Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share

    mnztr

    Posts : 119
    Points : 129
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  mnztr on Wed May 02, 2018 12:54 am

    You can just drop sonobouys and listen in from a distance, no need to criss cross. Fly too low and the sub may shoot you down.
    avatar
    Dorfmeister

    Posts : 23
    Points : 23
    Join date : 2013-11-10
    Age : 36
    Location : Belgium

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Dorfmeister on Wed May 02, 2018 7:29 am

    mnztr wrote:You can just drop sonobouys and listen in from a distance, no need to criss cross. Fly too low and the sub may shoot you down.

    What an ASW plane need is loitering time/time on station, speed is of nearly no relevance for them: have a closer look, each and every aircraft used for ASW missions have been/are subsonic aircrafts. Sonobuoys are one weapon but not the only one for an ASW aircraft.

    I'm with GarryB on this one: as a subsonic flying wing with heavy payload (so room for sensors and weapons) and long-range, the PAK DA would be a perfect basis for an ASW variant.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2340
    Points : 2357
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Wed May 02, 2018 9:29 am

    The reality is enough to hit hard the arguments without a serious technical basis. Note that the future Tu-22M3M variant aircrafts will come from upgraded aircrafts from previous variants, Tu-22M3 included.

    Insults to me can be allowed, but the reality will continue coming mercylessly vs the wrong arguments that will be always exposed. Also will come in the refered to the Tu-PAK-DA and the future long range shipborne maritime patrol UAVs that will assume most of the loitering work. An underperformer Tu-PAK-DA (compared to the modernized Tu-160 and Tu-22) is only real in the dreams of US supporters. Nothing more to say.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1153
    Points : 1153
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Hole on Wed May 02, 2018 2:20 pm

    What do you mean with "underperforming"?
    The PAK-DA could be subsonic and still be a superior aircraft. Long endurance. Stealth. More weapons.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 826
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  LMFS on Wed May 02, 2018 2:35 pm

    Maybe any of you can clarify a doubt that I have:

    would be a VLO flying wing design like the one hinted for the PAK-DA allow the aircraft to take off and deploy without even low frequency and OTH radars noticing it? I understand this would be a major element of nuclear deterrence, since it would allow it to remain unnoticed and essentially attack anywhere and anytime, very much like a SSBN (especially considering 5000+ km range for the Kh-102)

    I assume this is not 100% possible now with current strategic bombers, since they could be potentially tracked since their very departure but I am not sure that this is the case with current US early warning assets, do you have information on this issue?

    Thanks,


    marcellogo

    Posts : 119
    Points : 125
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  marcellogo on Wed May 02, 2018 10:15 pm

    [quote="Militarov"][quote="eehnie"]GarryB, just to remember, and to put the things in the right place:

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t2625p625-pak-da-news#199173

    [quote="Militarov"]
    eehnie wrote:The Tu-22 would reach the US coast, at least Seattle, the problem would be the return. Likely would need two refueling operations, one going and other returning. I would have to think about which would be the best option (Tu-22 with refueling or Tu-95 without).

    Despite it there are lots of missions in Eurasia and over the sea that the Tu-22 can do. In this area the range really reach until the areas where the adversaries have high density of air defenses.

    We now know that both Tu-160 and Tu-22M would be put in production again, so I think that all discussions about PAK-DA vs. Supersonic bombers is just now resolved.
    They would acquire both using the first as a follow on for Tu-95 and their derivatives and keep on with others.
    Given that the new plane has a range superior than the Bear itself , same payload for half the weight and use just two engines, sheer convenience of adoption is quite evident.
    At the same time introducing n a short span modernized and above all supercruising versions of the other models would allow to take a whole flight of pigeons with one stone:
    -While US numerical advantage about fighters cannot be beaten, situation about bombers see much closer numbers.
    - Continental USA has not a any form of missile defense so only way to cope with new supersonic and/or stealth bombers would be to keep about all F-22 and a good number of F-15C/D in the AD role over the continent.
    -even worse the problem for USN how to intercept bombers that are faster then your own fighters? And that with the new engines would be even capable of supercruising?
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2340
    Points : 2357
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Mon May 07, 2018 1:46 am

    Hole wrote:What do you mean with "underperforming"?
    The PAK-DA could be subsonic and still be a superior aircraft. Long endurance. Stealth. More weapons.

    There is nothing special in the use of he word underperforming in my comment.

    Long range is the main variable that defines the role of Strategic Bomber, but speed is also one of he most importants. A reduction of a 40-50% in the speed from the previous generation is not acceptable, when it affects to things as importants as the survability of the aircrafts, as explained by Mindstorm in this same topic, and the response time in the event of nuclear first strike.

    The advantage in stealth technologies has a short life until the defensive detection technologies of the adversaries improve (5, 10, 15 years...). A subsonic stealth Strategic Bomber with its stealth advantage lost becomes then a seriously underperforming aircraft. This kind of aircraft will very likely lose its orders in the long term, orders that will return to the Tu-160 and if necessary the Tu-22 would also return to production.

    As commented before the modernized Tu-160 and Tu-22 are marking the technological floor for the future Tu-PAK-DA.


    Militarov wrote:And? It requires 6 months modernisation per bort to get refueling up and running. Where were we wrong exactly?

    You are still trying to say that Tu-22 and Tu-22M are the same aircraft or what lol1

    The early variants of the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M variants are technologically related like many sources afirm. Sources that were right also on refueling, unlike you.

    Bolded the wrong part of your comment. To think that to recover a system that was removed from an aircraft designed to allow it, even in its late variants after the removal, was not possible (GarryB) or would require major modifications (Militarov) was technologically ridiculous, as the reality proved. The modernization of 6 months includes many other changes far more difficult and critical. The work of the Russian engineers has been refined enough to make the new engine compatible with the 3 aircrafts (Tu-22, Tu-160 and Tu-PAK-DA).

    Azi

    Posts : 219
    Points : 215
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Azi on Mon May 07, 2018 8:52 am

    @eehnie
    You write only pure bullshit and you know it! pwnd

    For a strategic bomber speed is not really important! Interceptors, fighters and AD missiles are all faster! The advantage of a flying wing design is the great uplift and the resulting maximized loiter time, saving of fuel. And again, again and again....a flying wing design is NEVER SUPERSONIC!!! The problems in the supersonic area are too massive, the plane needs a tail in supersonic area. And russian officials published hundred times that PAK-DA will be a flying wing design...and you eehnie can't change physics!

    Advantage of the PAK-DA is that ALL NATO AD-systems are operating in short radar wavelenght, exceptions are the over the horizon radars. So the PAK-DA will be nearly invisible for NATO radars in the next 20 years, because introduction of new systems requires time. The new american counterpart the B-21 is exactly the same design like the PAK-DA...a subsonic flying wing design! Maybe PAK-DA will be obsolete in 30 years, who knows!? You don't know, I don't know!

    Why are you obsessed with speed? Main armament of PAK-DA will consist of long range hypersonic cruise missile, so the PAK-DA will never have to go near any enemy AD systems or the the US coast.

    PAK-DA and Tu-160M2 will serve at the same time in RuAF, so there are two different systems for a variety of tasks. At the same time USA will have only B-21 as a strategic bomber. (replacement for B-1 and B-2)..I don't know how long B-52 will survive.

    A weapon system is always a compromise, you can't have everything fitted in and every superduper ability!
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1153
    Points : 1153
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Hole on Mon May 07, 2018 10:00 am

    It seems the PAK-DA will not be a pure flying wing, more a BWB design. Low supersonic speed could be possible. Maybe supercruise. Let´s say M1,3 for 5.000 km or so.

    marcellogo

    Posts : 119
    Points : 125
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  marcellogo on Mon May 07, 2018 10:12 pm

    Hole wrote:It seems the PAK-DA will not be a pure flying wing, more a BWB design. Low supersonic speed could be possible. Maybe supercruise. Let´s say M1,3 for 5.000 km or so.

    And the tactical utility of such a thing would be..?

    One thing is having a bomber with a velocity comparable or (above all when it came to actual USN line) superior to the one of enemy fighters, another one is going supersonic just for the thrill of it.
    Add that RuAf has already such kind of planes on its own inventory in the form of Tu-22m3 and Tu-160 and it is further enhancing their already impressive performances by developing new advanced version of them, with a new high performance engine, already close to completion.

    What they would achieve with the PAK-dA is instead to get a future replacement for Tu-95 and its specialized versions.
    Given that it would have same payload, better range, just two engines and a very elevate level of stealth , it would be all gains even without get embroiled in further complication for make it just narrowly supersonic as you seem to suggest.

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3730
    Points : 3768
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon May 07, 2018 11:24 pm

    marcellogo wrote:
    What they would achieve with the PAK-dA is instead to get a future replacement for Tu-95 and its specialized versions.
    Given that it would have same payload, better range, just two engines and a very elevate level of stealth , it would be all gains even without get embroiled in further complication for make it just narrowly supersonic as you seem to suggest.


    Low observable platform for bunh Kinzahl like missiles loitering constantly on waters of Pacific? or anti sub stuff too, over arctic/pacific.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1153
    Points : 1153
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Hole on Tue May 08, 2018 9:57 am

    Why do all the new fighter jets get super cruise? Longer range. Should be useful for a strategic bomber.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18644
    Points : 19200
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue May 08, 2018 10:44 am

    You can just drop sonobouys and listen in from a distance, no need to criss cross. Fly too low and the sub may shoot you down.

    You are obviously not familiar with how they work.

    First you plot out a grid where the enemy sub might be located... and then you drop dozens of sonobouys in a pattern based on that grid to try to find the sub... you can't just drop one in the water... and boom you find every sub in that sea...

    You drop noise emitting and listening sonobouys in patterns around the place to find where all the noise making things are... work out which are whales and which are shagging fish, and which are submarines and then you drop some more sonobouys near where all the subs are and then you use your MAD and sensitive radar to detect a more precise position and drop depth charges or torpedoes to sink them.

    A sonobouy falls under a small parachute... you drop them from relatively low altitude so they land where you want them to land and don't get blown miles off course...

    I'm with GarryB on this one: as a subsonic flying wing with heavy payload (so room for sensors and weapons) and long-range, the PAK DA would be a perfect basis for an ASW variant.

    The new technology they are developing with antenna arrays that can be conformal.... built in to the aircraft structure... and could be sensitive enough to notice a small rise in water level where a submarine is moving underwater would be invaluable. A long wave radar that could penetrate a few hundred metres into the water would be amazing...

    The reality is enough to hit hard the arguments without a serious technical basis. Note that the future Tu-22M3M variant aircrafts will come from upgraded aircrafts from previous variants, Tu-22M3 included.

    Get over it Eehnie... The Tu-22M0 is a different design from the Tu-22. The Tu-22M0 had a structure for inflight refuelling, but that was removed completely because of a strategic arms agreement. The Tu-22M1 didn't really enter service the main first service version was the Tu-22M2 which had curved air intakes a bit like an Su-24. The Tu-22M3 which became the definitive model with the MiG-25 air intakes and the 25 ton thrust new engines also was not built with inflight refuelling systems at all because the same strategic arms agreement that forced their removal from the prototype meant they also could not be fitted to these aircraft.

    Now that the US is escalating things, and the START II treaty has expired and is no longer in force they can now add an inflight refuelling capability to the newly modified Tu-22M3M. They are also removing two crew seats and enlarging the bomb bay and replacing the engines and radar and full electronic suite, so this is not a little patch upgrade... this is like going from Su-27 to Su-34... serious structural changes.

    An underperformer Tu-PAK-DA (compared to the modernized Tu-160 and Tu-22) is only real in the dreams of US supporters. Nothing more to say.

    You can stick you your guns all you want... these upgraded Backfires in my opinion will basically be Naval Air Power and not so much used by DA... their primary role will be to keep enemy carrier groups away from the Russian coast... for which they wont be operating against the continental US like the Blackjack or PAKDA.

    What do you mean with "underperforming"?
    The PAK-DA could be subsonic and still be a superior aircraft. Long endurance. Stealth. More weapons.

    He thinks that if it is not faster or better or longer ranged than a blackjack then it is a step backwards... he wants hypersonic.

    would be a VLO flying wing design like the one hinted for the PAK-DA allow the aircraft to take off and deploy without even low frequency and OTH radars noticing it? I understand this would be a major element of nuclear deterrence, since it would allow it to remain unnoticed and essentially attack anywhere and anytime, very much like a SSBN (especially considering 5000+ km range for the Kh-102)

    Hard to say... to build new Blackjacks they needed a forge big enough to build the giant titanium box structure that holds the swing wing mechanism... such a forge could be used to make rather large components... large components means fewer joins, which is rather good for stealthy...

    Long range is the main variable that defines the role of Strategic Bomber, but speed is also one of he most importants. A reduction of a 40-50% in the speed from the previous generation is not acceptable, when it affects to things as importants as the survability of the aircrafts, as explained by Mindstorm in this same topic, and the response time in the event of nuclear first strike.

    We have been over this to death Eehnie... speed costs money... Bears and subsonic flying wing PAK DAs are much cheaper to operate than supersonic Blackjacks.

    The advantage in stealth technologies has a short life until the defensive detection technologies of the adversaries improve (5, 10, 15 years...). A subsonic stealth Strategic Bomber with its stealth advantage lost becomes then a seriously underperforming aircraft. This kind of aircraft will very likely lose its orders in the long term, orders that will return to the Tu-160 and if necessary the Tu-22 would also return to production.

    The advantage of a subsonic PAK DA is not its stealth, it is that its internal volume can be huge so it could carry lots of large missiles like hypersonic missiles and low flying stealthy missiles to bypass American air defences... such as they are...

    The early variants of the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M variants are technologically related like many sources afirm. Sources that were right also on refueling, unlike you.

    I have a western book on Tupolev aircraft that states the only things in common between the Tu-22 and Tu-22M are the main wheels... even the ejection seats are different... on the Tu-22 they eject down... not so great in an accident during landing or taking off...

    To think that to recover a system that was removed from an aircraft designed to allow it, even in its late variants after the removal, was not possible (GarryB) or would require major modifications (Militarov) was technologically ridiculous, as the reality proved.

    They put an inflight refuellng probe on a MiG-29 which was never originally designed to have one... they can put a probe on anything and put piping to make it work... the point is that they were not allowed to put the inflight refuelling back on until after the START II treaty expired.

    The modernization of 6 months includes many other changes far more difficult and critical. The work of the Russian engineers has been refined enough to make the new engine compatible with the 3 aircrafts (Tu-22, Tu-160 and Tu-PAK-DA).

    The NK-32 is very very similar to the NK-25 engine they developed for the Tu-22M3. Same thrust in full power, similar dimensions and weight, but made independently so the NK-32 doesn't fit the Backfire and the NK-25 doesn't fit the blackjack.

    They are modifying the Tu-22M3M so the NK-32 will fit it... that way the NK-32 will be used in both the upgraded backfires and the standard and new Blackjacks.

    They are also upgrading the NK-32 to improve performance but they wont change its shape or design in a way that it can no longer fit in a Blackjack or Backfire... that way when the improved NK-32M is ready with improved design, better thrust and more fuel efficient and more reliable... they can put them both in the Blackjack and the Backfire. They are developing a new engine called PD-35 I think that will be based on the NK-32M for very big aircraft like the new PAK TA transport aircraft... perhaps also for the Il-96... where two would replace the four used currently on that aircraft.

    They would also use two on an 80-100 ton payload transport and four on an AN-124 replacement and possibly 6 on a new super heavy transport to carry around space rockets and shuttles....

    Advantage of the PAK-DA is that ALL NATO AD-systems are operating in short radar wavelenght, exceptions are the over the horizon radars. So the PAK-DA will be nearly invisible for NATO radars in the next 20 years, because introduction of new systems requires time. The new american counterpart the B-21 is exactly the same design like the PAK-DA...a subsonic flying wing design! Maybe PAK-DA will be obsolete in 30 years, who knows!? You don't know, I don't know!

    Just to add... I would think OTH radars are pretty fixed large exposed targets... I am pretty sure if war is expected a Russian Kilo class sub with some Calibr missiles could attack the OTH radar and destroy said radar well before the PAK DA gets there...

    Regarding speed.... I have recognised that a high speed fast bomber is expensive... it is useful... but Russia does not need the PAK DA to be fast because the Tu-160 already is... if that is what they wanted then cancel the PAK DA and just make more Blackjacks.

    There is merit in having a supercruising long range bomber however... for most fighters flying faster than the speed of sound requires AB which burns up fuel rapidly and dramatically shortens range.

    If you could get a bomber to fly supersonically in dry thrust... even if they need to use AB to exceed the speed of sound but can cruise supersonically in dry thrust that would dramatically increase performance and make it much much harder to intercept.

    In fact the only aircraft with a decent chance of intercepting such a target would be an F-22 which can also supercruise, and a MiG-31... the F-35 would be in enormous trouble and only have a very limited range of interception of such a target.

    An Su-35 and MiG-35 could probably intercept them too but only because they can carry very long range missiles (R-37M) and the former has long legs anyway.

    Conversely a subsonic PAK DA would have enormous internal space for lots of large bulky weapons... which would be more useful I guess than being able to supercruise... I would say supercruise gives a serious advantage, but would be much easier to achieve with the Blackjack.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1153
    Points : 1153
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Hole on Tue May 08, 2018 1:33 pm

    The Tu22M2 was fitted with a infligt refuelling probe. It was removed after SALT.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3730
    Points : 3768
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue May 08, 2018 4:54 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Just to add... I would think OTH radars are pretty fixed large exposed targets... I am pretty sure if war is expected a Russian Kilo class sub with some Calibr missiles could attack the OTH radar and destroy said radar well before the PAK DA gets there...

    centimeter waves OTH can see stealth planes, cruise missiles anything bigger then ~ football Smile


    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/984630/?reload=true

    Abstract:
    Skywave over-the-horizon backscatter radar (OTHR) has great potential for detecting such targets as cruise missiles, stealth aircraft, the powered trajectory of ballistic missiles and aircraft carriers over long distances and at the same time. This paper evaluates the detectability of OTHR for small targets through experimental research and emulation, and then brings forth directions for improvement to some shortcomings of this radar. Also, this paper inquires into several key considerations of this system for synthetic design of cost and effect.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1153
    Points : 1153
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Hole on Tue May 08, 2018 7:54 pm

    Russia has Podsolnukh OTH radar for tracking of ships and low flying planes.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3730
    Points : 3768
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue May 08, 2018 8:49 pm

    Hole wrote:Russia has Podsolnukh OTH radar for tracking of ships and low flying planes.

    Podsolnukh - sunflower Smile Besides Sunflower there is also Container with longer range (~3000 km)

    http://bastion-karpenko.ru/container/
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18644
    Points : 19200
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 09, 2018 12:22 am

    With careful design they might be able to make a flying wing with no joins in its width... that would make it very stealthy for short wave radar and also stealthier to longer wavelengths too... but the critical thing is that this is a Russian stealth bomber... it wont be used for a first strike mission... by the time it gets to its launch positions near the US all OTR radars will either be destroyed or blinded by the ionising radiation in the atmosphere...

    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 826
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  LMFS on Tue May 15, 2018 11:22 pm

    Let's see if I understand, trying to summarize what official sources have said of PAK-DA:

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201702241051011355-russia-stealth-bomber/

    > Evgeniy Fedorov, scientific director of the Russian State Research Institute of Aviation Systems:
    "The military mentioned everything they could, including a strategic bomber, an operative and tactic missile-carrying bomber and even a long-range interceptor capable of launching space vehicles," Fedorov told the Russian news agency RNS.

    "Money is also taken into consideration in the development of the PAK DA. The Tu-160 is a masterpiece but it is extremely expensive. The new plane is expected to be cheaper but much easier in production. The preliminary design was approved and the decision was made to start building the aircraft," he pointed out.

    > Russian Aerospace Forces Commander Viktor Bondarev:
    "It is impossible to build a missile-carrying bomber invisible to radars and supersonic at the same time. This is why focus is placed on stealth capabilities. The PAK DA will carry AI-guided missiles with a range of up to 7,000 km. Such a missile can analyse the aerial and radio-radar situation and determine its direction, altitude and speed. We’re already working on such missiles," Bondarev was quoted as saying by the Russian newspaper Rossiskaya Gazeta.

    http://tass.com/defense/982771

    > "We have already been very close to making the first prototype model," Bondarev said.

    Research and development work is close to completion under the future multifunctional bomber project - the plane for subsequent replacement of Tu-22M3, Tu-95MS and Tu-160 bombers, he said.

    PAK DA introduction into service is planned to start in 2025-2030 after tests, Bondarev noted.

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201601241033644203-russia-next-generation-bomber/

    > Earlier, the Long-Range Aviation Commander Lieutenant-General Anatoly Zhiharev talking about PAK DA said that, “This is a fundamentally new plane with a new sighting and navigation system. This plane will be equipped with the latest communication systems and electronic warfare, and will have little visibility to radar.”

    https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/pak-da.htm (quoting Rogozin in 2012)

    Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin suggested that with the current and future air and missile defense systems in place, strategic bombers were no longer relevant. “Look at the current level of air defense and anti-missile defense – these aircraft will not get anywhere. Not ours, not theirs," Rogozin, who oversees defense industry and will soon assume full control over financing of R&D for military purposes, said in an interview with Izvestia. He added that strategic bombers could not be viewed as means of delivering nuclear strikes on enemy territory anymore.

    Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said he was in favour of development of the PAK DA long-range bomber for the country's air force, just hours after saying the project was unnecessary, in apparent contravention of President Putin's call last week for domestic aerospace industry to develop just such an aircraft. “I am for PAK DA but it should not be a copy of the B-2. We need to look at the horizon and develop hypersonic long-range aviation, civil and military," Rogozin said

    My (unpretentious) conclusions:

    > It seems not even the Russians have a single opinion and clear role for the aircraft, Rogozin not even seeing the need of a strategic bomber in the age of hypersonic missiles, but accepting it after Putin made it clear it was going to be developed.

    > As of late official sources point to PAK-DA being a highly stealthy, subsonic plane. I found many references from "sources" in Sputnik and TASS but no official confirmation about it being a flying wing, maybe I missed that, but nevertheless it would be almost the immediate assumption in order to counter lower frequency radars

    > Role of supersonic bomber as defended here in the forum remains ensured by the updates and new production of Tu-160 and now even Tu-22M3. Development of hypersonic weapons is being pursued.

    > So what is the role of the PAK-DA? It seems the military was also not sure in the beginning, if we pay attention to what Fedorov said. Maybe the internal disputes have forced to update the existing bombers and put a brake on the development of the new one. It is now IMO likely that the plane does not end up substituting at last the Tu-160 for the next 3 decades! I would not even be 100% sure the plane will be developed at all, to be honest.

    > I have to agree that a strategic bomber that uses missiles with a range of 5000 (or even 7000 km) like the ones available and being developed does not really need stealth, unless (this would be highly theoretical) it has HUGE persistence and can be kept on station relatively close to enemy air space in significant numbers ready to unleash a retaliating attack out of nowhere, in some way like a SSBN. Here the disruptive advances in RADAR technology play against VLO technology and I have no idea who will defeat who and when, and how this will be weighted by Russian military planers

    > I am tempted to think that maybe the role of PAK-DA is not that much being a strategic bomber in the Russian tradition as an attempt to replicate, even when I do not see it justified, the role of the B-21. That means, an offensive weapon against non-peer countries. I fail to see the real need of something like this but I guess the temptation of playing "big power" is always there.

    > An alternative option is that it will have some potential role as a kind of "mother-ship" involved in air superiority as suggested in CSBA's "TRENDS IN AIR-TO-AIR COMBAT - IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE AIR SUPERIORITY". Not that I buy this vision 100% but it is clear that directed energy weapons can have impact on the need for volume, cooling capacity, weapons load and power availability and neglect some advantages of speed and manoeuvrability in the long term. Also communication, sensors and EW can demand more capacities than found in a fighter-sized aircraft.

    All in all, probably the Russian military will assign PAK-DA as many roles as possible in order to offset its huge costs, so versatility of the design would be a plus. We will see in the future, but for now I am one of those who don't see the role and meaning of this plane THAT clear...

    Sorry for the wall of text guys! Wink
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7250
    Points : 7344
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue May 15, 2018 11:52 pm


    You bolded the wrong part there LMFS, let me fix that:

    “I am for PAK DA but it should not be a copy of the B-2. We need to look at the horizon and develop hypersonic long-range aviation, civil and military," Rogozin said

    Rogozin is idiot who just got fired, remember his trampoline bullshit?


    Now, based on statements from people who are not arrogant ignorant blowhard morons this airplane will be subsonic, stealth, cheaper long range and high endurance platform.

    As current Israel/Syria/Iran kerfuffle has shown age of airplanes going near targets in real wars is over, it's all about standoff distances as Tu-160 pioneered long ago.

    PAK-DA is to stay in the air for very long time (crew comfort will be priority also) and carry arsenal of new long range weapons. Also having loads of space for Zircons (or maybe even Kinzhals if they install extra boost stage) will make it good Naval platform as well. Again, endurance.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18644
    Points : 19200
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 16, 2018 2:29 am

    About the Tu-PAK-DA the time will talk. In the refered to the payload and range, subsonic and supersonic aircrafts of the same size have a similar relation between the Empty Weight and the Maximum Take-Off Weight (the difference affects to the payload and to the range by the storage of fuel):

    You can't compare a Tu-160 with an Il-96 and an An-22 for payload range performance.

    First of all because the Il-96 and An-22 carry vastly heavier payloads... the Tu-160 on a strategic mission will be carrying 12 Kh-102 nuclear armed cruise missiles... weighing perhaps 2 tons each... that is 24 tons payload... An-22 carries what 80 tons?
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2340
    Points : 2357
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Wed May 16, 2018 8:46 am

    GarryB wrote:
    eehnie wrote:About the Tu-PAK-DA the time will talk. In the refered to the payload and range, subsonic and supersonic aircrafts of the same size have a similar relation between the Empty Weight and the Maximum Take-Off Weight (the difference affects to the payload and to the range by the storage of fuel):

    You can't compare a Tu-160 with an Il-96 and an An-22 for payload range performance.

    First of all because the Il-96 and An-22 carry vastly heavier payloads... the Tu-160 on a strategic mission will be carrying 12 Kh-102 nuclear armed cruise missiles... weighing perhaps 2 tons each... that is 24 tons payload... An-22 carries what 80 tons?

    You are comparing Load vs Payload.

    At least I compared the same measure for all the cases. Maximum Take-Off Weigh minus Empty Weigh is roughly divided later between Fuel Load and Payload. Is relevant to say that the sum of Fuel Load plus Payload is roughly the same in subsonic and supersonic aircrafts of the same size. The allegued difference between subsonic and supersonic aircrafts in the refered to the range and payload is limited by this reality.

    It means that if the new engine of the Tu-160/Tu-22/Tu-PAK-DA reachs an efficient enough level on subsonic fly, something that is supposed to do, the performance on range and payload of subsonic aircrafts and supersonic aircrafts flying at subsonic regime would be similar. Obviously, in this case is not justified to sacrifice the advantages of being able to fly also at supersonic regime in the case of the Tu-PAK-DA.


    Last edited by eehnie on Thu May 17, 2018 1:59 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 826
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  LMFS on Thu May 17, 2018 1:23 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    You bolded the wrong part there LMFS, let me fix that:

    “I am for PAK DA but it should not be a copy of the B-2. We need to look at the horizon and develop hypersonic long-range aviation, civil and military," Rogozin said

    Rogozin is idiot who just got fired, remember his trampoline bullshit?


    Now, based on statements from people who are not arrogant ignorant blowhard morons this airplane will be subsonic, stealth, cheaper long range and high endurance platform.

    As current Israel/Syria/Iran kerfuffle has shown age of airplanes going near targets in real wars is over, it's all about standoff distances as Tu-160 pioneered long ago.

    PAK-DA is to stay in the air for very long time (crew comfort will be priority also) and carry arsenal of new long range weapons. Also having loads of space for Zircons (or maybe even Kinzhals if they install extra boost stage) will make it good Naval platform as well. Again, endurance.
    lol1 lol1

    Ok, I get it! Don't know the trampoline thing, but the guy was responsible of overseeing many of the achievements we see today in the Russian armed forces, for good or for bad. I will not call him names, don't know him that well!

    I see what you mean, it is just its relation with the role of a strategic bomber that is not 100% clear to me, unless the idea is like I suggested to loiter within range of its cruise missiles to strike. The Tu-160 has the following range according to Wiki:

    Range: 12,300 km (7,643 mi) practical range without in-flight refuelling, Mach 0.77 and carrying 6 × Kh-55SM dropped at mid range and 5% fuel reserves

    That number above is not considering improvements due to the new engines, quoted as being 10% more efficient.

    The B-2 (which is supposed to have a similar size to the PAK-DA) is supposed to have 11.100 km range, no indication of the payload.

    Unless the PAK-DA has much more internal fuel than the B-2, it is going to be difficult to better the Tu-160 in that regard.

    So if they manage to make it cheaper to operate / less delicate than the 160 and sufficiently stealthy for OTH and other EW radars it could make sense in that role, if not I don't see the big advantage compared to the Tu-160
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18644
    Points : 19200
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 17, 2018 8:48 am

    You are comparing Load vs Payload.

    The PAK DA will perform different roles... it is intended as a short range theatre bomber to replace the Tu-22M3M, where the enormous fuel capacity of the aircraft will not be used... a large weapon load is much more valuable so it will offset fuel to allow a heavier payload. In the strategic role however range is very important but the payload will be nuclear armed cruise missiles that are not that heavy, so the payload will be lighter which means rather more fuel can be carried.

    The fuel performance of a Tu-160 is based on full fuel and reduced payload half over half the flight range and zero payload on the return flight.

    So if they manage to make it cheaper to operate / less delicate than the 160 and sufficiently stealthy for OTH and other EW radars it could make sense in that role, if not I don't see the big advantage compared to the Tu-160

    It is going to be cheaper and simpler but also more stealthy.

    It wont need a huge titanium box structure to house the swing wing mechanism... it will likely only use two engines compared with four in the Tu-160, though they might be 34+ tons thrust engines instead of 25 tons thrust engines... that is a comparable thrust increase from the Al-31 to the new Saturn engines for the PAK FA.

    This might further dramatically improve the flight performance of the Tu-160... super cruising in dry thrust might lead to flying at mach 1.3-1.4 in dry thrust instead of mach 0.7 in dry thrust.

    Such an aircraft would be a near impossible target to intercept in an F-35.

    In comparison the PAK DA should have the internal space for all sorts of bulky weapons the Tu-160 cannot carry... the Tu-160 has very long large bomb bays but is pretty much restricted to a standard payload of Kh-102 type weapons... a PAK DA could have an enormous bomb bay because it does not need to be slim and supersonic.

    Remember that design for the so called hypersonic transport aircraft that was put out a while ago... think of that as a subsonic bomber...
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1153
    Points : 1153
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Hole on Thu May 17, 2018 9:03 am

    The Tu-160 was restricted to cruise missiles because other weapons were not implemented in the 90´s. This will change with the modernisation. Or is already changing.

    Measures: 11,28m x 1,92m x 2,4 m. Much bigger than the bay of the Tu-22M3. And x2. Should be good enough to carry a few guided glide bombs around (UPAB-1500).

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Nov 20, 2018 6:48 pm