Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DΑ: News #2

    George1
    George1

    Posts : 15157
    Points : 15654
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  George1 on Tue Jun 02, 2020 3:05 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    George1 wrote:Εstimated image of a promising bomber under the PAK DA program ("Product 80") (c) Piotr Butowski / Air & Cosmos

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 52171510

    This is fanart, it has nothing to do with reality.

    I don't think it's fan art, they've been testing a scale sized model for some time.

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Wind_tunnel_model_1

    I remember seeing that image something like 6 years ago, so they must of sat on the design for quite some time before accepting it. I would still like to see the design evolve to have the cockpit extend/protrude beyond the main blended wing, to save internal space. I would also like to see winglets at the tips.

    Klingon Bird of Prey class would be perfect design for PAK-DA Very Happy
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 2134
    Points : 2136
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  Big_Gazza on Tue Jun 02, 2020 4:14 pm

    George1 wrote:Klingon Bird of Prey class would be perfect design for PAK-DA Very Happy

    Nah, go big or go home. I'm thinking of the Supremacy, Snokes flagship and mobile HQ of the First Order. Twisted Evil

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 87eae443ce182498111dde7dcc2f8018ea649d9b_hq
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 9699
    Points : 9781
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Jun 02, 2020 4:51 pm


    Just take F-111 and hyperspace kamikaze into PAK-DA, problem solved

    Ignore the fact that it makes all the previous movies pointless

    Excuse me, my disdain for Star Wars Sequels is leaking again...

    Sigh, at least I will always have Rogue One thumbsup

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 2134
    Points : 2136
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  Big_Gazza on Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:24 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Just take F-111 and hyperspace kamikaze into PAK-DA, problem solved

    Ignore the fact that it makes all the previous movies pointless

    Excuse me, my disdain for Star Wars Sequels is leaking again...

    Sigh, at least I will always have Rogue One thumbsup


    I hear you...  Last Jedi was the WORST piece of shit Star Wars movie ever.  It was just dire, so many fucked-up plot contrivances, plus endless woke/feminist politics.  /puke

    The Calamari cruiser doing its hyperspace jump thru the Supremacy was just so stupid for so many reasons....  Nearly as stupid as a Dreadnaught class Star Destroyer jumping into a planetary assault without supporting vessels, and not having its own fighter groups for self defense... No

    Rian Johnson is a c*nt.  May he be tormented in Hell for eternity.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 3368
    Points : 3366
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  Hole on Tue Jun 02, 2020 9:02 pm

    Off-topic: that hyperspace jump turned all previous uses of these tech in the previous movies onto its head.

    On-topic: the pic of the model looks quite similar to the S-70

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 004710

    Just with two air intakes. There were rumours of a strategic drone. Same family?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26600
    Points : 27138
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 03, 2020 6:18 am

    Honestly I would expect a scaled down unmanned model would be on the cards... perhaps to be used together with the bomber as a one way trip armed with AAMs and a nuclear bomb for the last waypoint or when it runs out of missiles or fuel.

    It could also be used by an MPA model to fly very low for optical searching or perhaps laser scanning of the ocean...
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2212
    Points : 2202
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Jun 04, 2020 8:17 am

    Define strategic drone.

    If you mean an actual bomber sized drone, no.

    If you mean a drone equipped with munitions such a bomber would carry (wouldn't have nearly as much of them on board)

    Then yeah this thing could pull that off.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2212
    Points : 2202
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Jun 04, 2020 8:30 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Just take F-111 and hyperspace kamikaze into PAK-DA, problem solved

    Ignore the fact that it makes all the previous movies pointless

    Excuse me, my disdain for Star Wars Sequels is leaking again...

    Sigh, at least I will always have Rogue One thumbsup


    I hear you...  Last Jedi was the WORST piece of shit Star Wars movie ever.  It was just dire, so many fucked-up plot contrivances, plus endless woke/feminist politics.  /puke

    The Calamari cruiser doing its hyperspace jump thru the Supremacy was just so stupid for so many reasons....  Nearly as stupid as a Dreadnaught class Star Destroyer jumping into a planetary assault without supporting vessels, and not having its own fighter groups for self defense...   No

    Rian Johnson is a c*nt.  May he be tormented in Hell for eternity.

    I fully concur with this statement.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26600
    Points : 27138
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 04, 2020 9:08 am

    Define strategic drone.

    If you mean an actual bomber sized drone, no.

    Drones are getting bigger.... and drone versions of new aircraft seem to be a thing... there were plans for drone versions of the Yak-130 and the S-70 is going to operate with Su-57s as a normal support platform....

    The S-70 is not an unmanned Su-57 of course, but a slightly scaled down PAK DA could be used to support bombers on theatre missions and also MPA versions of the original aircraft in their roles of naval patrol etc...

    New generations of internally carried weapons including AAMs and even anti satellite missiles based on the S-500 could be options

    Having PAK DA based flying wing drones flying around major cities or military bases each carrying 50 or 60 medium sized AAMs like R-77M or R-37M and their replacements could be used against incoming enemy cruise missiles and standoff weapons in conventional conflicts in places where Russian forces are operating... would be cheaper than upgrading teh local military and moving in a ground based air defence network... until such a thing can be set up locally of course...
    avatar
    william.boutros

    Posts : 134
    Points : 136
    Join date : 2015-08-13

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  william.boutros on Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:26 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Define strategic drone.

    If you mean an actual bomber sized drone, no.

    Drones are getting bigger.... and drone versions of new aircraft seem to be a thing... there were plans for drone versions of the Yak-130 and the S-70 is going to operate with Su-57s as a normal support platform....

    The S-70 is not an unmanned Su-57 of course, but a slightly scaled down PAK DA could be used to support bombers on theatre missions and also MPA versions of the original aircraft in their roles of naval patrol etc...

    New generations of internally carried weapons including AAMs and even anti satellite missiles based on the S-500 could be options

    Having PAK DA based flying wing drones flying around major cities or military bases each carrying 50 or 60 medium sized AAMs like R-77M or R-37M and their replacements could be used against incoming enemy cruise missiles and standoff weapons in conventional conflicts in places where Russian forces are operating... would be cheaper than upgrading teh local military and moving in a ground based air defence network... until such a thing can be set up locally of course...

    you want to put 50 AAM on a one non maneuverable platform?!
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26600
    Points : 27138
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:14 am

    you want to put 50 AAM on a one non maneuverable platform?!

    Why not?

    A combination of 40 super long range weapons to shoot down interceptors at ranges of 400-500km away from the aircraft and a further 10 shorter range interceptor missiles to shoot down any SAM or AAM fired at the platform or the aircraft operating with it...
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 9699
    Points : 9781
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Jun 07, 2020 12:02 am

    william.boutros wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Having PAK DA based flying wing drones flying around major cities or military bases each carrying 50 or 60 medium sized AAMs

    you want to put 50 AAM on a one non maneuverable platform?!


    It's the Garry way... Cool

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26600
    Points : 27138
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 07, 2020 5:43 am

    Modern aircraft are not going to be able to dodge modern missiles... just like you can't dodge a bullet... these things are only going to get faster and faster...

    The solution to the problem of the F-35 being so crap... short ranged and only able to carry a tiny payload of weapons internally was that it would be escorted by a much larger aircraft following behind from a safer distance.... the aircraft would be something like a converted C-130 transport plane carrying air to air missiles and also air to ground munitions and presumably extra fuel so the F-35 could fly ahead and detect targets and then the C-130 would launch missile and weapon attacks on those targets from standoff ranges. The F-35 can then use its superior sensors and the capacity of the transport plane of weapons for combat persistance.

    At least a PAK DA will be stealthy and much faster and able to operate at higher safer altitudes... C-130s could be shot down by BUK and Pantsir and TOR quite easily.

    In terms of escorting a flight of PAK DAs the key wont be having a small short range but manouverable escort... that would be redundant... anything as stealthy as a PAK DA probably wont be very manouverable anyway... all that banking and turning would expose tops and undersides and not be very stealthy at all.

    An aircraft the size of a PAK DA would also have enough internal volume for large chemical lasers that could be used to destroy the EO optics of any incoming EO guided missile, while radar guided weapons could be defeated with a wing sized AESA radar with the power set rather high...
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7982
    Points : 8065
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  JohninMK on Sun Jun 07, 2020 11:48 am

    GarryB wrote:Modern aircraft are not going to be able to dodge modern missiles... just like you can't dodge a bullet... these things are only going to get faster and faster...

    The solution to the problem of the F-35 being so crap... short ranged and only able to carry a tiny payload of weapons internally was that it would be escorted by a much larger aircraft following behind from a safer distance.... the aircraft would be something like a converted C-130 transport plane carrying air to air missiles and also air to ground munitions and presumably extra fuel so the F-35 could fly ahead and detect targets and then the C-130 would launch missile and weapon attacks on those targets from standoff ranges. The F-35 can then use its superior sensors and the capacity of the transport plane of weapons for combat persistance.

    At least a PAK DA will be stealthy and much faster and able to operate at higher safer altitudes... C-130s could be shot down by BUK and Pantsir and TOR quite easily.

    I don't think L-M explained it in quite that way when they were signing the F-35 contracts with their European and elsewhere customers. lol!
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26600
    Points : 27138
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 07, 2020 1:40 pm

    If you had seen where that nose and mouth had been you would never let L M stand too close to you when they spoke...

    It is standard procedure though isn't it?

    When a new super high tech thing is rubbish like Zumwalt or F-35 then they suggest it be used like a small mobile JSTARS that can defend itself better than a Boeing airliner can... the question then becomes if the F-35 is supposed to replace all your light fighters and be the bulk of your fire power in any conflict what then will carry all your weapons... air to air and air to ground... well it needs to be big because it will need range and lots and lots of heavy weapons carried internally and of course the F-35s will need to be refuelled repeatedly too so two C-130s for each F-35 could carry 3 or 4 refuellings each for the F-35 and have space over for tons of weapons each...


    The only real question is is the F-35 fast enough to keep up with C-130s..... Mwahhhhhh hahahahahaha..... Twisted Evil
    avatar
    william.boutros

    Posts : 134
    Points : 136
    Join date : 2015-08-13

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  william.boutros on Sun Jun 07, 2020 9:52 pm

    GarryB wrote:Modern aircraft are not going to be able to dodge modern missiles... just like you can't dodge a bullet... these things are only going to get faster and faster...

    The solution to the problem of the F-35 being so crap... short ranged and only able to carry a tiny payload of weapons internally was that it would be escorted by a much larger aircraft following behind from a safer distance.... the aircraft would be something like a converted C-130 transport plane carrying air to air missiles and also air to ground munitions and presumably extra fuel so the F-35 could fly ahead and detect targets and then the C-130 would launch missile and weapon attacks on those targets from standoff ranges. The F-35 can then use its superior sensors and the capacity of the transport plane of weapons for combat persistance.

    At least a PAK DA will be stealthy and much faster and able to operate at higher safer altitudes... C-130s could be shot down by BUK and Pantsir and TOR quite easily.

    In terms of escorting a flight of PAK DAs the key wont be having a small short range but manouverable escort... that would be redundant... anything as stealthy as a PAK DA probably wont be very manouverable anyway... all that banking and turning would expose tops and undersides and not be very stealthy at all.

    An aircraft the size of a PAK DA would also have enough internal volume for large chemical lasers that could be used to destroy the EO optics of any incoming EO guided missile, while radar guided weapons could be defeated with a wing sized AESA radar with the power set rather high...

    Easy, one can simply shoot the runway and that aircraft with all its assets will be out to name one scenario from a few I can think of now.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26600
    Points : 27138
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 08, 2020 5:09 am

    Easy, one can simply shoot the runway and that aircraft with all its assets will be out to name one scenario from a few I can think of now.

    Which one... the C-130 can operate from grass strips.... and the PAK DA aircraft with AAMs will be based with PAKDA strategic nuclear cruise missile carriers.

    To be clear the purpose of a PAK DA with 50 AAMs is not to replace fighter planes on normal missions... it would be a long range aircraft to escort PAK DA missions on both strategic and theatre attack missions.

    For instance flying a mission to nuke the US it would fly over the north pole, so likely possible a few Gzur missiles would be used from 1,500km range to take out any AEGIS cruisers along its flight path searching for ICBMs and SLBMs to engage. They will then reach Canadian airspace where a few dispersed fighters might be present and able to take off and try to engage the Russian aircraft... Russia does not need an Su-35 or Su-57 in such a situation... they don't have the flight range, but one or two PAK DAs with long range (600km) AAMs with 10KT nuclear warheads could be launched at groups of enemy interceptors rising up to intercept the incoming bombers, and some short range anti missile missiles could be used to defeat any major SAMs or AAMs that get close to the bomber group. Gzur missiles will be used to take out air bases and any major radars still operating and then once that threat to cruise missiles in flight is neutralised they can launch their cruise missiles... super long range low flying stealthy missiles and also high flying much faster hypersonic missiles with ranges of 2-3K kms.... and then head back to what is left of home.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 365
    Points : 371
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  marcellogo on Mon Jun 08, 2020 9:38 am

    Anything C-130 can do, Il-76 can do better.

    For what I know there are pictures of a similar system in the working for them, with the added advantage of using a cold launching ejector, so no need to eject a pallet.

    In any case the american proposal seems me the same of F-15EX: a very smart but "desperate and despairing"move.

    You have not any suitable plan B or even C so you have to resort to such moves.
    avatar
    Firebird

    Posts : 1050
    Points : 1078
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  Firebird on Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:02 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Define strategic drone.

    If you mean an actual bomber sized drone, no.

    Drones are getting bigger.... and drone versions of new aircraft seem to be a thing... there were plans for drone versions of the Yak-130 and the S-70 is going to operate with Su-57s as a normal support platform....

    The S-70 is not an unmanned Su-57 of course, but a slightly scaled down PAK DA could be used to support bombers on theatre missions and also MPA versions of the original aircraft in their roles of naval patrol etc...

    New generations of internally carried weapons including AAMs and even anti satellite missiles based on the S-500 could be options

    Having PAK DA based flying wing drones flying around major cities or military bases each carrying 50 or 60 medium sized AAMs like R-77M or R-37M and their replacements could be used against incoming enemy cruise missiles and standoff weapons in conventional conflicts in places where Russian forces are operating... would be cheaper than upgrading teh local military and moving in a ground based air defence network... until such a thing can be set up locally of course...


    I remember about 3-4 years ago reading an interview with one of the heads of the S-500 programme.
    He reckoned the next gen would be surface to air missiles launched from planes not the ground. Atleast unless ground launch was specifically required.

    I suppose a lot of energy is expended getting thro the heavy air to 35,000 feet or whatever.
    Perhaps you could have 6 or 8 smaller missiles on a plane. Instead of one large one fired from the ground.

    I think that the next step in missile defence will be the ability for a missile to "hang" in space and manouvre quickly to a specific spot to meet fro example a ballistic missile. Perhaps missiles with mini missiles launched from it woould be an answer as Russia has explored. Then there is a missile carrying a laser. To me, its easy to get to the general vicinity of a missile path, but far harder to hit it - due to atmospheric pressure differences. So I wonder what the next gen solutions will be?
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 6441
    Points : 6592
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:19 pm

    Firebird wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    Define strategic drone.

    If you mean an actual bomber sized drone, no.

    Drones are getting bigger.... and drone versions of new aircraft seem to be a thing... there were plans for drone versions of the Yak-130 and the S-70 is going to operate with Su-57s as a normal support platform....

    The S-70 is not an unmanned Su-57 of course, but a slightly scaled down PAK DA could be used to support bombers on theatre missions and also MPA versions of the original aircraft in their roles of naval patrol etc...

    New generations of internally carried weapons including AAMs and even anti satellite missiles based on the S-500 could be options

    Having PAK DA based flying wing drones flying around major cities or military bases each carrying 50 or 60 medium sized AAMs like R-77M or R-37M and their replacements could be used against incoming enemy cruise missiles and standoff weapons in conventional conflicts in places where Russian forces are operating... would be cheaper than upgrading teh local military and moving in a ground based air defence network... until such a thing can be set up locally of course...


    I remember about 3-4 years ago reading an interview with one of the heads of the S-500 programme.
    He reckoned the next gen would be surface to air missiles launched from planes not the ground. Atleast unless ground launch was specifically required.

    https://www.russiadefence.net/t8011p500-vvs-russian-air-force-news-2#285397
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26600
    Points : 27138
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 11, 2020 7:24 am

    Anything C-130 can do, Il-76 can do better.

    Quite true but for conflicts like Syria, and not conflicts with HATO I suspect... where the Su-35 is the solution to payload vs range issues... especially when you could buy four or five Super Flankers for each F-35 and of course operate them for less than the single F-35 costs to operate...

    In any case the american proposal seems me the same of F-15EX: a very smart but "desperate and despairing"move.

    When innovative and new doesn't work... copy the other guy... when LCS fails buy some Gorshkov like Frigates from Italy... when F-35 fails fall back to F-15s and F-16s in the same way that Russia continues production of MiG-35s and Su-35s and Su-30 and Su-34.

    Conventional planes are cheaper to buy cheaper to operate and have fewer size capacity limits in terms of weapons carried externally... and they can carry more weapons.

    I remember about 3-4 years ago reading an interview with one of the heads of the S-500 programme.
    He reckoned the next gen would be surface to air missiles launched from planes not the ground. Atleast unless ground launch was specifically required.

    Long range ground launched SAMs are much bigger and heavier because they need to go from a stationary start to high speed and altitude which burns a lot of rocket fuel.

    Launching the same missile from 15km up in the air... passed the thickest densest air and also accelerating it up to mach 2 or more on a MiG-31 or 41 means the rocket fuel on the missile can take it much much further and much faster as shown by the performance boost for the Iskander to Kinzhal... ground launched = mach 7-8 and range of up to 480km, while air launched from 12km altitude and mach 2.5 launch = mach 10 flight speed to 2,000km range.

    A new missile launched horizontally at high altitude and high speed could use scramjets to accelerate to orbital speeds and leave the atmosphere and enter orbit...

    I suppose a lot of energy is expended getting thro the heavy air to 35,000 feet or whatever.
    Perhaps you could have 6 or 8 smaller missiles on a plane. Instead of one large one fired from the ground.

    Well that is the point... a missile on a plane can be smaller and lighter for the same range as a much bigger heavier air launched weapon.... or you can reach further with an air launched model.

    An S-500 launched from the air could be rapidly flown to a better interception area so targets could be intercepted further away from territorial Russia, but if launched at a satellite in orbit it could reach targets operating much higher because of the extra speed and altitude...

    Then there is a missile carrying a laser. To me, its easy to get to the general vicinity of a missile path, but far harder to hit it - due to atmospheric pressure differences. So I wonder what the next gen solutions will be?

    Getting a laser on a missile powerful enough to make any difference would be a problem... some sort of EMP bomb to render the incoming weapons inert on the other hand might be an effective way of stopping a lot of threatening weapons... without irradiating everything.

    The MiG-41 might be a very streamlined flying wing that is in the form of a very sharp V swept shape but with large internal volume for long heavy hypersonic scramjet powered missiles... using a bypass turbojet as a ramjet using the bypass airflow for the ramjet it could efficiently fly at mach 4 +.

    For the PAK DA of course carrying long range missiles and short range self defence missiles would be useful too...
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 365
    Points : 371
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  marcellogo on Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:24 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Anything C-130 can do, Il-76 can do better.

    Quite true but for conflicts like Syria, and not conflicts with HATO I suspect... where the Su-35 is the solution to payload vs range issues... especially when you could buy four or five Super Flankers for each F-35 and of course operate them for less than the single F-35 costs to operate...

    In any case the american proposal seems me the same of F-15EX: a very smart but "desperate and despairing"move.

    When innovative and new doesn't work... copy the other guy... when LCS fails buy some Gorshkov like Frigates from Italy... when F-35 fails fall back to F-15s and F-16s in the same way that Russia continues production of MiG-35s and Su-35s and Su-30 and Su-34.

    Conventional planes are cheaper to buy cheaper to operate and have fewer size capacity limits in terms of weapons carried externally... and they can carry more weapons.


    For what I know a project of cruise missile launcher for Il-76 already exist, hence the reference.

    For the Navy almost they had chosen the best one they could from abroad (and if you think that an excellent 4500t Gorshkov is something of the same class to an equally excellent 6700t Bergamini, please give them another look), not to restart of production of  Perry class (OceanEscortdisguisedas)Frigates again.

    And not, such projects are neither innovative nor new just completely unrealistic and ill conceived gimmicks.
    I will put it better a: if about all your military projects of the last 30 has been a failure, let's restart production of planes you have ceased production even before this period.
    Actual Russian planes have been radically modified and update in the meantime, bearing little resemblance to cold war era models so that they are actually replacing planes that entered in service AFTER the last USAF built F-15C with them.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26600
    Points : 27138
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:32 am

    And not, such projects are neither innovative nor new just completely unrealistic and ill conceived gimmicks.

    Americans love to sell ideas, but don't always bother to make reality match the promise so when it comes up short they look silly.

    If they spent more time fixing problems and less time making promises their products might be better.

    For what I know a project of cruise missile launcher for Il-76 already exist, hence the reference.

    To just carry and release long range cruise missiles you could rig up a structure in the back of an Il-76 or Il-476 that has something like a gantry crane with rails for missiles to hang from. Once in flight and near the launch position you can open the rear doors like they do when dropping vehicles for the VDV except instead of rolling vehicles out the back of the aircraft the gantry arm could be extended out the back past the ramp so a 6m long cruise missile or a 7.4m long cruise missile can be rolled right to the back so there is no part of the ramp or aircraft below it and it can be dropped/released with no chance of it bending as it goes like it would if you just rolled it out the back... it would fall down level with the nose pointing forward... it would deploy its wings and start its engine and fly on to the target.

    If you just rolled them out the back they would fall with a rotational force and tumble end over end which would be hard for the wings and engine to recover from...

    The structure could be fairly light weight so with the Il-476 you might need a 15 ton gantry and mechanisms to move the missiles back and forth, leaving perhaps 45 tons for payload, but the problem for cruise missiles is not weight but space... the enormous internal volume in an Il-476 means you could fit 45 tons of cruise missiles. Remember the Tu-160M2 has a weapons capacity of 45 tons but only room for 12 cruise missiles 6m or longer, so despite having the capacity to carry 18 Kh-101 cruise missiles (at 2.5 tons each)... the aircraft can only fit 12 missiles in its weapon bays and was not designed to carry external weapons at all.

    An Il-476 could potentially carry heavy 18 long range cruise missiles or 30 Kh-555 missiles each, which would soon add up to a significant attack.

    A physically larger aircraft like an An-124 could be adapted to carry more of course with perhaps a 120 ton capacity for missiles that would be 48 long range missiles or 80 standard conventional missiles.

    In terms of vertical launchers the problem becomes that you need to modify the structure of the aircraft... you can't just cut a section out of the roof to put vertical launch bins in there... the upper structure of such transports with open noses and open rears for roll on and roll off use for vehicles means the cabin structure along the roof of the aircraft creates the stiffness and strength to help with the rigidity to hold the aircraft together.

    As you can tell with an aircraft the size of the Il-76 they simply wont be able to carry hundreds or thousands of long range cruise missiles... but having said that they could carry thousands of much smaller munitions or weapons like FAB-20 or FAB-50 bombs that could be launched downwards at targets being flown over, or rolled over the back ramp on a conveyer belt and released at a speed and angle calculated by computer connected to a computer bombing system like the Gefest & T system.

    Ironically I think the vertical launch mechanism could be used on a cruise missile that flys over the target area at medium altitude with a vertically fired nuclear bomb with a parachute so as the cruise missile flys past it fires up the equivalent of the 2KT nuclear 152mm artillery shell with a spiral shaped parachute attached to slow its fall so that when it detonates at say 500m or so the cruise missile is 30km away heading toward its next target waypoint.

    A PAK DA could use a similar system for launching bombs effectively releasing bombs upward so that radar on the ground does not see the open bomb bay... an upward facing hatch opens and boom... off goes a vertically launched nuclear bomb perhaps with wings or a parachute to guide itself to the optimum position for boom... by the time it falls back down and explodes the PAK DA is well out of range to be damaged. It is a very efficient way of carrying nuclear bombs... leaving the main bomb bays free for massive amounts of fuel... or in conventional missions conventional bombs could be used of perhaps 50-100kgs that are launched up and are guided by GLONASS or laser beam or optical system to hit their target...
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 587
    Points : 617
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  mnztr on Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:19 pm

    Why can they not have a rear facing launch tube, just let the vaccum pull the ordinance out into the slip stream or blast it out with a bit of compressed air like a rear facing torpedo tube
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26600
    Points : 27138
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 26, 2020 7:25 am

    Probably surface area... if you look at a bomber like a Tu-22M3 the flat surface area facing backwards is almost zero... except the engine exhausts.

    If you look at a Tu-22M3 again, you see the problem... in terms of fitting lots of bombs in the bomb bay it is difficult to pack large numbers of bombs in there together in a way that they can be released either together on individually.

    It is probably more obvious on a ship... if you take a top mounted SA-N-7 twin arm launcher for the naval version of BUK each launcher on the Sovremmeny class ship holds 24 missiles but each missile is mounted on an under deck rotary mechanism that can move missiles to a position under the twin arm launcher to load missiles up in line with the twin missile arms when those arms are pointing directly up.

    Problems with this arm launcher include that it doesn't fire very quickly and is relatively slow to load missiles. If it had different types of missiles then it would take time for the rotary magazines under deck to rotate to the correct missile for loading which would slow down loading too.

    If you imagine the cylinder for a revolver this missile cylinder will hold 12 missiles on each cylinder which means it has to be a very big cylinder to carry that number of missiles around the outside of it... and you would need under deck access to those big cylinders to inspect the missiles and check they are OK.

    The use of vertical launch cells removes the need for the two cylinder mechanisms that rotate the missiles around to load the twin arm launcher, and of course it also removes the need for the twin arm launcher which would take time to point the missiles and to reload missiles to fire again.

    It also means the extra space around the launcher cylinders are not needed because the missiles will be electronically monitored inside their cell launchers.

    Effectively in the same space you put the arm launcher and the cylinders and all their mechanical mechanisms to make them work you could probably fit 64 missiles in the space instead of just 24 missiles.

    The cell launchers means any and all missiles are available to fire immediately and in any direction and simply more missiles are carried with less RCS and lower centre of mass in terms of top weight issues that is a good thing.

    For an aircraft that normally carries bombs or missiles cells are an efficient way of carrying ordinance... and for low flying aircraft flying at high speed firing bombs upwards means the aircraft would be well clear of any conventional explosion and also any weapon bay doors that open to launch the weapons will not be visible from ground based or most aerial radar because of its location.

    Weapons fired downward could also be considered but I have a suspicion what they envisage is a very high flying stealthy aircraft firing upwards so the enemy likely see the weapons appearing from high altitude in a theatre attack role, or very low flying high speed bomber roles where normally parachute retarded bombs are used to get clearance between the bomb and the plane to prevent damage to the plane.

    Aircraft like the Tu-22M3 actually struggle to carry enough dumb bombs to match their max payload capacity... 24 tons of bombs is a lot of bombs for four external weapon hard points and an internal bomb bay and carrying bombs on external weapon hard points on multiple ejector racks (MERS) creates a lot of drag which reduces flight range. The MERs the Tu-22M3 typically uses is a triple triple rack with three bombs... one on each side and one underneath on an arm long enough for three lots of triple bombs to be mounted... usually 500kg bombs are used. As you can probably work out four lots of 9 bombs at 500kgs each is 4 times 4.5 is 18 tons and they can fit 12 500kg bombs in the main bomb bay so that is another 6 tons which is where the 24 tons comes from... but what if you want to use 250kg bombs instead... the MER don't suddenly carry 18 bombs when they weigh half as much and of course 36 bombs externally causes a lot of drag and reduces performance... even the flight back home with those racks still attached means higher drag and limited flight speed when you really want to be flying supersonic...

    Having a honeycomb on its back for say, 36 bombs... which could be 3 cells wide and 12 cells long... when they are not filled with bombs you could put a 500kg fuel pod in there...

    When you need to carry bombs you could put all your 500kg bombs in the above firing cells and the other 12 bombs in the bomb bay... and fly clean to target with all the bombs internal.

    If you want to use 250kg bombs... which are obviously smaller and lighter you could have a modular fuel pod that holds 250kg fuel pod and a 250kg bomb to extend range... you can't fit 24 bombs in the internal bomb bay with 250kg bombs so you wouldn't be able to carry 24 tons.

    The thing is that this system probably wont be fitted to existing aircraft... for aircraft like flying wings which have enormous lifting areas and massive internal volume you could probably have more vertical cells than you could probably fill with bombs.. which means some might have fuel pods in them anyway... the PAK DA is supposed to be a dual mode theatre bomber and strategic bomber... the difference is the amount of fuel carried and the amount of weapons carried... theatre bomber doesn't fly as far so has much less fuel on board but has more weapons that are conventional and generally bigger and heavier than the nukes a strategic bomber will carry. The FOABs wont be able to be vertically launched and neither will the big 7.4m Kh-102s either so it will need a conventional bomb bay... but it might also have an array of vertical launch bomb cells that can also carry fuel for strategic missions where it wont be carrying bombs anyway...

    In other words it would be an interesting way of allowing them to carry more bombs or more fuel depending on the mission without the drag and RCS impact of external fuel tanks or external bombs.

    Sorry for the length of this... I was working through it myself as I went...

    Sponsored content

    PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:44 am