PAK-DΑ: News #2

The thing with the MiG is that you need a significant amount of them to carry a significant payload, and the deep modifications apparently prevent them from being used as BMs (maybe this was not viable already and so they were slated for the K modification, I am not sure).

They don't need thousands... in fact the main enemy is the US Navy, and they have... what... about 5 actual operational carrier groups from a total of 11 or 12 available... that means any of those carrier groups approach Russian territory you could defeat them by taking out 12 carriers... the thing about the USN is that they base their entire surface fleet around an aircraft carrier and that aircraft carrier is essentially defended by all the ships that operate from it.

Ironically for a navy they are very aircraft centric... so sinking or just hitting their carriers will essentially defeat the entire carrier group... like the US Army that expects and depends on air control delivered to them by their Air Force, they really are not the same force when you kick away their air control... the Soviets learned that their Army cannot depend on their Air Force or Navy... they can certainly work together, but the Navy and the Army have their own formidable air defence capacity and don't need their air force to clear the skies for them.

A flight of four MiG-31Ks per carrier group would be plenty most of the time at least initially and will probably sink some ships... after which that carrier group will likely withdraw and few other carrier groups will have a go... maybe three or four groups together might try something so three or four flights of MiGs.... I am sure the Zircon will be smart enough to recognise the aircraft carriers from their radar signature and emissions and specifically target them... and lets face it... if US carrier groups are attacking Russia then nuke warheads will be standard...

Having said that of course they have several hundred MiG-31s in storage and putting its engines back into production means they can have more Ks or more BMs, but most likely both... but the K models are much cheaper... and I would suspect as the Iskander is in mass production that Kinzhal probably is too.

Tu-22M3Ms will likely get air launched Zircons along with Kh-32s and likely carry a few of them...

The US carrier is not doomed... it still makes sense around the world defending US surface ships in day to day real situations... they are just no longer a good muscle man you can threaten others with with impunity any more. They used to be Superman... big muscles and bullet proof... now they just have big muscles and the Russians have bullets made of Kryptonite. Still handy in the middle east and around the world... just not invincible near Russia and soon presumably China.

Tu-22M3M on the other hand could use hypersonic missiles similar to the Kh-15 being developed now to create a VERY long ranged defensive perimeter around Russia's most critical naval bases, but for a rational use they would need to be based there and not where they are based now. BTW Wiki says this about former naval operation:

Unless they start launching B-2s from their aircraft carriers their air defences out to 2,000km is plenty... along with MiG-31s and then MiG-41s with R-37M and their replacement missiles to deal with any inflight refuelling aircraft trying to extend the reach of US carrier based aircraft.

Russian Naval Aviation – Tu-22M3s of the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet were transferred to the Russian Air Force in 2011.

If you have any information as to why they chose to do that then that would make discussion more relevant, but opinions and speculation could suggest all sorts of reasons and reasonings.

GarryB wrote:They don't need thousands...

Now you may assume to need few missiles per ship, in the medium term interceptors will improve.

so sinking or just hitting their carriers will essentially defeat the entire carrier group...

They want to launch long range HGV from their destroyers too. So they need to defeat more ships and at a longer range.

Having said that of course they have several hundred MiG-31s in storage

I don't think they have so many in storage any more

LMFS wrote:
Now you may assume to need few missiles per ship, in the medium term interceptors will improve.

Aegis destroyers can't replenish their missiles till they hit port, and intercepting something like the Kinzhal with its closing speed and maneuver capability would entail firing in the inefficient shoot-shoot-look mode that would drain the magazines real quick. Meanwhile the MiG-31K could return to base, rearm and refuel, and then take-off with another Kinzhal within 1-2 hours tops and the carrier and her groupies steaming away at full speed would only be ~100 km from the scene. Not a lot of distance, and you could expect a flight of MiG-31Ks harassing you every 15 minutes, until the big hitters deliver the coup de grace.

lyle6 wrote:
Aegis destroyers can't replenish their missiles till they hit port, and intercepting something like the Kinzhal with its closing speed and maneuver capability would entail firing in the inefficient shoot-shoot-look mode that would drain the magazines real quick. Meanwhile the MiG-31K could return to base, rearm and refuel, and then take-off with another Kinzhal within 1-2 hours tops and the carrier and her groupies steaming away at full speed would only be ~100 km from the scene. Not a lot of distance, and you could expect a flight of MiG-31Ks harassing you every 15 minutes, until the big hitters deliver the coup de grace.

I am not referring to the current situation, where you could probably equal the number of mission kills with the number of missiles launched. But as you can imagine, SM-6 missile is actively being developed, essentially because it is an existential issue for the USN. So in the relatively near future a bigger salvo size will be needed to overwhelm defences and it will be very difficult to achieve that with MiG-31K, of which there are probably not going to be more than one squadron per fleet. With six hypersonic missiles in internal carriage onboard Tu-22M3M you could have 3 times as big salvo size with just half of the planes and at huge ranges. I see it as a more sustainable solution for the future than just relying on the MiGs.

Now you may assume to need few missiles per ship, in the medium term interceptors will improve.

They don't have thousands of ships and after the lose the first carrier or two they are not going to go anywhere near Russian waters and your remaining missiles can be used against land targets.

They want to launch long range HGV from their destroyers too. So they need to defeat more ships and at a longer range.

When their ships start sinking they will withdraw... the US has no stomach for significant loses... not that anyone should of course...

They will try another tactic that does not expose their ships to such an easy attack.

I don't think they have so many in storage any more

Even if they only have 20 they fly at mach 2.6 for 20 minutes and mach 2.4 as long as they like... at max speed they fly about 700km in about 13 minutes... launch... turn around and fly back to base in another 13 minutes... reload and refuel and repeat... how far do you think a carrier group can move in 26 minutes?

And MiG-31Ks with Kinzhal is one of their options.... shore based missiles, and Kh-32 missiles from Backfires and of course Zircon from corvettes and Frigates close to shore... and that ignores their submarines and surface ships with anti ship weapons...

US carrier groups have not been able to safely approach Russian territory for quite some time now... and with 800km range mach 5 Onyx missiles it is not getting better.

I am not referring to the current situation, where you could probably equal the number of mission kills with the number of missiles launched. But as you can imagine, SM-6 missile is actively being developed, essentially because it is an existential issue for the USN. So in the relatively near future a bigger salvo size will be needed to overwhelm defences and it will be very difficult to achieve that with MiG-31K, of which there are probably not going to be more than one squadron per fleet. With six hypersonic missiles in internal carriage onboard Tu-22M3M you could have 3 times as big salvo size with just half of the planes and at huge ranges. I see it as a more sustainable solution for the future than just relying on the MiGs.

With the INF treaty gone honestly a really big Zircon with extra fuel tanks that flys at mach 3 or 4 at 60km altitude for 2 or 3 thousand kms to get close to the US carrier groups and then accelerates to mach 9 and starts manouvering would be a much cheaper and much more efficient option... the air launched version could be carried in the PAK DAs assigned to replace the Tu-142s... and be carried internally.

AFAIK the weapon bay on the Backfire is not big enough to carry very high speed weapons so Kinzhal and Kh-32 would both be carried externally.

The only weapons I know of that can be carried internally are the no longer used Kh-15 with a nuke warhead as standard with mach 5 speed but only 250km range, and the new Kh-50 which seems to be a 1,500km range subsonic cruise missile for land attack use... not the 1,500km range Gzur mach 6 missile we were hoping for...

GarryB wrote:The only weapons I know of that can be carried internally are the no longer used Kh-15 with a nuke warhead as standard with mach 5 speed but only 250km range, and the new Kh-50 which seems to be a 1,500km range subsonic cruise missile for land attack use... not the 1,500km range Gzur mach 6 missile we were hoping for...

I haven't seen anywhere a proof the GZUR cannot be carried internally, in fact it would make no sense to develop a new weapon for the Tu-22M3M and not use the bays. It would be a total waste.

I am not sure what to think about the Pak Da. I have zero doubts that Russia is capable of building a flying wing bomber equal in capability to the US versions. But I just dont know if they are for real with this or not. Its hard to tell if this is a side project or if they are dead serious about fielding a stealth bomber.

I don't think it is good for prestige to have projects that are always on the backburner and are always vague with details.

Couldn't they just build an oversized manned version of the Okhotnik Hunter drone ?

I haven't seen anywhere a proof the GZUR cannot be carried internally, in fact it would make no sense to develop a new weapon for the Tu-22M3M and not use the bays. It would be a total waste.

The problem is that the Kh-50 fills the weapon bay and is a 1,500km range subsonic cruise missile attack weapon... I would think a missile that is 6 times faster would also be rather bigger suggesting internal carriage on the Backfire is unlikely.

I am not sure what to think about the Pak Da. I have zero doubts that Russia is capable of building a flying wing bomber equal in capability to the US versions. But I just dont know if they are for real with this or not. Its hard to tell if this is a side project or if they are dead serious about fielding a stealth bomber.

I don't think it is good for prestige to have projects that are always on the backburner and are always vague with details.

They are in a position where they want a theatre bomber replacement for the Backfire, but in terms of strategic bombing they have a cheap subsonic model in the Bear that needs replacement, and they also have a more expensive to operate but also much more capable Blackjack but not in numbers that would make them useful.

Their options are going for speed and standoff range and just make lots of Blackjacks to just replace everything, but supersonic planes are not cheap and big supersonic planes are not really affordable in big fleets... they are capable, but not affordable as the primary bomber.

The other option is for all super stealthy efficient but also all subsonic flying wing... it will be expensive to buy but relatively cheap to operate and being rather big with internal volume to carry hypersonic and stealthy weapons that will either streak through or sneak through enemy air defences.

The problems were that this flying wing is going to take some time to perfect and get right and in the mean time production facilities need to be built and current models need upgrades... they need all new engines for the flying wing which will also take time anyway.

So they went for a compromise... the supersonic Blackjack is an excellent bomber but not something they will build 200 of. A force 0f 60-70 should form the backbone of a air strike capability against the US and Europe, but it is too big to replace the Backfire and too operationally expensive to replace the strategic bomber Tu-95, and Naval MPA Tu-142.

A flying wing can be made super stealthy but also just long endurance low drag long range cruise.

By making a big factory to build Blackjacks they have a forge to make the enormous centre box section of titanium as used in the swing wing Blackjack. This same forge can be used to build a light weight strong centre box section of a flying wing for the PAK DA as well.

In terms of operational costs the combination of 70 odd Blackjacks and perhaps 150-200 PAK DAs perhaps in a few versions... a force of perhaps 70-80 stealthy strike aircraft that can be used for strategic and theatre strike roles with perhaps a similar number which is also likely super expensive to buy but relatively cheap to run maritime patrol aircraft, plus perhaps a few oddballs... maybe inflight refuelling aircraft versions, or even an AWACS model with leading and trailing edge surfaces being enormous radar antennas for large low wave radar sets...

Couldn't they just build an oversized manned version of the Okhotnik Hunter drone ?

Too thin a cross section... it is designed for high speed subsonic flight, and even scaled up would not have the capacity for a useful fuel load and strategic weapon load of any significance.

Old cruise missiles carried by strategic bombers were 12 x 1.5 ton cruise missiles, which is about 18 tons... the new Kh-102 missiles are about 2.5 tons each, so 12 would be about 30 tons... not a trivial amount...

The Bear carries 8 Kh-102s externally and 6 Kh-55SM internally... that is 8 x 2.5 + 6 x 1.5 = 29 tons, which is similar...

Backman wrote:I am not sure what to think about the Pak Da. I have zero doubts that Russia is capable of building a flying wing bomber equal in capability to the US versions. But I just dont know if they are for real with this or not. Its hard to tell if this is a side project or if they are dead serious about fielding a stealth bomber.

I don't think it is good for prestige to have projects that are always on the backburner and are always vague with details.

Couldn't they just build an oversized manned version of the Okhotnik Hunter drone ?

I don't think at all that this is a fake/idle program, they have been working on it for many years and it has been completing phases in apparently logical terms, only in almost complete secrecy. The development of an engine means they are dead serious about it and in a few years we should have a first flight. The three flying-wing bomber programs of the main powers are running in fact almost perfectly synchronized.

Here a good summary:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7740p150-pak-d-news-2#291413

Also Bastion is always a place to check:

http://bastion-karpenko.ru/pak-da/

Backman wrote:I am not sure what to think about the Pak Da. I have zero doubts that Russia is capable of building a flying wing bomber equal in capability to the US versions. But I just dont know if they are for real with this or not. Its hard to tell if this is a side project or if they are dead serious about fielding a stealth bomber.

I don't think it is good for prestige to have projects that are always on the backburner and are always vague with details.

Couldn't they just build an oversized manned version of the Okhotnik Hunter drone ?

PAK-DA is definitely getting built, they need new bomber to replace Tu-22s and Tu-95

Tu-160 is back in production but it can't replace them (I mean it can but it would be very cost ineffective)

On paper the Tu-22M and Tu-160 seem like a good idea...the former essentially being half the latter, but in actual practise they are totally different... even to the point the engines are similar weight and size and thrust and fuel burn... but they are actually different types that are not related.

The Tu-22M3M was supposed to help that with new unified avionics and radar and sensors and engines, but while both are large swing wing bombers they are still different.

A flying wing bomber to replace the Tu-22M3 and Tu-95 that is subsonic and cheap to operate if not buy is a good step...

GarryB wrote:

I haven't seen anywhere a proof the GZUR cannot be carried internally, in fact it would make no sense to develop a new weapon for the Tu-22M3M and not use the bays. It would be a total waste.

The problem is that the Kh-50 fills the weapon bay and is a 1,500km range subsonic cruise missile attack weapon... I would think a missile that is 6 times faster would also be rather bigger suggesting internal carriage on the Backfire is unlikely.

I am not sure what to think about the Pak Da. I have zero doubts that Russia is capable of building a flying wing bomber equal in capability to the US versions. But I just dont know if they are for real with this or not. Its hard to tell if this is a side project or if they are dead serious about fielding a stealth bomber.

I don't think it is good for prestige to have projects that are always on the backburner and are always vague with details.

They are in a position where they want a theatre bomber replacement for the Backfire, but in terms of strategic bombing they have a cheap subsonic model in the Bear that needs replacement, and they also have a more expensive to operate but also much more capable Blackjack but not in numbers that would make them useful.

Their options are going for speed and standoff range and just make lots of Blackjacks to just replace everything, but supersonic planes are not cheap and big supersonic planes are not really affordable in big fleets... they are capable, but not affordable as the primary bomber.

The other option is for all super stealthy efficient but also all subsonic flying wing... it will be expensive to buy but relatively cheap to operate and being rather big with internal volume to carry hypersonic and stealthy weapons that will either streak through or sneak through enemy air defences.

The problems were that this flying wing is going to take some time to perfect and get right and in the mean time production facilities need to be built and current models need upgrades... they need all new engines for the flying wing which will also take time anyway.

So they went for a compromise... the supersonic Blackjack is an excellent bomber but not something they will build 200 of. A force 0f 60-70 should form the backbone of a air strike capability against the US and Europe, but it is too big to replace the Backfire and too operationally expensive to replace the strategic bomber Tu-95, and Naval MPA Tu-142.

A flying wing can be made super stealthy but also just long endurance low drag long range cruise.

By making a big factory to build Blackjacks they have a forge to make the enormous centre box section of titanium as used in the swing wing Blackjack. This same forge can be used to build a light weight strong centre box section of a flying wing for the PAK DA as well.

In terms of operational costs the combination of 70 odd Blackjacks and perhaps 150-200 PAK DAs perhaps in a few versions... a force of perhaps 70-80 stealthy strike aircraft that can be used for strategic and theatre strike roles with perhaps a similar number which is also likely super expensive to buy but relatively cheap to run maritime patrol aircraft, plus perhaps a few oddballs... maybe inflight refuelling aircraft versions, or even an AWACS model with leading and trailing edge surfaces being enormous radar antennas for large low wave radar sets...

Couldn't they just build an oversized manned version of the Okhotnik Hunter drone ?

Too thin a cross section... it is designed for high speed subsonic flight, and even scaled up would not have the capacity for a useful fuel load and strategic weapon load of any significance.

Old cruise missiles carried by strategic bombers were 12 x 1.5 ton cruise missiles, which is about  18 tons... the new Kh-102 missiles are about 2.5 tons each, so 12 would be about 30 tons... not a trivial amount...

The Bear carries 8 Kh-102s externally and 6 Kh-55SM internally... that is 8 x 2.5 + 6 x 1.5 = 29 tons, which is similar...

Well well well.. This post and LFMS's post clears it up for me. I just wasn't sure because there's no design sketches or much of anything about it floating around in the Rus media. I just expected some promotional material for it in the media by now like they do for the su 57 and Hunter drone. Maybe they will finally start putting it out in the media a bit.

But yes, it all makes sense now.

If LMFS's link, it shows that they ordered 12 ejection seats for the prototypes. 4 seats per prototype for 3 prototypes. So this is the real deal.

mnztr wrote:

GarryB wrote:

By making a big factory to build Blackjacks they have a forge to make the enormous centre box section of titanium as used in the swing wing Blackjack. This same forge can be used to build a light weight strong centre box section of a flying wing for the PAK DA as well.

The TU-160 had very stringent and specific requirements for the center box. Incredible loads with swing wings and superonic speeds. A flying wing could be constructed without ANY wing box if you think about it. It could be just a wing with a profile change in the middle to accomodate the cockpit and power plants. Wingboxes are an anachronism of conventional fuse and wings construction. With a flying wing the entire structure is a lifting body and so load is distributed.

Yeah but knowing Russia, the Pak DA is going to be a big aircraft. If I were to guess, it will be the biggest between the big 3. Enough to make use of the industrial real estate and equipment from the tu-160 build. Maybe not the titanium specifically but still.

If we estimate the load of the tu 22m and tu-95, we should be able to estimate the size of the thing if its filling those shoes. Would be interesting to compare that load with the B-2

The B-21 Raider has half the payload of the B2

Backman wrote:I just wasn't sure because there's no design sketches or much of anything about it floating around in the Rus media. I just expected some promotional material for it in the media by now like they do for the su 57 and Hunter drone. Maybe they will finally start putting it out in the media a bit.

One has to consider that the three new flying wing bombers in design by US, China and Russia intend to be stealthy also against low frequency radars. So, any sketch or hint that reveals fundamental physical details and dimensions of the plane will only be disclosed as late as possible in order to make the design of countermeasures as difficult as possible.

Yeah but knowing Russia, the Pak DA is going to be a big aircraft. If I were to guess, it will be the biggest between the big 3. Enough to make use of the industrial real estate and equipment from the tu-160 build. Maybe not the titanium specifically but still.

If we estimate the load of the tu 22m and tu-95, we should be able to estimate the size of the thing if its filling those shoes. Would be interesting to compare that load with the B-2

The B-21 Raider has half the payload of the B2

In order to make it flexible and not to expensive to use it should not be too big. That being said, if it employs two high-bypass engines derived from NK-32 and has a similar TWR as B-2, then it could be substantially bigger. So either the engines have not such a high bypass or the plane will be quite big, maybe ca. 200 tons MTOW.

Backman wrote:If LMFS's link, it shows that they ordered 12 ejection seats for the prototypes. 4 seats for 3 prototypes. So this is the real deal.

Hopefully setup will be crew of 2 plus another shift for long endurance missions

When you have flying wing bomber with 24+ hours endurance you might as well use it to it's full potential

The TU-160 had very stringent and specific requirements for the center box. Incredible loads with swing wings and superonic speeds.

An aircraft the size and weight of a strategic bomber with possibly 100 tons of fuel and perhaps 50 tons of weapons is going to have incredible loads on it too no matter what flight speed it moves at...

A flying wing could be constructed without ANY wing box if you think about it. It could be just a wing with a profile change in the middle to accomodate the cockpit and power plants. Wingboxes are an anachronism of conventional fuse and wings construction. With a flying wing the entire structure is a lifting body and so load is distributed.

A normal flying wing will be relatively thin and slim and would not allow the sort of internal volume needed for both fuel and weapons to be carried internally.

The centre section with bomb bays and undercarriage and cockpit area and the inner section of the wings would benefit from being made of a single piece of titanium structure... it would make it stronger so allow for heavier MTOW, but in terms of stealth larger components have fewer joins which is important for stealth and also simplified construction. A good example was the Il-476 has 25 metre long section components for the wings or some such thing making them lighter and stronger with fewer weak points...

Maybe they will finally start putting it out in the media a bit.

Their problem at the moment is they don't know exactly what it will look like or even how big it will be.

For instance they might make it slightly bigger than the Tu-22M3 and have it carry a heavy conventional payload of about 30 tons over strategic distances of maybe 3,000km or so flight radius, but when used as a strategic bomber it might carry four 2.5 ton 5,000km range cruise missiles at 10 tons and an extra 20 tons of fuel that gets further topped up after take off with extra fuel inflight to double its flight range...

Or it might be scaled up to be a proper Bear replacement with a flight range of 12,000km and 30 ton payload... with efficient engines, internal fuel and internal weapons that should be doable too, with perhaps 20 tons less fuel and 20 tons extra conventional bombs for theatre bombing missions...

If LMFS's link, it shows that they ordered 12 ejection seats for the prototypes. 4 seats per prototype for 3 prototypes. So this is the real deal.

Or perhaps 2 seats per prototype for three prototypes including one to be used for ejection testing on the ground and one in the air... including spare seats...

So, any sketch or hint that reveals fundamental physical details and dimensions of the plane will only be disclosed as late as possible in order to make the design of countermeasures as difficult as possible.

The Americans aren't stupid... the sooner they see it the sooner they can start developing effective countermeasures to it.... why would Russia want that?

Same reason to hide the nose shape of the Zircon... why show the US what design they came up with that works?

In order to make it flexible and not to expensive to use it should not be too big. That being said, if it employs two high-bypass engines derived from NK-32 and has a similar TWR as B-2, then it could be substantially bigger. So either the engines have not such a high bypass or the plane will be quite big, maybe ca. 200 tons MTOW.

The Tu-160 is rather bigger than the B-1B.

The PAK DA could be consdierably smaller then the TU-160 and still have a higher payload as there is no fuse. There will only be a section of wing that is thicker to accomodate the crew, engines and weapons. Its possible it maybe even have hardpoints for payload in non-steath ops. With modern weapons there is little need to carry more then 30-40T of weapons IMHO.

By making it a subsonic only design means they can make the centre section as thick as they need for volume... remember this aircraft will likely be the primary carrier of the Father of all Bombs, and other outsized bomb types including perhaps the FAB-9000 and FAB-5000 and FAB-3000.

I dont expect this kind of aircraft to strike Canada, the U.S. or Mexico, I think the rest of central and south America is safe. wrote:

Why not? Russia is very close to CONUS from the East.
Tu-22M3M, PAK-DA and SU-70 can attach with hypersonic weapons deep inside the devil's nest

GarryB wrote:

The TU-160 had very stringent and specifi.

Or perhaps 2 seats per prototype for three prototypes including one to be used for ejection testing on the ground and one in the air... including spare seats...
.

It could be that yeah. The link surmised that it will be 4 seats per prototype.

The tu-160 has a crew of 4. The prototypes will likely be used for training later on. So it's possible that they want to have the 4 seats right away.

I guess we won't know. But if it is 4 seats , it gives a clue about how big the thing is going to be.

Backman wrote:

GarryB wrote:

The TU-160 had very stringent and specifi.

Or perhaps 2 seats per prototype for three prototypes including one to be used for ejection testing on the ground and one in the air... including spare seats...
.

It could be that yeah. The link surmised that it will be 4 seats per prototype.

The tu-160 has a crew of 4. The prototypes will likely be used for training later on. So it's possible that they want to have the 4 seats right away.

I guess we won't know. But if it is 4 seats , it gives a clue about how big the thing is going to be.

Introduce yourself pls here:
https://www.russiadefence.net/f6-member-introductions-and-rules

Is there any real evidence that the PAK-DA is a flying wing? The information control on this program has been rather
effective to the point that people think it is a paper project.

Also, the B-2 is not a standoff platform but a bomber. I seriously doubt that such a nonsensical concept would be
applied to the PAK-DA. Americans may think it is WWII forever, but reality is quite different.

kvs wrote:Is there any real evidence that the PAK-DA is a flying wing? The information control on this program has been rather
effective to the point that people think it is a paper project.

Also, the B-2 is not a standoff platform but a bomber. I seriously doubt that such a nonsensical concept would be
applied to the PAK-DA. Americans may think it is WWII forever, but reality is quite different.

MoD and UAC went on record that it will be stealth subsonic flying wing

So that concept is definitely applied to PAK-DA