Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 775
    Points : 777
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Isos on Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:54 pm

    PS: Between the Tu-95 and the Tu-22, I would say that the Tu-22 can remain longer in the Russian Armed Forces than the Tu-95, because it remains more actural as military concept than the Tu-95. Lower speed means today a bigger problem than lower payload at the time of the compliance of the missions vs well armed enemies.


    Tu-95 has the advantage of range. It can easily go near the US west coast and lunch cruise missiles at safe distance while Tu-22 can't. Their isn't lot of fighters capable to intercept a bomber 1000km away before it lunch something like a kh-101 ... That's why they will keep them.

    Tu-22 can be replaced by Su-34 for all its roles : antiship, strategic, tactical bombing, conventionnal bombing and with better results as it has an all new ECM system, new radar, air to air capabilities ... A Tu-22 was destroyed by Georgia easilly with Buk or tor system. What do you think it would do against F-22, Patriot or Aster missiles. Su-34 has chance and can even carry Kh-21 anti radar missiles for SEAD or R-27T against Stealth fighter. Actually Tu-22 is outdated. Your statement is wrong.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1307
    Points : 1332
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:40 pm

    Isos wrote:
    PS: Between the Tu-95 and the Tu-22, I would say that the Tu-22 can remain longer in the Russian Armed Forces than the Tu-95, because it remains more actural as military concept than the Tu-95. Lower speed means today a bigger problem than lower payload at the time of the compliance of the missions vs well armed enemies.


    Tu-95 has the advantage of range. It can easily go near the US west coast and lunch cruise missiles at safe distance while Tu-22 can't. Their isn't lot of fighters capable to intercept a bomber 1000km away before it lunch something like a kh-101 ... That's why they will keep them.

    Tu-22 can be replaced by Su-34 for all its roles : antiship, strategic, tactical bombing, conventionnal bombing and with better results as it has an all new ECM system, new radar, air to air capabilities ... A Tu-22 was destroyed by Georgia easilly with Buk or tor system. What do you think it would do against F-22, Patriot or Aster missiles. Su-34 has chance and can even carry Kh-21 anti radar missiles for SEAD or R-27T against Stealth fighter. Actually Tu-22 is outdated. Your statement is wrong.

    The Tu-22 is an strategic bomber. It is an aircraft to be used in long range missions, until what its range allows. These are missions that conceptually a Su-34 can not afford. The Tu-22 has not the same range of the Tu-95 or the Tu-160, but as military concept remains modern and is very well adapted to be used in cases like Syria.

    A Tu-22 was shut-down in Georgia by good air defense systems. If a Tu-95 would have been in the place of the Tu-22 would have survived? The commented about survability by Mindstorm is very important. Is technically right. And it means the survability of the Tu-22 properly used is higher than the survability of the Tu-95.

    My comment about the life of the Tu-95 and the Tu-22 in the Russian Armed Forces is compatible with some decade more of service of the Tu-95. As example, between the Tu-95 and the Il-38, I would say that the Tu-95 can remain longer than the Il-38 in the Russian Armed Forces. But even this means not that I expect a fast retirement for the Il-38 (that as military concept also meets the requierements of a strategic bomber).
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 775
    Points : 777
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Isos on Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:07 am

    eehnie wrote:

    The Tu-22 is an strategic bomber. It is an aircraft to be used in long range missions, until what its range allows. These are missions that conceptually a Su-34 can not afford. The Tu-22 has not the same range of the Tu-95 or the Tu-160, but as military concept remains modern and is very well adapted to be used in cases like Syria.

    A Tu-22 was shut-down in Georgia by good air defense systems. If a Tu-95 would have been in the place of the Tu-22 would have survived? The commented about survability by Mindstorm is very important. Is technically right. It means the survability of the Tu-22 properly used is higher than the survability of the Tu-95.

    Its range is not very important. It can't reach US mainland neither western europe by flying through the north. In Syria it did nothing military important, just show of force. Its strikes could have been done by any plane from Hmeimin air base. I f you keep it just for operations like in Syria thats wasting money.

    Tu-95 is meant, in today's Russian military strategy, to lunch cruise missiles from safe distance. Neither B-52 would go drop bombs where there are Buks or S-300, no chance for such planes to survive. In Georgia it wouldn't have been shot if used for this role. I'm sure it would have end up the same way like the Tu-22 if used for carpet bombing, no doubt about that.

    But if it was Su-34, it would have evade or jamed to system easily because it has the capacities to do so and Georgian air defence wasn't good even if the systems are good. A lonely very good systems won't do anything if you know where it is and know its caracteristics. They don"t have the network like Russia. The Buk was bought from Ukraine just before the war.

    The Tu-22 will be sent near the target, air defences and enemy fighters while Tu-95 will be 1000 km from their with the enemy fighters trying to find stealth kh-101. I would put my money on the Tu-95. Going at mach 1 or mach 1.5 against a Patriot mach 4 or S-300 mach 6 missiles won't change anything. If they engage you it means you are in range of the missiles and with the RCS of a Tu-22 you can't jam it. The range of those missile are getting bigger and bigger, so the only way to keep big bombers usefull is to use them as missiles carriers or to make them stealthy.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1307
    Points : 1332
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:43 am

    Isos wrote:
    eehnie wrote:

    The Tu-22 is an strategic bomber. It is an aircraft to be used in long range missions, until what its range allows. These are missions that conceptually a Su-34 can not afford. The Tu-22 has not the same range of the Tu-95 or the Tu-160, but as military concept remains modern and is very well adapted to be used in cases like Syria.

    A Tu-22 was shut-down in Georgia by good air defense systems. If a Tu-95 would have been in the place of the Tu-22 would have survived? The commented about survability by Mindstorm is very important. Is technically right. It means the survability of the Tu-22 properly used is higher than the survability of the Tu-95.

    Its range is not very important. It can't reach US mainland neither western europe by flying through the north. In Syria it did nothing military important, just show of force. Its strikes could have been done by any plane from Hmeimin air base. I f you keep it just for operations like in Syria thats wasting money.

    Tu-95 is meant, in today's Russian military strategy, to lunch cruise missiles from safe distance. Neither B-52 would go drop bombs where there are Buks or S-300, no chance for such planes to survive. In Georgia it wouldn't have been shot if used for this role. I'm sure it would have end up the same way like the Tu-22 if used for carpet bombing, no doubt about that.

    But if it was Su-34, it would have evade or jamed to system easily because it has the capacities to do so and Georgian air defence wasn't good even if the systems are good. A lonely very good systems won't do anything if you know where it is and know its caracteristics. They don"t have the network like Russia. The Buk was bought from Ukraine just before the war.

    The Tu-22 will be sent near the target, air defences and enemy fighters while Tu-95 will be 1000 km from their with the enemy fighters trying to find stealth kh-101. I would put my money on the Tu-95. Going at mach 1 or mach 1.5 against a Patriot mach 4 or S-300 mach 6 missiles won't change anything. If they engage you it means you are in range of the missiles and with the RCS of a Tu-22 you can't jam it. The range of those missile are getting bigger and bigger, so the only way to keep big bombers usefull is to use them as missiles carriers or to make them stealthy.

    If used as you commented for the Tu-95 and the B-52 (that is the way a strategic bomber, more or less stealthy, must be used today), and with some update to include systems to avoid modern air defenses or air to air missiles, I think the Tu-22 would keep a fairly good level with a better survability than the Tu-95, the B-52, the Il-38 and every other subsonic strategic bomber.


    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 775
    Points : 777
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Isos on Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:07 am

    eehnie wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    eehnie wrote:

    The Tu-22 is an strategic bomber. It is an aircraft to be used in long range missions, until what its range allows. These are missions that conceptually a Su-34 can not afford. The Tu-22 has not the same range of the Tu-95 or the Tu-160, but as military concept remains modern and is very well adapted to be used in cases like Syria.

    A Tu-22 was shut-down in Georgia by good air defense systems. If a Tu-95 would have been in the place of the Tu-22 would have survived? The commented about survability by Mindstorm is very important. Is technically right. It means the survability of the Tu-22 properly used is higher than the survability of the Tu-95.

    Its range is not very important. It can't reach US mainland neither western europe by flying through the north. In Syria it did nothing military important, just show of force. Its strikes could have been done by any plane from Hmeimin air base. I f you keep it just for operations like in Syria thats wasting money.

    Tu-95 is meant, in today's Russian military strategy, to lunch cruise missiles from safe distance. Neither B-52 would go drop bombs where there are Buks or S-300, no chance for such planes to survive. In Georgia it wouldn't have been shot if used for this role. I'm sure it would have end up the same way like the Tu-22 if used for carpet bombing, no doubt about that.

    But if it was Su-34, it would have evade or jamed to system easily because it has the capacities to do so and Georgian air defence wasn't good even if the systems are good. A lonely very good systems won't do anything if you know where it is and know its caracteristics. They don"t have the network like Russia. The Buk was bought from Ukraine just before the war.

    The Tu-22 will be sent near the target, air defences and enemy fighters while Tu-95 will be 1000 km from their with the enemy fighters trying to find stealth kh-101. I would put my money on the Tu-95. Going at mach 1 or mach 1.5 against a Patriot mach 4 or S-300 mach 6 missiles won't change anything. If they engage you it means you are in range of the missiles and with the RCS of a Tu-22 you can't jam it. The range of those missile are getting bigger and bigger, so the only way to keep big bombers usefull is to use them as missiles carriers or to make them stealthy.

    If used as you commented for the Tu-95 and the B-52 (that is the way a strategic bomber, more or less stealthy, must be used today), and with some update to include systems to avoid modern air defenses or air to air  missiles, I think the Tu-22 would keep a fairly good level with a better survability than the Tu-95, the B-52, the Il-38 and every other subsonic strategic bomber.



    I agree but the problem is that its range is lower than those other bombers. If Russian bombers can't reach US cost to lunch cruise missile deep in their territory, there is no point of having them. I'm not saying technologicaly it's better plane but Tu-95 design is better for strategical role. Iskander is newer and better than North corean intercontinantal missiles but as it can't reach US it's less dangerous for them than NK missile.

    Tu-22 however is very good for anti ship role with Kh-22 and longer range than fighters.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1307
    Points : 1332
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:10 am

    Isos wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    eehnie wrote:

    The Tu-22 is an strategic bomber. It is an aircraft to be used in long range missions, until what its range allows. These are missions that conceptually a Su-34 can not afford. The Tu-22 has not the same range of the Tu-95 or the Tu-160, but as military concept remains modern and is very well adapted to be used in cases like Syria.

    A Tu-22 was shut-down in Georgia by good air defense systems. If a Tu-95 would have been in the place of the Tu-22 would have survived? The commented about survability by Mindstorm is very important. Is technically right. It means the survability of the Tu-22 properly used is higher than the survability of the Tu-95.

    Its range is not very important. It can't reach US mainland neither western europe by flying through the north. In Syria it did nothing military important, just show of force. Its strikes could have been done by any plane from Hmeimin air base. I f you keep it just for operations like in Syria thats wasting money.

    Tu-95 is meant, in today's Russian military strategy, to lunch cruise missiles from safe distance. Neither B-52 would go drop bombs where there are Buks or S-300, no chance for such planes to survive. In Georgia it wouldn't have been shot if used for this role. I'm sure it would have end up the same way like the Tu-22 if used for carpet bombing, no doubt about that.

    But if it was Su-34, it would have evade or jamed to system easily because it has the capacities to do so and Georgian air defence wasn't good even if the systems are good. A lonely very good systems won't do anything if you know where it is and know its caracteristics. They don"t have the network like Russia. The Buk was bought from Ukraine just before the war.

    The Tu-22 will be sent near the target, air defences and enemy fighters while Tu-95 will be 1000 km from their with the enemy fighters trying to find stealth kh-101. I would put my money on the Tu-95. Going at mach 1 or mach 1.5 against a Patriot mach 4 or S-300 mach 6 missiles won't change anything. If they engage you it means you are in range of the missiles and with the RCS of a Tu-22 you can't jam it. The range of those missile are getting bigger and bigger, so the only way to keep big bombers usefull is to use them as missiles carriers or to make them stealthy.

    If used as you commented for the Tu-95 and the B-52 (that is the way a strategic bomber, more or less stealthy, must be used today), and with some update to include systems to avoid modern air defenses or air to air  missiles, I think the Tu-22 would keep a fairly good level with a better survability than the Tu-95, the B-52, the Il-38 and every other subsonic strategic bomber.



    I agree but the problem is that its range is lower than those other bombers. If Russian bombers can't reach US cost to lunch cruise missile deep in their territory, there is no point of having them. I'm not saying technologicaly it's better plane but Tu-95 design is better for strategical role. Iskander is newer and better than North corean intercontinantal missiles but as it can't reach US it's less dangerous for them than NK missile.

    Tu-22 however is very good for anti ship role with Kh-22 and longer range than fighters.

    The Tu-22 would reach the US coast, at least Seattle, the problem would be the return. Likely would need two refueling operations, one going and other returning. I would have to think about which would be the best option (Tu-22 with refueling or Tu-95 without).

    Despite it there are lots of missions in Eurasia and over the sea that the Tu-22 can do. In this area the range really reachs until the areaas where the adversaries have high density of air defenses.


    Last edited by eehnie on Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:01 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1117
    Points : 1117
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:29 am

    The Tu-22M (quite different than Tu-22) is a cruise missile carrier. So that would mean it could launch a salvo of cruise missiles at long enough ranges where it wouldn't get hit. But I noticed as of recent years how much they use it to drop dumb bombs.

    I always had a soft spot for the Tu-22M and think building more of those with modern systems like composite materials, modified engines, newer avionics package, etc would be really ideal. I know they once planned to use Irbis-e radar on it. It would be huge and be the most powerful radar used on such an aircraft. But it was too costly with little benefit.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5532
    Points : 5577
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:54 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    There is not a chance that after more than 30 years, the future Tu-PAK-DA has inferior features than the Tu-160 in key variables (like the speed).

    If this would be true the Tu-PAK-DA would be a total failure because the orders of new aircrafts would continue with the Tu-160.

    Russia knows it and will not fall on this. And with Tupolev in charge of both projects, their wish of success for both is assured (in fact the future of the company depends of it).

    Different concepts, uncomparable.

    Its like i just claimed that B-58 Hustler was far better bomber than B-52. Or some similar comparation, choose one of your own.

    Lol, well. It will be interesting to see you trying to prove a real divission of roles inside the role of strategic bombing (long range).

    You can begin if you wish.

    So you are saying that Tu-95, B-52, B-2, Avros Vulcan, B-1 and lets say...Tu-16 are all members of same family by concept? Interesting claim. Elaborate it abit i am all ears.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5532
    Points : 5577
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:57 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    eehnie wrote:

    The Tu-22 is an strategic bomber. It is an aircraft to be used in long range missions, until what its range allows. These are missions that conceptually a Su-34 can not afford. The Tu-22 has not the same range of the Tu-95 or the Tu-160, but as military concept remains modern and is very well adapted to be used in cases like Syria.

    A Tu-22 was shut-down in Georgia by good air defense systems. If a Tu-95 would have been in the place of the Tu-22 would have survived? The commented about survability by Mindstorm is very important. Is technically right. It means the survability of the Tu-22 properly used is higher than the survability of the Tu-95.

    Its range is not very important. It can't reach US mainland neither western europe by flying through the north. In Syria it did nothing military important, just show of force. Its strikes could have been done by any plane from Hmeimin air base. I f you keep it just for operations like in Syria thats wasting money.

    Tu-95 is meant, in today's Russian military strategy, to lunch cruise missiles from safe distance. Neither B-52 would go drop bombs where there are Buks or S-300, no chance for such planes to survive. In Georgia it wouldn't have been shot if used for this role. I'm sure it would have end up the same way like the Tu-22 if used for carpet bombing, no doubt about that.

    But if it was Su-34, it would have evade or jamed to system easily because it has the capacities to do so and Georgian air defence wasn't good even if the systems are good. A lonely very good systems won't do anything if you know where it is and know its caracteristics. They don"t have the network like Russia. The Buk was bought from Ukraine just before the war.

    The Tu-22 will be sent near the target, air defences and enemy fighters while Tu-95 will be 1000 km from their with the enemy fighters trying to find stealth kh-101. I would put my money on the Tu-95. Going at mach 1 or mach 1.5 against a Patriot mach 4 or S-300 mach 6 missiles won't change anything. If they engage you it means you are in range of the missiles and with the RCS of a Tu-22 you can't jam it. The range of those missile are getting bigger and bigger, so the only way to keep big bombers usefull is to use them as missiles carriers or to make them stealthy.

    If used as you commented for the Tu-95 and the B-52 (that is the way a strategic bomber, more or less stealthy, must be used today), and with some update to include systems to avoid modern air defenses or air to air  missiles, I think the Tu-22 would keep a fairly good level with a better survability than the Tu-95, the B-52, the Il-38 and every other subsonic strategic bomber.



    I agree but the problem is that its range is lower than those other bombers. If Russian bombers can't reach US cost to lunch cruise missile deep in their territory, there is no point of having them. I'm not saying technologicaly it's better plane but Tu-95 design is better for strategical role. Iskander is newer and better than North corean intercontinantal missiles but as it can't reach US it's less dangerous for them than NK missile.

    Tu-22 however is very good for anti ship role with Kh-22 and longer range than fighters.

    The Tu-22 would reach the US coast, at least Seattle, the problem would be the return. Likely would need two refueling operations, one going and other returning. I would have to think about which would be the best option (Tu-22 with refueling or Tu-95 without).

    Despite it there are lots of missions in Eurasia and over the sea that the Tu-22 can do. In this area the range really reachs until the areaas where the adversaries have high density of air defenses.

    Could you stop refering to Tu-22M as Tu-22, those two are very different machines.

    Furthermore i am not sure if you are aware that after START threaty their refueling capability was deleted and would require major modifications to regain it.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5532
    Points : 5577
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:59 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    PS: Between the Tu-95 and the Tu-22, I would say that the Tu-22 can remain longer in the Russian Armed Forces than the Tu-95, because it remains more actural as military concept than the Tu-95. Lower speed means today a bigger problem than lower payload at the time of the compliance of the missions vs well armed enemies.


    Tu-95 has the advantage of range. It can easily go near the US west coast and lunch cruise missiles at safe distance while Tu-22 can't. Their isn't lot of fighters capable to intercept a bomber 1000km away before it lunch something like a kh-101 ... That's why they will keep them.

    Tu-22 can be replaced by Su-34 for all its roles : antiship, strategic, tactical bombing, conventionnal bombing and with better results as it has an all new ECM system, new radar, air to air capabilities ... A Tu-22 was destroyed by Georgia easilly with Buk or tor system. What do you think it would do against F-22, Patriot or Aster missiles. Su-34 has chance and can even carry Kh-21 anti radar missiles for SEAD or R-27T against Stealth fighter. Actually Tu-22 is outdated. Your statement is wrong.

    The Tu-22 is an strategic bomber. It is an aircraft to be used in long range missions, until what its range allows. These are missions that conceptually a Su-34 can not afford. The Tu-22 has not the same range of the Tu-95 or the Tu-160, but as military concept remains modern and is very well adapted to be used in cases like Syria.

    A Tu-22 was shut-down in Georgia by good air defense systems. If a Tu-95 would have been in the place of the Tu-22 would have survived? The commented about survability by Mindstorm is very important. Is technically right. And it means the survability of the Tu-22 properly used is higher than the survability of the Tu-95.

    My comment about the life of the Tu-95 and the Tu-22 in the Russian Armed Forces is compatible with some decade more of service of the Tu-95. As example, between the Tu-95 and the Il-38, I would say that the Tu-95 can remain longer than the Il-38 in the Russian Armed Forces. But even this means not that I expect a fast retirement for the Il-38 (that as military concept also meets the requierements of a strategic bomber).

    Tu-22M that was shot down in Georgia was in situation that Tu-95 would never find itself in. So you cant say that Tu-95 would be shot down too, because Tu-95 simply would not be there were Tu-22M was.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1307
    Points : 1332
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:04 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    PS: Between the Tu-95 and the Tu-22, I would say that the Tu-22 can remain longer in the Russian Armed Forces than the Tu-95, because it remains more actural as military concept than the Tu-95. Lower speed means today a bigger problem than lower payload at the time of the compliance of the missions vs well armed enemies.


    Tu-95 has the advantage of range. It can easily go near the US west coast and lunch cruise missiles at safe distance while Tu-22 can't. Their isn't lot of fighters capable to intercept a bomber 1000km away before it lunch something like a kh-101 ... That's why they will keep them.

    Tu-22 can be replaced by Su-34 for all its roles : antiship, strategic, tactical bombing, conventionnal bombing and with better results as it has an all new ECM system, new radar, air to air capabilities ... A Tu-22 was destroyed by Georgia easilly with Buk or tor system. What do you think it would do against F-22, Patriot or Aster missiles. Su-34 has chance and can even carry Kh-21 anti radar missiles for SEAD or R-27T against Stealth fighter. Actually Tu-22 is outdated. Your statement is wrong.

    The Tu-22 is an strategic bomber. It is an aircraft to be used in long range missions, until what its range allows. These are missions that conceptually a Su-34 can not afford. The Tu-22 has not the same range of the Tu-95 or the Tu-160, but as military concept remains modern and is very well adapted to be used in cases like Syria.

    A Tu-22 was shut-down in Georgia by good air defense systems. If a Tu-95 would have been in the place of the Tu-22 would have survived? The commented about survability by Mindstorm is very important. Is technically right. And it means the survability of the Tu-22 properly used is higher than the survability of the Tu-95.

    My comment about the life of the Tu-95 and the Tu-22 in the Russian Armed Forces is compatible with some decade more of service of the Tu-95. As example, between the Tu-95 and the Il-38, I would say that the Tu-95 can remain longer than the Il-38 in the Russian Armed Forces. But even this means not that I expect a fast retirement for the Il-38 (that as military concept also meets the requierements of a strategic bomber).

    Tu-22M that was shot down in Georgia was in situation that Tu-95 would never find itself in. So you cant say that Tu-95 would be shot down too, because Tu-95 simply would not be there were Tu-22M was.

    If it was a situation the Tu-95 never would have been in, neither the Tu-22 should have been in a situation like this.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5532
    Points : 5577
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:20 pm

    In order to gain speed for bomber you need to sacrifice many other things that in my personal opinion outwage advantages that speed offers.

    - You need to put high consuming afterburning engines in it with far shorter lifespan that turbofans that you could implement in high-subsonic bomber.

    - You will most likely severely downgrade its stealthiness (if you wanted to go for it) and/or its descrete features, in basically every aspect from IR to radio spectrum

    - Fuel consumption has to skyrocket

    - Price per unit will probably be higher due to fact you need to invest alot higher amounts of titanium and some specific alloys + more expencive engines

    - Operating costs would go alot higher, due to far higher fuel consumption, more demanding pilot training, very often forgotten but very important fact that you would need to spend shitloads of oil for those engines


    I would not completely remove supersonic bombers from the fleet, however imo they should be limited in numbers to high-readiness second strike squadrons, with main role of nuclear strike, like Tu-160 is today. So, in my mind no more than 48 or so Tu-160M2s would be required, however i would maintainfleet of at least double that number subsonic flying wings that fill the rest of the bomber roles that are today fullfilled by combined forces of Tu-22M and Tu-95. Rest of the strike roles can be easily left to Su-34s including navalised surface striker.

    Bombers fairly rarely end up being chased by enemy fighters anways, standoff cruise missile and PGM attacks are what bombers do since decades. Fact that both US and Russia use them to drop conventional "dumb" payload as bomb ladens aganist enemy that has no air defences is another story. B-1s did not fly over Yugoslavia for an example, B-2s and B-52s did, they had range, had the payload, why waste lifespan of B-1s.

    Days of low-lvl penetration of enemy defences is long gone, SEAD missons of long-range aviation are rare too... Just my two cents.

    When its about that math game about launch rates of high subsonic and supersonic bombers, while sounds interesting on paper is highly doubtful as a fact in reality as too many things affect it.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5532
    Points : 5577
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:22 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:The Tu-22M (quite different than Tu-22) is a cruise missile carrier. So that would mean it could launch a salvo of cruise missiles at long enough ranges where it wouldn't get hit. But I noticed as of recent years how much they use it to drop dumb bombs.

    I always had a soft spot for the Tu-22M and think building more of those with modern systems like composite materials, modified engines, newer avionics package, etc would be really ideal.  I know they once planned to use Irbis-e radar on it. It would be huge and be the most powerful radar used on such an aircraft. But it was too costly with little benefit.

    China was claimed few years ago as possible customer for new-built Tu-22Ms however it never came to be.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1307
    Points : 1332
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:42 pm

    Militarov wrote:Could you stop refering to Tu-22M as Tu-22, those two are very different machines.

    Furthermore i am not sure if you are aware that after START threaty their refueling capability was deleted and would require major modifications to regain it.

    I avoid the use of variant designations. Maybe you like it. I dislike it. I will not use the designations Tu-22M, Tu-22M1, Tu-22M2, Tu-22M3. The designation Tu-22 includes all them. I neither will use the designation of the new variants of the Tu-160. Some differences, of course, including important differences, but I neither separate the engineering variants of the T-55, as example. Why I do not it:

    - It helps to respect better the technological borders between different warfare and to keep in mind the strong relations between some warfare, despite some differences.
    - It helps to keep a better order in the view of the different roles.
    - The differentiation between variants distorts the real technological timeline of the entire model (platform).

    If I'm not wrong, the ban for refueling on the Tu-22 was introduced in the SALT II treaty. Well. in case of war, this would be of very low effect. The high cost of the reinstallation of the refueling systems is more a myth than a reality, technologically there is not a basis to support it. You should know it, but obviously you do not.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5532
    Points : 5577
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:09 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:Could you stop refering to Tu-22M as Tu-22, those two are very different machines.

    Furthermore i am not sure if you are aware that after START threaty their refueling capability was deleted and would require major modifications to regain it.

    I avoid the use of variant designations. Maybe you like it. I dislike it. I will not use the designations Tu-22M, Tu-22M1, Tu-22M2, Tu-22M3. The designation Tu-22 includes all them. I neither will use the designation of the new variants of the Tu-160. Some differences, of course, including important differences, but I neither separate the engineering variants of the T-55, as example. Why I do not it:

    - It helps to respect better the technological borders between different warfare and to keep in mind the strong relations between some warfare, despite some differences.
    - It helps to keep a better order in the view of the different roles.
    - The differentiation between variants distorts the real technological timeline of the entire model (platform).

    If I'm not wrong, the ban for refueling on the Tu-22 was introduced in the SALT II treaty. Well. in case of war, this would be of very low effect. The high cost of the reinstallation of the refueling systems is more a myth than a reality, technologically there is not a basis to support it. You should know it, but obviously you do not.

    Yes, it was SALT-2. It limited yearly producion of Tu-22M, removed in-flight refueling probe, START featured ICBM-s and heavy bombers.

    I am sorry but inflight refueling probe is not "plug and play" device.

    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a167575.pdf - it is actually fairly complex, and requires time to start with. You cant install probe on an aircraft in 24h. That is btw one very nice document, bad quality, but good document.

    You should not do that btw, because M-84 and M-84A are very different tanks. So is T-55 and T-62, even tho they are basically very similar. Tu-22 and Tu-22M (M being a baseline model, further modifications we can ignore as they are not baseline) are aircraft separated by whole generation.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1117
    Points : 1117
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:10 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:Could you stop refering to Tu-22M as Tu-22, those two are very different machines.

    Furthermore i am not sure if you are aware that after START threaty their refueling capability was deleted and would require major modifications to regain it.

    I avoid the use of variant designations. Maybe you like it. I dislike it. I will not use the designations Tu-22M, Tu-22M1, Tu-22M2, Tu-22M3. The designation Tu-22 includes all them. I neither will use the designation of the new variants of the Tu-160. Some differences, of course, including important differences, but I neither separate the engineering variants of the T-55, as example. Why I do not it:

    - It helps to respect better the technological borders between different warfare and to keep in mind the strong relations between some warfare, despite some differences.
    - It helps to keep a better order in the view of the different roles.
    - The differentiation between variants distorts the real technological timeline of the entire model (platform).

    If I'm not wrong, the ban for refueling on the Tu-22 was introduced in the SALT II treaty. Well. in case of war, this would be of very low effect. The high cost of the reinstallation of the refueling systems is more a myth than a reality, technologically there is not a basis to support it. You should know it, but obviously you do not.

    This is a Tu-22M


    This is a Tu-22


    Two different aircraft actually.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1307
    Points : 1332
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:45 pm

    T-55 enginerring variant: MTU-20


    T-55 engineering variant: BTS-4


    T-55:


    The external appareance makes nothing important on this. We are talking about a technological relation. Every source says that the Tu-22M was developed from the Tu-22. Being for the same role it means the Tu-22M is a variant of the Tu-22. I try never separate developments from the same technological basis that are used for the same role. As example I can separate the 2S1 from the MT-LB but only because they serve on different roles. But even I do not it in all the cases, like in the case of the engineering variants of a tank, that have a different role than the tank they como from (to keep this link to their technological basis is very useful many times).

    I prefer to do it this way, and I recommend you to do the same. It helps to keep in mind the right technological order and it helps to keep in mind the right technological timeline for every platform.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 775
    Points : 777
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Isos on Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:57 pm

    Days of low-lvl penetration of enemy defences is long gone, SEAD missons of long-range aviation are rare too... Just my two cents.

    I doesn't agree on this. Most wars from WWII were between a superpower against a small country so they are not really representative of a conventional war between two similar power.

    Look at the Arab/Israeli wars, SEAD missions and low lvl prenetration were what made success of Israeli strikes. You can't just lunch cruise missiles and bombers flying at 5000 m.

    NATO AWACs won't last long against China or Russia. They can't detect a Su-35 or Pak Fa at 80/100 Km but those two can destroy it at 250/300 km easily. Moreover any military specialist knows that US strategy is base on air force so they will try to destroy them while being on the ground.

    An AWACS can be spotted by military satelite very easily, even google earth has a resolution that allows this let alone military stuff. Once destroyed you can just use ground equipement and low lvl penetration would be a common tactic. A team of 10 analyst can look at all military airfields in europe in 1 hour.

    What Russia should develop  is a ground to ground missile with a warehead that has 500 small terrain piercing mini bombs so that they can destroy a big area like an airfield (runaway and protection bunkers and fighter and planes). Look at the bases of the US forces in Irak 1991 they were all in range of Scud missiles. Most of their fighters were unprotected. Lunching massive salvos the first day and sending bombers minutes after would destroy easily 80% of the forces out there.

    The other thing they should have done is keep and modernise Su-22. Those bombers can carry Kh-31 for anti shipping role. A formation of 20/30 Su-22 lead by a formation of 4 Su-34 and 6 other Su-24 each one carrying Kh-31 missiles and 6 Tu-22M with Kh-22 against carrier would be devestating. It means easily 200 Kh-31 and 12 kh-22 to intercept.


    About the reluelling capability of TU-22M I've red that they just took off the refuelling prob and that the internal wasn't moved so that they can put it in matters of hours.


    Last edited by Isos on Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 775
    Points : 777
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Isos on Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:05 pm

    eehnie wrote:

    The external appareance makes nothing important on this. We are talking about a technological relation. Every source says that the Tu-22M was developed from the Tu-22. Being for the same role it means the Tu-22M is a variant of the Tu-22. I try never separate developments from the same technological basis that are used for the same role. As example I can separate the 2S1 from the MT-LB but only because they serve on different roles. But even I do not it in all the cases, like in the case of the engineering variants of a tank, that have a different role than the tank they como from (to keep this link to their technological basis is very useful many times).

    I prefer to do it this way, and I recommend you to do the same. It helps to keep in mind the right technological order and it helps to keep in mind the right technological timeline for every platform.

    Nope. Tu-22 and Tu-22M are totally different aircraft. They give it the name Tu-22M because it would have been baned by the START threaty. They said it was just a modenisation. BTW the Tu-22 was an awfull plane to fly according to pilots, very unstable.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1307
    Points : 1332
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:25 pm

    Isos wrote:
    eehnie wrote:

    The external appareance makes nothing important on this. We are talking about a technological relation. Every source says that the Tu-22M was developed from the Tu-22. Being for the same role it means the Tu-22M is a variant of the Tu-22. I try never separate developments from the same technological basis that are used for the same role. As example I can separate the 2S1 from the MT-LB but only because they serve on different roles. But even I do not it in all the cases, like in the case of the engineering variants of a tank, that have a different role than the tank they como from (to keep this link to their technological basis is very useful many times).

    I prefer to do it this way, and I recommend you to do the same. It helps to keep in mind the right technological order and it helps to keep in mind the right technological timeline for every platform.

    Nope. Tu-22 and Tu-22M are totally different aircraft. They give it the name Tu-22M because it would have been baned by the START threaty. They said it was just a modenisation. BTW the Tu-22 was an awfull plane to fly according to pilots, very unstable.

    At the time the Tu-22M variant received its designation, likely in the late 1960s, the START treaty was not even a draft.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:48 am

    I'm not an expert in jet engines or fighters engines but it's better to have an engine capable of flying at mach 2.5 than mach 1.6 because, even if those speed won't be reached, it means that your engine is much more solid and the limit is far away from your cruise speed or some top speed you could reach during a fight.

    I am not engine expert either, but we are talking about what you need and not what you want.

    If you want a fast car you can simply put the biggest engine you can make into it... leading to a very big and very heavy car that burns fuel faster than you can fill it... even when not accelerating.

    Another approach is to get a standard sized car and fit the biggest engine you can but then you look at the weight of everything and try to shave off as much as you can to reduce the amount of weight the vehicle has to carry around.

    Formula one sports cars don't even carry a full tank of fuel if it does not require it to minimise weight.

    The point is that different engines prefer different speeds... if you are only ever going to be subsonic then a turboprop is the best option... if you need some supersonic capability turboprops are not an option at all.

    Most subsonic transports and bombers use high bypass turbofans for efficient high subsonic flight relying on weight of airflow for thrust rather than velocity of airflow.

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

    Most modern jet aircraft that are supersonic like modern fighters and interceptors are low bypass turbofans... to get supersonic they dump a lot of fuel into the after burner to generate the thrust to go fast... but it is very inefficient.

    Even a ramjet is more efficient even though it is only an afterburner driven engine.

    Back to your comment that having a really big powerful engine is better than not... do you think the car you drive to work at 100km/h or less would be better if it had a V8 700hp engine in it?

    Especially when that means removing the front seats and shifting everything to the back seats with enough fuel in the fuel tank for 2 minutes at full throttle?

    A long range bomber would benefit from high speed... anything that avoids stuff benefits from higher speed.

    The problem is that more power means more fuel needed for every flight which means bigger aircraft, shorter range, inflight refuelling tankers all the time.

    Conversely if the new PAK DA is a low drag flying wing design then new low bypass turbofans could allow supercruising, which means mach 1.4+ flight, which would actually be as much use as mach 2 flight.

    Let me explain.

    In an F-15 you can either fly subsonic and fly decent distances at that speed for interception, or you can fly supersonic, but it is like a car... depending on whether you are on the flat or going up a hill you don't just change speed with a push of the pedal... in top gear on a hill you might find sitting at 100km to be easy with moderate revs, or on the flat you might find 130km/h is a good speed... what you might find is that without changing down a gear or trying to run at huge revs that 100km is not a good speed to run at.

    Back to the F-15... a subsonic target would need supersonic flight so ABs would be engaged, but ABs means a certain speed is possible but the speed range is not huge... in other words against a subsonic target the F-15 is going to comfortably catch up easily which gives them control of the interception. With a supersonic target the closing speed is much lower and against a fast target like a Tu-160M2 it might be a case of giving up and letting an F-15 closer to where the Blackjack is going to have a go.

    Mach 1.4 will be a real challenge for the F-35 to intercept and with supercruising that means the bomber is not rapidly burning through its fuel like the F-15 is to try to catch it.

    The extra few years the PAK DA is taking means scramjet potential is becoming real... a ramjet is a very simple engine... air goes in one end and is compressed... fuel is added and burned and it all goes out the rear at high speed meaning thrust. A scramjet means the air can flow through the engine at any speed because the fuel is burnt at supersonic speeds. All current jet engines are limited because the fuel burnt has to be at subsonic speeds... so at mach 2.83 the air going into the engine of the MiG-31 has to be slowed to subsonic speeds and then fuel added and burned and exited out to produce thrust.

    In a scramjet engine you don't need to slow down the airflow or restrict it in any way... meaning higher air speed for the exhaust and more volume of air too...

    The SR-71 used bypass air like a ramjet to achieve mach 3.5 flight speeds.

    While having mach 1.6 max limit means your engine is more suceptible to damage if you reach accidently mach 1.5 or mach 1.6 in afterburners in a dogfight.

    It is not about a speed limit.

    The best example is the bomber Sukhoi was developing... the T-4.

    It was a mach 3 bomber. It was going to be very expensive to make and to use, but the US had the Valkyrie so the USSR had to have one too.

    Sukhoi got busy so the bomber design was handed to Tupolev who knew a mach 3 bomber would be a complete waste of time and money... he convinced them that mach 3 was excessive and mach 2 would be good enough.

    It all comes down to the law of diminished returns... and applies to stealth as well.

    A mach 3 bomber would only be slightly more safe than a mach 2 bomber but the cost of building and operating a bomber that could fly mach 3 was 1,000 times the cost of making one to fly at mach 2.

    What I am trying to say is that when scramjet technology is mature then high speed flight will be much easier and cheaper... it is like during WWII faster than the speed of sound could not be performed by propellers... only rockets... but it was expensive and very unsafe.

    The invention and perfection of jet engines has made it relatively easy to go supersonic, but going faster than mach 2 for any period of time is still not with us yet. Sure you can load in huge amounts of fuel, but for a strategic bomber that already needs lots of fuel there is no choice but to make the biggest bomber in the world... no something that will be cheap or easy to use.

    Moreover, for bombing mission mach 2.0 is very usefull to get away from the target once destroyed because you can outrun fighters coming to you. Remember the 10 AMRAAMs shot and failed to a Mig-25 in Irak or Pakistani uncapable to intercept Indian Mig-25 near Islamabad. No need to use it all the way long, just to put some distance.

    Cheaper and simpler to use 5,000km range cruise missiles and not let those fighters get anywhere near you.

    Closing on the target at mach 2 to avoid interception means any SAM system could detect and shoot you down easily, let alone fighters sent up as you approach with heat seeking missiles from the front...

    Then we can agree that your comparation of the speed of the Su-PAK-FA with the speed of the MiG-31 was not right, being both aircrafts of different role.

    No.

    My comparison was to show that not all aircraft benefit from very high speed... in fact only a very few aircraft need high speed. Very high speed would be useful for many types but the cost means only those that seriously need it actually get it.

    In the case of the fighters, the speed is also important, in lower measure than in the case of the interceptors, but it is also important.

    In the 1970s the US realised that top speed for fighters is not that important because except the odd aircraft used as an interceptor (ie MiG-25/31) they will never achieve such speeds, so the aircraft that replace the F-15 and F-14 have top speeds less than mach 2. The F-16 and F-18 are both sub mach 2 aircraft. This saves in weight and cost but has really not made them ineffective in their primary roles as fighter bombers.

    Like I said and have said several times top speed is almost never achieved.

    At mach 2.4 or so the Su-27 appears to be rather fast, but it would take a full 20 minutes at full AB at medium to high altitude to actually get to that speed so it almost never actually does it... you burn up most of your fuel and you can't manouver properly at that speed.

    For a MiG-31 it pretty much accelerates all the way to its target so the time spent is not such an issue and it is basically a fuel truck.

    Being a better aircraft, the Tu-160 totally killed the procurement of the Tu-95. It is obvious why. Same size, same range, higher speed that leads to a more effective compliance of its main mission, but that also helps in almost every other mission with use of conventional armament over land or sea. The replacement was done and was effective in terms of procurement.

    In terms of active service, Russia has been building the number of Tu-160 that considered necessary until now, and plans to build more in the future because they consider necessary to have more of them. And this need is not based only in the analysis of the needs for the compliance of its role with nuclear weapons, also the needs for operations with conventional armament are being considered.

    The Tu-160 is a very good aircraft... but it is expensive to buy and to operate and up until now they didn't really have enough aircraft for a really viable force. The decision to make more is great... I remember suggesting they build more in the 1990s and being told that the technology to make them was gone... recently read that it has been tested and is working fine now.

    The Tu-95 has remained in service all this time because there were never enough Tu-160s to replace them. Now that they are making at least 50 Tu-160M2s it makes you wonder why bother with the PAK DA.

    The Tu-160 is very capable, but it is expensive to operate.

    Having a more stealthy subsonic bomber/cruise missile carrier makes the problems of the defences much more difficult.

    More importantly unless these aircraft are expected to be first strike weapons even at supersonic speed they will not reach their missile launch positions until several hours after the ICBMs and SLBMs have impacted the enemy.

    This means little to no enemy air defences to penetrate and no interceptors active.

    In conventional conflicts against countries like terrorist forces in Libya or Syria or Yemen or Somalia for instance... long range cruise missiles seem to get the job done.

    One thing is to have T-95s in the arsenals since the 1960s and the 1970s and use them, and other thing is to order in the 2020s aircrafts that have the same flaw.

    The current Tu-95s are actually Tu-142s and were built in the 1980s and 1990s. For what they do there is little you could do to improve their design or performance... they are still the worlds fastest propeller driven aircraft on the planet and can move at 950km/h.

    At low altitude they are actually rather faster than most subsonic jets... the large propellers are rather more efficient down there...

    PS: Between the Tu-95 and the Tu-22, I would say that the Tu-22 can remain longer in the Russian Armed Forces than the Tu-95, because it remains more actural as military concept than the Tu-95. Lower speed means today a bigger problem than lower payload at the time of the compliance of the missions vs well armed enemies.

    I am sure the Russian AF has noted the efficiency of using Tu-22M3s with dumb cheap bombs and will now likely keep them for some time, but much of their role is now being eclipsed by the Su-34, which is part of its replacement.

    I was thinking the Tu-160 was going to replace the longer range role of the standard strike aircraft with a heavy payload, but the Tu-160s after upgrade seem to have lost their bomber optics under the nose...

    The Tu-95s don't really have bomb capacity, so that means the Backfire will likely soldier on even though the Tu-22M3 is a theatre strike bomber and the Tu-95 is a strategic cruise missile carrier.

    The new engines for the PAK DA could be made to also fit the Tu-22M3 and further improve its performance hopefully.

    The Tu-22 is an strategic bomber

    No it is not. It is a theatre bomber... think of it as two F-111s fused together and not needing inflight refuelling.

    And it means the survability of the Tu-22 properly used is higher than the survability of the Tu-95.

    Neither plane would have been flying at supersonic speed so if they might as well have used the much cheaper subsonic bomber... actually the Tu-95 doesn't carry bombs so using the Tu-95 would have made it cheaper as it would have used cruise missiles instead of bombs and not gone any where near Georgia for the attack.

    Its range is not very important. It can't reach US mainland neither western europe by flying through the north. In Syria it did nothing military important, just show of force. Its strikes could have been done by any plane from Hmeimin air base. I f you keep it just for operations like in Syria thats wasting money.

    It is good for the Tu-22M3 regiments to get bombing practise... especially as they are using the same cheap dumb bombs they would use for bombing practise... the fact that the accuracy is up there with cruise missile attacks but without the cost is amazing. Something the west gladly ignores... imagine the effect on the bottom line if the western taxpayers found dumb bombs can be made as effective as expensive guided ones for the price of one upgrade.

    The Tu-22 would reach the US coast, at least Seattle, the problem would be the return. Likely would need two refueling operations, one going and other returning. I would have to think about which would be the best option (Tu-22 with refueling or Tu-95 without).

    The Tu-22M3 has never been and cannot be fitted with inflight refuelling equipment...

    Despite it there are lots of missions in Eurasia and over the sea that the Tu-22 can do. In this area the range really reachs until the areaas where the adversaries have high density of air defenses.

    The purpose of the Tu-22M3 is theatre strike... that means China/Japan/South Korea, plus Middle East (ie Syria), plus Europe... that was and is its job.

    The Russian Navy no longer has any Backfires AFAIK.

    The Tu-22M (quite different than Tu-22) is a cruise missile carrier. So that would mean it could launch a salvo of cruise missiles at long enough ranges where it wouldn't get hit. But I noticed as of recent years how much they use it to drop dumb bombs.

    The Tu-95 and Tu-160 are cruise missile carriers. The Tu-22M3 is a long range strike... as I said above... two F-111s fused together with one inflight refuelling topup built in.

    I always had a soft spot for the Tu-22M and think building more of those with modern systems like composite materials, modified engines, newer avionics package, etc would be really ideal. I know they once planned to use Irbis-e radar on it. It would be huge and be the most powerful radar used on such an aircraft. But it was too costly with little benefit.

    I have always liked it too... an interesting MiG-31 replacement... cut back to two crew but put a huge radar in the nose and extend the internal bomb bay and carry a dozen S-400 or S-500 missiles...

    New engines from the PAK DA should allow it to super cruise around the place which should greatly increase its flight range, and of course the new light metals that are heat resistant and any composites you like and you have a much lighter much more powerful aircraft.... Smile

    If it was a situation the Tu-95 never would have been in, neither the Tu-22 should have been in a situation like this.

    The Tu-22M was bombing... which is one of its roles. The Tu-95 is not a bomber... it is a cruise missile carrier.

    I would not completely remove supersonic bombers from the fleet,

    I agree.

    Having a mix of high speed bombers and more stealthy slower bombers makes the forces rather more flexible and the slower bombers should be much cheaper to keep operational.

    More importantly while the Tu-160s are being built to can withdraw some of the Tu-95s and with the upgrades of the engines of the Tu-160s they could develop new high energy engines able to make super cruising bombers a possibility which offers the best compromise of higher flight speed but without enormous fuel consumption.

    China was claimed few years ago as possible customer for new-built Tu-22Ms however it never came to be.

    They only wanted two of them... yeah... I know who blinked first... Smile

    Two different aircraft actually.

    The photos you posted show the Tu-22M3 and the Tu-22... the Tu-22M0, Tu-22M1, and Tu-22M2 had different nose shapes to the M3 model, but all had their engines internally rather than in pods at the base of the tail fin like the Tu-22.

    Every source says that the Tu-22M was developed from the Tu-22. Being for the same role it means the Tu-22M is a variant of the Tu-22.

    They are from scratch different designs. Tupolev was not supposed to be making a new aircraft design... he was supposed to be making the Sukhoi T-4 mach three bomber... he knew it would be too expensive to buy and operate but could not get permission to build the bomber he wanted to build so he called the bomber he wanted to build Tu-22M so it sounded like a version of the Tu-22. It was nothing of the kind.

    He got away with it though.

    And the Tu-22M is a much better aircraft than the Tu-22 ever could be.

    They give it the name Tu-22M because it would have been baned by the START threaty.

    Nothing to do with any treaty... everything to do with the politics of the time...



    _________________
    “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

    Posts : 5532
    Points : 5577
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:45 pm

    Isos wrote:
    eehnie wrote:

    The external appareance makes nothing important on this. We are talking about a technological relation. Every source says that the Tu-22M was developed from the Tu-22. Being for the same role it means the Tu-22M is a variant of the Tu-22. I try never separate developments from the same technological basis that are used for the same role. As example I can separate the 2S1 from the MT-LB but only because they serve on different roles. But even I do not it in all the cases, like in the case of the engineering variants of a tank, that have a different role than the tank they como from (to keep this link to their technological basis is very useful many times).

    I prefer to do it this way, and I recommend you to do the same. It helps to keep in mind the right technological order and it helps to keep in mind the right technological timeline for every platform.

    Nope. Tu-22 and Tu-22M are totally different aircraft. They give it the name Tu-22M because it would have been baned by the START threaty. They said it was just a modenisation. BTW the Tu-22 was an awfull plane to fly according to pilots, very unstable.

    I belive actually Tu-22M nomenclature came to be due to fact USSRs top heads were not interested in investing in another bomber, so the Air force officials in agreement with designers decided to push new bomber under same numeric designation to portrait it as deep modernisation rather than quite different aircraft.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:23 pm

    Militarov wrote:In order to gain speed for bomber you need to sacrifice many other things that in my personal opinion outwage advantages that speed offers.

    - You need to put high consuming afterburning engines in it with far shorter lifespan that turbofans that you could implement in high-subsonic bomber.

    - You will most likely severely downgrade its stealthiness (if you wanted to go for it) and/or its descrete features, in basically every aspect from IR to radio spectrum

    - Fuel consumption has to skyrocket


    First two points are surely corrects , for the third one is obviously necessary to take into account average speed ; at subsonic speed and optimal altitude ,at example, the afterburner capable НК-32 engine ,powering the Tu-160 bomber, show a TSFC of 0,72-0,73 Kg/hour against the not afterburning TSFC for the F118-GE-100, powering the B-2, of 0,7 Kg/hour. That say a Tu-160 proceeding at the same subsonic speed at optimal cruising altitude of a pure subsonic B-2 would not pay any "penalty" in term of specific fuel consuption (rather as found by ГосНИИАС would enjoy a specific fuel consuption advantage at subsonic speed at altitude lower than 3000 m and higher of 12000 m in reason of the varaible wing configuration).

    Therefore ,taking into account actual data instead of the oftenly deceiving "common sense", the fuel consumption of a Tu-160 would be at least equal if not lower of the most up-to-date over-ocean strategic bomber if a subsonic delivery of its long range cruise missiles would be chosen (like lately in the Syrian operation ); naturally Tu-160 has also the option of the full supersonic mission (against both land and sea target) that foreign products lack completely - B-2 in particular at today is not capable to employ any long range cruise missile ,leaving even a part the huge technological backwardness of theirs strategic cruise missiles -.

    Militarov wrote:
    - Price per unit will probably be higher due to fact you need to invest alot higher amounts of titanium and some specific alloys + more expencive engines

    - Operating costs would go alot higher, due to far higher fuel consumption, more demanding pilot training, very often forgotten but very important fact that you would need to spend shitloads of oil for those engines


    Higher than what ? A B-52 ? Yes, sure . A Ту-95МС ? Yes, sure.

    Higher than the alternative low observable layout ? No way !

    (please ask over-ocean collagues about cost of the materials, and the average labour-hour times and maintenance's costs of theirs product in need still today to eneter in enemy airspace to attack).
    avatar
    TheArmenian

    Posts : 1703
    Points : 1864
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  TheArmenian on Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:28 pm

    PAK-DA is not going to be any sort of a reincarnation of Cold War designs.

    @ GarryB
    No, Russia is not going to re-invent the subsonic B1 flying wing design. Even a "mildly" subsonic alteration is not good enough.

    @ Mindstorm
    No, Russia is not going to re-create a better Tu160 Blackjack supersonic bomber. The Tu-160M2 is already in the plans.

    Respectfully, both of your interesting theories will not justify the huge expenses and efforts to design a brand new bomber that will operate well into the second half of this century.

    Here is my take on the PAK-DA:

    If this new bomber is going to be a large one, then it has to be far more capable than the aircrafts you describe in your respective theories. Remember this thing will appear no sooner than the second half of next decade; some 40 -50 years after the Tu-160 and B1 were designed.
    I believe you should alter your theories to cater for far more capable aircraft. A true next generation bomber using true next generation technologies.
    Let's pause for a minute.

    So, if both of you stretch and extrapolate your theories you will both end up with similar PAK-DA concepts.
    Namely:
    A large bomber that supercruises at high speeds (mach 2+)
    Has strategic/intercontinental radius of action at supercruise velocities
    Immense loitering reserves at lower speeds
    Latest in stealth and electronic warfare
    Carries Hypersonic, supersonic and subsonic missiles
    Can target anything ranging from cities to naval groups
    Can shoot down enemy bombers, AWACS and refueling tankers from 1000+ km distances
    Can shoot down satellites and other space objects

    Sounds like a science-fiction dream? Welcome to the 2030ies and beyond.

    If you think that the above theory is a bit too much. Then, think smaller.
    Yes a smaller bomber that has a maximum take-off weight of no more than 80 T. A true next generation Tu-22M3 Backfire replacement with much higher maximum speed, very stealthy and capable of carrying various types of weaponry including hypersonic missiles.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1307
    Points : 1332
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:59 pm

    TheArmenian wrote:PAK-DA is not going to be any sort of a reincarnation of Cold War designs.

    @ GarryB
    No, Russia is not going to re-invent the subsonic B1 flying wing design. Even a "mildly" subsonic alteration is not good enough.

    @ Mindstorm
    No, Russia is not going to re-create a better Tu160 Blackjack supersonic bomber. The Tu-160M2 is already in the plans.

    Respectfully, both of your interesting theories will not justify the huge expenses and efforts to design a brand new bomber that will operate well into the second half of this century.

    Here is my take on the PAK-DA:

    If this new bomber is going to be a large one, then it has to be far more capable than the aircrafts you describe in your respective theories. Remember this thing will appear no sooner than the second half of next decade; some 40 -50 years after the Tu-160 and B1 were designed.
    I believe you should alter your theories to cater for far more capable aircraft. A true next generation bomber using true next generation technologies.
    Let's pause for a minute.

    So, if both of you stretch and extrapolate your theories you will both end up with similar PAK-DA concepts.
    Namely:
    A large bomber that supercruises at high speeds (mach 2+)
    Has strategic/intercontinental radius of action at supercruise velocities
    Immense loitering reserves at lower speeds
    Latest in stealth and electronic warfare
    Carries Hypersonic, supersonic and subsonic missiles
    Can target anything ranging from cities to naval groups
    Can shoot down enemy bombers, AWACS and refueling tankers from 1000+ km distances
    Can shoot down satellites and other space objects

    Sounds like a science-fiction dream? Welcome to the 2030ies and beyond.

    If you think that the above theory is a bit too much. Then, think smaller.
    Yes a smaller bomber that has a maximum take-off weight of no more than 80 T. A true next generation Tu-22M3 Backfire replacement with much higher maximum speed, very stealthy and capable of carrying various types of weaponry including hypersonic missiles.

    This is not science-fiction. I can agree with almost all you said, except with part of the timeline.

    As example you are right, when you talk about 40-50 years after the Tu-160 was designed. It is necessary to remember that the Tu-160 is an aircraft which first fligh was in 1981, and its serial production was launched in 1984. In the case of the B1, its first flight was in 1974 and was introduced in 1986. This State Armament Progran 2018-2025 is inside the timeline you proposed.

    There is a fact. There is a project launched, that is known as Tu-PAK-DA. Just today, we seems to have more information about the timeline of the aircraft, included in the State Armament Program 2018-2025, than about the features of the aircraft. Approximately, the timeline of the aircraft will not differ much of this. A first flight in the early 2020s, a first aircraft delivered around 2025, and serial production launched around 2030.

    With the project of the next generation coming, I'm sure Russia will not go 40 years later to an aircraft that underperforms. I'm ny view the goal is to solve all the missions with a single model of aircraft, All the current strategic bombers in service are likely to be replaced by a single aircraft in terms of procurement, and this can not be done with an underperforming aircraft.

    If Russia goes now for an underperforming aircraft, Russia will need another overperforming design in the 2030s. It means the development of two aircrafts in a few years. If Russia goes now for an overperforming aircraft, Russia needs nothing more until the 2050s.

    I consider very interesting the proposal of smaller aircraft, but it is likely to see the successors of the MiG-31 and the Su-34 going both over 50 tons. And maybe a little redundant. Surely it is possible to solve the missions of the entire role of strategic bomber (intercontinental, over sea, over land,..) with a single modern aircraft, but for it must be like you described.

    And until to reach the serial produciton of the new aircraft (around 2030), there is a window of 10-12 years for the production of the new variant of the Tu-160, that will allow Russia to improve the saturation of its reserve of strategic bombers, that is now low.

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:31 pm