model could be used for medium range strike and replace the Backfires.
    And a 4 engined supercruising model could replace the Foxhound as a long range interceptor.

    The only thing I can speculate with certainty about the new PAK-DA bomber is it will be Supersonic Bomber ( not subsonic as the US NGB ) ,will have a long range and good weapon carrying capability , with new approach to stealth.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:12 am

    I just hope they replace the Tu-142 with a Tu-204 aircraft thats the best aircraft to replace Bear and good on money.

    I agree with you there... an MPA doesn't need supercruise or stealth... its requirements are actually fairly similar to a civilian airliner... which a variant of the Bear was.

    The only thing I can speculate with certainty about the new PAK-DA
    bomber is it will be Supersonic Bomber ( not subsonic as the US NGB )
    ,will have a long range and good weapon carrying capability , with new
    approach to stealth.

    The suggestion that it can engage aerial targets does not mean they could replace the Foxhound, it is more likely to allow the aircraft to defend itself... though with enemy interceptors most likely to be F-22s the best way it could defend itself is with small relatively short range AAMs designed to intercept incoming AAMs.

    Will this be Firefox? Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:09 am

    The new book Russian Strategic Bomber has interesting bit of information on PAK-DA , essentially bits and pieces of direct quotes and what turn future bomber would take.

    The way they define a strategic bomber is ability to hit the farthest possible target ( read deep US ) from the longest possible range which means minimising exposure time from Air Defence and Interceptors ,Radars.

    So the new strategic bomber will have the capability to hit with longest possible range using Kh-101 CM and will have the range to reach a point where it can launch from its bomber base.

    Russia does not have bomber bases around the world so they cannot forward base their bomber , which makes speed an important aspect in reaching a launching point as quickly as possible from secure bases , hence they need to remain supersonic.

    It needs the range without the availability or luxury of having a refuller which means it should carry enough fuel to reach the launching point and return back with some reserves , this would mean it will need persistance and will need be to big enough to carry maximum load and range to match.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 11, 2011 11:23 am

    For a strategic mission a load of 12 cruise missiles is not actually that heavy... although 12 x 2.2 ton Kh-102s does work out to be heavy for most aircraft at 26.4 tons, but in comparison with its max rated payload of 40 tons that is a fairly light load.

    I would expect the new bomber to be able to carry 12 missiles too and to remain supersonic and stealthy they will need to be internally carried.

    Perhaps the best design will allow the offloading of internal extra fuel that gives it strategic range will allow a greatly increased payload capacity for the shorter range theatre role missions with long loiter times at subsonic speed or long periods of super cruising orbiting of target areas with enormous numbers of GLASNOSS guided bombs.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:14 pm


    Deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin argue on the usefullness of "classical" strategic long range bombers in a perspective environment .


    http://www.izvestia.ru/news/526580


    Paradoxically the most important Rogozin's statement explaining the reason at the same basis of the debate on future requirements...or even the same operational practicability !.... of future long range bombers , provide instead a good picture on what is the real situation,at today, between Air Forces and IADS of the same generation :


    Посмотрите на уровень развития противовоздушной и противоракетной обороны: все эти самолеты никуда не долетят. Ни наши к ним, ни их к нам. Надо думать о совершенно нетривиальных вещах, — заявил Рогозин «Известиям», имея в виду другие средства доставки ядерных боеголовок в стан врага.


    Practically main Russian military analysts ,in search of the requirements for PAk-DA, using model taking ,obviously, into account its current anti-air and anti-missile integrated capabilities find that even the feasibility of a strategic bomber ,in its classical concept, is very questionable.



    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  SOC on Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:46 am

    Mindstorm wrote:
    the feasibility of a strategic bomber ,in its classical concept, is very questionable.

    I'd agree with that. At this point only the B-2 is anything close to survivable, yet how many other strategic bombers are still flying about? This is partly why you get platforms like the Tu-95MS and the B-52H relegated to cruise missile duty when employed in their strategic mission.

    I've always maintained that the USAF's biggest recent mistake is actually not the F-35 (don't even start me there, that's a whole different debate Rolling Eyes ), but in designing the "B-3" as an evolutionary and not revolutionary design. One of my lines a few years ago was that if the new bomber is primarily an air breather, the USAF is wasting money.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:23 am

    20 years ago I might have agreed with them... because 20 years ago the strategic nuclear weapons carriers of Russia were cruise missile carriers with no conventional purpose at all.

    They did nothing else and had no other function than their strategic mission and in addition they really didn't have enough Blackjacks to form a viable force.

    Right now they would be better off with a force of 30-40 Blackjacks, or perhaps 50 plus another 50 Tu-95SM.

    For conventional conflicts like a new conflict in Afghanistan having heavy bombers able to fly for very long periods with precision guided weapons of various weights and guidance options would be a very flexible and powerful support force.

    Previously only the Tu-22M3 was used in the conventional support role and it was largely an area bomber able to wipe out large concentrated enemy forces but not so good for picking targets out amongst civilians.

    The advantages of a new strategic bomber:

    -Work for Tupolev.
    -Replacement of three different aircraft types with a potential supercruising civilian airliner in the future, and the potential replacement for the Mig-31 as long range heavy supersonic interceptor and also long range replacement for the Tu-142 MPA.
    -Bombers are more flexible than SLBMs and ICBMs which can't really be used, whereas aircraft are multi use weapons that can be used for a range of roles. A large four engined strategic aircraft will have plenty of space for high power jammers and plenty of onboard power to run them for long periods on high settings. The supercuise performance will also make it useful too.

    -the new START treat limits platforms as well as warheads, with a platform limit of about 800 "launch platforms" it makes sense to develop a new aircraft able to carry as many warheads as possible... on short range missions where stealth is not so important external carriage would be a useful feature too.

    Very simply Russia wants to remain in the aircraft industry and needs to continue to invest in all types of aircraft. It has gone through lots of changes and aircraft number reductions, but they have the simple problem that the Tu-160 is not in production and numbers wont be increased by any large amount, and the Bears can soldier on for some time and can perform its mission because as a second strike weapon it will be operating in airspace that has already been hit with SLBMs and ICBMs already by the time it gets to its launch position.

    Having one new aircraft to replace the the Tu-95, Tu-160, and Tu-22M3 will make it more efficient and more effective and more capable in the long term and in the shorter term the Tu-95 can benefit from the introduction of the An-70 by getting new engines perhaps(?), while the new 5th gen heavy engines developed for PAK DA can be developed in stages with the models being tested and used on the Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 to improve their performance, Which along with avionics upgrades should make them much more capable aircraft... perhaps with 30 ton thrust engines and 8 Brahmos missiles carried externally a Tu-22Mx might be of interest to India? Or perhaps with Yakhont of interest to China as long as the order was large enough. With Onyx it might even be of interest to the Russian Navy.


    _________________
    “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 : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:49 am

    This is partly why you get platforms like the Tu-95MS and the B-52H relegated to cruise missile duty when employed in their strategic mission.

    Exactly SOC ,how you well know , at today the real role that the third branch of nuclear triad - Strategic Air Forces- (anyhow the most neglected segment of nuclear delivery vectors among the three by both USA and Russia ) could play in a full thermonuclear conflict ...if any....would be exclusively large ,stand-off ,saturating attack with nuclear tipped cruise missiles.



    At this point only the B-2 is anything close to survivable

    SOC both of us know perfectly that B-2 was conceived ,in reality, as a survivable tactical nuclear delivery system against Russian Army's fronts,and its mobile IAD, in an hypothetical European invasion scenario and for attack ,at maximum, the weakest inter-nodes of Sovied IADs of the time (and with an associated very high unit-loss risk); that in an environment with an average quality of the detection/tracking/engagement chain , both ground and space based, of Russian Air Defence systems several dozen of times lower than current one.

    Not even the most optimistic American professional analyst would get the face to sustain ,behind closed doors, that USA truly believe that B-2 would get even only one chance on one million to come close enough to attack an important target in the air space of very advanced opponent without being destroyed hundreds of kilometers before.

    For Russia in particular a single Trident II SLBM represent a menace immeasurably greater than the entire B-2's fleet.


    I've always maintained that the USAF's biggest recent mistake is actually not the F-35 (don't even start me there, that's a whole different debate ), but in designing the "B-3" as an evolutionary and not revolutionary design.

    SOM ,USA think seriously and work very hard, already today, to revolutionary concepts for offensive means capable to regain the upper hand against today air space defences.
    The design of future US "bomber" will keep surely some surprises because the main road is in another direction.... Wink


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:16 am

    Well my view is that the US has B-1B, B-52 and B-2 bombers and each has certain advantages and limitations.

    If we took the B-1B our and replaced it with Tu-160s then you would have ancient but cheap B-52s that are great bomb trucks in WWIII and low intensity conflicts where the enemy has no organised air defence still operational... the Russian equivalent is the Bear and in conventional conflicts the Backfire.

    The Tu-160 has a combination of speed and standoff attack capability that would enable it to offer faster attack times against strategic targets, while B-2 offers the potential for first strike capability against most threats except probably Russia.

    The latter two are expensive but have capabilities the B-52 lacks.

    A flying wing with horizontal tail arrangement to allow for supersonic flight (the tail offering the down and up forces needed for passing through transonic flight where the cg shifts and lift areas change) would offer low drag high internal volume aircraft that can fly at say mach 1.5 in dry thrust which reduces flight speed but is not as expensive as hypersonic speed aircraft.

    At the end of the day I think you want an aircraft that is not too expensive (ie not super stealth) that can carry hypersonic and subsonic long range cruise missiles and guided conventionally armed weapons to defeat enemy air defences in conventional and strategic nuclear conflicts.

    It is part of a deterrent and a conventional weapon delivery system that would be a real threat to every country, yet not so expensive that they could only afford 20 of them.

    Alternative versions I have already mentioned could include AWACS models where the entire leading edge and trailing edge of the wing contains an AESA antenna array for super low drag long range long duration flight ops at high altitudes. The ability to carry cruise missiles in the bomber model could be adapted to carry UAVs in an MPA role, or hypersonic decoys/drones in a SEAD or recon role.

    The point is that with the US working on nuclear powered UAVs the days of strategic bombers delivering cruise missiles could be over because next gen cruise missiles that are nuclear powered could be launched from ground bases within your own territory and pretty much fly any long range route to bypass defences and attack from unexpected directions. With the miniaturisation of nuclear warheads and the precision of navigation systems you could fit dozens of small nuclear warheads on each cruise missile and it could operate for years.


    _________________
    “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

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:52 am

    Rogozin is just trolling or trying game of one up man ship with the chief of general staff Makarov which he does not like much , Both have given some pro and against statement wrt to new bomber.

    Its quite clear that the flexibility offered by Bomber in Nuclear detterent role and the ability to call the mission back is a big physiological advantage something you cant do with SSBN or ICBM.

    Most bombers wont be flying over NATO or US airspace but would be using stand off cruise missile launched from distance and away from any ASD, If a bomber ever flew a nations airspace it would either be a friendly one or would have softened the AD before it over flies it.

    Either ways bombers offers the tactical and strategic flexibility that no other arm of triad offers for now.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:43 am

    Well said Austin.

    A bomber can use stealthy cruise or hypersonic cruise missiles to penetrate defences... or could carry both in both conventional and nuclear conflicts, with the flight range of the missiles maximising the survivability of the manned component to the point where unmanned options are not necessary yet.

    Equally the deployment of heavy and powerful conventional specialist weapons enable an attack capability previously only possible using nuclear weapons... which can't be achieved by SLBM or ICBM either.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:05 pm


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:05 pm