Its probably better they make that structure from composites then Ti.
Titanium is very light and strong... composites are impressive but don't really have the strength of Ti yet.
Making sections out of single pieces is best for low radar signature too, which also makes them stronger...
The fewer parts the plane is made of the fewer joins and reflective edges and corners there are...
they can then use more composites on the exterior and absorb/disrupt radar internally instead of relying on coatings.
They could use multiple layers of composites and coatings to build up the structure to absorb different frequencies.
As for the FAB can they not just dump it out of an IL-76? The US dumped theirs out of the back of a C-130 lol.
The US have used C-130s to drop daisy cutters, but the Soviets have traditionally used proper bombers... the reason the Tu-16 was kept in service in the 1980s was because of its enormous bomb bay originally designed for old large nuke bombs... they used Tu-16s to drop FAB-9000s in Afghanistan.
The new Father of All Bombs is supposed to be carried by Blackjacks but I suspect its primary carrier will be PAK DA and that will be carried internally.
If a Blackjack can carry a FOAB then it is likely with the rotary launchers removed and one bomb in each weapon bay.
Su-70s have like a F-117 strategic role but with a better stealth design and longer ranges for deep strike missions.
S-70 is probably more of a fighter escort/jammer platform though low level strike would certainly be part of its planned design.... but equally a high flying hypersonic missile that rushes through enemy air defences might become the dominant choice....
Su-57s are sufficient enough with air to air roles against F-35s and F-22s.
But S-70 support would be force multipliers that would help even the odds with numerically stronger enemies... of course Su-57s would be operating with Su-35s and MiG-35s as well... and eventually a numbers lighter 5th gen fighter as well as its drone no doubt.
and for bombing roles and being support for Su-70s in deep strike missions.
I would think Su-57 and S-70s might support Su-34 attacks but long range standoff cruise missiles developed for strategic bombers to keep them safe from enemy air defences would also be useful in conventional operations too...
[qutoe]Mig-41s or PAK-DP https://qr.ae/pNUsPf will be future replacements which by default destroy 5th gens in air to air engagements. AFAIK there are no claims of other countries claiming high speeds and altitudes like this aircraft.[/quote]
If enough are made then it could take the role of the MiG-31 and take it a step further as a high speed sprinter that can zip out and launch long range attacks at HATO force multipliers near the front line like AWACS and JSTARS and inflight refuelling planes, but also surface ships with a scramjet powered replacement for Kinzhal. It could even be used to take on satellites if the get too close.
I expect the PAK-DA to be designed with stealth, huge payload, and a very long distance to carry that, if not than its a waste of time.
PAK DA and S-70 are completely different things...
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.
The Tu-22M3 is a four seat aircraft, but the Tu-22M3M is supposed to be a two seat aircraft isn't it?
And the Su-35 and Su-57 are single seat aircraft... suggests automation of tasks and processes.
For all we know there might be 6 prototypes with three flying ones...
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.
Multiple official sources describe it as being a stealthy subsonic flying wing design.
Which makes sense because it is replacing the subsonic Tu-95 and possibly Tu-142... they already have the supersonic Blackjack which will cost a bit operationally so having a cheaper slower aircraft with fast say hypersonic standoff weapons makes sense too.
Let stealthy slow or hypersonic fast weapons penetrate the enemy air defences instead of expecting the bomber to do that...
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.
PAK DA might carry conventional bombs in a role like bombing ISIS in Syria, but it will be a standoff cruise missile carrier like the Blackjack in strategic conventional and nuclear roles.
For that matter they could use even an Il-76, if it has the right missile (5000km range) it will be a good strategic bomber.
Actually the Il-76 has been chosen for a few different roles because of its short field operational abilities... if its runway gets damaged it could often reduce weight by offloading fuel and take off from the grass strip next to the runway and then have inflight refuelling aircraft top it up in flight...
A properly modified IL96 with a horizontal UKSK launch tube pointing forward that could have onboard missiles rolled into it and fired forward could be ideal... just have a large rack system inside the aircraft to store missiles in multiple layers on dozens of racks able to be rolled forward and inserted into the launcher and fired with the empty tube ejected forward out the aircraft.
Fly it to Cuba and then refuel it and have it fly over Cuba launching anti ship missiles and land attack missiles at targets around Venezuela to help blunt an invasion for instance... vertical launch tubes for TOR or S-350 SAMs along its spine for self protection from SAMs and AAMs....