Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share

    jhelb
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 419
    Points : 483
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  jhelb on Mon Apr 04, 2016 9:54 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Topol entered operational service in 1985. There was a train based system in service in the 1980s too from memory.

    GarryB, what's the amount of plutonium/enriched uranium in each warhead of the Topol? Thanks.

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 582
    Points : 607
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:45 pm

    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.

    Very interesting comment with some details measured like the survival degree by speed.

    x_54_u43
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 188
    Points : 208
    Join date : 2015-09-19

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  x_54_u43 on Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:30 am

    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.

    I didn't Rogozin posted on RD.net


    In all seriousness, very good post, certainly puts a stop to the crazies stating and wanting PAK-DA to be a subsonic stealth bomber, a B-2ski if you will.

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:08 am

    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.

    +1

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:07 pm

    I don't think anyone wants the PAK DA to be subsonic, but the aircraft it is replacing already is, so it is not like it is a step backwards in terms of speed like the F-14 and F-18 or F-15 and F-16, or indeed the F-16 and F-18 to the F-35.

    Of course the calculations will change again when a strategic hypersonic cruise missile is developed...

    I would think the best bet for a super cruising strategic bomber would be the Tu-160M2 with rather more powerful upgraded engines... if they can get the thrust up to about 35 tons per engine and can increase dry thrust enough they might end up with an aircraft that can perhaps supercruise... or more importantly can retain supersonic speed in dry thrust.

    By definition super cruising requires exceeding the speed of sound with just dry thrust... and that is not strictly required. the important feature is to be able to retain supersonic flight in dry thrust even if you need AB to break the speed of sound if you can throttle back to dry thrust and keep supersonic you will save an enormous amount of fuel and have the benefits of supersonic flight.

    If they can get the new and upgraded Blackjacks to supercruise then I would just go for two engines in the PAK DA and aim for subsonic to reduce weight and cost and maintainence costs so you can put more in service in a greater range of roles.

    Being very long range aircraft both aircraft will be very low drag, so it is of course possible both will be transonic in dry thrust as they approach their launch positions due to the burning of fuel greatly reducing weight allowing a transonic dash home after weapon release.

    As mentioned a higher altitude higher speed release will have a significant effect on weapon flight range and average speed and would greatly improve the performance of a hypersonic missile.

    Note as I have mentioned in the past the hypersonic missile might start out subsonic with large wings and even external fuel tanks to make it strategic in range with the hypersonic section able to cover the last thousand kms in a few minutes...


    As far as I can see, it is the 50 or so Tupolev Tu-160M2 aircraft that are going to replace the Tu-95 Bears.
    In my opinion, the PAK-DA will replace the smaller Tu-22M3.

    Whether it is supersonic or subsonic is another matter.

    The PAK DA was supposed to replace the heavier bomb attack mission of the Tu-22M3M, while the shorter range missions would be carried out by the Su-34, but the PAK DA was also supposed to replace the Tu-95.

    The Tu-160M2 is supposed to make the Blackjack a viable force finally... only about 30 were made and half have been scrapped by the Ukraine... 15-16 just wasn't a viable force so new production is to make it so.

    With strategic bombers being clearly used in conventional warfare thanks to conventional versions of the strategic weapons they will now be much more useful and more usable... we have seen Tu-22M3s bombing targets but its main function was as a strike aircraft with guided missiles against major SAM sites and HQs and indeed ships... there may be a naval PAK DA.... with the new START treaty being very loose and its replacement not certain who knows what will happen.. I would like to see a force of 50-80 Blackjacks and 40-50 PAK DAs replacing the Bears, Blackjacks, and Backfires... obviously old Blackjacks will be upgraded...

    regarding the question about TOPOLs warhead... sorry, I do not know. I couldn't tell you the Uranium content of any Soviet or Russian nuclear warhead.


    Last edited by GarryB on Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:24 pm; edited 1 time in total


    _________________
    “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

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1519
    Points : 1682
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  TheArmenian on Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:13 pm

    GarryB wrote:I don't think anyone wants the PAK DA to be subsonic, but the aircraft it is replacing already is, so it is not like it is a step backwards in terms of speed like the F-14 and F-18 or F-15 and F-16, or indeed the F-16 and F-18 to the F-35.

    Of course the calculations will change again when a strategic hypersonic cruise missile is developed...

    As far as I can see, it is the 50 or so Tupolev Tu-160M2 aircraft that are going to replace the Tu-95 Bears.
    In my opinion, the PAK-DA will replace the smaller Tu-22M3.

    Whether it is supersonic or subsonic is another matter.

    Berkut
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 191
    Points : 216
    Join date : 2015-05-05

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Berkut on Tue Apr 05, 2016 2:29 pm

    x_54_u43 wrote:In all seriousness, very good post, certainly puts a stop to the crazies stating and wanting PAK-DA to be a subsonic stealth bomber, a B-2ski if you will.

    Oh yes, some random user on Russiadefence forums wrote some silly post with half of it in random bold text; that totally proved both the USAF and Russian MoD wrong. What will they do now?!?

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:09 pm

    Berkut wrote:
    x_54_u43 wrote:In all seriousness, very good post, certainly puts a stop to the crazies stating and wanting PAK-DA to be a subsonic stealth bomber, a B-2ski if you will.

    Oh yes, some random user on Russiadefence forums wrote some silly post with half of it in random bold text; that totally proved both the USAF and Russian MoD wrong. What will they do now?!?



    x_54_u43
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 188
    Points : 208
    Join date : 2015-09-19

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  x_54_u43 on Tue Apr 05, 2016 10:09 pm

    Berkut wrote:
    x_54_u43 wrote:In all seriousness, very good post, certainly puts a stop to the crazies stating and wanting PAK-DA to be a subsonic stealth bomber, a B-2ski if you will.

    Oh yes, some random user on Russiadefence forums wrote some silly post with half of it in random bold text; that totally proved both the USAF and Russian MoD wrong. What will they do now?!?

    Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing


    Mindstorm is a very respected authority here.


    But it is clear to me you don't really understand the whole problem with having Russia develop a subsonic, low-observable """"strategic"""" bomber. It did not work for the Americans, it will not work out for the Russians.

    When it comes down to it, speed is of the utmost importance, not stealth, not radars, not EW, simply speed. The B-2 is already obsolete against Soviet-era IADS, I can only imagine the significant overmatch that the new IADS with S-400 and L-band AESAs now possess.

    If Russia, with its relatively small defense budget compared to America can develop such a mighty defense against the B-2, it comes to reason that America, given enough time, can develop an IADS that can defend against a Russian analogue of the B-2.

    The laws of physics are the same for everyone, just because it is Russian will not alleviate the problems of the fact that low-observability is no solid means of an offensive.

    Cruise missiles are quickly losing their strategic potential, newer defenses developed by the year quickly erode their once unmatched standoff conventional attack. There is a reason why Russia is developing hypersonic missiles, speed is the only surefire way to persecute a target within a modern, peer-adversary level IADS.


    If PAK-DA is to be a subsonic, low-observable striker, then so be it. It only means Russia has moved on to a new strategic nuclear offensive method.


    Hypersonic maneuverable gliders on Topol/RS-26 anyone?

    Azi
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 45
    Points : 47
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Azi on Tue Apr 05, 2016 10:19 pm

    The american counterpart to PAK-DA ist the B-2 bomber. So let's have a look at the B-2.
    The B-2 is an awesome bomber and a first strike weapon, it is one of the finest weapon systems the us airforce have. You can compare the B-2 to a ninja, it is made to sneak past the enemy AD zones and to deliver deadly strikes. For this role is speed useless! For the first strike its is irrelevant if the bomber needs 3 hours, 6 hours or 20 hours to reach the destination, because the first strike is planned weeks or days before. So the bomber has every time the initiative and surpise. Russian AD Systems are able to detect stealthy airplanes and drones, because most RAM coating does not work very well at long radar wavelenght. Now we come to the interesting fact, most stealthy features of the B-2 bomber are defined by shape and geometry of the bomber and not of the RAM coating. Indeed the RAM coating of the B-2 lacks in parts! So in contrast to F-35 and F-22 the B-2 is much more able to sneak past russian AD systems. The radar profile is very low, also for long wavelengths. The B-2 is not invisible, please don't misunderstand me, it has only a lower radar profile, so if a B-2 comes too close to a russian AD systems like S-400 it is scrap metal a little bit later.

    The russian concern is to copy this concept of a sneaky bomber and it makes sense, in contrast to russian AD systems the western AD systems are generally not able to detect stealthy aircraft. Some french military personal, and other western countries claimed that they have detected stealth jets, of course, but it is important what was the detection range!? This is the question! So many nato countries must modernize all AD systems, for a maybe a handfull of PAK-DA, this are costs of billions over billions.

    Why is supersonic speed counterproductive? Chiefly PAK-DA must be stealthy and supersonic speed goes hand in hand with a greater IR Emission. IR Emssions are easy to detect and then the bomber will loose the surprise moment, make it a easy prey for interceptors and AD Systems. And why supersonic? You will never be faster with a bomber, than a hostile interceptor or the missiles of the AD System, for this you need hypersonic speed and at this speed the hull of the aircraft become so hot that most RAM coating doesn't work (except anorganic compounds like metalloxide etc.). So you have two choices, hypersonic or really stealthy and the technology for hypersonic bomber is not mature at moment, but russia needs a valuable bomber for Tu-95 replacement in the next years and not in 2050.

    What kind of design will PAK-DA have?
    Well, the best concept for a sneaky bomber is a flying wing. With a flying wing you will have a minimum of reflecting surface. The problem for a flying wing is the aerodynamic characteristic, because without a tail the whole plane is instable at flight. The problems are not that massive and easy to master (see B-2), but russian engineer prefered at every time good aerodynmic characteristic. A second point is that in russian aviation history flying wings are complete exotic and so there is no really expertise in building this kind of aircraft, it's a new field.

    So maybe it is possible to see with the PAK-DA a massive stealth bomber with a tail and not only a flying wing. Russians are specialist to finding a good solution for a good price and i will bet my ass, that the PAK-DA will not cost 1 billion dollar per unit Cool

    (Sorry for my english!)

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  max steel on Tue Apr 05, 2016 10:31 pm

    Hypersonic maneuverable gliders on Topol/RS-26 anyone? Nope they've their own delivery system

    A B-2 Bomber coming from Pacific maybe Japan or Guam or Diego Garcia for an example can't they be traced in AIDZ zones ?

    x_54_u43
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 188
    Points : 208
    Join date : 2015-09-19

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  x_54_u43 on Tue Apr 05, 2016 10:46 pm

    max steel wrote:Hypersonic maneuverable gliders on Topol/RS-26 anyone? Nope they've their own delivery system


    Pretty sure Sarmat is supposed to carry it. And I just put the only names of Russian ICBMs I know, considering they have names like Molodets in them, they all kind of blend together for me.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:55 am

    As mentioned stealthy subsonic bombers are first strike aircraft... something Russia does not really need.

    When the Bears were designed there were no real alternatives to subsonic for strategic range bombers... the Russians made them effective and relevant by arming them with long range cruise missiles.

    Making a two engined cheap to fly bomber that carries a 150 ton payload of fuel and weapons... 10 tons of weapons and 140 tons of fuel for strategic missions and 60 tons of weapons and 90 tons of fuel plus inflight refuelling for theatre bombing/cruise missile delivery.

    Making it a mach 2 bomber like the Tu-22M3 or Tu-160 would require 4 engines and greatly increase max weight and fuel required to basically do the same thing with a supersonic dash in the middle of the flight.

    Keeping it subsonic but making it stealthy means it can operate at high altitude all the way there and back because at standoff ranges provided by cruise missiles it will never get close to enemy radar so stealthy will just make it invisible at the edge of the radar limits or beyond... meaning it can safely launch an attack and turn home with no chance of detection let alone interception.

    As shown in Syria... the new bombers actually have a very good chance of actually being used in a conventional conflict so up to date electronics, stealth, and a good payload are valuable features.

    the ability to supercruise would greatly increase performance... even if it meant one extra engine and an extra 50 tons of fuel... with a low drag design it might not be able to supercruise until it has flown 5,000km and lost some weight (fuel) but the improvement in performance from travelling supersonic in dry thrust cannot be over estimated... it would get there faster than the Tu-160M which would be traveling at half the speed for most of its flight.

    I rather suspect that with 4 new improved engines the main feature of the new Tu-160M2 will be that it will super cruise and therefore travel faster and further without burning more fuel.


    _________________
    “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

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  max steel on Wed Apr 06, 2016 2:18 pm

    x_54_u43 wrote:
    max steel wrote:Hypersonic maneuverable gliders on Topol/RS-26 anyone? Nope they've their own delivery system


    Pretty sure Sarmat is supposed to carry it. And I just put the only names of Russian ICBMs I know, considering they have names like Molodets in them, they all kind of blend together for me.



    RS-18/UR-100NUTTH/SS-19 will be used.

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 582
    Points : 607
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:22 am

    Berkut wrote:
    x_54_u43 wrote:In all seriousness, very good post, certainly puts a stop to the crazies stating and wanting PAK-DA to be a subsonic stealth bomber, a B-2ski if you will.

    Oh yes, some random user on Russiadefence forums wrote some silly post with half of it in random bold text; that totally proved both the USAF and Russian MoD wrong. What will they do now?!?

    Both?

    Until what I know there is no-one Russian official public document saying that the new Tu-PAK-DA will be subsonic. I'm finding, but unsuccessfully. Maybe you can find one to justify why you said both.

    mack8
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 923
    Points : 983
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  mack8 on Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:15 am

    Maybe it's just fan art, but holy cow did you see this? Very Happy

    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 510
    Points : 534
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Big_Gazza on Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:32 pm

    mack8 wrote:Maybe it's just fan art, but holy cow did you see this? Very Happy

    Looks entirely feasible to me...

    jaguar_br
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 8
    Points : 10
    Join date : 2015-03-07

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  jaguar_br on Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:48 pm

    Seems like it have the weight of a Tu-22M, not being a Tu-95/160 class...

    Paralay's renders are used to be confirmed by real prototypes... Well, it ocurred in PAK-FA...

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4855
    Points : 4902
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Thu Apr 07, 2016 3:46 pm

    mack8 wrote:Maybe it's just fan art, but holy cow did you see this? Very Happy

    That is more or less how i see PAK-DA tbh. Tho i am not sure about engine layout and nozzles but hey, one can hope they will be inside the body.

    x_54_u43
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 188
    Points : 208
    Join date : 2015-09-19

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  x_54_u43 on Fri Apr 08, 2016 12:10 am

    Militarov wrote:
    mack8 wrote:Maybe it's just fan art, but holy cow did you see this? Very Happy

    That is more or less how i see PAK-DA tbh. Tho i am not sure about engine layout and nozzles but hey, one can hope they will be inside the body.

    It looks pretty sexy I will admit.


    But when you consider its strategic value....

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:23 am

    Azi wrote:
    What kind of design will PAK-DA have?
    Well, the best concept for a sneaky bomber is a flying wing. With a flying wing you will have a minimum of reflecting surface. The problem for a flying wing is the aerodynamic characteristic, because without a tail the whole plane is instable at flight. The problems are not that massive and easy to master (see B-2), but russian engineer prefered at every time good aerodynmic characteristic. A second point is that in russian aviation history flying wings are complete exotic and so there is no really expertise in building this kind of aircraft, it's a new field.

    So maybe it is possible to see with the PAK-DA a massive stealth bomber with a tail and not only a flying wing. Russians are specialist to finding a good solution for a good price and i will bet my ass, that the PAK-DA will not cost 1 billion dollar per unit Cool

    (Sorry for my english!)

    Horten Ho-229 was tailless and seemed to fly fairly good. In 1944.

    Giulio
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 146
    Points : 169
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Giulio on Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:56 pm

    And why a tailless wing should be "unstable"? A tailless wing should be aerodynamically very efficient: she has not the tail, so, less drag.
    The only "unstable" aircrafts I know are military, high performance fighters like F-15 or Su-27. For those fighters, unstable does not mean the common meaning of the word, but it means the ability to easily exit from its flight attitude, took on another attitude and maintain it without any difficulty (like the "Cobra").
    A normal aircraft is stable in the meaning that the aircraft returns automatically in the former attitude when an external force disturbs him.
    If you put in a wing two down-forced wing tips, you don't need a tail. With downforced (inverted foil) tips, the wing is auto-stable, without a tail and without a flight computer. So, when you pull up, the wing tips become less down-forced, they begin to go up and the nose goes down; when you go in a descent, the wing tips become more down-forced, so they pull down the wing and the nose returns up.

    Azi
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 45
    Points : 47
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Azi on Sat Apr 09, 2016 4:49 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Horten Ho-229 was tailless and seemed to fly fairly good. In 1944.

    The Horten H IX (Ho-229) was in prototype stadium. The first version was a sailplane, without any motor. The second version had 2 jet engines type jumo 004 and crashed after the 4th flight. The other version never flew! Version 6 was only a body.

    The Horten H IX flew only a few times, so a comparison to normal planes at the time was not possible. The Americans had at this time (also later) a lot of problems with flying wings, classified as very unstable but with a great lift. So the great qualities of the Horten was a myth born by the Horten brothers!

    Giulio wrote:And why a tailless wing should be "unstable"? A tailless wing should be aerodynamically very efficient: she has not the tail, so, less drag.
    The only "unstable" aircrafts I know are military, high performance fighters like F-15 or Su-27. For those fighters, unstable does not mean the common meaning of the word, but it means the ability to easily exit from its flight attitude, took on another attitude and maintain it without any difficulty (like the "Cobra").
    A normal aircraft is stable in the meaning that the aircraft returns automatically in the former attitude when an external force disturbs him.
    If you put in a wing two down-forced wing tips, you don't need a tail. With downforced (inverted foil) tips, the wing is auto-stable, without a tail and without a flight computer. So, when you pull up, the wing tips become less down-forced, they begin to go up and the nose goes down; when you go in a descent, the wing tips become more down-forced, so they pull down the wing and the nose returns up.

    In normal situation the flying wing is very stable, but in extreme situations you will have real problems. The flying wing don't forgive radical maneuvers! Because most flying wings are very little nose-heavy, what's why for a tall the plane stabilize not itself (the nose goes down) it goes wiping up, becoming maybe uncontrollable. The so called "Mitteneffekt" is another problematic, if jet is getting faster the flying wing is becoming too nose-heavy, this problem is only a problem of geometry and speed.
    You can easily compensate the problems and instability with dynamic trim. The B-2 bomber have a computer for the stability of the flight, if the computer don't work the aircraft is lost! The B-2 bomber cant't be flown without computer control, other of course can be flown without a computer for example gliders (sail plane). If the centre of mass is right placed everything is good, but the B-2 bomber couldn't be built of the dreams of the engineers, they had to fullfill special requirements and so the PAK-DA will. You are right with wing tips but wingletts for the bomber are a taboo, because of radar reflection.

    In comparison flying wing to tailed aircraft, both have nearly the same drag. It's only a myth that a flying wing have lower drag, because for stabilisation of the aircraft the wing is not perfect anymore, the elemens (profile, elevators etc.) for stabilisation produce the drag!

    If where would be no problems with flying wings, every plane would be a flying wing today. They have some really good characteristics (great lift, saving fuel), but they have also some bad characteristics.

    But you are complete right with the statement, that most modern fighters are unstable! More instability means better maneuverability. But don't forget, the PAK-DA will be a big bird, like the B-2 and not like the Typhoon. Bigger aircraft, more problems, that's a reason why the B-2 costs nearly 2 billion dollar (all inclusive). Advantage for the Russians, they can copy a lot of the technology from USA What a Face that will help to save costs.

    It was not my intention to critize the concept of a flying wing. The PAK-DA will be a subsonic flying wing, after all announcemnets made. It will be related to the B-2 and B-21 bomber. But flying wings have no better fly characteristics, than tailed aircraft, only exceptions is the greater lift and the saving of up to 25 % of fuel. The great characteristic for a real flying wing is the low radar profile and that's what make it so sexy. So everything is ok Wink

    max steel wrote:A B-2 Bomber coming from Pacific maybe Japan or Guam or Diego Garcia for an example can't they be traced in AIDZ zones ?
    With transponder on and saying "hello" of course, with transponder off normally not in ADIZ. But the B-2 is not complete invisible, he "blinks" sometimes, if he have the wrong angle to the radar station. And too near to a radarstation he is also visible.


    Last edited by Azi on Mon Apr 11, 2016 8:08 am; edited 3 times in total (Reason for editing : orthography etc.)

    Azi
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 45
    Points : 47
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Azi on Sat Apr 09, 2016 5:45 pm

    mack8 wrote:Maybe it's just fan art, but holy cow did you see this? Very Happy
    Looks nice, but wingletts are a taboo for a stealth bomber! The bomber seems also very small, not really a replacement for the Tu-95.

    But looks very sexy! thumbsup

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9446
    Points : 9938
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  George1 on Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:56 pm

    Russian Space-Age Stealth Bomber to Hit the Skies With Hypersonic Weapons

    Russia is pressing ahead with plans to develop its new PAK-DA stealth bomber, which is on par with its US analogues and will carry an array of modern weapons, including hypersonic missiles.

    The PAK-DA, which is being developed by Tupolev, is expected to be a subsonic flying-wing aircraft that is roughly analogous to the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit and the US Air Force’s forthcoming Long Range Strike-Bomber, National Interest wrote.

    The PAK-DA is likely to feature many of the technologies that are expected to be incorporated into the new Tu-160M2 version.

    In a break from previous Russian and Soviet bombers, which focused on using a combination of speed and long-range cruise missiles to deliver their payloads, the PAK-DA is the first Russian bomber optimized for stealth.

    That said, the PAK-DA will probably not be a small aircraft, close in size to a Boeing 757.

    It is expected to have a range of 6,740 nautical miles. It will also be able to carry 30 tons of weapons.

    PAK-DA will serve as a launch platform for long-range nuclear and conventional cruise missiles and a host of precision-guided munitions. It might also eventually be armed with hypersonic missiles, National Interest wrote.

    The new bomber is expected to make its first flight sometime before 2021, with the first deliveries starting in 2023.

    The PAK-DA will be a unique project in the history of Russian aviation since it will be a "flying wing" aircraft, a design never used before by Russian engineers. It will fly at subsonic speeds and the large wingspan and design features will provide the jet with reduced visibility to radar.

    “This is a fundamentally new plane with a new sighting and navigation system. This plane will be equipped with the latest communication systems and electronic warfare, and will have little visibility to radar,” Long-Range Aviation Commander Lt.-Gen. Anatoly Zhuravlev said.

    The PAK-DA project was launched in 2009. The military intended to receive a single type of long-range bomber to replace the current Tu-160, Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160420/1038309843/russia-stealth-bomber.html#ixzz46P0ri7Mw


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 6:41 am


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:41 am