Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16697
    Points : 17305
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:28 am

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

    So you say he was intercepted twice by MiG-23 and did not even see the Hind that also spotted him.

    If he had been in a military aircraft he would have been shot down.

    The failure of the air defence forces to shoot him down is not a failure. Plenty of civilian aircraft fly into and out of Soviet/Russian airspace every day... the purpose of the air defence system is to protect from threats, not little pricks in Cessnas.

    Now what i doubt is that speed those clickbite articles claim of Mach 4, as there are atm very few platforms that would require such high intercept speeds.

    For a bomber a high speed does not make you safe. For an interceptor it increases the effective range of the interceptor. there is a reason the big heavy R-37M AAMs fly faster than mach 4... they could have given it enormous range with subsonic speed, but instead they went for rocket power and high speed.

    A fast interceptor gets to the threat quicker and if it can attack the threat early in its attack the likelyhood of having to deal with one bomber instead of one bomber and 8 cruise missiles makes it rather more effective.

    I find speeds similar to MiG-31 more plausible, just with hopefully ALOT more efficient engines and lower empty weight. I wouldnt be suprised also if dimensions would shrink abit compared to MiG-31.

    Size is not important and nor is weight. Speed, range and weapon 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

    Azi

    Posts : 146
    Points : 148
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Azi on Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:11 am

    GarryB wrote:
    I read the book of Rust and some reports of the incident.

    So you say he was intercepted twice by MiG-23 and did not even see the Hind that also spotted him.

    If he had been in a military aircraft he would have been shot down.

    The failure of the air defence forces to shoot him down is not a failure. Plenty of civilian aircraft fly into and out of Soviet/Russian airspace every day... the purpose of the air defence system is to protect from threats, not little pricks in Cessnas.

    He even didn't saw the first Mig-23, he only recognized the second encounter! He was partially followed by a Hind, by I can't say at which point, clearly not the whole time.

    Of course he was no threat, but the AD officers are no fortune tellers and they made mistakes! When he first entered soviet air space he was mistakenly held for a Yak-12 or something similar. The chain of command was not respected and higher levels not informed!

    Wrong assessments can lead to catastrophic events! Best example is 9.11. where US air control and defense failed in a epic way...only civilian planes and more than 3000 dead persons.

    You can't really say the soviet reaction was brillant! He should have been shot down, because it was only a small plane with one person onboard. Or he should have been troubled by the Mig in such way, that he recognized in his small brain that is better to land. What if he crashed over a full place with people and with 20 or more dead? What if he crashed in the dome of the basilius cathedral? But in retrospect everything ended good, but not for the persons who lost their job due to the incident!

    Ok, the discussion is not over PAK-DA anymore lol1
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16697
    Points : 17305
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:30 am

    He even didn't saw the first Mig-23, he only recognized the second encounter! He was partially followed by a Hind, by I can't say at which point, clearly not the whole time.

    There was reportedly quite a time gap between the second MiG-23 interception and when the Hinds tracked him down... very simply the Hind is not designed for interception and has not onboard radar so would try to find the target based on verbal commands.

    You can't really say the soviet reaction was brillant! He should have been shot down, because it was only a small plane with one person onboard.

    Of course he should not have been shot down. They should have kept following him with the MiG-23s until the Hind got to him and he should have been diverted to a nearby airstrip and forced to land.

    Or he should have been troubled by the Mig in such way, that he recognized in his small brain that is better to land. What if he crashed over a full place with people and with 20 or more dead? What if he crashed in the dome of the basilius cathedral? But in retrospect everything ended good, but not for the persons who lost their job due to the incident!

    Today it could be claimed it was thought to be a terrorist attack... you could get about 100s of kgs of explosives in a small cessna and use it as a weapon... a manned cruise missile, so shooting it down would not be much of an issue now, but either way it was no more a measure of the effectiveness of the Soviet Air Defences than 11/9 or indeed the KAL007 shootdown.



    _________________
    “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
    Pierre Sprey

    Posts : 34
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2017-02-01

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Pierre Sprey on Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:09 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    To add.. It is certainly a myth that Russia doesn't know stealth. They were using stealth technology on the water. If I could post a pic, i would but USSR frigates and destroyers had stealth shaped towers and just by looking at it, you can see the stealth shape

    The USSR used stealth where there was minimal opportunity cost to do so.

    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:31 am

    Came Across this PAK-DA design from UAC 2015 Annual Report

    Full Report here http://uacrussia.ru/uac_ar_2015_en



    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3201
    Points : 3324
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  kvs on Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:24 am

    Azi wrote:

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

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

    I am recounting the information given by a show on PBS (US public broadcaster) about how the F-117 was inspired by a Soviet manual on low EM backscatter
    design.  This includes shape and not just RAM.   I bet the Dutch "RAM" inventor did not do any detailed EM reflection calculations.


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

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

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

    That's cute.  The key part is this:

    It is true, the signal of this machine is weaker than that of the ordinary aircraft, but it can still be seen on the radar screens. Perhaps the pilot had been wrong or lost, but he flew at a height of only five kilometers, and got into our visor.

    The F-117A was seen by 1960s radars, pathetic.   But it was hard to shoot down with 1960s missiles.   So your story is a non sequitur to my point:
    networking radars increases detection and the whole stealth wunderwaffe is so much irrelevant hype.   The T-50 demonstrates this since it only uses
    stealth elements and does not sacrifice any other function to achieve "pure stealth" like the F-22 with its sad 2D thrust vectoring.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1532
    Points : 1557
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:21 am


    The problem with stealth technologies begin when they are applied at the cost of other key features for the aircrafts, like the speed, in this case. The problem is that the people that thinks that more advanced stealth technologies allows to forget the speed as key feature of the strategic bombers are wrong.

    Otherwise stealth technologies are welcomed, like in the case of the Su-PAK-FA and also for the Tu-PAK-DA.

    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 619
    Points : 617
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  hoom on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:22 am

    Came Across this PAK-DA design from UAC 2015 Annual Report
    Even though its an older concept I really do hope they are building PAK-DA on that concept, its so damn sexeh I love you
    It's also the only concept I've seen that combines the otherwise contradictory rumors: that its supersonic, a flying wing and shares a bunch of structure with Tu-160.

    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:27 am

    It is just a planform design so cant really say how it will look close up.

    But this looks like a big F-117 type planform to me , They said it would be subsonic design but i think this design might have the ability to go supersonic if required

    Yes I think this design looks much better than the US NGB design
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16697
    Points : 17305
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:40 am

    Sorry Austin... that line drawing is the T-4MS... a design rejected before the Tu-160 was built.

    It is certainly not the PAK DA.

    More info and nice pics:

    http://www.anigrand.com/AA4020_T-4MS.htm


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

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

    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Thu Feb 09, 2017 12:47 pm

    GarryB wrote:Sorry Austin... that line drawing is the T-4MS... a design rejected before the Tu-160 was built.

    It is certainly not the PAK DA.

    More info and nice pics:

    http://www.anigrand.com/AA4020_T-4MS.htm

    Not really , You wont find UAC using a T-4MS design in new 2015 Report.

    I dont think its a T-4 Design , the picture just shows the planform not the detail design there could be lot of many big and small changes on the new PAK-DA design something you cant make out looking at top view of the planform

    One can argue that the new PAK-DA design looks like T-4 or F-117 or others that US had proposed





    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:35 pm

    Austin wrote:
    Full Report here  http://uacrussia.ru/uac_ar_2015_en


    There's another image of PAK-DA on page 15 of report




    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:40 pm

    Seems PAK-DA design will be more broader then longer like Tu-160

    The broad planform is good for stealth , carry fuel and weapons load , sort of gives it a flying wing/lifting body like design
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5556
    Points : 5597
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:41 pm

    kvs wrote:The F-117A was seen by 1960s radars, pathetic.   But it was hard to shoot down with 1960s missiles.   So your story is a non sequitur to my point:
    networking radars increases detection and the whole stealth wunderwaffe is so much irrelevant hype.   The T-50 demonstrates this since it only uses
    stealth elements and does not sacrifice any other function to achieve "pure stealth" like the F-22 with its sad 2D thrust vectoring.

    "like the F-22 with its sad 2D thrust vectoring." - Yeah, because somehow having x-axis limited angle vectored thrust is big time gamechanging... because.. it really isnt.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 504
    Points : 500
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Feb 09, 2017 8:41 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    kvs wrote:The F-117A was seen by 1960s radars, pathetic.   But it was hard to shoot down with 1960s missiles.   So your story is a non sequitur to my point:
    networking radars increases detection and the whole stealth wunderwaffe is so much irrelevant hype.   The T-50 demonstrates this since it only uses
    stealth elements and does not sacrifice any other function to achieve "pure stealth" like the F-22 with its sad 2D thrust vectoring.

    "like the F-22 with its sad 2D thrust vectoring." - Yeah, because somehow having x-axis limited angle vectored thrust is big time gamechanging... because.. it really isnt.

    2D actually means two axis, the f22 has one axis of movement.

    so it is 1D properly.

    The vectoring useful for low speed manoeuvring.

    So, the actual usefulness of it depending on the expected amount of low speed manoeuvring.

    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5556
    Points : 5597
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:36 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    kvs wrote:The F-117A was seen by 1960s radars, pathetic.   But it was hard to shoot down with 1960s missiles.   So your story is a non sequitur to my point:
    networking radars increases detection and the whole stealth wunderwaffe is so much irrelevant hype.   The T-50 demonstrates this since it only uses
    stealth elements and does not sacrifice any other function to achieve "pure stealth" like the F-22 with its sad 2D thrust vectoring.

    "like the F-22 with its sad 2D thrust vectoring." - Yeah, because somehow having x-axis limited angle vectored thrust is big time gamechanging... because.. it really isnt.

    2D actually means two axis, the f22 has one axis of movement.

    so it is 1D properly.

    The vectoring useful for low speed manoeuvring.

    So, the actual usefulness of it depending on the expected amount of low speed manoeuvring.


    Actually it has two vectors formed by the exaust with each having degree of freedom on its own, which makes it 2D thrust vectoring, axis of movement is just part of it.

    Today amount of low speed maneuvering for fighter-interceptor-interdiction missions is going from very low to none so usefulness is questionable, but even if we presume it is useful, its out of the question that another DoF would make any significant difference in combat applications.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 504
    Points : 500
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Speed is still today over the stealth

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:07 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Actually it has two vectors formed by the exaust with each having degree of freedom on its own, which makes it 2D thrust vectoring, axis of movement is just part of it.

    Today amount of low speed maneuvering for fighter-interceptor-interdiction missions is going from very low to none so usefulness is questionable, but even if we presume it is useful, its out of the question that another DoF would make any significant difference in combat applications.

    Hm.

    The f22 has two engine, so you are right, it has two degree of freedom.


    The thrust vectoring should be good for aircraft landing / take off.


    However the simple fact the Russians spend this much efforts for this means that they see advantage of it.

    I have no idea what is the general expected flight profile for air fight frankly, or what type of manoeuvrers/trainings it can be used.

    Firebird

    Posts : 953
    Points : 985
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Firebird on Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:42 am

    Re T4 MS pics appearing, and the connection with the Pak-Da:-

    I was never clear on the bidding process for the supersonic bomber that became the Tu-160.

    I knew that Tupolev didn't win the bid. But I understood they'd taken someone else's design and built that.

    However, acc to this link, Sukhoi won the bid, and their T4 MS won.

    Tupolev were awarded the contract, because the awarding committee felt Sukhoi had a huge amount of work already. However, Tupolev then continued to improve their Tu-160 and didn't use the

    Just before the data table on the page, there is this text:-

    " With similar payload and range at the speeds below supersonic, the Tu-160 was 35% heavier than T-4MS and had 2-3 times smaller range at supersonic speed"

    If this is true, its quite surprising. I thought the T4MS failed because it was small or unlikely to work (altho that was just my assumption).

    Now to me, Tu-160 is a fantastic plane, and a fantastic platform for future planes, both civil and military.

    But bearing in mind that the T4MS was a 1970s design, I wonder what it could be turned into today...
    Quite a fascinating prospect!

    *Perhaps* a transsonic or even supersonic stealth plane isn't that unrealistic.
    Or perhaps, a hypersonic plane isn't that far away... Maybe THIS was what people were thinking of when the supersonic transporter plans were discussed?

    PS the article even mentions future developments from the T4 MS including stealth!

    PPS oops forgot the link:-
    http://testpilot.ru/russia/sukhoi/t/4/ms/t4ms_e.htm


    Last edited by Firebird on Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:15 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:54 am

    T-4MS was a great design for its time , its simply lost out to Tu-160 due to politburo politics not technical.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1532
    Points : 1557
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:07 pm

    From the topic of the Tu-160:

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t1229p425-tu-160-and-tu-95ms-blackjack-and-bears#188187

    Rmf wrote:
    hoom wrote:Kazan Aviation plant has started re-learning how to make the main wing beam for Tu-160 http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2245553.html

    Google translate wrote:There was a unique equipment to work with the 20-meter monolithic slabs of varying thickness of titanium alloys, because of which made 38% of the construction of the Tu-160.

    "Backbone" of the bomber can be called the central titanium beam length of 12.4 m and a width of 2.1 m around which are grouped and other elements of the airframe. For example, at its hinge joints were hung wings. For the manufacture of the beam has been developed process of electron beam welding in a neutral atmosphere or in a vacuum. "Titan is known, is not brewed in the air - begins to burn, and does not extinguish it, so do it either in a vacuum or in a neutral environment, - told the" Online Business "Advisor to the Prime Minister of Tatarstan Nazir Kireev. - When welding everything must go very accurately - all calculated literally fractions of a millimeter. "

    The beam milled in two halves and welded in one piece in a vacuum chamber under spetsprisadkami and fluxes. In the scientific and popular literature states that this welding is so far it relates to the unique technologies and can be regarded as national priorities. "Such a welding time was only at the Kazan aircraft plant, and it appeared only in connection with the Tu-160
    they say that central body will be same for tu-160 and pak-da.


    This is a very interesting detail, that goes against the analysis of those that argued about the Tu-PAK-DA as subsonic using the angles as argument.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5556
    Points : 5597
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:17 pm

    eehnie wrote:This is a very interesting detail, that goes against the analysis of those that argued about the Tu-PAK-DA as subsonic using the angles as argument.

    How so? Even if true, they will probably just use that centerline segment to be completed into flying wing and we already said at least 20 times that flying wing literally cant be made supersonic. No supersonic flying wing aircraft has ever been actually built, its aganist laws of nature. IF it as they always claimed will be flying wing.

    Angles as itself...have very little to do with it.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16697
    Points : 17305
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 11, 2017 10:37 pm

    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.


    _________________
    “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

    Posts : 619
    Points : 617
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  hoom on Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:50 am

    they say that central body will be same for tu-160 and pak-da.
    Interesting  pirat

    Now what concept could possibly need to share a giant titanium swing-wing hinge? scratch
    *cough*

    *hack*

    *splutter*
    sunny

    That or I guess more simply putting a new stealthy fuselage around the Tu-160 structure dunno

    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Sun Feb 12, 2017 6:21 am

    Why cant PAK-DA be a design that is subsonic , fuel effecient and stealthy when Engines are in non-after burner mode and then go to supersonic when after burners are engaged ?

    Why does it have to be a flying wing design like B-2 and not a T-4MS type design both designs can be stealthy
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 619
    Points : 617
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  hoom on Sun Feb 12, 2017 9:15 am

    Indeed, the basic T-4MS design is incredibly clean which should make it very amenable to being stealthised.

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:55 am