Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5537
    Points : 5578
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Both very recent and from official sources.

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

    Here i have official source explaining Flat Earth theory.

    Obey mortal i gave you link.

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

    Suspect
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1392
    Points : 1417
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

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

    GarryB wrote:
    Obey mortal i gave you link.

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 5537
    Points : 5578
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

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

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

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

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

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

    A brain that Militarov and you seem to have not.

    That english tho No

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

    T-47

    Posts : 181
    Points : 185
    Join date : 2017-07-17
    Location : Planet Earth

    Re: PAK-DA: News

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

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

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

    Posts : 5537
    Points : 5578
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

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

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

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

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

    But its okay, we have experts onboard Smile
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16375
    Points : 16990
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    _________________
    “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
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5280
    Points : 5386
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 1392
    Points : 1417
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    T-47

    Posts : 181
    Points : 185
    Join date : 2017-07-17
    Location : Planet Earth

    Re: PAK-DA: News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    JohninMK

    Posts : 4868
    Points : 4931
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  JohninMK on Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:10 pm

    T-47 wrote:
    I know you won't follow but still I'm asking, try to understand the thing that just because something is developed from doesn't make it a variant. And stop thinking so much about official comments. Why? Watch North Korea. Full of "official" statements.

    (Well I think all my words are going to be in vein  unshaven So I'll just ignore this from now. Unless eehnie can stop from being an "expert" and come down to normal level aka level 0. Which means facts and try to understand what others are saying not just keep blabbering about "official" links)
    Someone around here really doesn't understand large bureaucracies and their ability to hide things from the top.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 572
    Points : 576
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:20 am

    JohninMK wrote:
    T-47 wrote:
    I know you won't follow but still I'm asking, try to understand the thing that just because something is developed from doesn't make it a variant. And stop thinking so much about official comments. Why? Watch North Korea. Full of "official" statements.

    (Well I think all my words are going to be in vein  unshaven So I'll just ignore this from now. Unless eehnie can stop from being an "expert" and come down to normal level aka level 0. Which means facts and try to understand what others are saying not just keep blabbering about "official" links)
    Someone around here really doesn't understand large bureaucracies and their ability to hide things from the top.

    Expecting Enhnie to stop being Enhie hell, you got a better chance of all the anti Assad factions in syria suddenly becoming pro-assad.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1392
    Points : 1417
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:01 pm

    Well T-47. I think you should revise your views, because you are not understanding well the technical meaning of the following concepts:

    - developed from
    - based on
    - inspired on
    - new design

    A design developed from or based on is a design were you begin from a previously solved solution. In this case you begin with an entire aircraft from which you begin to do some changes.

    A new design is a design were you begin with nothing. You have a need, a series of requirements that you must meet, and you have some ideas from other solutions to close problems in which you can inspire the new design.

    The biggest difference between both, is that while in a design developed from or based on you begin with all the technical documentation of the previous solution (you have it or you are able to rebuild it) and you use it, in a new design there is not this use (as basis) of technical documentation of previous solutions even having it.

    GarryB, Militarov and you failed to express and even understand this very, very, very basical technical principle. This is something that clearly put in doubt the technical knowledge of the people that claimed to have it. Like Militarov and Garry B. Technical posturing is very difficult to sustain.

    If you say the F-15 is developed from or based on the MiG-25, you must be able to prove that the designers of the F-15 (McDonnell Douglas) had acces to the technical documentation of the MiG-25 at the time of the design of the F-15 (late 1960s, early 1970s). In this case is very very unlikely, even can be ruled out because the US was in doubt until the mid 1970s, about if the MiG-25 was a fighter or an interceptor, and by then the F-15 was in production or almost in production. At best you can say the F-15 was inspired in the MiG-25.

    The case of the Tu-22, the MiG-25/31 or the Su-27/30/33/35 is obviously different in the refered to the access to the technicall documentation of the Tu-22, MiG-25 and Su-27 for the development. Obviously Tupolev, MiG and Sukhoi had access to the technical documentation of their previous design. And is reported that used it in the development of the Tu-22M, MiG-31, Su-30, Su-33 and Su-35, when you read "developed from" or "based on".

    Engineers have a lot easier and cheaper work if they have something to begin with. The claim that Tupolev hide a totally new aircraft (most expensive option) as an aircraft developed from a previous aircraft (cheaper option) is technically absurd. Unsustainable. As explained.


    Last edited by eehnie on Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1392
    Points : 1417
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:28 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Expecting Enhnie to stop being Enhie hell, you got a better chance of all the anti Assad factions in syria suddenly becoming pro-assad.

    oh yes, the cute US soldier (SeigSoloyvov claimed to be) will explain perfectly well all the refered to the Russian military research and development, you will see
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16375
    Points : 16990
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 26, 2017 6:22 am

    If you say the F-15 is developed from or based on the MiG-25, you must be able to prove that the designers of the F-15 (McDonnell Douglas) had acces to the technical documentation of the MiG-25 at the time of the design of the

    The MiG-25s design was secret but it shape was visible to the public when it was revealed as a Mach 3 fighter.

    No US aircraft design before this aircraft was revealed had this aircraft layout... ie two engines side by side, two vertical fins, wing and tail layout etc...

    US experts have to build an equivalent to what they think the MiG-25 actually is and low and behold it has exactly the same layout as the MiG-25 it is supposed to be better than.

    The MiG-29 was supposed to have been a copy of the F-16 or F-15 depending upon whom you talk to, the MiG-23 was claimed to be a copy of the F-4 phantom by some, the Su-27 was supposed to be a cross between an F-15 and an F-18... the Soviet Buran space shuttle is supposed to be a copy of the US space shuttle.

    The AK is supposed to be a copy of a German rifle.

    Looking beneath their skins they are all completely different... but they are still considered copies in the west.

    By that definition I hold the F-15 and the F-18 and F-14 to be copies of the MiG-25 and therefore the MiG-29 and MiG-31 and Su-27 to be derived from the MiG-25.

    I am sure many western experts might object, but objections about western experts claims of copying by others are generally ignored too.


    _________________
    “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 Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:32 pm