PAK-DA: News

Berkut wrote:

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.

My point is that we may not actually see production restarted. The initial quote simply suggested what I said above, not that the aircraft will actually be acquired.

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

The production of new TU-160M2s will not contradict the work on PAK DA..
SAme with the T-72b3 production does not contradict the production of armata..
One can be made in bigger numbers and can be used in time of peace and the other used
for critical missions when war already have began..

i even consider the Tupolev Tu-95 as a fantastic plane for Russia to keep in service for a decade
or more.. is cheaper to produce and maintain ,and can be used in the front line..in peaceful times.  You will not send PAK-DA near US military bases ,so later their F-22 could intercept it
and spy its sensor and communications and learn from it.. that is allows americans to collect information that could be used later in their sensors on board of their missiles .  


This is the same with combat planes.. You send first the old planes like Su-24 and SU-30
in the front line ,and they pass information to Russian command center about what kind
of hostile environment they will face... If The plane is shut down because a happy trigger American pilot.. Russia will not had to deal with the PR disaster of losing a stealth plane..
and they will know they are at war..

So having parallel productions of Tu-160 and and pak-da makes perfect sense.. and i will add Tu-95 too..  Same way of combining old T-72s with T-90s and Armata.. you keep the best hardware card for the last.. in case there is a need. But you will not send your best plane to patrol US Coast so later they can spy on it... or worse risk it be shot down or the pilot defect after a multi billionaire bribe. your best hardware is always keep only for real emergencies ,whenever they are really needed. and your older hardware is the one used for greeting the enemy.. and show them you are there..and your best weapons only used in real war .  

Even a fishing boat can be used configured ,to fire hypersonic Missiles.. revealing the enemy
your cards before any war start is a mistake.. The old bombers have the role of keeping
the enemy busy wondering if they carry nukes or not ,and for spying enemy military bases ,
radars and communications..  The Stealth bombers role will be to penetrate enemy defenses
once the surprise is over..and already Russia is in a nuclear war..and they are required for the mission. Russia will need at least one cheaper alternative long range nuclear capable bomber to
keep patrolling US or NATO borders.. for peaceful times..patrolling and spying but that at the same time could be configured for a surprise first strike nuclear attack.

GarryB wrote: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.

We will need hypersonic in the future. We cannot make the same blunder as was with the B-2. Hypersonic will render the entire US/EU ABM irrelevant, and will prove to be their final mistake in this far too long chess game.

GarryB wrote: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.

Leaps in technology are worth it, for every dollar invested in the Apollo program and its technology, 13 dollars came back because of the inventions.

I can only imagine what hypersonic will bring.

GarryB wrote: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.

PAK-DA must be hypersonic.

Their is no other viable option.

GarryB wrote: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...

Hypersonic cruise missiles will have a skyrocketing cost, warranting a hypersonic bomber to which offset the cost.

But in the end, we will have to agree to disagree.

For me the most important feature of Pak-da , if it was on my power , will be Altitude ..
i will be happy with a supersonic mach 3.0 PAK-DA , but that can fly at 50km altitude..
this is 2 and half time higher than the SR-71 20km altitude. At such altitudes Pak-DA will
be beyond range of any NATO air defense... it will be too high for patriot missiles and too low
for Aegis defenses.. and then armed with counter electronics and made stealth will make the
plane a real nightmare to intercept.. it will allow Russia for example to freely flight over any nation airspace border without any interception.. since no plane exist that can make a lock on planes flying at the altitude.. and it will allow Russia to penetrate easily any enemy airspace in times of war without any effective way to intercept it.. if the plane fly fast and in an unpredictable flight path.

For example it will allow Russia to sneak its high altitude bomber over the US pentagon and congress and White House.. that will be the ultimate deterrence in case Russia is on the brink
of a war and see this action as the last warning to them.. Domination of near earth orbit is the future.. who ever controls it first.. will have a huge advantage in any combat.. The bomber could also be used as interceptor of ICBM missiles way before they enter in Russia. but also to shot down/sabotage enemy satellites. Or simply to monitor in real time any war ,like a space drone that cannot be shot down.. and can supply full detailed information at all times of the enemy movements. satelites have the disadvantage that cannot remain observing the same location for long .. so a high altitude stealth bomber could be the ultimate weapon for Russia deterrence.

We will need hypersonic in the future. We cannot make the same blunder as was with the B-2. Hypersonic will render the entire US/EU ABM irrelevant, and will prove to be their final mistake in this far too long chess game.

First of all you can't make the same mistake with the PAK DA as the US made with the B-2, because Russian strategic bombers are cruise missile carriers.

The problem for the Bear is its weapon bay is too small and the newer bigger subsonic cruise missiles wont fit inside it... they have to be carried internally.

The Tu-160 can carry the bigger newer missiles internally, and the PAK FA will likely be designed to carry large missiles internally too, hense their payload will have no effect on their drag or RCS like it does with the Bear.

For the Bear the difference is not critical as it is a subsonic aircraft, but for a stealth aircraft the RCS change of external weapons is critical. Getting RCS down low is expensive and complicated and to then blow it all with external weapons is silly and counter productive.

The main problem of a hypersonic PAK DA is that it will be a first generation hypersonic bomber which will make it very expensive and while the technologies are new its performance wont be that great.

Its performance will improve over time with new materials, new design solutions and of course new engines, but the technology is not there yet so it would be silly to put a supersonic bomber into service that current supersonic fighters will have trouble intercepting, and a much more expensive hypersonic bomber with shorter range and much less payload.

I think that the White Swan has plenty of potential... especially with new engines that could allow super cruising performance which would make it much harder to intercept and much more effective without increasing operating costs very much at all.

Work on that, and hypersonic missiles and a new sophisticated hard to detect transonic platform that carries those hypersonic missiles and subsonic missiles too.

Making hypersonic bombers now just means the US will start adapting their ABM system to deal with high flying bombers... and who knows... with a bit of money and time they might even get the damn thing to work.

Leaps in technology are worth it, for every dollar invested in the Apollo program and its technology, 13 dollars came back because of the inventions.

I can only imagine what hypersonic will bring.

There is also a huge cost to be on the bleeding edge... at the time the SR-71 was seen as an amazing achievement, but considering it never crossed into enemy territory when there was a chance it could be shot down it might as well have been a U-2... and an enormous amount of money could have been saved for other things.

PAK-DA must be hypersonic.

Their is no other viable option.

Like I said... it makes sense to do things in steps... get reliable hypersonic cruise missiles and the need for a hypersonic carrier platform becomes less urgent... and you also have developed materials and technology for engines, and heat resistant structure etc that can be used to make hypersonic fighters and bombers... and eventually the engines become efficient enough for strategic range flight with a strategic level payload...

Hypersonic cruise missiles will have a skyrocketing cost, warranting a hypersonic bomber to which offset the cost.

The problems of development will be the same... the level of cost however will be orders of magnitude higher for the strategic bomber than for the much smaller lighter missile.

...they doesn't take into consideration the fact that as soon as a part begin to develop such a technology also the other ones would react and walk on the same path also.

Exactly, though it seems the US wants to walk that path anyway... when both sides appear to have made progress then the countermeasures to defeat such capabilities will start and make the whole process a money spending exercise.

On the positive side the development of scramjet technology should eventually lead to air breathing first stages to orbit vehicles with tremendous possibilities.

sepheronx wrote:According to a poster on the keypub forums, Pak Da program scaled back a bit. It will more likely be a Tu-22M replacement as it will be powered by two NK-32 engines rather than 4.

Makes sense since PAK-DA will be replacing Bears and Backfires. Flying wing configuration and modernised engines mean same or better range and payload than Bear at excellent price. And with hypersonic weapons it will be able to engage targets from crazy distances.

Coupled with new Tu-160s it will be awesome tag team.

sepheronx wrote:According to a poster on the keypub forums, Pak Da program scaled back a bit. It will more likely be a Tu-22M replacement as it will be powered by two NK-32 engines rather than 4.

Seph, the member on keypubs (Rii) just posted what he did as his own theory, rather than being based on any solid info.

sepheronx wrote:According to a poster on the keypub forums, Pak Da program scaled back a bit. It will more likely be a Tu-22M replacement as it will be powered by two NK-32 engines rather than 4.

lol.

You do realize he pulled that out of his ass? And PAK-DA will be a Tu-95MS/Tu-160 replacement not Tu-22M3. There is literally 0 information in anything anyone wrote about that topic on there.

sepheronx wrote:Darn, that is a shame. Fooling people.

Would have been good if it was true. I would wager that it would make a good replacement for Tu-22M.

eplacement for Tu-22M could be the new Tu-160M2. PAK-DA is supposed to be subsonic

Can't the Su-34 replace the Tu-22M3 in many missions? It is a much smaller aircraft, but its engines are more efficient; also, it carries the biggest fuel volume among the Flanker family, and is the only of the family which can carry external fuel tanks, so with all this I guess that its range could be quite close to that of a Tu-22M3.

Svyatoslavich wrote:Can't the Su-34 replace the Tu-22M3 in many missions? It is a much smaller aircraft, but its engines are more efficient; also, it carries the biggest fuel volume among the Flanker family, and is the only of the family which can carry external fuel tanks, so with all this I guess that its range could be quite close to that of a Tu-22M3.

i don't think that Su-34 can carry Kh-32 missile or can carry the same amount of FAB bombs as the Tu-22M

George1 wrote:

Svyatoslavich wrote:Can't the Su-34 replace the Tu-22M3 in many missions? It is a much smaller aircraft, but its engines are more efficient; also, it carries the biggest fuel volume among the Flanker family, and is the only of the family which can carry external fuel tanks, so with all this I guess that its range could be quite close to that of a Tu-22M3.

i don't think that Su-34 can carry Kh-32 missile or can carry the same amount of FAB bombs as the Tu-22M

If I wanted to carry 2-3 heavy AShMs at a supersonic dash to send a USN Nimitz class on a one-way trip to the mid-Atlantic ridge, I know which aircraft I would want....  the Tu-22M3 is a potent long-range naval strike aircraft, and the Su-34, as good as it is, will not deliver the same level of capability.

I think the idea is that if you make the plane subsonic only and of the most optimum aerodynamic shape... is the flying wing, which is all lift and no excess drag you could get away with a 100 to 120 ton aircraft where on shorter range theatre missions... ie 6,000km range.... 3Kkm there and 3kkm back with a heavy load of bombs and weapons... say 40 tons plus, that if you scaled back that payload to a strategic load of perhaps 12 tons of cruise missiles (say 6 at 2 tons each) you could replace the 28 tons difference in weapon load with more fuel to double the flight range to 12,000km, or 6kkm there and 6kkm back.\

In other words you could use the one aircraft for both theatre heavy bombing and strategic nuclear cruise missile strike missions.

that was the plan anyway... especially before the new versions of NK-32 were even talked about and the engines were supposedly going to be the 18 ton thrust engines from the mature PAK FA.

Personally I think before with the PAK DA replacing everything it needed to have a 40 ton payload for short range missions, but with the Tu-160 going back into production and its engines getting a substantial upgrade that the current problem of replacing the White Swan, Backfire, and Bear, the new White Swans can do the supersonic stuff both in strategic and theatre missions, so the PAK DA just needs to be cheap to operate and stealthy... the main conflicting problem is with internal carriage... it is necessary for stealth and also for very high speed... but for very high speed you want as small an aircraft as possible... a serious design conflict.

Ironically having large long range hypersonic cruise missiles would be ideally externally mounted... but that creates drag and increases RCS.

With the Bear the internal weapon rotary bay was designed for the Kh-55, but the later missiles are bigger and therefore can't be carried internally. What happens when new conventional ordinance is developed and whoops it doesn't fit in the PAK DA or Tu-160M2?

The Bear and Backfire could carry large missiles externally but the new aircraft likely wont.

it will be a bit like Afghanistan where Tu-16s were used to drop FAB-9000s experimentally because no other plane could carry them because of their size. (The Tu-16 was designed to carry enormous nuclear weapons internally and therefore had the internal space for large conventional weapons)...

Russia to Deliver Advanced Strategic Bomber to Air Force in 2024-2025

Еhe Russian Long-Range Air Force deputy commander said that Russia’s prospective complex of distant aviation, a proposed next-generation strategic bomber design, will carry out its first flight in 2020-2021 and four years later will be delivered to the army.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Russia’s prospective complex of distant aviation (PAK DA), a proposed next-generation strategic bomber design, will carry out its first flight in 2020-2021 and four years later will be delivered to the army, the Russian Long-Range Air Force deputy commander said Saturday.

"As for rearmament, the aircraft fleet that we have at present will be changed for the PAK DA. According to the plan, the first flights will take place in 2020-2021, later the test flights are scheduled, and the deliveries to the army will begin in 2024-2025," Maj. Gen. Anatoly Konovalov told reporters.

The project is currently being developed by the Tupolev Design Bureau.

The work on creating the PAK DA was launched in 2009. The military intended to receive a single type of long-range bomber to replace the current Tu-160, Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20151219/1032030622/russia-prospective-bomber-flight.html#ixzz3urjJ42L7

Russian Stealth Supersonic Aircraft PAK FA Revolutionizes Aviation [CIAM v Kuznetsov. Engine War]
The breakthrough engine was designed by the Central Institute of Aviation Motors (CIAM) in Moscow.

"An operational module of the supersonic combusting ramjet will probably be the most eye-catching piece at the CIAM booth," the institute reported.
In addition, the company plans to present dozens of other interesting projects.

The CIAM is one of the world leader’s in developing supersonic combusting ramjets. The Institute created Europe’s largest range to imitate flight conditions at speeds of Mach 5-7.5 (6,125-9,187 kmh).

"For rig tests, the Institute has designed a module of a hydrogen supersonic combusting ramjet. During tests under simulated flight conditions at speeds of Mach 7.4, the engine delivered forward thrust," the Institute explained.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150823/1026084410/russia-creates-breakthrough-jet-engine.html#ixzz3v2mohC7p

Old read. Mach 7.5 engine

Ru go NK32  

Book. wrote:

Russian Stealth Supersonic Aircraft PAK FA Revolutionizes Aviation [CIAM v Kuznetsov. Engine War]
The breakthrough engine was designed by the Central Institute of Aviation Motors (CIAM) in Moscow.

"An operational module of the supersonic combusting ramjet will probably be the most eye-catching piece at the CIAM booth," the institute reported.
In addition, the company plans to present dozens of other interesting projects.

The CIAM is one of the world leader’s in developing supersonic combusting ramjets. The Institute created Europe’s largest range to imitate flight conditions at speeds of Mach 5-7.5 (6,125-9,187 kmh).

"For rig tests, the Institute has designed a module of a hydrogen supersonic combusting ramjet. During tests under simulated flight conditions at speeds of Mach 7.4, the engine delivered forward thrust," the Institute explained.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150823/1026084410/russia-creates-breakthrough-jet-engine.html#ixzz3v2mohC7p

Old read. Mach 7.5 engine

Ru go NK32  

Mach 7.5 engine?  what about that GarryB in your "too expensive" for Russia to go for
hypersonic flight.   You know what will be expensive Garryb?  That Americans militarize
space and Russia is left behind.and that no longer Russia can send any satellite or rocket in space without Americans shotting it down stealthily. Russia needs to be ready to dominate space not only with civilian space rockets ,but with military space planes too.. Only when you get Americans into a wall ,with military superiority ,is only when they will change its mind about their plans of militarization of space that have not changed.

Head of RuAF: We expect to perform first test flight of PAK DA (replacement of Tu-160) in 2021 or earlier.

https://twitter.com/KURYERSAT/

"The advanced strategic long-range aircraft`s (Russian acronym: PAK DA) prototype may take its maiden flight before 2021, according to the Russian Aerospace Forces` (AF) chief, Colonel General Viktor Bondarev. "The works on PAK DA are being done. We are satisfied with the progress rates. There is a task to conduct the (PAK DA`s) first flight in 2021. If the reached progress rates are maintained, the bomber will take the flight before the targeted time", Bondarev said.

Mentioning the revival of the Tu-160 (NATO reporting name: Blackjack) strategic aircraft production, he pointed out, that the related works were being done "at full speed".

"The Russia`s government and the Ministry of Defense have taken the appropriate decision to revive the Tu-160`s production. The related works are being done at full speed. There are no schedule delays. The aircraft will conduct its first flight at the appointed date. The Armed Forces will get the planes in the required time", Bondarev said.



Previously, PAK DA was planned to take the first flights in 2019-2020. The supplies of the aircraft to the Russian Armed Forces were scheduled for 2023-2025. However, due to the decision to revive the production of Tu-160, the PAK DA`s developing time was shifted."

Source: http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/global-defense-security-news/global-news-2016/january/2334-russia-s-next-gen-strategic-bomber-pak-da-could-take-to-the-skies-in-2021.html

Mach 7.5 engine? what about that GarryB in your "too expensive" for Russia to go for
hypersonic flight. lol1 You know what will be expensive Garryb?

They have an engine that can operate at mach 7.5... that is just the first step.

They need to build an aircraft out of materials that will withstand friction heat of several thousand degrees C. Mach 3 flight requires either titanium skin or stainless steel... the former being very expensive and the latter being very heavy. What do you think Mach 7 flight will require.

More to the point just because the engines can operate at mach 7.5 and provide thrust at that speed what current aircraft shape can operate at 0km/h up to that speed? Or are you suggesting they launch them like ICBMs?

An aircraft starting from stationary on a runway that can take off and accelerate to mach 7.5 and fly half way around the world (that is what strategic bomber need to be able to do) and back with a payload of weapons still has to be designed and built and tested.

Previously the barrier was Mach 3... mainly because of engines. With that barrier overcome with scramjet engines then the next barrier will be heat management... and we really don't know what speed that will be...

There is a very long way to go till a hypersonic bomber can be practical... these engine technologies will be used in cruise missiles and likely MiG-41 interceptors first...

Trying to get past mach 3 with turbojet engines would be like trying to get past mach one with propellers.

That Americans militarize
space and Russia is left behind.and that no longer Russia can send any satellite or rocket in space without Americans shotting it down stealthily.

Hahahaha... Americas domination of space would let them shoot down anyones satellites with impunity... How?

Secretly shooting down satellites is something anyone could do...

The PAK DA being subsonic or hypersonic has no bearing on shooting down satellites.

@AK-REX Pretty image but that is the T-4MS which was rejected before the design of the Tu-160 was accepted... I doubt they will go back to it now.