PAK-DA: News

The reasons for the massive size of the perspective new bomber are:

-Must carry large Hypersonic missiles (Zircon or whatever they will be called)
-Must carry large LO cruise missiles (Kh-101/102 and successor)
-Must carry large amounts of conventional cruise missiles (Kh-55 and successors) and/or guided bombs
-Future START treaties will limit number of assets (so, x-large size is a good idea)
-Must have super range and loitering capability
-"Mine is bigger than yours" is definitely a good propaganda tool in peacetime

-"Mine is bigger than yours" is definitely a good propaganda tool in peacetime

And tradition... look up the ANT-25...

If an ANT-25 had not landed in the US just before WWII congress was just about to cancel the B-17 program...

TheArmenian wrote:The reasons for the massive size of the perspective new bomber are:

-Must carry large Hypersonic missiles (Zircon or whatever they will be called)
-Must carry large LO cruise missiles (Kh-101/102 and successor)
-Must carry large amounts of conventional cruise missiles (Kh-55 and successors) and/or guided bombs
-Future START treaties will limit number of assets (so, x-large size is a good idea)
-Must have super range and loitering capability
-"Mine is bigger than yours" is definitely a good propaganda tool in peacetime

Have to agree with TR1 on the putting all the eggs in one basket thing.

Of course making larger planes with larger payloads means that there will be fewer needed to construct and then keep operational and based somewhere. Which means that the program will be less expensive, which is probably as important a factor in the decision to go with such a design as anything else.

The problem lies in the fact that if only lets say 12-14 of these large planes are constructed, then it would be difficult justifying more than 1 dedicated base for them lets say - in fact the temptation would be to do just that. Which means that the main component of Russia's future nuclear strategic aviation could be taken out by one nuclear missile in a preemptive strike.
As each plane will be more expensive and fewer will be needed, it would also be harder to justify keeping production lines ready or dormant after the initial series run finished. What would happen if one of these large planes is lost to an accident in peacetime? For sure production would have to restart again to replace it - and this would turn out to be more expensive than if a greater number of smaller planes were built over a greater period of time, with some put into reserve in advance.
And speaking of accidents - even one such plane crashing into the sea with all its armament will strike a significant temporary blow to Russia's nuclear aviation readiness and capability.
And that's not even to speak about enemy action. It can't be discounted that the Americans will find a way to counter the PAK-DA with tactics and technology and stay one step ahead of them; in this case having a small amount of large planes will make them very vulnerable. Take out a few on the ground, a few in the air, and the remaining few will have their missiles intercepted far more easily.

I can see the temptation to think otherwise - but even stealth nuclear bombers aren't the same as nuclear submarines; whose size and low production numbers are actually justified by their demand for a large crew, far greater stealth (being far harder to track down in the depths of the ocean than any aircraft in the air) and immediate reaction time with weapons that can strike any point in the world from any other point in the world and without possibility of interception.
The PAK-DA just doesn't fit the same bill though.

I think they are probably planning huge internal capacity... which means the ability to carry the FOAB internally... presumably on theatre missions.

The point is that if they are really serious about stealth then it needs all internal weapons which makes the plane bigger.

Bigger planes need more energy to move around which means more fuel which further adds to the planes size.

I suspect this also means that the Il-96M was needed as a tanker aircraft because the fuel it will likely load into this bomber just after takeoff will be enormous.

I suspect because of these requirements of long range and heavy payload that subsonic was the only option.

Of course they wont be as vulnerable as some might think... at the point where tensions rise you can get them airborne so one nuclear strike will not take them all out at a stroke... they will probably be able to fly for days.

So is it a give now that PAK-DA will be a B-2 style wing shaped aircraft a flying wing in design.

http://paralay.com/pakda.html

It seems so, but I would not expect an exact copy.

And it will be rather larger than the drawing depicted based on the humans depicted in the drawing posted here... I would also expect the engines to be rather more deeply buried in the wing design with more effort to conceal the exhaust from the ground with intakes and exhausts on the upper surface.

I would also expect wing mounted radar arrays could be an option... a problem with detecting B-2s is the size of them... making an aircraft bigger than a B-2 with an antenna its full wing length could be a solution too with very long range slow PAK DA in an anti stealth AWACS role with fixed wing mounted AESA arrays of very long wave radar used to direct Mig-31 replacements to intercept stealthy threats... whether they are fighters, bombers or cruise missiles.

Active control surfaces on the front and rear of the wing should allow impressive performance in terms of high and low speed flight (ie high lift or low drag for takeoff and long range cruise respectively).

From Dimi blog - it fits GarryB idea of what it should look like few pages back (probably from testing at TsAGI)

you can see from its shape that it will be subsonic and able to carry huge loads and of course huge range

PAK-FA mated with a Tu-160?

So it looks like when they said "bigger" they meant bigger capacity of weapons than the Tu-160.

Makes sense, Tu-160 is already a giant.

The Tu-160M has a limit of 45 tons of weapons... I wonder if they mean bigger as in heavier, or bigger as in larger weapons like the FOAB and big hypersonic cruise missiles.

Keep in mind that to retain stealth they need to be internally carried

What would be the purpose of having the cockpit/nose protrude ahead of the leading edge of the wing? What advantages or disadvantages would this have over the B2's design?

Did they blur out the nozzles?

In terms of the nose... I don't think it would have a huge impact on RCS or drag, though it will add volume and together with the tail area provide better longitudinal stability for better control.

The shifting to the rear of the engines would greatly increase the internal volume in the centre section for weapons and fuel which for centre of gravity purposes would be the best place to put a payload or heavy weight.

I rather doubt the rounded nose would be used as is... the nose would not need to be like the PAK FA or F-22 as it wont be supersonic so more rounded surfaces could be used... perhaps mounting large forward and side looking AESA antenna arrays for high frequency radar with the much larger longer ranged lower frequency models mounted in the wings.

Advantages probably include better RAM types that are easier to apply... the US has had a few decades of B-2 service and know a lot about its pluses and its minuses and the Russians will be paying special attention to find this information out so it can benefit from this analysis and where suitable apply it to their aircraft.

Keep in mind the Russians don't want a first strike bomber, they want a stealthy cruise missile carrier that has a good chance of being successful in its mission at theatre and strategic level without costing too much.

BTW if you mean the exhaust nozzles Perhaps so, but I think they have tried a range of engine configurations based on the "tape", but it looks to me they have the same engine exhaust nozzles as the YF-23.

I also expect that the same control surfaces over the engine intakes on the PAK FA could be fitted to the PAK DA.

Later models might add supercruise capability in which case a cranked delta shape might be used with the forward fuselage forming a sharp delta and the wing itself forming the shallower angle delta wing.

Tail surfaces and thrust vectoring flat engine nozzles offer the potential for supercruise at some time in the future.

I think the configuration that TSAGI is shown is also not stealthy ..... a B-2 type flying wing will be stealthy from X to Meter Band.

The aircraft they are showing is a civilian version for wide body type.

Austin wrote:I think the configuration that TSAGI is shown is also not stealthy ..... a B-2 type flying wing will be stealthy from X to Meter Band.

The aircraft they are showing is a civilian version for wide body type.

It could be. This wouldn't be the first civilian aircraft proposal with a blended wing body.

Original. Nothing to do with PAKDA.

They are testing a shape... the best way to hide the fact that you are testing a future bomber design is to make it seem like it is something else.

The data they collect from this testing can be used for computer models with different shapes and designs.

the nose section seems to be interchangeable ...and so does the wings.

GarryB wrote:They are testing a shape... the best way to hide the fact that you are testing a future bomber design is to make it seem like it is something else.

The data they collect from this testing can be used for computer models with different shapes and designs.

It's a design study for a large capacity, long haul civilian airliner. The subsonic wind tunnel tests demonstrated high cruise speed (M0.88) along with good aerodynamic efficiency. There is a link but I can't find it.
They may use some of the obtained data for a bomber shape.

the nose section seems to be interchangeable ...and so does the wings.

Wind tunnel time is hard to get... I rather suspect they probably had lots of different configurations they wanted to test in one session. All the results would be recorded on video and also the various loads on different parts etc etc, so they might test different engine configurations and wing angles and tail layouts.

Remember this is a wind tunnel model so they will only be testing aerodynamics at different flight speeds... radar cross section and stealth don't mean squat in such a rig... they will have other ways of testing that.

It's a design study for a large capacity, long haul civilian airliner. The subsonic wind tunnel tests demonstrated high cruise speed (M0.88) along with good aerodynamic efficiency. There is a link but I can't find it.
They may use some of the obtained data for a bomber shape.

If it is a Tupolev design then they almost certainly will be thinking about low drag design shapes including military and civilian designs.

PAK DA's combat load will be higher than that of Tu-160 and carry more powerful weapons .

http://fr.ria.ru/defense/20130806/198945830.html

In its theatre role a few FOABs would be fairly effective village elimination systems... perhaps evacuate a large area and use them to clear minefields....

Possible configuration

Tu-160ski?

..

wait a minute..

No, that's either one of the T-54/T-60 configurations or damn close to it.

I rather doubt they will go for a swing wing design... I suspect their experience with smart wings and the fact that they seem to be going for a subsonic only design would mean thicker subsonic wing shape but still flying wing low drag design