Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1562
    Points : 1562
    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 : 1642
    Points : 1667
    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 : 967
    Points : 965
    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 : 967
    Points : 965
    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 : 1642
    Points : 1667
    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 : 16871
    Points : 17479
    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 : 5609
    Points : 5650
    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 : 776
    Points : 953
    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 : 1732
    Points : 1889
    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 : 1642
    Points : 1667
    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.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1642
    Points : 1667
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Sun Jul 16, 2017 10:26 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 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 : 1642
    Points : 1667
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:19 am

    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 : 16871
    Points : 17479
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:02 am

    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 : 16871
    Points : 17479
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:06 am

    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 : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:03 pm

    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 : 16871
    Points : 17479
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jul 18, 2017 1:10 pm


    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
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1642
    Points : 1667
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:57 pm

    Sorry GarryB, but this last comment has a mix of technical missunderstanding and reality denial with very few to save.

    Vann7

    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3583
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Vann7 on Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:30 am

    eehnie wrote:Sorry GarryB, but this last comment has a mix of technical missunderstanding and reality denial with very few to save.

    i lost my hopes in having any discussion of military tactics with him.
    He simply don't understand much of strategy or military tactics. Planes the faster they are ,
    and the higher the altitude ,the more difficult is to intercept them.  Oh but is too expensive
    right Garry? lol1   But nothing is more expensive than losing a war with Americans or losing
    even a small confrontation engagement.  With a fast Bomber Russia could do Hit and Run tactics.
    and if the planes are Supersonic ,can evade planes. if they are hypersonic even better ,can evade missiles. So someone might have better luck in trying to explain him this. Americans don't have a need as much as Russia for Fast planes ,because they have military bases right next to Russian borders already. So even cruise missiles launchers on Land will do the job.. In Russia case..
    they don't have military bases near Washington DC.. so it need to evade hundreds of military bases of NATO ,and will be chased and intercepted way before it get close US atlatic coast.
    So RUssia do needs  fast bomber. the faster the better.  Supersonic Mach 2.0 to to 2.5 planes
    have a chance to escape combat planes. and Hypersonic Bombers , have a chance to evade Missiles. and do Hit and Run tactics. and if the Bomber fly in the mesosphere ,can't be peacefully intercepted.  Means that for Americans ,the only way to stop a mesosphere bomber flying in international space in time of peace ,will be launching an SM-2 missile ,that is shoot to kill the bomber ,before he do anything illegal. In other words with a Hypersonic  Bomber or Mesosphere bomber Russia can take by surprise Americans , Shoot first and run away.

    So If Russia had for example lets say , 10x mesosphere bombers flying at 35km altitude..
    near US borders..(the SR-71 flew at 22km) ,Russia will have a good chance to decapitate american leadership if it feels one day ,Americans are preparing for a first strike on Russia with nukes , then the Americans airforce will not be able to escort the Russian bombers or even intercept them easily.

    It will be similar to having someone with a Gun and a lazer aim ,already illuminating your head , can you fight back at anyone already aiming with a handgun at you and blank shot distance? NO.  He will be able to kill you before you could use any gun.  and this is the HUGE advantage a Fast Supersonic or Hypersonic or Mesosphere bomber can do for Russia. It will allow Russia to practice "peaceful" flights in international waters close to US capital. and with no way of being escorted or intercepted in a peaceful way.

    So Russia could one day ,switch a training flight into a First nuclear strike and caught Americans by surprise, and bomb US Capital and decapitate the government and run away unharmed. While if you do it using a super slow bomber like B1.. or B2 if Russian planes were like that ,such planes will be intercepted by all European powers and by Americans combat planes too. Because the B1 will fly in the zones  traditional planes operate. Then it will be embarrassing if Pak-fa is peacefully intercepted near US coast. This is why you need a plane that is fast and can't stay away of any escort/interception and fly in zones ,its enemies planes can't.

    A hypersonic /Mesosphere bomber with long range distance flight , that can launch cruise missiles with nukes ,will be the Ultimate deterrence in the world. more than the entire American Navy.. Because Russia will have the ability with such a bomber to preventively do first strikes
    attack on any nation to decapitate its leadership. if you remove the leadership ,they will be unable to organize an effective follow up war against Russia. Even death hand is flawed , because is only a retaliation thing ,and will not stop Russian enemies leadership. Because they will know at least 30 minutes earlier when a massive nuclear strike began against them. plenty of time to hide in deep bunkers and plenty of time for relocation of an alternative Government into another country.

    In peace time ,the US navy will have NO WAY to block Russia from positioning for a first strike attack on their battle groups/aircraft carriers if Russia flight in international space .  because their regular combat planes can't intercept them..and you can't fire a missile ,even if you had one at a plane flying in international airspace ,but close to your borders. So a Mesosphere/Hypersonic Bomber will have always the strike first advantage and caught enemies by surprise. and hit and run. A mesosphere hypersonic bombers also can fly with total impunity over 99% of the countries of the world ,and even US could face problems to intercept it. in Big numbers. So the right tactics teachnology could allow RUssia to penetrate deep into US territory and take down most secret facilities and important with 100% precision.

    T-47

    Posts : 211
    Points : 215
    Join date : 2017-07-17
    Location : Planet Earth

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  T-47 on Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:08 pm

    eehnie wrote:Sorry GarryB, but this last comment has a mix of technical missunderstanding and reality denial with very few to save.

    Well then please elaborate
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16871
    Points : 17479
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:38 am

    He believes that hypersonic bombers flying on the edge of the atmosphere would suddenly make the power that has them invincible...

    What he does not realise is that the cost of operating such bombers would be eye watering... even the US that pisses money away happily could not afford to keep the Mach 3 SR-71 operational continuously... it kept being withdrawn from service and then put back in when something happened and they needed its capabilities.

    the point is that an ICBM warhead travels faster than any hypersonic bomber and they are vulnerable to being shot down too...

    even if Vann could wave a magic wand and all of a sudden russia had 1,000 hypersonic bombers, they don't have the fuel to keep them operational, they don't have the pilots to man them and there is nothing really practical they could actually use them for except nuclear war and you could bet your ass the US would immediately demand serious limits on hypersonic bombers and would invest an enormous amount of money into making their ABM system work and adapting it to shoot down hypersonic bombers as well as ICBMs and SLBMs.

    Russia doesn't need 1,000 hypersonic bombers... its nuclear weapons are sufficient to do the job of deterring the US and the EU from doing anything really stupid... and it just has to play the waiting game for the west to screw itself... or realise that a single pole superpower world simply does not and wont work....


    _________________
    “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 : 1642
    Points : 1667
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:06 pm


    Talking in my name GarryB? Trying to distort my opinions again?

    What I think is in my comments, not in yours.

    I expect, from a technical point, a new strategic bomber that overperforms the Tu-160. A modern strategic bomber of the new generation, not a follower of the US failed subsonic stealth strategies of 25 years ago. This means a strategic bomber likely between Mach 1.5 and Mach 2.0. Never said about hypersonic strategic bombers.

    Also I expect from a technical point, a new interceptor that overperforms the MiG-31 (and the MiG-25). This means an interceptor near hypersonic speeds. Very likely over Mach 3.5. In this case Mach 4.0 can be credible. But this is other history.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1642
    Points : 1667
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Sat Aug 05, 2017 4:28 pm

    T-47 wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Sorry GarryB, but this last comment has a mix of technical missunderstanding and reality denial with very few to save.

    Well then please elaborate

    It is very weird to talk with someone that does not want to aknowledge even what is in front of his eyes. But taking into account that GarryB continues trying to distort my opinions we can go with it.

    GarryB wrote:

    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.

    This part has 0 technical sense. If he wants we can analyze the case of a 125hp engine and a 175hp engine at 150Km/h. Or a 300hp engine and a 400hp engine at 250Km/h on a conventional car. The results are the same that I explained in the previous example. Pretty understandable for everyone that knows what a car is, and proving his wrong previous comment, and how Isos was right.

    GarryB wrote:
    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.

    In the example I exposed it was nothing about wrong gear selection. It was a standard case.

    GarryB wrote:
    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...

    For a given engine.

    Under this restriction GarryB is introducing now, it is not possible even to compare the new Tu-160 variant with the previous Tu-160. Not sure if he really understands what this restriction means. But for the new Tu-160 variant, the paraments of the engine are being modified, and as consequence, technically is not the same engine in the way this restriction imposes.

    Then which is the sense of this comment... Or is technical misunderstanding, or is reality denial trying to confuse the people. dunno

    GarryB wrote:
    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.

    The second part of my comment was done thinking in the number of Tu-160. The interpretation of GarryB of why not all the Tu-160 were completed is wrong. To scrap warfare in construction always means loses. The interest at the time in to finnish all the units, taking into account the finnacial situation was not enough to avoid the loses of scrapping unfinnished units. During the 1990s Russia continued finnishing the most interesting (for them) warfare in construction while other warfare considered of lower interest was scrapped in the middle of the process. Not only these aircrafts, also a good number of ships.

    And we can find the reason of why some unit of the Tu-160 was not finnished in the evoulution of the fleets of the Tu-95/142 and the Tu-22. In both cases, Russia reduced the inherited fleet during the 1990s (and maybe in the early 2000s). The feelt of strategic bombers was considered at the time too big. If Russia would have considered to have a need of 5 or 10 Tu-160 more would have build them instead of other things.

    Now the concept of Maritime Patrol is changing. With unmanned aircrafts assuming the surveillance, reconnaisance and patrol roles, in the near future, is likely to see the long rang bombing part of the maritime patrol role assumed by strategic bombers (in fact, the Tu-142 variant and the Il-38 are strategic bombers). The the new perspective of the role and the age of the current fleet gives an impulse to the production of the Tu-160 in a fist stage and of the Tu-PAK-DA later. Until the point that in the following State Armament Program 2018-2025 is likely to see the strategic bombers in the top of the orders in relative terms for the entire Russian air warfare.

    GarryB wrote:
    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.

    His previous sentence was obviously wrong but the man has to say something. Well. The current Tu-95 maybe in most of the case of the newer variants, but are not of the maritime patrol variant Tu-142. Reality denial again.

    GarryB wrote:
    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.

    The weapon treaties are just treaties. Accepted by both sides at least at the moment of the signature. What they discussed and signed about the Tu-22 and the conventions of language they agreed to use are not creating military theory. If the West want language tricks like this, do not worry, Russia will not be fooled because Russia knows perfectly what they signed. The US accepted to leave the Tu-22 out of some chapters, no matter the language conventions used in the treaties.

    I undertand your point, but really there is not risk for Russia in this discussion. The US can not deny they agreed at the time to leave out the Tu-22 of some sentences that affect to other strategic bombers.

    I know less the F-111, but it is possible.

    GarryB wrote:
    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...

    The Tu-22, including the Tu-22M variants are previous to the treaties. There is nothing rare, and nothing against the treaties, if the initial aircrafts were designed able to refueling. Later refueling tools were retired in agreement with the treaties. But it means not that the aircraft including its late variatns becomes incompatible with refueling in phisical terms, and there is not technical reasons that support the fact that it is possible to reintegrate the refueling tools in the aircraft. There is nothing illegal or against the treaties on it. The treaties never forced changes in the design of the Tu-22M variant to make it incompatible with refueling.

    This comment also falls in the reality denial chapter.

    GarryB wrote:
    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...

    Here is a cut of the quote of a source that is used in a contrary sense to the expresed in the source. I recomment to reread the initial quote.

    A distortion of the reality.

    He seem to need explanation about how (roughly) if an aircraft has 5000 km of range, the refuling aircrafts need not to approach more than to 2200-2300 Km of the missile launch point. The missiles that the Tu-22 can lauch have also some range (as example the Kh-22 has 600 Km of own additional range).

    Also seems to need explanation about the political meaning of the stop of Russian aircrafts in Iran.

    GarryB wrote:
    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.

    Really, yes. And this is something that someone that used the expresion "For a given engine" previously should understand. One thing is the power developed by the engine and other thing is the effect of this power in the bodywork the engine is attached to... As example this is why it is possible to isolate an engine in test bench and it is possible a measure of the power in a laboratory.

    This comment includes also a clear technical misunderstanding.

    But this last was a quote to Mindstorm, maybe he wants to answer more to this and to the rest.

    Azi

    Posts : 170
    Points : 172
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Azi on Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:31 pm

    I really don't understand this pure bullshit discussion!!!

    Russian MoD said more than thousand times that PAK-DA will be a subsonic flying wing!!!

    Hypersonic bombers were nice concepts in cold war era, bringing dumb bombs with high speed to the specific target. In a few years we will see hypersonic cruise missiles and PAK-DA like Tu-160M2 are intended to be their carrier.

    The role of PAK-DA in a conflict with a dangerous foe (USA) will be similar to the nuclear submarine fleet! Acting as carriers for nuclear cruise missiles. Against a weak foe the PAK-DA will fully benefit from stealth!

    Advantages of PAK-DA will be a really long loiter time, big payload, low observable! A hypersonic bomber CAN'T be stealth, the loiter time is around 20 min (not hours!!!) and the payload is small (very small!).

    Garry is simply right!

    T-47

    Posts : 211
    Points : 215
    Join date : 2017-07-17
    Location : Planet Earth

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  T-47 on Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:35 pm

    Good points eehnie.

    Well as for the Tu-22Ms I read previously that they were fitted with refuel probes but later variants got it removed because of the treaty!
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 867
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Aug 06, 2017 5:14 am

    Azi wrote:I really don't understand this pure bullshit discussion!!!

    Russian MoD said more than thousand times that PAK-DA will be a subsonic flying wing!!!

    Hypersonic bombers were nice concepts in cold war era, bringing dumb bombs with high speed to the specific target. In a few years we will see hypersonic cruise missiles and PAK-DA like Tu-160M2 are intended to be their carrier.

    The role of PAK-DA in a conflict with a dangerous foe (USA) will be similar to the nuclear submarine fleet! Acting as carriers for nuclear cruise missiles. Against a weak foe the PAK-DA will fully benefit from stealth!

    Advantages of PAK-DA will be a really long loiter time, big payload, low observable! A hypersonic bomber CAN'T be stealth, the loiter time is around 20 min (not hours!!!) and the payload is small (very small!).

    Garry is simply right!

    IMHO, hypersonic aircraft really only have two uses (1) penetrate heavily defended airspace through use of speed and altitude for attacking high-value targets, (2) rapidly getting onto station to fire stand-off weapons.  I'm ignoring recon duties as SR-71 type missions are operationally obsolete.

    In the age of BMD, (1) is no longer feasible.  Missile performance is more than adequate to kill hypersonic bombers, the only possible difficulty is being able to intercept a maneuvering target, but its likely large hypersonic aircraft aren't stressed to pull the same G's as a HGV so that's unlikely to have much impact.

    Regarding (2), bombers are a counter-force system, not capable of 1st strike, so rapid deployment to firing stations is not really a priority, and doesn't justify the enormous development/procurement/operating costs.

    Sorry Vann, err...  unspecified posters....  but mesospheric hypersonic bombers aint' gonna happen...

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:02 am