Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share
    avatar
    eehnie
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1025
    Points : 1048
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Mon Feb 13, 2017 7:12 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    If the Tu-PAK-DA would be subsonic would not need the angles, and would not need the structural resistance of this part of the Tu-160. It would be an expensive non-sense that both aircrafts would share this part.

    With the time you will have to try better defending that this aircraft will be subsonic.

    With its wings swept forward the Tu-160 is an excellent design for subsonic flight, and for supersonic flight it just needs its wings to swing back.

    A fixed near straight wing could be used with the front fuselage of the Tu-160 to make an excellent subsonic only bomber.

    One example to see it easily. The Fiat group would be able to share the engine of their Formula 1 Ferraris with every other car that they sale. But they do not it, and they design other engines for different car models. In this case obviously to share components can increase the costs.

    Funny, because with their previous two bombers they actually did the opposite to what you are suggesting.

    The Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 are both large bomber aircraft intended to fly great distances at supersonic speeds yet their engines have similar specifications yet are different and not compatible...

    I suspect the upgraded engine being developed for the Tu-160M2 will also be used for the PAK DA... They might not include afterburner and it might be a high bypass engine optimised for lower speeds but it will likely share the same core.

    If Russia would be designing a subsonic aircraft and would be looking to share components of other aircrafts to reduce costs, the Il-96 is in the same weight class of the Tu-160, and has its structure adapted to subsonic requirements.

    Except that the Il-96 is not at all stealthy and neither are podded engines.


    Being good for subsonic fly, the structure of the Tu-160 is oversized in terms of structural resistance for subsonic fly. Like the Formula 1 engine is oversized to run in the streets every day. If the Tu-PAK-DA is designed subsonic, most of the structural components of the Tu-160 would be oversized for the Tu-PAK-DA.

    It is logical to see the Tu-160 and the Tu-22 sharing components because both are supersonic. It is logical to see the Toro Rosso Formula 1 using engines of the Ferrari Formula 1. It is logical to see the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA sharing components, including structural components or engines, despite that Tu-160 is not stealthy (like the Il-86/80/96). But this sharing of components at structural and engine level is not compatible with a Tu-PAK-DA unable to reach supersonic fly like you defend.

    Obviously you are not understanding why, but you need to think why the Tu-160 sared components with the Tu-22 instead of with the Tu-95/142.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5377
    Points : 5422
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Mon Feb 13, 2017 9:33 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Rmf wrote:
    GarryB wrote:It is the centre body... the angles for it are designed for a supersonic bomber, but it is the outer wing area that actually allows it to fly supersonically... when those outer wing areas are swept back.

    On a flying wing if there is no swing mechanism then the wing will either be swept... allowing supersonic flight... but not allowing takeoff or landing... or they will be relatively straight wings allowing takeoff, landing, and subsonic flight.

    The question is, does it need this heavy central box structure to house a swing wing mechanism... unheard of in a pure flying wing design of course because swing wing allows low drag for supersonic flight but a flying wing design cannot fly supersonically because the centre of gravity of the aircraft shifts radically as the aircraft moves from subsonic to supersonic flight and only a significant tail surface can correct for that... unless of course they want to use thrust vectoring engines to correct the pitch...

    A flying wing with TVC engines and outer wings that can be swept back could possibly be able to fly supersonically and such a low drag design should be able to supercruise fairly easily... it will be interesting to see what they come up with.
    dont get carried away it will be subsonic period, that large part behind it is the streghtened titanium and swing wing mechanism and it wont be in pak-da , the circled part  has thick profile anyway and it will curve into low swept thick wing. many componenets will be simmilar or same in both bombers so i guess thats part of the reason why they restart tu-160 anyway .

    Structurally this part that would share the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA is very important, not only by the angles, also by the structural resistance that provides to the entire aircraft.

    If the Tu-PAK-DA would be subsonic would not need the angles, and would not need the structural resistance of this part of the Tu-160. It would be an expensive non-sense that both aircrafts would share this part.

    With the time you will have to try better defending that this aircraft will be subsonic.

    What angles are you talking about again... term "angles" is not very technical, and means literally nothing here. Be abit more precise.

    Actually components sharing can only reduce cost not increase it.

    Also, "structural resistance" as you call it, can provide bort with longer lifespan, its not only relative to the stress it will face during exploatation.

    Obviously the angles in the structural nods that are under the cover of the part signaled in the picture, not only the external angles. These angles are designed to support the wings and the efforts of a supersonic aircraft.

    And not only the angles, every other dimension (including the affected by the selection of materials) in the main structure or the cover of this part is designed to support the efforts of a supersonic aircraft.

    A non-sense to use them in a subsonic aircraft. Now, let me to see your "technical" justification of it please. I will not be the alone passing exams here.

    As example GarryB was caught trying to make conclussions in the case of the Il-PAK-TA arguing about angles over the basis of a draw done by freehand drawing (a shame):

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t4312-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet#111555
    http://www.russiadefence.net/t4312-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet#111604

    Let me to see as example if you manage properly the theorical basis of something as basic as the Finite Element Method. Many engineers of three or four years in the engineering school know the use of the method and its variants in some software, but know not the theorical basis of the Method. Are you one of them? Or not even it like GarryB? Despite my lower English level I will see easily if you know of what are you talking about at a theorical level.

    Here is your first mistake:

    Militarov wrote:Actually components sharing can only reduce cost not increase it.

    It shows you have almost 0 konwledge about economic management, something that is not incompatible with some technical formation, but obviously you are not an engineer with knowledge on economic management.

    One example to see it easily. The Fiat group would be able to share the engine of their Formula 1 Ferraris with every other car that they sale. But they do not it, and they design other engines for different car models. In this case obviously to share components can increase the costs.

    If Russia would be designing a subsonic aircraft and would be looking to share components of other aircrafts to reduce costs, the Il-86/80/96 is in the same weight class of the Tu-160, and has its structure adapted to subsonic requirements.

    And you think that supersonic transport model some random guy on youtube rendered is capable of being supersonic with non-afterburning engines and what-not? Because... that thing, in those drawings, cant be supersonic i can tell you that even without going any deeper than first drawing.

    Now when we are about bomber topic, lets pile up what Russian officials said as of now:

    1. It will be FLYING WING
    2. It will use NON-AFTERBURNER engines
    3. It will have number of unifications with Tu-160M2 and PAK-FA

    So, you are basically saying that this bomber will be... supersonic flying wing with no afterburners? That, i am sorry to break it for you, isnt possible. Because, if they do that what you are suggesting, i will jump off my building on live stream on Twitch, naked with carrot up my ass and swastika tatooed on my chest. Because Russians obviously mastered anti-gravity tech from Independence day alien race.

    Now about components unification. Part itself is just one tiny drop in whole calculation. Do you have any idea how much costs to develop tooling for certain part? It actually costs more than a machine that will use that tool to cast, weld, bash or whatever that piece. Now if you skip new tooling, if you skip new machines, if you skip in future cost of maintenance and spare parts, you elimiate additional technician training etc, etc. There is, no way in hell it will somehow get less expensive to develop something from scratch.

    Also your example is totally silly, those two things have nothing in common, first of all i do not want car with Formula 1 engine, because i am not interested in paying registration and fuel for something that has engine lifespan of 10 grocery store runs and drinks fuel like retired Soviet colonel drinks vodka. In our case that we have in front of us, it doesnt really matter at all, we get 10-20% more expencive piece that in return has longer lifespan and reduced overall logistics. On top of everything you basically get half of aircrafts hull structure on the plate.

    All this naturally IF they really decide to use this centerline section as it is.
    avatar
    hoom
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 411
    Points : 411
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  hoom on Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:46 am

    2. It will use NON-AFTERBURNER engines
    Did they actually say that, I thought its using upgraded Tu-160 engines?
    Non-afterburning would mean a much smaller plane than Tu-160.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 14, 2017 8:26 am

    Being good for subsonic fly, the structure of the Tu-160 is oversized in terms of structural resistance for subsonic fly. Like the Formula 1 engine is oversized to run in the streets every day. If the Tu-PAK-DA is designed subsonic, most of the structural components of the Tu-160 would be oversized for the Tu-PAK-DA.

    ??

    The PAK DA will need a strong structure because it will carry a heavy load of weapons or a heavy load of fuel.

    Strength is not really an issue for different flight speeds... shape has more to do with speed.

    despite that Tu-160 is not stealthy (like the Il-86/80/96)

    Actually it has a reduced radar signature, but it is not actually stealthy.

    But this sharing of components at structural and engine level is not compatible with a Tu-PAK-DA unable to reach supersonic fly like you defend.

    I would prefer to hear they are making the PAK FA able to supercruise, but the facts are that the information revealed so far is that it is a subsonic flying wing type.

    Obviously you are not understanding why, but you need to think why the Tu-160 sared components with the Tu-22 instead of with the Tu-95/142.

    The Tu-160 does not share parts with the Tu-22M3... I think they should have the same engines... they fly at the same speeds and are both big bomber types and they are both made by the same company but the engines are different.

    With the new upgrades some of the systems they are installing are the same AFAIK, but we have not heard anything about new engines for both.

    I rather suspect the PAK DA will replace the Tu-22M3 in the theatre bombing role and the latter will be steadily withdrawn from service after the Tu-160M2 and PAK DA enter production... the Tu-95s will likely be replaced by the PAK DA first.

    Did they actually say that, I thought its using upgraded Tu-160 engines?
    Non-afterburning would mean a much smaller plane than Tu-160.

    No it would not.

    If you want to retain high speed then after burner is essential so the Tu-22M3 could use the two of the engines from the Tu-160 and be supersonic, but only using two it would have to be much smaller.

    If you take away the afterburner then no matter how many engines the PAKDA has it cannot be mach 2.

    If they are low bypass turbojets of 5th gen based on the 25 ton thrust engines from the Tu-160 that have been upgraded to perhaps put out about 35 tons of thrust in AB and you keep four of them in the aircraft then you will lose the mach 2 capability but you could possibly keep a supercruising capability of mach 1.4-1.5 or so with no afterburner as long as dry thrust is increased to 20-22 tons thrust per engine.

    Think of it in terms of the F-14A and F-14D... the D had upgraded engines that were as powerful in dry thrust as the engines of the A model were in full AB so the D model could take off without full AB and was a much better aircraft...

    They have however said it was a flying wing and that it would be subsonic and stealthy.

    Of course it is very early in its development and in the past things have started out one way and ended another.

    Before the Blackjack was built the requirements were for a Mach 3 bomber to compete with the American Valkyrie. That is why the Sukhoi bureau put forward the T-4MS design.

    Tupolev realised such a design would be very expensive to buy and operate and the extra speed would not make it safe so it continued with what ended up being the Tu-160.

    If you had asked a Russian official in the know at this part of the development process what the new Soviet bomber would be like he would say a mach 3 design... and he would not be lying but he would be wrong.

    Personally I hope they at least manage a supercruising flying wing with some tail structure a bit like the T-4MS but more advanced.


    _________________
    “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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1025
    Points : 1048
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:40 am

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Rmf wrote:
    GarryB wrote:It is the centre body... the angles for it are designed for a supersonic bomber, but it is the outer wing area that actually allows it to fly supersonically... when those outer wing areas are swept back.

    On a flying wing if there is no swing mechanism then the wing will either be swept... allowing supersonic flight... but not allowing takeoff or landing... or they will be relatively straight wings allowing takeoff, landing, and subsonic flight.

    The question is, does it need this heavy central box structure to house a swing wing mechanism... unheard of in a pure flying wing design of course because swing wing allows low drag for supersonic flight but a flying wing design cannot fly supersonically because the centre of gravity of the aircraft shifts radically as the aircraft moves from subsonic to supersonic flight and only a significant tail surface can correct for that... unless of course they want to use thrust vectoring engines to correct the pitch...

    A flying wing with TVC engines and outer wings that can be swept back could possibly be able to fly supersonically and such a low drag design should be able to supercruise fairly easily... it will be interesting to see what they come up with.
    dont get carried away it will be subsonic period, that large part behind it is the streghtened titanium and swing wing mechanism and it wont be in pak-da , the circled part  has thick profile anyway and it will curve into low swept thick wing. many componenets will be simmilar or same in both bombers so i guess thats part of the reason why they restart tu-160 anyway .

    Structurally this part that would share the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA is very important, not only by the angles, also by the structural resistance that provides to the entire aircraft.

    If the Tu-PAK-DA would be subsonic would not need the angles, and would not need the structural resistance of this part of the Tu-160. It would be an expensive non-sense that both aircrafts would share this part.

    With the time you will have to try better defending that this aircraft will be subsonic.

    What angles are you talking about again... term "angles" is not very technical, and means literally nothing here. Be abit more precise.

    Actually components sharing can only reduce cost not increase it.

    Also, "structural resistance" as you call it, can provide bort with longer lifespan, its not only relative to the stress it will face during exploatation.

    Obviously the angles in the structural nods that are under the cover of the part signaled in the picture, not only the external angles. These angles are designed to support the wings and the efforts of a supersonic aircraft.

    And not only the angles, every other dimension (including the affected by the selection of materials) in the main structure or the cover of this part is designed to support the efforts of a supersonic aircraft.

    A non-sense to use them in a subsonic aircraft. Now, let me to see your "technical" justification of it please. I will not be the alone passing exams here.

    As example GarryB was caught trying to make conclussions in the case of the Il-PAK-TA arguing about angles over the basis of a draw done by freehand drawing (a shame):

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t4312-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet#111555
    http://www.russiadefence.net/t4312-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet#111604

    Let me to see as example if you manage properly the theorical basis of something as basic as the Finite Element Method. Many engineers of three or four years in the engineering school know the use of the method and its variants in some software, but know not the theorical basis of the Method. Are you one of them? Or not even it like GarryB? Despite my lower English level I will see easily if you know of what are you talking about at a theorical level.

    Here is your first mistake:

    Militarov wrote:Actually components sharing can only reduce cost not increase it.

    It shows you have almost 0 konwledge about economic management, something that is not incompatible with some technical formation, but obviously you are not an engineer with knowledge on economic management.

    One example to see it easily. The Fiat group would be able to share the engine of their Formula 1 Ferraris with every other car that they sale. But they do not it, and they design other engines for different car models. In this case obviously to share components can increase the costs.

    If Russia would be designing a subsonic aircraft and would be looking to share components of other aircrafts to reduce costs, the Il-86/80/96 is in the same weight class of the Tu-160, and has its structure adapted to subsonic requirements.

    And you think that supersonic transport model some random guy on youtube rendered is capable of being supersonic with non-afterburning engines and what-not? Because... that thing, in those drawings, cant be supersonic i can tell you that even without going any deeper than first drawing.

    Now when we are about bomber topic, lets pile up what Russian officials said as of now:

    1. It will be FLYING WING
    2. It will use NON-AFTERBURNER engines
    3. It will have number of unifications with Tu-160M2 and PAK-FA

    So, you are basically saying that this bomber will be... supersonic flying wing with no afterburners? That, i am sorry to break it for you, isnt possible. Because, if they do that what you are suggesting, i will jump off my building on live stream on Twitch, naked with carrot up my ass and swastika tatooed on my chest. Because Russians obviously mastered anti-gravity tech from Independence day alien race.

    Now about components unification. Part itself is just one tiny drop in whole calculation. Do you have any idea how much costs to develop tooling for certain part? It actually costs more than a machine that will use that tool to cast, weld, bash or whatever that piece. Now if you skip new tooling, if you skip new machines, if you skip in future cost of maintenance and spare parts, you elimiate additional technician training etc, etc. There is, no way in hell it will somehow get less expensive to develop something from scratch.

    Also your example is totally silly, those two things have nothing in common, first of all i do not want car with Formula 1 engine, because i am not interested in paying registration and fuel for something that has engine lifespan of 10 grocery store runs and drinks fuel like retired Soviet colonel drinks vodka. In our case that we have in front of us, it doesnt really matter at all, we get 10-20% more expencive piece that in return has longer lifespan and reduced overall logistics. On top of everything you basically get half of aircrafts hull structure on the plate.

    All this naturally IF they really decide to use this centerline section as it is.

    1.- Links?. Also, I would like you explain your criteria to know when you trust the words of the Russian officials, and when you trust not them (like in the case of the delivery of S-300 to the Syrian Arab Republic).

    2.- The example of the Formula 1 engines is easy to see for all the people. Your comment was wrong and was a mistake in one of the most basic things that are learned in every engineering degree with some orientation toward the economic management. Even if we compare the maximum speed relation between (max speed of Formula 1 cars)/(max speed of normal cars) and the relation between the (max speed of supersonic aircrafts)/(max speed of subsonic aircrafts), we can see that the difference is not big, but rating is bigger in the case of the aircrafts, because the difference between speeds is bigger in the case of the aircrafts. It gives to the people some idea of how oversized would be supersonic engines for subsonic aircrafts. With the main structure of the aircraft it happens something similar.

    3.- I said nothing about afterburners until now. Then obviously you are liyinga about what I think or said about it. To begin with it, a key question first. Do you think the new Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA will share engines? Taking your argument:

    - According to your previous comment, the Tu-PAK-DA will have engines without afterburners because suposedly Russian officials said it (pending link), and as consequence the Tu-PAK-DA can not be supersonic (in your opinion).
    - According to your previous comment The new Tu-160 instead, must have engines with afterburners to remain supersonic (in your opinion).

    The adition/mix of these two premises implies that the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA can not share engines. Do you really think it?


    Last edited by eehnie on Tue Feb 14, 2017 6:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    eehnie
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1025
    Points : 1048
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:04 pm

    GarryB, as every engineer with some mechanical formation knows, the own weight cause not the main efforts that determine the structure of a supersonic aircraft.

    Again, the Il-86/80/96 is in the same weight class of the Tu-160, but has its structure adapted to only-subsonic fly.

    Again, clearly, you know not what you are talking about.
    avatar
    Rmf
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 463
    Points : 452
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Rmf on Tue Feb 14, 2017 8:52 pm

    but tu-160 and tu-22m do share some parts -nose and pilot cabin.
    it seems you see what youwant to see red part is titanium that holds wings !!!,blue is aluminium!!!,central box will curve out into flying wing .

    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5377
    Points : 5422
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:45 pm

    hoom wrote:
    2. It will use NON-AFTERBURNER engines
    Did they actually say that, I thought its using upgraded Tu-160 engines?
    Non-afterburning would mean a much smaller plane than Tu-160.

    Yes, they said it will use non-afterburner (modernised?) variant of NK-32.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:58 am

    Again, the Il-86/80/96 is in the same weight class of the Tu-160, but has its structure adapted to only-subsonic fly.

    The structure of the Il-86/80/96 is optimised for a large full length pressure cylinder in which the passengers sit and move around it.

    In a bomber only the crew compartment is pressurised heated and the bomb bay is pressurised and heated if it is to carry nuclear weapons.

    The only difference between a supersonic plane and a subsonic one pertains to area rule design to ensure the capability of supersonic flight... and of course all moving tailerons and other little secrets...

    but tu-160 and tu-22m do share some parts -nose and pilot cabin.

    They share features... the parts are not interchangeable...

    The new tooling to make the new Tu-160Ms will be reused to make the PAK DA.

    When the Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 were originally made they were made in different factories with different equipment and the engines and systems were made by different companies so there was no need to make them compatible. The aircraft would not even be based at the same airfields necessarily as their missions were totally different so there was no benefit to having them use the same equipment.

    Now however parts and engines and radars and systems can be made on the same tooling in the same factory at a lower cost and faster.

    it seems you see what youwant to see red part is titanium that holds wings !!!,blue is aluminium!!!,central box will curve out into flying wing .

    If the blue bit is the shared bit where are the side mounted air intakes for the Tu-22M3?

    Yes, they said it will use non-afterburner (modernised?) variant of NK-32.

    Yep... that is my understanding too.

    I hope they make a few different types... an MPA, an AWACS version, an inflight refuelling tanker, a JSTARS type aircraft... as well as the strategic/theatre bomber version. None of those need supersonic flight speed and would benefit from long range and decent payload capacity.


    _________________
    “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
    hoom
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 411
    Points : 411
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  hoom on Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:41 am

    it seems you see what youwant to see red part is titanium that holds wings !!!,blue is aluminium!!!,central box will curve out into flying wing .
    Yes the truely unique bit of engineering of Tu-160 that makes sense to re-use is the giant titanium swing-wing hinge box at least if you're planning on making a swing-wing bomber either a stealthised Tu-160 rework or a modernised T-4MS.
    Your blue bit is pretty much just any old bit of aluminium fuselage that makes barely any sense to re-use especially if you're trying to make a B2 type stealth flying wing.

    Enera
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 5
    Points : 7
    Join date : 2017-01-05
    Location : Malaysia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Enera on Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:30 pm

    I think if PAK-DA is supposedly a supersonic flying wing, it could be theoretically done; following BAE's Taranis and Dassault's Neuron UCAVs, both are projected to be supersonic when they have the engines for it. After all, a military turbofan can reach supersonic speed without needing afterburners where this is called as supercruise if the engine have enough dry thrust for it. The rest would depend on the shape where the said flying wing must look like some sort of flying spade to minimize drag. In terms of controlling the said flying wing, there were developments into blown flaps/fluidic spoilers in the Western world where air is bled from the engines and toward the wing, to act like a flap.

    That said, tail stabilizers in turn can be somewhat mimicked by fluidic thrust vectoring (FTV) where air bypass from the engines are used to affect the thrust direction of the engines' exhausts respectively. Both fluidic spoiler and FTV were simultaneously demonstrated in BAE's Demon UCAV study where it flies (albeit subsonically) without any flap or stabilizers, relying on air bleed to do all traditional maneuvers. Now whether the designers wanted to try something as experimental as aforementioned is anyone's guess but on theoretical standpoint, only budget (and time) would preclude a supersonic flying wing.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5377
    Points : 5422
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:01 pm

    Enera wrote:I think if PAK-DA is supposedly a supersonic flying wing, it could be theoretically done; following BAE's Taranis and Dassault's Neuron UCAVs, both are projected to be supersonic when they have the engines for it. After all, a military turbofan can reach supersonic speed without needing afterburners where this is called as supercruise if the engine have enough dry thrust for it. The rest would depend on the shape where the said flying wing must look like some sort of flying spade to minimize drag. In terms of controlling the said flying wing, there were developments into blown flaps/fluidic spoilers in the Western world where air is bled from the engines and toward the wing, to act like a flap.

    That said, tail stabilizers in turn can be somewhat mimicked by fluidic thrust vectoring (FTV) where air bypass from the engines are used to affect the thrust direction of the engines' exhausts respectively. Both fluidic spoiler and FTV were simultaneously demonstrated in BAE's Demon UCAV study where it flies (albeit subsonically) without any flap or stabilizers, relying on air bleed to do all traditional maneuvers. Now whether the designers wanted to try something as experimental as aforementioned is anyone's guess but on theoretical standpoint, only budget (and time) would preclude a supersonic flying wing.

    Supersonic and flying wing do not go together, sry. If you want to modify flying wing to be able of being supersonic, it will lose flying wing configuration, it will be some sort of hybrid.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5377
    Points : 5422
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:03 pm

    GarryB wrote:Yep... that is my understanding too.

    I hope they make a few different types... an MPA, an AWACS version, an inflight refuelling tanker, a JSTARS type aircraft... as well as the strategic/theatre bomber version.  None of those need supersonic flight speed and would benefit from long range and decent payload capacity.

    Abit doubtful on that one, flying wing isnt very friendly for modifications like commercial liners are. I would rather expect in future such modifications of MS-21 or similar.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5377
    Points : 5422
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:08 pm

    eehnie wrote:1.- Links?. Also, I would like you explain your criteria to know when you trust the words of the Russian officials, and when you trust not them (like in the case of the delivery of S-300 to the Syrian Arab Republic).

    2.- The example of the Formula 1 engines is easy to see for all the people. Your comment was wrong and was a mistake in one of the most basic things that are learned in every engineering degree with some orientation toward the economic management. Even if we compare the maximum speed relation between (max speed of Formula 1 cars)/(max speed of normal cars) and the relation between the (max speed of supersonic aircrafts)/(max speed of subsonic aircrafts), we can see that the difference is not big, but rating is bigger in the case of the aircrafts, because the difference between speeds is bigger in the case of the aircrafts. It gives to the people some idea of how oversized would be supersonic engines for subsonic aircrafts. With the main structure of the aircraft it happens something similar.

    3.- I said nothing about afterburners until now. Then obviously you are liyinga about what I think or said about it. To begin with it, a key question first. Do you think the new Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA will share engines? Taking your argument:

    - According to your previous comment, the Tu-PAK-DA will have engines without afterburners because suposedly Russian officials said it (pending link), and as consequence the Tu-PAK-DA can not be supersonic (in your opinion).
    - According to your previous comment The new Tu-160 instead, must have engines with afterburners to remain supersonic (in your opinion).

    The adition/mix of these two premises implies that the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA can not share engines. Do you really think it?

    Maybe because you decide on spot what means their statement? Because no Russian official ever stated that S-300 was given to SAA but that it was transfered to Syria, and there is no single proof of that what you belive, we already concluded that... more than once i must add. So the first moment you get proof of Syrian crew in S-300, call us.

    Ok, now.

    Viktor Bondarev:

    "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." - So flying wing, subsonic.

    When its about the engines: http://www.en.take-off.ru/news/107-june2012/728-pd30futurerussianthirtytonner

    "Kuznetsov is going to use its gearbox and low-emission combustor technology advance and take the production NK-32’s modified core as a basis of the future design. The government ordered a resumption of the full-rate production of the NK-32 in support of the Defence Ministry, but the volume of production required is small, which will make the use of its core under other programmes, particularly, the PD-30, come in handy."

    Getting any vibes from it?

    So, subsonic, flying wing with non-afterburner turbofans... naturally it will be hypersonic thumbsup
    avatar
    eehnie
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1025
    Points : 1048
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:50 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:1.- Links?. Also, I would like you explain your criteria to know when you trust the words of the Russian officials, and when you trust not them (like in the case of the delivery of S-300 to the Syrian Arab Republic).

    2.- The example of the Formula 1 engines is easy to see for all the people. Your comment was wrong and was a mistake in one of the most basic things that are learned in every engineering degree with some orientation toward the economic management. Even if we compare the maximum speed relation between (max speed of Formula 1 cars)/(max speed of normal cars) and the relation between the (max speed of supersonic aircrafts)/(max speed of subsonic aircrafts), we can see that the difference is not big, but rating is bigger in the case of the aircrafts, because the difference between speeds is bigger in the case of the aircrafts. It gives to the people some idea of how oversized would be supersonic engines for subsonic aircrafts. With the main structure of the aircraft it happens something similar.

    3.- I said nothing about afterburners until now. Then obviously you are liyinga about what I think or said about it. To begin with it, a key question first. Do you think the new Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA will share engines? Taking your argument:

    - According to your previous comment, the Tu-PAK-DA will have engines without afterburners because suposedly Russian officials said it (pending link), and as consequence the Tu-PAK-DA can not be supersonic (in your opinion).
    - According to your previous comment The new Tu-160 instead, must have engines with afterburners to remain supersonic (in your opinion).

    The adition/mix of these two premises implies that the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA can not share engines. Do you really think it?

    Maybe because you decide on spot what means their statement? Because no Russian official ever stated that S-300 was given to SAA but that it was transfered to Syria, and there is no single proof of that what you belive, we already concluded that... more than once i must add. So the first moment you get proof of Syrian crew in S-300, call us.

    Ok, now.

    Viktor Bondarev:

    "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." - So flying wing, subsonic.

    When its about the engines: http://www.en.take-off.ru/news/107-june2012/728-pd30futurerussianthirtytonner

    "Kuznetsov is going to use its gearbox and low-emission combustor technology advance and take the production NK-32’s modified core as a basis of the future design. The government ordered a resumption of the full-rate production of the NK-32 in support of the Defence Ministry, but the volume of production required is small, which will make the use of its core under other programmes, particularly, the PD-30, come in handy."

    Getting any vibes from it?

    So, subsonic, flying wing with non-afterburner turbofans... naturally it will be hypersonic thumbsup

    Do not lie man, the Russian Deputy Minister of Defense was quite clear and explicit:

    https://www.rt.com/news/361586-russia-s300-supplied-syria/

    Konashenkov wrote:the Syrian Arab Republic received an S-300 anti-aircraft missile system

    Even more clear than your supposed quote (pending link still):

    supposedly Bondarev wrote: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.

    Because every aircraft flies at subsonic speeds. It is not a denial of the aircraft also flying at supersonic speeds.

    Also your link about the engine says nothing about the Tu-PAK-DA, even when explicitly says "for airliners and freighters", and " something that would exclude the PAK-DA. Also the last sentence of the following quote excludes the Tu-PAK-DA.

    take-off.ru wrote:The Samara Kuznetsov JSC, a subsidiary of the United Engine Corporation (UEC), known for its powerful engines mounted by long-range bombers, is running pilot work on an advanced turbofan with a thrust of 30 tf for airliners and freighters, designated as PD-30. In the future, such an engine could power future passenger and cargo planes, being developed under the Aircraft 2020 programme, and the upgraded Antonov An-124-300 Ruslan heavylifter as well.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:46 am

    I think if PAK-DA is supposedly a supersonic flying wing,

    If the PAK DA is going to be supersonic what is the point of making more Tu-160s?

    Why not just make a PAK DA factory and make 200 PAK DAs and replace the Tu-95 and Tu-160s.

    What they have said is that they are making more Tu-160 supersonic bombers... another 50 will give them 70-75 odd aircraft which is enough to be a useful force.

    They will make probably 100 PAK DAs to replace all the Tu-95s and to replace the Tu-22M3s in the theatre bomber role too... for which they don't need a supersonic plane... they already have the Tu-160s if they need a supersonic plane.

    After all, a military turbofan can reach supersonic speed without needing afterburners where this is called as supercruise if the engine have enough dry thrust for it. The rest would depend on the shape where the said flying wing must look like some sort of flying spade to minimize drag. In terms of controlling the said flying wing, there were developments into blown flaps/fluidic spoilers in the Western world where air is bled from the engines and toward the wing, to act like a flap.

    The Russians have thrust vectored engine nozzles ready for service.

    MiG-21s had blown flaps.

    The main point is that they don't need another supersonic bomber... they already have one in the Blackjack.

    Now whether the designers wanted to try something as experimental as aforementioned is anyone's guess but on theoretical standpoint, only budget (and time) would preclude a supersonic flying wing.

    A lot of risk.

    But then for a flying wing with no tail surfaces having TVC engines would actually be very useful as they could be used to trim the aircraft in different cruise modes and different flight speeds to minimise drag and cruise rather more efficiently.
    Spaced engines would allow much better yaw control than differential use of conventional control surfaces which would also allow RCS to be minimised while manouvering.

    Abit doubtful on that one, flying wing isnt very friendly for modifications like commercial liners are. I would rather expect in future such modifications of MS-21 or similar.

    The requirements for a long range bomber are lots of fuel and internal space for weapons.... requirements for a theatre bomber is some fuel but lots of internal space for lots of bombs... requirements for AWACS could be met with wing leading edge and trailing edge radar... photonic models when available... and lots of fuel... for a tanker lots of fuel and extra fuel for payload... for MPA long range sensors.... ie radar and the fuel and instead of 10 tons of bombs or cruise missiles it can carry sensors and equipment for communicating with UAVs...

    In fact having a tanker aircraft based on the same stealthy bomber it is refuelling is very sensible in terms of basing the aircraft together and using them together... in fact in the theatre bomber role the tanker could carry a big wing mounted radar and lots of large AAMs based on S-400 missiles and provide fuel and cover for bomb and missile equipped strike bomber versions...

    is running pilot work on an advanced turbofan with a thrust of 30 tf for airliners and freighters, designated as PD-30.

    It is a turbofan... likely a high bypass turbofan... no matter what the thrust it would not be suitable for supersonic flight.

    For supersonic flight you need a low bypass turbofan or turbojet or a ramjet or scramjet.

    I would love to see them be ambitious and make a super cruising flying wing with TVC engines... but everything they have said suggests they wont.


    _________________
    “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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1025
    Points : 1048
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:06 pm

    The question of the need of new units of the Tu-160 has been answered lots of times. The reason of the restart of the production of the Tu-160 is the need of more strategic bombers in the short and mid term. Today the reserves of strategic bombers are not in the same saturation level of as example in the case of interceptors or in the ground attack aircrafts. Today around 58 units of new strategic bombers would be needed to reach the same level of saturation of the reserves. But the number of strategic bombers today is declinig by accidents and other reasons, and because there is not production of new units since many years.

    The main reason is the production timing of both aircrafts. While the production of the new units of the Tu-160 begin fast, the Tu-PAK-DA is far from ready. With the new units of Tu-160 (around 50 ordered according to the most updated sources), the Tu-95 (47 units in active service according to reliable sources) is likely to go to the reserve, before the production of the Tu-PAK-DA begins.

    The introduction of new units of the Tu-PAK-DA will help to a total decommission of the Tu-95 at the time.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:24 am

    That doesn't wash... the time it takes to get a factory built and some Tu-160s built and in service... add 5 years and they could do the same with the PAK DA...

    So instead of 50 Tu-160s built by 2025 they could start production of PAK DAs maybe five years later and maybe start full scale production by 2025...

    The existing Tu-160s and Tu-95s are all young aircraft and can serve for another 30 years easily if needed.

    A Tu-95 with 5,000km range cruise missiles is just as stealthy as any other aircraft with 5,000km range missiles...


    _________________
    “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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1025
    Points : 1048
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:50 pm

    Russia thinks not like you, GarryB. To wait to the Tu-PAK-DA to restart the productionof strategic bombers means 10 years of delay in serial production, and Russia wants not to wait.

    It ruins your argument about a subsonic Tu-PAK-DA replacing the Tu-95 in active service, because by the time of the serial production of the Tu-PAK-DA Russia likely will have only supersonic Tu-160 and Tu-22 in active service. And you know perfectly that no-one of the two will be replaced by subsonic aircrafts with worse features. By the time when the serial production of the Tu-PAK-DA begins (maybe around 2027-2030) the Tu-95 will likely remain only in the reserve.

    Your ardent defense of a US B-2 like aircraft for Russia, trying to make successful the failed US stealth strategy thanks to make Russia a late follower of the US, is not working. Russia seems not to buy the argument and will not make a subsonic war aircraft for the role of strategic bomber. It is to return one step back. It is a non-sense (also looking at the trends on maritime patrol tant give room to increase the number of fast strategic bombers in the future).
    avatar
    Rmf
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 463
    Points : 452
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Rmf on Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:31 pm

    hoom wrote:
    it seems you see what youwant to see red part is titanium that holds wings !!!,blue is aluminium!!!,central box will curve out into flying wing .
    Yes the truely unique bit of engineering of Tu-160 that makes sense to re-use is the giant titanium swing-wing hinge box at least if you're planning on making a swing-wing bomber either a stealthised Tu-160 rework or a modernised T-4MS.
    Your blue bit is pretty much just any old bit of aluminium fuselage that makes barely any sense to re-use especially if you're trying to make a B2 type stealth flying wing.
    well its still a big piece , the biggest piece, it has fuel tanks and rotary launcher , the good question as said is where will intakes then be? at the bottom then curve upwards?

    Azi
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 107
    Points : 109
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Azi on Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:23 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Enera wrote:I think if PAK-DA is supposedly a supersonic flying wing, it could be theoretically done; following BAE's Taranis and Dassault's Neuron UCAVs, both are projected to be supersonic when they have the engines for it. After all, a military turbofan can reach supersonic speed without needing afterburners where this is called as supercruise if the engine have enough dry thrust for it. The rest would depend on the shape where the said flying wing must look like some sort of flying spade to minimize drag. In terms of controlling the said flying wing, there were developments into blown flaps/fluidic spoilers in the Western world where air is bled from the engines and toward the wing, to act like a flap.

    That said, tail stabilizers in turn can be somewhat mimicked by fluidic thrust vectoring (FTV) where air bypass from the engines are used to affect the thrust direction of the engines' exhausts respectively. Both fluidic spoiler and FTV were simultaneously demonstrated in BAE's Demon UCAV study where it flies (albeit subsonically) without any flap or stabilizers, relying on air bleed to do all traditional maneuvers. Now whether the designers wanted to try something as experimental as aforementioned is anyone's guess but on theoretical standpoint, only budget (and time) would preclude a supersonic flying wing.

    Supersonic and flying wing do not go together, sry. If you want to modify flying wing to be able of being supersonic, it will lose flying wing configuration, it will be some sort of hybrid.
    That's absolute correct! A flying wing CAN'T be supersonic, due to aerodynamic. The often shown T-4MS is NOT a flying wing, it's a delta shaped aircraft optimized for the speed region between supersonic and hypersonic.

    I don't understand the discussion in this thread dunno Russian MoD said that PAK-DA will be a flying wing design, so it can be only subsonic.

    The design of a flying wing similar to B2 makes perfekt sense, because PAK-DA will fulfill two roles. Fist role is to penetrate low to medium defended AD zones, for example in conflict zones like Ukraine. Second role is a cruise missile carrier with huge loiter time.

    Azi
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 107
    Points : 109
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Azi on Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:29 pm

    eehnie wrote:Your ardent defense of a US B-2 like aircraft for Russia, trying to make successful the failed US stealth strategy thanks to make Russia a late follower of the US, is not working. Russia seems not to buy the argument and will not make a subsonic war aircraft for the role of strategic bomber. It is to return one step back. It is a non-sense (also looking at the trends on maritime patrol tant give room to increase the number of fast strategic bombers in the future).
    Where B2 or stealth technology failed? China and Russia are adopting stealth technology for their 5. generation fighters, so stealth is a step back?!
    avatar
    eehnie
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1025
    Points : 1048
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:05 am

    Azi wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Your ardent defense of a US B-2 like aircraft for Russia, trying to make successful the failed US stealth strategy thanks to make Russia a late follower of the US, is not working. Russia seems not to buy the argument and will not make a subsonic war aircraft for the role of strategic bomber. It is to return one step back. It is a non-sense (also looking at the trends on maritime patrol tant give room to increase the number of fast strategic bombers in the future).
    Where B2 or stealth technology failed? China and Russia are adopting stealth technology for their 5. generation fighters, so stealth is a step back?!

    The wrong part of the US stealth strategy begins when they decided to sacrifice other key features, like speed, in order to increase the stealth capabilities of their stealth aircrafts. Stealth technologies only give a temporary advantage, for a limited timeline, until detection technologies are improved. In this moment, the warfare that loses its stealth advantage and has sacrified other key features becomes highly obsolete.

    As example the B-2. When the aircraft loses its stealth advantage, becomes a B-52 or Tu-95 like aircraft, fairly under the features of the older Tu-160.

    The US is facing now the reality of the failure of their stealth strategy approach, with the design of the F-35. Just because on fighters they can not sacrifice key features. Doing it the weakness of the project is clear and evident.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 18, 2017 9:23 am

    Russia thinks not like you, GarryB. To wait to the Tu-PAK-DA to restart the productionof strategic bombers means 10 years of delay in serial production, and Russia wants not to wait.

    First flight for Tu-160M2 is 2018 but serial production wont start till about 2023.

    First PAK DA design is supposed to be flight tested in 2019 but serial production wont start until 2025.

    5 years ago there was no plan to restart production of the Tu-160... ideas perhaps, but no concrete decision... they could just as easily have decided to just make supersonic PAK DA instead of making Tu-160M2 and then PAK DA if it was supersonic... the delay would be less than 5 years because making a factory able to build precision stealth structures is not cheap or simple... but you are going to need it whether you are building Tu-160M2s or PAK DAs.

    By making the PAK DA subsonic it makes sense to make both supersonic Tu-160M2s and remake the existing Tu-160s to M2 standard, and then to make PAK DAs to replace the Tu-95s.

    It ruins your argument about a subsonic Tu-PAK-DA replacing the Tu-95 in active service, because by the time of the serial production of the Tu-PAK-DA Russia likely will have only supersonic Tu-160 and Tu-22 in active service.

    Duh... the Tu-95 could operate for the next 50 years just fine... they are nearly new airframes... most manufactured at the same time as the Tu-160s in service... mid 1980s to mid 1990s...

    The USAF will keep the B-52 in service well into 2030... the Bear likely wont stay in service that long... but certainly could if needed.

    And you know perfectly that no-one of the two will be replaced by subsonic aircrafts with worse features. By the time when the serial production of the Tu-PAK-DA begins (maybe around 2027-2030) the Tu-95 will likely remain only in the reserve.

    Serial production of the PAK DA will likely begin in 2025.

    A flying wing PAK DA will be vastly more stealthy than any model Bear no matter what modifications you could possibly make to it. In terms of aerodynamics a clean flying wing will have longer range and much better cruise performance in terms of speed and range... of course the Tu-95 is the worlds fastest propeller driven aircraft even to this day and is one of the few propeller driven aircraft that actually needs a swept wing.

    A flying wing subsonic PAK DA will offer better penetration performance in conventional strike missions for theatre work and likely have a bomb carrying capacity much greater than the Tu-95. In terms of strategic missions it will also likely have rather better bomb payload range performance too.

    Being subsonic it should be much cheaper to operate than the supersonic Blackjacks.

    Your ardent defense of a US B-2 like aircraft for Russia, trying to make successful the failed US stealth strategy thanks to make Russia a late follower of the US, is not working.

    Actually I agree that a stealthy B-2 aircraft is a waste of time for Russia in the cold war... it is a first strike weapon in its current form, which is something of no value to Russia.

    However in 10-20 years time air defences are becoming rather more capable and a flying wing bomber will be useful in conventional missions... for instance over Syria now with an escort of fighters with a very heavy conventional bomb load able to hit multiple targets with cheap dumb bombs without having to spend large amounts on cruise missiles.

    Against enemies without effective air forces and without powerful SAM systems it would not need an escort and would allow long flights with little warning to targets at high altitudes...

    Russia seems not to buy the argument and will not make a subsonic war aircraft for the role of strategic bomber. It is to return one step back. It is a non-sense (also looking at the trends on maritime patrol tant give room to increase the number of fast strategic bombers in the future).

    I agree with you... I think they should at least explore a supercruising mach 1.5-1.6 design with a flying wing and thrust vector engine control to allow the transition from subsonic to supersonic flight without pitch problems... it would not add too much to operating costs... would greatly increase performance in terms of time to target without increasing fuel load requirements or operating costs too seriously.

    Hypersonic on the other hand is just too large a step for a bomber... it makes more sense to develop stealthy subsonic and hypersonic cruise missiles... easier to achieve within the time frame and much cheaper... yet offering all the problems of interception for the enemy...

    Hopefully the Tu-160M2 can be made to supercruise with the new engines... that would mean much higher average speed performance and increase the problems of interception for the defences of the enemy... especially the F-35 defenders...


    As example the B-2. When the aircraft loses its stealth advantage, becomes a B-52 or Tu-95 like aircraft, fairly under the features of the older Tu-160.

    Even today with long wave ground radars a B-2 trying to penetrate Russian air space would be horrendously vulnerable to any gun armed fighter aircraft... even MiG-21s and MiG-23s would eat it for breakfast and they could do nothing to escape... a MiG-29 or Su-27 or even a MiG-31 could destroy a B-2 easily with cannon.

    The point is that Russia wont use their flying wing bomber in contested airspace... theatre bombing with escort and strategic bombing with standoff cruise missiles.


    _________________
    “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
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5377
    Points : 5422
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Sat Feb 18, 2017 3:53 pm

    Azi wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Your ardent defense of a US B-2 like aircraft for Russia, trying to make successful the failed US stealth strategy thanks to make Russia a late follower of the US, is not working. Russia seems not to buy the argument and will not make a subsonic war aircraft for the role of strategic bomber. It is to return one step back. It is a non-sense (also looking at the trends on maritime patrol tant give room to increase the number of fast strategic bombers in the future).
    Where B2 or stealth technology failed? China and Russia are adopting stealth technology for their 5. generation fighters, so stealth is a step back?!

    Everything US does is a step back around here, get used to it.

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun May 28, 2017 2:23 pm