Home
Latest images
Register
Log inRead his post again. The "commander" just said that they are working on them.
+86
GarryB
LMFS
Azi
mnztr
wilhelm
Arctic_Fox
archangelski
SeigSoloyvov
eehnie
DasVivo
franco
Benya
T-47
miketheterrible
Arrow
berhoum
Enera
hoom
Rmf
Singular_Transform
Pierre Sprey
A1RMAN
VladimirSahin
OminousSpudd
Singular_trafo
jhelb
victor1985
kvs
x_54_u43
Isos
Dorfmeister
max steel
JohninMK
AK-Rex
Book.
mack8
PapaDragon
sepheronx
Berkut
william.boutros
Svyatoslavich
Big_Gazza
higurashihougi
Mak Sime
Ranxerox71
marcellogo
2SPOOKY4U
Werewolf
type055
Battalion0415
mutantsushi
magnumcromagnon
Morpheus Eberhardt
Mike E
RTN
xeno
Hannibal Barca
eridan
GJ Flanker
Giulio
Vann7
etaepsilonk
collegeboy16
Rpg type 7v
Hachimoto
TR1
Ogannisyan8887
Zivo
Viktor
KomissarBojanchev
nemrod
Cyberspec
TheArmenian
Sujoy
flamming_python
George1
Firebird
SOC
Mindstorm
Austin
brudawson
Admin
Stealthflanker
Hitman
milky_candy_sugar
Russian Patriot
90 posters
PAK-DA: News
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
GarryB- Posts : 40547
Points : 41047
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Some situational awareness for cruise missiles will make them rather more capable.
It also applies to short range and medium and long range AAMs however.
Brimstone already uses a MMW radar seeker that can detect targets and compare target signatures with signatures recorded in an onboard database or 3D signatures to allow it to threat prioritise and choose its own targets.
For instance a short range IIR missile like Morfei that is fired from an internal bay without being able to see the target before launch needs an autopilot to direct its flight as it leaves the aircraft. Its IIR sensor will be looking for targets and when it spots its target (looking in the direction of the target after launch to lock on after launch... LOAL) it can examine the IR signature and compare it with the 3D IR signatures in an onboard database and select its own target after launch.
A two way datalink would allow the missile to check with the launch aircraft IRST to make sure it has targeted the correct target based on its position and the direction it is looking at in relation to the direction of the target from the aircraft and also allow the pilot to change targets if needed.
For a very long range missile such a seeker would be awesome because unlike a ARH radar seeker the IIR seeker is totally passive and does not give away the presence of the missile.
It could be flown by autopilot into enemy airspace looking for targets and when it finds one it can go active and hunt it down.... targets like F-35s and F-22s and B-2s and of course AMRAAMs will be high priorities....
It also applies to short range and medium and long range AAMs however.
Brimstone already uses a MMW radar seeker that can detect targets and compare target signatures with signatures recorded in an onboard database or 3D signatures to allow it to threat prioritise and choose its own targets.
For instance a short range IIR missile like Morfei that is fired from an internal bay without being able to see the target before launch needs an autopilot to direct its flight as it leaves the aircraft. Its IIR sensor will be looking for targets and when it spots its target (looking in the direction of the target after launch to lock on after launch... LOAL) it can examine the IR signature and compare it with the 3D IR signatures in an onboard database and select its own target after launch.
A two way datalink would allow the missile to check with the launch aircraft IRST to make sure it has targeted the correct target based on its position and the direction it is looking at in relation to the direction of the target from the aircraft and also allow the pilot to change targets if needed.
For a very long range missile such a seeker would be awesome because unlike a ARH radar seeker the IIR seeker is totally passive and does not give away the presence of the missile.
It could be flown by autopilot into enemy airspace looking for targets and when it finds one it can go active and hunt it down.... targets like F-35s and F-22s and B-2s and of course AMRAAMs will be high priorities....
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 44
Location : Croatia
Speeding up the process 
The engine for the PAK DA will be based on engine Tu-160
The engine for the PAK DA will be based on engine Tu-160
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
Cool! I love it when countries use proven technology and continue to improve them.
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 44
Location : Croatia
Mike E wrote:Cool! I love it when countries use proven technology and continue to improve them.
Agree, its faster and cheaper but at the same time one must not forget for completely new developments. (hypersonic)
Modernizing Tu-160 engines with new materials and everything can be compared to AL-31 to 117S
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
Viktor wrote:Mike E wrote:Cool! I love it when countries use proven technology and continue to improve them.
Agree, its faster and cheaper but at the same time one must not forget for completely new developments. (hypersonic)
Modernizing Tu-160 engines with new materials and everything can be compared to AL-31 to 117S
Yep, it is best to not only improve what you have, but look at whats coming in the future as well.
GarryB- Posts : 40547
Points : 41047
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
I was worried they would use the PAK FA engine instead of a more powerful one.
To put this in context the B-1B uses the engine from the F-15, and even with 4 engines fitted it has comparable power to the Tu-22M3M with two engines.
At max thrust the F-15 engine produces about 13 tons of thrust... which means 13 x 4 = 52 tons.
the NK-25 has a dry thrust rating of about 14 tons thrust and a full power thrust of 25 tons... so 50 tons thrust with less weight and space than four engines.
the evolution of the Al-31 through to the PAK FA engine which is supposed to have a final thrust performance of 18 tons means going from about 12 tons to 18 tons, or an increase in performance of 6 tons thrust.
translating that to the NK-32 with 25 tons thrust that should result in an increase in 50% of thrust over the existing performance... ie 12 tons is 50% more powerful at 18 tons.
25 tons plus 13.5 tons thrust would be 38.5 tons thrust... now if the new aircraft is going to be subsonic then perhaps only two engines will be needed?
A flying tailed wing design you could go for two new engines in the 40 ton thrust class plus perhaps a scramjet structure between them to operate at supersonic cruising speeds and in later designs perhaps even hypersonic speeds.
the engine of the Il-76 and Il-476 is the core of the jet engine of the MiG-31 with a large turbofan front added to it... this core might have an enormous fan fitted to it too like a jet airliner high bypass turbofan engine for a subsonic only aircraft... not very stealthy though.
Unless it is mounted in the thickest section of the wing and the wing is very thick... waste a lot of volume that could be used for fuel and ordinance...
Hope they upgrade the engines in steps and put test engines in the Tu-22M3M and Tu-160M to improve performance of those aircraft too.
To put this in context the B-1B uses the engine from the F-15, and even with 4 engines fitted it has comparable power to the Tu-22M3M with two engines.
At max thrust the F-15 engine produces about 13 tons of thrust... which means 13 x 4 = 52 tons.
the NK-25 has a dry thrust rating of about 14 tons thrust and a full power thrust of 25 tons... so 50 tons thrust with less weight and space than four engines.
the evolution of the Al-31 through to the PAK FA engine which is supposed to have a final thrust performance of 18 tons means going from about 12 tons to 18 tons, or an increase in performance of 6 tons thrust.
translating that to the NK-32 with 25 tons thrust that should result in an increase in 50% of thrust over the existing performance... ie 12 tons is 50% more powerful at 18 tons.
25 tons plus 13.5 tons thrust would be 38.5 tons thrust... now if the new aircraft is going to be subsonic then perhaps only two engines will be needed?
A flying tailed wing design you could go for two new engines in the 40 ton thrust class plus perhaps a scramjet structure between them to operate at supersonic cruising speeds and in later designs perhaps even hypersonic speeds.
the engine of the Il-76 and Il-476 is the core of the jet engine of the MiG-31 with a large turbofan front added to it... this core might have an enormous fan fitted to it too like a jet airliner high bypass turbofan engine for a subsonic only aircraft... not very stealthy though.
Unless it is mounted in the thickest section of the wing and the wing is very thick... waste a lot of volume that could be used for fuel and ordinance...
Hope they upgrade the engines in steps and put test engines in the Tu-22M3M and Tu-160M to improve performance of those aircraft too.
eridan- Posts : 188
Points : 194
Join date : 2012-12-13
if indeed engines will be based on nk32 and if indeed pakda is a subsonic design, then a two engined plane seems very plausible. It should still have enough power for a tu95 weight class bomber.
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
Two should (?) be fine... However, having four would give it not only the ability to go supersonic (if the design allows that), but should allow heavier payloads as well. Not only that, but having more engines means that there's less chance that all engines fail, and means that the engines can "relax" and be throttled down. - Each engine could run at 50% versus 100% for a two engine design. That means less stress on the engines, and also allows the engines to run at more efficient speeds.
GarryB- Posts : 40547
Points : 41047
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
He says PAK DA will be subsonic to save money... and that the core of the NK-32 will be used for its engines.
the D30 core of the 15 ton thrust engine on the MiG-31 is use on the 14 ton thrust engines of the Il-76 and in the 16 ton thrust PS-90A engines of the Il-476.
the main difference is that for the subsonic transports the core of the D30 powers a large bypass turbofan engine... I suspect the same with the new NK-32, though development to a 5th gen engine would benefit the Tu-160m and the Tu-22M3M.
the D30 core of the 15 ton thrust engine on the MiG-31 is use on the 14 ton thrust engines of the Il-76 and in the 16 ton thrust PS-90A engines of the Il-476.
the main difference is that for the subsonic transports the core of the D30 powers a large bypass turbofan engine... I suspect the same with the new NK-32, though development to a 5th gen engine would benefit the Tu-160m and the Tu-22M3M.
Morpheus Eberhardt- Posts : 1925
Points : 2032
Join date : 2013-05-20
Apart from being Solov'yovs, the D-30 core used in the D-30F6 engine of MiG-31 is unrelated to the D-30K engine family used in, for example, Il-76; D-30F6 of MiG-31 is related to D-30 engine family used in, for example, Tu-134.
The D-30 family as used in Tu-134 has a thrust rating which is only half of the thrust rating of the unrelated D-30K family.
PS-90A is again unrelated to either the D-30 family or the D-30K family.
The core of the 25000 kgs thrust NK-321 of Tu-160 would provide a thrust of over 60000 kgs in an engine with a bypass ratio of 6 to 7.
The D-30 family as used in Tu-134 has a thrust rating which is only half of the thrust rating of the unrelated D-30K family.
PS-90A is again unrelated to either the D-30 family or the D-30K family.
The core of the 25000 kgs thrust NK-321 of Tu-160 would provide a thrust of over 60000 kgs in an engine with a bypass ratio of 6 to 7.
GarryB- Posts : 40547
Points : 41047
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Oops... quite right Morpheus. My Mistake.
Actually now that I think about it I mentioned the commonality between the D-30s before and I think it was Vlad who corrected me that time... so double oops...
Actually now that I think about it I mentioned the commonality between the D-30s before and I think it was Vlad who corrected me that time... so double oops...
George1- Posts : 18523
Points : 19028
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
An engine for PAK DA bomber will be derived from the engine, which powers Tu-160
Russian Aviaton » Tuesday August 19, 2014 02:02 MSK
The engine for the next-generation long-range strategic bomber (PAK DA) will be developed using the engine core of the engine, which powers Tu-160 strategic bomber, RIA Novosti reports with reference to a representative of United Engine Corporation (UEC, part of Rostec State Corporation).
"Tu-160 jet is powered by NK-32 engines; this engine will be upgraded and modified and then it will be installed on PAK DA. It will be a new engine derived from engine core of NK-32 Tier 2 engine", — representatives of UEC told RIA Novosti at Oboronexpo-2014 exhibition held in Zhukovsky (Moscow Region).
"8 billion rubles will be allocated from the budget for development of the engine; the corporation’s own funds will also be used", — UEC added.
The official magazine of Oboronexpo-2014 international exhibition reports with reference to the CEO of UEC, Vladislav Masalov, that a contract for development of the engine for PAK DA bomber has not been signed yet. However, performance specification, preliminary program schedule and contract terms are being discussed.
The Commander-in-Chief of the Russian air forces, Colonel General, Viktor Bondarev, said earlier that PAK DA will perform its maiden flight in 2019 and its serial production will be started in 2012-2022.
Russian Aviaton » Tuesday August 19, 2014 02:02 MSK
The engine for the next-generation long-range strategic bomber (PAK DA) will be developed using the engine core of the engine, which powers Tu-160 strategic bomber, RIA Novosti reports with reference to a representative of United Engine Corporation (UEC, part of Rostec State Corporation).
"Tu-160 jet is powered by NK-32 engines; this engine will be upgraded and modified and then it will be installed on PAK DA. It will be a new engine derived from engine core of NK-32 Tier 2 engine", — representatives of UEC told RIA Novosti at Oboronexpo-2014 exhibition held in Zhukovsky (Moscow Region).
"8 billion rubles will be allocated from the budget for development of the engine; the corporation’s own funds will also be used", — UEC added.
The official magazine of Oboronexpo-2014 international exhibition reports with reference to the CEO of UEC, Vladislav Masalov, that a contract for development of the engine for PAK DA bomber has not been signed yet. However, performance specification, preliminary program schedule and contract terms are being discussed.
The Commander-in-Chief of the Russian air forces, Colonel General, Viktor Bondarev, said earlier that PAK DA will perform its maiden flight in 2019 and its serial production will be started in 2012-2022.
George1- Posts : 18523
Points : 19028
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
KRET already developing avionics for prospective Russian bomber
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 44
Location : Croatia
WoW WoW WoW - Russia is already testing new engine for PAK-DA
2014Passed the first engine test bench for PAK DA
2014Passed the first engine test bench for PAK DA
Sujoy- Posts : 2419
Points : 2577
Join date : 2012-04-02
Location : India || भारत
PAK DA aircraft’s engine successfully tested
Field tests of the first prototype engine of the PAK DA long-range aviation aircraft were undertaken successfully recently, engine maker JSC Kuznestsov said. This marks another milestone in the development of the aircraft.
The initial phase of development work on the PAK DA began in 2011, immediately after the design of the general specifications of the new aircraft. Designers constructed the look and the master data for the sub- and supersonic PAK DA versions. On the basis of the obtained data the prototype engine was developed.
The PAK DA will get the same engine used in the “White Swan”
Initially, developers planned to use the advanced AL-41F engine with a thrust of 20,000 kg, which would reduce costs and standardize the nomenclature of power plants. However, problems encountered during work on the engine forced developers to take on a new project.
During the course of the Oboronexpo 2014 in Zhukovsky, a JSC Kuznetsov representative explained that “the NK-32 engine, which is at the core of the Tu-160, will be subjected to a number of technical changes and improvements, and will be installed in the PAK DA. This new engine will be based on the second stage HK-32 unified gas generator.”
The PAK DA in a nutshell: subsonic and unobtrusive
In 1999, Air Force Commander Petr Deynekin voiced the need to replace the entire fleet of Russian strategic aviation with bombers capable of performing the tasks assigned to the Tu-22M, the Tu-95, and the Tu-160. Specific capabilities were adopted in 2008, after the start of funding research on the PAK DA.
Statements from various state officials expressed in the media on the prospects of the development of the PAK DA until recently did not give speak much to whether there is a new bomber in the works.
Thus, based on the statements of ex-Russian DA Air Force Commander A. Zhikharev, from December 22, 2009, which claimed that the new complex will replace “both distant and strategic bombers and missile carriers,” experts concluded that the aircraft will be an all-speed supersonic strategic bomber. These findings were confirmed by the words of Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who argued in February 2013 that “we do not want a subsonic or even supersonic analogue of the American B-2. The new Russian bomber, which is scheduled to be released at the end of the decade, will be faster than Mach 5.”
In August 2013, the new commander of long-range aviation, Vladimir Bondarev, stated in his speeches that the PAK DA will be a subsonic bomber and will replace the entire fleet of strategic bombers
According to independent military aviation expert Anton Lavrov, subsonic speeds are the predominant factor for the development of the low-profile strategic bomber, which the PAK DA should become, having the maximum possible flying range and striking range from its territory to distant enemy targets.
The PAK DA will be made by Tupolev engineers
Until recently, intrigue has been high about the PAK DA project executor. Research was conducted on the PAK DA in 2009 in the Tupolev Design Bureau. However, there were reports in the media that the implementation of PAK DA production will be handed over to Sukhoi.
This week, during a military exhibition in Zhuhai (China), UAC (United Aircraft Corporation) President Mikhail Pogosyan clarified things finally, stating that the parent company to work on the project will be the Tupolev Design Bureau.
“I don’t know where these rumors emerged that the head developer of the project will be Sukhoi. The program is already being implemented. The parent company is the Tupolev Design Bureau, partnering with aircraft construction enterprises that are members of the UAC,” reported RIA Novosti news agency.
Thus, by 2014, the project reached development stages: the developers identified and formed the tactical and technical data of the PAK DA, including an approximate weight of 125 tons (with a combat load of 30 tons), a range of 12,500 km, and subsonic flight.
http://in.rbth.com/economics/2014/11/18/pak_da_aircrafts_engine_successfully_tested_39795.html
Field tests of the first prototype engine of the PAK DA long-range aviation aircraft were undertaken successfully recently, engine maker JSC Kuznestsov said. This marks another milestone in the development of the aircraft.
The initial phase of development work on the PAK DA began in 2011, immediately after the design of the general specifications of the new aircraft. Designers constructed the look and the master data for the sub- and supersonic PAK DA versions. On the basis of the obtained data the prototype engine was developed.
The PAK DA will get the same engine used in the “White Swan”
Initially, developers planned to use the advanced AL-41F engine with a thrust of 20,000 kg, which would reduce costs and standardize the nomenclature of power plants. However, problems encountered during work on the engine forced developers to take on a new project.
During the course of the Oboronexpo 2014 in Zhukovsky, a JSC Kuznetsov representative explained that “the NK-32 engine, which is at the core of the Tu-160, will be subjected to a number of technical changes and improvements, and will be installed in the PAK DA. This new engine will be based on the second stage HK-32 unified gas generator.”
The PAK DA in a nutshell: subsonic and unobtrusive
In 1999, Air Force Commander Petr Deynekin voiced the need to replace the entire fleet of Russian strategic aviation with bombers capable of performing the tasks assigned to the Tu-22M, the Tu-95, and the Tu-160. Specific capabilities were adopted in 2008, after the start of funding research on the PAK DA.
Statements from various state officials expressed in the media on the prospects of the development of the PAK DA until recently did not give speak much to whether there is a new bomber in the works.
Thus, based on the statements of ex-Russian DA Air Force Commander A. Zhikharev, from December 22, 2009, which claimed that the new complex will replace “both distant and strategic bombers and missile carriers,” experts concluded that the aircraft will be an all-speed supersonic strategic bomber. These findings were confirmed by the words of Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who argued in February 2013 that “we do not want a subsonic or even supersonic analogue of the American B-2. The new Russian bomber, which is scheduled to be released at the end of the decade, will be faster than Mach 5.”
In August 2013, the new commander of long-range aviation, Vladimir Bondarev, stated in his speeches that the PAK DA will be a subsonic bomber and will replace the entire fleet of strategic bombers
According to independent military aviation expert Anton Lavrov, subsonic speeds are the predominant factor for the development of the low-profile strategic bomber, which the PAK DA should become, having the maximum possible flying range and striking range from its territory to distant enemy targets.
The PAK DA will be made by Tupolev engineers
Until recently, intrigue has been high about the PAK DA project executor. Research was conducted on the PAK DA in 2009 in the Tupolev Design Bureau. However, there were reports in the media that the implementation of PAK DA production will be handed over to Sukhoi.
This week, during a military exhibition in Zhuhai (China), UAC (United Aircraft Corporation) President Mikhail Pogosyan clarified things finally, stating that the parent company to work on the project will be the Tupolev Design Bureau.
“I don’t know where these rumors emerged that the head developer of the project will be Sukhoi. The program is already being implemented. The parent company is the Tupolev Design Bureau, partnering with aircraft construction enterprises that are members of the UAC,” reported RIA Novosti news agency.
Thus, by 2014, the project reached development stages: the developers identified and formed the tactical and technical data of the PAK DA, including an approximate weight of 125 tons (with a combat load of 30 tons), a range of 12,500 km, and subsonic flight.
http://in.rbth.com/economics/2014/11/18/pak_da_aircrafts_engine_successfully_tested_39795.html
Last edited by Sujoy on Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:59 am; edited 1 time in total
GarryB- Posts : 40547
Points : 41047
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Interesting article let down with that image of the T-4MS which was rejected in favour of the Tu-160 design three decades ago.
If the new bomber is going to be subsonic only then the wing leading edge angle will be rather more like the B-2 and rather less like the T-4MS, which was supposed to be supersonic.
If the new bomber is going to be subsonic only then the wing leading edge angle will be rather more like the B-2 and rather less like the T-4MS, which was supposed to be supersonic.
Sujoy- Posts : 2419
Points : 2577
Join date : 2012-04-02
Location : India || भारत
GarryB wrote:Interesting article let down with that image of the T-4MS which was rejected in favour of the Tu-160 design three decades ago.
Fair point. I removed the image and also send a mail to the Editor of Russia Beyond The Headlines asking them to change the image as well.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
The engine for the new bomber for 32 billion rubles
DCS will create unit for Russian aircraft on the basis of existing structures
CEO of United Engine Corporation (UEC) Vladislav Masalov said at a meeting with journalists that the prototype engine for the new Russian bomber will be established by 2019 for 32 billion rubles. In addition, he said the new strategy JDC programs and prospective major corporations.
According to Vladislav Masalova, JDC has signed a contract with the KLA on the draft of the engine, and the total budget of the program to build the engine for long-term aviation complex long-range aircraft (PAK DA) is 32 billion rubles.
As you know, in the future PAK DA to replace standing in the Russian Air Force long-range aircraft Tu-95MS and Tu-160. PAK DA - a fundamentally new Russian bomber made within the concept of "flying wing".
According to Vladislav Masalova, gas generator engine will be created on the basis of the gas generator or the PS-90 (used on passenger and transport aircraft Il-96, Tu-204/214 and Il-76MD-90A), or on the basis of the gas generator engine NK-32 second stage (upgraded engine for the strategic bombers Tu-160). Using the engine to create a new PAK DA PD-14 engine is impractical because the military insist on the first flight of the aircraft already in 2019, but by this time he will not be ready yet, "Vedomosti".
CEO of JDC also said that so far built 23 engine, the so-called "Article 117". This is the first stage engines for the Russian fifth generation fighter T-50. According to the plan of the unit tests to be completed in 2016. His flow is similar to the same part of the engine "product 117C", which is equipped with Su-35. By the way, "the product 117C" recently successfully passed state tests.
It is also planned that the engine of the second stage for the T-50 "article 30" will be 17-18% more efficient than the engine "117". At present the production of two prototypes gas generators "article 30", one of which will be harvested this year. In March, was completed engineering design stage of a new engine and clarified the requirements for fuel consumption and stealth, the first flight of the T-50 engines "article 30" is scheduled for 2017.
With regard to import Ukrainian engines for Russian helicopters, then, as the CEO of the JDC, the replacement Ukrainian engine D-136 for super-heavy Mi-26 helicopter developed engine PD-12 based on the new PD-14 engine.
United Engine Corporation - integrated structure, specializing in the development, serial production and maintenance of engines for military and civil aviation, space programs, as well as gas turbines of various capacities for the production of electricity and heat and gas pumping and ship propulsion. One of the priorities of the APC is to implement programs of development companies in the industry with the introduction of new technologies that meet international standards.
http://rostec.ru/news/4515174
mutantsushi- Posts : 283
Points : 305
Join date : 2013-12-11
The idea that creating an all new engine for PAKDA is unfeasible because it is supposed to be having test flights by 2018 seems absurd - PAKFA development shows how early test flights can be achieved with last gen engine, with next gen engine entering service when ready/ideally with first large serial batches.
Anyways, it seems likely that doing so would be more expensive, and that upgraded last-gen engines provide sufficient performance, which is a legitimate reason (if different from the one given). Options include being based off PS-90 or NK-321 generator, the latter going into Tu-160 modernization... Which makes me wonder whether a further modernization of NK-32(1) would allow improvements which could then be retrofitted onto Tu-160 fleet, i.e if the components are modularly replaceable, then when a given part completes it's normal service life on a NK-321 powered Tu-160, then it can be replaced with the enhanced equivalent part from the PAKDA engine. It even seems that a new gas generator design could be used, adapted so that it would be 'compatable' with the NK-321 design so that they are able to share other components....?
Anyways, it seems likely that doing so would be more expensive, and that upgraded last-gen engines provide sufficient performance, which is a legitimate reason (if different from the one given). Options include being based off PS-90 or NK-321 generator, the latter going into Tu-160 modernization... Which makes me wonder whether a further modernization of NK-32(1) would allow improvements which could then be retrofitted onto Tu-160 fleet, i.e if the components are modularly replaceable, then when a given part completes it's normal service life on a NK-321 powered Tu-160, then it can be replaced with the enhanced equivalent part from the PAKDA engine. It even seems that a new gas generator design could be used, adapted so that it would be 'compatable' with the NK-321 design so that they are able to share other components....?
Vann7- Posts : 5385
Points : 5485
Join date : 2012-05-16
A Subsonic Pak-DA will be highly disappointing for me. They should not bother then and instead upgrade their existing bombers and perhaps tweak the airframes a bit of newer upgrades... Im believe that if Russia plans to invest big money in something new ,they should do it right.. and not half right. The extra speed could be the difference of a plane success in any mission.. Rogozin desire of a hypersonic bomber was too good to be true. What is seems certain
is that if Russia goes subsonic.. it will be way behind US and China hypersonic bombers under development.
is that if Russia goes subsonic.. it will be way behind US and China hypersonic bombers under development.
GarryB- Posts : 40547
Points : 41047
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Starting an all new engine from scratch when the NK-32 is already very good would be an enormous waste of time and energy.
Just like the Al-31 was already a good engine that could be improved with more modern sophisticated internal components, the NK-32 is a 25 ton thrust class engine that has proved itself reliable and a good performer.
A further advantage would be if they adapted the new engine they were developing in stages, so the first stage should be an NK-32 with modern sophisticated internal components that could be fitted to the Tu-160 (ie 4 x 15 = 60 engines plus a couple of spares) that has slightly more power and better fuel efficiency and reduced weight and fewer more sophisticated components that could also be adapted to the Tu-22M3M (ie say 150 aircraft meaning 2 x 150 = 300 further engines).
Keeping in mind that the newly developed engine will be a high bypass subsonic engine then the resulting new technology high thrust engine for subsonic aircraft could be adapted for a new 160 ton (2 or 4 engine) and 280-300 ton payload (4 to 6 engines) new generation transport aircraft, which of course will also be subsonic.
Further long range passenger aircraft with just two engines, and of course next generation maritime patrol aircraft with 2, 3, or 4 engines, and of course large AWACS aircraft and inflight refuelling aircraft based on those long range passenger airliners...
Common sense would dictate that new technology developed for the new bomber could be adapted and early tested in upgrades on existing bombers including radars and engines and sensors and systems.
Why waste money making a bomber hypersonic when you can rather more easily make hypersonic missiles for a cheap subsonic bomber to carry.
A case in point would be a Tu-16 carrying Kh-32s... the Tu-16 is cheap to operate and if its missiles means it can fire on its targets outside the range of its targets air defences then why spend a lot of money making the Tu-16 able to do what the missile it carries is already doing.
Of course a faster plane like the Tu-22M3 is more flexible and capable of a wider range of missions but is rather more expensive and yet still not invulnerable.
Hypersonic speed could also be the difference between being able to afford 20 and being able to afford 200 and have a decent number of aircraft to work with.
the ICBMs and SLBMs already have speed, there is no need to duplicate that capability... think in terms of torpedoes and anti ship missiles... you could claim one or the other is best and only make one or the other, but your forces will be much better equipped with a variety of both.
there is no need for a hypersonic bomber because in many ways that is just what an ICBM and SLBM are.
The Russians already have three different bombers doing similar missions... it makes rather more sense to replace all three with one type yet it would be too expensive to replace them all with hypersonic aircraft which don't even exist yet. the US already went down this path with the Valkyrie... the reality is that to fly fast it had to fly high... this is not the 1960s any more the S-400 can engage targets travelling at 4.8km/s which equates to mach 15. the S-500 can engage targets flying at 7km/s... which is about mach 22.
Speed wont keep a bomber safe... and will burn up fuel like no bodies business resulting in poor range and payload issues.
Hypersonic bombers are not going to be all that useful... hypersonic missiles on the other hand could be very useful and Russia is already very advanced in that area.
Just like the Al-31 was already a good engine that could be improved with more modern sophisticated internal components, the NK-32 is a 25 ton thrust class engine that has proved itself reliable and a good performer.
A further advantage would be if they adapted the new engine they were developing in stages, so the first stage should be an NK-32 with modern sophisticated internal components that could be fitted to the Tu-160 (ie 4 x 15 = 60 engines plus a couple of spares) that has slightly more power and better fuel efficiency and reduced weight and fewer more sophisticated components that could also be adapted to the Tu-22M3M (ie say 150 aircraft meaning 2 x 150 = 300 further engines).
Keeping in mind that the newly developed engine will be a high bypass subsonic engine then the resulting new technology high thrust engine for subsonic aircraft could be adapted for a new 160 ton (2 or 4 engine) and 280-300 ton payload (4 to 6 engines) new generation transport aircraft, which of course will also be subsonic.
Further long range passenger aircraft with just two engines, and of course next generation maritime patrol aircraft with 2, 3, or 4 engines, and of course large AWACS aircraft and inflight refuelling aircraft based on those long range passenger airliners...
They should not bother then and instead upgrade their existing bombers and perhaps tweak the airframes a bit of newer upgrades...
Common sense would dictate that new technology developed for the new bomber could be adapted and early tested in upgrades on existing bombers including radars and engines and sensors and systems.
Why waste money making a bomber hypersonic when you can rather more easily make hypersonic missiles for a cheap subsonic bomber to carry.
A case in point would be a Tu-16 carrying Kh-32s... the Tu-16 is cheap to operate and if its missiles means it can fire on its targets outside the range of its targets air defences then why spend a lot of money making the Tu-16 able to do what the missile it carries is already doing.
Of course a faster plane like the Tu-22M3 is more flexible and capable of a wider range of missions but is rather more expensive and yet still not invulnerable.
The extra speed could be the difference of a plane success in any mission..
Hypersonic speed could also be the difference between being able to afford 20 and being able to afford 200 and have a decent number of aircraft to work with.
the ICBMs and SLBMs already have speed, there is no need to duplicate that capability... think in terms of torpedoes and anti ship missiles... you could claim one or the other is best and only make one or the other, but your forces will be much better equipped with a variety of both.
there is no need for a hypersonic bomber because in many ways that is just what an ICBM and SLBM are.
The Russians already have three different bombers doing similar missions... it makes rather more sense to replace all three with one type yet it would be too expensive to replace them all with hypersonic aircraft which don't even exist yet. the US already went down this path with the Valkyrie... the reality is that to fly fast it had to fly high... this is not the 1960s any more the S-400 can engage targets travelling at 4.8km/s which equates to mach 15. the S-500 can engage targets flying at 7km/s... which is about mach 22.
Speed wont keep a bomber safe... and will burn up fuel like no bodies business resulting in poor range and payload issues.
it will be way behind US and China hypersonic bombers under development.
Hypersonic bombers are not going to be all that useful... hypersonic missiles on the other hand could be very useful and Russia is already very advanced in that area.
Firebird- Posts : 1811
Points : 1841
Join date : 2011-10-14
I think Pak Da needs to be seen in the context of other products in devlt.
My guess is that Pak Da in truth replaces the Bear. But will do some Tu160 and Tu95 roles better.
Because of current and next gen cruise missiles etc.
Perhaps things will go from a Triad of subs, ICBMs and planes to a wider array of deployment platforms.
PLanes could divide into Pak Da, a hypersonic plane, the legacy planes(to some extent) and also a variations on the new planes - Su 34 and then a variant on the Mig 4.3 (ie Mig 31 replacement etc).
If we look at America as a potential adversary, short range planes could fly from Cuba, Venezuela etc, over the Arctic, and towards the US from Russia's far east.
Longer range planes could fly direct from Russia.
_________________________________________
A platform that interests me are a hypersonic plane in the mesosphere - because it has improved stealth over normal hypersonic planes. The Russian Ayaks method of converting friction heat to power would be interesting.
I wonder if this heat could be part converted to power strike lasers.
Finally, given that the Pak Da is large, I wonder if it could carry a small nuclear reactor onboard, which could also power strike lasers.
I think the future lies in lasers, possibly in EM weapons and similar and also very small "microweapons". For instance a cruise missile/ suitcase sized nuke etc that could be launched from something very small eg looks like a Cessna, a drone, a fishing boat or haulage truck. There is even talk of "nano submarine"s disguised as fish!
To me, thats Mutually Assured Destrcution guarantee for the next couple of decades.
My guess is that Pak Da in truth replaces the Bear. But will do some Tu160 and Tu95 roles better.
Because of current and next gen cruise missiles etc.
Perhaps things will go from a Triad of subs, ICBMs and planes to a wider array of deployment platforms.
PLanes could divide into Pak Da, a hypersonic plane, the legacy planes(to some extent) and also a variations on the new planes - Su 34 and then a variant on the Mig 4.3 (ie Mig 31 replacement etc).
If we look at America as a potential adversary, short range planes could fly from Cuba, Venezuela etc, over the Arctic, and towards the US from Russia's far east.
Longer range planes could fly direct from Russia.
_________________________________________
A platform that interests me are a hypersonic plane in the mesosphere - because it has improved stealth over normal hypersonic planes. The Russian Ayaks method of converting friction heat to power would be interesting.
I wonder if this heat could be part converted to power strike lasers.
Finally, given that the Pak Da is large, I wonder if it could carry a small nuclear reactor onboard, which could also power strike lasers.
I think the future lies in lasers, possibly in EM weapons and similar and also very small "microweapons". For instance a cruise missile/ suitcase sized nuke etc that could be launched from something very small eg looks like a Cessna, a drone, a fishing boat or haulage truck. There is even talk of "nano submarine"s disguised as fish!
To me, thats Mutually Assured Destrcution guarantee for the next couple of decades.
GarryB- Posts : 40547
Points : 41047
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The large size of the PAK DA will be because of the requirement for a huge fuel and ammo load to be carried internally.
More payload and less fuel for short range theatre mission, while more fuel and less payload for strategic mission...
Lasers have potential but not against cities....
More payload and less fuel for short range theatre mission, while more fuel and less payload for strategic mission...
Lasers have potential but not against cities....
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
Some info on PAK-DA in this interview
http://www.redstar.ru/index.php/component/k2/item/20751-poljot-dlinoyu-v-vek
http://www.redstar.ru/index.php/component/k2/item/20751-poljot-dlinoyu-v-vek
- Anatoly, please tell us about how the program is implemented to create PAK DA. What is the reason that it will be subsonic?
- Research and development in the aircraft being on schedule.
This aviation complex in nature is unique, as constructed by not typical for our aircraft aerodynamic configuration. It will have a modern domestic aircraft engines. Architecture of complex avionics and weapon control systems is carried out with deep integration of intelligent systems and has no analogues in the world.
The use of the data set of advanced aircraft weapons, long-range PAK DA will provide an opportunity not to enter the zone of destruction of enemy air defenses, allowing designers to abandon the regime of flight at supersonic speed.
Similar topics
