Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1542
    Points : 1567
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Thu Dec 29, 2016 5:04 am

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote: Only if you count not the costs of the loses in combat.

    As example you can compare the operational costs of the Su-24 and the Su-25 for Ukraine in the war.

    Actually chances are that per unit (flyaway cost) of Tu-160M2 will be higher than one of PAK-DA. Tu-160 was the most expencive aviation project of USSR, by far, nothing ever came even remotely close to it, same goes for unit cost.

    I would bet that the Tu-160 has not been the model with higher operational costs per aircraft or Km for Russia in Syria. Including aircraft and helicopter loses of course. Otherwise the cost analysis is not fair.

    Speed is a plus on safety of the aircrafts. And safety is a gamechanger on costs.

    Again, aircrafts that are to go with nuclear weapons are not the right place to play the cheap card, because in combat environments, when it is necessary to begin to count loses, many times cheap is not really cheap. I would bet that the operational costs of the Tu-154, Mi-24 and the Mi-8 for Russia in Syria are higher than the operational costs of the Tu-160.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16736
    Points : 17344
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:56 am

    If the Tu-PAK-DA is designed subsonic, this project will fall clearly under the performance of the new generation of the Tu-160 (which will be able to carry the same hypersonic weapons) and this will be the main reason of the failure of the Tu-PAK-DA. The Tu-160 will be ordered instead.

    You are mistaken.

    They are not just developing two versions of the Tu-160 to see which is better.

    they are rebuilding the tu-160 because they want a long range supersonic strategic cruise missile carrier... their problem is that they only have about 14 of them which is not a viable force... they need more than double that for it to be worth the effort.

    The problem is that having 150 Tu-160s would be expensive and also not totally ideal.

    What would be more useful is to have 50 supersonic Tu-160s and to have maybe 80-100 subsonic but more stealthy bomber/cruise missile carriers.

    they are going to reduce the costs of the PAK DA by making it very similar to the Tu-160 in terms of structure and design, though removing the swing wing capability would make it much cheaper and much simpler to buy and to operate.

    And future aircraft carrier at the turn of 2025-2030's not necessary to have such characteristics as supersonic speed. It should be as long as possible and unobtrusively to be on duty in the air, so that, without going into the affected area, to release their means of destruction on their targets.

    Ie their future bomber does not need to be supersonic. Critical features mentioned are endurance with being in the air for long periods and to be unobtrusive... ie stealthy. Being able to use long range stand off weapons and attack the enemy without going into enemy territory are the key.

    Why make the PAK DA supersonic when its missiles can be hypersonic?

    However, we are so coordinated with the industry organization of all work that the preparation for the production of the Tu-160 and a new image for the PAK DA is carried out simultaneously. The maximum number of process steps will be the same.

    As I suggested a while back they will make the PAK DA in the same factory that makes the upgraded Tu-160M2s.

    The Tu-160M2 as the new supersonic bomber completely re-engineered as per the article and another version Tu-160M3 looking much the same and containing the same electronics etc systems but a much simpler and cheaper build with lower thrust engines and a fixed wing both optimised for sub-sonic performance and duration.

    Agree, but for the stealth to be effective it needs all internal weapons carriage so the PAK DA model could have an enlarged internal volume to allow more fuel and more weapons to be carried... along with more emphasis on stealth and a lower speed requirement should make it a very useful addition to the fleet.

    The faster aircraft could be fitted with air to air missiles to defend themselves... but more importantly the Blackjack is able to fly at supersonic speed for quite a distance but an upgraded model with more powerful engines and a design update could be made to supercruise at say mach 1.7... which would greatly extend range and reduce flight times to launch positions...

    It is the same reason that leaded to the development and the orders of the BTR-82 (variant of the BTR-80), in a moment when the Bumerang was being also developed.

    In many ways the BTR-82 is the T-90AM or Su-35. They have taken the base platform (ie BTR-80, T-90M, and Su-27SM) and removed as many faults and problems and then upgraded as far as practically possible without going to a new design.

    In this case the Tu-160 has plenty of growth potential even just with modern manufacturing techniques and new materials. The fact that they intend to unify the design with the new PAK DA suggests that there is not too much wrong with the Blackjack, but I suspect changes will be made to get the best possible result...

    But, at same time, we can say safely that the orders of the Tu-160 will switch to the Tu-PAK-DA only if the new aircraft overperforms clearly the old. If not the new aircraft will have the same future of the BTR-90, if not worse (without orders).

    Actually I think it would be better compared with the BMP-1 and BMP-2 situation.

    The BMP was revolutionary, but its design was hampered by the missile technology of the time.

    The requirement was to be able to kill the M60 tank with the main armament. The AT-3 missile could not engage a target effectively within 300m or so. That meant the main gun of the BMP had to penetrate an M60 tank within 500m or so so it had to be a 73mm rocket launcher. Later models of the ATGMs led to the 73mm gun being replaced by the 30mm cannon on the BMP-2 but it was actually found that the 30mm and the 73mm guns actually complimented each other. The 30mm was good for a range of targets but some targets required more HE power so the 73mm gun was still useful.

    The final result was the BMP-3 with a 30mm cannon and a medium velocity 100mm gun firing a good HE shell.

    The point is that stealth and speed are useful. Having a fast strategic bomber is useful but having a slower stealthier bomber would be useful too.

    They will be able to combine costs on these two types and they will be different enough to be both useful and capable. And being new builds they can operate for half a century to come.

    Mobility increases safety, this is valid for all the branches. On land the trend should be to go to full to mobile launchers except for the missiles that are too big for it. And on air platforms I do not see the Russian Armed Forces accepting some downgrade in mobility from the current modern launchers (Tu-160).

    Having a few supersonic bombers does not make sense... the blackjack is not fast enough to evade decent medium range SAMs. It will use standoff range to avoid them.

    Having stealthy and fast bombers complicates the problems of the enemy.

    Having two types means the Bears and old Blackjacks can be replaced... and the Backfire can be replaced in service by a subsonic aircraft able to carry a heavy conventional payload...

    Only if you count not the costs of the loses in combat.

    In the strategic role both aircraft will use 5,000km range stand off cruise missiles.

    I would bet that the Tu-160 has not been the aircraft with higher operational costs for Russia in Syria.

    The fuel bill would make your eyes water.

    I would bet that the Tu-160 has not been the aircraft with higher operational costs for Russia in Syria.

    If the Russian S-400 battery in Syria was a NATO battery neither the Tu-160 nor Tu-95 would be at risk because both would be launching their cruise missiles from 2,000km range plus.

    Speed would no more protect the Blackjack than it would the Bear...

    It is the stand off range of the weapons that will keep both types safe.

    Stealth is effected by distance... a PAK DA from 4,000km is not going to be detected by anything...

    One of the reasons the Tu-95 is in service is its low cost operations... the same could be said for the B-52, though I dare say the fuel bill from 8 thirsty engines is not likely better than from 4 efficient turbofans in the B-2 but they found all sorts of ways to make the B-2 expensive...


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1542
    Points : 1567
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:14 pm

    About the fuel bill do not go too fast... First you are talking about a country with big oil and gas resources, and state owned resources and production. The government of Russia pays the fuel bill at price of production costs. And second to include the loses of one Tu-154, two Mi-24/25/35 or two Mi-8/... in the economic balance puts the things in the right place. Two units of the Mi-8/..., the cheapest of them, maybe $35-40 millions to add to their operational costs, without talking about the costs related to the death people.

    The problem with the BMP-1 and BMP-2 was a problem with the main armament. This is not the case, because the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA will be able to use the same armament. In this case there is not a single reason why the upgraded Tu-160, or even the old Tu-160 can not do the role that is being explained for the Tu-PAK-DA. Also the Tu-160 will be able to use the new hypersonic missiles.

    If the Tu-PAK-Da is subsonic will clearly underperform the Tu-160. Despite stealth technologies, that are effectively surpassed in far less time than the life time of an aircraft like this. The importance of the speed for the safety of an aircraft is key. As example, if some hostile missile is detected approaching to one aircraft at Mach 4, 4000 Km (roughly 1 hour) before to reach the aircraft that would be inside the Russia air space, a Tu-160 can move away at Mach 2 another 4000 Km before being reached by the missile giving to the air defenses roughly 2 hours to hit the hostile missile before being reached. And also this may put perfectly the Tu-160 out of the range of the hostile missile and save the aircraft by their own. In the case of a Tu-PAK-FA moving at Mach 0.8, the aircraft only would be able to move 1000 Km away the hostile missile, surely not enough to put the aircraft out of the range of the hostile missile, and would be hit roughly in 1 hour and 15 min. The importance of the speed in the safety is key, and even it is increased operating inside the own air space, where the hostile fire can be detected many time before to hit your aircrafts. And Russia would pay happily the fuel bill.

    It was a very interesting post about speed on air warfare. I want to recover it:

    Mindstorm wrote:
    Militarov wrote: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.


    Speed was and is ,with even much more weight today, by far the most crucial and decisive parameter in the design of any kind of offensive element, and all the military  scientifical efforts of any design bureau around the globe is univocally aimed toward a sharp increase of speed as the unique road possible against today level of integrated air defense networks.

    For what concern strategic bombers design it became clear, at least since half of '70 years, that the unique elements assuring to the third branch of strategic triad still a deterrence role in a conflict against a peer/near-peer enemy would be:


    1) Air-launched cruise missiles and theirs performance, with particular stress to the range performance for nuclear tipped ones (for the synergistic effect with the other two main requirements).

    2) Mean time for full cruise missiles delivery cycle against key enemy installations.

    3) Average time and mean area of dispersion of those strategic platforms toward different airfields both before and after cruise missile delivery.


    It was found by ГосНИИАС that a supersonic - average 1,3 Mach or more mission speed capable - layout with a fuel efficient mixed-profile flight was over three times more efficient in the strategic cruise missile delivery role and over four times more survivable (obviously not for the interaction with enemy air defense network or with enemy Air Force interceptors having cruise missiles delivering range measured in the thousands of kilometers ,but for the mean area and speed of relocation) than a subsonic platform.

    Obviously also measures aimed at reduce radar observability become not only practically irrelevant for strategic cruise missiles delivery from several thousands of kilometers afar but even a liablity, for the sharp increase of service and repair time after each mission (an element that increase of several times the chance to be destroyed on the ground by enemy strategic and sub-strategic attacks).  



    Just to provide a brief sample of what said is sufficent to say that a supersonic bomber armed with Х-102 missiles maintaining an averange speed of M 1.3 at 13000 m, taking into account the increase in coasting range for the delivered missiles for a pre-delivery high supersonic dash would reach an useful delivery point 4000 km away from airbase (about 3600 km effective for the just named missile range increase for the high altitude/supersonic dash) in about 2 hours and 38 minutes ,for a total mission flight time of about 5 hours and 16 minutes, a subsonic platform , flying at the same altitude an average speed of M 0,7, would deliver the same Х-102 payload 4000 km away in about 5 hours and 22 minutes for a total mission time of 10 hours and 44 minutes.  


    That is : the X-102s delivered against the most important enemy military structures (strategic bomber airbases included.....) by mean of supersonic bombers would detonate before those on board of the subsonic bomber would be merely delivered and those supersonic bombers would be in the air for the second attack before the subsonic ones would have merely returned from the first.


    The difference both in strategic survivability and in the degradation speed of the enemy military capabilities and key assets between the two platforms ,put a supersonic and a subsonic bomber in two different league when strategic efficiency is the parameter taken in consideration.
    avatar
    A1RMAN

    Posts : 57
    Points : 59
    Join date : 2016-10-08

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  A1RMAN on Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:27 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    ..the aircraft only would be able to move 1000 Km away the hostile missile, surely not enough to put the aircraft out of the range of the hostile missile

    Which AA missile has the 1000km range? Let's say there is such missile, how will targeting work with these ranges? affraid
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5557
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:52 pm

    eehnie wrote:About the fuel bill do not go too fast... First you are talking about a country with big oil and gas resources, and state owned resources and production. The government of Russia pays the fuel bill at price of production costs. And second to include the loses of one Tu-154, two Mi-24/25/35 or two Mi-8/... in the economic balance puts the things in the right place. Two units of the Mi-8/..., the cheapest of them, maybe $35-40 millions to add to their operational costs, without talking about the costs related to the death people.

    The problem with the BMP-1 and BMP-2 was a problem with the main armament. This is not the case, because the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA will be able to use the same armament. In this case there is not a single reason why the upgraded Tu-160, or even the old Tu-160 can not do the role that is being explained for the Tu-PAK-DA. Also the Tu-160 will be able to use the new hypersonic missiles.

    If the Tu-PAK-Da is subsonic will clearly underperform the Tu-160. Despite stealth technologies, that are effectively surpassed in far less time than the life time of an aircraft like this. The importance of the speed for the safety of an aircraft is key. As example, if some hostile missile is detected approaching to one aircraft at Mach 4, 4000 Km (roughly 1 hour) before to reach the aircraft that would be inside the Russia air space, a Tu-160 can move away at Mach 2 another 4000 Km before being reached by the missile giving to the air defenses roughly 2 hours to hit the hostile missile before being reached. And also this may put perfectly the Tu-160 out of the range of the hostile missile and save the aircraft by their own. In the case of a Tu-PAK-FA moving at Mach 0.8, the aircraft only would be able to move 1000 Km away the hostile missile, surely not enough to put the aircraft out of the range of the hostile missile, and would be hit roughly in 1 hour and 15 min. The importance of the speed in the safety is key, and even it is increased operating inside the own air space, where the hostile fire can be detected many time before to hit your aircrafts. And Russia would pay happily the fuel bill.

    It was a very interesting post about speed on air warfare. I want to recover it:

    Mindstorm wrote:
    Militarov wrote: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.


    Speed was and is ,with even much more weight today, by far the most crucial and decisive parameter in the design of any kind of offensive element, and all the military  scientifical efforts of any design bureau around the globe is univocally aimed toward a sharp increase of speed as the unique road possible against today level of integrated air defense networks.

    For what concern strategic bombers design it became clear, at least since half of '70 years, that the unique elements assuring to the third branch of strategic triad still a deterrence role in a conflict against a peer/near-peer enemy would be:


    1) Air-launched cruise missiles and theirs performance, with particular stress to the range performance for nuclear tipped ones (for the synergistic effect with the other two main requirements).

    2) Mean time for full cruise missiles delivery cycle against key enemy installations.

    3) Average time and mean area of dispersion of those strategic platforms toward different airfields both before and after cruise missile delivery.


    It was found by ГосНИИАС that a supersonic - average 1,3 Mach or more mission speed capable - layout with a fuel efficient mixed-profile flight was over three times more efficient in the strategic cruise missile delivery role and over four times more survivable (obviously not for the interaction with enemy air defense network or with enemy Air Force interceptors having cruise missiles delivering range measured in the thousands of kilometers ,but for the mean area and speed of relocation) than a subsonic platform.

    Obviously also measures aimed at reduce radar observability become not only practically irrelevant for strategic cruise missiles delivery from several thousands of kilometers afar but even a liablity, for the sharp increase of service and repair time after each mission (an element that increase of several times the chance to be destroyed on the ground by enemy strategic and sub-strategic attacks).  



    Just to provide a brief sample of what said is sufficent to say that a supersonic bomber armed with Х-102 missiles maintaining an averange speed of M 1.3 at 13000 m, taking into account the increase in coasting range for the delivered missiles for a pre-delivery high supersonic dash would reach an useful delivery point 4000 km away from airbase (about 3600 km effective for the just named missile range increase for the high altitude/supersonic dash) in about 2 hours and 38 minutes ,for a total mission flight time of about 5 hours and 16 minutes, a subsonic platform , flying at the same altitude an average speed of M 0,7, would deliver the same Х-102 payload 4000 km away in about 5 hours and 22 minutes for a total mission time of 10 hours and 44 minutes.  


    That is : the X-102s delivered against the most important enemy military structures (strategic bomber airbases included.....) by mean of supersonic bombers would detonate before those on board of the subsonic bomber would be merely delivered and those supersonic bombers would be in the air for the second attack before the subsonic ones would have merely returned from the first.


    The difference both in strategic survivability and in the degradation speed of the enemy military capabilities and key assets between the two platforms ,put a supersonic and a subsonic bomber in two different league when strategic efficiency is the parameter taken in consideration.

    First of all, there is no "SAM" missile in the world with ranges of 1000km... that is absurd, i want to see guidance radar guiding that missile, would be quite a sight.

    Also PAK-DA will not have primary role of cruise missile launch platform but conventional bombing. Its supposed to be replacement for Tu-22Ms and then to partially replace TU-95 and to be suplemented by Tu-160M2. While it will be capable of carrying cruise missiles it wont be its primary role. B-2 was almost always used in such role too, conventional high-precision extremly long range bombing. They flew from the US to Yugoslavia, hit targets with PGMs and flew back to States. That would be sort of main role of PAK-DA.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1542
    Points : 1567
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Fri Dec 30, 2016 8:54 am

    A1RMAN wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    ..the aircraft only would be able to move 1000 Km away the hostile missile, surely not enough to put the aircraft out of the range of the hostile missile

    Which AA missile has the 1000km range? Let's say there is such missile, how will targeting work with these ranges? affraid

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:About the fuel bill do not go too fast... First you are talking about a country with big oil and gas resources, and state owned resources and production. The government of Russia pays the fuel bill at price of production costs. And second to include the loses of one Tu-154, two Mi-24/25/35 or two Mi-8/... in the economic balance puts the things in the right place. Two units of the Mi-8/..., the cheapest of them, maybe $35-40 millions to add to their operational costs, without talking about the costs related to the death people.

    The problem with the BMP-1 and BMP-2 was a problem with the main armament. This is not the case, because the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA will be able to use the same armament. In this case there is not a single reason why the upgraded Tu-160, or even the old Tu-160 can not do the role that is being explained for the Tu-PAK-DA. Also the Tu-160 will be able to use the new hypersonic missiles.

    If the Tu-PAK-Da is subsonic will clearly underperform the Tu-160. Despite stealth technologies, that are effectively surpassed in far less time than the life time of an aircraft like this. The importance of the speed for the safety of an aircraft is key. As example, if some hostile missile is detected approaching to one aircraft at Mach 4, 4000 Km (roughly 1 hour) before to reach the aircraft that would be inside the Russia air space, a Tu-160 can move away at Mach 2 another 4000 Km before being reached by the missile giving to the air defenses roughly 2 hours to hit the hostile missile before being reached. And also this may put perfectly the Tu-160 out of the range of the hostile missile and save the aircraft by their own. In the case of a Tu-PAK-FA moving at Mach 0.8, the aircraft only would be able to move 1000 Km away the hostile missile, surely not enough to put the aircraft out of the range of the hostile missile, and would be hit roughly in 1 hour and 15 min. The importance of the speed in the safety is key, and even it is increased operating inside the own air space, where the hostile fire can be detected many time before to hit your aircrafts. And Russia would pay happily the fuel bill.

    It was a very interesting post about speed on air warfare. I want to recover it:

    Mindstorm wrote:
    Militarov wrote: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.


    Speed was and is ,with even much more weight today, by far the most crucial and decisive parameter in the design of any kind of offensive element, and all the military  scientifical efforts of any design bureau around the globe is univocally aimed toward a sharp increase of speed as the unique road possible against today level of integrated air defense networks.

    For what concern strategic bombers design it became clear, at least since half of '70 years, that the unique elements assuring to the third branch of strategic triad still a deterrence role in a conflict against a peer/near-peer enemy would be:


    1) Air-launched cruise missiles and theirs performance, with particular stress to the range performance for nuclear tipped ones (for the synergistic effect with the other two main requirements).

    2) Mean time for full cruise missiles delivery cycle against key enemy installations.

    3) Average time and mean area of dispersion of those strategic platforms toward different airfields both before and after cruise missile delivery.


    It was found by ГосНИИАС that a supersonic - average 1,3 Mach or more mission speed capable - layout with a fuel efficient mixed-profile flight was over three times more efficient in the strategic cruise missile delivery role and over four times more survivable (obviously not for the interaction with enemy air defense network or with enemy Air Force interceptors having cruise missiles delivering range measured in the thousands of kilometers ,but for the mean area and speed of relocation) than a subsonic platform.

    Obviously also measures aimed at reduce radar observability become not only practically irrelevant for strategic cruise missiles delivery from several thousands of kilometers afar but even a liablity, for the sharp increase of service and repair time after each mission (an element that increase of several times the chance to be destroyed on the ground by enemy strategic and sub-strategic attacks).  



    Just to provide a brief sample of what said is sufficent to say that a supersonic bomber armed with Х-102 missiles maintaining an averange speed of M 1.3 at 13000 m, taking into account the increase in coasting range for the delivered missiles for a pre-delivery high supersonic dash would reach an useful delivery point 4000 km away from airbase (about 3600 km effective for the just named missile range increase for the high altitude/supersonic dash) in about 2 hours and 38 minutes ,for a total mission flight time of about 5 hours and 16 minutes, a subsonic platform , flying at the same altitude an average speed of M 0,7, would deliver the same Х-102 payload 4000 km away in about 5 hours and 22 minutes for a total mission time of 10 hours and 44 minutes.  


    That is : the X-102s delivered against the most important enemy military structures (strategic bomber airbases included.....) by mean of supersonic bombers would detonate before those on board of the subsonic bomber would be merely delivered and those supersonic bombers would be in the air for the second attack before the subsonic ones would have merely returned from the first.


    The difference both in strategic survivability and in the degradation speed of the enemy military capabilities and key assets between the two platforms ,put a supersonic and a subsonic bomber in two different league when strategic efficiency is the parameter taken in consideration.

    First of all, there is no "SAM" missile in the world with ranges of 1000km... that is absurd, i want to see guidance radar guiding that missile, would be quite a sight.

    Also PAK-DA will not have primary role of cruise missile launch platform but conventional bombing. Its supposed to be replacement for Tu-22Ms and then to partially replace TU-95 and to be suplemented by Tu-160M2. While it will be capable of carrying cruise missiles it wont be its primary role. B-2 was almost always used in such role too, conventional high-precision extremly long range bombing. They flew from the US to Yugoslavia, hit targets with PGMs and flew back to States. That would be sort of main role of PAK-DA.

    Then both of you would design the Tu-PAK-DA to face only the current weapons. In this case I'm not surprised with your arguments.

    Well on military engineering (and also on civil engineering) it is necessary something else. It is necessary to look forward. This is not a design for today, the first unit can be build by 2025, and by 2030 the serial production can be in the begin. If you design an aircraft for the current state of the art, in 25 years, when the project must be in its highest point, it will be likely surpassed by the state of the art of the time (around 2040).

    This was only one example to see numerically the effect of the speed. But still, surface-surface missiles like the one I commented are a fact today, and a Surface-Air application of them is likely.
    avatar
    A1RMAN

    Posts : 57
    Points : 59
    Join date : 2016-10-08

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  A1RMAN on Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:08 am

    eehnie wrote:

    This was only one example to see numerically the effect of the speed. But still, surface-surface missiles like the one I commented are a fact today, and a Surface-Air application of them is likely.

    There is a huge difference between targeting an air target and surface target. Simple fact that surface stays where it is - you cant just put in the coordinates, fire and forget.
    But air target can travel big distances, maneuver use EW and other defense systems.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1542
    Points : 1567
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:34 am

    A1RMAN wrote:
    eehnie wrote:

    This was only one example to see numerically the effect of the speed. But still, surface-surface missiles like the one I commented are a fact today, and a Surface-Air application of them is likely.

    There is a huge difference between targeting an air target and surface target. Simple fact that surface stays where it is - you cant just put in the coordinates, fire and forget.
    But air target can travel big distances, maneuver use EW and other defense systems.

    Try to open your mind. How would you try to solve it? It is not too difficult to find some option. The necessary technology exists today, but it is used not on this application.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16736
    Points : 17344
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:54 am

    About the fuel bill do not go too fast... First you are talking about a country with big oil and gas resources, and state owned resources and production. The government of Russia pays the fuel bill at price of production costs. And second to include the loses of one Tu-154, two Mi-24/25/35 or two Mi-8/... in the economic balance puts the things in the right place. Two units of the Mi-8/..., the cheapest of them, maybe $35-40 millions to add to their operational costs, without talking about the costs related to the death people.

    I agree that when it comes to their nuclear triad they don't care about money as long as the job gets done.

    However having said that having a rolls royce pulling a plough when a tractor can do the same job is not something they are known for either.

    Actually having a supersonic bomber increases its cost without making it safer in its strategic role.

    Both the Tu-160 and the Tu-22M3 can fly at supersonic speed but I would wager a lot of money that during their strikes on Syria they never broke the sound barrier once.

    In the case of the Backfire the altitude it was being used kept it safe no matter what speed it was flying at. In the case of the Bear and the Blackjack it was the standoff range by firing 3,000km range cruise missiles that kept them safe.

    The problem with the BMP-1 and BMP-2 was a problem with the main armament. This is not the case, because the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA will be able to use the same armament. In this case there is not a single reason why the upgraded Tu-160, or even the old Tu-160 can not do the role that is being explained for the Tu-PAK-DA. Also the Tu-160 will be able to use the new hypersonic missiles.

    I mentioned the BMP and BMP-2 because when they were designed it was thought in the west that the latter would replace the former because they were both designed for the same job... ie troop transportation on the battlefield.

    When they were working on the BMP-2 they probably thought the same... a replacement for the BMP. In practise in combat in Afghanistan it was found the BMP-2 didn't replace the BMP... there were targets the 73mm gun was more effective at dealing with and others where the 30mm cannon was better. They complimented each other... the end result is that the actual replacement had both weapon types.

    That solution is not practical with the Blackjack and PAK DA... you can't make a supersonic bomber cheaper to operate simply by making it fly slower.

    In the case of a Tu-PAK-FA moving at Mach 0.8, the aircraft only would be able to move 1000 Km away the hostile missile, surely not enough to put the aircraft out of the range of the hostile missile, and would be hit roughly in 1 hour and 15 min. The importance of the speed in the safety is key, and even it is increased operating inside the own air space, where the hostile fire can be detected many time before to hit your aircrafts. And Russia would pay happily the fuel bill.

    In the WWIII scenario by the time a subsonic plane (Tu-95 and PAK DA) or supersonic plane (Tu-160) arrive to their launch position all of Russias ICBMs and SLBMs would have obliterated the targets and threats hours before...

    In the case of a Tu-PAK-FA moving at Mach 0.8, the aircraft only would be able to move 1000 Km away the hostile missile, surely not enough to put the aircraft out of the range of the hostile missile, and would be hit roughly in 1 hour and 15 min. The importance of the speed in the safety is key, and even it is increased operating inside the own air space, where the hostile fire can be detected many time before to hit your aircrafts. And Russia would pay happily the fuel bill.

    Speed has an effect on bomber performance but not with no effect.

    If the choice is a supersonic PAK DA then why even bother with the restarting of production of the Tu-160? Just withdraw the Tu-160 and Tu-95 and replace them all with PAK DA.

    The problem is that a supersonic stealthy PAK DA would be enormously expensive to buy and to operate.

    A subsonic PAK DA could be used for a range of roles including conventional bomber, which is a role the Tu-160 seems to have dropped.

    this means the PAK DA could replace the Tu-95 and the Tu-22M3, without duplicating the role of the supersonic Tu-160.

    They become complimentary.

    Sharing major components between the Blackjack and PAK DA further improves both aircraft and makes their operation cheaper and simpler.

    To be honest I would prefer to see a supercruising capable PAK DA but that would add cost and complication.


    Also PAK-DA will not have primary role of cruise missile launch platform but conventional bombing. Its supposed to be replacement for Tu-22Ms and then to partially replace TU-95 and to be suplemented by Tu-160M2. While it will be capable of carrying cruise missiles it wont be its primary role. B-2 was almost always used in such role too, conventional high-precision extremly long range bombing. They flew from the US to Yugoslavia, hit targets with PGMs and flew back to States. That would be sort of main role of PAK-DA.

    I don't quite agree.

    The PAK DA will replace the Tu-22M3 as heavy bomber for theatre missions, but for strategic missions it will be a cruise missile carrier just like the Blackjack.

    I rather suspect a very long range scramjet powered cruise missile will likely be developed... with folding wings and external fuel tanks of its own... when launched it will start its scramjet engine and climb and accelerate... at some mid range point it will drop its external fuel tanks and possibly even part of its wing to improve high speed low drag performance after which it will accelerate to full flight speed in the hypersonic range to its target... perhaps 6,000km away.

    It might even have multiple nuclear warheads it can drop as it flies. two external missiles with say 10-20 small nuke warheads in the 2-5KT range.


    Then both of you would design the Tu-PAK-DA to face only the current weapons. In this case I'm not surprised with your arguments.

    The spending required to give the US an IADS would bankrupt them over night...

    It wont happen any time soon.

    Try to open your mind. How would you try to solve it? It is not too difficult to find some option. The necessary technology exists today, but it is used not on this application.

    Even if you put an IIR seeker in its nose and sent it constant course corrections to get it within visual range even a basic AAM could probably bring such a large missile down... and such missiles would be very very expensive.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16736
    Points : 17344
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:58 am

    Keeping an open mind is good, but you need to be responsible when spending the hard earned tax dollars of the Russian citizens.

    You can spend all day thinking of what the enemy might or might not have or do... at the end of the day having a supersonic cruise missile carrier (tu-160M2) and a subsonic stealthy flying wing bomber (PAK DA) is a good compromise in terms of performance and capability.

    As engine technology improves the potential for super cruising Blackjacks with greatly extended range and perhaps even supercruising flying wing can be kept in reserve for the future.

    Right now a hypersonic attack missile is much cheaper and easier than a hypersonic bomber or even manned aircraft.

    It would be likely that a hypersonic interceptor will be developed as the first scramjet powered manned aircraft.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1542
    Points : 1567
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:38 am

    I answered it before, but it is necessary to say it clearly again.

    The production of the Tu-160 is being restarted because the model remains the best Strategic Bomber worldwide, allowing still bigger development, and because Russia thinks they need more units of new strategic bombers befor the new Tu-PAK-DA can be ready for serial production.

    As I commented in the topic about procurement:

    eehnie wrote:About the Tu-160 there are reports that talk about 50 units to be ordered.

    Looking at the numbers, the reserves of Strategic Bombers are still far from a saturation. It would be necessary between 50 and 60 units to reach the saturation until the degree that today have the Interceptors. Then this the new order of production for the Tu-160 would replace the Tu-95 in the active service, but the Tu-95 (47 active and 12 in the reserve according to decent sources) would remain in the reserve, to complete the current fleet until the saturation of the reserve. The cathegory of Strategic Bomber has been in question for some decades, and the required production of Tu-160 was not completedd at the time. But the concept is proving to be still modern and useful as military concept, and the production is being restarted in the short-mid term. The new production line should be active by 2019-2020, and the production of the aircraft can remain until 2030 aproximately.

    The Tu-PAK-DA needs still a lot of research and development. I hope to see the first unit by 2025, but the serial production surely will not be ready until 2030. And then yes, the orders of the Tu-PAK-DA will be likely mean a total decommission of the Tu-92, and a bigger presence of the Tu-22 in the reserve.

    In the refered to the technologies, the speed is today the main variable to assure the safety on air warfare, as explained before. Speed is still today over the stealth technologies that fall easier to technological improvements in detection.

    Then Russia needs not to sacrifice the good values and techonological level that they reached on speed for Strategic Bombers in the past to improve on Stealth technologies. To do it would be a killer mistake for the future of the Tu-PAK-DA adding to the project a high risk of failure. This is a mistake the US did but I do not expect Russia to repeat. Stealth technologies alone, without speed, are likely to fail.

    With the design of the Su-PAK-FA, Russia proved to be able to introduce stealth technologies on supersonic aircrafts without any sacrifice on speed and mobility, and I do not expect less in the case of the Tu-PAK-DA.

    The US instead has been giving wrongly more importance to stealth technologies over speed. On strategic bombers they decided to sacrifice totally the speed, leaving the aircraft in very poor features when the stealth advantage is lost by improvements on detection technologies. And now their stealth fighter is plagued of problems by poor performance vs other fighters except on stealth features. It is a logical consequence of their previous mistake.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1542
    Points : 1567
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:21 am

    GarryB wrote:
    In the case of a Tu-PAK-FA moving at Mach 0.8, the aircraft only would be able to move 1000 Km away the hostile missile, surely not enough to put the aircraft out of the range of the hostile missile, and would be hit roughly in 1 hour and 15 min. The importance of the speed in the safety is key, and even it is increased operating inside the own air space, where the hostile fire can be detected many time before to hit your aircrafts. And Russia would pay happily the fuel bill.

    In the WWIII scenario by the time a subsonic plane (Tu-95 and PAK DA) or supersonic plane (Tu-160) arrive to their launch position all of Russias ICBMs and SLBMs would have obliterated the targets and threats hours before...

    Then both of you would design the Tu-PAK-DA to face only the current weapons. In this case I'm not surprised with your arguments.

    The spending required to give the US an IADS would bankrupt them over night...

    It wont happen any time soon.

    Try to open your mind. How would you try to solve it? It is not too difficult to find some option. The necessary technology exists today, but it is used not on this application.

    Even if you put an IIR seeker in its nose and sent it constant course corrections to get it within visual range even a basic AAM could probably bring such a large missile down... and such missiles would be very very expensive.

    Note that the Tu-PAK-DA will not happen any time soom. You can expect expect less than 5 Tu-PAK-DA by 2030.

    Also note that Russia is developping today the MiG-41, a fighter interceptor close to the features that I was exposing for a potential future anti-aircraft missile (as application of today's Surface-Surface missiles). The reality is going one step forward from what you see as impossible or unlikely.

    Azi

    Posts : 149
    Points : 151
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Azi on Thu Jan 05, 2017 11:38 am

    eehnie wrote:
    In the refered to the technologies, the speed is today the main variable to assure the safety on air warfare, as explained before. Speed is still today over the stealth technologies that fall easier to technological improvements in detection.
    Speed is not better than "stealth"! Bullshit!!! Speed and stealth are only two different concepts. No one would suggest that a ninja should take over the role of a knight and otherwise.
    Speed is good to leave AD zone, but you can't evade really from a fired rocket. And the enemy has one big advantage...he saw you coming from thousands of miles Wink and is good prepared, stealth don't gives him the big preparation time!

    In the beginning was the B2 planned to infiltrate soviet airspace. Soviet airspace was not really covered good with radar stations. You remember Mathias Rust???
    He started 1987 in Hamburg, flew over Finland and landed with a Cessna direct in Moskow, near to the red square. So it was in the 80ies possible to penetrate soviet airspace with a low flying and low observable aircraft. For this time (80ies) the B2 was good enough, if it avoided radar stations! The B2 was a first strike aircraft, speed was not needed!

    But today russian airspace is not soviet airspace, they are not living in the 80ies anymore! Russia has a lot of radar stations, observing the sky in different wavelenghts. Today it's impossible to penetrate russian airspace with a stealth bomber.

    So and why is USA developing a B21 Bomber? Russia is not the world! A stealth bomber is in the 21st century good enough to kick asses of developing countries with poor to medium air defense.

    eehnie wrote:With the design of the Su-PAK-FA, Russia proved to be able to introduce stealth technologies on supersonic aircrafts without any sacrifice on speed and mobility, and I do not expect less in the case of the Tu-PAK-DA.
    Speed and stealth combined sounds good, but there are a few problems...
    The PAK-DA will be bigger, than a F-35 or a Su T-50, supersonic means in that case a gigantic IR siganture. Aerodynamic shape and stealth shape don't like each other, is the second problem! Even a supersonic PAK-DA means more cost, it will be really expensive in production and maintaining, so your considered 5 planes are realistic.

    By the way...
    This is a big problem for the F-35, his engine is soooo powerful that it have a really great IR-signature.

    ---

    Main role for the PAK-DA is carrier of cruise missles, the role of the TU-95 only better! It can start complete secret, fly for hours and days over a area and strike at the right moment with cruise missles. For example, cruising 300 NM away from the eastcoast of USA, when firing the air defense will maybe not have enough time to react!
    In some case it's a first strike weapon, but it don't have to penetrate enemy air space for a single second. It will have a role similar to a SSBN at ocean.

    Second role of course is penetration of enemy air space and unload a shit of bombs on enemy heads! In this role it will be the replacement of Tu-22M. Very good for enemies with up to medium air defense (95% of all countries worldwide).

    No one should forget the following...
    Russia had to handle for decades the stealth technology of USA, but western countries had never to handle soviet or russian stealth technology. The Su T-50 and PAK-DA will have a big impact on western air defense. It will take 15 - 20 years and the "NAZO" can handle russian stealth aircraft, but now they will have problems!
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3202
    Points : 3325
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  kvs on Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:08 am

    That Rust was not shot down does not mean he was not detected. High level decisions during Gorbachev's regime are an important element
    in this story. Rust was probably leveraged by some faction to undermine the Soviet military. The military was more than likely prevented from
    taking action and in the typical fashion would later take the blame for "failing" to take action.

    It's amusing to see how the stealth concept is dangled over the USSR/Russia as something beyond its ability even though the concept originated
    in the USSR during the 1960s. The USSR had more than enough wide spectrum and multi-system detection capability in the 1980s to see the
    B2 at every stage of its flight. The notion that it would fly into Soviet air space undetected is just whack and makes the USSR look like some
    banana republic with a single 1950s monochrome radar system. This is obvious BS. Serbs managed to network some 1960s radars to bring
    down the F-117A. Western racist chauvinists need to put the crack pipe of hubris down.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16736
    Points : 17344
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:59 am

    The production of the Tu-160 is being restarted because the model remains the best Strategic Bomber worldwide, allowing still bigger development, and because Russia thinks they need more units of new strategic bombers befor the new Tu-PAK-DA can be ready for serial production.

    The Russians have followed a clear policy of upgrading old stuff to their max point while at the same time working on the from scratch new design replacement.

    It offers the best compromise because the new technology being developed for the new equipment can be used in the upgrade of existing types so it gets into service and tested making the new technology less of a risk while improving performance of the actual force in service.

    The new factories to make the Blackjacks will be used to make the PAK DAs so the precision and performance of making them will likely be vastly superior to the manufacture of the existing Blackjack. New materials and production techniques can be used that didn't exist in the 1980s.

    The T-90 was their best tank and so they upgraded it to T-90AM... they also upgraded their T-72s and T-80s, but when Armata MBTs and kurganets MBTs and Boomerang MBTs are ready those older upgraded types will go into reserve.

    The technology from the new types will be used during the lifetime of the force to further upgrade the old models so if needed in 2025 a T-72BM8 wont have 1980s communications and optics and ammo.

    It will be the same with the Strategic bombers.

    Costs will be reduced and spread across rather more air frames to reduce operational costs.

    Initially the existing types will get upgrades... the new engines for the new aircraft could be retrofitted to existing types to improve performance.

    A gift of 16 Tu-22M4s with capacity to carry 10 Brahmos-M missiles would be an interesting offer for India...

    The US instead has been giving wrongly more importance to stealth technologies over speed. On strategic bombers they decided to sacrifice totally the speed, leaving the aircraft in very poor features when the stealth advantage is lost by improvements on detection technologies. And now their stealth fighter is plagued of problems by poor performance vs other fighters except on stealth features. It is a logical consequence of their previous mistake.

    I totally agree... and it has been an ongoing issue with US products.

    But just a quick look at Russian tanks with NERA and APS and SHTORA and other layers of systems to defend the vehicle... the Russians like alternatives and use them together to each compliment each other.

    The US would not keep a 73mm gun armed BMP and BMP-2 in service together... they prefer rigid standardisation... which is ironic really... NATO 223 rifle magazines are not even standardised... try an cheap crappy M16 mag in a Steyr AUG... Half of the problems with the SA80 was the cheap M16 mags...

    The PAK DA will have been designed from scratch to be properly stealthy but they will also likely include Jamming and ECCM equipment and probably plasma stealth and photonic radar with active jamming and other features.

    Note that the Tu-PAK-DA will not happen any time soom. You can expect expect less than 5 Tu-PAK-DA by 2030.

    If they start producing them in the late 2020s they could probably bang out 10-20 by 2030 in addition to the 50-60 odd Tu-160s.

    Also note that Russia is developping today the MiG-41, a fighter interceptor close to the features that I was exposing for a potential future anti-aircraft missile (as application of today's Surface-Surface missiles). The reality is going one step forward from what you see as impossible or unlikely.

    The sophistication needed will make the MiG-41 rather more expensive than could be affordable if it was a missile.

    It would also be rather more useful during peacetime and totally reusable.

    Soviet airspace was not really covered good with radar stations. You remember Mathias Rust???
    He started 1987 in Hamburg, flew over Finland and landed with a Cessna direct in Moskow, near to the red square. So it was in the 80ies possible to penetrate soviet airspace with a low flying and low observable aircraft. For this time (80ies) the B2 was good enough, if it avoided radar stations! The B2 was a first strike aircraft, speed was not needed!

    If Rusts cessna had been a strike aircraft MiG-23s would have shot it down near the border. It was identified as a civilian aircraft and so the job of intercepting it was handed over to Mi-24 hinds which were sent to intercept.

    Not exactly unusual as the Hind can fly faster than the cessna involved... I remember some balloons that were racing in europe that strayed off course and were shot down by Hinds... can't remember if they were Bulgarian or Hungarian...
    Some guy died... very bad publicity.

    Rust was no threat so was not intercepted by the PVO. A B-2 would be intercepted and shot down.

    Hinds are not interceptors and have no radar and were not trained for the job of interception... so by the time they located him he had landed.

    It's amusing to see how the stealth concept is dangled over the USSR/Russia as something beyond its ability even though the concept originated
    in the USSR during the 1960s. The USSR had more than enough wide spectrum and multi-system detection capability in the 1980s to see the
    B2 at every stage of its flight. The notion that it would fly into Soviet air space undetected is just whack and makes the USSR look like some
    banana republic with a single 1950s monochrome radar system. This is obvious BS. Serbs managed to network some 1960s radars to bring
    down the F-117A. Western racist chauvinists need to put the crack pipe of hubris down.

    I remember in the late 1980s when we heard rumours about the B-2 and then claims it was going to be the great killer of Soviet Truck mounted ICBMs.

    Of course the pathetic performance of the US in Iraq regarding Scud missile launchers led to such talk stopping immediately, though it was not until after the US got its hands on an S-300V that they switched to low level penetrations with their B-2s... makes you wonder why if they were so invisible...


    _________________
    “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

    Azi

    Posts : 149
    Points : 151
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Azi on Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:51 am

    GarryB wrote:If Rusts cessna had been a strike aircraft MiG-23s would have shot it down near the border. It was identified as a civilian aircraft and so the job of intercepting it was handed over to Mi-24 hinds which were sent to intercept.
    Rust was intercepted 1 hour after violating soviet airspace (entering soviet airspace at Kohtla-Järve) by a Mig 23. No Mi-24!

    Even in the 21st century it's not possible to identify easy an aircraft. From the refelction of the radar cross section you can't identify 100 % a aircraft, you can only estimate it's a big bird or a small one!

    GarryB wrote:
    Rust was no threat so was not intercepted by the PVO. A B-2 would be intercepted and shot down.
    That's correct! But soviet air defense reacted too late and not consequent (lucky Rust!). Around 300 officers and the defense minister lost their jobs, because something was not soo fine (ok, also some political reasons!).

    kvs wrote:
    That Rust was not shot down does not mean he was not detected. High level decisions during Gorbachev's regime are an important element
    in this story. Rust was probably leveraged by some faction to undermine the Soviet military. The military was more than likely prevented from
    taking action and in the typical fashion would later take the blame for "failing" to take action.
    As I wrote, there was some reaction, but too late and too weak!

    He was only a idealistic idiot, no agent or something like this. Later he went to prison for many reasons (stabbing a wife with a knife, stealing a pullover lol1 etc.)

    kvs wrote:
    It's amusing to see how the stealth concept is dangled over the USSR/Russia as something beyond its ability even though the concept originated
    in the USSR during the 1960s. The USSR had more than enough wide spectrum and multi-system detection capability in the 1980s to see the
    B2 at every stage of its flight. The notion that it would fly into Soviet air space undetected is just whack and makes the USSR look like some
    banana republic with a single 1950s monochrome radar system. This is obvious BS. Serbs managed to network some 1960s radars to bring
    down the F-117A. Western racist chauvinists need to put the crack pipe of hubris down.
    The concept of "stealth" is known since 1936. First RAM coating was invented in Netherland 1936 and later used by Nazis to hide their submarines (the snorkel) from radar detection!

    It's a fairy tale that RAM coating does not adsorb in long wave radar spectrum. It does, only much worse! RAM coating is one point, the shape of airplane is the other point. Stealth airplanes have special geometric shape with smooth surface (the smooth and clean surface is a really big problem!), so the radar beams doesn't reflect back to the radar station.
    So with planes like B2 you haven't a complete invisible plane to radar, that's bullshit, no one is talking about that. But the plane is low observable, so you need a denser net of radar stations.
    The soviet union in the 80ies had a good net of radar staion in the west, but central asia and the far east was a bit behind (also due political treatments with USA). The soviet air defense had enough holes to slip behind for a F-117 or a B-2, but i doubt really the US had bomb something of worth, because in the near of military objects the AD was good.

    kvs wrote: Serbs managed to network some 1960s radars to bring
    down the F-117A. Western racist chauvinists need to put the crack pipe of hubris down.
    Interview Konstantin Katschalin with Dragan Matic (the man who pushed the button):
    sputniknews wrote:
    It is true, the signal of this machine is weaker than that of the ordinary aircraft, but it can still be seen on the radar screens. Perhaps the pilot had been wrong or lost, but he flew at a height of only five kilometers, and got into our visor.

    I'm half german and half serb and i must write...
    Yeah, 38.000 NAZO sorties and we Serbs managed to shoot down a single F-117 (F-16 crashed somwhere near Metic)! Great statistic! WOW! affraid

    If stealth is soo crap, so bullshit and so on...
    WHY is RUSSIA building STEALTH planes??? Su T-50 and Pak-Da!?
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5557
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:46 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    In the case of a Tu-PAK-FA moving at Mach 0.8, the aircraft only would be able to move 1000 Km away the hostile missile, surely not enough to put the aircraft out of the range of the hostile missile, and would be hit roughly in 1 hour and 15 min. The importance of the speed in the safety is key, and even it is increased operating inside the own air space, where the hostile fire can be detected many time before to hit your aircrafts. And Russia would pay happily the fuel bill.

    In the WWIII scenario by the time a subsonic plane (Tu-95 and PAK DA) or supersonic plane (Tu-160) arrive to their launch position all of Russias ICBMs and SLBMs would have obliterated the targets and threats hours before...

    Then both of you would design the Tu-PAK-DA to face only the current weapons. In this case I'm not surprised with your arguments.

    The spending required to give the US an IADS would bankrupt them over night...

    It wont happen any time soon.

    Try to open your mind. How would you try to solve it? It is not too difficult to find some option. The necessary technology exists today, but it is used not on this application.

    Even if you put an IIR seeker in its nose and sent it constant course corrections to get it within visual range even a basic AAM could probably bring such a large missile down... and such missiles would be very very expensive.

    Note that the Tu-PAK-DA will not happen any time soom. You can expect expect less than 5 Tu-PAK-DA by 2030.

    Also note that Russia is developping today the MiG-41, a fighter interceptor close to the features that I was exposing for a potential future anti-aircraft missile (as application of today's Surface-Surface missiles). The reality is going one step forward from what you see as impossible or unlikely.

    MiG-41 is still just a concept, no real work has been done on it, and wont probably before 2020. at earliest. And it wont be even close to those numbers you see claimed by various clickbite articles saying it will be hypersonic and similar bs, judging by what certain MiG engineers said it will most likely be just major revision of MiG-31B design.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5557
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:01 pm

    kvs wrote:That Rust was not shot down does not mean he was not detected.   High level decisions during Gorbachev's regime are an important element
    in this story.  Rust was probably leveraged by some faction to undermine the Soviet military.   The military was more than likely prevented from
    taking action and in the typical fashion would later take the blame for "failing" to take action.    

    It's amusing to see how the stealth concept is dangled over the USSR/Russia as something beyond its ability even though the concept originated
    in the USSR during the 1960s.   The USSR had more than enough wide spectrum and multi-system detection capability in the 1980s to see the
    B2 at every stage of its flight.   The notion that it would fly into Soviet air space undetected is just whack and makes the USSR look like some
    banana republic with a single 1950s monochrome radar system.   This is obvious BS.   Serbs managed to network some 1960s radars to bring
    down the F-117A.   Western racist chauvinists need to put the crack pipe of hubris down.  

    We never networked anything, it was just common P-18/SNR-125 mix as any other Neva batallion.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1542
    Points : 1567
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:02 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    In the case of a Tu-PAK-FA moving at Mach 0.8, the aircraft only would be able to move 1000 Km away the hostile missile, surely not enough to put the aircraft out of the range of the hostile missile, and would be hit roughly in 1 hour and 15 min. The importance of the speed in the safety is key, and even it is increased operating inside the own air space, where the hostile fire can be detected many time before to hit your aircrafts. And Russia would pay happily the fuel bill.

    In the WWIII scenario by the time a subsonic plane (Tu-95 and PAK DA) or supersonic plane (Tu-160) arrive to their launch position all of Russias ICBMs and SLBMs would have obliterated the targets and threats hours before...

    Then both of you would design the Tu-PAK-DA to face only the current weapons. In this case I'm not surprised with your arguments.

    The spending required to give the US an IADS would bankrupt them over night...

    It wont happen any time soon.

    Try to open your mind. How would you try to solve it? It is not too difficult to find some option. The necessary technology exists today, but it is used not on this application.

    Even if you put an IIR seeker in its nose and sent it constant course corrections to get it within visual range even a basic AAM could probably bring such a large missile down... and such missiles would be very very expensive.

    Note that the Tu-PAK-DA will not happen any time soom. You can expect expect less than 5 Tu-PAK-DA by 2030.

    Also note that Russia is developping today the MiG-41, a fighter interceptor close to the features that I was exposing for a potential future anti-aircraft missile (as application of today's Surface-Surface missiles). The reality is going one step forward from what you see as impossible or unlikely.

    MiG-41 is still just a concept, no real work has been done on it, and wont probably before 2020. at earliest. And it wont be even close to those numbers you see claimed by various clickbite articles saying it will be hypersonic and similar bs, judging by what certain MiG engineers said it will most likely be just major revision of MiG-31B design.

    The MiG-41 will be contemporary of the Tu-PAK-DA. I expect the first unit of both by 2025, and serial production around 2030. About the features announced, the MiG-41 will be a serious improvement from the MiG-31 (Mach 2.8 ), a design of 50 years old in 2025, and from the MiG-25 (Mach 3.2), a design of 56 years old by 2025. Mach 4.0? maybe.

    Svyatoslavich

    Posts : 344
    Points : 353
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Location : Buenos Aires

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Svyatoslavich on Sat Jan 07, 2017 2:30 am

    kvs wrote:That Rust was not shot down does not mean he was not detected.   High level decisions during Gorbachev's regime are an important element
    in this story.  Rust was probably leveraged by some faction to undermine the Soviet military.   The military was more than likely prevented from
    taking action and in the typical fashion would later take the blame for "failing" to take action.
    Exactly. He was detected, by many ground stations. But after the infamous KAL 007 incident, local commanders lost the power to give orders to shoot down intruders and had to report to central PVO HQ who was the only one who could approve. Of course, no such orders were issued because no one wanted to take the blame again for shooting down a civilian aircraft.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16736
    Points : 17344
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jan 07, 2017 10:47 am

    MiG-41 is still just a concept, no real work has been done on it, and wont probably before 2020. at earliest. And it wont be even close to those numbers you see claimed by various clickbite articles saying it will be hypersonic and similar bs, judging by what certain MiG engineers said it will most likely be just major revision of MiG-31B design.

    Actually I would say with the creation of the Aerospace defence forces that there will be real money put to this development.

    The development of new heat resistant materials (like that heat resistent aluminium they talked about a while back) would be ideal for high speed lightweight aircraft that are not too expensive (ie all made of titanium).

    The main problem with the MiG-25 and MiG-31 is that their engines operate as turbojets even at high speed. Development of scramjet technology means the bypass air from a turbofan design could be adapted so thrust can be generated at high speed.

    Very simply the engine in the MiG-31 is spinning so fast at speeds above mach 2.83 that they can be damaged or destroyed. By using bypass air only small amounts of air can go through the engines with the bypass air having fuel added and burnt like a ramjet. A scramjet design means more air can be used at high speed, so more thrust can be generated.

    Increasing speed to mach 4 should be all about new engine design and of course new materials for the structure to take the high temperatures in the high friction places... I would say 2025 for a first prototype is reasonable.


    _________________
    “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

    marcellogo

    Posts : 78
    Points : 84
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  marcellogo on Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:25 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    MiG-41 is still just a concept, no real work has been done on it, and wont probably before 2020. at earliest. And it wont be even close to those numbers you see claimed by various clickbite articles saying it will be hypersonic and similar bs, judging by what certain MiG engineers said it will most likely be just major revision of MiG-31B design.

    Actually I would say with the creation of the Aerospace defence forces that there will be real money put to this development.

    The development of new heat resistant materials (like that heat resistent aluminium they talked about a while back) would be ideal for high speed lightweight aircraft that are not too expensive (ie all made of titanium).

    The main problem with the MiG-25 and MiG-31 is that their engines operate as turbojets even at high speed. Development of scramjet technology means the bypass air from a turbofan design could be adapted so thrust can be generated at high speed.

    Very simply the engine in the MiG-31 is spinning so fast at speeds above mach 2.83 that they can be damaged or destroyed. By using bypass air only small amounts of air can go through the engines with the bypass air having fuel added and burnt like a ramjet. A scramjet design means more air can be used at high speed, so more thrust can be generated.

    Increasing speed to mach 4 should be all about new engine design and of course new materials for the structure to take the high temperatures in the high friction places...  I would say 2025 for a first prototype is reasonable.
    MiG-31 is basically the same frame that it was at the beginning given that the update it received were all concentered on the avionic part.
    So there are a lot of room for radical improvement of its performance just by rebuilding it at the current technological level.
    An updated version of its current engines giving a 10% power increase and a lighter frame to give it supercruise capability plus an enlarged and more robust wing to enhance its own maneouvrability, a reduced RCS and an ecquivalent of Su-35 and PAK-FA avionic suites would advance its combact effectiveness in a dramatic way even without the mach 4 speed they talked about.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16736
    Points : 17344
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:04 am

    True, but in terms of performance a higher flight speed for an interceptor is a very desirable thing.


    _________________
    “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

    Azi

    Posts : 149
    Points : 151
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Azi on Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:02 pm

    Svyatoslavich wrote:
    kvs wrote:That Rust was not shot down does not mean he was not detected.   High level decisions during Gorbachev's regime are an important element
    in this story.  Rust was probably leveraged by some faction to undermine the Soviet military.   The military was more than likely prevented from
    taking action and in the typical fashion would later take the blame for "failing" to take action.
    Exactly. He was detected, by many ground stations. But after the infamous KAL 007 incident, local commanders lost the power to give orders to shoot down intruders and had to report to central PVO HQ who was the only one who could approve. Of course, no such orders were issued because no one wanted to take the blame again for shooting down a civilian aircraft.
    It's partially correct!

    I read the book of Rust and some reports of the incident.

    He crossed the border to soviet union at Kohtla-Järve, near Nrawa (eastern part of Estona). After a while he was intercepted by a Mig-23 fighter for identification. The pilot identified the Cessna from long distance wrong as a soviet Yak-12 or similar. Because the pilot and other officers thought it must be a small soviet plane so it must have some kind of permission. Of course it had no permission! Rust tried the whole time to be in a height of 600 m, so visible that no bad intentions could be expected. On his way to Moscow he reached a new AD zone after 1-2 hours. In this zone he was again intercepted by a Mig-23. The Mig-23 flew so near that his "heart was near to stop", but no signs were given to land immediatly (wiggling with the wings). Maybe Rust interpret the signs wrong, he was very young and very naiv! He was followed for a longer time but was no real threat! In this period the radar station lost for a few minutes from time to time his signal, because he was changing height due to deep clouds and was flying very very low. He couldn't receive radio messages because his receiver was adjusted for the wrong wavelenghts. He flew, flew, flew and was arrested!

    The flight showed that soviet air defense worked! But at very low altitudes radar stations had problems to track the plane. Also the communication and organisation of the air defense group was not at it's best. The 300 officers and the defense minister lost their job not for nothing!

    So before that flight the air defense in western soviet union was known to be perfect, that no fly could pass without permission. After the flight it was shown it was not soo perfect as assumed. The mistakes were on many levels, political due to KAL 007 and communication of AD zones.

    The problems of detecting a plane at very low altitudes with radar is known for every side. This problem is known to the USA every day, because the drug mafia smuggles nearly EVERY day drugs from mexicao to USA with simple, small old planes. So the concept of B2 of penetrating enemy air defense, avoiding detection via flying low and being low observable, is a really good concept. Ok, destroying mobile russain (soviet) ICBM is bullshit, because the mobilty of such systems is too high. The PAK-DA is duplicating this concept only much better, because 30 years has passed. So PAK-DA will be more modern and cheaper than B-2 ever was. If B-21 comes to life Russia will have the next and better concept I think...
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5557
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:18 am

    GarryB wrote:
    MiG-41 is still just a concept, no real work has been done on it, and wont probably before 2020. at earliest. And it wont be even close to those numbers you see claimed by various clickbite articles saying it will be hypersonic and similar bs, judging by what certain MiG engineers said it will most likely be just major revision of MiG-31B design.

    Actually I would say with the creation of the Aerospace defence forces that there will be real money put to this development.

    The development of new heat resistant materials (like that heat resistent aluminium they talked about a while back) would be ideal for high speed lightweight aircraft that are not too expensive (ie all made of titanium).

    The main problem with the MiG-25 and MiG-31 is that their engines operate as turbojets even at high speed. Development of scramjet technology means the bypass air from a turbofan design could be adapted so thrust can be generated at high speed.

    Very simply the engine in the MiG-31 is spinning so fast at speeds above mach 2.83 that they can be damaged or destroyed. By using bypass air only small amounts of air can go through the engines with the bypass air having fuel added and burnt like a ramjet. A scramjet design means more air can be used at high speed, so more thrust can be generated.

    Increasing speed to mach 4 should be all about new engine design and of course new materials for the structure to take the high temperatures in the high friction places...  I would say 2025 for a first prototype is reasonable.

    Too many ifs for my taste. And i wouldnt keep high hopes for aircraft sized scramjets to be available in 10 years. I might be wrong but i thats my feeling as they still have issues with Izd-30 and scramjet would be major leap, much bigger leap than one currently being made with Izd-30.

    When its about heat resistant alloys, sure, they did some work on those even before 1991. question is where they stand atm, but its probably alot better position than with engines.

    Now what i doubt is that speed those clickbite articles claim of Mach 4, as there are atm very few platforms that would require such high intercept speeds. Like fastest aircraft in NATO atm is F-15 which will cease service in 2030s and you have F-22 only remaining basically, all other platforms are slower or allow only low supercruising. I find speeds similar to MiG-31 more plausible, just with hopefully ALOT more efficient engines and lower empty weight. I wouldnt be suprised also if dimensions would shrink abit compared to MiG-31. Now thats just what i imagine, there is nothing to work with atm as no real info exists.

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:53 pm