Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 22, 2015 3:03 pm

    In a sense it is much like the F-35 in that it has a fan linked to the main engine to provide extra thrust on take off... of course there are some fundamental differences like the F-35 uses the fans for vertical thrust to take off vertically, whereas this aircraft uses them for short takeoffs and probable isn't mechanically linked to the main engines... it might use electrical power take off to power the electric motors rather than batteries which are heavy and just dead weight for the entire flight... the same thing that made VSTOL aircraft like the Yak-141 less efficient with two vertically mounted jet engines being dead weight for the entire flight.

    Having said that a light metal screen over the large fan intakes could be designed so that supersonic speed air flows over them rather than through them so that later on when engine technology improves and variable cycle engines from turbojet to turbofan to scramjet could allow an aircraft with a higher wing sweep fly faster.

    I personally don't see the value in hypersonic transport aircraft, or even supersonic transport aircraft, but the flying wing design is certainly more aerodynamic than the more familiar designs we are used to and their much wider shape would allow a bigger range of bigger items to be transported safely.

    Reminds me a bit of that green cargo pod carrying Thunderbird... but even cooler.

    At take off and landing the high volume of dense air blowing through the fan system should make landing and takeoff speeds much lower and greatly improve low speed handling performance.

    This would be very important for such large aircraft.

    I rather suspect that with two engines in the small model and 6 in the biggest there would not be any need for batteries for the electric fans as they could be powered by takeoff power from the engines. For engine out landings with a fully loaded transport plane you are pretty much screwed... even with an optimum shape the enormous weights it will operate it will not be very manageable with just the fan engines and will likely drop like a brick.

    Perhaps as an option you could design a light truck with a huge battery pack that you could drive onto the aircraft and plug in to power the fans when operating at lighter weights where landing by fans only would be survivable, but keeping heavy batteries in the aircraft all the time would reduce its efficiency without greatly improving survival potential as the aircraft should have at least two engines anyway and once it has taken off it should be OK with just one engine to be able to fly around and land safely.

    I should point out that the engines on aircraft rarely operate at full thrust all the time and transport aircraft only really use full power for take off. Most of the time they just idle... a good example is the engines in the Il-76... the PS-90A  which produces 16 tons of thrust at max power rating at sea level at take off, while its power rating at mach 0.8 at 11,000m, which is its cruise height and speed is 3.5 tons cruise rating.

    This means that if it never had to take off it could probably safely cruise around with just one engine at mach 0.6 or so.

    Having electric fans greatly increases the mass of air pushing the aircraft forward.

    You know better than that WW, the Americans will say:

    1) Ooh, that was a special case, cause only one was made.

    2) That was made during Soviet times, Russia doesn't has the ability to make those anymore.

    3) That was made by Antonov a Ukrainian company, without Ukraine Russia can't make aircraft like those anymore.

    Russia needs something that can wipe Americas smugness of the face of the earth.

    Only one was made because only one was needed to ferry large components from where they were made in the Soviet Union to where they were needed in the Soviet Union.

    They were made because they were needed by the Soviet Space industry. Now the Russian Space Industry wants them.

    There is no reason why Russia can't make them now... and Antonov himself was Russian... the Soviets had a policy of spreading the work around so that all the high tech stuff was not all in Russia. This eventually bit them in the ass, but they are now correcting that. Before the US built the space shuttle the US couldn't build space shuttles?

    Rockwell in the US designed and built the US Space Shuttles.... now that they are defunct as a company I guess despite Boeing buying up their aerospace assets that the US can't make space craft any more?


    _________________
    “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

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:45 pm

    mutantsushi wrote:Well this meme seems overblown, applying pseudo-official acronyms to a program with no known funding or timeline,
    re-using academic sci-fi graphics presented as being of a real program.  The depicted aircraft has quite a few issues squaring
    with it's claimed attributes, namely wing sweep and the fans themselves, which would grossly impede any supersonic flight...
    So as a whole it seems a bit of Russia Strong farce, bandying global-strategic repercussions from hodgepodge of technical BS.

    Were the fans able to be removed from the air-flow, e.g. by covering them up in an aerodynamic manner, then one could "talk",
    but the concept doesn't seem to even superficially address that issue when it would be central to such a combo of supersonic+large net area fan(s).
    Disregarding the supersonic issue, electric linked fans are being globally considered as means for "ultra high bypass" in civil widebodies etc,
    using multiple electric linked fans of moderate diameter to avoid the issue of ever-increasing fan diameter...
    The 'energy storage' of course being electric energy storage to maximally leverage the fans during take-off/ high thrust scenarios.
    That sort of power concept seems more than plausible for the mooted RU-CN widebody project, with a potential 2nd stage/re-engine
    timeline for the power system possibly offering enough efficiency boost to take a short-medium scoped widebody to long-range widebody...?

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t3891p30-pak-ta-russian-special-purpose-transport-aircraft#84249


    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 510
    Points : 534
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:59 pm

    FWIW there were actually TWO An-225 Mriya's planned, but one was abandoned mid-build when the USSR broke up. There has been talk about finishing the 2nd unit and making it available for super-heavy lifts but nothing has ever come of it.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Mar 26, 2015 5:50 am

    GarryB wrote:In a sense it is much like the F-35 in that it has a fan linked to the main engine to provide extra thrust on take off... of course there are some fundamental differences like the F-35 uses the fans for vertical thrust to take off vertically, whereas this aircraft uses them for short takeoffs and probable isn't mechanically linked to the main engines... it might use electrical power take off to power the electric motors rather than batteries which are heavy and just dead weight for the entire flight... the same thing that made VSTOL aircraft like the Yak-141 less efficient with two vertically mounted jet engines being dead weight for the entire flight.

    Yes, batteries would definitely pose a dead weight issue, perhaps some sort of heavy duty capacitor would be more beneficial, not sure, since i am not really certain how the the engine is suppose to deliver the power.

    Having said that a light metal screen over the large fan intakes could be designed so that supersonic speed air flows over them rather than through them so that later on when engine technology improves and variable cycle engines from turbojet to turbofan to scramjet could allow an aircraft with a higher wing sweep fly faster.

    Hmmm.... i guess i can see this working in higher altitudes where the air is thinner.

    I personally don't see the value in hypersonic transport aircraft, or even supersonic transport aircraft, but the flying wing design is certainly more aerodynamic than the more familiar designs we are used to and their much wider shape would allow a bigger range of bigger items to be transported safely.

    Hypersonic is definitely out of the question and supersonic is a future prospect i guess if it's really necessary.

    Reminds me a bit of that green cargo pod carrying Thunderbird... but even cooler.

    Yep, definitely cooler then this.


    At take off and landing the high volume of dense air blowing through the fan system should make landing and takeoff speeds much lower and greatly improve low speed handling performance.

    This would be very important for such large aircraft.

    I rather suspect that with two engines in the small model and 6 in the biggest there would not be any need for batteries for the electric fans as they could be powered by takeoff power from the engines. For engine out landings with a fully loaded transport plane you are pretty much screwed... even with an optimum shape the enormous weights it will operate it will not be very manageable with just the fan engines and will likely drop like a brick.

    You bring up some interesting things here:

    1) Would this thing even be allowed to fly, considering Russia's policy on 2 engined aircraft, would those electric fans qualify.

    2) The possibility of making the design universal, as in a small, medium and heavy version based with each sharing nearly identical designs/components.

    Perhaps as an option you could design a light truck with a huge battery pack that you could drive onto the aircraft and plug in to power the fans when operating at lighter weights where landing by fans only would be survivable, but keeping heavy batteries in the aircraft all the time would reduce its efficiency without greatly improving survival potential as the aircraft should have at least two engines anyway and once it has taken off it should be OK with just one engine to be able to fly around and land safely.

    The truck thing doesn't solve the dead weight issue and creates a dead space issue which for a cargo aircraft is unacceptable.

    Only one was made because only one was needed to ferry large components from where they were made in the Soviet Union to where they were needed in the Soviet Union.

    Exactly

    They were made because they were needed by the Soviet Space industry. Now the Russian Space Industry wants them.

    Really, more AN-225.

    There is no reason why Russia can't make them now... and Antonov himself was Russian... the Soviets had a policy of spreading the work around so that all the high tech stuff was not all in Russia. This eventually bit them in the ass, but they are now correcting that.

    Correct, but an American wouldn't know that, they would look up the name Antonov see that it's in Ukraine and automatically assume that Russia no longer has the ability to develop such aircraft becuase they no longer have Antonov.

    Before the US built the space shuttle the US couldn't build space shuttles?

    ???

    Rockwell in the US designed and built the US Space Shuttles.... now that they are defunct as a company I guess despite Boeing buying up their aerospace assets that the US can't make space craft any more?

    Good rebuttal.

    Flanky
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 184
    Points : 193
    Join date : 2011-05-03

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  Flanky on Sat Mar 28, 2015 11:04 pm

    I personally think that they made a mistake of going public with this project. US will have enough chance to adapt.
    Such projects are best to be presented to public 5 minutes before twelve.
    Russians have choosen to not have too many bases arround the world to not look like an empire, but to have a global fast reaction force.
    Smart decision. Its meant to serve a detterent purpose from those like USA to measure twice before they will decide to invade a sovereign nation flagrantly.
    My first impressions were just like Garrys... that the PAK-TA design is somehow connected to PAK-DA. But i guess thoose huge engine inlets are not...
    Anyway since Russians do not have too many warm seaports this is a natural choice to have.... having a fleet of these beauties will take some time, but once that is done... the only thing that might beat that capability is a global strike programme. This is a program both countries are having strides in...

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  Mike E on Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:57 am

    Flanky wrote:I personally think that they made a mistake of going public with this project. US will have enough chance to adapt.
    Such projects are best to be presented to public 5 minutes before twelve.
    Russians have choosen to not have too many bases arround the world to not look like an empire, but to have a global fast reaction force.
    Smart decision. Its meant to serve a detterent purpose from those like USA to measure twice before they will decide to invade a sovereign nation flagrantly.
    My first impressions were just like Garrys... that the PAK-TA design is somehow connected to PAK-DA. But i guess thoose huge engine inlets are not...
    Anyway since Russians do not have too many warm seaports this is a natural choice to have.... having a fleet of these beauties will take some time, but once that is done... the only thing that might beat that capability is a global strike programme. This is a program both countries are having strides in...
    Not like anything they showed will be used.... I'm more than certain the US knows Russia will be developing a next-gen transport aircraft soon enough.

    Firebird
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 946
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  Firebird on Sun Mar 29, 2015 9:01 am

    I've been looking at the Tu-160. Thats a pretty large beast - in length and weight terms. The fuselage is ofcourse narrower and less high than your typical very large cargo plane. But giving it a fairly good level of stealth wouldn't be THAT hard. And I'm sure, with a "blended front section", a next gen Tu160 could be widened to give fair level cargo space.

    Its also interesting to look at the Tu244. Apparently this was planned to hold THREE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN passengers. Probably 6 seats abreast with the aisle in the middle.The fuselage was to be near circular and 3.9 x 4.1m externally. Work was carried out from 1979 til the early 90s. Max takeoff weight of 350 tons. It also had very impressive drag figures (despite being largely a derivative of Tu144).

    So clearly this isnt THAT FAR off a large supersonic cargo plane, even so far back.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 29, 2015 6:16 pm

    Really, more AN-225.

    I doubt Russia will buy an An-225, the only flying one is Ukrainian and talk about getting the other one flying is likely just talk now.

    On the other hand both these projects... the far out and the conservative include a superheavylift model... that is not an accident as Russia has a space industry building fuel tanks and rockets of enormous size and future heavy rockets will be even more demanding so the need is there.

    I suspect they will make 3-5 as moving around armoured formations rapidly would mean they would need fewer heavy armoured formations... which will save money in the long run.

    Russians have choosen to not have too many bases arround the world to not look like an empire, but to have a global fast reaction force.

    I rather suspect the air mobility is not to land troops in Cuba or Africa, but to be able to move them around Russia rapidly... potentially tens of thousands of kms...

    My first impressions were just like Garrys... that the PAK-TA design is somehow connected to PAK-DA. But i guess thoose huge engine inlets are not...

    For a strategic or theatre bomber the ability to operate from short airstrips is not relevant so removing those components would allow more fuel and a larger payload bay for larger weapons carried internally without any extra drag.

    This is a program both countries are having strides in...

    I understand the USs desire for such a capability (even if I don't think it should ever be allowed such a capability... talk about playing god...), but can't really see Russia needing the same.



    _________________
    “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

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  victor1985 on Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:30 pm

    That plane would be huge. Needs a lot of sensors a lot of fuel and a airport track that can sustain. Whit the sensors...maibe is better to have not only pilots but also flight engeneers like the old jumbo jets used to have. And a duplicate sensor for every issue. Whit the fuel...lets sah it consumes like 3 others planes and carry also same. This plane must get to carry as 3,5 planes and consume like 2 to be usefull. Else can be used less larger aircrafts. They are more but consume and carry same. Only advantage would be transoceanic carrying so can transport fast at a large range large amount of stuffs. For fuel consume ...well we start whit wings and materials in which the plane is made. Is needed totally new materials , new light structures and strong, new shape of wings and plane new new new all.
    Now he need to land anywere. So its up others make a special airport

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-23
    Location : Greece

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  George1 on Mon Feb 08, 2016 6:16 am

    Flying Monster: Russia to Build World’s Biggest and Fastest Air Freighter

    Russia’s aircraft designers are setting their sights on a huge, supersonic cargo plane capable of transporting tanks to the field in a matter of hours. The general concept of this flying giant is expected to be ready before this year is out.

    This heavy transport plane, dubbed the PAK TA (Perspective Airborne Complex of Transport Aviation), will be able to fly at supersonic speeds of up to 2,000 km/h, carry up to 200 tons and have a range of 7,000 km.

    Eighty such planes are to be built by 2024, which will make it possible to ferry 400 heavy tanks or 900 lightly armored vehicles to the battlefield much faster than ever before.

    The project is being handled by Ilyushin Aviation Complex, whose CEO Viktor Livanov said that “it may be implemented by 2030," and that the exact specifications were still subject to negotiations.

    The PAK TA project, thought to have been underway for several years now, is to replace the current fleet of Russian heavy air freighters – Antonov An-22 Antei with a load carrying capacity of 60 tons, and Antonov An-124 Ruslan, which can lift 120 tons of cargo.

    The only operating aircraft that can carry a comparable amount of weight is the Antonov An-225 Mriya, which was built for the Soviet Buran space shuttle program.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160207/1034359184/-.html#ixzz3zWUTeCtf


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 08, 2016 9:49 am

    Very ambitious objectives... the only plane I know of that can carry a heavy payload and fly at 2,000km/h is the Tu-160 blackjack... it carries 40 tons in the old version and 45 tons in the upgraded model.

    How they are going to design and build an aircraft that is both supersonic and has room for a 200 ton payload and can fly 7,000km is a very difficult engineering solution.

    Note it would be far easier to make a bomber because a bomber wouldn't need a large internal volume... bombs are rather heavy and dense so you don't need a large volume of space to carry very heavy payloads... but 200 tons of wheat or construction materials would be an enormous load by volume.

    I suspect to get the designed performance they will need to build a very large flying wing with tail surface to allow supersonic flight.... Look forward to see what they can come up with.


    _________________
    “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

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 586
    Points : 611
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  eehnie on Tue Mar 01, 2016 10:18 am


    I like a lot this project. Very innovative but very logical as a concept, and very necessary development technically for military purposes. This threat can become sticky in the future Smile

    The supersonic air transport is as a military concept of the same nature of the armoured land transport. Despite some people was making fun of this concept in earlier stages of the project, I expect the project to go forward with important funding.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 01, 2016 3:13 pm

    I am still not convinced this is a good idea... transport aircraft don't need to be fast... being mach 2 does not make a Tu-22M3M or a Tu-160M safe from interception, and it is not going to keep any cargo aircraft safe either.

    There is no free lunch... if you want high speed then it will lack payload capacity or range or both.

    Most modern equipment is moved by ship anyway.


    _________________
    “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

    Firebird
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 946
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  Firebird on Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:55 am

    This is both puzzling and intriguing.
    I wonder how much is new news and how much is rehashing of various previous articles.

    Can anyone find the Russian language links that actually had the Defence Ministry/related parties discussing this.

    There's a few things, I'd be interested to know.

    1)How difficult it is to widen and increase the height of the cargo bay eg of a Tu-160 type plane and then get it to supersonic speeds. How much drag would affect it and require more powerful engines+other modifications.

    2)How much ground work was done in the past eg Tu-160, Tu-244 (bigger version of Tu-144) and the Tupolev "space planes" etc. Were they Tu-260 and 360? I can't remember.

    3)How the economics and logistics of it all are. I mean a supersonic transport is expensive to build.
    Would it be economically worthwhile to carry tanks, or would building a base at/near the destination be better. For a long campaign you don't need supersonic planes to carry food and water supplies!

    Perhaps ultra hitec equipment would be carried eg S-500 or S-400 batteries, electronic warfare systems etc? Or perhaps the tactic would be to drop special forces quickly and discretely into particular areas. Infact, this was suggested in one article I remember.

    It WOULD mean that a larger area is defendable than if subsonic transports were used. And it would mean less hardware - tanks/choppers/missile batteries are needed. But I wonder how big that advantage would be, in cost terms.

    The Crimea situation demonstrated how utterly vital quick speed of movement was. So maybe that is a key factor in it all.

    4)Geopolitically I wonder what its about. It would mean Russia could act as guarantor of certain states security, in a way that isn't entirely feasible now.

    5)Could a civil passenger variant be developed? It would reduce development costs and possibly mean a nice income whilst the project runs.

    I notice that 50 Tu-160M2s are being build. Perhaps the idea is that this supersonic transport could belong to that family? It would be interesting to have an idea what each plane would cost at each production run. That would give an idea of its benefits vs costs.

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  Zivo on Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:39 am

    This is a good opportunity to develop new technologies for the civilian and military sector.

    Look at the SSJ100, a good aircraft, but it's not doing terribly well against the traditional aircraft manufacturers. If Russian aircraft want to seriously compete on the civilian market, they have to aim for the niches, they have to do things that their competition cannot.

    Russia's MIC is one of the few that still plays with a full deck, they have the capability to produce pioneering technology. If Russia develops a supersonic military transport, an efficient supersonic civilian PAX aircraft will not be far behind. I'm not talking about a big engine, small cabin aircraft like the concorde, I'm talking about a long range, wide body aircraft that can cut into the 787's territory.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:09 pm

    Don't get me wrong.... I would love to see them making large aircraft with scramjet engines flying very fast... the variety of uses for such technology is enormous... a decent scramjet engine holds the potential to go from zero speed on a runway to orbital speed and into space with just one engine type...

    the potential is exciting... but ending up with bombers with short range and transport aircraft unable to carry large loads because they are all engine and fuel to allow very high speed flight that are expensive to fly and maintain is not a solution Russia needs.

    What it needs is 2-4 heavy transport aircraft in the 250 ton payload class to move large components of rockets and fuel tanks for space craft, it needs a replacement for the 150 ton payload An-124 and a replacement for the An-22... perhaps in the 90-100 ton payload aircraft. Subsonic is fine as long as it has long range.

    In terms of bomber a large long range subsonic or transonic with supercruising performance aircraft able to carry both subsonic and hypersonic cruise missiles and a supersonic bomber able to carry both subsonic and hypersonic missiles makes a lot of sense to me and is affordable and practical.


    _________________
    “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

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 586
    Points : 611
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  eehnie on Sun Apr 10, 2016 3:10 am

    A recent article about the PAK-TA as supersonic air transport aircraft:

    http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2016/2/11/4995/

    ruaviation.com wrote:Russia to Build World’s Biggest and Fastest Air Freighter

    Russian Aviaton » Thursday February 11, 2016 18:58 MSK

    Russia’s aircraft designers are setting their sights on a huge, supersonic cargo plane capable of transporting tanks to the field in a matter of hours. The general concept of this flying giant is expected to be ready before this year is out.

    This heavy transport plane, dubbed the PAK TA (Perspective Airborne Complex of Transport Aviation), will be able to fly at supersonic speeds of up to 2,000 km/h, carry up to 200 tons and have a range of 7,000 km.

    Eighty such planes are to be built by 2024, which will make it possible to ferry 400 heavy tanks or 900 lightly armored vehicles to the battlefield much faster than ever before.

    The project is being handled by Ilyushin Aviation Complex, whose CEO Viktor Livanov said that “it may be implemented by 2030," and that the exact specifications were still subject to negotiations.

    The PAK TA project, thought to have been underway for several years now, is to replace the current fleet of Russian heavy air freighters – Antonov An-22 Antei with a load carrying capacity  of 60 tons, and Antonov An-124 Ruslan, which can lift 120 tons of cargo.

    The only operating aircraft that can carry a comparable amount of weight is the Antonov An-225 Mriya, which was built for the Soviet Buran space shuttle program.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 10, 2016 8:01 pm

    Ummm.... obvious question... if the biggest plane the Soviet Union ever made was the An-225 and it could carry 250 tons with the biggest jet engines they made what engines will power an aircraft to carry the same payload more than twice as fast over a much greater range?

    BTW the other numbers are wrong... An-22 can carry 80 tons and the old models of An-124 carry 120 tons... the current upgraded models carry 150 tons.


    _________________
    “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

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 586
    Points : 611
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  eehnie on Sun Apr 10, 2016 9:33 pm

    GarryB wrote:Ummm.... obvious question... if the biggest plane the Soviet Union ever made was the An-225 and it could carry 250 tons with the biggest jet engines they made what engines will power an aircraft to carry the same payload more than twice as fast over a much greater range?

    BTW the other numbers are wrong... An-22 can carry 80 tons and the old models of An-124 carry 120 tons... the current upgraded models carry 150 tons.

    I would not be surprised if this aircraft and the new version of the Tu-160 use the same engines.

    The current version of the Tu-160 has the following weight specifications:

    Empty weight: 110,000 kg (242,505 lb; operating empty weight)
    Loaded weight: 267,600 kg (589,950 lb)
    Max. takeoff weight: 275,000 kg (606,260 lb)

    These data are not too far of the 200,000 Kg of payload.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 11, 2016 5:35 pm

    The current version of the Tu-160 has the following weight specifications:

    Empty weight: 110,000 kg (242,505 lb; operating empty weight)
    Loaded weight: 267,600 kg (589,950 lb)
    Max. takeoff weight: 275,000 kg (606,260 lb)

    These data are not too far of the 200,000 Kg of payload.

    No... it is miles off....

    110 tons is the structure weight... MTOW is full fuel and weapons... we know full weapons is 40 tons so deduct the 40 tons weapons and the 110 tons structure and the remaining is crew and fuel... but lets just simplify it and call it fuel...

    275 tons take away 40 tons payload is 235 tons of fuel and aircraft... take away aircraft of 110 tons and you get 125 tons of fuel to move 40 tons payload... at supersonic speed the range is 6,000km.

    For every 40 tons of payload you need 125 tons of fuel to move 6,000km.

    That means at mach 2 it would take 5 times 40 = 200 tons so 5 times 125 tons of fuel to do it... so with 625 tons of fuel and 200 tons of payload you are going to have an aircraft that weighs over 825 tons but you can't put 825 tons of fuel and payload into a Blackjack... to go from a 275 ton aircraft to an 800 ton plus aircraft you will need a much bigger aircraft and much more powerful engines...

    Now do you understand?

    The structure weight would need to be 500 tons at least and together with the added fuel and payload there is no way the existing aircraft engines will get you airborne let alone past the speed of sound... you would need about 20 engines... when you increase everything by 5 that means everything... payload, fuel weight, structure weight, engine power and there is no guarantee you will retain speed even if you could find that sort of engine power.

    What is worse I have simplified it of course... just making an aircraft 5 times bigger and 5 times more powerful will not mean it will burn fuel at the same rate as a smaller aircraft.

    the calculation of 125 tons of fuel burned to move 40 tons 6,000km at mach 2 wont scale up because an aircraft structure needed to carry more fuel and more payload will be less aerodynamic so instead of 200 ton payload and 825 ton fuel and 500 ton structure it will likely need 1,500 tons of fuel and even with the correct increase in engine power still wont break the speed of sound...


    _________________
    “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

    wilhelm
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 224
    Points : 230
    Join date : 2014-12-09

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  wilhelm on Mon Apr 11, 2016 6:16 pm

    You clearly have a lot of patience.

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 586
    Points : 611
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  eehnie on Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:01 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The current version of the Tu-160 has the following weight specifications:

    Empty weight: 110,000 kg (242,505 lb; operating empty weight)
    Loaded weight: 267,600 kg (589,950 lb)
    Max. takeoff weight: 275,000 kg (606,260 lb)

    These data are not too far of the 200,000 Kg of payload.

    No... it is miles off....

    110 tons is the structure weight... MTOW is full fuel and weapons... we know full weapons is 40 tons so deduct the 40 tons weapons and the 110 tons structure and the remaining is crew and fuel... but lets just simplify it and call it fuel...

    275 tons take away 40 tons payload is 235 tons of fuel and aircraft... take away aircraft of 110 tons and you get 125 tons of fuel to move 40 tons payload... at supersonic speed the range is 6,000km.

    For every 40 tons of payload you need 125 tons of fuel to move 6,000km.

    That means at mach 2 it would take 5 times 40 = 200 tons so 5 times 125 tons of fuel to do it... so with 625 tons of fuel and 200 tons of payload you are going to have an aircraft that weighs over 825 tons but you can't put 825 tons of fuel and payload into a Blackjack... to go from a 275 ton aircraft to an 800 ton plus aircraft you will need a much bigger aircraft and much more powerful engines...

    Now do you understand?

    The structure weight would need to be 500 tons at least and together with the added fuel and payload there is no way the existing aircraft engines will get you airborne let alone past the speed of sound... you would need about 20 engines... when you increase everything by 5 that means everything... payload, fuel weight, structure weight, engine power and there is no guarantee you will retain speed even if you could find that sort of engine power.

    What is worse I have simplified it of course... just making an aircraft 5 times bigger and 5 times more powerful will not mean it will burn fuel at the same rate as a smaller aircraft.

    the calculation of 125 tons of fuel burned to move 40 tons 6,000km at mach 2 wont scale up because an aircraft structure needed to carry more fuel and more payload will be less aerodynamic so instead of 200 ton payload and 825 ton fuel and 500 ton structure it will likely need 1,500 tons of fuel and even with the correct increase in engine power still wont break the speed of sound...

    I writed the habitual weight data to compare them with other cases. You are assuming too much things trying to give lessons.

    It is amazing how you explain and defend the Ermak or Yermak project with configurations of 2, 4 and 6 engines for different sizes of aircrafts, and later you say this.

    This case would be in the same weight range of the Ermak or Yermak project. The same logic can be applied. Or not.

    I would not be surprised if the same logic is applied to this case. It is possible to see other solutions. The project is in a very open stage.


    Last edited by eehnie on Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:45 am; edited 1 time in total

    Firebird
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 946
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  Firebird on Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:45 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The current version of the Tu-160 has the following weight specifications:

    Empty weight: 110,000 kg (242,505 lb; operating empty weight)
    Loaded weight: 267,600 kg (589,950 lb)
    Max. takeoff weight: 275,000 kg (606,260 lb)

    These data are not too far of the 200,000 Kg of payload.

    No... it is miles off....

    110 tons is the structure weight... MTOW is full fuel and weapons... we know full weapons is 40 tons so deduct the 40 tons weapons and the 110 tons structure and the remaining is crew and fuel... but lets just simplify it and call it fuel...

    275 tons take away 40 tons payload is 235 tons of fuel and aircraft... take away aircraft of 110 tons and you get 125 tons of fuel to move 40 tons payload... at supersonic speed the range is 6,000km.

    For every 40 tons of payload you need 125 tons of fuel to move 6,000km.

    That means at mach 2 it would take 5 times 40 = 200 tons so 5 times 125 tons of fuel to do it... so with 625 tons of fuel and 200 tons of payload you are going to have an aircraft that weighs over 825 tons but you can't put 825 tons of fuel and payload into a Blackjack... to go from a 275 ton aircraft to an 800 ton plus aircraft you will need a much bigger aircraft and much more powerful engines...

    Now do you understand?

    The structure weight would need to be 500 tons at least and together with the added fuel and payload there is no way the existing aircraft engines will get you airborne let alone past the speed of sound... you would need about 20 engines... when you increase everything by 5 that means everything... payload, fuel weight, structure weight, engine power and there is no guarantee you will retain speed even if you could find that sort of engine power.

    What is worse I have simplified it of course... just making an aircraft 5 times bigger and 5 times more powerful will not mean it will burn fuel at the same rate as a smaller aircraft.

    the calculation of 125 tons of fuel burned to move 40 tons 6,000km at mach 2 wont scale up because an aircraft structure needed to carry more fuel and more payload will be less aerodynamic so instead of 200 ton payload and 825 ton fuel and 500 ton structure it will likely need 1,500 tons of fuel and even with the correct increase in engine power still wont break the speed of sound...

    I haven't sat down and done the sums Garry. But I remember Tupolev had their range of large supersonic planes and space planes designed in the 1980s. As I recall the Tu-244 and the Tu-2000 spaceplane (??) were pretty hefty beasts in weight terms.

    OK I follow what conventional tech and requirements and capabilities have been.
    But what IF, Tu160 M2 production reaches a "sweet spot" and its easy to share much of that tech with some bigger satellite launching plane, "arsenal plane" or even "emergency cargo plane".

    The one thing we haven't really discussed is that plane tech is accelerating rapidly. Lighter materials, CADCAM, fuel economy etc. WAY beyond the 1980s when all these megadesigns had been thought out AND were probably quite achievable. Its not just that more can be done these days. Its that things can be built so much cheaper. Look at the price and quality of the Armata tank.

    I'm not sure if we're gonna see the supersonic cargo plane very soon. But I suspect it WOULD be possible and COULD have certain uses. Perhaps to drop S-500s quickly, also Iskanders, advanced EM and laser/railgun weaponry. Perhaps very small numbers of elite airborne troops eg to instruct a foreign army in need of assistance But not the vast volumes of normal land forces equipment. Just my guess.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 12, 2016 6:42 pm

    You clearly have a lot of patience.

    Smile

    I do like some of his ideas... I would like to see the PAK DA as a tailed flying wing that super cruises rather than just flys subsonically... I understand not trying to make it expensive and super fast, but I think they could get super cruise without making it too expensive... even if it can't super cruise just after take off full of fuel and weapons, but designing to to be able to fly supersonic in dry thrust will add weight and increase fuel consumption but will also greatly improve flight performance.

    It is amazing how you explain and defend the Ermak or Yermak project with configurations of 2, 4 and 6 engines for different sizes of aircrafts, and later you say this.

    Transport aircraft need to be large volume aircraft... that alone makes supersonic speed a real problem.

    I am all for new materials and new technologies and new engine types, but at the end of the day technology has not moved far enough for this sort of leap and more importantly in terms of a transport type such a leap is not actually worth the enormous cost.

    Most military equipment goes by sea right now anyway... it is only when time is critical that things are flown and that is expensive enough.

    This case would be in the same weight range of the Ermak or Yermak project. The same logic can be applied. Or not.

    I would not be surprised if the same logic is applied to this case. It is possible to see other solutions. The project is in a very open stage.

    The idea of vehicle families that share parts is a good idea.

    Having the Il-214 using two of the same engines the Il-476 uses makes a lot of sense operationally and economically, and having a family of aircraft in the 80-90 ton payload class, the 150 ton payload class and the 200-250 ton payload class makes a lot of sense. Making them supersonic just makes everything much much harder if not impossible with present technology, and also much more expensive.

    The one thing we haven't really discussed is that plane tech is accelerating rapidly. Lighter materials, CADCAM, fuel economy etc. WAY beyond the 1980s when all these megadesigns had been thought out AND were probably quite achievable. Its not just that more can be done these days. Its that things can be built so much cheaper. Look at the price and quality of the Armata tank.

    Even if the structure weighed nothing the fuel and 200 ton payload would still need an enormous structure to contain it... that means a large draggy structure that will resist supersonic flight speed, and the lack of a much more powerful engine means it will be subsonic only.

    I'm not sure if we're gonna see the supersonic cargo plane very soon.

    the fundamental laws of physics state that the energy to move x amount of mass is exponentially increased if you want to move them much much faster.

    The simple fact of the matter is that the advantage granted to a transport moving at supersonic speeds is not really significant most of the time so it is just no worth the effort.

    Aircraft can move products from country to country in a matter of hours but the vast majority of products transported every day go by ship...


    _________________
    “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

    Firebird
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 946
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  Firebird on Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:02 pm

    Garry, the Tu-244 had a 13ft diameter fuselage. A 1970s design to carry 300 passengers.
    The Il-76 has a 16ft diameter fuselage. So they're already in the same ballpark.
    BTW the Tu-244 was to use cryogenic fuel.

    Moving into the far more exotic spaceplane designs.:-
    One  Tu-2000 variant was started in 1986 and had a t/o weight of 360 tons and top speed Mach 24.
    I *think* there was an even heavier variant (I can't find the page currently).

    Taking all this cumulatively ie the ability to get extreme speed, Tu-160 lines reopening and the Tu-244's supersonic size, well I think a fast, fuel +cost efficient, large plane must be achievable in 2016.

    Energiya had an alternative proposal for a spaceplane
    http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,220.0.html
    8.3m fuselage width.

    My wild guess is that conventional engines could get a slightly broader Tu-244 variant in the air.
    And modern cryogenic fuel/scramjets could boost it and keep it at supersonic speeds.

    They won't build dozens of these to transport sandbags and rations for 100,000 troops etc.
    Just a few based on the Tu160M2 for absolute cutting edge equipment and some manpower.

    Look how sending S-400s to Syria fucked up the Turks shitty ideas. It basically means turning selected sections of most of the world into no fly zones in a matter of hours. Beyond that, I suspect the doctrine/application will be much like Russia in Syria is today.

    PS not totally relevant (as I'd go the Tu244 route) but this talks about weight, speed and fuel usage in spaceplanes etc

    http://bit.ly/1MrpYbh

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-TA Special Purpose Transport aircraft

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:01 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:01 am