PAK-DΑ: News #2

Hole wrote:Dozens of smaller bombs are more effective then one big m...fucker.

Winglets are great for civil planes for better fuel efficiancy and so on but are they really neccessary for a long-range bomber?

Yes it is, your combat radius increases. If it's going to replace Tu-95, it needs to at least surpass it when it comes to range and combat radius. If you create a Doomsday VIP variant then it makes even more sense.

magnumcromagnon wrote:Again the winglets are their to help add range to the aircraft,

Depending on the plane's design, the winglets are a resource to decrease lift induced drag, they are not mandatory even between airliners (for instance MC-21 does not use them because the properties of the wing are good enough already without them, this may be caused by the natural flexing of the wing under load). B-2 does not use them or any other military bomber that I can think of, actually. So it is not a given that they are good or necessary for a given design.

while were speaking about range lets talk about the max range of weapons of these stealth bombers. Lets look at how the US envisioned how they will deploy the B-2 Spirit, and the weapons they have and their max range (none of which surpass even 1,000km in range). Now compare that with the VKS, who will NOT fly their bombers over advanced OPFOR territory/SAMs, like the US would. Kh-101 has a max range of 5,500km in the conventional variant, the Kh-102's with their thermonuclear tipped warhead would likely take less volumetric space on the cruise missile, leaving room for more propellant fuel. So the Kh-102 could reasonably have 6,000km range.

This is clear and has been discussed previously, in terms of turn-around times and therefore effectiveness in degrading the opponent's military capacities, a supersonic high capacity bomber like the Tu-160 is simply superior to an equivalent of the B-2. That indicates that the plane is not only going to provide strategic missile carrying capacities but also tactical ones, ISR, patrolling and who knows what more. Of course the idea to use the B-2 inside the Russian IADS with free-fall bombs is absurd.

PAK-DA with winglets, firing Kh-102's 1,000km off the coast, hitting strategic targets 5,000km in the interior.

Keep in mind that a good part or even the most of the missile's range is used to approach in unexpected directions, to avoid detection and AD sites, so it is not directly translated into range

PapaDragon wrote:
Winglets will not be a problem as long as they are single solid composite part of the wing

Depends on the composite, carbon fiber is reflective to radar. And the problem problem with the winglet as said is the physical size and orientation of the surfaces, not only the material.

It was directly stated a few years ago that the combat load of PAK-DA would be higher than Tu-160. How true that was and still is, remains to be seen.

x_54_u43 wrote:It was directly stated a few years ago that the combat load of PAK-DA would be higher than Tu-160. How true that was and still is, remains to be seen.

The engine will be based on the NK-32, which has a dry thrust of 14 tf and whose core would be valid for a high-bypass version up to ca. 23-24 tf. For reference, the B-2 has 4x F118-GE-100 with 77 kN each. So a PAK-DA with two engines like discussed could be between the size of the B-2 and roughly 50% bigger, and keep the same TWR. So I think between 20 and 30 t payload seems reasonable, maybe it is even more, who knows. But the B-2 is already a very big plane with more than 50 m wingspan, you probably don't want something much bigger either. The really important thing IMHO is that it is cheaper to produce and to operate than Tu-160 (two instead of four engines is already a good start) and that it has the range/persistence to use its payload at long ranges or to cover battlefield for several hours, so that it can perform many different missions that are necessary today and for which a flying wing is the ideal layout.

With the Burevesk, perhaps a form of nuclear reactor ramjet could be used as a cruise engine for sustained unlimited flight range at subsonic speeds...

I would think engine pods above the flying wing shape with two spaced subsonic turbofan engines and the nuclear ramjet between them that is designed so for takeoff and landing doors cover the ramjet intake but the turbofan engine intakes are open, and once airborne and having climbed to a cruise altitude the intakes for the turbofans close and the central ramjet intake is opened with reactor heated air being rammed through.

This would remove the engines from the body of the aircraft increasing internal volume for fuel and ordinance. The air intakes could be short and efficient and hidden in high altitude flight by the body of the bomber with a slightly nose up attitude from ground based radar.

Operationally it would be most efficient to fly at high altitudes with thin cold air allowing higher flight speeds and essentially fuel free nuclear cruise performance...

The winglets idea... the entire vertical portion of the Tu-160 tail is used as a rudder... why not wing tips that can fold up to near vertical or fold back flat... you could even use them for manouvering like the Su-25 can use its wing tip airbrakes...

The PAK DA is intended to have a variable weapon payload but would expect for strategic missions a payload of 30 tons would allow it to carry 12 Kh-102 type missiles (at 2.5 tons each). For shorter ranged theatre bombing missions like a strike into Syria with reduced fuel (and inflight refuelling support) it would be useful to carry rather more than this in conventional bombs and missiles... 50-60 tons would be useful...

Burevestnik, i.e. storm herald. It is easier to remember.

Interesting how we have no real information on its propulsion system. Impressive information leak control by mud hut dwellers who don't make anything.

In the new technology section we have read they have new high temperature aluminium alloys, and nuclear propulsion systems for cruise missiles, and glass that can be used for radiation shielding... how much time before they start putting such things together in interesting combinations...

A nuclear reactor heated ramjet would be useful... it could generate the hot air needed to create thrust, but as there is no combustion the airflow would not need all the complicated ramps and restriction in a conventional engine as it reaches higher speeds...

One of the reasons for restoring the huge forge for making the centre box structure of the Tu-160 was that it allows much larger pieces with fewer joins to be used in construction, which is important for strength for transport planes, but also important for stealth for stealth aircraft.

The PAK DA is to provide a long range subsonic strategic cruise missile carrying platform (note the plane is subsonic but the cruise missiles don't have to be...) to replace the Tu-95 Bear aircraft, but also to act as a high payload theatre bomber to replace the Tu-22M3 and the Tu-160, the latter of which is losing its ability to carry and use conventional bombs.

thegopnik wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude Since Russians make the several orders of magnitude detection lowered claim by fighter or patrol aircraft, than I will use the Su-35 radar by making the target reference they usually use as 3m2 several orders of magnitude detection lowered. 350(.0000003 times 3) ^.25 So that means it will be detected at 10.78kms?

The statements are BS, several orders of magnitude reduction of detection range means 4 times as many orders of magnitude of reduction of RCS. Maybe they are joining the contest with US MIC to see who produces the most egregious claims?

Well, if these missiles belong to the Patriot system it can roam freely trough the sky as the Yemeni/SA experience told us.

PapaDragon wrote:

dino00 wrote:...So PAK-DA is not intended only as a standoff bomber...

Maybe in situations like Syria where there's nothing that could threaten them

Otherwise it's a standoff bomber, nothing else makes sense in the age of missiles

Well, there's the B-2 that is claimed to be able to bomb Russia.

Maybe in situations like Syria where there's nothing that could threaten them

Otherwise it's a standoff bomber, nothing else makes sense in the age of missiles

By the time a subsonic bomber gets to US airspace there wont be a lot of air defences left there.... considering ICBMs and SLBMs will have already done a lot of damage and Tu-160s cruise missiles and short range attack missiles would already have dealt with air defences along the flight route ...

LMFS wrote:

thegopnik wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude Since Russians make the several orders of magnitude detection lowered claim by fighter or patrol aircraft, than I will use the Su-35 radar by making the target reference they usually use as 3m2 several orders of magnitude detection lowered. 350(.0000003 times 3) ^.25 So that means it will be detected at 10.78kms?

The statements are BS, several orders of magnitude reduction of detection range means 4 times as many orders of magnitude of reduction of RCS. Maybe they are joining the contest with US MIC to see who produces the most egregious claims?

Maybe it's in comparing the RCS reduction to bombers like Tu-95/B-52 in which the RCS of the PAK-DA is accurately orders of magnitude smaller than it's predecessor.

magnumcromagnon wrote:Maybe it's in comparing the RCS reduction to bombers like Tu-95/B-52 in which the RCS of the PAK-DA is accurately orders of magnitude smaller than it's predecessor.  

I do believe the RCS itself can be orders of magnitude smaller than that of a conventional bomber, but detection range depends on the fourth root of the RCS. So, to get a 30 dB reduction of detection range you need 70 dB reduction of RCS. So the substance of the statement is clear, but the actual wording seems exaggerated at best.

Why would anything need to fly over USA in that scenario?

Because by definition that would also allow it to fly over Europe and hammer EU countries into oblivion much more efficiently.

A 5,000km range cruise missile is about 3 tons, but a 152mm nuclear artillery shell is about 50kgs.

So one cruise missile or 60 small nuclear bombs. If it carries 12 missiles that means 720 bombs...