Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share

    Azi

    Posts : 213
    Points : 211
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Azi on Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:25 pm

    JohninMK wrote:
    Azi wrote: But why pimping up the Tu-22M extreme if it is intended to replace the Tu-22M with PAK-Da from 2025 on?

    Its not, PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95.
    I heard PAK-DA will replace both. The role of Tu-22M would be splitted between Su-34 und PAK-DA. From 2030 a replacement is more or less needed (~40-50 years of service). But maybe I'm wrong What a Face We will see, when first rollouts occur Wink
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1277
    Points : 1281
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Big_Gazza on Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:54 pm

    Azi wrote:
    JohninMK wrote:
    Azi wrote: But why pimping up the Tu-22M extreme if it is intended to replace the Tu-22M with PAK-Da from 2025 on?

    Its not, PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95.
    I heard PAK-DA will replace both. The role of Tu-22M would be splitted between Su-34 und PAK-DA. From 2030 a replacement is more or less needed (~40-50 years of service). But maybe I'm wrong What a Face We will see, when first rollouts occur Wink

    Tu-22M have a much greater payload and combat radius (~24T/2400km) than Su-34 (8-12T/1000km) (*).  Tu-22M also has a significant internals weapon bay, suitable for carrying heavy AShMs, and this makes them excel in the "long" range anti-shipping strike role.  The Su-34, as good as it is, is not a replacement for the Tu-22M.

    (*) based on admittedly suspect wiki performance data

    Azi

    Posts : 213
    Points : 211
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Azi on Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:21 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Azi wrote:
    JohninMK wrote:
    Azi wrote: But why pimping up the Tu-22M extreme if it is intended to replace the Tu-22M with PAK-Da from 2025 on?

    Its not, PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95.
    I heard PAK-DA will replace both. The role of Tu-22M would be splitted between Su-34 und PAK-DA. From 2030 a replacement is more or less needed (~40-50 years of service). But maybe I'm wrong What a Face We will see, when first rollouts occur Wink

    Tu-22M have a much greater payload and combat radius (~24T/2400km) than Su-34 (8-12T/1000km) (*).  Tu-22M also has a significant internals weapon bay, suitable for carrying heavy AShMs, and this makes them excel in the "long" range  anti-shipping strike role.  The Su-34, as good as it is, is not a replacement for the Tu-22M.

    (*) based on admittedly suspect wiki performance data
    I know, I know! But in this link they wrote...
    sputniknews int. wrote:"The new aircraft is being designed to replace all three bombers currently in service with the Russian long-range aviation, including the Tu-22M3 long-range bomber and the Tu-95 and Tu-160 (aka the White Swan) strategic bombers."
    "Russias next gen. bomber "- sputniknews int.

    But I don't trust the news, because why should PAK-DA replace the Tu-160M2? The difference of production is only a few years, so a new bomber should be replaced by a 5 years younger bomber? That's bullshit! PAK-DA and Tu-160M2 will coexist for a long long time. I think it's much advertising trick in this article...we need PAK-DA because...

    The Tu-22M3 is a formidable bomber, I love the design, I love the parameters, I love the role. The USA have now simply no bomber in the role of the Tu-22M3. But let's be realistic, the Tu-22M variants will be in 2030 40-50 years old. A successor is not urgent needed, but there is no project in pipeline and all we can read is that Tu-22M should be replaced by PAK-DA.

    Realistic I think for future that Tu-22M3 will shrink in numbers, a part of the portfolio will be stolen by Su-34 another part by PAK-DA. The remaining Tu-22M3 will be in service till 2050 or so. But that's only my personal opinion.

    I would love to see a successor of Tu-22M3 with similar characteristics. The role of Tu-22M is very useful, for example in Syria. Overall I love the current mix of RuAF, I'm not a fan of reducing all types of aircraft to a generalist. The F-35 project is the biggest military desaster of UsAF, the F-35 should be everything but is never better than a specialist. I love the versatility of RuAf with different kind of aircrafts. And I would love to see some more specialist, like a handful of gunship for smashing terrorist in asymmetric conflicts (but again that's my personal opinion).
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2179
    Points : 2202
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Fri Aug 18, 2017 7:34 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Unfortunately for Militarov, he proved before which his real level of knowledge is. Being generous with him, Militarov is a person that in my country would not be allowed to teach mathematics to children over 12 years old, and would not be allowed to teach physics.

    GarryB likely even less.

    True "experts" in the Tu-22 and the Tu-PAK-DA.

    dunno dunno

    Quite sad for your country as i did teach OOP as assistant on technical college lol1

    Quite sad your country man. Obviously is not an industrial country. Quite poor level if you are allowed to teach something (likely not true), when you sneak as fast as possible when linear or surface integration are mentioned (as example). I was learning them at 18, between the basic mathematical formation of the first year in the engineering school. Surely like Mindstorm did too in a very different country.

    Stop posturing man, you have very short way with it. dunno dunno
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2179
    Points : 2202
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:04 pm

    Azi, to avoid mistakes is better to take official sources.

    In this one, the designation Tu-22 is used for aircrafts of the Tu-22M variants:

    http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12123314@egNews
    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fstructure.mil.ru%2Fstructure%2Fforces%2Fvks%2Fnews%2Fmore.htm%3Fid%3D12123314%40egNews

    In this one, says the Tu-PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95:

    http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12120918@egNews
    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fstructure.mil.ru%2Fstructure%2Fforces%2Fvks%2Fnews%2Fmore.htm%3Fid%3D12120918%40egNews

    Both very recent and from official sources.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5966
    Points : 5999
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:11 am

    Azi wrote:
    JohninMK wrote:
    Azi wrote: But why pimping up the Tu-22M extreme if it is intended to replace the Tu-22M with PAK-Da from 2025 on?

    Its not, PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95.
    I heard PAK-DA will replace both. The role of Tu-22M would be splitted between Su-34 und PAK-DA. From 2030 a replacement is more or less needed (~40-50 years of service). But maybe I'm wrong What a Face We will see, when first rollouts occur Wink

    Yes, that is the idea. Intermediate and strike roles will be completely passed to Su-34 while "long-intermediate" and loitering missions will be on PAK-DAs wings.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5966
    Points : 5999
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:14 am

    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Unfortunately for Militarov, he proved before which his real level of knowledge is. Being generous with him, Militarov is a person that in my country would not be allowed to teach mathematics to children over 12 years old, and would not be allowed to teach physics.

    GarryB likely even less.

    True "experts" in the Tu-22 and the Tu-PAK-DA.

    dunno dunno

    Quite sad for your country as i did teach OOP as assistant on technical college lol1

    Quite sad your country man. Obviously is not an industrial country. Quite poor level if you are allowed to teach something (likely not true), when you sneak as fast as possible when linear or surface integration are mentioned (as example). I was learning them at 18, between the basic mathematical formation of the first year in the engineering school. Surely like Mindstorm did too in a very different country.

    Stop posturing man, you have very short way with it. dunno dunno

    thumbsup

    Seems you dont even know what OOP is tho lol1
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5966
    Points : 5999
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:24 am

    eehnie wrote:Azi, to avoid mistakes is better to take official sources.

    In this one, the designation Tu-22 is used for aircrafts of the Tu-22M variants:

    http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12123314@egNews
    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fstructure.mil.ru%2Fstructure%2Fforces%2Fvks%2Fnews%2Fmore.htm%3Fid%3D12123314%40egNews

    In this one, says the Tu-PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95:

    http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12120918@egNews
    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fstructure.mil.ru%2Fstructure%2Fforces%2Fvks%2Fnews%2Fmore.htm%3Fid%3D12120918%40egNews

    Both very recent and from official sources.

    https://flatearthscienceandbible.com/2016/02/16/introduction-to-the-flat-earth-how-it-works-and-why-we-believe-it/

    Here i have official source explaining Flat Earth theory.

    Obey mortal i gave you link.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17877
    Points : 18439
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:21 pm

    Its not, PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95.

    20 years ago when the Tu-95 was strategic only and the Tu-160 was strategic only then the Tu-22M3 was necessary for theatre bombing and conventional bombing because the Bear and Blackjack were strategic nuclear cruise missile carriers as their only role.

    Today the Blackjack and Bear have been used in conventional cruise missile strike roles.

    The Backfire continues to be used because of its performance with large numbers of small dumb bombs.

    One of the requirements of the PAK DA is to combine the roles of the Tu-95 and the Tu-22M3.

    This is also why it will likely be subsonic because the size it will need to be to carry a large internal payload of conventional weapons will make it rather big, but carrying all its weapons inside will reduce drag and RCS to a minimum... in theatre missions the extra fuel for strategic missions can be offloaded and replaced with a heavier conventional weapons load.

    I heard PAK-DA will replace both. The role of Tu-22M would be splitted between Su-34 und PAK-DA.

    I have read the same where the Su-34 can take on the role of some shorter ranged missions the Tu-22M3 would undertake... including in the anti shipping role with light versions of Brahmos and perhaps Zircon, while the PAK DA will take over longer ranged missions.

    Tu-22M have a much greater payload and combat radius (~24T/2400km) than Su-34 (8-12T/1000km) (*). Tu-22M also has a significant internals weapon bay, suitable for carrying heavy AShMs, and this makes them excel in the "long" range anti-shipping strike role. The Su-34, as good as it is, is not a replacement for the Tu-22M.

    (*) based on admittedly suspect wiki performance data

    Except that the Su-34 can use inflight refuelling to greatly increase range, while the Tu-22M3 cannot.

    The USA have now simply no bomber in the role of the Tu-22M3.

    Actually in terms of performance the B-1B is actually quite similar.

    Obey mortal i gave you link.

    As Mil is hinting Eehnie... it is not enough to have a link... you have to use your brain and think about things...

    For instance if the PAK DA is replacing the Tu-95... well that makes sense if both are relatively cheap and subsonic, because we know they are building new upgraded Tu-160s... if the PAK DA was supersonic then there would be no point... it would make more sense just to make the PAK DA in greater numbers to replace the Backfire, Blackjack, and Bear.

    The fact is that a strategic bomber than can supersonically dash for short periods makes a lot of sense but it is not cheap to buy or operate.

    A new version of the Tu-160 with more powerful engines and new lighter materials and new electronics and more capable avionics might allow for super cruising performance after 4,000km of flight... after it has burned off a few tons of fuel and is a bit lighter and approaching the northern coastline of Canada.

    That would make it an even more formidable weapon as it will be fast but not burn up fuel so rapidly, meaning even better range and performance.

    A subsonic flying wing with enormous internal weapon capacity would make the Tu-22M3 a little redundant for longer range missions... the shorter ranged missions could be performed by the Fullback, or just 5,000km ranged cruise missiles.

    Having three heavy bombers was necessary because two were for strategic missions leaving the lighter Backfire for continental european and chinese targets and of course US carrier groups.

    With the merging of missions to allow the strategic bombers to carry out conventional strikes (mainly from the huge improvement in terminal accuracy of Russian cruise missiles to allow conventional warheads to become effective) means a separate conventional long range strike bomber is not longer critical.

    It appears the Tu-160 has lost its bomb aiming system in the upgrades which suggests it will be a cruise missile carrier only, so the burden of bomber moves to the PAK DA I would suggest.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 11757
    Points : 12232
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  George1 on Sat Aug 19, 2017 1:36 pm

    I think PAK-DA will replace Tu-95 and Tu-160 in nuclear role and Tu-160M will replace Tu-22M3
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5966
    Points : 5999
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Sat Aug 19, 2017 3:20 pm

    George1 wrote:I think PAK-DA will replace Tu-95 and Tu-160 in nuclear role and Tu-160M will replace Tu-22M3

    Tu-160s are primary cruise missile carriers, so its quite doubtful.

    Tu-22M will be replaced by something that has the ability to loiter alot and use conventional payload, hence partial replacement by PAK-DA, partially by Su-34s.

    Tu-95 shall be replaced completely by PAK-DA on the other hand.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1010
    Points : 1010
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:23 pm

    It's been months since I looked into the Tu-160's.

    Don't they have like 16 of these in service right now? how many are the new M2 model?.

    I gotta see if they finished that factory yet and if they are actually building the new 160's.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5966
    Points : 5999
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:29 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:It's been months since I looked into the Tu-160's.

    Don't they have like 16 of these in service right now? how many are the new M2 model?.

    I gotta see if they finished that factory yet and if they are actually building the new 160's.

    Yeah, 16 still exist and all of them are in use.

    Kazan aviation plant is i belive to expected to build new Tu-160M2.

    None of the models in service are Tu-160M2. But all of them will be modernised to M standard to fill the gap till Tu-160M2s come off the lines.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6970
    Points : 7068
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:31 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:It's been months since I looked into the Tu-160's.

    Don't they have like 16 of these in service right now? how many are the new M2 model?.

    I gotta see if they finished that factory yet and if they are actually building the new 160's.

    First two M2s will be built from unfinished airframes they have in storage

    Titanium welding system has been built from scratch for production of new aircraft

    Tu160s in service will be upgraded to M2S standard as part of maintenance cycle

    That's the plan that is...
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2179
    Points : 2202
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:41 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Unfortunately for Militarov, he proved before which his real level of knowledge is. Being generous with him, Militarov is a person that in my country would not be allowed to teach mathematics to children over 12 years old, and would not be allowed to teach physics.

    GarryB likely even less.

    True "experts" in the Tu-22 and the Tu-PAK-DA.

    dunno dunno

    Quite sad for your country as i did teach OOP as assistant on technical college lol1

    Quite sad your country man. Obviously is not an industrial country. Quite poor level if you are allowed to teach something (likely not true), when you sneak as fast as possible when linear or surface integration are mentioned (as example). I was learning them at 18, between the basic mathematical formation of the first year in the engineering school. Surely like Mindstorm did too in a very different country.

    Stop posturing man, you have very short way with it. dunno dunno

    thumbsup

    Seems you dont even know what OOP is tho lol1

    Fearing to say something else than OOP? lol1 lol1
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2179
    Points : 2202
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:45 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Azi, to avoid mistakes is better to take official sources.

    In this one, the designation Tu-22 is used for aircrafts of the Tu-22M variants:

    http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12123314@egNews
    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fstructure.mil.ru%2Fstructure%2Fforces%2Fvks%2Fnews%2Fmore.htm%3Fid%3D12123314%40egNews

    In this one, says the Tu-PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95:

    http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12120918@egNews
    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fstructure.mil.ru%2Fstructure%2Fforces%2Fvks%2Fnews%2Fmore.htm%3Fid%3D12120918%40egNews

    Both very recent and from official sources.

    https://flatearthscienceandbible.com/2016/02/16/introduction-to-the-flat-earth-how-it-works-and-why-we-believe-it/

    Here i have official source explaining Flat Earth theory.

    Obey mortal i gave you link.

    lol, must I think you know not what a gravitational field means? or must I think you continue making a joke of yourself...

    Are you losing your time with this instead of proving your knowledge on OOP?

    Are you comparing the links of the Russian Ministery of Defense with this?
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5966
    Points : 5999
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:49 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Azi, to avoid mistakes is better to take official sources.

    In this one, the designation Tu-22 is used for aircrafts of the Tu-22M variants:

    http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12123314@egNews
    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fstructure.mil.ru%2Fstructure%2Fforces%2Fvks%2Fnews%2Fmore.htm%3Fid%3D12123314%40egNews

    In this one, says the Tu-PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95:

    http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12120918@egNews
    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fstructure.mil.ru%2Fstructure%2Fforces%2Fvks%2Fnews%2Fmore.htm%3Fid%3D12120918%40egNews

    Both very recent and from official sources.

    https://flatearthscienceandbible.com/2016/02/16/introduction-to-the-flat-earth-how-it-works-and-why-we-believe-it/

    Here i have official source explaining Flat Earth theory.

    Obey mortal i gave you link.

    lol, must I think you know not what a gravitational field means? or must I think you continue making a joke of yourself...

    Suspect
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2179
    Points : 2202
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:54 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Obey mortal i gave you link.

    As Mil is hinting Eehnie... it is not enough to have a link... you have to use your brain and think about things...

    Are you also comparing the shit Militarov posted to the news posted by the Russian Ministery of Defense?

    Yes it is necessary a brain. It is necessary a brain to avoid to compare official links of the Russian Ministery of Defense with the shit Militarov posted.

    A brain that Militarov and you seem to have not.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5966
    Points : 5999
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:00 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    Obey mortal i gave you link.

    As Mil is hinting Eehnie... it is not enough to have a link... you have to use your brain and think about things...

    Are you comaring the shit Militarov posted to the news posted by the Russian Ministery of Defense?

    Yes it is necessary a brain. It is necessary a brain to avoid to compare official links of the Russian Ministery of Defense with the shit Militarov posted.

    A brain that Militarov and you seem to have not.

    That english tho No

    Sure bro, Tu-22 and Tu-22M are the same thing. Could you now stop flooding us with crap confused

    T-47

    Posts : 221
    Points : 223
    Join date : 2017-07-17
    Location : Planet Earth

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  T-47 on Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:35 pm

    Andrei Tupolev is pleased in his grave to see that someone still believes Tu-22M is a variant of Tu-22.

    While he actually gave the name Tu-22M to convince Nikita Khrushchev that this is just an "upgrade" of already then brand new Tu-22, which was not a bullshit as he claimed earlier! But he knew the truth.
    The backfire is based on blinder, doesn't mean its a variant. MiG-31 is also based on MiG-25, so is F-15.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5966
    Points : 5999
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:43 pm

    T-47 wrote:Andrei Tupolev is pleased in his grave to see that someone still believes Tu-22M is a variant of Tu-22.

    While he actually gave the name Tu-22M to convince Nikita Khrushchev that this is just an "upgrade" of already then brand new Tu-22, which was not a bullshit as he claimed earlier! But he knew the truth.
    The backfire is based on blinder, doesn't mean its a variant. MiG-31 is also based on MiG-25, so is F-15.

    It was far easier to obtain financial support for modernisation of existing platfrom than building entirely new design, which Tupolev used in this case as nomenclature trick.

    But its okay, we have experts onboard Smile
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17877
    Points : 18439
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:00 pm

    The Tu-22 was a very recent aircraft at the time so there was little chance that Tupolev could have gotten funding or support to make a brand new bomber to replace a reasonably new bomber... especially at the time when new designs were all mach 3.

    this is why he tried to pass it off as an upgrade, but almost everything was changed.

    Regarding the Blackjack, there were four airframes unfinished in the factory when the production finished and the Ukraine separated from Russia.

    Two were nearly complete so they were finished in the 1990s, but the other two needed to have the centre titanium box section built and that capacity has been totally lost.

    The recent construction of tooling to make new Blackjacks and then PAK DAs means the reconstruction of the facility to electron wield super large titanium structures, so they have used that capability to complete the remaining two airframes, which means 16 Blackjacks in service and two more on the way soon.

    The two new blackjacks will be upgraded to M2 level and then existing models will also be upgraded and new scratch build models will be produced.

    Eventually PAK DAs will be produced in the same factory, but that wont be for a while.

    the current priority is to get a viable force of 60-70 Blackjacks into service and their improved engines and systems.

    Once that has been achieved then production of the PAK DA will start.

    The question is... will the Tu-160M2 have conventional bomb capability or just cruise missile capability.

    I rather suspect they will keep the Tu-22M3Ms in service as simple bomb trucks as their two engines will use less fuel than the larger blackjacks four simply because they are smaller lighter aircraft.

    The arrival of the PAK DA however will start to replace both the Tu-95 in the strategic role and the Backfire in the theatre role.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6970
    Points : 7068
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:36 pm

    GarryB wrote:..................
    The question is... will the Tu-160M2 have conventional bomb capability or just cruise missile capability.

    I rather suspect they will keep the Tu-22M3Ms in service as simple bomb trucks as their two engines will use less fuel than the larger blackjacks four simply because they are smaller lighter aircraft.

    The arrival of the PAK DA however will start to replace both the Tu-95 in the strategic role and the Backfire in the theatre role.

    After their showing in Syria you can bet that they will. Low cost + lots of bombs = Jackpot!!!

    PAK-DA will definitely replace both Tu-95 and Tu-22 but I believe that they will build central structure for them in parallel to Tu-160M2 and then continue assembly in some other factory.

    Tu-160M2 and PAK-DA will be produced simultaneously. Not at first but later down the road.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2179
    Points : 2202
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:33 pm

    Some people trying to be "experts" here are only a joke. They know 0, absolutely 0 about the economic and technological meaning of what they are saying.

    It is not possible to hide the development of a new aircraft from 0 as a development from other aircraft. The reason why this is not possible is because the development of a new aircraft from 0 is a lot more expensive than the development of a variant based on a previous aircraft and someone has to pay the difference. Also another very important point against this joke we are reading is in the test protocols, that are very different for the case of a machine totally new and a machine "developed from" a previous machine.

    The development of a variant has a range of cost that is well known by who gives the funds and is very short for the development of a totally new aircraft. The people is saying Tupolev developed the expensive option and hide it under the cheap option. It makes 0 sense. Who payed the part of the cost of the totally new aircraft that is not justified as the development from a previous basis? To drive the cost of a variant developed from a previous basis to the cost level of a totally new aircraft only can be caused by severe mismanagement. Is someone trying to say that Tupolev assumed own mismanagement to hide a totally new aircraft as a variant developed from a previous basis that should have a development a lot cheaper? No way.

    Also it makes 0 sense from the testing side. The test protocols for totally new aircrafts are far stronger than for a variant developed from a previously tested and accepted basis. To hide an aircraft totally new as an aircraft developed from a previous basis, means that Tupolev consciently tried to send an undertested new model to active service. Is someone trying to say this seriously?

    Also the testing engineers are not idiots to know what comes to them. If they see a totally new aircraft they know what they have, and if they see an aircraft developed from a basis they tested previously, they also know what they have. If the testing engineers see something new, they order to test it inmediately. To try to hide a totally new aircraft as a development from a previous aircraft would have been a testing nightmare for Tupolev, would have been profesionally suicidal, and Khruschev/Brezhnev would have been noticed for sure.

    Tupolev was an outstanding engineer. He was known by always to try to include previously developed parts even in new aircrafts to keep the costs of new projects under control, something that made his designs always a little less new or original, than the designs of other offices. But we have still to read some ridiculous things.

    T-47

    Posts : 221
    Points : 223
    Join date : 2017-07-17
    Location : Planet Earth

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  T-47 on Wed Aug 23, 2017 5:55 pm

    eehnie wrote:Some people trying to be "experts" here are only a joke. They know 0, absolutely 0 about the economic and technological meaning of what they are saying.

    Well you failed to show that you know more than 0 either. Fortunately you live in 2017 not in Stalin era, so your desire about "official" stuff is getting some value. Stalin didn't do a lots of things "officially" but he actually did them.

    It is not possible to hide the development of a new aircraft from 0 as a development from other aircraft. The reason why this is not possible is because the development of a new aircraft from 0 is a lot more expensive than the development of a variant based on a previous aircraft and someone has to pay the difference. Also another very important point against this joke we are reading is in the test protocols, that are very different for the case of a machine totally new and a machine "developed from" a previous machine.

    Do you know you can develop something new without starting from 0? By based on something already developed but it can still be a new one? And that development is cheap enough? If yes you are at 0 level knowledge with us, if no then you have successfully went into -1.
    According to -1 level knowledge MiG-31 is a "variant" of MiG-25 (Just because it was not developed from 0, rather from MiG-25). Fortunately F-15 is an US aircraft otherwise we would have to label it as "variant" of MiG-25 as well. Also T-90, which is developed from T-72 which is from T-55 which is from T-54 (you can take it further back to T-44 and T-34!). So T-90 is a "variant" of T-54! Again just because it not was developed from 0.

    Anyways "officially" they were not branded as "variant" so you didn't brand them either but as for the case of Backfire and Blinder you did because "officially" it was branded like that. Very cool. thumbsup respekt cheers

    The development of a variant has a range of cost that is well known by who gives the funds and is very short for the development of a totally new aircraft. The people is saying Tupolev developed the expensive option and hide it under the cheap option. It makes 0 sense. Who payed the part of the cost of the totally new aircraft that is not justified as the development from a previous basis? To drive the cost of a variant developed from a previous basis to the cost level of a totally new aircraft only can be caused by severe mismanagement. Is someone trying to say that Tupolev assumed own mismanagement to hide a totally new aircraft as a variant developed from a previous basis that should have a development a lot cheaper? No way.

    And again you have completely failed to understand the thing about the term "developed from". Which can be a new product rather than a variant. The new product which uses the solutions of the previous faulty products. Costs? Do you think Tupolev has bromance only with Khrushchev? The whole command of the Red Air Force was under his influence.
    (Sorry no "official" links for these. You have to learn from history in this case. How about some interviews from old Tupolev employees?)

    Also it makes 0 sense from the testing side. The test protocols for totally new aircrafts are far stronger than for a variant developed from a previously tested and accepted basis. To hide an aircraft totally new as an aircraft developed from a previous basis, means that Tupolev consciently tried to send an undertested new model to active service. Is someone trying to say this seriously?

    Yes darling. Not someone but basically everyone is trying to say this. I know you don't care because I don't have "official" links but I'm still saying. Using solutions from already tested stuffs reduce the time and cost and testing phase significantly. The first Tu-22Ms and Su-24s got a lots of similarity in airframe! Su-24 got first flight in 1967, Tu-22M two years later 1969. Which is 10 years later from Tu-22. (And that is actually a LOTs of time for testing and developing).

    Also the testing engineers are not idiots to know what comes to them. If they see a totally new aircraft they know what they have, and if they see an aircraft developed from a basis they tested previously, they also know what they have. If the testing engineers see something new, they order to test it inmediately. To try to hide a totally new aircraft as a development from a previous aircraft would have been a testing nightmare for Tupolev, would have been profesionally suicidal, and Khruschev/Brezhnev would have been noticed for sure.

    FFS this not even -1 level. This is -2. Someone here is still believing that back in 60s in USSR just some "test engineers" got the power and gut of defying order from Tupolev himself as not branding the aircraft as a variant rather a new one, considering the amount of political links Tupolev had. Daaaayyyyyyyyymmmmmmmmmmmmnnnnnn
    PS: Gulag did exist and there are "official" proofs of that.

    Tupolev was an outstanding engineer. He was known by always to try to include previously developed parts even in new aircrafts to keep the costs of new projects under control, something that made his designs always a little less new or original, than the designs of other offices. But we have still to read some ridiculous things.

    Because you choose to ignore the facts and keep dreaming about "official" declarations! I already wrote it but here, read it again:

    "According to -1 level knowledge MiG-31 is a "variant" of MiG-25 (Just because it was not developed from 0, rather from MiG-25). Fortunately F-15 is an US aircraft otherwise we would have to label it as "variant" of MiG-25 as well. Also T-90, which is developed from T-72 which is from T-55 which is from T-54 (you can take it further back to T-44 and T-34!). So T-90 is a "variant" of T-54! Again just because it not was developed from 0."

    I know you won't follow but still I'm asking, try to understand the thing that just because something is developed from doesn't make it a variant. And stop thinking so much about official comments. Why? Watch North Korea. Full of "official" statements.

    (Well I think all my words are going to be in vein unshaven So I'll just ignore this from now. Unless eehnie can stop from being an "expert" and come down to normal level aka level 0. Which means facts and try to understand what others are saying not just keep blabbering about "official" links)

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Aug 19, 2018 12:19 pm