Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:07 pm


    Its quite clear that the flexibility offered by Bomber in Nuclear detterent role and the ability to call the mission back is a big physiological advantage something you cant do with SSBN or ICBM
    Most bombers wont be flying over NATO or US airspace but would be using stand off cruise missile launched from distance and away from any ASD, If a bomber ever flew a nations airspace it would either be a friendly one or would have softened the AD before it over flies it.

    Austin i think that the best way to think to similar subjects is employing parametrical data :

    - An ICBM in the Topol-M class employ about 15-16 minutes from red button pressed to detonations of the thermonuclear re-entry vehicles in the enemy continental territory ,with an effective warning's window of the incoming attack for the opposing side variating, at best ,between 6 and 11 minutes.
    Those times are completely incompatible with even merely the preliminary operations necessary to allow a rushed take-off of a strategic bombers ,moreover a single mid-air nuclear detonation above an airfield would not only destroy 100% of parked aircraft and majority of aboveground structures ,but would render any take-off from the attacked airfield absolutely impossible for weeks....( and a thermonuclear war would ,very likely, last no more than 30-40 minutes !!)


    - Talking of strategical cruise missiles on the US's side, we must remember that the only stand-off strategical nuclear missile available for USA today (after AGM-129's decommissioning) is the AGM-86B (in the 2500 km class) ,compatible only with....B-52H.
    Here ,therefore,we talk not only of a carrying platform with immense path's covering times (with the linked enormous warning times for the defending side) ,but also of a strategical cruise missile lacking ,by a long margin, the stand-off range necessary to attack the most critical strategical targets in the Central Military District. (the enormous strategical deepness of Russian territory offer ,here, enormous advantages).


    Anyone can easily understand that the difference in : operational efficiency ,destructive potential and survivability between ICBM and SLBM and cruise missiles is so huge that slowly this third branch of nuclear triad will need to completely transform itself (accepting new offensive concepts and technical solutions) to remain significative against the exponentially growing capabilities of modern integrated air defence systems.



    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:24 pm

    Mindstorm , you do not get what i am trying to convey.

    Strategic Bombers offer you immense psychological advantage or psychological pressure on the enemy , when you see those bombers being fuelled or being loaded with nukes and flying near your territory 1000 km away , its a great pressure point on the leadership

    Remember its about detterence and not about using those weapons , an ICBM can certainly reach faster any where but once you fire it its no looking back , detterence is broken and you have Nuclear war , there is no way to call it back.

    Bombers flying 1000 km away from your airspace can still be recalled and yet they offer tremendous psychological pressure on your enemy knowing well it carries nukes.

    So in actual war they offer you operational and deployment flexibility and a good deal of stealth with modern bomber , cruise missile with low RCS or better hypersonic cruise missile like Zircon-A carried in bomber and Kh-101 can still be the best bet to penetrate IADS of any nation.

    But its not only about nuclear war in a scenario like Georgia or Afghanistan it can be used for carpet bombing or stand off bombing.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:39 pm


    Bombers flying 1000 km away from your airspace can still be recalled and yet they offer tremendous psychological pressure on your enemy knowing well it carries nukes.


    Sorry Austin ,but here i am uncapable to follow your line of reasoning : following it we would have that any TU-160 or TU-22M3 merely flying well within Russian air space,at example over Chukotka (and ,therefore, also under full coverage of VVS's long range interceptors ,fighters and multilayered IADS) would exert a psychological pressure even several times greater than the bomber in your example simply because them are supersonic bombers and all capable to employ Kh-102 (that , with its 5500 km of range , would be capable to attack ,from there, USA's Ground-Based Midcourse Defense , Elmendorf AFB and 2/3 of continental USA ?


    Austin, the point raised by D. Rogozin is just that ,at today, a strategical bomber ,for itself, don't represent anymore a significative menace for any advanced nation and all its "deterrent" potential is instead exerted entirely by the very long range cruise missiles it cary (and also them lose theirs penetration potential at an incredible rate any year).


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:44 pm

    Why do you make Russian using bomber as a one off affair against US.

    They can use it against NATO countries or China or US military bases else where.

    Its more of a question of flexibility in employment and deployment that bombers offer that the Subs or ICBM cant or have their own limitations.

    An example would be like a Bomber is like an Aircraft Carrier , even if you dont use the fighter on it to bomb the mere presence of it near the enemy coast or in intl waters closer to enemy creates a great pyscological pressure on the enemy.

    The other part of detterent like ICBM and Submarine of more or less covert , Bomber is a visible and flexible deterrent value of Triad.


    As far as Rogozin goes he says many things and so does Gen Makorov .....As long as US maintains and enhances their Bomber fleet Russia will maintain it too for strategic parity and flexibility thats a given thing ...its also a question of protecting ones technology base.

    More ever these days bombers are being converted for accurate conventional bombing ......look at Tu-160M upgrade and Tu-22M3M upgrade

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:46 pm

    Why do you make Russian using bomber as a one off affair against US.

    They can use it against NATO countries or China or US military bases else where.


    Austin ,your point is absolutely correct if we talk of the overall capabilities of long range bombers ,but Rogozin was talking of the crucial nuclear delivery capabilities of strategic bombers.

    I image that you would surely agree that if today is necessary to select the requirements for PAKDA we must "shape" them around the most demanding ,and those are just those that will allow the new Air Force long range nuclear delivery system to carry out its primary mission against any possible enemy and in a future environment, taking into account defence capabilities 25-30 years from now .

    The features of long range bombers and those of theirs weapon systems "optimized" for different roles ,outside nuclear delivery tasks, for russain doctrine are only those that ,if employed, will not trigger a nuclear response by part of a main opponent.

    A typical example are weapons and systems aimed at provide long range bombers with the capability to reliably and safely destroy enemy naval forces from stand-off range.
    In a particular serious crisis between Russian Federation and a main opponent ,after that the enemy naval forces would have, for example, repeatedly refused to remain outside a "safe" distance from Russian coasts ,the selective destruction of an enemy naval group ,will not only not trigger a nuclear response ,but will also likely force enemy's Command to quickly breack an encirclement attempt or even return to the diplomatic table.


    More ever these days bombers are being converted for accurate conventional bombing ......look at Tu-160M upgrade and Tu-22M3M upgrade


    Yes Austin ,in fact as previously mentioned those modernizations are just aimed to increase the capability of those aircraft to employ new type of weapons at theirs best.


    http://www.aviationunion.org/news_second.php?new=93


    If instead you mean PGM -Precison Guided Munitions- to be used in local conflicts , the fleet of Su-34 and modernized SU-24M witht theirs new models of the KAB series ,the new UPAB and also the various models of Kh-38M will offerer a very wide option for this type of missions and at a very long range.

    Best regards.



    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  SOC on Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:09 am

    Mindstorm wrote:SOC both of us know perfectly that B-2 was conceived ,in reality, as a survivable tactical nuclear delivery system against Russian Army's fronts,and its mobile IAD, in an hypothetical European invasion scenario and for attack ,at maximum, the weakest inter-nodes of Sovied IADs of the time (and with an associated very high unit-loss risk); that in an environment with an average quality of the detection/tracking/engagement chain , both ground and space based, of Russian Air Defence systems several dozen of times lower than current one.

    Not even the most optimistic American professional analyst would get the face to sustain ,behind closed doors, that USA truly believe that B-2 would get even only one chance on one million to come close enough to attack an important target in the air space of very advanced opponent without being destroyed hundreds of kilometers before.

    Today? Maybe not. In ten years? Probably pretty close to no chance. But when it was conceived, which would be before Russia had widely distributed next-generation sensor systems? The B-2 would've been survivable. Nothing will ever be 100%, but "1 chance in a million" is a ridiculous stretch. The B-2 wasn't going to bomb the front lines. It wasn't going to hit Moscow, either. Want to know where a lot of the money in a B-2 is? The offensive electronics system. Which was designed as an LPI system in large part to find mobile SS-25 TELs (which in turn became hugely amusing when they fitted it with the smaller JDAMs). That made it a weird kind of weapon to have, because that's only truly relevant in a first-strike scenario, unless they figured Russia would be firing silo-based missiles first and keeping mobile SS-25s for the second wave, who knows. Plus, the B-2 is sized right to be a VLO platform in VHF bands as well. It's things like Nebo-M that, if they work as advertised and get exported all over the place, will make the F-35 a colossal waste of effort. Fighter-sized jets can't incorporate very effective counters to VHF bands. The wavelengths are too large to care about what panels you align or what joints you facet. You still get a bit of that on the B-2 (look at the intakes, for example), because nobody in their right mind is dumbassed enough to design for just the VHF band. Fire control radars like the 30N6 TOMB STONE still operate at shorter wavelengths, so you still have to pay attention there as well.

    Mindstorm wrote:SOM ,USA think seriously and work very hard, already today, to revolutionary concepts for offensive means capable to regain the upper hand against today air space defences.
    The design of future US "bomber" will keep surely some surprises because the main road is in another direction.... Wink

    If the main road isn't in the direction of "hey look at this we've stayed in orbit for over a year while nobody knows what the hell we're really doing" then I really don't see the point in wasting the money on the "B-3". Actually, I still don't see the need to waste the money for it regardless. If it's subsonic, it won't be responsive enough. If it's a smaller airframe, it won't be effective against modern digital VHF-band radars. If it's a larger airframe, there's no way this country makes it affordable enough to buy in the numbers needed. The whole thing raises the question of "why", as in "why do you people seriously intend on wasting this much money." We DO have CVBGs, and we DO have a buttload of naval platforms capable of ripple-firing bunches of conventional LACMs, so you don't need a new airframe for intimidation or cruise-missile conventional strike. A nuclear mission? ICBMs and SLBMs are a much better idea anyway. But, bombers can be recalled...is a pointless argument. If it gets to the point that you're launching nuclear-armed bombers at somebody, seriously, do you really think a recall is going to happen? If the other guy figures it out (which involves nothing more than a dude with a cellphone somewhere near the base), he's not going to hold back either, and then we'd best be figuring out how to quickly exit this rock because the Stone Age will have nothing on what's left.

    Mindstorm wrote:I image that you would surely agree that if today is necessary to select the requirements for PAKDA we must "shape" them around the most demanding ,and those are just those that will allow the new Air Force long range nuclear delivery system to carry out its primary mission against any possible enemy and in a future environment, taking into account defence capabilities 25-30 years from now .

    And that's why an air breather is, at this point, completely stupid.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 09, 2012 5:05 am

    - An ICBM in the Topol-M class employ about 15-16 minutes from red button pressed to detonations of the thermonuclear re-entry vehicles in the enemy continental territory ,with an effective warning's window of the incoming attack for the opposing side variating, at best ,between 6 and 11 minutes.

    And is a very drastic sledge hammer action from which there is no return.

    ICBMs are not something you select as your first response to a problem... it is the LAST.

    Without Bombers of course you are restricting yourself as to the options you have at your disposal to respond to the problem at hand.

    Both sides have their defcon system of states of alert... the highest state involving the launching of a full scale nuclear attack... the point is that it is a level lower than this that bombers will be dispersed and loaded and manned,and slightly higher than this they will be in the air getting topped up by inflight refuelling aircraft and flying to their operational start positions... 6 minutes warning will be plenty because the bombers will not be in hangars or anywhere near their bases when the enemies ICBMs start landing on their bases.


    moreover a single mid-air nuclear detonation above an airfield would not only destroy 100% of parked aircraft and majority of aboveground structures ,but would render any take-off from the attacked airfield absolutely impossible for weeks....( and a thermonuclear war would ,very likely, last no more than 30-40 minutes !!)

    That cuts both ways however... a single nuclear warhead hidden in a satellite could easily be detonated above any point on the planet high in space in the Van Allen belts and create an enormous EMP effect over any air defence systems operational area. Even if the AD is hardened to protect it from such an attack the air will be ionised for at least 30 minutes making radar and radio communication useless... plenty of time for a slow lumbering subsonic bomber to slip through, and also plenty of time for a modern flying wing supercruising bomber to get within 5,000km of its target area and release a cruise missile... because 30 minutes after that EMP attack ICBMs and SLBMS will have done their damage too and by the time the bombers get to their launch positions there will not be much organisation left to stop the final blow... for either side.

    For a conventional conflict without nukes we will likely have what we have now... both the US and Russia have bombers they can use against small states, but are not likely able to penetrate each others defences without serious risk.

    Austin, the point raised by D. Rogozin is just that ,at today, a strategical bomber ,for itself, don't represent anymore a significative menace for any advanced nation and all its "deterrent" potential is instead exerted entirely by the very long range cruise missiles it cary (and also them lose theirs penetration potential at an incredible rate any year).

    A bomber is no longer a bomber... it is a cruise missile platform... just like a sub can be a cruise missile platform or a SLBM carrying platform. Cruise missiles have the flexibility of using conventional warheads for tasks 30 years ago would have required a nuke or a large flight of vulnerable bombers carrying large amounts of bombs.

    Precision guided weapons and indeed unusual weapons like the father of all bombs make the strategic bomber a much more flexible tool, and more multipurpose than the other two legs of the nuclear triad. SSBNs and ICBMs are deterrence tools to fend off armageddon. Strategic bombers can have a wide range of uses both as a deterrent and as a real tool of large and small wars.

    The flight range and speed of a Tu-160 or Tu-95MS means that conventionally armed cruise missiles can be delivered to any point on the planet within a day with the precision to hit a particular house. Previously to hit such a target would need hundreds of bombers carrying enormous loads of bombs and there is still no guarantee that the house in question will be hit... so really the only way to be sure would be with a nuke.

    The current situation is three very different aircraft with little actually in common, though with upgrades their radars and avionics will have some commonality, but components like engines and structures will be quite different.

    A new aircraft that can perform the jobs these three aircraft currently perform with a modern low drag super cruising design would be well worth the money invested.

    This new aircraft doesn't need to be super stealthy because by the time it flys over modern air defence systems either the cruise missiles will have been used to take down the AD, or the ICBMs and SLBMs will have done the same.

    Being able to fly everywhere at mach 1.6 will greatly reduce transit times and could potentially lead to a new non stealthy civilian SST that is economically viable... just in time for the sillyness after the world economic recession...

    The other part of detterent like ICBM and Submarine of more or less covert , Bomber is a visible and flexible deterrent value of Triad.

    More importantly it is a political step that can be made and then unmade to test your opponents resolve... you can make a public display of returning your bombers to their bases to communicate to your enemy your intentions... you can't do that with subs unless your enemy can track your subs...

    If instead you mean PGM -Precison Guided Munitions- to be used in local conflicts , the fleet of Su-34 and modernized SU-24M witht theirs new models of the KAB series ,the new UPAB and also the various models of Kh-38M will offerer a very wide option for this type of missions and at a very long range.

    Su-34s and even Su-35s will offer excellent air to ground capability, but for larger weapons in the Russian arsenal like the FAB-3000, FAB-5000, FAB-9000 and Father of all bombs you need a larger aircraft to get the job done.


    For a go in there and hit target x then the Su-34 would be ideal, but the PAK DA needs to combine extreme long range ( up to 15,000km with a relatively light payload of 12-24 tons... ie 6-12 2 ton cruise missiles) or a much heavier payload over a shorter range... say 40 tons over a 10,000km flight range. These performance figures roughly equate to the Tu-160s performance with the 12 Kh-101/102s internally and an inflight refuelling before leaving Russian air space and a tactical mission respectively.

    There is no reason why a fairly modest payload of a range of weapon types and weights along with extra fuel could not be used to support even a single unit or base, with a PAK DA flying around a target area at low speed for days with a wide range of weapon types ready for use at a moments notice against a range of target types.

    Internal carriage of weapons means low drag and low RCS and of course the size of the aircraft means larger sensors which should allow observation of the ground from higher safer altitudes, and simply the ability to carry a much wider range of weapons of different weights makes it more flexible.

    An FAB-9000 from above 15km altitude would hit the ground with enormous energy even if it didn't explode...

    Which was designed as an LPI system in large part to find mobile SS-25 TELs (which in turn became hugely amusing when they fitted it with the smaller JDAMs). That made it a weird kind of weapon to have, because that's only truly relevant in a first-strike scenario, unless they figured Russia would be firing silo-based missiles first and keeping mobile SS-25s for the second wave, who knows.

    I remember they claimed the B-2 was going to be a TEL killer, but they stopped going on about it after Desert Storm... it seems that even with air superiority and a fairly little country to hide in, and plenty of recon assets and even soldiers covertly on the ground they didn't manage to destroy a single scud launcher before it launched its missile in Iraq... and they realised it would be impossible to attempt such a thing over Russia...

    Which kinda makes the B-2 a bit of a white elephant unless you want it as a first strike aircraft to try to take out Russian nuclear capabilities in the hope that the remaining nuclear capacity can be dealt with using ABMs in various places.

    If it gets to the point that you're launching nuclear-armed bombers at somebody, seriously, do you really think a recall is going to happen? If the other guy figures it out (which involves nothing more than a dude with a cellphone somewhere near the base), he's not going to hold back either, and then we'd best be figuring out how to quickly exit this rock because the Stone Age will have nothing on what's left.

    Only if the launch of bombers is a prelude to launching ICBMs. If it is an escalation in a chess game then it is the most useful piece on the chess board because it is a serious threat yet can be recalled after it is moved to position.

    What the US really needs in a new bomber is something like a Tu-160 with 5th gen engines that allow it to supercruise except just the same as the Su-24 used swing wings but the more sophisticated wing of the Su-27(34) is fixed, applying the same technology to the wing of the Tu-160 with a fixed flying wing shape in a wing that allows supersonic cruising without moving (making it cheaper and lighter and easier to make) and with the ability to super cruise in dry thrust should lead to good range and shorter flight times.


    The result is a plane that can do the job of the B-1B and B-52 that doesn't cost as much as a B-2 but has some stealth features to make it more survivable.

    But of course they will want it to be able to do everything which will make it even more expensive than a B-2 and you will only get 30 of them and the B-52 will continue to serve till 2050...


    _________________
    “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

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  SOC on Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:41 am

    GarryB wrote:Being able to fly everywhere at mach 1.6 will greatly reduce transit times and could potentially lead to a new non stealthy civilian SST that is economically viable... just in time for the sillyness after the world economic recession...

    I can see someone making a supersonic business jet, dudes like Branson would buy one, but not a true SST right now. Even if everyone's economy improves, developing an SST will still be hugely expensive. In all reality even though the Tu-144D was freaking awesome, and the Brits and French kept the Concorde going out of pride, the only sensible SST would've been ours in hindsight. 300 passengers might've made it economical once you survived the problems in the 70s. To make one today that's going to make money (because nobody is going for one that won't) you'll need a lot more than 100 or so passengers, and even then with the inflated price of oil you might still be in the red unless you make the entire thing first class and expensive as crap to ride on (hey, like Concorde).

    It's too bad the Gulfstream/Sukhoi SSBJ didn't pan out. That could've had some interesting military applications. Slim down the center fuselage, add a small stores bay, and militarize it and you've got a) a quick reaction ASW/ASuW platform, and b) the basis for a MiG-31 replacement, although to do the latter you'd clearly have to do a bit more to the airframe.

    I remember they claimed the B-2 was going to be a TEL killer, but they stopped going on about it after Desert Storm... it seems that even with air superiority and a fairly little country to hide in, and plenty of recon assets and even soldiers covertly on the ground they didn't manage to destroy a single scud launcher before it launched its missile in Iraq... and they realised it would be impossible to attempt such a thing over Russia...

    Part of it was that we weren't watching Saddam's SCUD TELs 24/7 during the buildup, which was in part because I'm not sure we knew where they all were to begin with to be able to track them as they deployed. And JSTARs has nothing on the B-2's sensor system. Part of it was also political. JSTARS and the others weren't doing a damn thing to find SCUDs, the USAF was trying not to get the entire B-2 cancelled (only three test planes were airborne by the end of the war, the decision to only make 21 airframes was early 1992, and it didn't hit IOC until 1997), and calling attention to a capability similar to what they were dorking up in Iraq wouldn't have made it look good.

    Only if the launch of bombers is a prelude to launching ICBMs. If it is an escalation in a chess game then it is the most useful piece on the chess board because it is a serious threat yet can be recalled after it is moved to position.

    The threat is irrelevant when SSBNs are always at sea.

    What the US really needs in a new bomber is something like a Tu-160 with 5th gen engines that allow it to supercruise except just the same as the Su-24 used swing wings but the more sophisticated wing of the Su-27(34) is fixed, applying the same technology to the wing of the Tu-160 with a fixed flying wing shape in a wing that allows supersonic cruising without moving (making it cheaper and lighter and easier to make) and with the ability to super cruise in dry thrust should lead to good range and shorter flight times.

    I wonder what'd happen if you put four F135s in a B-1B. The JSF might be a dog but the engine is ridiculous. But...you'd still need a ton of tanker support. Spending the money to make an aerospace bomber removes the need for a) ever having to rely on foreign soil, and b) such a huge tanker fleet. And you achieve total win in the reaction time game.

    The result is a plane that can do the job of the B-1B and B-52 that doesn't cost as much as a B-2 but has some stealth features to make it more survivable.

    But of course they will want it to be able to do everything which will make it even more expensive than a B-2 and you will only get 30 of them and the B-52 will continue to serve till 2050...

    The B-52 might outlive us all at this point just to prove it can. Plus, you can't get by with a semi-stealth design. If you want a traditional bomber, it's an LO design from the outset or it is simply not survivable. Can't be too small, or you're not VLO against VHF-band. A larger airframe, and you're more expensive. OK, so we'll just use it to lob ALCMs...at which point the question again is why bother, given the crapload of cruise missile shooters around.

    Firebird
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 909
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Firebird on Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:21 pm

    All a bit baffling this. I suspect the problem might have been caused in part by a translation from Russian or a shortened quotation of what he actually said.

    Its true that a Bear will not easily zig zag thro US defences into the middle of the USA in 2025 or later.A Tu-160 will also have problems. So that leaves stealth. I doubt the Pak-fa would have been started if it was incapable of handling US radar etc.

    So this means there's more of a case for the Pak-Da, rather than less.

    And we must look at the wider picture too. A Pak da can be used with conventional weapons as well. And against less advanced opponents. And also as a moveable launch platform quickly across the World. Pak Da launched Cruise missiles have many advantanges over SLBMs etc.

    SLBMs and sub-based launches can never fully replace the possibilities of a supersonic plane based launch.

    To me, the only think that should restrict their production number is the emergence of UAVs and hypersonic spaceplanes etc.
    The former can be jammed. The latter are expensive and do not have much flexibility, and also don't have stealth.

    I think using the achievements of the Tu160 AND Pak Fa to give a new Pak Da gives many great options including potential civillian ones.

    Finally, maybe Rogozin was actually trying to draw attention to the cost-benefit analysis of JUST using a Pak Da for strategic nukes. With only 16 or so Tu160s in service ( instead of 30 courtesy of some idiocy from a Western leaning Ukraine govt), its quite expensive, if the plane doesnt have flexibility.

    By far the best way is a suupersonic stealth Pak Da that can be used with non-nukes in other conflicts.
    After all, treaties had limited the number of Tu160s that could be used.
    So I say, build 60, 70 or whatever Pak Das and have extremely wide variety of uses.
    Gives both economy AND military options.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:09 pm

    Medvedev confirms plans to build new generation of strategic bombers

    "Along with fifth-generation fighter will be developed and promising aviation complex long-range aircraft. I mean a new strategic bomber," - said Medvedev.

    http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20120609/669484801.html

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  George1 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:46 pm

    I think all these "back" and "forward" statementes the only thing they have as an outcome is to jeopardize russian defence ministry and russia generally.

    We have plans for a 5G Strategic Bomber/ We dont need a new strategic bomber
    We programm construction of aircraft carriers/We dont need aircraft carriers
    We have a deal on Mistral/We dont buy from foreign countries
    We will deploy new overseas naval bases/ We dont need them
    We will order MiG-35/We are not going to buy it

    To be or not to be?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:15 am

    I can see someone making a supersonic business jet, dudes like Branson would buy one, but not a true SST right now. Even if everyone's economy improves, developing an SST will still be hugely expensive.

    You are looking at it the wrong way in two ways...

    They are building a flying wing supersonic bomber... the money is going to be spent on most of the technology anyway.
    A super cruising aircraft does not use much more fuel than a conventional subsonic aircraft because it uses dry thrust too... it just gets there faster... not so important on short trips but for long haul trips... say from anywhere to NZ or Australia then it is important.

    The second point is that there will always be a market for expensive travel... there are plenty of rich people who will pay more to get there faster and in a bit of luxury... Concord did plenty of business when it was operating.

    For a country the size of Russia it will reduce travel times from one side to the other and make places like Siberia more accessible.

    Very simply the plane is already being developed and built... just another area where military demands can be turned to civilian needs... imagine what the world would be like if you took away all the aircraft used by the military... whether they were developed by the military and then used for civilian roles, or vice versa is not important... actually it is... made for the military means most of the costs are eliminated and in a SST that is critical because the costs will be fairly high, so the military absorbing those costs will make it much more viable.

    Second an efficient flying wing design that can super cruise should have fairly low drag and good volume for passengers. As a first stage they could make it a subsonic design with civilianised engines that burn less fuel in a subsonic flight regime and are easier to maintain with longer hours etc.

    In all reality even though the Tu-144D was freaking awesome, and the Brits and French kept the Concorde going out of pride, the only sensible SST would've been ours in hindsight. 300 passengers might've made it economical once you survived the problems in the 70s.

    You are missing the point... a mach 2 SST is not going to be economical... just like a big expensive Rolls Royce Town Car will never be a choice for pulling a plow. Squeesing lots of passengers into it is not the solution because who is going to pay top dollar to be a Sardine?
    The whole point of Concorde was comfort and speed... the rich enjoyed the comfort and the shorter transit times and the short queues for ticketing and boarding that they are used to for long distance flights in shorter flight times than their personal jet could offer, while middle class people would fly for the experience of traveling on Concorde.

    You start putting 300 people on each plane and the ticket queues wlll be like 747 queues and the mystique will be gone and so will the rich passengers... and the middle class passengers are only a small percentage of your trade so having 300 seats will mean less people want to fly...

    To make one today that's going to make money (because nobody is going for one that won't) you'll need a lot more than 100 or so passengers, and even then with the inflated price of oil you might still be in the red unless you make the entire thing first class and expensive as crap to ride on (hey, like Concorde).

    Now you are getting it... Smile

    It's too bad the Gulfstream/Sukhoi SSBJ didn't pan out. That could've had some interesting military applications. Slim down the center fuselage, add a small stores bay, and militarize it and you've got a) a quick reaction ASW/ASuW platform, and b) the basis for a MiG-31 replacement, although to do the latter you'd clearly have to do a bit more to the airframe.

    I agree, and Sukhoi probably have a few plans and prototypes of that and the S-60 and indeed the T-4 and are keen to get some real metal cut.
    The Tu-160P design perhaps could be applied to the PAK DA to increase the numbers of airframes and reduce the numbers of types of aircraft in Russian AF service... imagine the size of the AESA it could carry in its nose and the linear AESAs in its fixed wing leading edge...

    JSTARS and the others weren't doing a damn thing to find SCUDs, the USAF was trying not to get the entire B-2 cancelled (only three test planes were airborne by the end of the war, the decision to only make 21 airframes was early 1992, and it didn't hit IOC until 1997), and calling attention to a capability similar to what they were dorking up in Iraq wouldn't have made it look good.

    Not to mention Iraqi deception in using all sorts of vehicles to transport missiles including buses and fuel tankers meant the job of isolating Scud launchers and their resupply vehicles was never going to be as easy as they suspected anyway. Remember Iraq is not Russia or the Soviet Union and for JSTARS to scan for targets it needs to use its radar... which reveals its position and makes it a target.

    The threat is irrelevant when SSBNs are always at sea.

    The threat is always relevant... just look at media reactions to Bears hundreds of kms from UK airspace... a major full scale launch of bombers to staging areas and employment of inflight refuelling aircraft to keep them there till the order is given is a step that would have a profound effect on the enemies posture, while at the same time it is a step that can be withdrawn and backed away from.

    Certainly in a period of heightened tension extra SSBNs can be sent to sea, but this is just a gesture as they can hit their targets from port side.

    With the bombers you are saying you are ready to fight and all of a sudden the number of nuclear platforms you can get with a first strike has suddenly diminished while the likely number of nuclear explosions on your territory has greatly increased...

    I wonder what'd happen if you put four F135s in a B-1B. The JSF might be a dog but the engine is ridiculous. But...you'd still need a ton of tanker support. Spending the money to make an aerospace bomber removes the need for a) ever having to rely on foreign soil, and b) such a huge tanker fleet. And you achieve total win in the reaction time game.

    Just looking at the improvement in performance of the Al-41 over the Al-31 (from 12.5 ton to 18 ton estimated) it would be interesting to see what they could do with the NK-32s in the Blackjack. The maths is fairly simple as the 25 ton thrust NK-32 is twice the power of the Al-31, so assuming the same ratio a 5th gen engine would be in the 36 ton thrust class range.

    This would take the Tu-160 with four engines from 100 tons thrust to 144 tons thrust... almost two extra engines worth of power. For the Tu-22M3 with two engines producing 50 tons thrust to 72 tons thrust is like adding half another engine without the weight or drag or complication.

    Options with existing aircraft could be to relax the top speed requirement for both aircraft and make the Tu-160 a twin engined aircraft that might be able to super cruise, and a single engined Tu-22M3 with transonic flight performance and longer range.

    Of course the best solution is a fixed wing aircraft that is simpler and lighter structurally yet able to carry an enormous amount of fuel or weapons or a significant amount of both.

    The new engines developed for the new bomber can be applied to the in service aircraft improving their performance, while at the same time giving real world testing for the engines in a realistic environment... a propfan model could be adapted for the Bear and the Blackjack and Backfire can be adapted for the new engine for the new bomber, which will simplify maintainence and support problems for the two different engines.

    If you want a traditional bomber, it's an LO design from the outset or it is simply not survivable.

    A traditional bomber is what? For use against strong air defences then stand off weapons can be used... both conventional and nuclear armed. For weaker opponents it can be used in the same way the US uses the B-52.

    The thing is that a bomb truck is no longer needed as satellite guided bombs are more cost effective than dumb iron bombs... you know full well that hitting a target with a guided bomb that costs three times more than an iron bomb is a bargain because it will take more than three times more iron bombs to ensure a kill while doing more damage around the target (which may or may not be a problem).
    In fact often a guided weapon means smaller bombs can be used which are cheaper to deliver too (less fuel required to carry lighter bombs etc).

    Can't be too small, or you're not VLO against VHF-band. A larger airframe, and you're more expensive. OK, so we'll just use it to lob ALCMs...at which point the question again is why bother, given the crapload of cruise missile shooters around.

    Choice.

    A Blackjack can move 12,000km at speeds exceeding 800km/h to get to a launch point rapidly, from which it can launch a 5,000km range cruise missile that flys at high subsonic speed to its target... certainly most of its SSNs will be SSGNs and will be able to launch a similar missile, but it can't move to a launch position so rapidly, which might be a technicality you can say, but that same sub or surface ship cannot fly to Afghanistan with an Su-35 escort and orbit an area for a couple of days periodically releasing guided weapons to hit small point targets every few hours.

    You could probably do the job with a group of Su-34s, except if the target you are looking for requires a very powerful weapon like the FOABs or something similar.

    Previously Soviet strategic bombers were a one trick pony, but with their precision strike capability being added they suddenly become the most likely leg of the nuclear triad to actually be useful and practical and in many cases as Russia has pointed out with precision guided weapons targets that would otherwise have required a nuclear attack to be sure of defeating suddenly become viable targets with conventional weapons.

    The current Russian bomber fleet is a strange bunch that could in theory simply be replaced with all Tu-160s, but the problem is that it is the most expensive of the two strategic and one tactic bombers they want to replace.

    A more modern Tu-160 with a simpler lighter design without swing wings and with a more optimised shape is the best solution... and for its primary role of strategic nuclear deterrent it doesn't need to penetrate strong enemy air defences because it is not going to be a first strike weapon. Having a super LO bomber in large numbers would be destabilising as useful as it would be in local conflicts. It would also make it too expensive to afford to build in decent numbers which would leave you with the problem of 4 different types performing the same roles.

    And we must look at the wider picture too. A Pak da can be used with conventional weapons as well. And against less advanced opponents. And also as a moveable launch platform quickly across the World. Pak Da launched Cruise missiles have many advantanges over SLBMs etc.

    Good point... low flying cruise missiles are a challenge. Ballistic SLBMs are fast but have predictible trajectories and as long as you have missiles that can intercept them not the most difficult targets to deal with.

    Low flying potentially stealthy cruise missiles on the other hand have that super war winning characteristic... surprise... which is the biggest and most effective killer in real combat.

    We have plans for a 5G Strategic Bomber/ We dont need a new strategic bomber
    We programm construction of aircraft carriers/We dont need aircraft carriers
    We have a deal on Mistral/We dont buy from foreign countries
    We will deploy new overseas naval bases/ We dont need them
    We will order MiG-35/We are not going to buy it

    You need to add context. When a general says maybe we don't need strategic bombers and then Medvedev says we need strategic bombers and they will be benefiting from the work on the 5th gen stealth fighter then I think there is little up for question... I rather suspect the general might have been questioning the time scale... the Tu-95s and Tu-160s are still very young aircraft and could probably soldier on for 3-4 decades to come if properly looked after.

    The carrier debate centres around the need for naval air power.

    Regarding Mistral the Russians and Soviets have a long history of buying foreign weapons... they bought gatling guns from gatling, the Maxim gun from Maxim, The DC-3 in the form of the Li-2 licence production model, there is a wide range of trucks and tractors they bought licences to produce during the 1930s and 1940s.

    They will deploy new overseas naval bases but they need to build up their navy to make use of such bases so for the moment they will not ask for basing rights...

    Regarding the Mig-35 I have heard them state they were going to buy some, but I have not seen them mention when they were going to buy or even allocate money for the purchase... we will just have to wait on this.

    Personally I think skipping the Mig-35 and getting Mig to make a light 5th gen fighter using technology developed for the Mig-35 and Mig 1.44 and 1.42 and any new stuff they might be working on with the PAK FA would be more useful.



    _________________
    “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

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  SOC on Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:44 am

    GarryB wrote:They are building a flying wing supersonic bomber...

    The airline industry over here still isn't keen on flying-wing designs.

    The second point is that there will always be a market for expensive travel... there are plenty of rich people who will pay more to get there faster and in a bit of luxury... Concord did plenty of business when it was operating.

    You get luxury in first class nowadays regardless. The SST adds speed. The problem is that you're banking on rich people being able to consistently fill the seats and being willing to pay enough to make it profitable. Plus, you have a depressed airline industry that now has to be willing to cough up the money to buy the things in the first place, knowing going in that you only want to deal with a small part of the market.

    For a country the size of Russia it will reduce travel times from one side to the other and make places like Siberia more accessible.

    Hence part of the reason of the Tu-144 in the first place.

    You are missing the point... a mach 2 SST is not going to be economical...


    No no, not now, but rather back when the SSTs were being fielded.

    To make one today that's going to make money (because nobody is going for one that won't) you'll need a lot more than 100 or so passengers, and even then with the inflated price of oil you might still be in the red unless you make the entire thing first class and expensive as crap to ride on (hey, like Concorde).

    Now you are getting it... Smile

    The threat is always relevant... just look at media reactions to Bears hundreds of kms from UK airspace... a major full scale launch of bombers to staging areas and employment of inflight refuelling aircraft to keep them there till the order is given is a step that would have a profound effect on the enemies posture, while at the same time it is a step that can be withdrawn and backed away from.

    Except we don't currently forward-deploy nuke-armed strategic bombers. They sit (or would sit) alert fully armed, as do the tankers.

    Good point... low flying cruise missiles are a challenge. Ballistic SLBMs are fast but have predictible trajectories and as long as you have missiles that can intercept them not the most difficult targets to deal with.

    You have to have an LO missile, or else it's nowhere near as hard as you think it is to find and blow them up. Iraq shot down a bunch of Tomahawks in 1991 with SA-8s. Low-flying missiles can use terrain masking with the proper flight profiles, but you've still got to worry about airborne threats. Advances in signal processing, etc. mean airborne radars are better equipped to deal with low-flying targets that might've simply been lost in the ground clutter previously.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:48 am

    The airline industry over here still isn't keen on flying-wing designs.

    They have no operational experience with flying wings so lack of confidence would be normal.

    The same could be said for jet engines which initially were not particularly very powerful and very fuel inefficient.

    You get luxury in first class nowadays regardless. The SST adds speed.

    SST adds more than just speed... travelling on the Concorde was special.

    The problem is that you're banking on rich people being able to consistently fill the seats and being willing to pay enough to make it profitable.

    Rich people like the idea of a rich people plane that middle class people can afford as a real treat but poor people could not afford. Not as expensive as your own personal jet, but still exclusive.

    Plus, you have a depressed airline industry that now has to be willing to cough up the money to buy the things in the first place, knowing going in that you only want to deal with a small part of the market.

    They are getting the plane and engines designed and built for them by the military... the risk is fairly low and to reduce it further they could easily make it a subsonic aircraft initially.

    Hence part of the reason of the Tu-144 in the first place.

    But the original engines made it uneconomic because they had to be kept in AB all the way. The later Tu-144 with the NK-32 engines could fly supersonic in dry thrust and made sense but the momentum had gone for SSTs.

    No no, not now, but rather back when the SSTs were being fielded.

    Even then these planes were expensive. The plane I am talking about flying in dry thrust and using sophisticated aerodynamics to fly at supersonic speeds.

    Except we don't currently forward-deploy nuke-armed strategic bombers. They sit (or would sit) alert fully armed, as do the tankers.

    At very low threat levels they will not be on alert fully armed. At medium threat levels they would be alert and fully armed... at high threat they will be airborne ready to be used or called back.

    You have to have an LO missile, or else it's nowhere near as hard as you think it is to find and blow them up. Iraq shot down a bunch of Tomahawks in 1991 with SA-8s. Low-flying missiles can use terrain masking with the proper flight profiles, but you've still got to worry about airborne threats. Advances in signal processing, etc. mean airborne radars are better equipped to deal with low-flying targets that might've simply been lost in the ground clutter previously.

    Against baby milk factories they are fine... as a nuclear deterrent the slow flying cruise missiles will be arriving several hours after the ICBMs and SLBMs have detonated... I rather doubt there will be any active airborne radars or interceptors for that matter...


    _________________
    “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
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:10 pm


    Today? Maybe not. In ten years? Probably pretty close to no chance. But when it was conceived, which would be before Russia had widely distributed next-generation sensor systems? The B-2 would've been survivable. Nothing will ever be 100%, but "1 chance in a million" is a ridiculous stretch.


    SOM, mine statement refer obviously to present situation and it is ,in no way and in any measure a stretch.
    At today, the 20 B-2 Spirit (who, therefore, couldn't count even on numbers to hope to reach for "attrition's absorption" theirs intended targets) with its low-subsonic speed, lack of any serious stand-off ammunition ,virtually absent capability to manoeuvre, lack of an integrated EW defensive suit, lack of data-sharing capabilities, solitary mission profile and a radar signature barely sufficient for beginning of '80 years moderately dense IADS , would be incapable even only to come at some hundreds of km from Russian Federation border if political assent for an extraterritorial interception would be provided.

    SOM you must take into account that the real and average figures for RCS of this type of "stealth" aircraft, in a combat scenario are literally several orders of magnitude greater than the sensationalistic ones usually circulating on not educated media (which refer, instead, to totally unrepresentative and hypercritical head-on reradiating cones).

    This simple article ,on the subject, from the "Bulletin of Russian Academy of Sciences", Vol. 73 ,n 9 of October 2003 by Andrey Nikolaevich Lagarkov - Director of the Institute for Theoretical and Applied Electromagnetic - and Mikhail Pogosyan - ...well i think it don't need any presentation- can give to you a more sound and educated picture of the real terms of the question by Academics of the same Scientific Institutions where the entire Physics fundamentals of modern stealth technology (included American specific sector) was developed .


    http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/JOURNAL/VRAN/03_10/STELLS.HTM



    B-2 also in a perfectly iso-planar head-on radar illumination's angle (an impossible occurrence against long range ground based radars in a multilayered mobile IAD...) would present an average RCS not inferior to 0,1 - 0,08 Square meters.
    SOM i image that you are perfectly capable to realize now what was the reasons for the abrupt decision ,at the middle of 1980 years, by part of American military Command to change suddenly the requirements and the flight profile of B-2 Spirit from high altitude to low altitude terrain following.... Wink





    If the main road isn't in the direction of "hey look at this we've stayed in orbit for over a year while nobody knows what the hell we're really doing" then I really don't see the point in wasting the money on the "B-3".



    Yes SOM ,exactly this direction, and i can assure you that several international players are not only perfectly aware of the aims of those "researchs" ,but take the immense military menace that this road will create very, very, very, very seriously working very hard ,already today, to find reliable ways for theirs neutralizations (...over naturally at working, at theirs own times, on theirs offensive revolutionary concepts ).

    The USA's "road" for perspective offensive means -founded around new near-space vehicles with virtually infinite autonomy - will represent, in the next 20-30 years, a menace enormously greater and difficult to counter, in a relatively brief time window, than what "stealth" represented in the '80 years and you can bet that B-3 will NOT be a strategic bomber in the way B-2 was ,but a "transitory" element of the new offensive scheme (useful for dissociate the operational capabilities of the new attack elements from fixed and....computable.... orbits).


    We DO have CVBGs, and we DO have a buttload of naval platforms capable of ripple-firing bunches of conventional LACMs, so you don't need a new airframe for intimidation or cruise-missile conventional strike.


    Yes SOM ,but the problem is against what opponent (considering also the very fast ascent of China in the next decade) a CVBGs in travel in plain Ocean will still represent a credible way to deliver conventional fire power ,instead of big ,concentrated ,easily detectable -by both ground and space based sensors- ,paying targetw.

    I image that anyone can remember the famous response of Admiral Hyman Rickover to Senator Robert Taft on what was the average expected operational life of USA's nuclear carriers in an hypothetical not thermonuclear WWIII scenario against URSS , the response was : " From various estimates ....not more than two days" .

    CVBGs are great for power projection and central in the American capability to extend its military and political influence worldwide ,the problem is that when an opponent surpass a precise threshold in conventional military sophistication, them transform suddenly in big ,easily detectable and almost impossible to defend "paying targets" ,which you couldn't employ offensively anymore to exert pressure on this competitor because theirs destruction through conventional asymmetrical means would NOT justify a nuclear response.



    Best regards.



    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  George1 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:37 pm

    PM Medvedev approves new bomber for Russian Air Force

    Russia is going to build a brand-new strategic bomber, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has said at a Kazan meeting on strategic aviation. It will be developed alongside the fifth-generation fighter. Medvedev stressed it wasn’t enough to maintain and revamp the existing strategic bombers.

    In the next decade Russia’s Air Force is expected to get a new long-range bomber. However, some experts are calling into question the necessity of such an aircraft because they believe that the modern air defence and missile defence systems could make it redundant. Nevertheless, we believe that there is a place for a new aircraft of this type.

    At present, Russia’s Air Force is using three types of bombers in long-range aviation: the Tu-22M3 long-range supersonic bomber, the Tu-95 heavy bomber and the Tu-160 supersonic heavy bomber. The operational range of the Tu-22M3 depends on its payload and could range from 1,500 to 3,500 kilometers. The other two aircraft can cover the distance of up to 6-7 thousand kilometers without refueling, which means that when equipped with long-range cruise missiles, they can hit targets in North America.

    The average age of the Russian bomber is less than that of American aircraft. Like its Russian counterpart the Tu-95, the backbone American bomber B-52 made its maiden flight in 1952. The B-52H aircraft which are currently being used by the U.S. Air Force were built between 1960 and 1962. The B-1B aircraft built in 1984-1988 and the B-2 built in 1989-1997, are about the same age as their current Russian counterparts.

    The B-52, the “youngest” of which is 50 years old, is expected to remain in service until 2040. It is expected that these bombers will be replaced between 2025 and 2040 with the new generation aircraft which are being developed as part of the NGB (New Generation Bomber) programme.

    The new plane should also replace the B-1B, which the decommissioning is expected to start in 2030, and will be used alongside the B-2, which is expected to remain in service until the end of the 2040s or even longer.

    Judging by what is known about technical features of the new generation bomber, it will differ from the B-2 in terms of its takeoff weight (about 100 tons as opposed to 170), bomb load (13 tons as opposed to 23) and operational range (up to 3,800 kilometers as opposed to the current 5.000). Changing some of the new craft’s technical characteristics should help reduce the cost of production of the new aircraft and consequently, the price of an individual plane will be reduced to 500-600 million dollars compared to the price of the B-2 bomber, which currently stands at more than a billion dollars.

    Russia is watching closely the implementation of the NGB programme. Based on the last known information, the concept of a “medium-heavy” bomber boasting an operational range which would be longer than Tu-22 M’s but shorter than that of Tu-160 is considered rather to be attractive.

    However, in order to answer the question about the potential of the new aircraft, which is being developed as part of the long range aircraft project, one has to understand and the objectives it is expected to meet. It appears that this Russian long range bomber should be able to hit targets in Eurasia without having to use airborne refueling and with air fuelling it should fulfill intercontinental range tasks. This means its operating range should be around 3,500 kilometers with full payload and between 5,000 and 5,500 kilometers with a reduced payload.

    The cost of their production can be reduced through a number of measures like for example through unifying the manufacturing of its engines with the T-50 fighter jet. For one, experts are discussing the possibility of those of building a 100 or 120-ton bomber equipped with four Al-41 engines (T-50 for example, has two such engines) and the development of avionics for the new bomber based on the equipment designed for the T-50. This should reduce the cost of development and exploitation of the new aircraft.

    As an alternative, some experts suggest using the existing and advanced tactical fighter jets of the Su family, Su-27, Su-30 and T-50 and Su-34 bomber as well as upgrading the existing long range bombers.

    Although the first option is attractive from the financial point of view, unfortunately it doesn’t always assure the necessary capabilities in the event of a war. It reduces the capabilities of tactical bombers to hit targets beyond their operational rage (up to 1,500-2,000 kilometers).

    The second option is better but has a time limit. Although the modern aircraft can remain in service for a long time, they have a shelf life. It takes a long time to design and manufacture new aircraft. If Russia stops working on developing a new bomber, it risks having no long range bombers at all by 2040-2050. If in the meantime, new technology emerges that will enable it to do without a traditional heavy bomber, the work on its development can be suspended but only after a new viable alternative is found.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:37 am

    Mindstorm , I would suggest you read the book " Russian Strategic Aviation Today Yefim Gordon (Author), Dmitriy Komissarov " link

    This should help you find answer to many of your question on Russian Strategic Aviation.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  SOC on Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:08 pm

    GarryB wrote:But the original engines made it uneconomic because they had to be kept in AB all the way. The later Tu-144 with the NK-32 engines could fly supersonic in dry thrust and made sense but the momentum had gone for SSTs.

    The NK-144s were used basically because they had to be. The intended production engine was the RD-36-51, trialled on Tu-144 77105 and installed on all of the Tu-144Ds (77111-77115). This was a non-afterburning engine that provided the range that was desired, but it came along too late to save the program, unfortunately. The NK-32s were installed in Tu-144D 77114 when it was remade as the Tu-144LL for SST research. I believe speed went down slightly to Mach 2 but range did increase a bit over the Tu-144D, but that was just a test program.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:04 am

    SO we agree that the original Tu-144 had sub optimal engines and that later developed engines made it pretty much what it should have been.

    I would suggest that new 5th gen proper bomber engines (Not recycled 5th gen jet fighter engines) would make a flying wing aircraft with horizontal tail surfaces that allow supersonic flight would make an ideal transporter for people or bombs/weapons as long as the requirements are not too ambitious...

    Supercruising at mach 1.5-1.8 would enable flight times for long trips to be made shorter and more comfortable without the high cost of trying to fly at mach 2.4.


    _________________
    “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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Thu Jun 14, 2012 8:08 am

    I doubt we would see supersonic aircraft soon there are concerns on its noise when flying over populated area and fuel consumption factor.

    Its not economically viable to run a supersonic jet presently or even in near future.

    All future design shown by Boeing and Airbus are subsonic aircraft with better efficiency and fuel economy.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:01 pm

    You are missing the point... super cruise... supersonic flight in dry thrust means fuel consumption is not that much different from subsonic flight because of higher speed.

    Remember fuel consumption is measured in weight of fuel burned per energy created per hour so burning slightly more per hour to fly much faster can work out using less fuel because you don't need to run the engines as long.

    There is no reason why this new design has to fly supersonically over populated areas... the greatest areas of benefit in terms of reduced time of flight would be over long distances... across the Atlantic and Pacific for example.

    I would also call into question your logic that because Boeing is not working on something that super cruises then there is no point in doing it... when Boeing was working on its SST the idea of supersonic civilian travel was the way of the future and all subsonic aircraft would be obsolete... till they decided they failed and then the future became huge large capacity airliners... and in this day of airport security big low cost jets means hours or days in security checks just to board the 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

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  George1 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:00 am

    Putin Calls for New Long-Range Bomber

    Russia must start development of a long-range bomber aircraft, President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday at a meeting on defense orders.

    "We have to develop work on the new PAK-DA long-range bomber aircraft for Long-Range Aviation. I know how expensive and complex this is. We have talked about this many times with ministers, and with the head of the General Staff. The task is not easy from a scientific-technical standpoint, but we need to start work," Putin said.

    If bomber development work is not started soon, Russia might miss the boat, Putin said.

    A new long-range cruise missile has already been adopted for these aircraft, he said, adding that the “tactical level” is in need of deep modernization.

    The president also said the A-100 airborne warning and control system (AWACS) project should be implemented within the next five years.

    The new AWACS plane will have the capability to detect and track long-range airborne and ground-based targets.

    Russia operates a mixed fleet of 63 aging Tu-95MS turboprop missile carriers, and just 13 Tu-160 bombers.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:27 am

    The biggest mistake the Russians could make is to try to make a B-2 copy.

    They don't need a plane like that... they don't need a plane that is that expensive.

    A flying wing design offers low drag and relatively small RCS which are both useful features for aircraft.

    Adding an extended centre section and horizontal tail gives sufficient down force to allow the transition between subsonic and supersonic flight, so a tailed flying wing should be able to super cruise, while a pure flying wing cannot.

    The Russians have also already experimented with wing mounted radar arrays, so an AWACS type variant with AESA antenna arrays along the wing leading edge offer interesting performance. The correct materials and structure along with proper shaping and coatings could offer a low RCS fairly easily, while sophisticated surface mounted radar antenna along with sophisticated beam forming software could lead to active radar cancellation techniques that would be far superior to mere jamming to hide the aircraft or flight of aircraft.

    Certainly supporting QWIP long, medium, and short wave IIR systems would also offer passive sensors for theatre operations against a range of ground targets.

    The size of the aircraft would make it ideal for a range of ground penetrating bombs and its supersonic flight speed should allow high altitude high speed drops to maximise penetration of very large bombs. Perhaps even a dedicated theatre bomber with a downwards facing ground penetrating radar could be used for some model... perhaps with the correct beam shaping algorythms they could be used to penetrate sea water to search for submarines... most of which operate in less than 500m of water operationally.

    The usefulness of such a high speed aircraft with long range and powerful radar potential suggests also a viable replacement for the Mig-31 as an interceptor.

    It wont have the peak speed of the Mig but it will compensate with high average speed plus longer range and endurance and on board payload of rather more missiles... perhaps including IIR guided weapons for use against stealth 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

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  SOC on Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:02 pm

    Austin wrote:I doubt we would see supersonic aircraft soon there are concerns on its noise when flying over populated area and fuel consumption factor.

    Blackbird crews in the US laughed at the SST opposition in the 1970s when the issue of sonic booms were brought up. They flew all over the place at Mach 3+ regularly, and managed not to blow out windows or deafen the population. Plus, Discovery channel did an experiment a year or so ago where they built a house in the desert (one room, but it had windows, was built to code, and there were breakables inside) and got the USN to fly an F/A-18 at supersonic speeds directly over it at various altitudes. I think they had to get right down around 500 feet AGL or so for anything negative to happen inside. Otherwise it was just loud. They weren't doing this at high altitudes, either. I think they started at like 10,000 feet AGL and worked down to the deck. Hell, when I lived in Germany in the 80s the RAF and the Luftwaffe regularly enjoyed booming my house. Ergo, I think all of the sonic boom complaints are, to a degree, overblown.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 16, 2012 3:14 am

    I remember reading that during testing of the Tu-160 that an aircraft broke the sound barrier above a small village and the mayor of the village send a bill for the windows that were broken to the local air field commander.

    I have seen the Mythbusters epidsode where they tried to break glass with an F-18 and nothing significant happened till they got quite low...

    And to be perfectly honest when the idea of SST was new and fresh there was no opposition to supersonic aircraft anywhere... the main driver for the bans for overland supersonic flight by civilian aircraft was when the US SST was cancelled as a failure... and I rather suspect it was an attempt to disuade airlines from buying the Concorde and making it a success.

    It is obviously a limited use aircraft... its main clientèle is going to be the rich who expect luxury and the odd businessman for which a few hours saved on what would otherwise be a long flight is worth the extra money.

    The extra speed really only makes sense on the very long trips like across the atlantic or pacific.

    It would be interesting if they kept the inflight refuelling capability and went for very long range flights like London to Sydney without stopping... Of course that would mean two tankers... one to keep them topped up with fuel and a second to keep them topped up with booze and caviar... Smile


    _________________
    “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 Today at 1:06 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:06 pm