PAK-DΑ: News #2

Work permit dated 15th July 2020 has been published on the municipal website in Novosibirsk which is related to the 3rd stage of the reconstruction of the Chkalov Aviation Plant (NAZ)

BMPD Admin comment:
It can be assumed that the work on the modernization of the NAZ (part of the Sukhoi Aviation Holding Company PJSC) is primarily associated with plans for significant subcontracting of the plant in the serial production program of the promising strategic bomber PAK DA. It is known, in particular, that NAZ will have to manufacture the front part of the PAK DA fuselage with the crew cabin. "

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4089387.html

Very good research by Red Samovar on the status of the PAK-DA program

https://redsamovar.com/2020/06/10/actu-lizd-80-pak-da-ou-en-est-on/

Is it possible to builld a supersonic flying wing?  I guess it would be a flying delta wing? I would love to see Russia do something completly unprecidented. After all the US has announced they are gonna militarize space. It would be cool if Russia built PAKDA with the ability to get to space, or some concept that the US has just not considered, like a B2 with supersonic dash.

something like this but with a more elegant engine install:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkVkF4vOS6c

mnztr wrote:Is it possible to builld a supersonic flying wing? ...

Possible but it would be waaaay too much hassle

Not worth it, that's why VKS is doing TU-160/PAK-DA combo

why bother with it?

A Tu-160's job is to carry a ton of guided missiles - Kh-101/102/555, etc and send these missiles to their designation. They don't even have to fly into the enemies territory.

miketheterrible wrote:why bother with it?

A Tu-160's job is to carry a ton of guided missiles - Kh-101/102/555, etc and send these missiles to their designation.  They don't even have to fly into the enemies territory.

Maintenance and exploitation costs of supersonic aircraft are much higher

Also flying wing design has inherently longer range and endurance

You could load PAK-DA with anti-ships missiles and have it stay on patrol for 24 hours at almost same cost as standard airliner

Tu-160 can't do that, not at that price anyway (and not without refuelling)

Tu-160 is a subsonic bomber. It can patrol as much as a Pak da with the same fuel amount and engines more or less.

Isos wrote:Tu-160 is a subsonic bomber. It can patrol as much as a Pak da with the same fuel amount and engines more or less.

Fuel consumption, maintenance cycle, operating costs and engine wear and tear are worse than on subsonic aircraft

Tu-160 and PAK-DA have very different purpose

I know but tu-160 can do its mission at subsonic speed like the pak da.

Isos wrote:I know but tu-160 can do its mission at subsonic speed like the pak da.

Obviously

But we are talking about time and money here

Also, PAK-DA will be standard bomber, from dumb bombs all the way up to hypersonic missiles and everything in between

Raw and rough, like Tu-22M only fancier

Tu-160 is high end dedicated cruise missile carrier, a world ender

mnztr wrote:Is it possible to builld a supersonic flying wing?  I guess it would be a flying delta wing?

It is. But for it to be feasible ideally it should be unmanned and should be capable of flying at hypersonic speed. It will be the perfect counter to counter stealth.

Delta wing might not be the optimum design though. Probably the design will be more in the lines of a Zircon.

mnztr wrote:Is it possible to builld a supersonic flying wing?  I guess it would be a flying delta wing? I would love to see Russia do something completly unprecidented. After all the US has announced they are gonna militarize space. It would be cool if Russia built PAKDA with the ability to get to space, or some concept that the US has just not considered, like a B2 with supersonic dash.

something like this but with a more elegant engine install:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkVkF4vOS6c

It is, but the stability on the directional axis is problematic, apparently this is specially true in the transonic area. New types of actuators (plasma or compressor fed) would be necessary. It will happen, but I think it will take ten years at least.

As to the range of the Tu-160 compared to the possible PAK-DA, the variable sweep is great for that, but the low bypass engines are not. VCEs would be needed to get the best subsonic range and still have the capability to fly supersonic.

LMFS wrote:

mnztr wrote:Is it possible to builld a supersonic flying wing?  I guess it would be a flying delta wing? I would love to see Russia do something completly unprecidented. After all the US has announced they are gonna militarize space. It would be cool if Russia built PAKDA with the ability to get to space, or some concept that the US has just not considered, like a B2 with supersonic dash.

something like this but with a more elegant engine install:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkVkF4vOS6c

It is, but the stability on the directional axis is problematic, apparently this is specially true in the transonic area. New types of actuators (plasma or compressor fed) would be necessary. It will happen, but I think it will take ten years at least.

As to the range of the Tu-160 compared to the possible PAK-DA, the variable sweep is great for that, but the low bypass engines are not. VCEs would be needed to get the best subsonic range and still have the capability to fly supersonic.

Thrust vectoring perhaps? Three-Stream VCE seems to be the way to go for PAK-DA.

I would love to see a super cruising strategic bomber, but the problem is that the difference in aerodynamics between a supersonic and subsonic aircraft are the problem.

Think of it in terms of a transport aircraft... all are subsonic because the requirement for internal volume means they are fat, and while fat means more internal space for fuel and cargo (ie payload), it also means drag.

Having a super slim flying wing... something like an S-70 perhaps, but with two engines instead of one the you would have a very low drag aircraft with excessive excess thrust... it should be able to supercruise... but the problems are that the added weight and internal volume taken up by an extra engine and the fact that you can't make it fatter so essentially you would lose most of your payload space and increase your potential fuel consumption by 100% means you get faster but also shorter ranged and with dramatically less payload capacity.

For a recon aircraft that is not important but for a theatre bomber and strategic cruise missile carrier that is terrible.

The obvious question would be... if you are making two strategic bombers and one is already supersonic... then why does the other need to be supersonic.

Supersonic adds costs and imposes penalties on the design.

A flying wing with internal weapons carriage is going to be big and thick winged to contain all that fuel and all those weapons internally so making it transsonic would be impossible anyway... supersonic is not just wing sweep... it is wing thickness and in the case of a flying wing the wing has to contain everything... engines fuel payload crew etc etc so making it razor thin just does not make sense because although higher flight speeds become possible lack of weapon capacity and fuel capacity will stunt its performance.

Much better idea to go the other way... a super thick flying wing with enormous internal volume for lots of fuel and large bulky weapons... it wont matter if the bomber is subsonic if the missiles it carries are 6 ton 10,000km range hypersonic scramjet powered missiles each with 5 nuclear warheads so it flies a complicated flight path through enemy territory dropping nukes as it goes.... the bomber launch platform has no need to go anywhere near the enemy airspace and the warheads it sends on their way will be moving at hypersonic speeds at enormous altitudes... much faster than any bomber made in the next 30 years.

The Blackjack can fly faster and get closer for launch but will only be carrying 12 missiles that perhaps can reach 6,000km at low altitude...

The other advantage of a thick winged flying wing is that for shorter missions they could offload most of the fuel and carry an enormous conventional bomb payload that can be delivered with enormous precision from altitudes outside MANPADS range...

magnumcromagnon wrote:Thrust vectoring perhaps? Three-Stream VCE seems to be the way to go for PAK-DA.

I don't know if that would be enough, but maybe it is. There are already a few programs dealing with new actuators so we should learn more about the topic soon. As to the VCE for the PAK-DA, if it remains subsonic as has been said it could simply have a high bypass engine without the added complication of VCE.

GarryB wrote:Much better idea to go the other way... a super thick flying wing with enormous internal volume for lots of fuel and large bulky weapons... it wont matter if the bomber is subsonic if the missiles it carries are 6 ton 10,000km range

Yeah the trend seems to be, since missiles have each time more range, just to keep as much of your nuclear deterrent safe in the air, a flying wing with massive range will not move very fast but in the air above Russia it cannot be really be attacked from the US. That configuration is also ideal for a range of applications different from the strategic role too.

LMFS wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Thrust vectoring perhaps? Three-Stream VCE seems to be the way to go for PAK-DA.

I don't know if that would be enough, but maybe it is. There are already a few programs dealing with new actuators so we should learn more about the topic soon. As to the VCE for the PAK-DA, if it remains subsonic as has been said it could simply have a high bypass engine without the added complication of VCE.

The current nuclear shield planning strategies already take in to consideration a long range strategic supersonic & subsonic bomber, so if the VCE turns out to be more expensive and more complex than standard, it could instead be thought of as being 'less expensive and complex' than maintaining 2 very different bombers (Tu-95, Tu-160) with 2 different airframes, engines, roles, etc. The VCE will allow it to do extended supersonic and subsonic flight, allowing PAK-DA's to properly retire the Bears and the Backfires. One universal bomber (that replaces 2 bombers) for both rolls will make it cheaper and less complex than the current situation overall.

magnumcromagnon wrote:
The current nuclear shield planning strategies already take in to consideration a long range strategic supersonic & subsonic bomber, so if the VCE turns out to be more expensive and more complex than standard, it could instead be thought of as being 'less expensive and complex' than maintaining 2 very different bombers (Tu-95, Tu-160) with 2 different airframes, engines, roles, etc. The VCE will allow it to do extended supersonic and subsonic flight, allowing PAK-DA's to properly retire the Bears and the Backfires. One universal bomber (that replaces 2 bombers) for both rolls will make it cheaper and less complex than the current situation overall.

They said the PAK-DA would substitute all other bombers, but they are just now starting the production of the new Tu-160, so I think it is clear that both will coexist and I think they will split roles to a certain extent, with the PAK-DA being better suited to non-strategic roles. The VCE may make sense on the Tu-160 much later on, but not really on the PAK-DA. So this unification will probably be way after 2040 I guess.

LMFS wrote:They said the PAK-DA would substitute all other bombers, but they are just now starting the production of the new Tu-160, so I think it is clear that both will coexist and I think they will split roles to a certain extent, with the PAK-DA being better suited to non-strategic roles...

They did say that but it was early in planning stage and before Syria

Syria however proved that all existing bombers perform up to specs which sent Tu-160 back in production and saved Tu-22M from already decided on retirement (Mi-24/35 was also saved from retirement and sent back in production thanks to Syria ops, probably some other stuff as well)

Syria probably influenced (and simplified) design of PAK-DA now that it no longer needed to supplant Tu-160 as well

Now new setup will be like this:

- Tu-160 will be tip of the spear nuclear bomber and dedicated core component of aerial part of nuclear triad

- PAK-DA will be doing everything from conventional carpet bombing to maritime strike missions, it will also assist Tu-160 in strategic role if needed  

- Tu-22M will be doing it's regular tasks until PAK-DA arrives in numbers when it will be relegated to Syria-style dumb-bomb missions against low tier enemies as a bomb truck (where advanced aircraft like PAK-DA are not required)

- Tu-95 will continue to it's regular VKS and Navy work until PAK-DA arrives when it will be put in support role


Bears and Backfires will be used as long as they remain economic to operate but will be sent in support role/reserve once PAK-DA reaches sufficient numbers

@PapaDragon

Yeah, I basically agree. The only point I don't see is to use the Tu-22 as a tool for cheap tactical bombing, it has a fairly low payload capability and highly consuming engines, but as a interdiction tool / hypersonic missile carrier / naval strike platform it is fantastic and surprisingly abundant for a Russian plane. In general PAK-DA should be much more economic to use than any supersonic bomber, while those will still be useful because they carry many times the payload of any tactical bomber and are still quite fast and long ranged, with capability for low penetration. I don't know if the Tu-22M3M will ever go back to the MA-VMF but it would make sense to create two squadrons for the main fleets, with the hypersonic missiles being created for internal carriage, it would make sure no hostile navy comes closer than 3000+ km of Russia. Maybe even as carriers of torpedo-tiipped missiles they could help protect the SSBNs.

Yeah the trend seems to be, since missiles have each time more range, just to keep as much of your nuclear deterrent safe in the air, a flying wing with massive range will not move very fast but in the air above Russia it cannot be really be attacked from the US. That configuration is also ideal for a range of applications different from the strategic role too.

The other factor is that if you spend big money and buy a supersonic bomber like the Hustler then you have to blow lots of money in peace time training to attack targets in supersonic planes.

Making the missiles longer ranged means they can actually be even faster but carried around in a big expensive slow bomber.... the evasion and penetration of enemy air defences is transferred to the weapon which in theory only gets used once which makes them cheaper and easier to train with too...

Twelve small hypersonic missiles are going to be harder to intercept than one marginally supersonic bomber...

And with a subsonic bomber you could make external weapon hard points and carry even more missiles externally... much like the Bear carrying weapons externally is not going to slow it down all that much and from the range they will be launching actual RCS is not important but extra missiles on target will be...

The VCE will allow it to do extended supersonic and subsonic flight, allowing PAK-DA's to properly retire the Bears and the Backfires. One universal bomber (that replaces 2 bombers) for both rolls will make it cheaper and less complex than the current situation overall.

The thing is that tha PAK DA will easily replace all the Bears anyway... and Backfires don't even come in to it... a navalised Blackjack could be developed to replace the Backfire if needed... just produce an extra 50...

They said the PAK-DA would substitute all other bombers,

The Bear and the Blackjack are different enough to be complimentary... once they decided it was going to be a subsonic flying wing I believe the plans changed from it replacing everything to just replacing the Bear in the strategic role and the Backfire in the naval role.

Volume over speed I suspect so the replacement for the Backfire has become much bigger and much heavier but also slower... but the Backfire was never going to be doing that much flying at supersonic speed... being stealthy and carrying big long range hypersonic missiles would make it rather more effective... and cheaper to operate.

Now new setup will be like this:

I am pretty sure they intend to make more PAK DA than Tu-160M2 and that over the long term the Bears will be going first with the Backfires likely being reverted back to the navy very quickly but then eventually replaced with naval PAK DA... using missile size and range to compensate for platform speed or lack of it.

It would not surprise me if the eventual PAK DA does not have its own drone like the S-70 but much bigger...

I think the PAK-DA will primarily be a replacement for the Tu-95 in all roles and Tu-22M3 in aerial bombardment.
But for interdiction and strike it is not suitable.

LMFS wrote:@PapaDragon

Yeah, I basically agree. The only point I don't see is to use the Tu-22 as a tool for cheap tactical bombing, it has a fairly low payload capability and highly consuming engines, but as a interdiction tool / hypersonic missile carrier / naval strike platform it is fantastic and surprisingly abundant for a Russian plane. In general PAK-DA should be much more economic to use than any supersonic bomber, while those will still be useful because they carry many times the payload of any tactical bomber and are still quite fast and long ranged, with capability for low penetration. I don't know if the Tu-22M3M will ever go back to the MA-VMF but it would make sense to create two squadrons for the main fleets, with the hypersonic missiles being created for internal carriage, it would make sure no hostile navy comes closer than 3000+ km of Russia. Maybe even as carriers of torpedo-tiipped missiles they could help protect the SSBNs.

Wrong, the Tu-22M3M will be much better for launching aeroballistic missiles against ships. Here stealth doesn't matter but high speed(for both reaching the target quicker and getting the missile to speed) does.

limb wrote:
Wrong, the Tu-22M3M will be much better for launching aeroballistic missiles against ships. Here stealth doesn't matter but high speed(for both reaching the target quicker and getting the missile to speed) does.

You meant "yes" where you wrote "no"?? I am saying exactly that

I think the PAK-DA will primarily be a replacement for the Tu-95 in all roles and Tu-22M3 in aerial bombardment.

But the Bear performs strategic roles (Tu-95) and maritime roles (Tu-142).

The roles of the Tu-22M3 are more than just light bomb truck.... traditionally they are heavy long range strike on land and at sea... considering the work the Backfire did in Syria a flying wing with a much heavier bomb load and much greater range would be a better choice to be honest... I am not aware of the Backfire operating at supersonic speed in its bombing role in Syria so a subsonic PAK DA would have much more bomb capacity and much better range than the much smaller Backfire.

But for interdiction and strike it is not suitable.

The Russians are bringing out a very wide range of air to ground stand off weapons a subsonic flying wing could use in interdiction and attack roles... in fact I would think a drone version of Zircon would be rather valuable to penetrate enemy air defences and scan for and locate targets and then attack the most important one in any defended airspace... including over HATO.

I don't know if the Tu-22M3M will ever go back to the MA-VMF but it would make sense to create two squadrons for the main fleets, with the hypersonic missiles being created for internal carriage, it would make sure no hostile navy comes closer than 3000+ km of Russia.

I assumed that was the purpose of mentioning that Kinzhal could be mounted on the Backfire with perhaps four missiles ready to fire externally carried.

The Backfire is not as fast or as high flying as a MiG-31K but carrying four and having good speed (if not great speed) and better flight range than the MiG they could do a lot worse.

Wrong, the Tu-22M3M will be much better for launching aeroballistic missiles against ships. Here stealth doesn't matter but high speed(for both reaching the target quicker and getting the missile to speed) does.

It would be faster than the PAK DA, but likely not longer ranged and would be detected much earlier too... not that that matters too much... but I agree Kinzhals and Kh-32s and other new weapons make more sense on a backfire and would be wasted on PAK DAs which could be used for all sorts of sneaky recon with their superior sensors and electronics.

GarryB wrote:I assumed that was the purpose of mentioning that Kinzhal could be mounted on the Backfire with perhaps four missiles ready to fire externally carried.

The Backfire is not as fast or as high flying as a MiG-31K but carrying four and having good speed (if not great speed) and better flight range than the MiG they could do a lot worse.

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). 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:

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

Northern Fleet
924th Independent Maritime Reconnaissance Aviation Regiment – Olenya (air base), Murmansk Oblast[89]

Pacific Fleet
568th Independent Composite Aviation Regiment – Kamenny Ruchey, Khabarovsk Krai

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M