PAK-DA will be integral Lifting Wing Design and not the T-4MS design
Interesting designs but still test designs.
The podded design is poor because it makes no sense.
Hanging a podded engine beneath an aircrafts wing makes it easier to reach to service and maintain... putting them on the back of an aircraft makes it harder to reach and maintain.
The other design has the internally mounted engines likely taking up an enormous amount of internal space.
The reality will likely be more like the Tu-22 or Tu-160 where engines are bunched together and either attached on top (Tu-22) or underneath (Tu-160) to keep the internal space as large as possible for fuel and weapons.
Let's be correct in the discussion! We are NOT talking about WW3 with the use of ICBM and nuclear warheads.
Lets be totally clear a conflict between Russia and NATO IS WWIII.
In the case of conflict, maybe in the baltic states or Ukraine the NATzO would hammer russian AD with cruise missiles and HARMS from "safe" distance.
What safe distance? HARMS and Cruise missiles are fairly easy to shoot down except in enormous numbers and NATO does not have enormous numbers available... and if they did the retaliation would be nuclear.
The B-2 would be in the first wave only a cruise missile carrier from safe distance!!! And there would be NO nuclear retaliation strike!!!!!!!!!!
That would be stupid to tie up the few B-2s you have to attack conventionally when russia will no doubt respond in kind against those NATO countries supporting the fight.
Russian nuclear doctrine is to use nuclear wepaons only if key areas are threaten due to occupation or a nuclear attack.
The enemy launching cruise missiles from B-2 strategic bombers is a threat... Russia wont know until those cruise missiles are either shot down or hit their targets whether they are nuclear or not... they will likely assume they are and launch a counter strike immediately while they still can.
The retaliation strike would hit Europe and USA giva a fuck about Europe, they can weaken Russia and Europe in one hit and stop the conflict if it's going too hot. We are not talking about a sane nation, we are talking about a hysteric miltaristic society in US that had in 200 years of history not a single year peace!!!
If the strike comes from B-2s then the response will be directed at the US too.
Saturation attack means to use more cruise missiles, HARMS etc. when russian AD can handle at a time. Russian AD is very good and if NATzO would attack, it would suffer huge losses, but look at psychopathic idiots like Mc Cain and Co, they want the WW 3
Saturation attacks don't come from thin air. The air bases launching the aircraft, the ports the ships are based at, the aircraft and command and communication centres supporting the attack can all be targeted to weaken the attack before it even arrives.
NATzO have still more assets, than Russia, take a look at the sheer number of US Forces. There are 1000 F-16 only, than add to that number the F-15, F-22, F-18 and so on. Of course NATzO is not the ultimate superpower able to do everything without losses, but they are mighty, powerful and complete crazy!
Such an attack could not be mounted without giving the game away... NATO secrecy is full of holes... you see the problem for the west is that while it claims to be the good guy... most of the time it is the opposite and while they can hide that from the general public who believes their own mass media over everyone elses there are plenty of people on the inside of NATO who actually want to be able to sleep at night... Manning, Snowden, Assange... and there are plenty more names we don't hear.
PAK DA wont make Russia super powerful and a real danger to the world... it already is.
It is just a numbers plane that has different capabilities from the other plane they are going to build (ie Tu-160), but will be likely a lot cheaper to operate.
They have called it a stealthy flying wing subsonic aircraft but I very much doubt they will be going for 0.0000000000001 m super stealth first strike bomber... its most important feature as noted above in the piece Austin posted will be range and low cost and the ability to carry a wide range of subsonic stealthy and hypersonic cruise missiles.
You know that a single B-2 costs around 750 million US-$??? The program cost were 45 billion US-$. Maybe that's the reason they have only 21!? It has nothing to do with effectiveness!
Hahahahahaa... they will be paying 350 million per F-35 and their C-17s cost over 200 million a piece... that is peanuts.
But AESA Nebo is reserved for fancy high end AD Systems like S-400. Even other systems work in UHF area like Panzir, but never forget the crazy dudes in NATzO are good in bringing destruction, don't think AESA Nebo will survive that long. NATzO will try to destroy the fancy radar systems at first, so they will focus at small areas and saturate them with cruise missiles and HARM. With the loss of the "big eye" the fight against enemy air planes will be much harder. Never forget every weapon system is beatable. S-300, S-350 and S-400 are still very good, I said nothing against this systems, western countries have nothing in the same category. But in quantity lies quality, never forget!
If NATO tries to focus its forces and attack NEBO one radar at a time then they will get the shit kicked out of them.
NEBO is at the centre of an S-400 battery which is likely colocated with several other SAM batteries offering mutual coverage... and air power will support that coverage... A few cruise missiles in Libya can take out an old SAM site because that old SAM site can only target one low flying missile at one time and could only detect such a threat at the very last moment... 10km or so... and considering its minimum engagement range is probably like 6km or so then there are problems.
With the Russian system there are aircraft that can shoot down dozens of cruise missiles all day, there are SAM sites with point defence SAMs supporting them and protecting them... not to mention jammers and decoys and other systems... even an Igla is a serious threat to a cruise missile if the Igla unit has warning...
OSA brought down large numbers of cruise missiles in desert storm simply by being in the right place at the right time... cruise missiles are not wonder weapons.
Not to mention that the Russian AF could then launch cruise missiles against NATO targets which will likely tie up a few of those thousands of fighters they have...
Of course you can't compare Serbia with Russia, but Serbia (Yugoslavia) showed that it is very easy for NATzO to surpress effective AD systems.
That conflict showed that NATO was not used to fighting a competent enemy and its performance was pathetic in that conflict. It likely killed more tractors and friendlies than it did enemy forces.
Equip the Serbs with weapons and systems can could not only reach NATO aircraft up at 20,000 ft but give them the means to attack Brussels and see how that turns out...
USA is trying to create new weapons for SEAD missions! cousin of JDAM and Co. - air force mag
Everything since SA-11 could shoot down HARM missiles... TOR and Pantsir are particularly good at it. Why do you think they are spending money on a replacement.
For all the talk HARM was pathetic... ALARM was much more menacing...
I think S-500 will be a great game changer, it will be a system effective to destroy everything big enough and very very far away! Especially the ability to kill enemy ICBM warheads is vital for Russia!!! Russia must develop very fast a shield against enemy ICBM warheads, the current around Moskow is good but not good enough! But wrong thread...
S-500 is irrelevant to the conflict scenario in question...
S-350 will make NATO cruise missiles impotent due to numbers being able to match numbers.
Second picture is very interesting! Looks like a good hybrid between flying wing and conventional aircraft. I know it's just a concept but...
Reminded me of a Victor...
You can call me idiot all you like you are well aware i am right, not sure why you keep posting stuff that highschool dropout wouldnt.
You called me a 7 year old and now less intelligent than a highschool dropout...
Third world war, third world war, third world war... do you people have anything else on your mind except stupid shit like WW3. Could you possibly land on the ground and discuss things that are.... realistic.
Of course... there is absolutely no connection between a new Russian stealth bomber and WWIII... it is just fantasy...
I calculated uickly, it need 400 NEBO radar to cover the whole russian federation, and to sense all stealth aircraft, if we expect 200 km range for each to see the B-2 without jamming.
Actually rather less because existing large aerospace forces radar to detect incoming ICBMs and SLBMs should also help detecting incoming threats too.
Yes, you can of course detect stealth airplanes with Nebo AESA, but not at the max. detection range of the radar. UHF negates most of RAM coating but it can't negate stealth resulting from shape and a lot of stealth is resulting from the shape and geometry of the aircraft.
Long wave radar cannot detect the shape of aircraft... only its existence/presence.
The discussion here was about "stealth is shit, speed is better", that's the point and that's not true. If stealth is complete shit, why is Russia developing stealth planes???? No one answered to this point! I heard only simple "Russia *****, stealth obsolete and shit" and that's simply bullshit!
No. the discussion here is that stealth is a measure so aircraft like B-2 and F-22 and F-35 who put all their design into stealth will be vulnerable when stealth is defeated as a countermeasure.
I wrote for the specifc scenario of a conflict in baltic states or Ukraine. Most realistic scenario ist the air base in Syria. Of course thousands of missilies flying to russian heartland is very ambivalent
But what is the point of it?
every air defence system can be overwhelmed, but the Russia system is amongst the largest and likely most effective and I rather doubt NATO countries could even afford enough missiles to threaten to defeat it before retaliation ruins their day.
In fact you are proving our point... it is numbers that will prevail... not 20 B-2s that are the problem... it is the reportedly 2,500 odd F-35s they claim they want to make. Of course even if they make half the operational costs will mean they wont be able to afford much else so that is a good thing too.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Wut??? I dont get it! PAK-DA is very similar to US B-2 concept. So they guys should be honest in matters of stealth! Of course is stealth for Russia not deadly, as it was for Serbia and Iraq, no one was talking about this. But George1 is right the discussion is 
F-35 price tags -BI
and I mean this not as a joke, because harsh conditions leads to destruction of RAM coating.
