PAK-DA: News

Russia to develop new strategic bomber by 2017

RIA Novosti

23/12/200920:26

MOSCOW, December 23 (RIA Novosti) - A new-generation Tu strategic bomber will be developed by 2017, Russian aircraft maker Tupolev said on Wednesday.

Company President Alexander Bobryshev told Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin the research on the new aircraft project should be completed by 2012, while production-line assembly should start in 2020 to 2025.

However, Maj. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev, commander of Russia's strategic aviation said on Tuesday a new strategic bomber, which will use stealth technology, is expected to enter service in 2025-2030

He said the stealth technology will make "the new aircraft difficult to detect by radar, although it is impossible to make airplanes of this type completely invisible."

The new bomber will replace the Tu-95MC Bear and Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bombers, and Tu-22M3 Backfire long-range bombers currently in service with Russia's strategic aviation.

According to various sources, in addition to 16 Tu-160 bombers, the Russian Air Force currently has 40 Tu-95MS bombers and 141 Tu-22M3 bombers in service.

These aircraft will form the backbone of the Russian strategic aviation in the next decade following extensive modernization.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2009/russia-091223-rianovosti01.htm

Any technical details? Probably hyper sonic and upgrade of project TU-2000...

finally a new bomber program. It`s the so called PAK DA right?
I thought bomber development was over long time ago. For what I know PAF DA will be based on the Tu 160 design. Below it a possible image of how the PAK DA is going to look like:

when will they upgrade TU-2000 design

Hitman wrote:finally a new bomber program. It`s the so called PAK DA right?
I thought bomber development was over long time ago. For what I know PAF DA will be based on the Tu 160 design. Below it a possible image of how the PAK DA is going to look like:

No , Hitman this is not PAK since PAK is a fighter not a bomber. (Check PAK Topic for coverage of today's launch)

Milk Candy Sugar: I do not know yet...

Russian Patriot wrote:

Hitman wrote:finally a new bomber program. It`s the so called PAK DA right?
I thought bomber development was over long time ago. For what I know PAF DA will be based on the Tu 160 design. Below it a possible image of how the PAK DA is going to look like:

No , Hitman this is not PAK since PAK is a fighter not a bomber. (Check PAK Topic for coverage of today's launch)

Milk Candy Sugar: I do not know yet...

I know about that. However I san`t talking about the PAK FA, but the PAK DA wich is a strategic bomber program

ah, your more informed than me. Apology

Russian Patriot wrote:ah, your more informed than me. Apology

nevermind

According to Wikipedia that new strategic bomber will be the update of TU-2000...they re launch the project with some modifications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-2000

milky_candy_sugar wrote:According to Wikipedia that new strategic bomber will be the update of TU-2000...they re launch the project with some modifications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-2000

wow... that's really something ....

If the bomber is to be in production by 2017 I don't think it will be Tu-2000. We are a couple decades from a hypersonic bomber.

The Tupolev design bureau said they were starting the design now and that it would be a radically new design so I am expecting some form of very large flying wing with perhaps swing wing wing tips to allow efficient low speed cruise and high speed dash.

A hypersonic strategic bomber makes no sense for Russia just as a super stealthy B-2 type doesn't make sense either.

A Bear is a viable strategic bomber because by the time it gets to its launch position ICBM and SLBM warheads will already have obliterated the opposing air defences.
Add to that the Bear is launching cruise missiles from 3,000 to 5,000km from its targets and you can see that its replacement doesn't need to be an incredibly expensive stealth aircraft (ie B-2) costing up to 4 billion each, or some expensive to buy and operate super fast hypersonic aircraft.
Making its cruise missiles stealthier and faster makes rather more sense.

Some stealth would be useful for theatre operations as a bomb truck for for its strategic role extreme stealth and hypersonic speed fail due to the law of diminished returns. (ie to get the Mig-25 to fly operationally at mach 2.4 for its entire mission might cost 1 billion dollars. To get it to fly at mach 3 for its entire mission will cost 10 billion dollars. Mach 3.5 might cost 100 billion. Mach 4 a trillion etc etc and the same with stealth but talking radar cross section.
The problem with stealth is that if a ground crew member accidentally stands on the wing and damages the coating that multi billion dollar aircraft might completely lose its stealth.

My favourite design would be the T-4MS, but it has already been rejected in favour of the Tu-160 design.

The flying wing design offers the lowest drag and smallest optical and radar cross section.

With the long range of our Kh-55s, we don't really need anything more than Tu-160. I would be happy with a stealthy Tu-160 with hypersonic missiles.

I agree, and the Kh-102s with 5,000km range make that argument even more convincing, but the Tu-160 is not cheap to operate.
The Bear is much cheaper and the new aircraft shouldn't be so expensive that Russia can only afford 20 like with the B-2.

Cheap to buy, cheap to operate, good enough for the job at hand.

That suggests to me a flying wing (low drag, naturally low radar cross section, large potential internal capacity for fuel and weapons).

Perhaps a supercruising flying wing with a mix of stealthy and hypersonic cruise missiles for different roles. Stealthy for strategic nuclear, and hypersonic for theatre bomber role because of active air defence networks in that role.

My PAKDA

but well i called her "reiteria"

done with Blender3D



she's armed with 16 Kh-55SM class Missiles (includes Kh-555 and Kh-101) or up to 70 tons of munitions

In my opinion the PAKDA will likely left the Swing Wing configuration in a favour of more advanced boundary layer control and advantages on today's more powerful and refined flight control.

Nice work, but what is that sticking out of the nose?

I would expect most probes and sensors would be flush with the skin of the aircraft and any inflight refuelling probe would be fully retractible.

GarryB wrote:Nice work, but what is that sticking out of the nose?

I would expect most probes and sensors would be flush with the skin of the aircraft and any inflight refuelling probe would be fully retractible.

just call it "early production model" mate

i can't really get rid of a "neat" feeling to see a refuelling probe sticking out like the one i saw on Tu-22M2 and Tu-95.. so i put one one my Reiteria

The Tu-95 is subsonic and not stealthy so a fixed probe make sense, it is cheaper and there is less to fail if it is fixed.

Perhaps you should have looked at the inflight refuelling probe on the Tu-160...

GarryB wrote:The Tu-95 is subsonic and not stealthy so a fixed probe make sense, it is cheaper and there is less to fail if it is fixed.

Perhaps you should have looked at the inflight refuelling probe on the Tu-160...

I have seen that Probe many times ..in typical Aviation photos or in my Yefim Gordon's book

it should be located ahead of cockpit , folded above the Obzor RADAR Radome

thanks for your suggestion anyway..but it seems i'll stick to that Tu-22M/Tu-95 stle probes for a while

This new bommer based on the technology of stealth technology. And is expected to enter service in 2025-2030. Stealth technology will make the new aircraft difficult to detect by radar, although it is impossible to make airplanes of this type completely invisible. The new bomber will replace the Tu-95MC Bear and Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bombers, and Tu-22M3 Backfire long-range bombers currently in service with Russia's strategic aviation.

No new Russian strategic bomber until at least 2025

It will take 15-20 years to develop an advanced aircraft system for strategic aviation and the new aircraft will be built in Kazan, head of the Unified Aircraft Corporation Alexei Fyodrov said.

“Together with our main contractor, the Defense Ministry, we have started thinking of new models of strategic bombers, aircraft for strategic aviation. A lot of time will be spent on the development of fundamentally new aircraft, of course. This will take, probably, 15 years and maybe even 20,” he said at the Kazan air show.

Fyodorov said that the aviation industry should be “starting now” in order to be prepared to produce the new aircraft in 15 years.

“One should be thinking of the concept of the aircraft, choose the basic technologies and new components that will be employed in the aircraft,” Fyodorov said.

He said that the new aircraft will be built at the Kazan Aircraft Production Association which previously produced the Tupolev Tu-160 strategic bombers.

I think the amount of time they are taking this is a design from scratch bomber , Certainly they would take the virtues of existing top of line bomber like the Tu-160 which offers decent payload , supersonic speed and long reach and build upon those strength.

I think a flying wing offers the optimium bet in Range, Payload and Stealth .. but making them supersonic also makes them expensive.

It is interesting that the US NGB focusses on B-2 type design albeit with better stealth and affordability although they still tend to remain subsonic.

Wonder if Russia could break the subsonic barrier with a supersonic flying wing design and still make it affordable that is where the challenge lies.

We have seen 5th generation fighter jet engines, what we haven't seen yet is a 5th generation bomber engine. Imagine a 35 ton class fuel efficient jet engine developed from the engines used in the Tu-160, you could use two instead of 4 in a very low drag flying wing configuration that super cruises at mach 1.5-1.8 or so for very long ranges.
Build it with lots of composite materials to greatly reduce the structure weight of the aircraft.
Load it with an enormous capacity bomb area that allows huge loads to be carried medium ranges, and for strategic roles allow for lighter cruise missile payloads and fill the rest of the internal weapon bay space with extra fuel to become strategic.

The need is not urgent, but a good solution could be used to replace the Tu-95, the Tu-142 (in the maritime patrol role), the Tu-22M3, the Tu-160, you could even extend the wing mounted radar antennas for 360 degree radar surveillance and use it as an AWACS aircraft as well. The enormous fuel load could have internal fuel storage and it could be used as an inflight refuelling aircraft as well.

Well I suppose they can use the new PAK-FA engine which is said to be in 18T class for the new Bomber , there is no point in developing a new engine for the bomber.

What they need to do is to develop a good engine "Variable Cycle Engine" that works efficiently in all flying conditions ( subsonic, transonic and supersonic ) with a growth potential of 20 to 30 %.

They can use 4 of this engine to power the PAK-DA and a pair to power the PAK-DA, it will also help in streamlining the logistics.

Well I suppose they can use the new PAK-FA engine which is said to be in 18T class for the new Bomber , there is no point in developing a new engine for the bomber.

Of course there is a point in developing a new engine for a bomber.
All your next generation stuff for military usually ends up in civilian use... design a new jet engine for the bomber and then take the AB section off and use it for large military transport aircraft.
Look at the 777... it reduces operational costs by having two engines instead of 4.
Imagine an An-124 with two engines instead of 4 that still has the power of the 4 old engines but better fuel efficiency... plus lower drag, and of course less weight.
Obviously reliability is an issue.

An 18 ton class engine would reduce the performance of existing Russian bombers... both the Tu-22M3 and the Tu-160 have 25 ton class engines.

Regarding hypersonic speed aircraft, the dividends are appealing but the cost will be enormous. You really have two clear options... either go with a hypersonic aircraft that drops bombs... because a hypersonic aircraft will be smaller and cheaper if its payload is smaller and lighter... for the 2.2 tons of the Kh-102 you could carry 15 moderate size nuclear bombs so instead of trying to carry 12 missiles you could carry 30-40 nuclear bombs of much less weight. The problem there is that the capacity for conventional weapons becomes pathetic even over shorter ranges.
Or you can go for hypersonic missiles, which means large internal or even external carriage. It means the plane itself can be much cheaper to buy and to operate and more flexible (nobody needs a hypersonic refuelling aircraft or AWACs or Maritime Patrol Aircraft). Large internal capacity would allow for supercruise capability and also mean that for strategic missions internal capacity could be used for fuel and subsonic missiles, and also room for stuff for other roles like radar for AWACs or fuel for refuelling etc etc.
The reality is that making a scramjet powered long range hypersonic missile would be a fraction of the cost of making a bomber able to fly at hypersonic speeds.
A bomber that is cheaper to operate is more important than a bomber that will get through because a small hypersonic missile is easier to make able to get through than any bomber.
A mix of hypersonic and stealthy subsonic missiles offers the best chance of enemy defence penetration and is probably attainable with the work being done on fast cruise missiles.

The point is that the Tu-22M3 and the Tu-160 are designed for sprint speeds of mach 2, if that was relaxed to a more modest mach 1.5 or so then you could probably get away with 4-6 engines in the 18 ton thrust class for a strategic bomber.
I just think that applying 5th gen technology to the Al-31 results in a 13 ton engine going to 18 ton that applying that same technology to the NK-321 might result in similar gains in power and efficiency that it is worth doing.

At the moment the Russian AF has the Tu-22M3 with two 25 ton class engines and the Tu-160 with 4 25 ton class engines that are not compatible. Building a new engine in the 32-35 ton class range and reducing their spec requirements to the mid mach 1.5s you cold get away with reducing the Tu-22M3 to a single engine aircraft and the Tu-160 to 3 or 2 engines and extend range performance without upsetting other capabilities except for top speed.

The Tu-22M3 is a handy theatre strike aircraft and is also used in the maritime strike role. When you need to deliver 24 tons of bombs to a target 2,000km away it is the ideal choice.