Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1259
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Sun 16 Jul 2017, 13:26

    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 in course, 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. In some parts, it is not very different of what you said.

    With the project of the next generation coming, I'm sure, technically sure, that Russia will not go 40 years later to an aircraft that underperforms in key features like the speed.

    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1259
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Sun 16 Jul 2017, 18:19

    GarryB wrote:1.- 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?

    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.

    ---------------

    2.-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...

    ----------------

    3.- 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.

    ----------------

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

    ----------------

    5.- 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.

    ----------------

    6.- 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.

    No it is not. It is a theatre bomber...

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

    1.- To put what Isos commented in its right scale, it is obvious that a car with 125hp engine goes easier at 120Km/h than the same car with a 75hp engine. The car with the 75hp engine will need to go around 3500rpm and the car with the engine of 125hp will be able to do it around 2500rpm or less. It has advantages, mechanical advantages and also it affects to the fuel consumption. This is what Isos was saying, and it is right and important.

    Your comment about more power => more fuel consumption is wrong. Returning to the example of the cars, that the people can understand easier, increasing the speed, and as consequence the rpms in the engine, there is a point where the difference in rpms makes the car with 75hp engine have higher fuel consumption than the same car with 125hp engine at the same speed. As example, at 140Km/h, would be around 4500-5000 rpms for the engine of 75hp, and around 3000 rpms for the engine of 125hp. In fact, in car engines, a good part of the fuel consumption improvements since the 1980s come from this effect. Then engines of 45hp, 60 hp, 75 hp were very habitual. As everyone knows the fuel consumption data offered for cars is always linked at a speed (50Kh/h, 90Km/h or 120Km/h).

    In aircraft engines, the approach is different but not as different. Many times the thrust (a mass flow rate) is used as a sign of the power of the aircrafts. This is done because there is a close phisical (mathematical) relation between power and thrust. We have been reading in the news for the new variant of the Tu-160, that a good number of improvements will help to increase the thruts of the engine and will reduce the fuel consumption. This is perfectly possible. Also here, more power does not imply more fuel consumption.

    -----------------

    2.- Another problem with your argument is that long range cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles, and tactics to avoid SAMs can and must be used also by supersonic strategic bombers. The commented by Mindstorm about the survability is obviously for use of supersonic and subsonic strategic bombers under the same conditions and with the same procedures. No-one is saying that supersonic speed allows to assume higher risks. No-one is promoting it.

    -----------------

    3.- Since the 1990s, Russia had the number of strategic bombers that they wanted to have. This number has been very close to the number of aircrafts they inherited from the Soviet Union. Now, when Russia is thinking about to produce more strategic bombers they selected the Tu-160, and not cheaper options like the Tu-95/142 or the Tu-22. The timeline of the Tu-PAK-DA until serial production is longer.

    And for sure Russia will not validate the wrong US strategy to sacrifice key features like the speed in order to reach improvements of low effectiveness on stealth technologies (as proved with the recent shut-down of the US "state of the art" drone).

    ------------------

    4.- Just we saw the veteran Russian S-300, SA-10/12/20/23, destroying the state of the art of the US stealth drones.

    ------------------

    5.- Obviously is not right to say that all the current Tu-95/142 are of the maritime patrol variant Tu-142. Today around a 29% of the total Tu-95/142 are of the Tu-142 variant.

    ------------------

    6.- There are two roles accepted for bombing aircrafts (air-surface ammunition) besed on range. One is the Fighter Ground Attack and the other is the Strategic Bomber. The two roles mean different dimensions of the aircrafts, different fighting style, different ammunition used and even a different configuration of the aircraft. The theatre bomber designation means nothing specific, new or different between the two main roles. At best can be a subrole, but it would mean that a theatre bomber is either a strategic bomber or a fighter ground attack aircraft. Which of the two is then the Tu-22?. Almost all the sources say the Tu-22 is a strategic bomber.

    Also the sources agree not with your comment about the refueling potential of the Tu-22, including the Tu-22M3. As example:

    http://ausairpower.net/APA-Backfire.html

    The Tupolev Tu-22M3 Backfire C
    ...
    The reshaped and stretched nose incorporated a revised refuelling probe design.
    ...

    http://www.airvectors.net/avtu22.html

    In reality, the Tu-22M series had been built for strikes at Western Europe and China, as well as operations against US fleet elements, with little thought given to using it for strategic operations. The US Navy and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) believed that, but the US Air Force (USAF) did not, with USAF intelligence suggesting the Tu-22M had much longer range than it actually did -- and besides, it had a mid-air refueling probe, potentially permitting it to reach any target on the globe. The problem was aggravated by the fact that Soviet SALT negotiators refused to release any data on the Backfire, and in fact used the NATO reporting name in discussions rather than refer to the "Tu-22M" and correct the mistaken "Tu-26" designation. In the end, the Soviets compromised and yanked the refueling probes from the Backfire fleet. They could be easily put back on if need be and the Americans knew that, but the Americans also realized that the Soviet air tanker fleet was too small to support wide-scale long-range operations, as was the norm for the USAF Strategic Air Command.

    Finally, the Tu-22 is an strategic bomber, and must be used as strategic bomber, not as Fighter Ground Attack aircraft. Not because it means riskier situations, also the Fighter Ground Attack aircrafts must follow their own safety procedures, basically the problem is closer to the concept of overkill.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16185
    Points : 16816
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun 16 Jul 2017, 23:02

    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).

    You have given two optimal fuel consumption rates, but ignore the power settings needed to keep each aircraft flying.

    0.7 does not mean both aircraft burn less than 1kg of fuel per hour, it means for every kg of thrust they burn .7 kg of fuel... the engines of the B-2 are the same as the engines of the B-1B are you saying both these aircraft have the same range too.

    The Tu-160 is rather heavier than either the B1-B and the B-2 and therefore would need rather higher thrust settings to accelerate to the same speeds and to maintain the same speeds.

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

    The subsonic bomber is the B-2.

    The point is to replace the Subsonic Tu-95 with an aircraft that is capable but also affordable.

    Do you think they will spend money to put the Tu-160 back into production if they were going to make the PAK DA a supersonic bomber too?

    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

    I would agree with that... except the mach 2 plus speed.

    The cost of the extra speed from mach 1.6 or so up to beyond mach 2 is too high in terms of weight and cost.

    Supercruise means higher speed without higher fuel bill and higher operational costs and should keep the friction damage down so maintainence costs will be kept low.

    The claim I see repeated by a few people about the performance being less than its predecessor if it has a lower flight speed, if the aircraft is larger and allows the internal carriage of very large weapons it will not be slower than the Bear it is replacing but with long range stealthy or hypersonic missiles it will also be much safer and more capable.

    The ability to supercruise would clinch it in that it would be much more affordable but also much more capable.

    All the reports I have read mentioned a subsonic flying wing type of aircraft which is why I don't think we are talking about Tu-160M3 as the PAK DA.

    The space launch/heavy interceptor could be based on the Tu-160M2 instead of the PAK DA.

    I would love to see Vanns dream of some hypersonic super bomber, but Russia could not afford to operate them in any numbers, and they would not be that safe for very long anyway... it would just be an excuse for the US to build bomber defence centres around the place... that could also shoot down satellites and anything else by the way...


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

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

    Posts : 16185
    Points : 16816
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun 16 Jul 2017, 23:06

    And for those complaining that a subsonic flying wing is a huge step back from a supersonic swing wing bomber... the US had the Mach 2 Hustler and the Mach 3 Valkyrie after the B-52 and then they went for the B-1A and then B-1B and then the B-2... so mach 2, then barely transonic and then subsonic... and they still have B-52s built in the 1960s...


    _________________
    “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

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 769
    Points : 950
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon 17 Jul 2017, 07:03

    GarryB wrote:0.7 does not mean both aircraft burn less than 1kg of fuel per hour, it means for every kg of thrust they burn .7 kg of fuel... the engines of the B-2 are the same as the engines of the B-1B are you saying both these aircraft have the same range too.




    Garry do you pretend i not understand what i have said ?  Moreover something so basic as TSFC ?  Oh please..... Very Happy



    The point in question was if the choice of an afterburn turbofan engine or ,instead, a not-afterburning turbofan engine (the propulsion factor mainly differentiating a supersonic and a subsonic long range bomber) would have any effect on the average fuel consuption at the same conditions taken into account.

    The overall size and take-off weight of the aircraft to which one of them is mounted is totally irrelevant : the same sustained Kn of thrust is achieved consuming almost equal amount of fuel/hr.  

    It is obvious that (leaving out the key aerodynamic layout differences) a Ту-160M would require more thrust from its НК-32 to maintain the same thrust-to-weight ratio of the lighter B-2 with its  F118-GE-100, but the same could be said ,exactly reversed, mounting the same engines on aircraft with weight parameter inverted  Very Happy

    The fuel efficiency of the afterburning and not afterburning turbofan engine at the same conditions would remain exactly what reported.




    Now if we want to venture in the querelle about the convenience ,or not, of the selection of a bomber in the size and mass of Ту-160 (by itself a near-miraculous engineering masterpiece without corresponding worldwide still today) instead of one in the B-2's ballpark and its potential effect on the mission fuel consumption, i can simply remind two parameters : internal weapon bays weight limits for B-2 bomber 18.000 kg , same parameter for Ту-160 41.000 kg.

    Therefore even leaving a part the self-evident difference in the dimensions of the internal weapon bays  ,allowing Ту-160 to mount cruise missiles incompatible for lenght size with B-2 weapon bay size and consequently with far more range.....with the dramatic effects on mission's average time and fuel consuption that i have pointed out in the past..... to deliver the same amount of cruise missiles (at today the US specimen is still incapable of that) or ordnances on target of a Ту-160 you need more than two B-2 Spirits !!!!!

    You can easily compute if the few percentage points of difference in flight's cruise required thrust is competitive against very intensive maintenance, the hundreds of mission's preparation labour hours and......monstrous fuel consuption.... linked with the necessity to put in the air another strategic bomber to deliver the same amount of cruise missiles / guided munitions on targets .



    This respond to the implicit technical question contained on your post  Wink
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16185
    Points : 16816
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue 18 Jul 2017, 04:10


    1.- To put what Isos commented in its right scale, it is obvious that a car with 125hp engine goes easier at 120Km/h than the same car with a 75hp engine. The car with the 75hp engine will need to go around 3500rpm and the car with the engine of 125hp will be able to do it around 2500rpm or less. It has advantages, mechanical advantages and also it affects to the fuel consumption. This is what Isos was saying, and it is right and important.

    Except that what we are actually talking about is the engines for a subsonic car... say 100hp, and a supersonic car... say 1,000+hp.

    If you are going to drive the car like a cop as an interceptor of other vehicles then the extra power is needed... if you are a long haul train then that extra power is useful for takeoffs only.

    As example, at 140Km/h, would be around 4500-5000 rpms for the engine of 75hp, and around 3000 rpms for the engine of 125hp.

    The problem is that gears confuse the matter... a vehicle with 20 gears on perfectly flat land and a petrol engine with a wide power range could reduce revs in high gear and use very little fuel to maintain high speed. With the wrong gear range even a 125hp engine might not even make 140km/h. I know my old Mk4 Cortina roared doing 100km/h on the flat... it was gutless.

    Also here, more power does not imply more fuel consumption.

    For a given engine the fuel consumption includes thrust as a component...

    Usually represented as the number of kgs of fuel needed to create one kg of force per hour of running the engine...

    The Al-31F has a specific fuel consumption at efficient engine rating of 0.67kg/kgf.h.

    Obviously at full thrust of 12,500kgf it wont meet that .67 ideal... not even nearly, but assuming some miracle and it kept the same efficiency in full AB it would be burning 12,500 x 0.67kg of fuel per hour... or about 8.3 tons of fuel.

    In actual fact in full AB the fuel burn rate would be more like 1.5 to 2.5 as it is a fuel intensive engine as it is a turbofan...

    3.- Since the 1990s, Russia had the number of strategic bombers that they wanted to have. This number has been very close to the number of aircrafts they inherited from the Soviet Union.

    Wrong.

    They wanted more Blackjacks, but they only had 4 incomplete airframes at the Russian factory and could only complete two because the other two clearly did not have the huge titanium box structure completed... otherwise they would have completed all four.

    The Blackjack is the newer bomber... but they could not afford an all supersonic Blackjack bomber force.

    they wanted more blackjacks because 15 planes is not a viable force and so now they are making more.

    They don't want all just Blackjacks otherwise they could just do that and not worry about the PAK DA.

    They clearly want a mixed fleet of subsonic but stealthy and supersonic bombers for theatre and strategic missions.

    Tu-22M is not an option... it is a theatre bomber only.

    5.- Obviously is not right to say that all the current Tu-95/142 are of the maritime patrol variant Tu-142. Today around a 29% of the total Tu-95/142 are of the Tu-142 variant.

    The Tu-95 is an old design.

    In the 1970s they updated the design with new wings and improved the fuselage shape with less drag and other bits and pieces. Do you think the current in service Tu-95s that were made in the 1980s and 1990s were of the old design or of the newer upgraded design?

    They kept the Tu-95 designation because that is what is in all the agreements... Tu-95.

    At best can be a subrole, but it would mean that a theatre bomber is either a strategic bomber or a fighter ground attack aircraft. Which of the two is then the Tu-22?. Almost all the sources say the Tu-22 is a strategic bomber.

    Western sources... ie the USAF want the Tu-22M called a strategic bomber so its numbers and deployment can be limited and restricted by strategic arms treaties.

    If the Tu-22M3 is a strategic bomber then so is the F-111.

    Also the sources agree not with your comment about the refueling potential of the Tu-22, including the Tu-22M3. As example:

    Do they provide any evidence of any ever being fitted with inflight refuelling equipment?

    Because that is what the US likes to suggest as that would violate a few agreements... believe that and you will believe Saddam had WMDs ready to attack the US and UK within 45 minutes and of course Iran has nuclear weapons right now...

    In reality, the Tu-22M series had been built for strikes at Western Europe and China, as well as operations against US fleet elements, with little thought given to using it for strategic operations.

    The Tu-22M was built for strikes at western europe and china, as well as naval models for use against carrier groups.

    It has no inflight refuelling probes and is not used in training on anything but theatre missions.

    They can speculate all they want about inflight refuelling probes but there are no photos of such a thing actually fitted to the Tu-22M3.

    For christs sake it needed to land in Iran to attack targets in Syria with a decent load of bombs... what the fuck use would it be against the US?

    Using it against the US would mean inflight refuelling aircraft all over US airspace... begging to be shot down...

    Inflight refuelling aircraft they simply don't have... they barely have enough to top up the Bears and Blackjacks before they head out on their missions...

    Finally, the Tu-22 is an strategic bomber, and must be used as strategic bomber, not as Fighter Ground Attack aircraft.

    Has not and will never be a strategic bomber... in the quote you posted above the USN and CIA accept this as fact... it is just the USAF that is fucked up and deluded.

    The overall size and take-off weight of the aircraft to which one of them is mounted is totally irrelevant : the same sustained Kn of thrust is achieved consuming almost equal amount of fuel/hr.

    Really?

    So an RD-33 jet engine fitted to a Yak-130 would burn the same amount of fuel as an RD-33 fitted to an An-12?

    I would suggest different sizes and different weights of aircraft require different throttle settings to do specific things...

    The B-2 has four engines each generating 17,300lbs of thrust... compared with the Tu-160M in the old model with 55,115 lbs thrust per engine... a difference of 151 thousand lbs of thrust that the B-2 lacks and the Blackjack has.

    remind two parameters : internal weapon bays weight limits for B-2 bomber 18.000 kg , same parameter for Ту-160 41.000 kg.

    My understanding that the upgraded Tu-160Ms have a 45,000kg payload capacity...

    to deliver the same amount of cruise missiles (at today the US specimen is still incapable of that) or ordnances on target of a Ту-160 you need more than two B-2 Spirits !!!!!

    You have no argument there from me... the B-2 was designed as a first strike bomber and the Blackjack is a cruise missile carrier and a damn fine aircraft.

    The point is that the PAK DA wont be a B-2.

    Just like the Buran wasnt a space shuttle copy either.

    The Russians are not stupid and they will realise the bad things and the good things and eliminate the bad things and maximise the good things.

    With the shuttle they didn't copy the US design which was basically an C-130 with an enormous belly mounted fuel tank and two huge solid rocket boosters to get it moving.

    The shuttle had ten tonnes of engines it carried into space and brought back with it every time it flew... the solid rocket boosters were enormously expensive and reusing parts was expensive too because they had to be recovered and basically inspected and rebuilt for each launch.

    In comparison the Buran had manouvering rockets and deorbit thrusters and that is all... if you were building a space station the whole 120 ton shuttle could be removed and whole parts of the station could be launched on the back of the energyia rocket that took Buran into space... much cheaper and much more efficient.

    The PAK DA will be a surprise and will be a very capable aircraft... I am still hoping for a super cruising model as a cheap option for reasonable speed... and F-35 would be no more capable of catching a mach 1.5 target as a mach 2 target...

    You can easily compute if the few percentage points of difference in flight's cruise required thrust is competitive against very intensive maintenance, the hundreds of mission's preparation labour hours and......monstrous fuel consuption.... linked with the necessity to put in the air another strategic bomber to deliver the same amount of cruise missiles / guided munitions on targets .

    Except that the Russian stealthy flying wing will be designed from the outset to carry large cruise missiles internally... they are making the PAK DA for Russia not for the US.


    _________________
    “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

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon 24 Jul 2017, 17:24