PAK-DA: News

Can the PAK DA outperform the B-2?

Andrei Kislyakov in Russia & India Report

The Russian armed forces continue to update their strategic arms. Next in line is the development and production of a new Advanced Long-Range Aviation Complex (the PAK DA). Experts suggest that there may be nothing new in this project, and that it would become a copy of the American B-2 ‘stealth’ bomber.
But is that really the case?

According to reports in the Russian media the Tupolev aircraft production company will begin development work on a strategic bomber, which is due to replace the Tu-95 and Tu-160 aircraft currently in service. It is suggested that the airframe of this aircraft will resemble a ‘flying wing,’ and that it would be subsonic and fitted with a system to reduce its radar target signature.

Army General Valeriy Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff, announced in the summer that development work on the PAK DA to replace the Tu-95MS and Tu-160 bombers will begin in 2014. Along with this plan, the series production of the aircraft itself will begin in 2020.

An official representative of the Ministry of Defense then announced that the PAK DA would be equipped with all the precision weapons currently being developed, including hypersonic weapons.
Boris Obnosov, the General Director of Tekhnicheskoe Raketnoe Vooruzhenie, announced that a hypersonic missile for the new bomber “has already been produced, but flies for only a few seconds.” Series production of the missile itself is to begin in 2020.

Nevertheless the military wanted to make this a subsonic aircraft. Why was this decision made? Taking everything into consideration, all this relates to the aircraft’s future role in combat. It could either be a fairly compact, stealthy missile carrying aircraft, or a hypersonic aircraft with the potential to penetrate existing air defense systems by virtue of its speed.

However the appropriate technical solutions, which permit development of a relatively large stealth bomber able to fly at hypersonic speeds do not yet exist. A small, subsonic stealth aircraft, which can operate from medium sized airfields with the potential to carry hypersonic missiles, is able to patrol the launch area over long periods and strike the target with high-speed weaponry at very short notice. This was the reason the Americans chose not to use the B-1 supersonic bomber for this role in favor of the B-2.

How similar though are the PAK DA and the B-2? From a scientific-technical point of view ‘copying’ a similar aircraft is no more than an observation of the laws of aerodynamics and other fundamental laws, which define the operability of aviation and space technology.

When designers are faced with identical or similar tasks, their solution will follow more or less the same methodology. However, a huge number of differences lurk behind the external similarities, which define the level of sophistication of one combat system over another. As experience has shown, few would deny that the Tu-144 and ‘Concorde’ are alike. The aerodynamic configuration of the F-15 is similar to that of the Su-27, but the Russian designers—even though they started work a little later—produced an undeniably more successful aircraft from the point of view of the airframe.

This being the case it is remarkable that the Americans owe a great deal to the Soviet scientist Pyotr Ufimtsev for actively introducing stealth technology into their own fighter-bomber aircraft.
In 1975 the Advanced Development Projects department of the Lockheed corporation received a translation of an article by Ufimtsev, in which he proposed a method that could be used to calculate the reflection of a radar beam from a two-dimensional body. This algorithm opened the way to developing an aircraft invisible on radar screens. It could be said that at that moment the history of stealth aircraft began. Later one of the authors of ‘invisible’ aircraft Alan Brown who led the U.S. Air Force’s first stealth program Senior Trend, which began in 1978 admitted that Ufimtsev’s contribution to creating a computer program for stealth technology could be estimated at between 30 percent to 40 percent. This though is a controlling stake in a new technology.

The new PAK DA is going to replace the Tupolev strategic bombers and also the Tupolev theatre bombers.

I would think there would be enormous differences in weight requirements for the two roles in the sense that the strategic bomber role will require the carriage of say 9-12 tons of strategic cruise missiles over a flight range of 12-13K km. In the theatre role you can swap out an enormous amount of fuel and replace it with weapons... internal and external with a flight radius of perhaps 6K km.

I still think a tailed flying wing that is able to supercruise offers the best compromise as the high average speed would have the benefit of reduced flight time to target.

Having short prep time and low cost operations means they can be bought in large numbers and widely used.

Sujoy wrote:[size=18]Can the PAK DA outperform the B-2?

of course it will, esp. since it will cost a lot less than 2 billion bucks per piece.

the Tupolev design bureau has won the PAK-DA development tender with its concept for a subsonic aircraft with a “flying wing” shape that provides superior “stealth capabilities.”

Tupolev was always very conservative... when Sukhoi proposed Mach 3 T-4 bombers Tupolev wanted to scale it back to mach 2 on the grounds that technology for mach 2 was mature and less exotic materials were needed for mach 2 than for mach 3. Equally, propulsion of the time was ready for mach 2 but for mach 3 it was pushing it.

Personally I would like to see them take a risk and develop a tailed flying wing with a scramjet engine as well as a 5th gen turbojet engine that would allow it to supercruise. This would greatly improve flight performance, make it harder to intercept with conventional interceptors, reduce the effective engagement ranges of enemy SAMs, yet not cost as much as a mach 3 plus hypersonic bomber but will reap some of its speed benefits.

It also makes the airframe more interesting in terms of other applications like AWACS, tanker aircraft, jammer, etc etc.

The only real question would be could the stealthy coatings take that sort of friction heat for long periods... and will the requirements of low drag slim shape allow enough internal fuel and weapons to make it strategic.

I guess making it subsonic would allow much more internal volume for outsized internal weapons, though really big weapons could be carried externally that would not be useful in terms of stealth.

I am very much looking forward to seeing what they come up with... like the PAK FA I am sure it will be a mix of what is expected and what is not.

My only dissapointment with PAK-FA is that its not Supersonic ....Russia operated since 80's two supersonic bomber Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 ........ a Tu-160 bomber Pilot would be dissapointed to tell his Grandson who may be a PAK-DA pilot that they would travel twice as fast compared to the newest bomber   

But if Russia could make the PAK-DA as stealthy or even better then the American LRS-B and likely Bigger compared to it then that would be some consolation.

Perhaps monitoring B-2 over 2 decades and geeting hold of some secrets via National Technical Means must have convinced the Russians top bosses that B-2 like flying wing is a way to go , Persistance and Large Payload with Stealth wins the day

I suspect the lower cost of the subsonic Bears, plus the obvious fact that their bombers will not be first strike bombers but cruise missile carriers they can swap speed for stealth.

Plus with the development of computer technology they will have the potential to make a much more sophisticated plane, and of course with all the new materials and design and production techniques the PAK DA might be a flying wing but don't expect it to be a B-2 copy.

Just looking at all the prototypes they had for the Tu-160 you would have to have your head in the sand to think the Tu-160 is a B-1A clone. In fact if anything the B-1A was likely a copy of material from the Soviet design bureaus if you have to mention copy.

Of course it should also be kept in mind that the PAKDA will be designed and built from scratch so they can make variants... a long range tanker aircraft, AWACS, an airborne jammer, a JSTARS like aircraft, a maritime patrol aircraft even a long range VKKO "interceptor" that flys to an expected flight path area and use enormous wing mounted radar to detect incoming stealth aircraft and use an enormous fuel weight to remain on station for days, plus enormous payload capacity for dozens or hundreds of long range AAMs.

In fact they could make a tailless subsonic aircraft for roles that don't require high speed like AWACS and tanker, plus a tailed flying wing version that can supercruise where speed is useful... including civilian supersonic airliner... that supercruises.

Austin wrote:My only dissapointment with PAK-FA is that its not Supersonic ....Russia operated since 80's two supersonic bomber Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 ........ a Tu-160 bomber Pilot would be dissapointed to tell his Grandson who may be a PAK-DA pilot that they would travel twice as fast compared to the newest bomber   

But if Russia could make the PAK-DA as stealthy or even better then the American LRS-B and likely Bigger compared to it then that would be some consolation.

Perhaps monitoring B-2 over 2 decades and geeting hold of some secrets via National Technical Means must have convinced the Russians top bosses that B-2 like flying wing is a way to go , Persistance and Large Payload with Stealth wins the day

the work is just beggining i dont think anything is finalised yet , the teams will concentrate on pak-da , after they finish refining pak-fa design and it enters production.

Yes, IMO, the very question, what capabilities should future PAK-DA bomber introduce, is a serious dilemma of its own.
Current bomber forces have 3 different classes of aircraft, any of them could be worthy of replacement with a succesor:

Tu-160, with new, upgraded versions of the same aircraft, or that version of sukhoi (what was it called, T-4MS or something).

Tu-95, with subsonic flying wing with PD-30 (?) engines.

Tu-22M, with that Sukhoi concept (T-60?), or maybe, new-built versions, as well.



The press reported, that subsonic flying wing was selected, but we may not be sure about that.

For me (armchair generalissimus), the best option to replace all three would be stealthied a little, fitted with canards (and new equipment, of course), T-4 Sotka  the best looking bomber, ever.

The T-4 as well as the T-4MS were both rejected before the Tu-160 shape was selected, so I don't think it will go backwards to the T-4MS again.

A flying wing offers the lowest drag highest internal volume solution that is ideal from many perspectives including lift and low drag and flight range with payload.

Just from a high speed performance perspective the flying wing would not cope very well with the serious shift in cg of passing through the speed of sound... you would need at least a horizontal tail surface for better yaw and pitch control... but then it could be possible to generate pitch and yaw control using thrust vectoring engines which would be even more useful operationally as the ability to change the thrust line of the aircraft and trim it could seriously reduce drag and maximise lift.

The main question would be could it allow supersonic flight in dry thrust.

Keep in mind that supercruising requires low drag and high speed high thrust engines... and top speed is more to do with drag and thrust velocity... for instance the Mig-31M was going to be a 52 ton aircraft but with 16.5 ton thrust engines was going to be as fast as the Mig-31B with two 15 ton thrust engines.

At sustained Mach 2.4 and dash to Mach 2.6 for 20 minutes or Mach 2.83 for 5 minutes it is much faster than aircraft with thrust to weight ratios of more than 1 to 1.

Adding scramjet propulsion should further improve long range high speed performance...

Hopefully the new aircraft will be able to perform the missions of the three aircraft it will directly replace and be flexible enough for other roles too including tanker, AWACS, jammer, recon, and perhaps even heavy interceptor and civilian airliner.

To GarryB:
"The T-4 as well as the T-4MS were both rejected before the Tu-160 shape was selected, so I don't think it will go backwards to the T-4MS again."

As far as I know, T-4MS was actually the most powerful contender, but also, the most expensive. Myasishchev proposal was the fastest but had relatively short range and small payload. Tupolev was something in-between. Because now, Russian military is forced to take a "quality-over-quantity" stance, it's not impossible for T-4MS to become viable again  .
And T-4 is another story, hardly related to these aircraft.

It was rejected because of recource shortages (for titanium allocation, it had to compete with Mig-23, or su-17, I don't remember well), and also, it's mission doctrine, fast high altitude approach, had become obsolete (remember, the same happened with B-70 Valkyrie). However, new features in current SAM systems, and increasing capability of fighter aircraft with high emphasis on supercruise, makes the current bombers actually OBSOLETE as well :)In comparison, how many current fighters or SAM systems could reliably engage a Mach 3 high altitude bomber?   Not very many, I'd say. So maybe, this concept is becoming viable too?  





"A flying wing offers the lowest drag highest internal volume solution that is ideal from many perspectives including lift and low drag and flight range with payload."

Isn't a flying wing just limited to subsonic speeds? Besides, delta wing also offer all these advantages you mentioned.





"Just from a high speed performance perspective the flying wing would not cope very well with the serious shift in cg of passing through the speed of sound... you would need at least a horizontal tail surface for better yaw and pitch control... but then it could be possible to generate pitch and yaw control using thrust vectoring engines which would be even more useful operationally as the ability to change the thrust line of the aircraft and trim it could seriously reduce drag and maximise lift.

The main question would be could it allow supersonic flight in dry thrust."

Well, since flying wing requires automated flight corrections even in subsonic speeds, I'd say, hardly. In any case, why invent bicycle, and not just stick to delta wing?







"Hopefully the new aircraft will be able to perform the missions of the three aircraft it will directly replace and be flexible enough for other roles too including tanker, AWACS, jammer, recon, and perhaps even heavy interceptor and civilian airliner."


Well, all these ideas are possible, except AWACS. For the latter, transport aircrafts or airliners seem to be a much better choice.

Zhiharev: PAK DA will be released for testing in 2019

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20131223/985854551.html

Promising aviation complex long-range aircraft (PAK DA) to be released for testing in 2019, and from 2025 to begin to enter the army, said the commander of the Russian Air Force long-range aviation Anatoly Zhiharev.

"Development of the PAK DA conducted more than one year, it ended at the stage of the project, called developmental work in 2014, and the first aircraft will appear on tests in 2019. I think that adopted this plane will arrive already in 2025" - Zhiharev said on television channel " Russia 24 ".

He stressed that this plane "another class with other weapons" - rather than Tu-160, Tu-95MS and Tu-22, which is intended to replace the PAK DA.

Currently Russian strategic aviation forces, which are part of the 37th Air Army of the Supreme Command, include 32 Tu-95MS6, 31 Tu-95MS16 and 13 Tu-160 bombers. They are capable of carrying more than 850 cruise missiles, long range

Nice T-4 photo.

That's not a T-4, it's an XB-70. Or, at least parts of it are. It looks like someone went psycho with Photoshop.

As far as I know, T-4MS was actually the most powerful contender, but also, the most expensive. Myasishchev proposal was the fastest but had relatively short range and small payload. Tupolev was something in-between. Because now, Russian military is forced to take a "quality-over-quantity" stance, it's not impossible for T-4MS to become viable again Smile .

Would love to pretend so, but Tupolev is known for being fairly conservative... even back then he realised that mach 3 aircraft were too expensive to buy and operate, and managed to convince his government to go for slower more conventional aircraft.

The Blackjack is known to be rather more expensive to operate than the Bear, so I suspect a more conservative flying wing with subsonic flight speed.

An extended tail area to allow supercruising and increase internal volume is just my wishful thinking.

If it is not OK for Russia to go back to subsonic bombers from mach 2 Blackjacks and Backfires, then the US went from supersonic B-1B, and Hustlers, and mach 3 Valkyries to subsonic flying wings too.

IMO this is what the PAK DA ought to look like:



But with added canards , RAM coating, stealthed engine intakes and outtakes and maybe no need to land on ice. Maybe one of the engine pairs can be a ramjet for supercruising.

BTW isn't having supersonic capability useful for carpet bombing? With today's sophisticated AA tech I doubt a subsonic aircraft can survive except in very low intensity conflicts. Is using general purpose bombs from heavy bombers still a sound tactic? Or does the VVS plan only to use cruise missiles on their bombers?

I think the ideal solution for Russia next generation Bomber is that there is more than one model.

IF Russia for example could manage to get the Funds somehow to develop at least 2 bombers..

1) One very Huge subsonic ,super stealthy bomber ,that could carry any kind of bomb or missile.. including aerial version of ISkanders and Bulavas missiles launched from high altitude. Something like a flying stealth fortress with emphasis on a very massive weapon storage capabilities and stealth.  (A counter to the B-2 bomber but much bigger)

2)A High -Hypersonic Bomber that could fly beyond Mach 10.0 speeds at 120k Altitude.. carrying either Nuclear missiles or conventional ones.. with the ability to fly at the same altitude of NATO satellites and capabilities to destroy Many of them in single mission.  A bomber like that will be a game changer. and a dozen of them will replace the need to have nuclear Submarines at all. Because of its ability to fly anywhere in the world in less than 1 hours and launch a nuclear strike or conventional strike on any Nation or attack any Navy aircraft carrier group.  and totally any navy from above with hypersonic bombs that will be very challenging to intercept when being thrown from very high altitudes. (a counter to US hypersonic bomber in development). Having dozens of Hypersonic very high altitude bombers could effectively replace the need to have a Big Navy and even save money by building much less Submarines. Since as far i'm aware no Defense system in the world have the capability to shut down planes at beyond 100km altitude with the capabilities to change its course. Most interceptions test of ICBM i have seen in articles happens at ~30km altitude.

Already Russia was experimenting with Hypersonic Planes in the 90's ..

https://youtu.be/q1iISHUgoC8

3) And as a bonus ,a tactical stealth bomber for Army support and conventional warfare. (A stealth version of SU-34 with upgraded capabilities)


On another note.. apparently there are new design of PAK-DA that have been shared on Internet.

https://youtu.be/DJmsAlUPOM4

The new large shape design suggest to be a supersonic Bomber more closer to the TU-160 but with stealth airframe.
Hopefully we will see more than one Stealth Bomber from Russia and at least one of them being very Fast.

I believe the subsonic variant would be better just for maritime patrols while the supercruising one would replace all land and nuclear retaliation bombers.

SOC wrote:That's not a T-4, it's an XB-70.  Or, at least parts of it are.  It looks like someone went psycho with Photoshop.

I don't know what is it, but it isn't a XB-70: please, look at the main landing gear and at the canard's shape. The main landing gear of the XB70 had four wheels per leg only. The Valkyrie landing gear doors are different and the jet intakes too. It seems to me some T-4 version. Or a T-4 mockup.

Is using general purpose bombs from heavy bombers still a sound tactic? Or does the VVS plan only to use cruise missiles on their bombers?

AFAIK the PAK DA will be a strategic cruise missile carrier, with bombs maintained for targets of opportunity and theatre missions.

I believe the subsonic variant would be better just for maritime patrols while the supercruising one would replace all land and nuclear retaliation bombers.

From what is known there is only a flying wing model which will be subsonic and fairly cheap to operate.

Personally I like the idea of having a supercruising flying wing with horizontal tail surface model as it would be able to get around faster and to intercept it would be very difficult with its stealth and higher speed.

An MPA could get to patrolling areas faster with supercruising performance and tanker models and AWACS models might never break the sound barrier but can if they need to to get to or away from something urgently.

At the end of the day the primary weapons of a strategic bomber will be hypersonic cruise missiles which will be able to penetrate enemy air defences... or what is left of them after the ICBMs and SLBMs had arrived a few hours before.

Against lessor air forces the mix of Su-35s and PAK FAs shooting down the enemy air force while stealthy PAK DAs cruise around hitting critical point targets should not be that much of a problem against most targets.

The thing is, a hypersonic bomber would be a quantum leap. An advanced subsonic, extremely stealthy flying wing bomber is, at the end of the day, only a new or maybe better B-2A.
Hypersonic missiles will surely do the job very efficient, but still I hope the Russians will change the conceptual design of the PAK DA.
The very bad thing is, that a hypersonic bomber project would be maybe a to expensive project.

A hypersonic bomber would be enormously expensive to design, to build, and to operate.

The US can't afford to operate the SR-71, why would the Russian taxpayer want to spend more?

More importantly a subsonic or transsonic large aircraft could be much more multi purpose.

Very high speed on its own is no guarantee of safety... a few large fast bombers would still be vulnerable to current air defences... increasing that number by a factor of maybe 6 or 12 by having hypersonic weapons instead of hypersonic bombers improves the chances of penetration and reduces operational costs, and makes the most expensive component also more flexible as AWACS and recon and tanker and MPA and even civilian airliner become options.

A flying wing would be a little boring... a tailed flying wing with the ability to supercruise offers significantly better performance with moderate risk and less cost risk.

Tupolev is a conservative company which should mean that the PAK DA will not be too expensive to operate and should be able to be produced in significant numbers hopefully for a variety of roles.

Actually I would suspect it will be the first Russian bomber to carry self defence short range AAMs to defend from enemy aircraft and SAMs/AAMs. The Morfei 9M100 missile would be small and compact.. optimised for internal carriage, but also highly manouverable and capable in terms of interception performance.

But if its subsonic won't that make it extremely vulnerable to modern ADS for dropping guided and general purpose bombs? I personally really think supercruising or at least supersonic is the way to go. Like Garry said not too much added expense and there's also experience flying such aircraft but with much more mission versatility and survivability.
For maritime patrol I think they should focus more on the Be-200 and make an ASW MS-21 or Tu-204 variant.

Although a large subsonic flying wing could be a good AWACs aircraft.
But a supersonic PAK DA would be able to do another mission : Long range heavy interception. I think reviving the concept of the Tu-160P is a good idea.

GarryB wrote:

A hypersonic bomber would be enormously expensive to design, to build, and to operate.
The US can't afford to operate the SR-71, why would the Russian taxpayer want to spend more?
More importantly a subsonic or transsonic large aircraft could be much more multi purpose.

Actually the SR-71 was canceled because the plane became next to Useless once Satellite Technology Improved.. on top that Russia could shut down them anyway with their Migs.

They are actually developing the SR-72.. So clearly your mistaken ,they have the funding.. not only for that but for more other expensive projects...  

http://rt.com/usa/lockheed-announces-sr72-spy-drone-112/

Russia could afford a Robust Hypersonic Program if they change their focus  of creating a massive Navy that they don't need ,and moving their Naval budget to space forces. And create a Dozen of Hypersonic bombers  that could fly very High Altitudes in space beyond 95% of the competition defenses.. if not 100%.. Because Aegis Missiles Defenses cannot counter targets with high maneuverability.

They will never catch US at the slow pace they building warships.. They don't need more warships in the caspian sea, Patrol boats will be fine , Neither they need Aircraft carriers if they have some military airports around the world. Neither any need of a single Borey Submarine. If they can launch missiles from Land that hit any part of the world.

CHina also working with Hypersonic planes..

http://rt.com/news/supersonic-china-delivery-vehicle-554/

So if Russia waits for US to finish their hypersonic planes it will be too late.  Nuclear ballistics Submarines are useless in any war..other than a total world destruction . Something they can do anyway with Land base missiles. Hypersonic planes in the other hand could be game changing against conventional conflicts with powerful nations. IF for example Russia needs to warn a hostile nation in defense of their Interest ( or major ally.)  Nothing will be more game changing than hypersonic bombers flying over their heads at the mesosphere (50k-90km altitude)  ,launching precise conventional strikes on that nation and that no defense could touch it.

The money Russia needs for the funding of a Hypersonic bomber is there.. Russia only needs to change its priorities and focus more on Hypersonic High Altitude Bombers.. Nuclear Submarines are cool ,make no mistake.. But really i believe it will be better for Russia to invest in game changing Weapons that could be used in any minor or major conventional conflict against a hostile Nation, and not expensive Nuclear Submarines that will never be used.

Today all over the world's Oceans are western AEGIS/SM-2/-3 Destroyers and Cruisers, and each year there are more and more of them. It's by far easier for a hypersonic bomber to penetrate thru that Aegis net, than for a subsonic bomber.

The Soviet Union didn't had such problems, a Tu-95MS could fly more freely across the Oceans, often totally undetected.

With SR-72, the USA would again gain large technological superiority over all other Powers.

The Russians must go for something hypersonic. If not a bomber, than a multirole fighter able to hunt and shutdown a SR-72.