Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3203
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:34 pm

    If anyone is interested we had an interesting discussion on the PAK-DA on mp.net starting round about here: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?197506-Russian-Armed-Forces-News-amp-Discussion-thread&p=6225296&highlight=#post6225296

    A lot of good points were raised, I of course had my own opinion, others had theirs, etc...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16196
    Points : 16827
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:29 am

    GarryB hypersonic cruise missiles are already in very very advanced stadium of work ,but the point continue to remain the same : an hypersonic missile with strategical range (at least in the league of today Kh-102) would have technical requirements and ,above all COSTS (in particular in reason the design solutions and very complex materials necessary to sustain the immense thermal, magnetic and kinetic sollicitations linked to high hypersonic speed regime for a very protracted span of time) that would produce a price tag for it not significantly lower than that of a startegical hypersonic bomber.

    The fundamental problem is that a bomber flying at hypersonic speeds will not be able to manouver like a subsonic fighter, so that hypersonic bomber will be threatened by the same ABM systems threatening Russian ICBMs.

    The purpose of a triad of nuclear weapons platforms is that no one measure will defeat all three legs of the triad... making the bombers fly high and fast makes them too much like slow SLBMs and ICBMs.

    Another thing is that materials and technology including aerodyamics created for cruise missiles... even if they are only 1,000km range weapons that could be used to hit air bases and major Air Defence Network nodes in front of the bomber as it supercruises along at mach 1.5.

    Taking things in steps allows the technology to mature... you might not ever want to have hypersonic bombers but for now they can be a long term goal with hypersonic cruise missiles as shorter term goals along with subsonic stealthy low flying cruise missiles.

    Sure you could probably create one hypersonic bomber to replace all of those systems, but I think it would end up being too expensive for now... too big a step.

    I realise that mach 3 bombers were tested in the 1960s... but flying at mach 3 wouldn't make you that much safer than being able to dash to mach 2 over the target area, but it is much more expensive and creates a lot of problems to be able to get to mach 3 and beyond.

    I say again that a hypersonic bomber is a good long term goal because if we can deal with the problems and issues then a scramjet powered aircraft that can fly into orbit becomes a possibility... and that would be really cool.

    I think a supercruising mach 1.5-1.8 bomber that might have a sprint speed of mach 2 or more but that carries long range subsonic stealthy cruise missiles internally and can carry 4 or 6 further hypersonic cruise missiles with ranges of 1,000-2,000km with scramjet propulsion for strategic missions would be the ideal.

    A flying wing with horizontal tail surfaces (a bit like the YF-23 except using thrust vectoring and horizontal only tail surfaces) and new 5th gen bomber engines in the 35-45 ton thrust range that enables the aircraft to supercruise comfortably. Later modifications that can burn fuel in the bypass air allowing the engines to be used in a ramjet mode should enable high speed operation. Later developments in terms of scramjet technology will allow even higher speeds to be achieved.


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

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

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 769
    Points : 950
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:25 pm


    flamming_python wrote:If anyone is interested we had an interesting discussion on the PAK-DA on mp.net starting round about here: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?197506-Russian-Armed-Forces-News-amp-Discussion-thread&p=6225296&highlight=#post6225296

    A lot of good points were raised, I of course had my own opinion, others had theirs, etc...


    Flammyng Python an interesting discussion has ,as its prerequisite, elaborated, mature and evolved ideas and data's exchanges between comparably knowledgeable persons ; unfortunately in that particular place (which ,how i image you would have already noticed, is literally controlled by an organized group with a very precise mandate and agenda ...) the intelligence and knowledge of persons like Artjomh cannot compensate in any way for the titanic ,biased, ridiculous ignorance of Dunning-Kruger Effect-sickened posters like C.Puff.



    I can remember distinctively a very brief (and also very funny for me ,if i must be totally sincere... Laughing Laughing ) discussion with this perfectly preserved specimen of Neanderthal, some years ago ,on the total lack ,by part of US Navy not only of any type of supersonic ASCM - both highly manoeuvrable ,armoured sea-skimming with in-built countermeasures ,swarm attack capable ones and high flying powered-dive capable ones with spiral like approach and random speed variating ones - but even only of any type of target drones capable to effectively mimic similar missiles to, at least, attempt to develop and test some type of defences against them.


    Well C.Puff get the face to sustain that US Navy had absolutely no problem at develop supersonic cruise missiles but that it was a deliberate choice because had computed that the option with the low range/subsonic/scarcely manoeuvrable /unarmored /primitive Harpoon was more efficient Razz Razz .
    But ,even worse, it found the courage to sustain that US Navy had tested its defences against drones perfectly capable to mimic both Kh-22/Kh-15 types and SS-N-22 ,P-500,P-700,P-1000, Yakhont, Kaliber etc... missile types since years '70s with drones like.... AQM-37C and MQM-8G Vandal !!!! Razz Razz Razz
    Or that US Navy was not interested at all in the MA-31 drone some of which (very, very downgraded moreover) Russia had sold to US Navy at the point that discovered theirs backwardness had interrupted quickly the orders !!! Razz Razz Razz

    At this point i begun to play slowly and devilishly with him ,attentively choosing any statements that would have appeared to its naive ,ignorant and highly biased eyes : srange ,exaggerated or even uninformed such as :" '70's years ? What impudence ! US Navy had literally ZERO capability capability to test its air defence systems against any of those type of supersonic menaces at just two years ago" (then it was 2007) or " Not interested in Russian high altitude MA-31 drone ? But if US Navy had attempted literally anything to obtain 40 more ,after the first 18 received, and only Russian bureaucracy and changed political climate had stalled the deal !! ".

    Naturally the poor C.Puff fall in the trap like a blind elephant in a covered pit ; it begun to utter any sort of curse and low offence against me saying that only a true ignorant on the subject could bring similar idiocies, no-senses and inventions on the table.

    All that until i said to him that i was very, very impressed and surprised by the unbelievable amount of vulgar innuendo and offences it had been capable to produce against the competence and work of....... General Michael Williams and Prof. William Delaney , Directors and Co-Chairmens of the Department of Defense of Unites states -Defense Science Board Task Force on Aerial Targets- practically two of the most important American authorities of the field tasked by Us Navy to assess ,with the work of this ad-hoc survey - to assess both the actual status and deficiency of US target drones and the requirements for the future.


    http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA441466.pdf



    After that it , very strangely ,vanished literally into nothing from this forum ; equally strange also the whole thread with all its post was firstly locked and ,after, totally cancelled and after a pair of week the same forum completely disappeared !!


    Just a pair of month ago C.Puff (i image it is the same guy ) just at mp.net returned strangely at sustain without any shame the same self-embarrassing idiocies up-mentioned in this thread:


    http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?211053-Aster-30-missile-successfully-intercepts-supersonic-target/page2


    Flammyng Python please follow this advice (and if possible pass it to other intelligent/knowledgeable poster here ,such as Artjomh, possibly in private message): do a gift to yourself and leave that "misty" place at light speed Wink Wink



    Mindstorm

    Posts : 769
    Points : 950
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:49 pm

    The fundamental problem is that a bomber flying at hypersonic speeds will not be able to manouver like a subsonic fighter, so that hypersonic bomber will be threatened by the same ABM systems threatening Russian ICBMs.

    The purpose of a triad of nuclear weapons platforms is that no one measure will defeat all three legs of the triad... making the bombers fly high and fast makes them too much like slow SLBMs and ICBMs.



    GarryB ,i am sorry, but here i cannot image a statement more distant from reality than this one (up to its exact opposite) : a similar hypersonic vehicles and7or missiles would renderer completely useless and push in total obsolescence the whole NATO's East European ABM project and future structure (already conceived to try to find a quick remedy to the complete uselessness of Alaska ABM assets against Topol-M class ICBM after theirs boost phase !!!) for reasons immensely greater than those that have lead General Yuri Baluyevsky to sustain that the high hypersonic - about Mach 18 !! - highly maneuverable, far gliding ICBM's warhead ,tested in 2004 would render Russian nuclear delivery systems completely immune to any western ABM system for at least 40 years !!


    The realization of similar hypersonic projects (togheter with S-500 and the future perspective unified air-space defence system) will inflict to NATO the worse economical blow,by far, of its entire history ,and likely even a fatal one taking into acount future economical trend's analysis.








    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16196
    Points : 16827
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:10 pm

    A hypersonic manouvering bomber will require more drastic air defences likely including very high speed interceptors like particle beams (in space) and lasers. Such systems when eventually perfected will become a serious threat to MAD...

    Hypersonic and strategic are contradicting parameters... and both are expensive achievements.

    I still think Russia should look at a more conservative option of supercruising flying wing with horizontal tail surfaces with hypersonic and subsonic cruise missiles.

    Russia does not need a hypersonic or stealthy first strike bomber.

    It doesn't fit their doctrine, and it would be very expensive.


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

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

    Posts : 16196
    Points : 16827
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:33 am

    If anyone is interested we had an interesting discussion on the PAK-DA on mp.net starting round about here: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?197506-Russian-Armed-Forces-News-amp-Discussion-thread&p=6225296&highlight=#post6225296

    A lot of good points were raised, I of course had my own opinion, others had theirs, etc...

    I treat mp.net like I treat a good edition of playboy... look at it every day... but just for the pictures... Embarassed

    My account does not work there now anyway... when I try to post it says I need to speak to a mod or something... by that stage I have generally gone through my own head what replies I would get to my post and I decide not to bother.

    Beating a dead horse comes to mind.


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

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

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 769
    Points : 950
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:12 pm



    A hypersonic manouvering bomber will require more drastic air defences likely including very high speed interceptors like particle beams (in space) and lasers. Such systems when eventually perfected will become a serious threat to MAD...


    Yes GarryB , Direct Energy Weapons, when them will reach a precise threeshold of efficiency, will represent a true revolution in military warfare capable to potentially unbalance the equilibrium toward defensive systems for several decades ,but try to reason on this question :

    What would be more vulnerable (and above all at what ranges...) to a high power direct energy weapon , a ballistic object foillowing its computable trajectory in the space's void or a manoeuvrable hypersonic vehicle enclosed in a bubble of high-ionized gas in the Earth's atmosphere ?


    Direct energy weapons will allow ,in future, to engage and destroy, at a limited range, a virtually limitless amount of offensive objects (the limit being only disposable volume ,energy and cooling potential ,with a immense premium,therefore, on ground and ship-based systems) and will surely represent the perfect defensive systems for decades.

    The only factor that will allow ,at this point , to still engage a target protected by sismilar systems retaining some chance of success will be saturating attacks employing high hypersonic vehicles ,flying through atmosphere and including some type of screening from radiated beams ; in few words the only factor that will really matter in deciding the possible outcome of as similar saturating attack,in future, will be the Time Of Exposure for Single Target Neutralization.



    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16196
    Points : 16827
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:33 am

    Lasers are getting more and more powerful, and for particle beams the matter in the beams needs to be neutral... otherwise it will be badly effected by the earths magnetic field and would be very difficult to aim.

    Very high speed bombers will be a problem, but it is not hard to make even air borne lasers that can be used to do damage to objects large distances away... I just think that hypersonic bombers are an unnecessary escalation that would be destabilising.

    Sure develop the technology and use it for air travel and perhaps eventually cheaper and easier access to space, but making bombers would be expensive and confrontational and the countermeasures developed to defend from the threat might render your other deterrent options less effective too... which means they will need further money and development.

    I am not saying Russia should stick its head in the sand, I just think there are other areas they can spend money on right now that would be much more beneficial... one example would be a powerful multicore CPU for Russian military systems. Many military systems actually use 486 level technology because it is hardened from EMP and is proven and reliable. Having a modern multicore chip will greatly improve the performance of various systems without too much cost increase and at the same time make Russia less dependent on imports and foreign technology.

    Work on supercomputers helps design bureaus, work on new materials and chemicals, work on non oil based energy sources... here in New Zealand we have companies selling heating systems that use wood pellets made of the waste material from sawmills and the forestry industry that are efficient and because of their design can be made fairly clean. There are so many things Russia can invest its money into that will make things better for Russia and Russians... having the biggest bomber or fastest bomber wins you no prizes because we are talking about things that if they really do their job and we do ours will hopefully never be used in anger...


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

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

    Posts : 904
    Points : 1070
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sujoy on Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:48 pm

    RIA NOVOSTI



    The outline for a design of the Russian Air Force's future strategic bomber, known as PAK-DA, has been worked out, Air Force commander Maj. Gen. Viktor Bondarev said on Wednesday.
    "The outline of this aircraft is already formed, and the technical and tactical characteristics are being set out," Bondarev told a news conference at RIA Novosti dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the Russian Air Force

    "I think we have the resources and funding to make the plane on time, so it is ready when we need it as a replacement or addition to our Tu-95 and Tu-160 strategic bombers," he added.
    The AF commander did not specify the number of new bombers expected to enter service with the Air Force after 2020.
    Bondarev also denied any knowledge about the ongoing conflict between Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who has responsibility for military-industrial affairs, and the Armed Force’s General Staff over the need for a new “traditional” strategic bomber.
    Rogozin said on his blog last week that it would be undesirable for Russia to "go down the American route," and produce a bomber like the Northrop B-2, and repeated his earlier calls for a hypersonic air vehicle system instead of a traditional long-range bomber.
    In earlier comments, Rogozin had appeared to dismiss the need for PAK-DA, saying long-range bombers would fall victim to air defense systems long before reaching their targets.
    Rogozin's comments came just days after President Vladimir Putin called on Russian industry to develop PAK-DA

    Russian Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bomber
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16196
    Points : 16827
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:00 am

    So many websites keep putting up the Tu-4MS as a potential "new" design, yet that design was rejected decades ago in favour of the Tu-160 shape.

    Swing wings are complicated and expensive and heavy but at the time they were the best compromise to get low take off and landing speeds combined with high speed flight and low drag high speed cruise performance.

    For the same reasons the Mig-23 had swing wings and successfully combined short field operations for a mach 2+ fighter interceptor.

    As shown by the more sophisticated wing of the Su-27 and Mig-29 however modern wing design can offer high speed and low takeoff and landing speeds without moving and new technology in wing shaping offers even better efficiency.

    The Su-33KUB has a deforming wing structure that is supposed to reduce drag and improve performance in takeoff and landing and cruising flight regimes.

    The next Russian strategic bomber will benefit from a flying wing design as this combines low drag with low RCS and with wing mounted radar antenna it offers new capabilities in AWACS and attack options. The main problem with a flying wing design is that there is no capacity for the extreme shifts in gravity created by an airfoil moving through transonic speeds.

    The secret for the F-86 and the Mig-17 was the all moving tail plane to generate sufficient down force to counter the shift in centre of gravity.

    A flying wing but with horizontal tail surfaces should be able to fly supersonically without increasing drag or RCS too much. Thrust vector engine technology is very well developed in Russia so its use to remove the need for vertical stabilisers will reduce drag and complexity and RCS.

    Having a tail area means more volume in the main wing area for fuel and weapons internally.

    A higher speed requirement for the Russian bomber would lead to a sharper wing sweep than that used for the B-2 and could in many ways resemble a very large YF-23 with a thicker wing structure and no fuselage and perhaps horizontal tail surfaces without the vertical aspect to them.


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

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

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 769
    Points : 950
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:57 pm



    The today selection between the different optional technical requirements for PAKDA is a truly critical choice: it will not only shape its design but also the basis doctrine and future CONOPS of the entire third branch of the Russian nuclear triad .


    The selection of a subsonic ,"VLO", defense penetrating, flying wing design will be ,on the short term, the less demanding approach under a technical ,financial and temporal point of view, but will become ,on the long term, by far the least paying under a scientific /industrial know-how potential, military capability's increase and deterrence relevance point of view.


    In reality (and to the contrary of opinions shaped by ,at best, de-relato or even warped or "guided" data) the relevance of the B2 design approach was in deep jeopardy already during its development phase, to the point that the first step taken by US military authorities was to modify its flight profile from high altitude (a true "must" for an aircraft supposedly undetectable by high end coevian enemy radars...have i said supposedly ? ) to low altitude terrain following/masking ..... Suspect Suspect ,the second step was its abrupt cancelation at only 21 airframes .

    Behind closed doors the elementary "problem" was very clear since beginning of '90 years, as son as American operatives was capable to test theirs most advanced stealth aircraft against theirs most sophisticated search and tracking radars (and at the time US officials was also totally unaware of the wide technological gap suffered in the long range, fully mobile, long wave/ multi frequency, area search and engagement radar sector, in comparison to Russian products of the field !!! A gap that today with the new monstrous fully AESA ,highly mobile ,multi frequency radars appear even significantly widened.)


    When asked how a U.S. carrier battle group would defend itself against a Soviet stealth aircraft, Nyquist told Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.), "...The Aegis radar can do the job ... That's why we're fielding the Aegis in our cruisers and in the Arleigh Burke class destroyers."

    Bumpers, who said he formerly backed the B-2 bomber, questioned the need for building stealth planes. He said, "If it is true that the Aegis is capable of picking up stealth technology, then isn't it also true that they (the Soviets) can establish such a technology?"

    Assistant Secretary of the Navy (R&D and Acquisition) Gerald Cann said that was a complicated question. However, he said that the issue in such a case is at what cost can the Soviets overcome that technology. Bumpers stated that cost was also an issue in the U.S.
    Cann defended the development of stealth technologies saying, "We have to make sure our forces are survivable and stealth is something I'd like to have."


    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_n33_v167/ai_n28592796/


    Naturally Russia will not have the luxury in 2020-2025 to transform ,in a first instance, PAKDA 's flight profile in a low altitude terrain following aircraft or worse discontinue the whole program at a pair of dozen of airframe ...with system unitary costs in the order of several billion dollars Laughing Laughing ... after having discovered ,at project completed, that its enemy had covered its most important strategic targets with sensors (ground/air and space based) and air defense systems even only at par with those present today in Russian Federation capable to render similar bombers almost totally useless.

    The recent Rogozin's words on that subject should be truly carved in platinum-iridium : With modern air defense systems, these targets will be destroyed on the way.


    The third option (and likely also the most probable) is an high supersonic ,not flying wing, bomber with a not classical approach to the low radar observability issue, armed with perspective nuclear very long range weapons ,capable to be employed also in the very long range maritime strike role and as vector for future ASAT-type weapons. .


    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16196
    Points : 16827
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:51 am

    The thing is that the next Russian bomber will be a dual use bomber... with both theatre and strategic roles.

    In my opinion stealth is really only for the theatre role as in the strategic role it would need to be being used as a first strike weapon to require stealth AND standoff range.

    I don't think Russia should put all its eggs in one basket and I don't think they will.

    Hypersonic bombers are interesting concepts right now and with the right propulsion technology they might become viable, but I rather think that the technology for scramjet propulsion is very new and that development and experience is needed before building long range bombers to use the technology effectively.

    By all means develop the technology... it will certainly be useful in a range of areas, but the fact that the B-52 will likely serve to 2040 or beyond suggests hypersonic super Russian bombers might be an extravagance that Russia cannot afford.

    If penetrating enemy air defences is so dangerous then send in some unmanned drones and cruise missiles to soften the defences. The enemy can either not engage, which means the cruise missiles will do some damage, or they can shoot things down which will allow standoff aircraft and satellites to plot the positions of enemy air defence assets that can be targeted directly in a theatre scenario... in a strategic scenario just use nukes to blast your way through with missiles like Kh-15 Kickback.


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

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

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 769
    Points : 950
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:42 pm

    If penetrating enemy air defences is so dangerous then send in some unmanned drones and cruise missiles to soften the defences. The enemy can either not engage, which means the cruise missiles will do some damage, or they can shoot things down which will allow standoff aircraft and satellites to plot the positions of enemy air defence assets that can be targeted directly in a theatre scenario...


    GarryB the usual approach to defensive anti-UAV operations (in particular anti-MALE/long range area surveillance UAV) in or near own territory ,by now firmly established among any advanced military force around the world, foresee , in this order :

    1) The engagements of similar UAVs used in long range reconnaissance missions far from friend forces -....effectively completely defenceless targets- with not high-end aircraft (which will be useful at maintain or contest air superiority against capable enemy air intruders) ; after positive ID them can be shoot down in big numbers even only by cannons .







    Even a CAS aircraft ,such as SU-25 ,in this particular operation, is perfectly capable to inflict horrible losses in a single sortie to enemy surveillance UAVs


    2) Engagements with point EW assets (both air and ground based). It is just a today news that a team of University of Texas has managed to reproduce the spoofing techique likely employed by Iranian operators to force down ,some months ago the stealthy USAF RQ-170 "Sentinel".

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18643134


    3) Engagement with highly mobile medium and short range SAM systems , at second of the type of UAV in question.
    Remember that 90% of the surveillance UAVs represent a very trivial target, totally within engagement range of old SHORAD systems of an advanced nation and that enemy Air Force's offensive units would be positioned ,at best, at several hundreds km far from those UAVs in reconnaissance mssions ,therefore completely incapable to capitalize the knowledge of the momentary position of similar Air Defense TELARs.



    The type of tactics at which you refere was very common and also efficient in pasted war against ...the typical immensely inferior enemy of NATO, equipped with export version of antediluvian SAM system .
    In particular them was used to trigger the illumination of the single channel engagement radar of fixed SA-2 and SA-3's sites , to discover where them had been re-deployed ; those same tactics would have resulted clumsily comical for any Air Defence operator of even only a middly powerful IADS opf those years .

    Moreover is necessary to remember that in any major war the main strategic advantage offered by a very powerful defence is to allow to excute concentrated attack, coming from high defended places, aimed at selectively destroy critical enemy offensive assets devoid of similar defences, obtaining in this way a progressively faster degradation of enemy offensive capabilities , (at theirs own time exponentially demoting opponet's possibilities to penetrate defences for attack own most critical assets) up to its complete neutralization.

    A very strong defence represent...at least in a major war between very strong opponent..., the most fearful "force multiplier" at disposition of an Armed Forces Commander in Chief .



    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16196
    Points : 16827
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:50 am

    The problem with UAVs is that by definition they have to be cheap, so putting expensive avionics defensive suites does not make sense.

    Perhaps the first wave of UAVs could be equipped with R-73s with their high offboresight capability could be used to defend the UAVs during their high speed low level flight into enemy territory...


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

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

    Posts : 904
    Points : 1070
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sujoy on Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:45 am

    RIA Novosti

    The Russian Air Force may receive its first PAK DA next generation long-range bomber about 2020 instead of 2025 as initially planned, Russia’s acting deputy Air Force commander, Major General Alexander Chernyayev, has said.

    “I think the first models of the Prospective Air Complex for Long Range Aviation (PAK DA) will be supplied to the Air Force approximately by 2020,” Chernyayev said.

    The general look of the new strategic bomber has already been worked out, and engineers are currently finishing work on aircraft specific operational requirements, Chernyayev said.

    “We have everything today to develop the plane on time and put it into operation together with [Tupolev] Tu-95MS Bear, Tu-160 Blackjack and Tu-22M3 Backfire [strategic bombers], which have proven their high reliability,” he added.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered development of the new long-range strategic bomber to be sped up in mid-June.

    Currently, only Russia and the United States operate intercontinental range bombers. Most other nuclear-capable nations rely solely on intercontinental ballistic missiles, based on submarines or in land-based silos, or cruise missiles. The United States has expressed an interest in successor systems to its B-1, B-2 and B-52H long-range bombers.

    Chernyayev also said that the Russian Air Force was planning to modernize its Tu-95MS, Tu-160 and Tu-22MS bombers, as well as Ilyushin Il-78 Midas air-to-air refueling tanker aircraft.

    Russia’s strategic air forces operate a total of 63 Tu-95MS and 13 Tu-160 bombers. Altogether, they are capable of carrying 850 long-range cruise missiles.

    Firebird

    Posts : 943
    Points : 975
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    stealth PAK FA and hypersonic weapons

    Post  Firebird on Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:44 pm

    I've been thinking about strategic bombers, hypersonic craft etc.

    To me, a design has to meet these criteria.
    1)powerful
    2)fast - from prelaunch to target
    3)stealthy or hard to detect
    4)reliable
    5)cost effective/ flexible.
    6)meet other criteria which I won't elaborate on here eg chemical weapons might be unpalatable because they cause other problems.

    I think in the distant future, war will be about energy weapons as much as, or even more than projectiles.
    By this, I mean lasers and the like. However, we are not at that stage yet.

    The current debate seems to revolve around UAVs, stealth bombers/ planes, other bombers and hypersonic or space vehicles.

    My guess is that Putin wants to accelerate PAK DA because it is flexible and because there are question marks about the Bear's and Tu22's future effectiveness. Tho by no means completed, much of the technology is in place.
    Its a convenient assymetrical response to the USA ABM "defence" ( read aggressive nuisance). It can also be used in theatre roles.

    The only question with PAK DA, is what does Russia get for the expense. I don't think India are that interested in it. And I don't know what "spin off" benefits it can give. However, I think Russia does need a latest generation bomber/ aviation platform. Whilst it IS expensive, the full array of weapons can actually limit the need to spend too much in other areas.

    As an analogy, a boxer with a good right hand is a good opponent. But a boxer with 2 good hands is probably THREE or FOUR times as good. If he can kick, he's exponentially even more dangerous. And so it is with military defence.

    Moving into the issue of hypersonic weapons. Well ofcourse, this is the future. Or perhaps, part of the future.
    Very expensive yes, but again, maybe it will cut the need for massive expense in other areas. There are benefits in Russia staying at the forefront in this area. Maybe for satellite launches and even passenger vehicles as we look into the future.

    I think a successful system needs multiple methods of deployment. Hypersonic planes/ missiles could use plasma stealth. Additionally, it was interesting to read about hypersonic planes in the mesosphere( higher Earth atmosphere). Here, its hard for aviation missiles to get them and its hard for space launched missiles to get them.
    Largely because of the thinness of the mesosphere. You can read up on it at Wikipedia.

    Imagine an object at Mach 15 or more, with plasma stealth, piloted( or unpiloted), reusable, launching any type of missiles.AND its in a "netherworld" hard for space or ground/ air based missiles to hit. It could be launched from anywhere around the World - Siberia, Cuba, Venezuela.

    So the big question is should Russia produce fully operational hypersonic planes? To me, that depends on a lot of factors. Cost vs. what else the money could be spend on. Then you have to consider the geopolitical environment. Is one needed to counter foreign aggression or threats? Is there some form of payback in using one to defend allied states?

    You could argue doesn’t even need a hypersonic plane to work. Just the threat is enough in many cases. But timescales for development are a difficult thing to work out. There are too many unquantifiable factors.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16196
    Points : 16827
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:02 am

    The point is that Russia already has strategic bombers, and the main problem is the law of diminished returns applies here.

    Without a fundamental change in technology it will simply be too expensive.

    Let me put it in simpler terms... the start of WWII there were propeller driven planes.

    To make a plane in 1939 go faster was relatively simple as more powerful engines became available simply reducing excess weight, increasing engine power, improving streamlining and you could dramatically improve flight performance.

    However once you had made those improvements further improvements became much harder to achieve and more expensive because everything was already as good as you could get it, so you started looking at making the engine smaller and lighter but also more powerful, making the weapons lighter but also more effective, etc etc.

    The problem was that when you doubled the engine power you didn't double the speed and as you got closer to the limit (the speed of sound) doubling the engine power made even less difference to the top speed.

    And of course each time you double your engine power you are more than doubling the cost of the engine and development for new engines.

    The breakthrough was the jet engine, which removed the top speed limit of the sound barrier, but a lot of other technologies needed to be improved to achieve that, like area rule design of body shape of the aircraft, and of course all moving horizontal tail surfaces and adjustable air intakes and of course new materials and equipment and wing forms etc.

    A flying wing profile is excellent for low drag flight at subsonic speeds, but the shift of centre of gravity during flight through transonic speeds means you need the ability to create serious down forces at the rear of the aircraft... for most supersonic planes that is the taileron... or horizontal tail surface.

    The best way I think I can describe it is to think of the YF-23 with the fron fuselage chopped off and the main wing reformed into a flying wing and the rear tail surfaces flattened... and obviously greatly enlarged to strategic bomber size. It would be able to super cruise given the correct engines and would need a sharper wing sweep than a B-2 for the higher speeds.

    Most of the technology developed for the Mach 2 Tu-160 could be used in its development because in terms of materials they will be OK with the temperatures and stresses.

    Being a fixed wing design it will be cheaper and lighter than the Tu-160s structure, which has all sorts of benefits.

    A hypersonic bomber on the other hand will be expensive and short ranged just as early jets were expensive and short ranged. The new engines will take away speed limits but the airframe design will impose limits. Unless you want to make it out of heavy stainless steel, or expensive Titanium alloy it wont be going faster than mach 2.
    Heavy is cheaper but reduces performance. Light improves performance but makes it expensive to build and operate.

    More exotic options like synthetic materials with slush hydrogen fuel pumped through heated areas could be a solution, but there is no answer that you could realistically call cheap.

    A supercruising flying wing with tail empennage would be the best choice in my opinion as it would be cheap enough to build a force of 100-150 to replace the Tu-160 and Tu-95 with one aircraft type. A fully dual role strategic nuclear or conventional bomber and theatre conventional bomber would make it also a replacement for the Tu-22M3.

    An interceptor variant to replace the Mig-31 might be interesting too... they considered an interceptor version of the Tu-160 called the Tu-160P but important components of the Tu-160 were built in the Ukraine and no longer exist and the few Blackjacks there are are better used as strategic bombers for the moment.

    Indeed if the Blackjack and Backfire are properly looked after they could remain in service for a few decades to come, so if an effective PAK DA can be produced and put into service by 2020-2025 then the remaining Tu-22M3m and Tu-160M aircraft could concievably be converted into interceptor aircraft to replace Mig-31s.

    They could be fitted with the new 5th gen supercruising engines developed for the PAK DA which should greatly increase performance in terms of transonic flight range for both aircraft...


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

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

    Austin

    Posts : 6203
    Points : 6609
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:37 am

    For Mindstorm and others who oppose new bomber , here is a rebutal and an interview from Airforce on the issue.

    Deinekin: "The bombers of the future must be a minimum of two pilot"
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16196
    Points : 16827
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:28 am

    So he is saying that a manned bomber is more flexible... it can use nuclear or conventional weapons and can be deployed and recalled.

    Suggesting making it of titanium alloys and with stealth in mind suggests it might be a faster aircraft... certainly a subsonic flying wing would not need Ti structures.

    As I have said before, I don't think they need B-2s, I think a flying wing shape would be stealthy and efficient aerodynamically, but with a horizontal tail surface it could generate the rear downward force needed to fly through the sound barrier and super cruise.

    Being able to supercruise would greatly improve performance and make it much harder to intercept than a subsonic aircraft while at the same time making it fairly fuel efficient and not needing enormous amounts of fuel to perform strategic missions.


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

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

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 769
    Points : 950
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:16 pm

    Austin wrote:For Mindstorm and others who oppose new bomber , here is a rebutal and an interview from Airforce on the issue.

    Deinekin: "The bombers of the future must be a minimum of two pilot"



    Shocked Shocked Shocked

    I am totally shocked !!!!

    Practically we have only two explanations for the delirious content of this interview released by Gen. Petr Deynekin :

    1) A very serious mental disturbance has hit ,lately, the brain of Gen. Deynekin, preventing to it to correctly execute even the most elementary process of information's collection, ,analysis, and correlation.
    2) It is COMPLETELY UNAWARE of the basis concept or ,even only, of the most simple meaning of the word high hypersonic in-atmosphere manoeuvring flying vehicles (in particular those conceived around magnetohydrodynamic solutions for both the propulsion, the thermal stress and radar observability problems) and of the current heated "querelle", around the world, on the future value and profitability (natutally against a major, advanced enemy) of the implementation in an offensive platform of some design solutions (such as "stealth") ,often even greatly limiting the overall potential of that platform in other directions .


    Those very deep doubts (for not say worse) on the efficiency of the "classical" offensive approach against a very advanced enemy has been highlighted not only in Russia (at example with the positions expressed by Rogozin), but also in the same USA (at example with the recent famous declarations of US. Navy Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert )

    www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-07/payloads-over-platforms-charting-new-course


    Naturally , how was totally clear for any person of this planet ....anyone except ,evidently, our unlucky Gen. Deynekin....the position of Rogozin (hardly debatable by anyone with a minimum of serious knowledge in the field) was that the classical approach to the design of strategic BOMBers and ,in particular, the USA '90 years road founded around a....supposedly.....low observable, low subsonic vehicle ,in need to penetrate enemy defences in order to deliver its short range payload ,would represent fatally a TRUE SUICIDE against any enemy equiped with today state of art level of air defences.

    Today Russian Long Range Strategic Aviation already adopt a "wide stand-off cruise missiles delivered by supersonic platform carriers" approach to the Strategic Aviation offensive roles , an approach that already today would ,obviously, not require the stealth features called for future PAKDA ; in fact a group of TU-95, Tu-160 or even TU-22M3 equipped with the 5500 km capable Kh-102 could target any target in 3/4 of continental USA ,in the entire Europe and Middle East with salvo after salvo of nuclear, low observable, cruise missiles remaining well within Russian Federation borders !!! .
    The problem obviously is that the mission TIME linked to the operations of the third branch of nuclear triad are ,at today, completely irreconcilable with that of beginning and resolution of a full scale thermonuclear war between major enemies (around 20-27 minutes) an element that has put the relevance of the deterrent potential of the strategic aviation -the so called third branch of nuclear triad- more and more in jeopardy and in a corner in the latest 15-20 years .

    The unique solution that ,in perspective, would allow to preserve (or even promote its primacy in the nuclear triad) the strategic relevance of long range aviation in the future military world ,maintaining contemporaneously its survivability against the very fast growing performances of Air/Space defence system , is the CREATION OF ADVANCED MANOEUVRABLE HIGH HYPERSONIC VEHICLES armed with long range HIGH HYPERSONIC WEAPONS .

    I repeat ,one more time, this is the clear trend in military scientific institutions not only in Russian Federation ,but also among major competitors worldwide

    http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2012/07/06.aspx



    Now the greater question :

    WHAT ,in the hell, HAS TO DO THE ROGOZIN'S PROPOSE OF A FUTURE HIGH HYPERSONIC BOMBER armed with HIGH HYPOERSONIC WEAPONS designed around "new", still not exploited, physics and engineering solutions WITH ROCKETS , SILOS OPEN OR CLOSED or (moreover comically wronged Laughing Laughing ) ASSUPTIONS ON THE SUPPOSED VULNERABILITY OF.... BALLISTIC VECTORS ???

    And the element more grotesque of the question is that a similar dinosaur ,devoid even only of the most elementary notion of modern military systems ,CONOPS and problematics get also the face to accuse the Rogozin ideas to be out of date !!!!

    Laughing Laughing Laughing

    An exemplary ,self-embarassing case of Dunning-Kruger Effect.


    Austin

    Posts : 6203
    Points : 6609
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:47 am

    Mindstorm with due respect to your view Gen. Petr Deynekin is a professional that has spend more time in Strategic Aviation on different bomber that SU/Russia had then Rogozin would have spent in NATO HQ twiddling files and placing Topol-M dummy over there Laughing


    Deynekin can be accused of being biased towards his own Triad which is Strategic Bomber but he is no dreamer but a practical guy with tons of experience under his belt on this subject , what he is saying makes every sense purely from Technological/Risk Prespective and Economic viability.

    What Russia needs and I think what they will get is a Supersonic Stealth Bomber with good EW capability , Range and Payload with newer standoff weapons that operate in Hypersonic Regiem of flight.

    All the talk of CREATION OF ADVANCED MANOEUVRABLE HIGH HYPERSONIC VEHICLES armed with long range HIGH HYPERSONIC WEAPONS are just fictional talk at the moment and whose time has not yet arrived yet , we can take such a topic say 30-40 years from now when enough technology , materials and knowledge on Hypersonic aircraft is available via such Missile , UCAV and other test platforms.

    We can then dwell into the subject of CREATION OF ADVANCED MANOEUVRABLE HIGH HYPERSONIC VEHICLES for Manned Aircraft.

    DARPA is a good scientific organisation doing some good research on this field but with due respect ,translating Test Hypersonic Platform to Affordable Production one for USAF is a distant dream put it simply the idea is good but the time has not yet come.

    Such platform might look good on CG of Lockheed Martin or Norththrop Grumman hell bent on bankrupting USAF but even the USAF is looking for Stealthy Bomber of Subsonic Type in NGB.


    The stages in evolution of Hypersonic Program will be Hypersonic Missile , Hypersonic X-47 type vehical , Higher Speed Hypersonic Missile and Platform ( Mach 12-13 ) , Hypersonic UCAV and later on Hypersonic Manned Bomber its clearly 30-40 years away from reality as military will find it feseable and economically practical to produce.

    Rogozin is just venting the views of Almaz Antey that would have great interest in Bomber getting cancelled and funding for new S-500 or any new program in the guise of SAM can take any new Bomber so no point in building.

    Recollect how Rogozin changed his statement from We dont need Bomber because neither they or we can fly in face of advanced AD to we need Hypersonic Bomber ......seriously what is Rogozin smoking these days need to try it its very potent Laughing Razz

    Well once i smoke what Rogozin does then I start walking at Hypersonic Speed Shocked

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 769
    Points : 950
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:34 pm

    Gen. Petr Deynekin is a professional that has spend more time in Strategic Aviation on different bomber that SU/Russia had then Rogozin would have spent in NATO HQ twiddling files and placing Topol-M dummy over there


    Austin i can assure you that D. Rogozin (in spite of its three degrees in different fields...at least that is what is passed to public) has far, far more specific technical knowledges on those subjects than 90% of Generals in service (and in particular those promoted to higher charges in the disastrous B. Yeltsin' era....), and here i don't talk merely of someone on the lowest level of technical proficiency such as the our Gen. P. Deynekin ,but of Generals with immeasurably greater scientifical knowledges than it.

    D. Rogozin is literally grown and has breathed ,since its childhood ,in a military scientifical environment among books and publications on those subjects and anyone knowing it personally know that it is a worthy son of Oleg Konstantinovich ( a famous Soviet Union Hero and central figure and leading scientist at Academy of Science ) former Deputy Chief of arms of the Ministry of Defence ; it is possible to say that Dmitry ,today, simply continue to follow the fatherly tracks.




    What said by Petr Deynekin is totally undefendeable by anyone not merely under a strict technilcal point of view but ,more simply, a rational one.

    Question: Я глубоко переживал споры в отношении перспективного комплекса Дальней авиации и не понимаю позицию Рогозина в отношении этой концепции.

    Gen. Deynekin's response : Самолеты по сравнению с ракетами обладают таким неповторимым свойством, как способность переносить свои усилия на всем громадном пространстве территории России, дежурить практически в любом удаленном военно-географическом районе.

    Shocked Shocked Shocked

    If it would not be a critical subject for the future military safety of Russian Federation and to the choices shaping the same foundation of its strategic structure it could even appear as an extract from a comical piece ,where one make a question and the other comic ,feigning to be uncapable to understand ,respond with an assertion totally out of line.

    And this one ?


    Межконтинентальная ракета может быть свободно уничтожена как на восходящей траектории или высоко в космосе, так и на нисходящем участке полета.

    Shocked Shocked Shocked

    Austin do you realize what it say here without a grain of shame? Laughing Laughing
    Any scientist working in the missile defence sector would simply disintegrate someone offending the very hard ,decade long ,frantic work by part of dozen of thousands of the best minds around the world , with a similar stellar idiocy.

    And this one ?

    А упреки в том, что самолеты не способны преодолевать ПВО и могут быть уничтожены задолго до выполнения поставленной задачи, в еще большей степени распространяются на ракеты, которым противник не даст даже открыть пусковую шахту.

    Razz Razz

    I) think that any further word on the "unlucky" (for not say worse) declarations of Petr Deynekin would be ,at this point, completely pointless.





    What Russia needs and I think what they will get is a Supersonic Stealth Bomber with good EW capability...

    Austin ,you have more time demonstrated to be an intelligent and attentive person ,therefore i encourage and invite you to try to examines those requirements -Stealth and advanced EW capabilities- for the new strategic bomber ,not into void but employing empyrical scenario ,ok ?

    Let put that today (i repeat TODAY, not 10-15 years in the future from now) the order to obliterate Elmendorf Air Base with cruise missiles (nuclear or conventionally tipped) is ,hypothetically proclaimed ; a squadron of strategic bombers Tu-95 or TU-160 or also TU-22M3, armed with ,let put, Kh-102s take-off .
    Them reach the delivery point and return to the base (to eventually mount another cargo of Kh-102 to target other enemy strategic targets destroy).
    Now Austin, do you know what would be a delivery point (one among millions literally) to attack this particular targets ? Nadym !!!

    http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadym

    I am sure that you have already perfectly understood , the TOTAL ABSURDITY , of similar requirements for strategic vectors like those just mentioned designed around a weapon-centric and not a platform-centric philosophy (a question that has captured ,lately, also the focus of USA environment of the sector) , in fact ANY type of EW system present on those airplane even TODAY would be TOTALLY USELESS 100% of the times for strategic missions and even a B-52 englobed in Luneberg reflectors would be TOTALLY INVISIBLE to any enemy radar at this distance.

    Is evident that similar measures become usefull only if the design and CONOPS of your strategic bomber encompass the direct confrontation and crossover in areas defended by enemy IADS and/or Air Force.

    I repeat the problem of relevance of third branch of nuclear triad is almost exclusively linked to the TIME factor; EW or Stealth will not add to strategic Aviation even a single point in enhancing strategical bomber's relevance or efficiency in respect to today.

    Hypersonic,in this perspective optic, is not an option but a forced choice .


    seriously what is Rogozin smoking these days need to try it its very potent

    I have an idea : a variably ionized gas mixture...a type of "smoke" to receive the "recipe" of which (for so say) 90% of the scientists around the world would quietly give both
    hands ( yes ,it is surely much ,much more desired than cannabis in some environments Razz Razz )


    Well once i smoke what Rogozin does then I start walking at Hypersonic Speed

    Yes ,i also believe you would... or,at least you would do it much,much better Very Happy Very Happy



    Best regards.

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10094
    Points : 10582
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  George1 on Fri Jul 20, 2012 3:13 pm

    New long-range Russian strategic bomber potentially in the works

    Russia’s Long-Range Aviation Commander Lieutenant General Anatoly Zhikharev has said the Air Force has moved on with its project for a new strategic bomber (PAK-DA), which has entered its construction phase. The statement proves that a possible PAK-DA configuration has already been confirmed. What remains to be seen are its future prospects and when the new stealthy bomber will enter the Russian air fleet.

    It is of note, however, that both the plane’s concept and its main characteristics remain an enigma wrapped up in a mystery, and neither the United Aircraft Corporation, its design bureau, nor the Air Force are willing to lift the veil just a little bit more – but it is possible to take a guess.

    Scenario No. 1 – or “stealthier, slower, cheaper” – implies a long-range subsonic bomber that could slip under the enemy’s radar and break though its anti-missile defense. This kind of a plane would probably be “optionally piloted”, in the sense that it is optionally manned or unmanned. This configuration follows the design of the American Northrop Grumman stealthy bomber, created to replace the B-52 and B-16 planes. Its Russian counterpart would come in place of the subsonic Tupolev Tu-95 jet and probably be equipped with cutting-edge Kuznetsov NK-65 engines.

    Scenario No. 2 – or a “reasonable balance” – infers the best possible implementation of know-how acquired during the construction of the fifth-generation T-50 fighter. In this case, we will see a supersonic jet featuring T-50’s radar station and four, instead of two, fighter engines. The bomber’s maximum takeoff weight could even be increased to twice as much as that of a fighter, up to 120-130 tons, bringing it up to par with the Tupolev Tu-22M strike bomber. At the same time, efficient modern engines can allow PAK-DA designers to create a bomber capable of carrying a similar war load over much greater distances, possibly equaling those of the Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack hornet.

    Scenario No. 3 – or “ultimatum” – is largely hinged on the TU-160’s war load, all thanks to revamped Kuznetsov NK-65 engines, which are expected to hit the production line again. In this case, PAK-DA’s main performance attributes would close in on those of the Tu-160, while its engines, revolutionary construction materials, and design would increase its range, boost stealth capabilities and, sadly enough, skyrocket its cost. This scenario is therefore the least likely.

    Such predictions seldom pay off, but it’s worth trying anyway. Here are some of the clues that Aviation Commander Lt. Gen. Zhikharev gave us. Chiefly, he said: “We have already passed the point of laying down tactical and technical characteristics [of the plane] and are getting on to their construction and tests.”

    Just two weeks earlier, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Forces, Major General Alexander Chernyaev, declared that the new bomber will be built ahead of schedule: “I think the first serial PAK-DA bombers will be delivered to the Air Force by 2020,” he said in an interview, published on the webpage of the Defense Ministry’s press-office.

    The general attributed such an optimistic forecast to the fact that the concept of PAK-DA had already been formed and was being brushed over. “At present we have everything to build the jet in time and deliver it to the Air Force along with Tu-95MS, Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 aircraft, which have already proven their reliability,” Maj. Gen. Chernyaev pointed out. The previous deadline was set for the mid-2020s.

    All what remains is to sit, wait, and hope that the Air Force will have some more details to share about the brand-new “flagman” bomber in its anniversary year.

    http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_07_20/New-long-range-Russian-strategic-bomber-potentially-in-the-works/

    Austin

    Posts : 6203
    Points : 6609
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:45 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:Austin i can assure you that D. Rogozin (in spite of its three degrees in different fields...at least that is what is passed to public) has far, far more specific technical knowledges on those subjects than 90% of Generals in service (and in particular those promoted to higher charges in the disastrous B. Yeltsin' era....), D. Rogozin is literally grown and has breathed ,since its childhood ,in a military scientifical environment among books and publications on those subjects and anyone knowing it personally know that it is a worthy son of Oleg Konstantinovich ( a famous Soviet Union Hero and central figure and leading scientist at Academy of Science ) former Deputy Chief of arms of the Ministry of Defence ; it is possible to say that Dmitry ,today, simply continue to follow the fatherly tracks.

    Well true a guy who spent reading books and obtained 3 degrees and spend time reading books and publication knows more that the person who has commanded the third arm of triad and spent most of his time flying and commanding the bombers.

    Well what has the world come to these days , I too then qualify to know more then the Generals in my country coz i have read books and publications Laughing


    Question: Я глубоко переживал споры в отношении перспективного комплекса Дальней авиации и не понимаю позицию Рогозина в отношении этой концепции.

    Gen. Deynekin's response : Самолеты по сравнению с ракетами обладают таким неповторимым свойством, как способность переносить свои усилия на всем громадном пространстве территории России, дежурить практически в любом удаленном военно-географическом районе.

    If it would not be a critical subject for the future military safety of Russian Federation and to the choices shaping the same foundation of its strategic structure it could even appear as an extract from a comical piece ,where one make a question and the other comic ,feigning to be uncapable to understand ,respond with an assertion totally out of line.

    He is just asserting on what is know about strategic bombers they can be mobile delivery platforms and you can employ tactical flexibility in employing them , plus use it in precision conventional bombing role ......if required strategic bombers can remain in air for 48 hours via refulling.

    No other arms of Triad be it Land Based ICBM or SSBN can afford this flexibility and dual role of nuclear and conventional bombing ........bang for buck Strategic Bombers are more useful and cost effective and is also survivable.


    Межконтинентальная ракета может быть свободно уничтожена как на восходящей траектории или высоко в космосе, так и на нисходящем участке полета.

    And this one ?

    А упреки в том, что самолеты не способны преодолевать ПВО и могут быть уничтожены задолго до выполнения поставленной задачи, в еще большей степени распространяются на ракеты, которым противник не даст даже открыть пусковую шахту.


    I) think that any further word on the "unlucky" (for not say worse) declarations of Petr Deynekin would be ,at this point, completely pointless.


    He is just saying those to bloster his claim as i said before its an inter-service war for resource and these wars are quite common among all the armed forces of the world ......every one wants their project funded and supported.


    What Russia needs and I think what they will get is a Supersonic Stealth Bomber with good EW capability...

    Austin ,you have more time demonstrated to be an intelligent and attentive person ,therefore i encourage and invite you to try to examines those requirements -Stealth and advanced EW capabilities- for the new strategic bomber ,not into void but employing empyrical scenario ,ok ?

    Let put that today (i repeat TODAY, not 10-15 years in the future from now) the order to obliterate Elmendorf Air Base with cruise missiles (nuclear or conventionally tipped) is ,hypothetically proclaimed ; a squadron of strategic bombers Tu-95 or TU-160 or also TU-22M3, armed with ,let put, Kh-102s take-off .
    Them reach the delivery point and return to the base (to eventually mount another cargo of Kh-102 to target other enemy strategic targets destroy).
    Now Austin, do you know what would be a delivery point (one among millions literally) to attack this particular targets ? Nadym !!!

    Mindstorm you too are quite intelligent and attentive person .....you are aware that future cruise missile carried by such bombers for time sensitive targets will be Hypersonic type Zircon-A and then at a later stage cruise missile of Mach 12-13 speed being researched by Tactical Missile Bureau.

    For conventional role and non time sensitive fixed targets they can always use the stealthy Kh-101 and Kh-555

    I repeat the problem of relevance of third branch of nuclear triad is almost exclusively linked to the TIME factor; EW or Stealth will not add to strategic Aviation even a single point in enhancing strategical bomber's relevance or efficiency in respect to today.

    Hypersonic,in this perspective optic, is not an option but a forced choice .


    Let me tell you if time is such an important factor then they can keep some Strategic Bombers Flying all the time in safe international airspace over neutral waters or inside the vast space of Russian territory , keeping it fully armed with nuclear weapons thats what US SAC used to do during cold war and it will cost good money

    Another cost effective thing you can do is disperse these bombers across few secured airfields and keep some bombers in high state of alert needs just few minutes for take off after warning

    Let me tell you no one can predict a bolt from blue strike .....thats why you have SSBN force on deterrent patrol to deal with such sudden surprise strike .......even land based ICBM from fixed silos are vulnerable to such sudden well planned strike. But for the rest Strategic Bombers would suffice.


    I hope i cannot emphasies any more than saying the time of Hypersonic Bomber is atleast 30-40 years away , just because DARPA has some project to work does not mean that the project will be technically possible and economically feasible ...... such Hypersonic Bomber at the cost they are projected even if remotely successful and reliable will bankrupt USAF.

    Even USAF is smart and knows that the next bomber NGB will be stealthy , subsonic and affordable

    Affordable is the key word here with next bomber should not exceeding $500 million per aircraft .........but I am sure Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman will cross the per bomber price tag easily for stealthy ,subsonic bomber Smile
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16196
    Points : 16827
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 21, 2012 3:39 am

    The critical thing here is cost.

    Enormous speed is of course useful, but it is much more cost effective to have hypersonic and stealthy weapons than to have a hypersonic and stealthy bomber.

    I think with improved engine technology that a super cruising strategic bomber is affordable in a tailed flying wing form, with a large internal volume for a heavy weapons payload for conventional strike and also for enormous amounts of on board fuel plus a strategic payload for strategic missions.

    The problems of penetrating air defences is moot because enemy air defences will be in tatters after the ICBMs and SLBMs have hit. the standoff range of long range cruise missiles... whether stealthy or hypersonic will only compound the problems of the air defences.

    The main stumbling block to hypersonic speeds is that conventional turbojet engines choke on supersonic airflow, so a mature scramjet engine design is what is needed for a hypersonic bomber... lets get a few hypersonic missiles using scramjets into service and perfect their design and performance before we take the risk of a strategic bomber using scramjet engines.

    Even scramjet powered UCAVs should come before a scramjet powered bomber.

    The purpose of the strategic bomber should be as a flexible leg of the nuclear deterrent triad, the only one that actually gets used (in conventional operations).

    I think work should be done on hypersonic aircraft, but interceptor/recon aircraft would benefit from this technology first, and when it is mature then look at strategic bombers.


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

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

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Jul 28, 2017 8:50 am