Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share

    wilhelm

    Posts : 233
    Points : 237
    Join date : 2014-12-09

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  wilhelm on Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:16 pm

    Eehnie seems to have made himself scarce...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18423
    Points : 18981
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:48 am


    They would have hard time makeing Su-25 and A-10 supersonic.

    When they were introduced there were plenty of fast moving fighterbombers like the MiG-27 and the Su-17 family in the Soviet Union and the Jaguar in the west...

    The point is that their jobs did not need supersonic speed... ability to operate from frontline strips was more important than high speed and long range... low speed meant targets could be spotted and dealt with, and extra weapons pylons allowed heavy weapon loads to be carried.

    With armements they produce drag as no other fighter jet.

    Subsonic means more internal volume to carry more weapons internally... these aircraft are not first strike aircraft.... even at high subsonic flight to the launch area and a supersonic dash and then launch and then flight home for a Tu-160 will take 8 hours or more for the missiles to hit their targets, so it is not like having supersonic speed is going to make any difference.

    The airspace they will be penetrating will be about 3-4 hours after all those ICBM warheads and SLBM warheads have vaporised everything.

    Subsonic means less powerfull engine but more economic so they can fly at low lvl during all the mission which is better specially in a mountainous environement.

    Actually the turbojet engine of the Su-25 is not that efficient at low altitude... it would be rather more efficient at medium to high altitude like most jet engines.

    Those two Aircraft are the best one ever build in my opinion. They are the most usefull for every war.

    they are better than their supersonic equivalents because very high speed is actually counter productive for the missions they engage in.

    For a strategic bomber speed is not useless, but it wont make them invulnerable either and it costs a lot of money in terms of weight and fuel and design compromises to achieve supersonic speed... by going for subsonic you save an awful lot of money and greatly increase your design options... including increase internal volume for fuel and weapons.

    the new missiles it will be carrying will be bigger... 12m or more in length perhaps with flight ranges of more than 5,000km, or very high flight speeds... carrying them internally improves flight performance by not increasing drag, and keeps RCS low... I doubt they will go for a tiny RCS as that is expensive, but if they can keep it relatively low it extends the distance at which it can operate from enemy forces without being spotted easily.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7130
    Points : 7224
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:46 pm

    wilhelm wrote:Eehnie seems to have made himself scarce...

    Nah, he's probably digging through Star Wars wookieepedia trying to get more "evidence" that flotilla of Lider destroyers has almost completed construction.... Smile

    I guarantee you he is coming back with more "facts"
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2295
    Points : 2314
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:03 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Shame they don't list the upgrades...

    They actually did Smile


    in short:
    Crew: 2 pilots
    Engines same as Tu-160M2 - NK-32
    avionics - based on 160M2 (I presume netcentric with new navigation to chase CVBGs)

    Weaposn: Kh-32, Kindzhal, X-50 (scaled down X-101) and Gzur ( Ma-8 missile) both x6 and with range   ~1500 km (this form BMPD)

    Attention: air-frame also will be modified (didn't say to what degree though)
    Build in refueling bar too  russia  russia  russia


    refurbished: 36 units. Not bad to fend off NTO fleet. + 50 Tu-160M2.






    Updated missile carrier Tu-22M3M will receive a rigging Tu-160

    https://rg.ru/2018/04/28/reg-pfo/obnovlennyj-raketonosec-tu-22m3m-poluchit-osnastku-tu-160.html
    The creation of a deeply modernized bomber-missile carrier Tu-22M3M is nearing completion, the head of the Tupolev company Alexander Konyukhov said.

    - On the prototype of a deeply modernized missile carrier, assembly work and preparations for the first take-off are being completed . It is planned for the third quarter of 2018. In the same year, modernization of combat aircraft will begin, "Interfax quotes Konyukhov .

    The updated Tu-22 will receive new, more economical and durable engines, as well as on-board electronics, unified with the "older brother", the strategic missile carrier Tu-160. In particular, the aircraft will have a system of space communications and the ability to receive in-flight target designation - including from mobile sea and land terminals. Given that the main task of the Tu-22 is still hunting for aircraft carriers, the ability to take on-the-fly operational information about their whereabouts will not be superfluous. Another innovation will be the bar for refueling the aircraft in the air - this option will increase the already considerable combat radius of the missile carrier - with new engines the flight range of the Tu-22M3M will be almost 10 thousand kilometers.

    In parallel with the modernization of the aircraft, a new weapon is being developed for him. The upgraded electronics will allow the aircraft to use the Kh-32, Kh-55, Kh-555, Kh-101/102 missiles, and prospective Kh-50, GZUR and Dagger .

    "Modernization will significantly prolong the service life of Tu-22M family aircraft," Konyukhov stressed. According to open sources, Russia has more than 100 aircraft of this type.

    Collecting new cars and modernizing the drill will be in Kazan, where at the Gorbunov Aircraft Plant there are at least four Tu-22 gliders preserved from the Soviet reserve. In addition, the company has accumulated experience in restoring production of Tu-160. The first "White Swan" from the new series  climbed into the sky in early 2018.












    Russia will raise into the sky  a new missile carrier


    The first flight of the upgraded long-range missile carrier Tu-22M3M is scheduled for August 2018, RIA Novosti reported at the Kazan aircraft plant.

    https://rg.ru/2018/04/25/reg-pfo/rossiia-podnimet-v-nebo-novyj-raketonosec.html

    "We intend to lift the Tu-22M3M in the air in August," the company representative said.

    Photo: Grigory Sysoev / RIA Novosti
    Preparation of the Su-57 for the Victory Parade was shot on video
    Deep modernization and the resumption of the mass production of the most massive long-range aircraft was laid in the State Program of Armaments for 2018-2027. The aircraft is updated according to the scheme used for the "older brother" Tu-160: from the old Tu-22M, there is only a glider (and the one is modified).

    Instead of the regular NK-25 engines, the missile carrier will receive the upgraded Tu-160 power units: with a similar thrust, they are more durable and much more economical - the range of the upgraded Tu-22 will grow by one and a half times. The aircraft will receive a retractable bar for refueling in the air and an on-board electronics similar to the Tu-160M2. The crew

    will be reduced from four to two people.

    In the arsenal of the missile carrier will enter as available weapons of destruction: cruise missiles X-55, X-555, X-32, X-101/102, and prospective: Kindzhal , X-50 and GZUR. The weapons compartment is likely to be enlarged. The aircraft will be equipped with a space link to obtain target coordinates in real time - including from portable land and sea terminals.

    Collect the updated missile carriers and modernize the combat vehicles will be at the Kazan Aircraft Plant named after Gorbunov, where from the Soviet times at least four unfinished gliders have been preserved. The GPV provides for the modernization of 36 combat aircraft, mass production of the Tu-22M3M is planned to be deployed in the mid-1920s at a rate of three or four aircraft per year.

    Well, the reality coming to pass over wrong arguments.

    GarryB will recognize now that the Tu-22 is an strategic bomber? Will now recognize that it was possible to recover the refueling system?

    The Tu-95/142 will be replaced in good part by new units of the Tu-160.
    The Il-38 is likely to be replaced by recovered units of the Tu-22.

    Here, in these news about the modernized Tu-22 and Tu-160, you have the technological floor for the Tu-PAK-DA. There is not room for a Tu-PAK-DA that improves not the the technological floor marked by the modernized Tu-22 and the Tu-160. The Tu-PAK-DA is reported to be approximately of the size of the Tu-22. The TU-PAK-DA only will succeed if it improves the capabilities of the modernized Tu-22 (and of the Tu-160 in relative terms). Subsonic fanboys have a serious problem with this.

    With me here or not, the reality will continue coming.


    Last edited by eehnie on Mon May 07, 2018 3:51 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 994
    Points : 994
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Hole on Sun Apr 29, 2018 10:13 pm

    You know that the Il-38 and Tu-142 are anti-submarine warfare aircraft?
    Why should someone use a supersonic plane for ASW?
    There´s no need for that!

    mnztr

    Posts : 105
    Points : 115
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  mnztr on Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:43 am

    Wow 50% more range for the TU-22? That make it into a strategic bomber no? getting pretty close to 10000 km!!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18423
    Points : 18981
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue May 01, 2018 11:49 am

    GarryB will recognize now that the Tu-22 is an strategic bomber? Will now recognize that it was possible to recover the refueling system?

    Actually I would say it proves the opposite... first of all the weapons listed don't include strategic nuclear weapons... ie teh Kh-102 standard nuclear armed 5,000km range land attack cruise missile that would be the primary strategic nuclear armament of the Tu-95MSM and Tu160M2 strategic cruise missile carrying aircraft.

    And second if the Tu-22M3M is GETTING INFLIGHT REFUELLING capability that means that the current in service Tu0-22M3 does not currently have it.

    The Il-38 is likely to be replaced by recovered units of the Tu-22.

    Il-38 is an anti sub maritime patrol aircraft... what exactly can a Tu-22M3M do against a submarine? How would it even find it?

    Here, in these news about the modernized Tu-22 and Tu-160, you have the technological floor for the Tu-PAK-DA. There is not room for a Tu-PAK-DA that improves not the the technological floor marked by the modernized Tu-22 and the Tu-160. The Tu-PAK-DA is reported to be approximately of the size of the Tu-22. The TU-PAK-DA only will succeed if it improves the capabilities of the modernized Tu-22 (and of the Tu-160 in relative terms). Subsonic fanboys have a serious problem with this.

    the same sources that said the PAK DA will be the size of the Tu-22M3 also said Sukhoi were making it...

    The PAK DA is a strategic bomber so needs to be the size of a strategic bomber aircraft like the Tu-95 or Tu-160.

    It will be able to trade excess fuel for extra weapons for a theatre role, but its primary role is long range cruise missile carrier.

    Wow 50% more range for the TU-22? That make it into a strategic bomber no? getting pretty close to 10000 km!!

    It actually states it has a 10,000km range, so 5,000km flight radius... which is about 1,500km short of what the CIA in the US has been claiming its real performance is so it can be included in START II cuts. Now START II is null and void and means nothing any more.

    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5952
    Points : 5979
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Tue May 01, 2018 12:33 pm

    Hole wrote:You know that the Il-38 and Tu-142 are anti-submarine warfare aircraft?
    Why should someone use a supersonic plane for ASW?
    There´s no need for that!

    Supersonic ASW is useless, except for delivering the payload.

    mnztr

    Posts : 105
    Points : 115
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  mnztr on Tue May 01, 2018 2:36 pm

    Hole wrote:You know that the Il-38 and Tu-142 are anti-submarine warfare aircraft?
    Why should someone use a supersonic plane for ASW?
    There´s no need for that!

    Actually that is not true, if you could combine supersonic with good low speed flight characteristics then you may have something. You also have to remember the low speed of ASW planes is somewhat a result of the sensor options for ASW, as tech improves on those then slow speed and loiter times become less relevant. Also subs now have the ability to fire SAMS so ASW is getting much more dangerous. Drop a sonobuoy from higher altitude and use it to detect, high speed for transit to suspect area, drop torpedo on parachute from high altitude.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18423
    Points : 18981
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 02, 2018 2:28 am

    Searching for targets means long flight times over enormous distances... most of the time criss crossing the same piece of water looking for the needle... being able to fly really fast is useless... and just generally means high fuel consumption... which is also useless.

    If you want a good replacement for the Tu-142 and the Il-38 then the only realistic option would be a navalised PAK DA subsonic flying wing...

    mnztr

    Posts : 105
    Points : 115
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  mnztr on Wed May 02, 2018 2:54 am

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

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

    Re: PAK-DA: News

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 2295
    Points : 2314
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Wed May 02, 2018 11:29 am

    GarryB, just to remember, and to put the things in the right place:

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

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

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

    Could you stop refering to Tu-22M as Tu-22, those two are very different machines.

    Furthermore i am not sure if you are aware that after START threaty their refueling capability was deleted and would require major modifications to regain it.

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t2625p625-pak-da-news#199179

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:I avoid the use of variant designations. Maybe you like it. I dislike it. I will not use the designations Tu-22M, Tu-22M1, Tu-22M2, Tu-22M3. The designation Tu-22 includes all them. I neither will use the designation of the new variants of the Tu-160. Some differences, of course, including important differences, but I neither separate the engineering variants of the T-55, as example. Why I do not it:

    - It helps to respect better the technological borders between different warfare and to keep in mind the strong relations between some warfare, despite some differences.
    - It helps to keep a better order in the view of the different roles.
    - The differentiation between variants distorts the real technological timeline of the entire model (platform).

    If I'm not wrong, the ban for refueling on the Tu-22 was introduced in the SALT II treaty. Well. in case of war, this would be of very low effect. The high cost of the reinstallation of the refueling systems is more a myth than a reality, technologically there is not a basis to support it. You should know it, but obviously you do not.

    Yes, it was SALT-2. It limited yearly producion of Tu-22M, removed in-flight refueling probe, START featured ICBM-s and heavy bombers.

    I am sorry but inflight refueling probe is not "plug and play" device.

    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a167575.pdf - it is actually fairly complex, and requires time to start with. You cant install probe on an aircraft in 24h. That is btw one very nice document, bad quality, but good document.

    You should not do that btw, because M-84 and M-84A are very different tanks. So is T-55 and T-62, even tho they are basically very similar. Tu-22 and Tu-22M (M being a baseline model, further modifications we can ignore as they are not baseline) are aircraft separated by whole generation.

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t2625p650-pak-da-news#199243

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

    The Tu-22M3 has never been and cannot be fitted with inflight refuelling equipment...

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t2625p650-pak-da-news#199384

    eehnie wrote:There are two roles accepted for bombing aircrafts (air-surface ammunition) besed on range. One is the Fighter Ground Attack and the other is the Strategic Bomber. The two roles mean different dimensions of the aircrafts, different fighting style, different ammunition used and even a different configuration of the aircraft. The theatre bomber designation means nothing specific, new or different between the two main roles. At best can be a subrole, but it would mean that a theatre bomber is either a strategic bomber or a fighter ground attack aircraft. Which of the two is then the Tu-22?. Almost all the sources say the Tu-22 is a strategic bomber.

    Also the sources agree not with your comment about the refueling potential of the Tu-22, including the Tu-22M3. As example:

    http://ausairpower.net/APA-Backfire.html

    The Tupolev Tu-22M3 Backfire C
    ...
    The reshaped and stretched nose incorporated a revised refuelling probe design.
    ...

    http://www.airvectors.net/avtu22.html

    ...
    In the end, the Soviets compromised and yanked the refueling probes from the Backfire fleet. They could be easily put back on if need be and the Americans knew that, but the Americans also realized that the Soviet air tanker fleet was too small to support wide-scale long-range operations, as was the norm for the USAF Strategic Air Command.

    Finally, the Tu-22 is an strategic bomber, and must be used as strategic bomber, not as Fighter Ground Attack aircraft. Not because it means riskier situations, also the Fighter Ground Attack aircrafts must follow their own safety procedures, basically the problem is closer to the concept of overkill.

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t2625p650-pak-da-news#199503

    GarryB wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Also the sources agree not with your comment about the refueling potential of the Tu-22, including the Tu-22M3. As example:

    Do they provide any evidence of any ever being fitted with inflight refuelling equipment?

    Because that is what the US likes to suggest as that would violate a few agreements... believe that and you will believe Saddam had WMDs ready to attack the US and UK within 45 minutes and of course Iran has nuclear weapons right now...


    eehnie wrote:Finally, the Tu-22 is an strategic bomber, and must be used as strategic bomber, not as Fighter Ground Attack aircraft.

    Has not and will never be a strategic bomber... in the quote you posted above the USN and CIA accept this as fact... it is just the USAF that is fucked up and deluded.

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

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

    Posts : 994
    Points : 994
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Hole on Wed May 02, 2018 4:20 pm

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

    Posts : 746
    Points : 740
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  LMFS on Wed May 02, 2018 4:35 pm

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

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

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

    Thanks,

    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5952
    Points : 5979
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Wed May 02, 2018 11:28 pm

    eehnie wrote:GarryB, just to remember, and to put the things in the right place:

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

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

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

    Could you stop refering to Tu-22M as Tu-22, those two are very different machines.

    Furthermore i am not sure if you are aware that after START threaty their refueling capability was deleted and would require major modifications to regain it.

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

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

    marcellogo

    Posts : 117
    Points : 123
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  marcellogo on Thu May 03, 2018 12:15 am

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 2295
    Points : 2314
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Mon May 07, 2018 3:46 am

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    Azi

    Posts : 212
    Points : 208
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Azi on Mon May 07, 2018 10:52 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 994
    Points : 994
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Hole on Mon May 07, 2018 12:00 pm

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

    Posts : 2295
    Points : 2314
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Mon May 07, 2018 3:48 pm

    Azi wrote:@eehnie
    ...

    The reality will come to expose your quotes mercylessly.

    marcellogo

    Posts : 117
    Points : 123
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  marcellogo on Tue May 08, 2018 12:12 am

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

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

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

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

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3449
    Points : 3487
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue May 08, 2018 1:24 am

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


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

    Posts : 994
    Points : 994
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Hole on Tue May 08, 2018 11:57 am

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

    Posts : 18423
    Points : 18981
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue May 08, 2018 12:44 pm

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

    You are obviously not familiar with how they work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:15 am