Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5537
    Points : 5578
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Tue Jul 11, 2017 10:23 pm

    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16375
    Points : 16990
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:32 am

    The PAK FA is slower than the MiG-31... is it a failure too?

    Speed is a factor, but is it the critical factor?

    Even supersonic bombers like the Tu-160 don't fly at supersonic speed all the way to their launch positions and back... they normally fly high subsonic to approach the danger area and then fly supersonic dash to get closer and then launch and supersonic dash out of range of enemy fighter/air defences and then subsonic home.

    For a subsonic bomber the difference is minor if fitted with long range hypersonic cruise missiles able to perform that high speed dash in the danger areas.


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

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

    Posts : 1396
    Points : 1421
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:39 am

    GarryB wrote:The PAK FA is slower than the MiG-31... is it a failure too?

    Speed is a factor, but is it the critical factor?

    Even supersonic bombers like the Tu-160 don't fly at supersonic speed all the way to their launch positions and back... they normally fly high subsonic to approach the danger area and then fly supersonic dash to get closer and then launch and supersonic dash out of range of enemy fighter/air defences and then subsonic home.

    For a subsonic bomber the difference is minor if fitted with long range hypersonic cruise missiles able to perform that high speed dash in the danger areas.

    The MiG-31 is an interceptor. This is a real difference in role between the MiG-31 and the Su-PAK-FA. Not like in the case militarov said.

    If we compare the Su-PAK-FA with other aircrafts of its same or very close role like the Su-35, Su-30, Su-33, Su-27, MiG-35 or MiG-29, the speed is very close. Would you imagine a Mach 1.3 fighter today? We would not be very kind, even the F-35 is Mach 1.6+.

    Also we can compare the MiG-41-PAK-DP with the MiG-31 and the MiG-25, and we will see like the future interceptor falls not to lower speed level. Would you imagine a Mach 2 MiG-41? The same.


    Last edited by eehnie on Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:52 am; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1396
    Points : 1421
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:43 am

    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.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 950
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Jul 12, 2017 9:54 pm


    GarryB wrote:Even supersonic bombers like the Tu-160 don't fly at supersonic speed all the way to their launch positions and back


    Well Garry ,that depend entirely on the mission to execute, the situation and even more the quality level of opponent ; that said the core mission of Tu-160/M/M2 -continuous cyclical delivery of nuclear or conventional strategic cruise missile toward the most important enemy key military assets to achieve, rapid degradation of its capabilities - would be executed entirely at supersonic speed , at an average speed Mach 1,3 (more than double the average speed of foreign subsonic strategic bombers) and usually with a Hi-Low-Hi mission profile.

    The reason ,how i have pointed out more times, are very simple :

    - The sustained supersonic speed allow to shorten enormously the delivery cycle of the strategic cruise missiles toward enemy installations, and this element generate a disproportionately faster degradation of enemy military capabilities in comparison with a subsonic delivery cycle of the same ammunitions .
    Even a difference of mere few hours and entire air wings instead to be reduced to smoking scraps on the ground would be in the air, potentially capable to intercept a part of your next cruise missile salvo; or some radar installations would be still operative and capable to locate your next salvo and so on......
    Obviously the next salvo arrive much earlier adding to the degradation's magnificating effect up-described.


    - The sustained supersonic speed allow an incomparably faster relocation in different airfields, enormously complicating enemy ISR (in particular through space-based systems cause the tiem window coverage of a particular Sector) and targeting tasks.
    That element by itself multiply of several times the survivability of the strategic bomber.


    - The sustained supersonic speed (in comparison with a subsonic cruise speed ) prevent potential enemy aircraft of stance in airfields placed literally in several hundreds of km to partecipate in the attempt of the interception of the cruise missile salvo ,even when alerted by early warning assets and with the necessary in-flight refueling.


    Present and even more future military development world-wide is a titanic, frantic, desperate ,all-encompassing race toward speed ,speed and more speed.

    Words are a things, products was always and will always be another.........






    Arrow

    Posts : 150
    Points : 150
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Arrow on Wed Jul 12, 2017 10:42 pm

    resent and even more future military development world-wide is a titanic, frantic, desperate ,all-encompassing race toward speed ,speed and more speed. wrote:

    PAK DA propably will be subsonic bomber. The future is subsonic stealth bomber like B-21 and PAK DA.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 950
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:41 am


    Arrow wrote:PAK DA propably will be subsonic bomber. The future is subsonic stealth bomber like B-21 and PAK DA.


    ПАК ДА, and not only it, will be.....period

    The future of reusable strategic offensive means will be anything EXCEPT subsonic and ,even more, imaginary self-delusional "stealth" products of any kind.

    A very, very careful eye is placed on the long "journeys" in the space of X-37B and its current and projected evolution, not those ,at best, easy and very costly flying targets.



    Do you know, anyway a fraction of military expenditure will always be commited to procurement of systems optimized for local conflict against low tech enemies , but for Federation's military budget, not having at its root an offensive-imperialistic Doctrine, procurement of systems optimized for conflicts against high tech opponents will always get the priority.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16375
    Points : 16990
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:10 pm

    The MiG-31 is an interceptor. This is a real difference in role between the MiG-31 and the Su-PAK-FA. Not like in the case militarov said.

    And for an interceptor speed is critical.

    For a bomber and a fighter it is not.

    If we compare the Su-PAK-FA with other aircrafts of its same or very close role like the Su-35, Su-30, Su-33, Su-27, MiG-35 or MiG-29, the speed is very close. Would you imagine a Mach 1.3 fighter today? We would not be very kind, even the F-35 is Mach 1.6+.

    Flying faster than Mach 1.5 burns up lots of fuel, dramatically shortens the flight range of the aircraft and takes time to accelerate to... so 90% of the time most of the aircraft you mention above never fly that fast.

    The MiG-31 and MiG-25 are exceptions to this rule as in their role of high speed interceptors they routinely accelerate to full speed and fly for long periods at that speed... simply because their role requires it.

    For most other aircraft it greatly reduces range and time on patrol for little to no benefit.

    Also we can compare the MiG-41-PAK-DP with the MiG-31 and the MiG-25, and we will see like the future interceptor falls not to lower speed level. Would you imagine a Mach 2 MiG-41? The same.

    Again because speed is a critical factor in their primary role.

    If speed was a critical factor then the Tu-95 would have been replaced completely from service and the B-52 would also be gone.

    Speed is not a critical factor in most types of theatre and strategic bombing or conventional cruise missile attack.

    None of the cruise missile attacks by Tu-160s or Tu-22M3s in Syria were launched at supersonic flight speeds... that would just waste fuel and reduce flight range.

    For a strategic mission higher speeds would be useful but the costs are higher fuel burn and higher operational costs.

    The Bear is not being replaced by the Tu-160M2 because the Tu-160M2 will have operating costs that are too high to allow it.

    The PAK DA will be subsonic which will mean its operational costs will be comparable with the Bear... and therefore affordable to operate in sufficient numbers.

    The Tu-160M2 will likely be able to super cruise with new lighter stronger materials and more powerful engines, which will mean flying supersonically all the way to the target and back will be practical and much more efficient... it will actually likely make the Tu-160M2 a much better aircraft in both strategic and theatre roles.

    If the PAK DA was going to be a supersonic bomber there would be no need to produce more Tu-160s, because the Blackjacks main feature is higher speed with long range.

    The PAK DA is going to be the cheaper to operate subsonic bomber that replaces the Tu-22M3 in the theatre role and the Tu-95 in the strategic role with large bomb loads and odd shaped large hypersonic cruise missiles that wont fit so well in the Blackjack.


    Present and even more future military development world-wide is a titanic, frantic, desperate ,all-encompassing race toward speed ,speed and more speed.

    Words are a things, products was always and will always be another.........

    I agree, speed adds to the performance of a bomber and its attempts to penetrate enemy airspace, but the cost is enormous too.

    Tu-160s are rather more expensive to operate that subsonic Tu-95s.

    Producing a few new Tu-160s... especially as mentioned if the weight could be reduced with new lighter stronger materials, and the fitting of new more powerful engines that are more fuel efficient and perhaps add the capacity to super cruise in the mach 1.4-1.6 speed range would greatly improve effectiveness and performance while also reducing operational costs and fuel consumption.

    They would still be too expensive to have your entire fleet based on them however.

    The same solution is in cruise missiles... subsonic stealthy long range, together with hypersonic long range offer the best combination of features and performance.

    No matter how you cut it the new long range hypersonic cruise missiles will be big weapons... external carriage might be the only option to begin with... external carriage offers enormous penalties for supersonic stealthy aircraft... the external drag means subsonic flight only and a big increase in RCS. For a subsonic plane like a Bear it wont slow it down that much and it already has a big RCS. for a big flying wing the internal volume for weapons could be huge and big enough for internal carriage.

    A modular design allowing theatre range fuel weights plus heavy conventional payloads, or conversely strategic level fuel weights and nuclear payloads for strategic delivery should be fairly straight forward to design.


    _________________
    “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
    Isos

    Posts : 792
    Points : 792
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Isos on Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:33 pm

    Flying faster than Mach 1.5 burns up lots of fuel, dramatically shortens the flight range of the aircraft and takes time to accelerate to... so 90% of the time most of the aircraft you mention above never fly that fast.

    The MiG-31 and MiG-25 are exceptions to this rule as in their role of high speed interceptors they routinely accelerate to full speed and fly for long periods at that speed... simply because their role requires it.

    For most other aircraft it greatly reduces range and time on patrol for little to no benefit.

    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. 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.

    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.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1396
    Points : 1421
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:00 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The MiG-31 is an interceptor. This is a real difference in role between the MiG-31 and the Su-PAK-FA. Not like in the case militarov said.

    And for an interceptor speed is critical.

    For a bomber and a fighter it is not.

    If we compare the Su-PAK-FA with other aircrafts of its same or very close role like the Su-35, Su-30, Su-33, Su-27, MiG-35 or MiG-29, the speed is very close. Would you imagine a Mach 1.3 fighter today? We would not be very kind, even the F-35 is Mach 1.6+.

    Flying faster than Mach 1.5 burns up lots of fuel, dramatically shortens the flight range of the aircraft and takes time to accelerate to... so 90% of the time most of the aircraft you mention above never fly that fast.

    The MiG-31 and MiG-25 are exceptions to this rule as in their role of high speed interceptors they routinely accelerate to full speed and fly for long periods at that speed... simply because their role requires it.

    For most other aircraft it greatly reduces range and time on patrol for little to no benefit.

    Also we can compare the MiG-41-PAK-DP with the MiG-31 and the MiG-25, and we will see like the future interceptor falls not to lower speed level. Would you imagine a Mach 2 MiG-41? The same.

    Again because speed is a critical factor in their primary role.

    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.

    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. We know today there are also smaller and slower fighters from other countres, even subsonic fighters, in some cases related to trainer aircrafts, but they are obviously inferior than the Russian fighters, and are of not interest for the Russian Armed Forces because of their lower performance. As example, for Russia would be easy to do a fighter variant of the Yak-130, even able to reach Mach 1.2/1.3 approximately, but it is fairly safe to say that would be of inferior performance than the previously cited aircrafts, and would be only to export.

    GarryB wrote:If speed was a critical factor then the Tu-95 would have been replaced completely from service and the B-52 would also be gone.

    Speed is not a critical factor in most types of theatre and strategic bombing or conventional cruise missile attack.

    None of the cruise missile attacks by Tu-160s or Tu-22M3s in Syria were launched at supersonic flight speeds... that would just waste fuel and reduce flight range.

    For a strategic mission higher speeds would be useful but the costs are higher fuel burn and higher operational costs.

    The Bear is not being replaced by the Tu-160M2 because the Tu-160M2 will have operating costs that are too high to allow it.

    The PAK DA will be subsonic which will mean its operational costs will be comparable with the Bear... and therefore affordable to operate in sufficient numbers.

    The Tu-160M2 will likely be able to super cruise with new lighter stronger materials and more powerful engines, which will mean flying supersonically all the way to the target and back will be practical and much more efficient... it will actually likely make the Tu-160M2 a much better aircraft in both strategic and theatre roles.

    If the PAK DA was going to be a supersonic bomber there would be no need to produce more Tu-160s, because the Blackjacks main feature is higher speed with long range.

    The PAK DA is going to be the cheaper to operate subsonic bomber that replaces the Tu-22M3 in the theatre role and the Tu-95 in the strategic role with large bomb loads and odd shaped large hypersonic cruise missiles that wont fit so well in the Blackjack.

    Like Mindstorm explained, the speed is also one of the key features of the aircrafts of the strategic bomber role. Unlike in the case of interceptors, the speed is not the feature that defines de role. In the case of the strategic bombers the feature that defines the role is the hability to reach long range, but the speed is also a key feature. Very, very important. This is out of doubt. The argument of Mindstorm is technically correct and is well explained. And also Isos explained an important detail.

    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.

    In the previous technological generation, Russia had the Tu-95 and the Tu-22. Booth were and are successful. It is obvious that Russia will not destroy weapons that are useful. Like the T-62 continued in service many years after the entry of the T-90. The T-95 and the T-22 succeeded together because at the time every one had its advantage over the other. The Tu-95 had advantage on size (payload). The Tu-22 had avantage on speed. At the time of the Tu-95 and the Tu-22 was not technically posible to have the size of the Tu-95 and the speed of the Tu-22 in a single aircraft. This was fixed in the next technological generation with the development of the Tu-160, including an improvement for both ways (subsonic T-95 and supersonic T-22) in a single solution that is able to accomplish every mission for the strategic bomber role.

    Now we see the deveopment of the next technological generation. Nothing makes to think that the Tu-PAK-DA will be of inferior features than its predecessor. Everyone with a minimum technical and economical knowledge knows that it would be a big failure and the orders of the Tu-160 would continue. There is not a technologically serious argument that can sustain it. And the economic balance that some people try to present is fairly questionable, at a stage of the project where almost everything is unknown. In agreement with what Mindstorm explained about the effect of the speed in the compliance of the missions, the suposed economic advantage of lower speed aircrafts would be obtained at the cost of a worst and fairly riskier compliance of the missions (something that also has its costs, that must be included too in the balance). The technolical efforts in to increase the survivability of the aircrafts have a serious effect of the overall economic balance. 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.

    There is not doubt that there are benefits with the integration of stealth technologies in the future solution for the role (Tu-PAK-DA), but if the introduction is done with the sacrifice of key features of the strategic bombers like the speed, with the benefits there is also an introduction of flaws that were surpassed with the Tu-160.

    Obviously, the US has a desperate need of seeing Russia validating as a follower, their failed strategy of sacrificing the speed in favor of the stealth technologies, and they are trying to intoxicate without arguments. But Russia is not silly, and is not a follower of failed strategies. We saw recently in Syria, with the shut-down of the last expensive stealth US drone, how this strategy is failing.

    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.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 792
    Points : 792
    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 : 1396
    Points : 1421
    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 : 792
    Points : 792
    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 : 1396
    Points : 1421
    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 : 792
    Points : 792
    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 : 1396
    Points : 1421
    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 : 1309
    Points : 1309
    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 : 5537
    Points : 5578
    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 : 5537
    Points : 5578
    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 : 5537
    Points : 5578
    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 : 1396
    Points : 1421
    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 : 5537
    Points : 5578
    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 : 5537
    Points : 5578
    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 : 1396
    Points : 1421
    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 : 5537
    Points : 5578
    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.

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:15 pm