PAK-DA: News

I would like to see them make the PAK DA a little more ambitious... perhaps a flying wing with a horizontal tail surface with super cruising capability in the mach 1.6-1.8 range and a dash speed of perhaps mach 2.2.

If they could do it with pure engine power, then the enormous costs of hypersonic bomber can be avoided... it would be ironic if the PAK DA went from the cheap numbers strategic aircraft to the expensive low numbers bomber and the Blackjack was the cheap one to operate...

2SPOOKY4U wrote:I for one, am glad that the PAK-DA is being shifted back, and more supersonic Tu-160M2s are being built.

Rogozin prevailed in the raising of PAK-DAs requirements.

shifted back means less cars or time of production is transferred to later year?

Shifted back means they can spend more time developing it.... and they can include some technologies and features that might not have been ready with the previous deadline but might be resolved with the new later deadline.

Well that is another point... in addition to allowing more development time for new technologies for the PAK DA, right now they don't have a large forge to produce large parts of an aircraft as one piece.

By committing to make new Tu-160s they are committing to building new production facilities that can handle large forged pieces including the box structure for the enormous swing wings on the PAK DA.

I rather doubt PAK DA will have swing wings but it has potential to create a base structure that could be used to change wing shape... from curved for max lift on takeoff and landing to flat and level for minimum drag for high speed efficient long range cruise flight.

It is also important to remember that joins are a problem in any stealth aircraft so larger panel pieces are better for stealth aircraft.

Rebuilding the Tu-160s means new production facilities and new tooling and other new technology... using if for the Blackjacks and the PAK DA means it will be easier to spend the money and get the best technology as it will clearly be reused.

I will repeat that I hope the PAK DA is a tailed flying wing that supercruises.

Without the tail it will just be a subsonic only B-2 copy.

If they try to make it some super hypersonic bomber it will be too expensive to buy and operate...

A supercruising tailed flying wing has potential to be fast and cheap and potentially used for next generation civilian airliners.

GarryB wrote:Well that is another point... in addition to allowing more development time for new technologies for the PAK DA, right now they don't have a large forge to produce large parts of an aircraft as one piece.

By committing to make new Tu-160s they are committing to building new production facilities that can handle large forged pieces including the box structure for the enormous swing wings on the PAK DA.

I rather doubt PAK DA will have swing wings but it has potential to create a base structure that could be used to change wing shape... from curved for max lift on takeoff and landing to flat and level for minimum drag for high speed efficient long range cruise flight.

It is also important to remember that joins are a problem in any stealth aircraft so larger panel pieces are better for stealth aircraft.

Rebuilding the Tu-160s means new production facilities and new tooling and other new technology... using if for the Blackjacks and the PAK DA means it will be easier to spend the money and get the best technology as it will clearly be reused.

I will repeat that I hope the PAK DA is a tailed flying wing that supercruises.

Without the tail it will just be a subsonic only B-2 copy.

If they try to make it some super hypersonic bomber it will be too expensive to buy and operate...

A supercruising tailed flying wing has potential to be fast and cheap and potentially used for next generation civilian airliners.

If they do not at least make PAK-DA extreme supersonic or hypersonic, then they have made the largest planning error in the military history of the USSR and Russia.

Time, GarryB, time.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

GarryB wrote:Well that is another point... in addition to allowing more development time for new technologies for the PAK DA, right now they don't have a large forge to produce large parts of an aircraft as one piece.

By committing to make new Tu-160s they are committing to building new production facilities that can handle large forged pieces including the box structure for the enormous swing wings on the PAK DA.

I rather doubt PAK DA will have swing wings but it has potential to create a base structure that could be used to change wing shape... from curved for max lift on takeoff and landing to flat and level for minimum drag for high speed efficient long range cruise flight.

It is also important to remember that joins are a problem in any stealth aircraft so larger panel pieces are better for stealth aircraft.

Rebuilding the Tu-160s means new production facilities and new tooling and other new technology... using if for the Blackjacks and the PAK DA means it will be easier to spend the money and get the best technology as it will clearly be reused.

I will repeat that I hope the PAK DA is a tailed flying wing that supercruises.

Without the tail it will just be a subsonic only B-2 copy.

If they try to make it some super hypersonic bomber it will be too expensive to buy and operate...

A supercruising tailed flying wing has potential to be fast and cheap and potentially used for next generation civilian airliners.

If they do not at least make PAK-DA extreme supersonic or hypersonic, then they have made the largest planning error in the military history of the USSR and Russia.

Time, GarryB, time.

If they were to make the PAK-DA extreme supersonic or hypersonic then WTF would be the point of restarting Tu-160 production?

The PAK-DA and Tu-160M are evidently supposed to compliment each other in Russian service. One high-speed, the other low-speed but stealthy.

flamming_python wrote:

If they were to make the PAK-DA extreme supersonic or hypersonic then WTF would be the point of restarting Tu-160 production?

The PAK-DA and Tu-160M are evidently supposed to compliment each other in Russian service. One high-speed, the other low-speed but stealthy.

Is it not obvious the reason for creation of Tu-160M2?

Hypersonic munition is the future, cruise missiles have ran out of their penetrative capabilities.

The problem lie in the matter of the costs.

Making a hypersonic missile to replace Kh-101/102/555 etc is sensible.

Making the range match these munitions is not sensible.

Better to create reusable, manned/unmanned, hypersonic delivery vector to shift costs on this platform instead the munition.

So so stupid. Plan was to have PAK-DA's first flight in 2019 and have it operational by 2023. Now with this Tu-160M2 crap i doubt PAK-DA will happen at all.

Berkut wrote:So so stupid. Plan was to have PAK-DA's first flight in 2019 and have it operational by 2023. Now with this Tu-160M2 crap i doubt PAK-DA will happen at all.

You should go back to Key Pub, TR1 warned you that this place is a blackhole.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
You should go back to Key Pub, TR1 warned you that this place is a blackhole.

No way. You may not agree with some of Berkut's opinions, but he has a lot of very important information, especially regarding PAK FA. So he is an extremely valuable member.

Svyatoslavich wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
You should go back to Key Pub, TR1 warned you that this place is a blackhole.

No way. You may not agree with some of Berkut's opinions, but he has a lot of very important information, especially regarding PAK FA. So he is an extremely valuable member.

It's his blood pressure.

Anyway, back to PAK-DA.

If it is not hypersonic, then there is no point in retaining the aviation part of the nuclear triad.

My blood pressure is fine thank you. I really like Blackjack but i still think it is nonsense to restart its production instead of building next gen. USAF will announce LRSB winner any month and they will be moving forward with that, not restarting B-1B production and call it B-1C... It has been stated PAK-DA will be subsonic, of course now towards 2021 a lot can change, but unless there is some groundbreaking development i bet it will stay subsonic or at best supersonic like Tu-160.

And soviets thought it was well worth having aviation section of the triad ever since the 40's, and apparently so does americans as no way LRSB will be hypersonic.

Berkut wrote:My blood pressure is fine thank you.

You say that now.

I really like Blackjack but i still think it is nonsense to restart its production instead of building next gen. USAF will announce LRSB winner any month and they will be moving forward with that, not restarting B-1B production and call it B-1C... It has been stated PAK-DA will be subsonic, of course now towards 2021 a lot can change, but unless there is some groundbreaking development i bet it will stay subsonic or at best supersonic like Tu-160.

You should best familiarize yourself with the differences between Tu-160 and B-1B.

Hint hint, nuclear cruise missiles.

Tu-160s equivalent would be the B-52H. And then the LRS-B, which has nuclear standoff at the forefront of its design.

Glyphs barely understandable rantings on the F-35 Multimedia thread on Key Publishing should further illustrate my points on the further uselessness of subsonic bombers that utilize low observability.

It is cheaper to have the hypersonic bomber if we want the aerial nuclear part of the triad to remain relevant.

This would even boost its importance to that above the other two parts, for specific reasons.

Berkut, groundbreaking developments are precisely the reason why PAK-DA is being pushed back.

Same with the carrier program as well as numerous other programs that are artificially maintained at slow production rates to wait for realization of specific technologies.

And soviets thought it was well worth having aviation section of the triad ever since the 40's, and apparently so does americans as no way LRSB will be hypersonic.

In case you have not noticed, but it is not the 1940s.

You are also mistaken that B-3 will be a strategic bomber in the sense of the B-2.


Low orbital hypersonic is the way to go, I can only hope that Rogozin is successful.

Berkut wrote:My blood pressure is fine thank you. I really like Blackjack but i still think it is nonsense to restart its production instead of building next gen. 

From what I've heard on other forums, "restarting production" might be a misquote and the media is actually dead wrong. 

The original statement "for 50" actually was referring to the fact that for the project to be sustainable, 50 aircraft would need to be made. At this point, I'm not sure, but I'd rather see PAK-DA getting priority.

If they do not at least make PAK-DA extreme supersonic or hypersonic, then they have made the largest planning error in the military history of the USSR and Russia.

If they make PAK DA hypersonic what then would be the point of Tu-160M2?

Is it not obvious the reason for creation of Tu-160M2?

Hypersonic munition is the future, cruise missiles have ran out of their penetrative capabilities.

There is still plenty of scope for low flying stealthy cruise missiles.... hypersonic cruise missiles will fly high and relatively straight... lots of manouvering would burn up too much energy.

Better to create reusable, manned/unmanned, hypersonic delivery vector to shift costs on this platform instead the munition.

It would be easier to make a hypersonic missile than a hypersonic strategic bomber in terms of overall cost and efficiency.

If you are making a hypersonic bomber then just make it a bomber... you could carry ten nuclear bombs for the size and weight of a hypersonic cruise missile.

I still think it is much cheaper and simpler to have high flying medium range hypersonic missiles and low flying super long range subsonic stealthy missiles... and with that combination you could have Il-96s delivering them...

So so stupid. Plan was to have PAK-DA's first flight in 2019 and have it operational by 2023. Now with this Tu-160M2 crap i doubt PAK-DA will happen at all.

The Tu-160 is a good aircraft that is effective... getting it into service in decent numbers makes sense.

Personally I think by 2035 we will have 10,000km range cruise missiles anyway...

If it is not hypersonic, then there is no point in retaining the aviation part of the nuclear triad.

Do you think a new US hypersonic bomber will get passed S-400 and S-500?

I don't, so I don't really see the advantage of Russia wasting a fortune trying to defeat western air defence with speed.

It has been stated PAK-DA will be subsonic, of course now towards 2021 a lot can change, but unless there is some groundbreaking development i bet it will stay subsonic or at best supersonic like Tu-160.

It is going to replace two aircraft in service hopefully with an affordable capable aircraft... you want ground breaking... I would call that gold plating and bank balance breaking... collapse of the Soviet Union not enough fun for you?

And soviets thought it was well worth having aviation section of the triad ever since the 40's, and apparently so does americans as no way LRSB will be hypersonic.

Now that they have an Aerospace defence force perhaps endo atmospheric... scramjet powered?

BTW I think the best solution would be a scramjet powered cruise missile with external droppable droptanks... it can cruise along at subsonic speeds at high altitude with large folding wings and external drop tanks for 2-3 thousand kms, and then drop the external fuel tanks and half the wings and accelerate to hypersonic speed for the last 600km...

GarryB wrote:Well that is another point... in addition to allowing more development time for new technologies for the PAK DA, right now they don't have a large forge to produce large parts of an aircraft as one piece.

By committing to make new Tu-160s they are committing to building new production facilities that can handle large forged pieces including the box structure for the enormous swing wings on the PAK DA.

I rather doubt PAK DA will have swing wings but it has potential to create a base structure that could be used to change wing shape... from curved for max lift on takeoff and landing to flat and level for minimum drag for high speed efficient long range cruise flight.

It is also important to remember that joins are a problem in any stealth aircraft so larger panel pieces are better for stealth aircraft.

Rebuilding the Tu-160s means new production facilities and new tooling and other new technology... using if for the Blackjacks and the PAK DA means it will be easier to spend the money and get the best technology as it will clearly be reused.

I will repeat that I hope the PAK DA is a tailed flying wing that supercruises.

Without the tail it will just be a subsonic only B-2 copy.

If they try to make it some super hypersonic bomber it will be too expensive to buy and operate...

A supercruising tailed flying wing has potential to be fast and cheap and potentially used for next generation civilian airliners.

Ah well, I do not think this is the issue. Russia's strategic force needs upgrade. I do not think it is possible to do develop and manufacture a stealth bomber in the timeframe previously mentioned. They are probably looking to quickly improve on T-160 existing design but it will prove challenging. Requirements for Pak-Da may also change in the future in light of american next generation bomber. I was not too enthusiastic about developing a 1980's plane. Stealth tech. is still not mature in Russia.
With regards to the facilities. Tu-160 hull is mostly titatnium welded under vacuum (the welding chamber collapsed and they will need to build a new one). Whereas new technologies and airliners are using composites, hard and not difficult to weld. Accordingly I cannot see how future Tu-160 equipment (vacuum chamber and cast) can be used for airliners and Pak-DA.
Large metal parts for tu-144 proved a problem and not a solution. Of course time changed but now towards composites and not larger titanium parts.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
You should best familiarize yourself with the differences between Tu-160 and B-1B.

Hint hint, nuclear cruise missiles.

I am perfectly aware of their completely different roles, thank you. Point still stands.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
Berkut, groundbreaking developments are precisely the reason why PAK-DA is being pushed back.

Correct. And that groundbreaking development is called Tu-160M2, not some magic materials or magic engine for hypersonic flight that are purely an invention of your mind.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
You are also mistaken that B-3 will be a strategic bomber in the sense of the B-2.

I have no idea what B-3 will be exactly; but i am sure it won't be hypersonic. Oh those dumb dumb 'muricans, amrite?

Mike E wrote:

Berkut wrote:My blood pressure is fine thank you. I really like Blackjack but i still think it is nonsense to restart its production instead of building next gen.

From what I've heard on other forums, "restarting production" might be a misquote and the media is actually dead wrong.

The original statement "for 50" actually was referring to the fact that for the project to be sustainable, 50 aircraft would need to be made. At this point, I'm not sure, but I'd rather see PAK-DA getting priority.

Um. To build 50 or more frames one have to restart production. So not sure how it is exactly a misquote. But yes, it was said that they need to build a minimum of 50 frames in order for the production restart to make sense. Which just points to the pure absurdity of the Tu-160 production restart. Especially at 400 million $ per frame... For that kind of money one could easily buy 600+ Su-35S's (not saying that they should, at all) or 300-400 T-50's... And that is assuming the minimum order of 50 frames.

GarryB wrote:
The Tu-160 is a good aircraft that is effective... getting it into service in decent numbers makes sense.

Never said it was bad. If they had random 30 odd frames lying around not flying i would be all for bringing them back up to snuff and modernize them. Using mountains of cash to invest into lots of new tooling that could be used for PAK-DA, not so much. Then the plane itself is inherently expensive, with next-gen frame like PAK-DA there is a good opportunity too look at the first principles and optimize the cost.

GarryB wrote:
Do you think a new US hypersonic bomber will get passed S-400 and S-500?

I don't know enough about S-400, S-500 or LRSB enough (or anyone else in the world) to make a good opinion on that. And neither do you.

But completely agree with you re hypersonic missiles. That is the way to go.

Berkut wrote:I am perfectly aware of their completely different roles, thank you. Point still stands.

No, it really does not, considering the direction of B-3 in relation to its predecessors.

Berkut wrote:Correct. And that groundbreaking development is called Tu-160M2, not some magic materials or magic engine for hypersonic flight that are purely an invention of your mind.

Invention of my mind? You seem to living under a rock in relation to the direction of current military trends.

Berkut wrote: have no idea what B-3 will be exactly; but i am sure it won't be hypersonic. Oh those dumb dumb 'muricans, amrite?

Congratulations on completely missing my point. The Americans are not making the same mistake with the B-2. B-3 will be a transient solution.

GarryB wrote:If they make PAK DA hypersonic what then would be the point of Tu-160M2

Is it not obvious?

GarryB wrote:there is still plenty of scope for low flying stealthy cruise missiles.... hypersonic cruise missiles will fly high and relatively straight... lots of manouvering would burn up too much energy.

You appear to have some misconceptions on hypersonic vehicles.

GarryB wrote:t would be easier to make a hypersonic missile than a hypersonic strategic bomber in terms of overall cost and efficiency.

If you are making a hypersonic bomber then just make it a bomber... you could carry ten nuclear bombs for the size and weight of a hypersonic cruise missile.

I still think it is much cheaper and simpler to have high flying medium range hypersonic missiles and low flying super long range subsonic stealthy missiles... and with that combination you could have Il-96s delivering them...

Overall cost and efficiency?

Building a hypersonic munition with similar range to cruise missiles today would cause their price to skyrocket to a level to where it become easier to build a hypersonic delivery platform for them.

Using mountains of cash to invest into lots of new tooling that could be used for PAK-DA, not so much. Then the plane itself is inherently expensive, with next-gen frame like PAK-DA there is a good opportunity too look at the first principles and optimize the cost.

Do you think they will build a new factory to make Tu-160M2s and then build another one for the PAK DA?

I don't know enough about S-400, S-500 or LRSB enough (or anyone else in the world) to make a good opinion on that. And neither do you.

Basic physics... the faster you fly the less of turn you can perform at tollerable gs for human crew... at mach 7 or 8 you are still not flying faster than the 4.8km/s max intercept speed of the S-400, and nothing like the 7km/s max intercept speed of the S-500.

Is it not obvious?

Money pit?

You appear to have some misconceptions on hypersonic vehicles.

To move large objects at high speed you use a lot of energy... bigger objects means more energy.

It would be easier to make hypersonic missiles than to make a hypersonic aircraft large enough to perform a strategic mission... ie 10,000km range plus.

Building a hypersonic munition with similar range to cruise missiles today would cause their price to skyrocket to a level to where it become easier to build a hypersonic delivery platform for them.

I don't agree.

This is still fairly new technology... the problems of scramjets and hypersonic missiles have not been solved. Making an aircraft with strategic range will need to wait for more powerful more efficient scramjet engine designs... odds are the first generation wont cut it.

Russia doesn't need a more expensive strategic aircraft, it needs a cheap reliable effective aircraft.

All of their strategic aircraft are getting upgrades anyway, there is no urgent need for improvements.

The operational costs of a hypersonic aircraft will be enormous... the SR-71 was ridiculously expensive to operate... they kept using it because there was no better alternative.

GarryB wrote:Money pit?

No, cost teardown of new materials and production capability resurrection, with the aircraft being a well test and proven airframe.

GarryB wrote:To move large objects at high speed you use a lot of energy... bigger objects means more energy.

It would be easier to make hypersonic missiles than to make a hypersonic aircraft large enough to perform a strategic mission... ie 10,000km range plus.

To make a 10,000km ranged missile of the hypersonic speed. You would find it beneficial to invest such resources into a reusable platform, that would return significant returns.

To only develop the hypersonic missile, the waste of resources would make for a poor strategic mistake. Not a big mistake as the selection of B-2 type platform for PAK-DA.

We surely have not the investment financial resource to change requirements from the high to low in the middle of platforms development.

GarryB wrote:I don't agree.

This is still fairly new technology... the problems of scramjets and hypersonic missiles have not been solved. Making an aircraft with strategic range will need to wait for more powerful more efficient scramjet engine designs... odds are the first generation wont cut it.

Russia doesn't need a more expensive strategic aircraft, it needs a cheap reliable effective aircraft.

All of their strategic aircraft are getting upgrades anyway, there is no urgent need for improvements.

The operational costs of a hypersonic aircraft will be enormous... the SR-71 was ridiculously expensive to operate... they kept using it because there was no better alternative.

We will have to agree to disagree in the ending of this argument.

The problems of scramjets, and the flight of hypersonic, is very within ours reach.

I pray to God and the Old Slavic Gods that Rogozin is successful in his endeavors.

The world of strategic military power is changing, Russia is at the forefront and must remain so.

To make a 10,000km ranged missile of the hypersonic speed. You would find it beneficial to invest such resources into a reusable platform, that would return significant returns.

Even at hypersonic speed it wont have anything to come home to... reusability makes little practical sense except with conventional warheads in non nuclear conflicts.

To only develop the hypersonic missile, the waste of resources would make for a poor strategic mistake. Not a big mistake as the selection of B-2 type platform for PAK-DA.

Leaps in technology are expensive and trouble prone... cruise missile, fighter, then bomber... it was the same for the jet engine... first buzz bomb, then jet fighter and then jet bombers and a long time later long range jet bombers.

I do agree that subsonic only flying wing would be boring and too conservative... a flying wing with horizontal tail and thrust vectoring engine but no vertical tails for increased stealth, but also supersonic flight capability and supercruise capability would be achievable and result in a low cost bomber of much higher average speed than the current Tu-160 as flying at mach 1.6 or so all the way would get it to target much faster than subsonic the first 5,000km and then 2,000km at mach 2 and then long subsonic flight home.

We will have to agree to disagree in the ending of this argument.

Tupolev rejected the Mach 3 T-4MS in favour of a cheaper simpler design because he knew operational costs and design problems were greatly increased because of the extra speed. By gong below mach 3 they could use conventional materials and burn a lot less fuel.

I am sure hypersonic bombers are the future but I suspect the next generation, not the ones coming up... just because of cost.

The problems of scramjets, and the flight of hypersonic, is very within ours reach.

I pray to God and the Old Slavic Gods that Rogozin is successful in his endeavors.

The world of strategic military power is changing, Russia is at the forefront and must remain so.

I don't disagree, I just think that it would be just as effective to have hypersonic cruise missiles penetrating enemy defences, and cheap simple subsonic or supercruising low supersonic platforms to get them within launching distance.

For most of their flight the hypersonic cruise missiles don't even need to be hypersonic, so external fuel tanks and scramjet engines and high altitude launches will all make extending range easier.

If you are right I will not be too unhappy... I just hope it is not too expensive.

Russians are clever however and seem to get the best bang for your buck...