Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2123
    Points : 2146
    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 : 2123
    Points : 2146
    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 : 2123
    Points : 2146
    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 : 17753
    Points : 18315
    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...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17753
    Points : 18315
    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...

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 797
    Points : 964
    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 : 17753
    Points : 18315
    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.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2123
    Points : 2146
    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 : 3781
    Points : 3885
    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 : 221
    Points : 223
    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 : 17753
    Points : 18315
    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....
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2123
    Points : 2146
    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 : 2123
    Points : 2146
    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 : 216
    Points : 216
    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 : 221
    Points : 223
    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 : 1201
    Points : 1207
    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...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17753
    Points : 18315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 06, 2017 10:45 am

    Apologies to Eehnie, it is Vann that is the hypersonic bomber fan.

    Eehnie is the envelope pusher.

    He thinks if the next gen Russian bomber could be hypersonic then it should be...

    The problem now is the same problem as when the Tu-22M series was being developed... mach three bombers were possible then but expensive to make and to operate.

    The problem was that while they were harder to intercept than a slightly slower Mach 2 bomber they were hundreds or thousands of times more expensive.

    Things haven't changed much now.

    Having really fast bombers wont make them immune to interception, but it will make them so expensive that having enough would bankrupt Russia.... it would also quicken the bankruptcy of the US too if they tried to achieve a fleet of hypersonic bombers.

    The Sukhoi design bureau developed a new mach 3 bomber called the T-4... it was transferred to Tupolev to actually make because Tupolev has more experience in large heavy bombers and Tupolev pulled a fast one... they knew a mach 3 bomber would not be safe from air defences... S-300 could easily shoot down such a target in the early 1970s... just like an S-400 could easily shoot down a target moving at 4.8km per second... which is much faster than mach 10... the S-500 will shoot down targets moving at twice that speed...

    Don't get me wrong... high speed is a good goal, and new engines and new materials makes higher speeds much more practical to achieve... a scramjet means high speed is attainable without having to resort to rocket power... but it makes more sense to have large subsonic bombers with hypersonic long range cruise missiles and a supersonic bomber based on the Tu-160 to also deliver fast and subsonic cruise missiles on targets at enormous ranges.

    That is affordable and would be a formidable threat to the US or any other country on the planet.

    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!

    Yippie... someone gets it...

    If the PAK DA was going to be a supersonic bomber why bother making more Tu-160s?

    Why make a supersonic bomber AND a hypersonic bomber?

    They have clearly said pretty much every time they have mentioned the PAK DA that it would be a subsonic flying wing stealthy type.

    Personally I would have preferred they said a tailed flying wing with super cruising capability... but they didn't.

    Super cruising would mean high speed without the enormous cost in fuel and fuel weight/fraction yet have the aircraft move at a speed that makes it difficult to intercept by modern aircraft.

    The F-35 is able to fly at maybe mach 1.5 or so... which means a super cruising mach 1.4+ bomber would be a real problem to intercept for an F-35.

    Few interceptors operate at supersonic speed for more than 10 minutes... most would take 10 minutes to get to mach 1.8-2 and burn up most of their available fuel doing so...

    The Tu-160M2 will be a supersonic bomber... it might even be faster than the Tu-160M because it will be lighter and with more powerful engines, but it is not going to be more than a mach 2 bomber.

    The PAK DA will be a subsonic bomber with enormous range and large capacity of conventional bombs for theatre and strategic missions.

    The Tu-22M0 had the inflight refuelling equipment in its nose... look up a photo of that variant... it never went into production.

    The Tu-22M2 was the first model produced in any numbers with older weaker engines.

    The Tu-22M3 has the 25 ton thrust engines comparable but not the same as the engines in the Blackjack.

    Vann7

    Posts : 3781
    Points : 3885
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Vann7 on Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:53 am

    GarryB wrote:

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

    .


    But you can't use an ICBM armed with nukes,that fly towards United States and later
    recall it ? can you ? say.. opps, it was a training.  . Rolling Eyes

    As i told you a million of TIMES. before...
    A hypersonic cruise missile or an hypersonic ICBM can't replace the roll of a Long range bomber.

    Suggesting that an ICBM or hypersonic cruise missiles from moscow to america can do the same shows you have no clue at all , of the discussion. or simply incredibly ignorant.


    If we use the basketball game analogy ,and the ball is the missile,What you are proposing will be comparable to a long court shot across the entire basketball court . with the difference that it will have the entire opposite team ,blocking his shot ,so the ball will be stopped quickly ,and the probabilities on the accuracy are small.

    IF Russia launch an ICBM from moscow to washington dc.. The US leadership will have easily 30 minutes or warning , and then Americans will be launching a retaliation strike before the missile hit.. and all us leaders will have plenty of time to hide.. and you can't abort the mission.

    see this? this is NOT a first nuclear strike at all.. Americans submarines in northen sea will be close to Russia. and will retaliate.. before the Russian ICBM hit US.


    What im saying is totally different.. to confuse your adversaries of your intentions..
    Because if you launch an ICBM is an automatic declared war as soon is launched.. without any knowledge if the missile will be intercepted or even hit its target with accuracy. So is NOT a first nuclear strike.

    A first nuclear strike of Russia in US, will have to come right next to American borders.
    but since American borders to east coast is the atlantic sea.. then it will have to be a plane.
    it could be done by warships ,but as soon they show up near US they will have many warships
    between the Russian warships and US coast.. But planes are different.. they can fly fast and position very fast in any place,and they can fly under the radars and evade radars.. see?

    So with a Hypersonic Mesosphere Bomber..that americans combat planes can't intercept , Russia can take a routine of every 3 days a week flying across the entire US eastern coast.. armed with nukes to the teeth.. and Russia will say is just a "training flight" you have nothing to be worry americans.. and the plane is even empty inside.. no armed with nukes. angel

    and the Russian intelligence manage to locate the positions of the top leadership ,in real time..
    and it happens that they are not in bunkers but in a conference in the open.. So if Russia understand that war can't be avoided ..and that americans are withing weeks to attack Russia.
    then a mesosphere Bomber will allow Russia to Strike FIRST without warning... and decapitate the leadership of any nation..and allow the plane to return unharmed. with a super slow plane like Pak-Da it will not hide forever from american radars.. and as soon detected on radars ,
    the americans will send F-22 and put the Bomber on cross hairs. threatening to shot down the plane if he launch a missile to its nation.. that is what a peaceful interception is..

    but if the plane fly 30km above sea.. then it can't be intercepted by any plane.. neither shot down by American NAvy.. only Thaad or Israel Arrow 3 or an S-500 like air defense can do it.. but you can't shot down a Russian plane flying in international space.. so see the difference?

    With a mesosphere bomber ,Russia can do a first strike decapitation strike ,on any nation leadership ,take them by surprise and the bomber escape unharmed.  but a Pak-da can't do that.. it will have many planes intercepting it.. stealth is only radar signal reduction but doesn't make the planes invisible. So PAK-DA will be TOTALLY USELESS ...!!!!!!  if the americans intercept the planes and position themselves behind ,warning them ,that if they fire a missile the planes will be shot down. see the difference?  Pak-da is not a deterrence any more than B2.  

    But american cruise missiles deployed right next to Russian border  close to Putin and general staff ,giving a speech in ST petersburg is a serious threat.

    So RUssia needs a bomber that can allow them to be very close to US capital .
    and that can't be intercepted . drop a missile and escape unharmed. and so far
    a mesosphere bomber is the only thing can do it..

    IF Russia had 10x mesosphere bombers.. it could wipe out 10 aircraft carriers in a surprise attack too. Flying right above the US aircraft carriers and they with nothing they could do.
    So is not about Destruction power the discussion.. is about taking by surprise your enemies.
    Launching an ICBM from moscow will not take by surprise anyone.. the most idiotic thing i have heard ever. the radars in norway can see all ICBM launch all the way to Siberia.. and this was told by putin.  Only way . Russia can take by surprise US leadership. in a nuclear strike
    against its leadership is being close.. there is no other way..

    It will be similar as to deploying snipers in the second floor of a house across the street in your neighborhood. so they will have a very huge headstart on you and it will be a huge deterrence because you will see ,they are aligned for a close shot on you and you will not know which day will pull the trigger.  A mesosphere Bomber is one of the ultimate deterrence that Russia can build , that will force Americans to a new treaty ,that will force americans to remove all their military bases and cruise missiles anywhere near RUssian borders.

    Submarines can do this same thing.. do a surprise attack near US eastern coast. but the problem is their time is limited..  speed very limited. and they very slow and can be chased. Russia neither have refueling military bases anywhere in the atlantic. But a mesosphere plane can do very quick flights and change position quickly in no time and position for a decapitation strike very easily if an order given and the leaders locations known.

    Again don't say an ICBM and a cruise missile fired from 10,000 km away is the same thing.
    is total idiocy. If you have intentions to do a first strike ,it will have to do it as close as possible
    to the target ,to keep the surprise.. so the enemies not alerted.

    It was you Garry who was saying "Nobody" can't attack Russia because have nukes..
    and Turkey did it.. Neutral  You simply are really awfully bad in strategy and tactics..and don't
    understand how Rules of Engagement ,Politics and public opinion, have a major role in how people do wars.  In wars speed and taking by surprise your enemies can be the difference
    between a quick victory or a major defeat.

    My point can be illustrated with a simple question..
    if Russia have ICBMs in moscow that can reach any part of US.. then why Russia bother
    flying with Old soviet bombers near US coast?. why Russia bother sending submarines near US Coast then? since they can reach US anyway from moscow no? Rolling Eyes

     if you can't see the tactical difference between bombers flying very close to US Coast..
    or ICBMs in moscow that can hit the same place.. the you better give up in military discussion if you know no shit.  one of them is Retaliation weapon.. and the other are for practice of first nuclear strike..  but they can't launch any missile if they intercepted and not ready to sacrifice
    their lives in a first strike shot ,while having an F-22 aiming your tail. this is where a bomber
    very hard to intercept comes to place..

    with a high altitude near space bomber ,Russia will the opportunity a big chance to fly over the airspace of 98% of the countries in the world. and even in case of a war fly deep inside US territory unharmed , if combined with courter electronics. It will allow Russia a Big opportunity
    to penetrate any part of US with a bomber..  because traditional combat planes can't intercept it..and only very expensive missiles ,like Thaad or S-500 could do it.. but US don't have many of them.  Patriot missiles top altitude is about 30 km to 35km.. so anything higher will be safe from them..
    avatar
    Benya

    Posts : 527
    Points : 529
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Benya on Mon Aug 07, 2017 11:04 am

    Vann7 wrote:You simply are really awfully bad in strategy and tactics..and don't
    understand how Rules of Engagement ,Politics and public opinion, have a major role in how people do wars.

    Or maybe it's just you Vann who wants to know everything better than anyone.

    This isn't the first time you're doing this, you did the exact same thing to me in the Iskander vs ATACMS thread, in which most of your statements were bollocks, and have been debunked by Garry and me. And what have you done there? You told me that it's just me who "fail to understand military tactics 101".The best thing in that was I was talking about its tactical implementations, it was you who started crowing about a 300km rocket launcher over Iskander that Russia would never need.

    And then we have this hypersonic bomber... Good God. Another thing that Russia will never EVER need, as there are nuclear cruise missiles, ICBMs and SLBMs. Why would they need an expensive hypersonic bomber to fill the gap?

    And what would it do? Launch cruise missiles or drop free falling nukes?

    A first nuclear strike of Russia in US, will have to come right next to American borders.
    but since American borders to east coast is the atlantic sea.. then it will have to be a plane.
    it could be done by warships ,but as soon they show up near US they will have many warships
    between the Russian warships and US coast.. But planes are different.. they can fly fast and position very fast in any place,and they can fly under the radars and evade radars.. see?

    Pure bollocks. A nuclear first strike would be conducted with ICBMs, and ICBM warheads re-entering the atmosphere are much harder to intercept than any hypersonic bomber. Such bomber could only fly at Mach 4-6 while ICBM warheads are already travelling at 2-3 times faster in their re-entry phase.

    So with a Hypersonic Mesosphere Bomber..that americans combat planes can't intercept , Russia can take a routine of every 3 days a week flying across the entire US eastern coast.. armed with nukes to the teeth.. and Russia will say is just a "training flight" you have nothing to be worry americans.. and the plane is even empty inside.. no armed with nukes. angel

    Ok, let me be clear:

    1.) You clearly don't know what the mesosphere is. It starts at 50 kms above sea level, above the stratopause (edge of the stratosphere), and ends in the mesopause (92-100 kms above sea level), where termosphere starts.

    2.) US air defenses would intercept that bomber faster than fighters

    3.) "Russia will say it was just a training"... Hahahahaha lol1 lol1 lol1 Good joke!
    Tell this to the US forces already at DEFCON 1 at the time, please.

    4.) Why would Russia ever deliver a nuclear first strike? Their nuclear forces are mostly geared towards retaliation. Wake up Vann, this isn't the Cold War with trigger happy nuclear powers.

    With a mesosphere bomber ,Russia can do a first strike decapitation strike ,on any nation leadership ,take them by surprise and the bomber escape unharmed.  but a Pak-da can't do that.. it will have many planes intercepting it.. stealth is only radar signal reduction but doesn't make the planes invisible. So PAK-DA will be TOTALLY USELESS ...!!!!!!  if the americans intercept the planes and position themselves behind ,warning them ,that if they fire a missile the planes will be shot down. see the difference?  Pak-da is not a deterrence any more than B2.  

    Oh yeah, and Russia should have a 1:1 copy of the Death Star. Oh wait, you have just watched too much Star Wars.

    if you can't see the tactical difference between bombers flying very close to US Coast..
    or ICBMs in moscow that can hit the same place.. the you better give up in military discussion if you know no shit.  one of them is Retaliation weapon.. and the other are for practice of first nuclear strike..  but they can't launch any missile if they intercepted and not ready to sacrifice

    Tactics, tactical difference? We are talking about strategic weaponry FFS.

    IF Russia had 10x mesosphere bombers.. it could wipe out 10 aircraft carriers in a surprise attack too. Flying right above the US aircraft carriers and they with nothing they could do.
    So is not about Destruction power the discussion.. is about taking by surprise your enemies.
    Launching an ICBM from moscow will not take by surprise anyone.. the most idiotic thing i have heard ever. the radars in norway can see all ICBM launch all the way to Siberia.. and this was told by putin.  Only way . Russia can take by surprise US leadership. in a nuclear strike
    against its leadership is being close.. there is no other way..

    The US had the XB-70 plane in the Cold War, and it was proved to be a waste of money, even if that plane could fly at Mach 3. They have came to a conclusion, and they came to that conclusion for a reason, a good reason. This is the reason why you can't see any SR-71 Blackbirds in the US inventory, and the reason why there are no hypersonic projects anywhere in the world. Having these "wonder bombers" you're talking about, Russia would go bankrupt in no time.

    So Vann, please quit your sci-fi daydreaming and stay on topic.

    Vann7

    Posts : 3781
    Points : 3885
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Vann7 on Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:10 pm

    [quote="Benya"]
    Vann7 wrote:
    The US had the XB-70 plane in the Cold War, and it was proved to be a waste of money, even if that plane could fly at Mach 3. They have came to a conclusion, and they came to that conclusion for a reason, a good reason. This is the reason why you can't see any SR-71 Blackbirds in the US inventory, and the reason why there are no hypersonic projects anywhere in the world. Having these "wonder bombers" you're talking about, Russia would go bankrupt in no time.

    So Vann, please quit your sci-fi daydreaming and stay on topic.

    Stop defending GArryB.. he is dead wrong.
    He claims ... that "Russia don't need neither a hypersonic bomber or neither a mesosphere bomber because guess what? because Russia ICBM are hypersonic and can do the same.. Laughing

    So he shows a complete Ignorance of military tactics..  If Russia understand that war
    can't be avoided...lets say that americans see ,their economy will crash in a couple of weeks
    and that only a war can save them.. So if Russia get intelligence that a major surprise nuclear strike is coming.. from insiders.. So what you will prefer? That Russia just wait to be attacked
    first with a major nuclear strike and their silos disable ,and then hope to retaliate ?  to play by UN rules and be wiped without a chance to properly retaliate ?
    or then then be the first one to strike?   If you choose to be the last one ,then you are an idiot.

    A mesosphere bomber i know fly from 50km to 80km.. i posted that before..
    But was just explaining that the Patriot missiles max range is 30km to 35km.. so you fly higher
    then you will be away of its range.. Aegis can't intercept a plane.. flying beyond that.. and in the mesosphere space..  you will need only THAAD to have a chance and those are very limited in US inventory. doesn't have lots of them.. So Russia with a high altitude mesosphere bomber have a lot of chance to wipe out US navy.. and even enter in US airspace an evade missiles with the right counter electronic defenses.

    about the SR-71.. it was not good enough.. when it was released ,Russia already had something to counter it.. But if Americans deployed the SR-71 , 10 tp 15 years  earlier ,it will had a field day in Russia. and will have been th soviets unable to intercept it..  with a mesosphere bomber today? which american warship can shot it down? Rolling Eyes

    Nothing is more expensive than losing a war.. US Government already declared economic war
    on Russia.. so what you want? you want Russia to just wait and sit down and do nothing?
    Russia better be prepared for a major war with americans ..Because their hostilities will only increase and increase and increase until they will provoke Russia into a major conflict. Not if ..but when.. they are desperate ,to destroy Russia and putin can't just ignore them. when you have someone already threatening to kill you ,you can't ignore that. you need to protect yourself and waiting he do the first shot on you ,only a moron will do that. Russia needs to take the initiative and IF. they realize through intelligence and confirmed through many channels
    the US is preparing to Attack Russia with a preventive nuclear major strike to disable their silos.. then Russia better not wait for those nukes to start falling and have a plan for be the first one to strike. The American Government care no shit about their people.. they have bunkers and they have properties in all over the world ,can return when the war is over ..and they were already running simulations of sacrificing up to 40 millions of american citizens and consider that acceptable if they manage to destroy Russia.  When you have someone trying to kill you and your family you need to stop them.. because if you ignore them ,it will be your fault if they manage to harm your family for doing nothing.. A retaliation after being attacked with a nuke will not guarantee that the war will end.. If Americans takes the decision to strike first ,is because they consider acceptable to lose several cities in the nuclear interchange ,but they think Russia will get the worse part.

    With a mesosphere stealth bomber Russia have the chance to AVOID A NUCLEAR WAR..
    if manage to decapitate the leadership and the government of US , once Russia is aware they are preparing for a first nuclear strike. So this is to avoid a full scale nuclear war , you strike first by surprise remove its leadership and top generals and if you do it well ,with help inside ,
    with precision and well organized ,no even nukes need, just conventional cruise missiles will decapitate the leadership of any nation.

    patriotic americans that understand need to take control of their nation before their leaders start a nuclear war ,take power and make peace with Russia .   Simply for a first nuclear/non nuclear strike you need to be close to US territory.. To claim than Russia can do a first nuclear strike from Moscow to washingtong DC is complete idiocy.. it will not be first at all .but second..and too late.. Because US have submarines all the time near Norway, waiting for an order to Strike Russia. and according to Putin in just 10 minutes can strike moscow.. and Death hand solves Nothing ,if it doesn't finish NATO and US NAVY too. and their capability to fight. the SR71 only failed because came at the wrong time ,was not fast enough to avoid Russian planes , not high enough to avoid interception.. and this is the whole point.. to develop a plane that can't be intercepted by NATO anywhere.. This also will make safer Russia Presidential plane , because NATO is now chasing Russia presidential planes.. if this is not a wake up call for you , that they pushing for awar and it will be a matter of time they will get it.. then nothing will.

    Russia needs to be prepared .. is as simple as that.. and Pak-Da will be TOTALLY USELESS
    if Americans can detect it by special radars and intercept it.. with an F-16..but a mesosphere bomber or any plane that flight at 50km altitude can't be intercepted with any plane. and with the right counter electronics will even evade THAAD missiles. so a mesosphere bomber will be the ultimate deterrence of all. Since it can't be chased by planes and will be flying every week
    near US coast , armed with hypersonic missiles that can hit their building in a couple of minutes..this will scare US leaders and force them to negotiate a new treaty ,so that Russia keep away those planes and NATO will have to remove their missiles and military bases from Russian borders.
    avatar
    Benya

    Posts : 527
    Points : 529
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Benya on Mon Aug 07, 2017 4:27 pm

    Vann7 wrote:Stop defending GArryB.. he is dead wrong.
    He claims ... that "Russia don't need neither a hypersonic bomber or neither a mesosphere bomber because guess what? because Russia ICBM are hypersonic and can do the same.. Laughing


    Dead wrong? I think he is damn right, he backs up all his claims with facts, unlike you.

    So he shows a complete Ignorance of military tactics..

    Again, what do you think of yourself, who the heck are you, a God of War? Do you think that every military tactic is up to you to decide whether it is viable or not? Or the horseshit you're writing is the pinnacle of all military tactics and strategy of all existence?

    If Russia understand that war
    can't be avoided...lets say that americans see ,their economy will crash in a couple of weeks
    and that only a war can save them.. So if Russia get intelligence that a major surprise nuclear strike is coming.. from insiders.. So what you will prefer? That Russia just wait to be attacked
    first with a major nuclear strike and their silos disable ,and then hope to retaliate ?  to play by UN rules and be wiped without a chance to properly retaliate ?
    or then then be the first one to strike?   If you choose to be the last one ,then you are an idiot.

    What a paranoia.

    But was just explaining that the Patriot missiles max range is 30km to 35km.. so you fly higher
    then you will be away of its range.. Aegis can't intercept a plane.. flying beyond that.. and in the mesosphere space..  you will need only THAAD to have a chance and those are very limited in US inventory. doesn't have lots of them.. So Russia with a high altitude mesosphere bomber have a lot of chance to wipe out US navy.. and even enter in US airspace an evade missiles with the right counter electronic defenses.

    1.) If you're really a military know-it-all, then please develop a fuel type that enables your "wonder bomber" to fly in the mesosphere, where air is pretty much non-existent. At that speed it would burn shitloads of fuel, and will have to carry shitloads of fuel...

    2.) Even if that shit manages to fly in the mesosphere with hypersonic speed, US/NATO early warning radars would detect it in no time, misidentify it as an ICBM in its boost stage, therefore they will identify it as a first strike.

    3.) Future AEGIS missiles will be able to pick off such targets with ease.

    4.) Did you even think about the cost of this "wunderwaffe" for a second?

    about the SR-71.. it was not good enough.. when it was released ,Russia already had something to counter it.. But if Americans deployed the SR-71 , 10 tp 15 years  earlier ,it will had a field day in Russia. and will have been th soviets unable to intercept it..  with a mesosphere bomber today? which american warship can shot it down? Rolling Eyes

    Nothing is more expensive than losing a war.. US Government already declared economic war
    on Russia.. so what you want? you want Russia to just wait and sit down and do nothing?
    Russia better be prepared for a major war with americans ..Because their hostilities will only increase and increase and increase until they will provoke Russia into a major conflict. Not if ..but when.. they are desperate ,to destroy Russia and putin can't just ignore them. when you have someone already threatening to kill you ,you can't ignore that. you need to protect yourself and waiting he do the first shot on you ,only a moron will do that. Russia needs to take the initiative and IF. they realize through intelligence and confirmed through many channels
    the US is preparing to Attack Russia with a preventive nuclear major strike to disable their silos.. then Russia better not wait for those nukes to start falling and have a plan for be the first one to strike. The American Government care no shit about their people.. they have bunkers and they have properties in all over the world ,can return when the war is over ..and they were already running simulations of sacrificing up to 40 millions of american citizens and consider that acceptable if they manage to destroy Russia.  When you have someone trying to kill you and your family you need to stop them.. because if you ignore them ,it will be your fault if they manage to harm your family for doing nothing.. A retaliation after being attacked with a nuke will not guarantee that the war will end.. If Americans takes the decision to strike first ,is because they consider acceptable to lose several cities in the nuclear interchange ,but they think Russia will get the worse part.

    With a mesosphere stealth bomber Russia have the chance to AVOID A NUCLEAR WAR..
    if manage to decapitate the leadership and the government of US , once Russia is aware they are preparing for a first nuclear strike. So this is to avoid a full scale nuclear war , you strike first  by surprise remove its leadership and top generals and if you do it well ,with help inside ,
    with precision and well organized ,no even nukes need, just conventional cruise missiles will decapitate the leadership of any nation.

    patriotic americans that understand need to take control of their nation before their leaders start a nuclear war ,take power and make peace with Russia .   Simply for a first nuclear/non nuclear strike you need to be close to US territory.. To claim than Russia can do a first nuclear strike from Moscow to washingtong DC is complete idiocy.. it will not be first at all .but second..and too late.. Because US have submarines all the time near Norway, waiting for an order to Strike Russia. and according to Putin in just 10 minutes can strike moscow.. and Death hand solves Nothing ,if it doesn't finish NATO and US NAVY too. and their capability to fight. the SR71 only failed because came at the wrong time ,was not fast enough to avoid Russian planes , not high enough to avoid interception.. and this is the whole point.. to develop a plane that can't be intercepted by NATO anywhere.. This also will make safer Russia Presidential plane , because NATO is now chasing Russia presidential planes.. if this is not a wake up call for you , that they pushing for awar and it will be a matter of time they will get it.. then nothing will.



    Russia needs to be prepared .. is as simple as that.. and Pak-Da will be TOTALLY USELESS
    if Americans can detect it by special radars and intercept it.. with an F-16..but a mesosphere bomber or any plane that flight at 50km altitude can't be intercepted with any plane. and with the right counter electronics will even evade THAAD missiles. so a mesosphere bomber will be the ultimate deterrence of all. Since it can't be chased by planes and will be flying every week
    near US coast , armed with hypersonic missiles that can hit their building in a couple of minutes..this will scare US leaders and force them to negotiate a new treaty ,so that Russia keep away those planes and NATO will have to remove their missiles and military bases from Russian borders.

    Yeah, just go straight to the Kremlin, tell Putin about all your BS and he will fire Shoigu in that very moment, making you his next Minister of Defense, and replace all ICBMs (every single one) with this "wonder bomber" of yours, cease the development of Sarmat, cease the production of further Tu-160s and wipe out your ass with the blueprints of the PAK-DA!

    What a clown... clown jocolor
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2941
    Points : 2973
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  franco on Mon Aug 07, 2017 4:53 pm

    Vann thinks VP is stupid and incompetent also so your advise is wasted.

    Azi

    Posts : 216
    Points : 216
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Azi on Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:48 pm

    Once and for all Vann...

    In era of Cold War, 50s to 70s AD systems had problems to intercept targets in very low and very high altitude.  Remember the U-2??? In the 21. century AD systems can easy intercept targets in very high altitude, S-400, S-500 and THAAD. It's exactly what Benya wrote, he is right!!!

    The intention of hypersonic bombers in cold war era was to fly high and fast above AD systems and then to drop dumb bombs. In 60s there was no really "smart bomb" existent, or a accurate cruise missile. Old ICBM were more inaccurate than accurate, but with a nuclear warhead it doesn't matter if you hit your target exact, plus minus 100 m...doesn't really matter! BUT, but, but in times of smart bombs and smart cruise missile everything changed!!! A modern cruise missile hit exactly in a radius of a meter the target and a modern cruise missile can fly maneuver to evade enemy AD systems. That's the 21. century!!!

    The concept of a hypersonic bomber makes really, really no sense in 21. century! You will have no loiter time, max. is 30 minutes not really more, so you simply CAN'T patrol US border with a hypersonic bomber, because after 30 minutes the fun is over! A hypersonic bomber will be hot, very hot, the engine of course and the edges of the plane, so very easy for every infrared sensor. The shape and surface must be optimized for hypersonic speed and CAN't be optimized for stealth, both is nearly impossible! With a hypersonic bomber you are easy to spot and easy to kill in reach of THAAD.

    The flying wing concept is far better! The flying wing gives a lot of uplift, in combination with good engines you can safe a lot of fuel. Flying wing concept is perfect for stealth, for example B-2 and B-21, so why change a good concept!? Subsonic speed gives a lot of loiter time, patroling a border makes sense with a slow plane not a fast!

    The PAK-DA concept combines the B-S stealth concept with your "hypersonic bomber", because it will use hypersonic cruise missiles!!! A hypersonic interceptor is something complete different, this concept makes sense but no hypersonic bomber!

    Nothing more to write!!!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17753
    Points : 18315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:11 am

    But you can't use an ICBM armed with nukes,that fly towards United States and later
    recall it ? can you ? say.. opps, it was a training.

    Actually you can... use their satellite network to send a self destruct code to destroy the warheads before they enter the atmosphere... but even then WTF are you talking about?

    Russia doesn't need some sort of piss them off stick... sending hypersonic bombers towards the US would mean the US will launch its ICBMs and send instructions to its subs to launch SLBMs... why the hell would you want to then recall or disable your attack?

    That sort of brinkmanship bullshit is how the world would end... only an idiot would consider that a useful feature.

    As i told you a million of TIMES. before...
    A hypersonic cruise missile or an hypersonic ICBM can't replace the roll of a Long range bomber.

    Suggesting that an ICBM or hypersonic cruise missiles from moscow to america can do the same shows you have no clue at all , of the discussion. or simply incredibly ignorant.

    Not only can an ICBM or a hypersonic cruise missile do a better job than a hypersonic bomber it can do it much cheaper.

    A missile is a payload of maybe 10 tons and does not need to make a return journey. The cost of launching a missile and maybe testing one ever 3-5 years to make sure they still work is a fraction of the cost of maintaining a bomber fleet.


    If we use the basketball game analogy ,and the ball is the missile,What you are proposing will be comparable to a long court shot across the entire basketball court . with the difference that it will have the entire opposite team ,blocking his shot ,so the ball will be stopped quickly ,and the probabilities on the accuracy are small.

    Basketball is a rubbish game, and of little use in comparison to an air defence network, but which member of that opposing team is 10 metres tall and can stop a supersonic shot at goal?

    IF Russia launch an ICBM from moscow to washington dc.. The US leadership will have easily 30 minutes or warning , and then Americans will be launching a retaliation strike before the missile hit.. and all us leaders will have plenty of time to hide.. and you can't abort the mission.

    Who cares? First of all they wont have 30 minutes warning... with SLBMs it would be less than 5 minutes warning... and have you ever been in a big city before? How far can you move in city traffic in 30 minutes? Even assuming you get a warning within a second of a launch?

    Unless the attack takes place during a meeting in a bunker of all the big officials a lot of those people wont make it.

    see this? this is NOT a first nuclear strike at all.. Americans submarines in northen sea will be close to Russia. and will retaliate.. before the Russian ICBM hit US.

    And the Russians don't have any SSBNs right...

    What im saying is totally different.. to confuse your adversaries of your intentions..

    Idiot.

    The last thing you want to do at a time of high tension where WWIII is a real possibility is to confuse the US of your intentions... that is the dumbest thing you have said today.

    The whole point of MAD is to make it clear that if they attack that the result will be their destruction too... anything less and you encourage them to attack.

    A first nuclear strike of Russia in US, will have to come right next to American borders.
    but since American borders to east coast is the atlantic sea.. then it will have to be a plane.

    Or an SSBN.

    it could be done by warships ,but as soon they show up near US they will have many warships
    between the Russian warships and US coast.. But planes are different.. they can fly fast and position very fast in any place,and they can fly under the radars and evade radars.. see?

    No Vann they can't. If they fly low then they are basically subsonic or very very short ranged...

    So with a Hypersonic Mesosphere Bomber..that americans combat planes can't intercept , Russia can take a routine of every 3 days a week flying across the entire US eastern coast.. armed with nukes to the teeth.. and Russia will say is just a "training flight" you have nothing to be worry americans.. and the plane is even empty inside.. no armed with nukes.

    And within a month russia will be importing oil to fuel the aircraft...

    and the Russian intelligence manage to locate the positions of the top leadership ,in real time..
    and it happens that they are not in bunkers but in a conference in the open.. So if Russia understand that war can't be avoided ..and that americans are withing weeks to attack Russia.

    There are rules regarding leadership in any country where the entire leadership of a country and its backup are never present in the same place at the same time... do you think the vice president of the US will just say... OK you killed trump... fair enough we surrender?

    Or do you think they will launch a full scale attack on Russia?

    then a mesosphere Bomber will allow Russia to Strike FIRST without warning... and decapitate the leadership of any nation..and allow the plane to return unharmed. with a super slow plane like Pak-Da it will not hide forever from american radars.. and as soon detected on radars ,

    We have been over this 1,000 times a super fast bomber is NOT faster than an ICBM... if they can see ICBMs coming they will see hypersonic bombers coming... whether it is an ICBM or a bomber approaching their airspace they will activate their defence forces and try to intercept... whether they actually do or not is not important because their ICBMs and SLBMs will get launch codes...

    the americans will send F-22 and put the Bomber on cross hairs. threatening to shot down the plane if he launch a missile to its nation.. that is what a peaceful interception is..

    PAK DA will not get within 3000km of the US so the F-22 wont be a problem.

    With a mesosphere bomber ,Russia can do a first strike decapitation strike ,on any nation leadership ,take them by surprise and the bomber escape unharmed.

    NO. The bomber alone does not make that possible. You need accurate information about the enemy government too... Saddam pretty much proved the whole idea of a first strike to decapitate a government using bombers is bullshit.

    but a Pak-da can't do that..

    Nothing can do that... look up the wiki page for the XB-70 and one of its roles was going to be taking out mobile ICBMs... something the B-1B and then B-2 were also supposed to be able to do but never had a chance.

    So PAK-DA will be TOTALLY USELESS ...!!!!!! if the americans intercept the planes and position themselves behind ,warning them ,that if they fire a missile the planes will be shot down. see the difference? Pak-da is not a deterrence any more than B2.

    PAK DA is not supposed to start WWIII. It is supposed to present the US with the view that if they start a war with Russia that the PAK DA will irradiate the US...

    A hypersonic bomber is totally useless... it will prevent war by bankrupting Russia before it could ever possibly be used.

    So RUssia needs a bomber that can allow them to be very close to US capital .
    and that can't be intercepted . drop a missile and escape unharmed. and so far
    a mesosphere bomber is the only thing can do it..

    Bullshit.

    That would never work as they would see that bomber coming as soon as it took off and in the hour it would take to get to being near the US coast they could shift everyone that might be worth killing in a first strike.

    If it flys low to evade radar then it will take 8 hours to get there...

    IF Russia had 10x mesosphere bombers.. it could wipe out 10 aircraft carriers in a surprise attack too. Flying right above the US aircraft carriers and they with nothing they could do.

    Really? Nothing they could do? Except for shoot down the weapon those bombers try to use to destroy those carriers...

    So is not about Destruction power the discussion.. is about taking by surprise your enemies.
    Launching an ICBM from moscow will not take by surprise anyone.. the most idiotic thing i have heard ever. the

    Russias nuclear arsenal is not about surprise... it is about retribution. It does not need to be secret... it just needs to work and not cost too much.


    It will be similar as to deploying snipers in the second floor of a house across the street in your neighborhood. so they will have a very huge headstart on you and it will be a huge deterrence because you will see ,they are aligned for a close shot on you and you will not know which day will pull the trigger. A mesosphere Bomber is one of the ultimate deterrence that Russia can build , that will force Americans to a new treaty ,that will force americans to remove all their military bases and cruise missiles anywhere near RUssian borders.

    The next super weapon to make peace the only option... except that the most likely US response apart from developing their own hypersonic bomber that could be based in Eastern Europe, would be a first strike before the Russian system is operational... There is no way the US will remove any of their military bases... they don't do that.

    Again don't say an ICBM and a cruise missile fired from 10,000 km away is the same thing.
    is total idiocy. If you have intentions to do a first strike ,it will have to do it as close as possible
    to the target ,to keep the surprise.. so the enemies not alerted.

    Why the fuck would Russia want a first strike capability against the US?

    It was you Garry who was saying "Nobody" can't attack Russia because have nukes..
    and Turkey did it.. Neutral You simply are really awfully bad in strategy and tactics..and don't
    understand how Rules of Engagement ,Politics and public opinion, have a major role in how people do wars. In wars speed and taking by surprise your enemies can be the difference
    between a quick victory or a major defeat.

    Are you 12 years old?

    Nobody has invaded or attacked Russia. Turkey shot down one Russian aircraft and has since apologised and now cooperates with Russia in the conflict in Syria. I am sure your response of an attack on the Turkish air Force to get immediate revenge against a member of NATO would have gone much better...

    My point can be illustrated with a simple question..
    if Russia have ICBMs in moscow that can reach any part of US.. then why Russia bother
    flying with Old soviet bombers near US coast?. why Russia bother sending submarines near US Coast then? since they can reach US anyway from moscow no?

    There are no fucking ICBMs near Moscow. They send bombers and SSBNs to the US coast because bomber crews and SSBN crews need training to make sure they know what they are doing and to look for places to hide to attack from. A missile does not need any training and can sit in a silo until it is needed. A hypersonic bomber would need billions of dollars in fuel for training per year.

    one of them is Retaliation weapon.. and the other are for practice of first nuclear strike.. but they can't launch

    Russia does not need a first strike weapon. They only need a weapon of retaliation. A subsonic flying wing PAK DA does the job without costing too much.

    By the time Russian bombers get to the continental US there will be no F-22s.


    with a high altitude near space bomber ,Russia will the opportunity a big chance to fly over the airspace of 98% of the countries in the world. and even in case of a war fly deep inside US territory unharmed , if combined with courter electronics. It will allow Russia a Big opportunity
    to penetrate any part of US with a bomber.. because traditional combat planes can't intercept it..and only very expensive missiles ,like Thaad or S-500 could do it.. but US don't have many of them. Patriot missiles top altitude is about 30 km to 35km.. so anything higher will be safe from them..

    The ABM system they are building has missiles with a range of over 1,500 miles that can intercept targets flying twice as fast as these mythical bombers you keep bleating about... Russia building hypersonic bombers will simply boost funding to the ABM system in the US potentially making it more effective and more of an issue for Russia.

    BTW Russia already has things that fly over the airspace of every country on the planet.... they are called satellites... why not fit a bomb and a guidance system to a satellite used for weather mapping or something and park it over the US... when needed... oh no one of our satellites is falling and deorbit it over the US and boom... much cheaper, much easier.

    You call me ignorant and wrong Vann but what you need to do is a little more reading... look up the history of the XB-70 Valkyrie bomber. It never went into production because in 1961 they knew SAMs would shoot it down. They knew if it could be seen it would be shot down... the solution was to fly low... and flying low means flying at maybe mach 1.2 at the very best... more likely subsonic for any realistic distance.

    Why else do you think the subsonic cruise missile was invented... long range difficult to spot... accurate... deadly... subsonic.

    Now look up the history of Tupolev... the Tu-22M was supposed to be a Mach 3 bomber, but Tupolev is no fool... he knew making it mach 3 would make it super expensive and unaffordable. After making the Tu-22 he knew he could not get funding and support for another bomber design so he called it Tu-22M... if you didn't know any better you might think it was like Sukhoi with their Su-7 and Su-17 with applying swing wings to improve performance, except that the Tu-22M is a totally different aircraft to the Tu-22.

    At some stage I would love to see an experimental aircraft able to fly mach 8 or mach 10... that would be cool, but first missiles and then probably interceptors... and later heavier aircraft... simply because of the cost.

    Missiles and perhaps interceptors will boost development and knowledge in the technology to the point where larger aircraft become viable.

    Remember a hypersonic cruise missile does not need to be hypersonic all the way... look at the supersonic club... a hypersonic model could be a small subsonic turbojet engine with a straight wing and external fuel tanks for the first 4,000km at a steady climb to altitude and then drop the tanks and wings and convert to scramjet mode and climb and accelerate for the next 2-3 thousand kms... getting faster as it gets higher and lighter...

    Vann7

    Posts : 3781
    Points : 3885
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Vann7 on Tue Aug 08, 2017 10:18 am

    Garryb you never like to lose...even if dead wrong in your arguments..  Laughing
    but you are WRONG dude. Stop pretending you know anything about military tactics,
    you don't know anything. the only thing you can do is provide stats of , memorize
    features of military hardware and thats it..  so i value your information only there.
    but in military tactics you suck.  And writing a wall of text will not make you right at all.

    It was GArryb who was saying Russia don't need military bases near US..
    that their ICBM can reach any place.  Laughing   what a foolish comments.
    It was GArryb who was arguing with me that Russia nukes guarantee
    no one will attack Russia.  again -->   Laughing     Laughing     Laughing
    Oh no nobody will dare to attack Russia because have nukes..  Rolling Eyes
    And Turkey proved you are dead wrong..

    and now it was Garryb.. that claims that a mesosphere bomber "is not needed"
    because a hypersonic ICBM or fast Cruise missile can achieve the same.   -->  Rolling Eyes

    Listen amateur , No mater how much range and ICBM have,no matter how fast..
    it will NEVER REPLACE , in any way,shape ,or form the importance of having a long range Bomber , that can take by surprise an enemy .. switching from peaceful patrol mode ,to a first tactical strike to decapitate a nation leadership. or just take an aircraft carrier.
    IF Russia launch an ICBM across the artic towards United States , that will be an act of war
    will fly over territory of other nations.. a will be a very hostile action..

    While patroling with a Bomber peacefully near US coast in international airspace is not an act
    of war is just "Training". Still it will have a HUGE deterrence potential..will force the leader of any country to run and hide ,if see such high altitude bombers near their nation.  It was Russian missiles in Cuba ,what Forced Americans to remove theirs from Turkey.. So Russia
    needs missiles close to United States. but nothing can't be more closer than a nuclear capable bomber flying close to US capital that they can't intercept ,escort or block from launching a missile.

    Launching an ICBM and not hitting US is like firing a bullet
    towards someone and missing. even if miss (or in case of ICBM if Russia auto destroy it)
    it will be a very hostile aggression and Americans will retaliate in the same way.. So is NOT
    a first strike. sorry dude . you are dead wrong.

    But if Russia have a Long Range bomber near US coast.. with very fast missiles..
    it will cut the distance of the missile by 90 to 98%.. depending how close he goes.
    and it can be done by Surprise.. So instead of the hypersonic ICBM hitting US in ~30 minutes..
    as an ICBM will do , a missile launched from US Coast could do it in 2-3 minutes..!!!! means
    not enough time for anyone to be saved. it will be unlucky any leader if happens to be in a
    conference and Russia knows it.. or in the bathroom.  lol1

    And for the other Idiot..Doesn't matter if the plane is detected by American radars or not.
    if the bomber can't be intercepted or shot it down ,whether because Russia is legally flying
    in International airspace. or whether because they simply don't have missiles to intercept at 50km altitude ready.. then thats a huge problem.  A subsonic stealth bomber could do it..
    but if it is intercepted as it will be ,and always Russian bombers are ,then they will be unable to launch anything ,not even a curse..without their planes being shot down. While having a Mesosphere bomber allows the bombers to hit and run and escape easily..without no NATO planes intercepting it. THiS is a HUGE  HUGE Difference.  And not even armed with nukes
    need.. conventional weapons will also be scary if they used to decapitate a nation leaders.
    and provoke a major coup.

    If an ICBM missile is all that Russia needs then why bother building Long RAnge
    bombers at all..  Rolling Eyes   .  Bombers are needed too.. and the faster they fly than the adversary planes the better ,more chances to survive ,after hit and run.. and if fly in the mesosphere ,
    can penetrate NATO warships formations ,will be totally defenseless. and even a big chance to get very close or even penetrate the airspace of any nation including US. Making it more difficult to intercept Russian bombers is not a bad idea. Is not cheap such planes ,. but again Losing a war is way more expensive. Russia needs to be prepared for a major confrontation with US.. and waiting NATO to hit Russia first is retarded. I don't think Russia will obey their own policy of not being the first... because those bomber patrols across US coast is precisely done to practice a first strike. but they will naturally will have to claim that they will not do it
    officially to confuse Russia enemies.


    If the Russian bomber is faster than NATO planes and fly in a zone their missiles not designed to operate then it can avoid them day and night , and laugh about it. This also can allow Putin
    to travel safely anywhere around the world to avoid hostile NATO interception on their plane.
    and if the mesosphere bomber can be detected by radars or not is IRRELEVANT..
    if US navy have no way to shot down those bombers ,positioning near their aircraft carriers
    formations ,then is a huge security problem for NATO and not for Russia. A mesosphere
    Bomber is the ultimate deterrence.  because it can do a first strike anywhere and bypass
    more easily NATO air defenses ,when combined with powerful counter electronics. and other
    evasion technology. It can be used to take down Ukraine poroshenko , avoid their S-300s easily or any patriots there. and then followed with an organized coup. it can be used to take down
    Erdogan is betray Russia again... and it could be coordinated with an internal coup. So is a real
    game changing weapon ,to build a bomber that can fly very high to stay away of enemy air defenses.


    Last edited by Vann7 on Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:31 am; edited 3 times in total

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:13 pm