Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17957
    Points : 18531
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 18, 2018 5:44 am

    BTW thanks for the references to weapons and launchers, I was not aware of all of them. How would you put two Kinzhals in the weapon bay?

    I would guess remove the rotary launcher and load them in tandem in each bay.

    Likely the FOAB could also be loaded perhaps one per bay in the same way.


    Coming from the Russians I can make the effort of believing this, if we were talking about American industry I would just laugh my a** out xD

    They accept slightly lower stealth for much reduced cost to buy and to operate... the result is a much more affordable fleet that is still rather better than what it is replacing.

    You mean the PD-35??

    Hard to say... the PD-35 is supposed to be based on the NK-32 used currently in the Blackjack, but if it is a high bypass subsonic engine with an NK-32 core driving an enormous fan then that would be efficient for a subsonic flying wing and might generate 60 tons of thrust just through enormous volume of airflow, but an upgrade of the AL-31 to Al-41 and then the engine for the PAK FA led to a medium to low bypass turbofan engine going from 12.5 tons thrust to 14.5 tons thrust and then 18 tons thrust estimate... if the new technology... new blades, new cooling, fewer parts simpler lighter more reliable can be applied to the 25 ton thrust engine from a similar time period to the Al-31 then perhaps a 32-35 ton low bypass turbofan engine is possible for supersonic aircraft... it could be used for the Tu-160M2 and the Tu-22M3M.

    of course the big subsonic high bypass turbofan could be used in the PAK DA flying wing, and the Tu-95 (perhaps two engines to replace four), and the Il-96 (two engines to replace four) and a two, four and six engined family of heavy transports for 100 ton, 150 ton, and 250 ton payload aircraft to replace the An-22, An-124, and An-225 respectively. (they are going to make shuttles again so a transport plane would be handy).

    the three aircraft could simply have the same design with different wing and fuselage plugs for the extra capacity and engines...

    In what circumstances would the F-35 even try? You mean defending a carrier group? But the Tu-160 does not really need to even come close. From what Hole says, imagine a Tu-160 with 4 Kinzhals, striking from say 1500 km (maybe more since it would be a "light" load without drag and the Tu can 2 M / 16.000 m). No need and no advantage to come closer IMO since the missile flies so much faster. If the carrier could supercruise on top of that then it would be an overkill.

    I don't really like tying up strategic types for such missions as there would be no time to return to base after sinking a carrier and three other ships and load up land attack cruise missiles before the ICBMs started landing... it makes rather more sense to load up nuclear armed cruise missiles in the Blackjack and Kinzhal in the Backfire.... two on wing pylons and one semi recessed.

    I was more thinking of the AAM armed Blackjack flying with cruise missile armed Blackjacks to their launch points and continuing a little forward with the cruise missiles looking for anything that comes up to intercept the cruise missiles... sort of a mother hen protecting her babies... to get a speed advantage even the F-22 would need to go to full AB greatly decreasing its operational radius... any f-35s would be in real trouble trying to deal with super cruising Mach 1.4 targets...

    The 300km range R-37Ms could be fitted with nuclear warheads just to stir things up... afterall even at mach 1.4 all the way the Blackjacks wont get to launch positions until well after Russian ICBMs and SLBMs have landed and devastated airfields and SAM sites and command and control centres etc...

    I think it would be rather the other way around GarryB. A flying wing has an inherently short fuselage. So, probably only one bay.

    I was thinking maybe four side by side... Two inners then main undercarriage and then two more big ones in the large centre wing area where the aircraft can have the most depth, and two smaller outer ones for AAMs for self defence where the wing will be thinner...

    Remember this wing needs to carry lots of fuel and lots of weapons and it does not need to be supersonic...

    Maybe some creative distribution can be better than the "default" one that I point out, do you have something better in mind?

    You are thinking of the B-2... it can be thicker and of much greater depth... and there is lots of flexibility as to where the engines go...

    Not really, do you have link?

    I just typed in search "hypersonic russian transport aircraft"...

    https://yandex.ru/images/search?text=hypersonic%20transport%20aircraft%20russian&stype=image&lr=113849&source=wiz

    But here are some of the pics... note there is no way this is a hypersonic design... just based on drag, and replace the enormous intakes for the engine which clearly waste an enormous amount of volume in the airframe for no obvious benefit...











    This design is totally different and unrelated but shows that the centre area does not need to be thin to make the aircraft look like a boomerang, it can have depth and volume in the centre...



    _________________
    “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
    Hole

    Posts : 395
    Points : 395
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Hole on Fri May 18, 2018 10:58 am

    Sources:

    Russian Tactical Aviation since 2001 by Yefim Gordon
    Russia´s warplanes by Piotr Butowski
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2466
    Points : 2508
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri May 18, 2018 12:44 pm

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

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

    Rogozin is idiot who just got fired, remember his trampoline bullshit?
    lol1 lol1

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

    I cannot agree with PapaD.

    a) Rogozin was right that Russian needs hypersonic long range aviation. He was wrong about B-2 though
    b) AFAIK Borisov last year mentioned once that Russia is working on "space bomber being able to start form normal airfields" . He is dept prime minister now overseeing military complex...

    http://www.wordola.com/wusage/gosudarstvennik/all.html

    c) Rogozin is definitely gosudartstvennik very good in what Russian authorities are usually weak: PR
    d) his new role is no worse then previous: head of Roscosmoss in times when Russia falla more and more and more behind in space race. IMHO he is much better than all those rocket industry guys -he is from outisde and can fire half ot them giing impetus to new promising projects
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2060
    Points : 2085
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Fri May 18, 2018 1:34 pm

    GarryB, the Il-PAK-TA is a project of supersonic transport aircraft, not hypersonic. In this forum there is a topic about the aircraft with multiple news about.

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t3891-pak-ta-special-purpose-transport-aircraft

    Also, the relation between the Empty Weight and the Maximum Take-Off Weight is a relation of structural nature, and as commented is similar in subsonic and supersonic aircrafts of the same size. The repartition of this structural capacity between Fuel Load and Payload is also a design decission, but it depends not of the subsonic or supersonic nature of the aircraft. In both cases a bigger fraction of the capacity can be used for Fuel Load, increasing the range at the cost of lower loads, or for Payload, increasing the allowed loads at the cost of the range.

    If the new engine designed for the Tu-160, Tu-22 and Tu-PAK-DA would not be efficient enough at subsonic regime, would not be considered for use in subsonic aircrafts. Only can be considered for subsonic aircrafts if it is as good as subsonic engines for subsonic fly.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 395
    Points : 395
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Hole on Fri May 18, 2018 5:04 pm

    The PD-35 is based on the PD-14. The NK-65 uses the core of the NK-32 series 02.

    For the weapons bays, i guess it´s the other way around, two big bays in the middle, close to the cg, and two smaller, maybe longer bays outwards.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 158
    Points : 158
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  LMFS on Fri May 18, 2018 8:27 pm

    GarryB wrote:I would guess remove the rotary launcher and load them in tandem in each bay.
    The Kinzhal is almost 8 m long, two in tandem would not fit. Also more than 1 m wingspan, so no way side by side in the horizontal plane. Quite tight one above the another and then the launcher would need to be literally hanging in the air... cannot be sure but looks difficult. But it makes so much sense that it may be developed in the future, think of a version with shorter range (say 1000 km, body shorter and little thinner) of which you can carry 16(!) per Tu-160. The sizes are not that far off. Kh-22 and 32 are not that fast and are very big, this limits the size of the salvo with them
    GarryB wrote:They accept slightly lower stealth for much reduced cost to buy and to operate... the result is a much more affordable fleet that is still rather better than what it is replacing.
    Still need to see how it pans out but I would hope for this
    GarryB wrote:Hard to say... the PD-35 is supposed to be based on the NK-32 used currently in the Blackjack, but if it is a high bypass subsonic engine with an NK-32 core driving an enormous fan then that would be efficient for a subsonic flying wing and might generate 60 tons of thrust just through enormous volume of airflow, but an upgrade of the AL-31 to Al-41 and then the engine for the PAK FA led to a medium to low bypass turbofan engine going from 12.5 tons thrust to 14.5 tons thrust and then 18 tons thrust estimate... if the new technology... new blades, new cooling, fewer parts simpler lighter more reliable can be applied to the 25 ton thrust engine from a similar time period to the Al-31 then perhaps a 32-35 ton low bypass turbofan engine is possible for supersonic aircraft... it could be used for the Tu-160M2 and the Tu-22M3M.

    of course the big subsonic high bypass turbofan could be used in the PAK DA flying wing, and the Tu-95 (perhaps two engines to replace four), and the Il-96 (two engines to replace four) and a two, four and six engined family of heavy transports for 100 ton, 150 ton, and 250 ton payload aircraft to replace the An-22, An-124, and An-225 respectively. (they are going to make shuttles again so a transport plane would be handy).

    the three aircraft could simply have the same design with different wing and fuselage plugs for the extra capacity and engines...
    The PD-35 as Hole puts it is derived from the PD-14 AFAIK... but in the end the hot part can and will be used on higher or lower bypass engines.

    High bypass for a PAK-DA would be a big issue in terms of LO and/or aerodynamics I would say...
    GarryB wrote:I don't really like tying up strategic types for such missions as there would be no time to return to base after sinking a carrier and three other ships and load up land attack cruise missiles before the ICBMs started landing... it makes rather more sense to load up nuclear armed cruise missiles in the Blackjack and Kinzhal in the Backfire.... two on wing pylons and one semi recessed.

    I was more thinking of the AAM armed Blackjack flying with cruise missile armed Blackjacks to their launch points and continuing a little forward with the cruise missiles looking for anything that comes up to intercept the cruise missiles... sort of a mother hen protecting her babies... to get a speed advantage even the F-22 would need to go to full AB greatly decreasing its operational radius... any f-35s would be in real trouble trying to deal with super cruising Mach 1.4 targets...

    The 300km range R-37Ms could be fitted with nuclear warheads just to stir things up... afterall even at mach 1.4 all the way the Blackjacks wont get to launch positions until well after Russian ICBMs and SLBMs have landed and devastated airfields and SAM sites and command and control centres etc...
    Ok I see. I would not care much about a carrier if I am busy launching an all-out nuclear attack Very Happy
    Nevertheless, the Tu-160 has so much range and payload that it is unavoidable to think of it... they are (so they say) going to procure like 50 or 60 if I remember well, so maybe they can be used in other roles too, as the MiG-31K.

    The idea of the AAM-armed bombers is nice, I liked it. This is what I referred for the PAK-DA some posts above. For the Tu-160 I see much better to launch from safety and reload as fast as possible. Think of 7000 km range of new missiles in development, the launched ones could even "wait" for subsequent salvoes and reach the targets together to make sure they can overwhelm the remaining defences. A subsonic CM is in any case going to take many hours to arrive so waiting a little more should be no problem if saturation is needed.
    GarryB wrote:I was thinking maybe four side by side... Two inners then main undercarriage and then two more big ones in the large centre wing area where the aircraft can have the most depth, and two smaller outer ones for AAMs for self defence where the wing will be thinner...

    Remember this wing needs to carry lots of fuel and lots of weapons and it does not need to be supersonic...
    Yeah, depends on the size of the plane and bays. The best way of making bays is having them as big as possible, this increases their versatility very much. I would think of a bay long like the one in the Tu-160 or marginally longer, but maybe could be wider even by a 50%. Then come the engines and they are going to take the most space in the wing root probably. The wing can be thick but then you have to account for the airfoil profile so you will not be able to use much of the chord. The bays take so much space (and above all, quality space) that having a significant amount of ordnance in the wings would heavily affect the fuel capacity. I see nevertheless some bays from AAMs, that would make sense IMHO.
    GarryB wrote:You are thinking of the B-2... it can be thicker and of much greater depth... and there is lots of flexibility as to where the engines go...
    The B-2 is essentially the same as the Ho-229... not that I am against a further refinement but simply cannot think of nothing better. Amazing design already in the 40's...
    GarryB wrote:
    But here are some of the pics... note there is no way this is a hypersonic design... just based on drag, and replace the enormous intakes for the engine which clearly waste an enormous amount of volume in the airframe for no obvious benefit...
    This design is totally different and unrelated but shows that the centre area does not need to be thin to make the aircraft look like a boomerang, it can have depth and volume in the centre...
    Flying wing and all, frontal section is directly linked to drag... you cannot force this too much, especially if you consider that the plane will be smaller and supposedly cheaper than the Tu-160... look forward to seeing the final shape!
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 158
    Points : 158
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  LMFS on Fri May 18, 2018 8:29 pm

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

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

    Rogozin is idiot who just got fired, remember his trampoline bullshit?
    lol1 lol1

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

    I cannot agree with PapaD.

    a) Rogozin was right that Russian needs hypersonic long range aviation. He was wrong about B-2 though
    b) AFAIK Borisov last year mentioned once that Russia is working on "space bomber being able to start form normal airfields" . He is dept prime minister now overseeing military complex...

    http://www.wordola.com/wusage/gosudarstvennik/all.html

    c) Rogozin is definitely gosudartstvennik very good in what Russian authorities are usually weak: PR
    d) his new role is no worse then previous: head of Roscosmoss in times when Russia falla more and more and more behind in space race. IMHO he is much better than all those rocket industry guys -he is from outisde and can fire half ot them giing impetus to new promising projects
    Cannot understand what you mean GunshipDemocracy Very Happy
    In any case, nobody needs a B-2. Not even the Americans can pay for them...
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 395
    Points : 395
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Hole on Fri May 18, 2018 10:14 pm

    There is a program called GZUR (hypersonic guided missile), first part is supposed to be the Kinzhal, second part is a strategic weapon. Maybe a larger version of the Kinzhal with a much larger range. This missile is probably designed for the weapons bay of the Tu-160 and the future PAK-DA.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2466
    Points : 2508
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat May 19, 2018 12:32 am


    LMFS wrote:
    Cannot understand what you mean GunshipDemocracy Very Happy
    In any case, nobody needs a B-2. Not even the Americans can pay for them...

    That's why they are replacing B-2 with cheaper stealth flying wing B-21 Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

    So called 2037 bomber is to be both stealth and supersonic. But is very far away -technology is not there yet I guess. I'd say Russians work on this orbital bomber but in silent mode. I dont think n PAK DA there is end of bomber development...





    Hole wrote:There is a program called GZUR (hypersonic guided missile), first part is supposed to be the Kinzhal, second part is a strategic weapon. Maybe a larger version of the Kinzhal with a much larger range. This missile is probably designed for the weapons bay of the Tu-160 and the future PAK-DA.

    GZUR indeed was to have 2 phases 5-7 Ma and 12-14Ma  and GZUR is enough small to fit to revolver loader in Tu-160 (12) and Tu-22 (6). I dont think Kiznhal does fir neither to GZUR classification nor to siez. Looks like apart evolutionary line.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17957
    Points : 18531
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 19, 2018 3:26 am

    GarryB, the Il-PAK-TA is a project of supersonic transport aircraft, not hypersonic. In this forum there is a topic about the aircraft with multiple news about.

    Supersonic, hypersonic... either way it is pointless... like a supersonic airship...

    The Kinzhal is almost 8 m long, two in tandem would not fit. Also more than 1 m wingspan, so no way side by side in the horizontal plane.

    Has a long pointy nose though... perhaps with the noses angled down or up they could overlap them.

    If it can only carry one per weapon bay there is little point in carrying it... you might as well make an extended 11m version with longer range or a mini 6m version with 1,500km range or something and get two in there...

    The PD-35 as Hole puts it is derived from the PD-14 AFAIK... but in the end the hot part can and will be used on higher or lower bypass engines.

    Then they must have been talking about a different engine... they said they were going to modernise the NK-32 using the same methods, materials and technologies they used to upgrade to get the new engines for PAK FA... for the Tu-160M2 they needed a low bypass turbofan for supersonic flight, but for the PAK FA and other subsonic platforms they were going to use the hot core of the upgraded NK-32 and put a high bypass fan on it for large subsonic bombers and also for heavy transport aircraft that need a lot of thrust but don't need to be supersonic.

    Planes like the Il-96 would benefit by replacing the existing 4 engines with two of the much more powerful new models etc.

    High bypass for a PAK-DA would be a big issue in terms of LO and/or aerodynamics I would say...

    It won't be some thin sleek looking thing... it will look more like the designs for flying wing airliners...

    Ok I see. I would not care much about a carrier if I am busy launching an all-out nuclear attack

    Exactly... their ICBMs and SLBMs are likely already on the way... you want your strategic bombers on their way to attack... but you also want your MiG-41s operating... remember if the US plans go ahead they will have AEGIS cruisers in the Arctic... their SM-3s will be looking to deal with any ICBMs that go past, but they could also take potshots at any bombers they detect flying past too and their SAM range is quite significant... that means having a dozen or more MiG-41 flying around the place using Kinzhal taking out those cruisers and shooting down any US strategic bombers and cruise missiles would also be very very useful...

    Any carrier groups stupid enough to get anywhere near Russia can be dealt with using MiG-31s with Kinzhal and Tu-22M3Ms, plus every ship in their navy from corvettes up armed with Zircon and Onyx.... not to mention land based launchers and SAMs.

    Nevertheless, the Tu-160 has so much range and payload that it is unavoidable to think of it... they are (so they say) going to procure like 50 or 60 if I remember well, so maybe they can be used in other roles too, as the MiG-31K.

    I think during peacetime so to speak... if any such time ever exists, they would be useful for lots of roles and specialist versions would be interesting too... Tu-160MP long range interceptor with AAMs has been mentioned, but with decent comms and electronic equipment it would likely be handy recon and jammer no doubt...

    A flying wing design for the PAK DA could make AWACS an option with internal antenna of new design, and of course inflight refuelling aircraft... perhaps even UAV control mothership... and of course subsonic long range aircraft would be rather suitable to maritime patrol with UAV support too...

    Think of 7000 km range of new missiles in development, the launched ones could even "wait" for subsequent salvoes and reach the targets together to make sure they can overwhelm the remaining defences. A subsonic CM is in any case going to take many hours to arrive so waiting a little more should be no problem if saturation is needed.

    Agreed... depending on where they got launched from and where the target is an SLBM will arrive 5-25 minutes after launch while ICBMs perhaps 20-30 minutes... and it is pretty critical that they take out major airfields and major SAMs and of course communications hubs and HQs and the odd ABM site... of course an early very high altitude nuclear detonation would blind the defences for some time too... nothing scarier than seeing an attack forming and then going blind...

    A FOBs launch over the south pole would be an excellent way to deliver a blinding shot... Planned properly there will be nothing to stop the cruise missiles so it wont matter if they take 10 hours or 20 hours from bomber take off...

    I see nevertheless some bays from AAMs, that would make sense IMHO.

    The AAM missile bays don't need to be huge... they don't even need to be on the bottom of the aircraft... I have seen drawings of R-77s in a single bay launcher position the rough size of an R-77 facing upwards... the piston arm of the R-77s standard launcher throws the missile down before it starts its rocket motor... no reason it can't throw it up... or sideways angled slightly down.

    With only two engines you could have basically what looks like a PAK FA design but with the nose pushed back into the wing... and a much thicker subsonic wing with the two engine compartments containing wheels in the S portion... with ten or twenty times the width you could combine the front and back bays because a long bay is more use than two shorter bays, but with the scaling up of the aircraft you could make a huge bay between the two engines and a big bay each outer side of the engines... so three big long and wide bays with a much smaller bay further out in the wing where it gets thinner for large long range AAMs, and for small and medium AAMs scab launch bays all over the top of the wing structure... facing forward near the front of the wing and facing backwards near the rear...

    Along the leading edge of the entire wing you have your main radar array for long and short wave radar antenna...

    Would be really cool to have wing tip airbrakes like on the Su-25 for emergency manouvering... and thrust vector for the main jet engines would allow the angle and trim of the aircraft to be optimised to minimise drag at any speed and altitude...

    The B-2 is essentially the same as the Ho-229... not that I am against a further refinement but simply cannot think of nothing better. Amazing design already in the 40's...

    Too much designed for low drag... makes more sense to go for enormous volume... for strategic mission only the centre bays will carry weapons... the outer bays will be all fuel. (except AAM bays of course)

    For theatre missions like to Syria you can carry as many bombs as you need to... probably still only need the middle bay though...

    Flying wing and all, frontal section is directly linked to drag... you cannot force this too much, especially if you consider that the plane will be smaller and supposedly cheaper than the Tu-160... look forward to seeing the final shape!

    I would go bigger... it would be easier to make it multipurpose if it is bigger... the Flanker family have shown this, and a subsonic flying wing design wont burn that much extra fuel being bigger.

    In any case, nobody needs a B-2. Not even the Americans can pay for them...

    They wanted a bomber that could operate over Russia... total waste of time.

    PAK DA wont be flying over the north american continent looking for targets to bomb... it might fly over Syria or Somalia or Libya or Afghanistan to help those governments by bombing targets but for strategic use it will be launching cruise missiles... subsonic super long range ones (5-7K kms) or hypersonic cruise missiles (3-5K kms).

    The PAK DA is going to be more stealthy but they know nothing is invisible...

    There is a program called GZUR (hypersonic guided missile), first part is supposed to be the Kinzhal, second part is a strategic weapon. Maybe a larger version of the Kinzhal with a much larger range. This missile is probably designed for the weapons bay of the Tu-160 and the future PAK-DA.

    Really big weapon bays on the PAK DA make sense... for the strategic role much of the extra weapons bays will be filled with fuel tanks, but for theatre roles huge bays are useful...

    GZUR indeed was to have 2 phases 5-7 Ma and 12-14Ma and GZUR is enough small to fit to revolver loader in Tu-160 (12) and Tu-22 (6). I dont think Kiznhal does fir neither to GZUR classification nor to siez. Looks like apart evolutionary line.

    Perhaps could be considered replacement for AS-16 Kickback (Kh-15 Mach 5 rocket)... could be carried by the Backfire... four externally and six in internal rotary launcher... but it died because there were only nuclear armed models...


    _________________
    “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
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2466
    Points : 2508
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat May 19, 2018 3:42 am

    GarryB wrote:

    GZUR indeed was to have 2 phases 5-7 Ma and 12-14Ma  and GZUR is enough small to fit to revolver loader in Tu-160 (12) and Tu-22 (6). I dont think Kiznhal does fir neither to GZUR classification nor to siez. Looks like apart evolutionary line.

    Perhaps could be considered replacement for AS-16 Kickback (Kh-15 Mach 5 rocket)... could be carried by the Backfire... four externally and six in internal rotary launcher... but it died because there were only nuclear armed models...


    I think so. Just range is 5 times longer :-) They will be used as mostly anti-ship missile ( Jane's/BMPD some time ago, quoted in this thread AFAIK) and accompanied by Kh-50 subsonic stealth missile.


    Internal bay means more range for Tu-22s and/or higher top speed to shorten time to go or escape. 6x with 3-6 Tu's means 18-36 hypersonci missiles for one CSG...
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 395
    Points : 395
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Hole on Sat May 19, 2018 10:28 am

    18 - 36 hypersonic missiles for one carrier group would be a dramatic overkill.

    Right now you need one missile for one ship. You can´t just shoot missiles around. Would be a waste of costly material.

    @GarryB: The NK-35 and NK-65 are using the core of the NK-32.

    Austin

    Posts : 6700
    Points : 7097
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin on Sat May 19, 2018 1:31 pm

    http://redstar.ru/letali-i-letat-budem/


    Dmitry Stefanovich
    ‏ @KomissarWhipla
    May 17

    Several points from interview with head of long-range aviation S.Kobylash:
    -Kh-32 "guided missile" was successfuly tested ar Barents Sea, launched from Tu-22M3
    -Tu-160 with Kh-102 (nuclear-tipped) was shown to SovbezSec Patrushev
    -Lots of Arctic flights via Anadyr' aerodrome by Tu-22M3 and Tu-95MS, Tu-160 will soon fly there too
    -PAK DA will replace Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2466
    Points : 2508
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat May 19, 2018 2:00 pm

    Austin wrote:http://redstar.ru/letali-i-letat-budem/

    Several points from interview with head of long-range aviation S.Kobylash:
    -Kh-32 "guided missile" was successfuly tested ar Barents Sea, launched from Tu-22M3
    -Tu-160 with Kh-102 (nuclear-tipped) was shown to SovbezSec Patrushev
    -Lots of Arctic flights via Anadyr' aerodrome by Tu-22M3 and Tu-95MS, Tu-160 will soon fly there too
    -PAK DA will replace Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3.

    Great news. BTW Anadyr town is close to Bering strait.   Suuthern metropolis comparing to Pevek though :-)))










    Hole wrote:18 - 36 hypersonic missiles for one carrier group would be a dramatic overkill.
    Right now you need one missile for one ship. You can´t just shoot missiles around. Would be a waste of costly material.


    I m afraid you are uber-optimistic. Not all will fly there some just will be lost to temperature or any random problems.
    Besides US is working and surely will upgrade it's AADs so hypersonic will be hard to kill but not-invincible in couple of years.
    Anyway 18 is small price comparing to what you can loose if they got away with little hits.


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Sat May 19, 2018 2:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 158
    Points : 158
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  LMFS on Sat May 19, 2018 2:03 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:That's why they are replacing B-2 with cheaper stealth flying wing B-21 Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil
    Yes, the "stable version" of the design after we all paid for the beta version @1 billion/piece lol1
    Apparently they need to be kept inside hangars with controlled climatic conditions...
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    So called 2037 bomber is to be both stealth and supersonic. But is very far away -technology is not there yet I guess. I'd say Russians work on this orbital bomber but in silent mode. I dont think n PAK DA there is end of bomber development...
    No we will keep devising ways for killing ourselves long after that Very Happy
    Didn't knew that 2037 bomber, it seems was superseded with the LRS-B right?
    Hole wrote:There is a program called GZUR (hypersonic guided missile), first part is supposed to be the Kinzhal, second part is a strategic weapon. Maybe a larger version of the Kinzhal with a much larger range. This missile is probably designed for the weapons bay of the Tu-160 and the future PAK-DA.
    Yes that makes sense. Thanks, the scope of the GZUR was not clear to me at all...
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2466
    Points : 2508
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat May 19, 2018 2:15 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:That's why they are replacing B-2 with cheaper stealth flying wing B-21 Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil
    Yes, the "stable version" of the design after we all paid for the beta version @1 billion/piece lol1
    Apparently they need to be kept inside hangars with controlled climatic conditions...

    you know - climate changes take its toll Razz Razz Razz anyway hangars can be wholesale since F-22 need hangars too lol1 lol1 lol1



    LMFS wrote:Didn't knew that 2037 bomber, it seems was superseded with the LRS-B right?


    The other way around. LRS-B (B-21) is a stopgap until 2037 wil be ready. 2037b AFAIK is the dat ewhen B-52s and B-1 will start to get retired.

    BTW talking about B-52's


    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 158
    Points : 158
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  LMFS on Sun May 20, 2018 3:02 am

    Is hard keeping up with this guy GarryB Very Happy

    GarryB wrote:Has a long pointy nose though... perhaps with the noses angled down or up they could overlap them.

    If it can only carry one per weapon bay there is little point in carrying it... you might as well make an extended 11m version with longer range or a mini 6m version with 1,500km range or something and get two in there...
    Wait a moment, maybe removing the cap after the booster could bring it to 6 - 6.5 m. Very tight still but maybe possible, not sure. The cap is there quite probably to reduce the drag when carried externally after all...
    GarryB wrote:Then they must have been talking about a different engine... they said they were going to modernise the NK-32 using the same methods, materials and technologies they used to upgrade to get the new engines for PAK FA... for the Tu-160M2 they needed a low bypass turbofan for supersonic flight, but for the PAK FA and other subsonic platforms they were going to use the hot core of the upgraded NK-32 and put a high bypass fan on it for large subsonic bombers and also for heavy transport aircraft that need a lot of thrust but don't need to be supersonic.

    Planes like the Il-96 would benefit by replacing the existing 4 engines with two of the much more powerful new models etc.
    What read was if I remember well:
    > Tu-160M2 with a modernized version of the NK32, in the same way updated technologies were applied for the AL-41F1S to increase its performance without starting from scratch
    > PD-35 as new development, based in what was already learnt from the PD-14 but taken to a new level. Planned for new civilian wide body (CR929) and for military use, it is the key to new military transport aircraft.
    GarryB wrote:It won't be some thin sleek looking thing... it will look more like the designs for flying wing airliners...
    Due to VLO requirements I doubt a practical external nacelle can be implemented like in those concepts you refer. A plane must be sleek... but having said that, it needs to be seen what is decided, maybe a huge high-bypass turbofan can be integrated after all.
    GarryB wrote:I think during peacetime so to speak... if any such time ever exists, they would be useful for lots of roles and specialist versions would be interesting too... Tu-160MP long range interceptor with AAMs has been mentioned, but with decent comms and electronic equipment it would likely be handy recon and jammer no doubt...

    A flying wing design for the PAK DA could make AWACS an option with internal antenna of new design, and of course inflight refuelling aircraft... perhaps even UAV control mothership... and of course subsonic long range aircraft would be rather suitable to maritime patrol with UAV support too...
    That is, a supersonic strategic bomber like the Tu-160 plus a stealth, all-around bomber and mothership/counter air/tanker/comms relay what do I know Very Happy Could see any of those roles you mention actually...
    GarryB wrote:The AAM missile bays don't need to be huge... they don't even need to be on the bottom of the aircraft... I have seen drawings of R-77s in a single bay launcher position the rough size of an R-77 facing upwards... the piston arm of the R-77s standard launcher throws the missile down before it starts its rocket motor... no reason it can't throw it up... or sideways angled slightly down.
    AFAIK you can rail-launch them like the AIM-9 on the F-22
    GarryB wrote:With only two engines you could have basically what looks like a PAK FA design but with the nose pushed back into the wing... and a much thicker subsonic wing with the two engine compartments containing wheels in the S portion... with ten or twenty times the width you could combine the front and back bays because a long bay is more use than two shorter bays, but with the scaling up of the aircraft you could make a huge bay between the two engines and a big bay each outer side of the engines... so three big long and wide bays with a much smaller bay further out in the wing where it gets thinner for large long range AAMs, and for small and medium AAMs scab launch bays all over the top of the wing structure... facing forward near the front of the wing and facing backwards near the rear...

    Along the leading edge of the entire wing you have your main radar array for long and short wave radar antenna...

    Would be really cool to have wing tip airbrakes like on the Su-25 for emergency manouvering... and thrust vector for the main jet engines would allow the angle and trim of the aircraft to be optimised to minimise drag at any speed and altitude...
    I think it will be much more simple. And that you are imagining very, very big. But agree the flying wing brings a HUGE space for a leading edge radar array Razz
    GarryB wrote:Too much designed for low drag... makes more sense to go for enormous volume... for strategic mission only the centre bays will carry weapons... the outer bays will be all fuel. (except AAM bays of course)

    For theatre missions like to Syria you can carry as many bombs as you need to... probably still only need the middle bay though...
    It must fly and very economically --> it must be designed for as low a drag as possible!
    GarryB wrote:I would go bigger... it would be easier to make it multipurpose if it is bigger... the Flanker family have shown this, and a subsonic flying wing design wont burn that much extra fuel being bigger.
    Agree but it will be frikin expensive already being smaller than the -160. They are flying Tu-22M3 from Russia with like 6 bombs in the bay to attack large targets in Syria so huge planes to carpet bomb a country are not needed unless your military is very ineffective. Little bigger than the Tu-22 would do IMHO
    GarryB wrote:They wanted a bomber that could operate over Russia... total waste of time.

    PAK DA wont be flying over the north american continent looking for targets to bomb... it might fly over Syria or Somalia or Libya or Afghanistan to help those governments by bombing targets but for strategic use it will be launching cruise missiles... subsonic super long range ones (5-7K kms) or hypersonic cruise missiles (3-5K kms).

    The PAK DA is going to be more stealthy but they know nothing is invisible...
    Agree. With the low-altitude requirements the B-2 got delayed and complicated even more... for nothing.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 158
    Points : 158
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  LMFS on Sun May 20, 2018 3:13 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:you know - climate changes take its toll Razz Razz Razz anyway hangars can be wholesale since F-22 need hangars too lol1 lol1 lol1
    Oh my...
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:The other way around. LRS-B (B-21) is a stopgap until 2037 wil be ready. 2037b AFAIK is the dat ewhen B-52s and B-1 will start to get retired.
    Then they should name it Bomber 2087 Laughing
    It is IMHO remarkably absurd to make the B-21 a stop-gap measure until the 2037 appears, it will be commissioned if everything goes perfect by 2025... to be substituted 12 years later???
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:BTW talking about B-52's


    OMG
    Nice touch of surrealism Laughing
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17957
    Points : 18531
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 20, 2018 10:23 am

    Internal bay means more range for Tu-22s and/or higher top speed to shorten time to go or escape. 6x with 3-6 Tu's means 18-36 hypersonci missiles for one CSG...

    Well on paper it was able to carry 10 Kh-15s, with 6 internal and therefore 4 external... personally I think carrying four extra per aircraft would mean being able to send two aircraft instead of more, which the enemy would less likely notice... at an eventual speed of mach 12-14... I think 20 would be a good number... 3-4 per carrier and one each for the other ships in the group... not all will hit, but even if only half hit they would brutalise a US carrier group and cause the remains to turn tail...

    @GarryB: The NK-35 and NK-65 are using the core of the NK-32.

    So the NK-35 is the low bypass turbofan for supersonic aircraft and the NK-65 is a high bypass engine that has enormous power for subsonic aircraft?

    you know - climate changes take its toll Razz Razz Razz anyway hangars can be wholesale since F-22 need hangars too

    You mean the 1% in the US have invested in companies that make hangars and air conditioning systems for large open buildings...

    Wait a moment, maybe removing the cap after the booster could bring it to 6 - 6.5 m. Very tight still but maybe possible, not sure. The cap is there quite probably to reduce the drag when carried externally after all...

    Might be necessary for acceleration though.... maybe take it off and use an extending aerospike...

    Due to VLO requirements I doubt a practical external nacelle can be implemented like in those concepts you refer. A plane must be sleek... but having said that, it needs to be seen what is decided, maybe a huge high-bypass turbofan can be integrated after all.

    There is sleek thin and sleek aerodynamic with internal volume for lots of stuff... it needs to be low drag, but can have engines on its back.. if this is a stealth aircraft then operating at medium to high altitude means most ground and air based radar wont see its back unless it is flying away from them...

    This is a T-4M... now its shape is intended for supersonic flight so a much wider aircraft design could be used... remove the vertical tail surfaces and put the engines on the back to increase internal volume... an for that matter make it twice as thick... it is only intended to be subsonic so it does not gain value from being a thin little thing.



    (note it is funny that people suggest this design is to replace the Blackjack but this was a design rejected in favour of the Blackjack design...)

    That is, a supersonic strategic bomber like the Tu-160 plus a stealth, all-around bomber and mothership/counter air/tanker/comms relay what do I know Very Happy Could see any of those roles you mention actually...

    Subsonic can have much bigger internal volume... so more fuel, more bombs, bigger bombs... how often would an AWACS or tanker or MPA aircraft need to fly supersonic... Take those four big V16 engines out and put in a couple of fuel efficient diesels and double the flight range just there... but supersonic option is gone so you can have that pie if you want... in fact the temple of the body that was a model, is now a warehouse... the bigger you make it the more you can carry around.

    AFAIK you can rail-launch them like the AIM-9 on the F-22

    Pretty sure the standard launch pylons for R-77 missiles include a pneumatic arm that throws the missile down on launch to ensure clearance of the aircraft before the rocket motor lights up. The R-33 and R-37 have the same thing.

    It must fly and very economically --> it must be designed for as low a drag as possible!

    Why? It is not an airliner... no matter how low drag it is... it wont be supersonic.... it is a flying wing... if you want supersonic there are 60+ Blackjacks they will have when the PAK DA goes into service.

    Agree but it will be frikin expensive already being smaller than the -160. They are flying Tu-22M3 from Russia with like 6 bombs in the bay to attack large targets in Syria so huge planes to carpet bomb a country are not needed unless your military is very ineffective. Little bigger than the Tu-22 would do IMHO

    Bugger off.... WTF would they want a little half arse theatre bomber sized strategic bomb for?

    The Tu-22M3 can in theory carry payloads of 24 tons but struggles to deliver 9 bombs probably 500kgs each to Syria and back.... they want to base them in Iran so they don't keep burning so much fuel.

    Inflight refuelling would help but we are talking about a strategic bomber with 10,000km RADIUS AT LEAST... and you are talking about a plane slightly bigger than a Tu-22M3 which has a flight RANGE of maybe 8,000km... double it... and then double it again... if it does not need all that fuel... that is fine... don't load it for that mission, but while it will be used for theatre missions multiple times and likely its primary strategic mission once, it is pretty important it gets that last mission right.

    This is a heavy theatre bomber... it might carry 20-30 tons of conventional bombs... it wont carpet bomb anything, but in one flight it might bomb 20 targets with a couple of dumb bombs each... just very accurately delivered... or it might drop a mix of satellite guided bombs... or against an area target it might just drop a large cluster of smaller bombs to spread the damage.

    For a strategic mission it might carry 12 tons of weapons.., that extra space and weight will be replaced with fuel to extend range for the longer mission range.

    A little plane slightly bigger than a backfire would need an inflight refuelling plane just after take off and over the arctic and on the way home...

    Agree. With the low-altitude requirements the B-2 got delayed and complicated even more... for nothing.

    In the strategic role the PAK DA has to remain high altitude to maximise range and performance... so it wont be bombing... it will be a cruise missile carrier...


    Last edited by GarryB on Tue May 22, 2018 7:00 am; edited 1 time in total


    _________________
    “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
    Hole

    Posts : 395
    Points : 395
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Hole on Sun May 20, 2018 10:45 am

    Both NK-65 and NK-35 are mentioned as possible engines for the Il-106 or as replacement for the old D-18. Difference is the thrust: 29,5 t / 35 t.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 158
    Points : 158
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  LMFS on Sun May 20, 2018 5:37 pm

    GarryB wrote:Might be necessary for acceleration though.... maybe take it off and use an extending aerospike...
    Those are detached before the engine starts...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwuvqnjLC7Q
    0:25
    GarryB wrote:There is sleek thin and sleek aerodynamic with internal volume for lots of stuff... it needs to be low drag, but can have engines on its back.. if this is a stealth aircraft then operating at medium to high altitude means most ground and air based radar wont see its back unless it is flying away from them...

    This is a T-4M... now its shape is intended for supersonic flight so a much wider aircraft design could be used... remove the vertical tail surfaces and put the engines on the back to increase internal volume... an for that matter make it twice as thick... it is only intended to be subsonic so it does not gain value from being a thin little thing.
    Anything protruding from the wing is going to be a potential source of scattering. So VLO means very little or nothing with such visibility in principle. Add also IR visibility derived from that position of engines. Flying wing means the longitudinal axis of the plane gets very compressed so less space for such an arrangement but it would indeed free space. Again, I am eager to see what do they come up with, hope Russians are capable of surprising with something unexpected.
    GarryB wrote:Subsonic can have much bigger internal volume... so more fuel, more bombs, bigger bombs... how often would an AWACS or tanker or MPA aircraft need to fly supersonic... Take those four big V16 engines out and put in a couple of fuel efficient diesels and double the flight range just there... but supersonic option is gone so you can have that pie if you want... in fact the temple of the body that was a model, is now a warehouse... the bigger you make it the more you can carry around.
    I am saying that the supersonic role is definitively to be covered by the Tu-160, they don't even report PAK-DA to replace it any more and besides that restarting the production means 20-30 years more in operation more at least, starting this coming decade. So PAK-DA can take care of all those non-strategic roles we are commenting, apart from some strategic ones.
    GarryB wrote:Pretty sure the standard launch pylons for R-77 missiles include a pneumatic arm that throws the missile down on launch to ensure clearance of the aircraft before the rocket motor lights up. The R-33 and R-37 have the same thing.
    I mean AAM can be in principle launched starting the engine still inside of the bay with the head pointing outside. Don't know for the R-77 for sure. the launches I have seen are as you describe. No expected frantic manoeuvring on the PAK-DA so launching from unusual spots may be an option.
    GarryB wrote:Why? It is not an airliner... no matter how low drag it is... it wont be supersonic.... it is a flying wing... if you want supersonic there are 60+ Blackjacks they will have when the PAK DA goes into service.
    I cannot believe you are denying that a plane needs to be very aerodynamic to be efficient and have huge range as we agree is needed, this applies at any speed > 0. Sure you mean that? One of the main attractives of the flying wing thing is to increase L/D ratio in the end...
    GarryB wrote:Bugger off.... WTF would they want a little half arse theatre bomber sized strategic bomb for?

    The Tu-22M3 can in theory carry payloads of 24 tons but struggles to deliver 9 bombs probably 500kgs each to Syria and back.... they want to base them in Iran so they don't keep burning so much fuel.

    Inflight refuelling would help but we are talking about a strategic bomber with 10,000km RADIUS AT LEAST... and you are talking about a plane slightly bigger than a Tu-22M3 which has a flight RANGE of maybe 8,000km... double it... and then double it again... if it does not need all that fuel... that is fine... don't load it for that mission, but while it will be used for theatre missions multiple times and likely its primary strategic mission once, it is pretty important it gets that last mission right.
    lol1 lol1 lol1
    You are not understanding what I mean at all, look at the sizes of Tu-22M3 and B-2:

    Tu-22M3
    Empty weight: 58.000 kg
    Max take-off weight: 124.000 kg
    Payload: 24.000 kg

    B-2
    Empty weight: 71.700 kg
    Max take-off weight: 170.600 kg
    Payload: 23.000 kg

    One is a theater and naval bomber, the other a strategic bomber. Empty weight of the Tu-22 is a 80% of the B-2. The difference in max. take off weight is substantial I admit that but this is due to additional fuel for the strategic role. Payload of the B-2 is even smaller than that of a Tu-22. So no huge bomber needed. What is optimum is the enemy of what is possible you know! Size is a direct cost driver in a plane and the PAK-DA pretends to be very stealthy AND cheaper than the Tu-160... no way to achieve that without a contained size among other strategies. My bet is it will be below 80 ton empty weight.

    And no, you are not going to have 4 times 8.000 km range! Razz 15.000 km range would be fantastic already, almost a 40% more than a B-2!
    GarryB wrote:This is a heavy theatre bomber... it might carry 20-30 tons of conventional bombs... it wont carpet bomb anything, but in one flight it might bomb 20 targets with a couple of dumb bombs each... just very accurately delivered... or it might drop a mix of satellite guided bombs... or against an area target it might just drop a large cluster of smaller bombs to spread the damage.
    That is more or less what the Tu-22 can carry already though the range is smaller than needed yes. The mission in Syria shows that not so many targets exist that are worth attacking and that target intelligence is more important than brute strike power, Russian tactical planes operating there normally carry meagre payloads actually AFAIK.
    GarryB wrote:In the strategic role the PAK DA has to remain high altitude to maximise range and performance... so it wont be bombing... it will be a cruise missile carrier...
    We agree on that, but there is no fun there Very Happy
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 395
    Points : 395
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Hole on Sun May 20, 2018 9:20 pm

    There are two launchers for the R-77. APU-170 is a rail launcher. AKU-170 is a ejection unit.

    The modernised Tu-95MSM will get a SVP-24 system and a datalink to receive data directly from troops on the ground. It can then use tactical cruise missiles (Kh-50?). In a scenario like Syria a Tu-95MSM could stay airborne for a few hours (6 - 10?) and fire cruise missiles at ad-hoc targets.

    In the mid-term this work will be done by the PAK-DA.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17957
    Points : 18531
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue May 22, 2018 7:45 am

    Both NK-65 and NK-35 are mentioned as possible engines for the Il-106 or as replacement for the old D-18. Difference is the thrust: 29,5 t / 35 t.

    Well either of those should be fine... the D-18 has something 22-23T thrust... so get both into production and get rid of those Ukie engines on the Russian An-124s... hell, I would even consider putting two on a Bear just for shits and giggles to see how it performs... I would install ejection seats just in case though...

    Those are detached before the engine starts...

    You are talking about the rear, I was talking about the long nose cone... I don't think taking off the rear bit would shorten it by very much at all... and the nose seems to be largely intact as it falls on that target, which makes me think it does not have a false nose like the Yakhont/Brahmos with a nose mounted scramjet...

    For such a high speed launch of course it would not need a huge air intake so it likely just has vents along the nose to let air in and the high speed will provide it with lots of high speed air...

    Again, I am eager to see what do they come up with, hope Russians are capable of surprising with something unexpected.

    They do not usually disappoint... Smile

    I am saying that the supersonic role is definitively to be covered by the Tu-160, they don't even report PAK-DA to replace it any more and besides that restarting the production means 20-30 years more in operation more at least, starting this coming decade. So PAK-DA can take care of all those non-strategic roles we are commenting, apart from some strategic ones.

    They are working on increased thrust engines for the backfire and blackjack so they might get to a tipping point where super cruising in the blackjack might be useful.

    The thing is the gimmick is not as big a payoff as the ability to fly rather faster without using a lot more fuel.

    What I am trying to say is even if they need AB just after takeoff to pass through the speed of sound at medium altitude, if they can fly at supersonic speeds in dry power they will likely greatly increase their flight performance without massively increasing their IR signature and other capabilities....

    Having to chase down a subsonic plane in a supersonic fighter is still not easy but certainly a real option... if the blackjack could supercruise it might be more useful to send it to europe to bomb the shit out of them... they will have more trouble stopping it in the trans sonic F-35s than engaging flying wings that are subsonic.

    Of course later on you could add a horizontal tail surface to PAK DA and make it trans sonic too...

    I mean AAM can be in principle launched starting the engine still inside of the bay with the head pointing outside. Don't know for the R-77 for sure. the launches I have seen are as you describe. No expected frantic manoeuvring on the PAK-DA so launching from unusual spots may be an option.

    The R-77 was designed from the start for internal carriage and being ARH does not need to see the target before launch like an R-73 would anyway.

    The next gen AAMs being developed for the PAK FA should likely be optimised for internal carriage and therefore also be suitable for PAK DA and MiG-41 use too...

    I cannot believe you are denying that a plane needs to be very aerodynamic to be efficient and have huge range as we agree is needed, this applies at any speed > 0. Sure you mean that? One of the main attractives of the flying wing thing is to increase L/D ratio in the end...

    This is not going to be an airliner, or a race car... this is a big heavy transport plane.... it transports the heaviest ordinance in the RuAF arsenal, which is going to include some pretty big objects... including but no limited to, Gurza, Onyx, Zircon, FOAB, FAB-9000 to FAB-50, and all manner of new super long range cruise missiles.... both subsonic and hypersonic...

    If they are sleek little butterflies like the Tu-160M2 then it struggles to carry more than one Kinzhal in each of its two weapon bays... and making it that slim wont make it supersonic...

    Do you think an An-124 would benefit from being much much smaller?

    What is the benefit for the An-124 to be marginally faster and being able to carry 150 tons of payload if it is the size of a C-130 and you can't fit 150 tons of very much except sheet steel in it?

    I prefer big and bulky because with the right shaping that can appear tiny.... if size mattered then the F-117 is much smaller than a B-2, but it is the extra size of the B-2 that actually allows it to be probably the most stealthy aircraft there is.

    You are not understanding what I mean at all, look at the sizes of Tu-22M3 and B-2:

    Haven't we already agreed Russia does not need a B-2 hangar queen?

    One is a theater and naval bomber, the other a strategic bomber. Empty weight of the Tu-22 is a 80% of the B-2. The difference in max. take off weight is substantial I admit that but this is due to additional fuel for the strategic role. Payload of the B-2 is even smaller than that of a Tu-22. So no huge bomber needed. What is optimum is the enemy of what is possible you know! Size is a direct cost driver in a plane and the PAK-DA pretends to be very stealthy AND cheaper than the Tu-160... no way to achieve that without a contained size among other strategies. My bet is it will be below 80 ton empty weight.

    You are forgetting that the Tu-22m3 is also a theatre bomber, so the ability to carry a heavy payload of bombs is of value... and also with the Gefest & T avionics a larger heavier PAK DA could loiter over a battlefield for a whole day with a large payload of cheap simple dumb bombs and just drop bombs all day on targets as they are found... with high accuracy and very short turnaround.... spotted... minutes later boom...

    That is more or less what the Tu-22 can carry already though the range is smaller than needed yes. The mission in Syria shows that not so many targets exist that are worth attacking and that target intelligence is more important than brute strike power, Russian tactical planes operating there normally carry meagre payloads actually AFAIK.

    The quality of its onboard radar and sensors should be near astounding compared to what is available now, and its communications should be excellent too... in fact I could see in the theatre bomber role the commander on the ground could lase the target and the PAK DA could detect the area and scan it with high resolution optics and radar and IIR sensors and then transmit his view of the target to the commander who could then get a tablet pen and mark the targets he wants hit and indicate areas where friendlies are to avoid and beam it up and the bomber commander can attack the targets in real time... F-14D pilots did that in Afghanistan using LANTIRN pods, so there is no reason why the Russian primary theatre bomber should not be able to do that...

    All the bombs will be internal so low drag... why not take more than you need... they might use some or none.... I rather suspect at first everyone will want to try it... I suspect when commanders find out it works they will want them overhead 24/7 and a PAK DA that is huge and has enormous bomb capacity and inflight refuelling can be there... Where you have air control the PAK DA will be very valuable, where you don't... PAK FA supporting Tu-160M2s for big targets and PAK FAs for single targets.

    How often did they attack 6-12 targets with cruise missiles in Syria?

    Quite a few.

    How many other targets were left until later because they didn't trust their luck, of the timing wasn't right...

    With a bomber in the air you can change and attack targets that were otherwise not an option when the plane or cruise missile was launched, but became a target to hit after... it would be a waste of a cruise missile to launch in the hope you can hit the target when the missile arrives, but bombers are much more flexible...

    We agree on that, but there is no fun there

    In terms of fun the Strategic role is not so critical because likely it will only happen once anyway... Twisted Evil

    For the theatre role the PAK DA will be able to choose from a wide variety of weapons to use to get the job done from lots of smaller bombs to a few very very big ones... and the Russians have some very interesting weapons in their arsenal...


    The modernised Tu-95MSM will get a SVP-24 system and a datalink to receive data directly from troops on the ground. It can then use tactical cruise missiles (Kh-50?). In a scenario like Syria a Tu-95MSM could stay airborne for a few hours (6 - 10?) and fire cruise missiles at ad-hoc targets.

    Actually I would love to see them do this with Satellite guided 250kg and 500kg bombs... the Bears could carry them in large numbers, and accuracy should be pretty similar, but it should be much cheaper and much faster from command to impact...

    Perhaps those Bears and some Backfires could be based in Iran.... Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Trump is pushing and pushing... will they break or will they snap...


    _________________
    “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
    Hole

    Posts : 395
    Points : 395
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Hole on Tue May 22, 2018 10:28 am

    Guided glide bombs would be perfect.

    The majority of the people on Iran want their government not even talking to Amiland again. No trust left.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 158
    Points : 158
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  LMFS on Thu May 24, 2018 12:07 am

    GarryB wrote:You are talking about the rear, I was talking about the long nose cone... I don't think taking off the rear bit would shorten it by very much at all... and the nose seems to be largely intact as it falls on that target, which makes me think it does not have a false nose like the Yakhont/Brahmos with a nose mounted scramjet...

    For such a high speed launch of course it would not need a huge air intake so it likely just has vents along the nose to let air in and the high speed will provide it with lots of high speed air...
    No, from all I've read the Kinzhal is not an air-breathing hypersonic missile... that would be a real breakthrough, was never presented like that.

    That rear cap is like 1 meter long...

    GarryB wrote:They do not usually disappoint... Smile
    Yes, but in this case it is specially difficult. All VLO flying wings seen until now look almost identical. If I was at Northrop and now the Russians come up with something very different I would claim it is not stealth... but would worry that those works by Ufimtsev were maybe sanitized before release after all Very Happy

    Maybe also the active skins the Chinese tested some time ago could allow to move from the standardised VLO shape we know, don't know how close are such to be implemented. I would try taking the conflictive spots of the plane and place the active skin there with a double function as jammer, maybe it could work dunno

    GarryB wrote:They are working on increased thrust engines for the backfire and blackjack so they might get to a tipping point where super cruising in the blackjack might be useful...
    Do you think the thrust to weight class of those planes could allow for supercruise with an engine modernization? They must be pretty low on drag but even then I am a little sceptic. If feasible of course it would make complicated to engage them, especially for a F-35 of the Navy...

    GarryB wrote:
    Of course later on you could add a horizontal tail surface to PAK DA and make it trans sonic too...
    Oh man...

    GarryB wrote:This is not going to be an airliner, or a race car... this is a big heavy transport plane.... it transports the heaviest ordinance in the RuAF arsenal, which is going to include some pretty big objects... including but no limited to, Gurza, Onyx, Zircon, FOAB, FAB-9000 to FAB-50, and all manner of new super long range cruise missiles.... both subsonic and hypersonic...

    If they are sleek little butterflies like the Tu-160M2 then it struggles to carry more than one Kinzhal in each of its two weapon bays... and making it that slim wont make it supersonic...

    Do you think an An-124 would benefit from being much much smaller?

    What is the benefit for the An-124 to be marginally faster and being able to carry 150 tons of payload if it is the size of a C-130 and you can't fit 150 tons of very much except sheet steel in it?

    I prefer big and bulky because with the right shaping that can appear tiny.... if size mattered then the F-117 is much smaller than a B-2, but it is the extra size of the B-2 that actually allows it to be probably the most stealthy aircraft there is.
    Ok lets try to agree on the semantics first of all. I focus on three topics:

    > Very high L/D in order to be aerodynamically efficient
    > Very high fuel fraction
    > Contained size in order to be cheap to procure and operate

    Whereas you seem to prefer huge size and fuel fraction, but I think that is not enough and not in line with the logic of the plane as stated by the Russian military.

    In order to have a big range / endurance, the plane needs to carry a lot of fuel, yes. But it also needs to be very efficient using it. They have already said that it must be cheaper to procure and operate than a Tu-160. So it is indeed a case of the plane needing to be very drag conscious like an airliner. You cannot make a huge fuel tank with wings and hope it is going to be a good plane or cheap to operate! More fuel means more structure, engines to take off and so on. Why do you think you can be much much better than the B-2 in terms of fuel fraction?

    BTW the Tu-160 has some serious weapon bays! 12 long range cruise missiles is quite a payload. I think the PAK-DA will not match that. Weapon bay maybe somewhat wider but probably not longer and only one IMHO.

    GarryB wrote:Haven't we already agreed Russia does not need a B-2 hangar queen?
    It will be Russian, so it will sleep in the outside by -60°C and everything will be repairable with a hammer Very Happy

    GarryB wrote:
    You are forgetting that the Tu-22m3 is also a theatre bomber, ...
    That was exactly the first thing I said! Very Happy

    GarryB wrote:and also with the Gefest & T avionics a larger heavier PAK DA could loiter over a battlefield for a whole day with a large payload of cheap simple dumb bombs and just drop bombs all day on targets as they are found... with high accuracy and very short turnaround.... spotted... minutes later boom...
    Agree on that mission. But take the Tu-160, it has 11.000 km range, how many hours is that in subsonic? Why is it not being used like that?

    GarryB wrote:The quality of its onboard radar and sensors should be near astounding ...
    That is fine and dandy but:
    > I would not use a bomber as reconnaissance drone
    > They could be doing that with existing bombers and attack planes but they aren't. It seems to me they want to save fuel and flying hours on their airframes...

    GarryB wrote:The modernised Tu-95MSM will get a SVP-24 system and a datalink to receive data directly from troops on the ground...
    Egggscellent... Twisted Evil

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon May 28, 2018 5:22 am