PAK-DA: News

GarryB wrote:A transports role is not to be fast... it is to carry weight over distance. Adding a speed requirement makes it worse in other areas and for no benefit because even a Mach 1.6 transport aircraft will be an easy kill for any SAM or F-22 or PAK FA.

This is wrong. A transport role is to carry a weight over a distance in a time. The time (more or less) is key in the transport role. Speed requirements are almost always present in a transport work. And sometimes the transport must be fast. Speed is just a combination of the concepts of distance and time.

I will quote you for the first time, adding that what you said for "bombers" applies for every type of aircraft, including transport aircrafts:

GarryB wrote:Most current and projected non Russian interceptors would have difficulty intercepting a mach 1.6 bomber as they would have to use full AB to keep up which burns through fuel rapidly.

Then a "bomber" (aircraft) at mach 1.6 would be safer than at lower speed. I agree, and defended it constantly.

GarryB wrote:

GarryB wrote:

In the US would be very happy if this is true. After 40 years Russia going one step back...

First of all who cares what the US thinks.

...

Time is THE most important factor for a strategic bomber, speed is very much a factor in time.

You need to tell this to the Americans then because they have gone backwards two times... with the B-1B being rather slower and smaller than the B-1, and the B-2 and now B-21 being slower still.

You seem to care not, until you care, even in the same comment.

I don't care what they think. What they do is relevant, what they think is not.

And everything that they do must be followed, even if proved to be wrong?

The shut-down of a F-117 and the severe damage caused to a B-2 strategic bomber, in 1999, in both cases by SA-5 missiles, today retired in Russia as obsolete, should be enough to show the weakness of the American low speed strategy. To follow them in their mistakes seems not too smart. It only would help to the Americans to save easier their mistakes.

The production of the B-2 ceased in 2000 only one year after the campaign and with only 21 units built. Not casual, and not a sign of happyness with its performance in combat.

GarryB wrote:

The problem is to see the tight money distracted to other solutions that are one step back of the Tu-160 and that would add nothing significant to the Russian Armed Forces.

The Tu-160 is perfectly capable... its only problem is that they only made about 30 of them and half were lost to the Ukraine.

It is no cheap to operate so an engine upgrade to improve performance and reduce operating costs will benefit all aircraft of the type, but the new engine developed for the PAK DA will make the latter aircraft as cheap to operate as the Bear, but as effective as the Blackjack.

The T-160 is perfectly capable yes, and better than a subsonic strategic bomber. It is a non-sense to design a less capable successor.

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:Well they officially said it will be subsonic

In which official document is this said?

"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."

No, no, I'm not asking about external references, I'm asking about some public official document saying it.

I dont belive something of a sort exists. Just statements from Air Force commander and Strategic air wing commander, which are both familiar with project, if anyone.

eehnie wrote:

GarryB wrote:A transports role is not to be fast... it is to carry weight over distance. Adding a speed requirement makes it worse in other areas and for no benefit because even a Mach 1.6 transport aircraft will be an easy kill for any SAM or F-22 or PAK FA.

This is wrong. A transport role is to carry a weight over a distance in a time. The time (more or less) is key in the transport role. Speed requirements are almost always present in a transport work. And sometimes the transport must be fast. Speed is just a combination of the concepts of distance and time.

I will quote you for the first time, adding that what you said for "bombers" applies for every type of aircraft, including transport aircrafts:

GarryB wrote:Most current and projected non Russian interceptors would have difficulty intercepting a mach 1.6 bomber as they would have to use full AB to keep up which burns through fuel rapidly.

Then a "bomber" (aircraft) at mach 1.6 would be safer than at lower speed. I agree, and defended it constantly.

GarryB wrote:

GarryB wrote:

In the US would be very happy if this is true. After 40 years Russia going one step back...

First of all who cares what the US thinks.

...

Time is THE most important factor for a strategic bomber, speed is very much a factor in time.

You need to tell this to the Americans then because they have gone backwards two times... with the B-1B being rather slower and smaller than the B-1, and the B-2 and now B-21 being slower still.

You seem to care not, until you care, even in the same comment.

I don't care what they think. What they do is relevant, what they think is not.

And everything that they do must be followed, even if proved to be wrong?

The shut-down of a F-117 and the severe damage caused to a B-2 strategic bomber, in 1999, in both cases by SA-5 missiles, today retired in Russia as obsolete, should be enough to show the weakness of the American low speed strategy. To follow them in their mistakes seems not too smart. It only would help to the Americans to save easier their mistakes.

The production of the B-2 ceased in 2000 only one year after the campaign and with only 21 units built. Not casual, and not a sign of happyness with its performance in combat.

GarryB wrote:

The problem is to see the tight money distracted to other solutions that are one step back of the Tu-160 and that would add nothing significant to the Russian Armed Forces.

The Tu-160 is perfectly capable... its only problem is that they only made about 30 of them and half were lost to the Ukraine.

It is no cheap to operate so an engine upgrade to improve performance and reduce operating costs will benefit all aircraft of the type, but the new engine developed for the PAK DA will make the latter aircraft as cheap to operate as the Bear, but as effective as the Blackjack.

The T-160 is perfectly capable yes, and better than a subsonic strategic bomber. It is a non-sense to design a less capable successor.

I have never heard of speed requirements for transport aircraft in my life. Its always class/range horatio, more or less all transport aircraft these days operate on same speeds anyways. There are occasionally special requirements in terms of runaway width, length, fuel consumption or number of crew members but speed...never heard.

Serbia did not operate S200, system in question is SA03 Goa/S125 Neva, whichever nomenclature you prefer.

Reason why B2 production ceased is simple, USSR was gone and that was main reason why such bomber was developed, and its staggering price tag couldnt be justified anymore in front of Senate.

When its about its performance i must say it was more than adequate, in Yugoslavia B2 was used to hit 33% of all targets, that says alot.

And let me repeat again, fact that PAK-DA is to be subsonic does not mean its step backwards compared to TU160. Speed lost most of its value last 30 years, at least for bombers.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

GarryB wrote:A transports role is not to be fast... it is to carry weight over distance. Adding a speed requirement makes it worse in other areas and for no benefit because even a Mach 1.6 transport aircraft will be an easy kill for any SAM or F-22 or PAK FA.

This is wrong. A transport role is to carry a weight over a distance in a time. The time (more or less) is key in the transport role. Speed requirements are almost always present in a transport work. And sometimes the transport must be fast. Speed is just a combination of the concepts of distance and time.

I will quote you for the first time, adding that what you said for "bombers" applies for every type of aircraft, including transport aircrafts:

GarryB wrote:Most current and projected non Russian interceptors would have difficulty intercepting a mach 1.6 bomber as they would have to use full AB to keep up which burns through fuel rapidly.

Then a "bomber" (aircraft) at mach 1.6 would be safer than at lower speed. I agree, and defended it constantly.

GarryB wrote:

GarryB wrote:

In the US would be very happy if this is true. After 40 years Russia going one step back...

First of all who cares what the US thinks.

...

Time is THE most important factor for a strategic bomber, speed is very much a factor in time.

You need to tell this to the Americans then because they have gone backwards two times... with the B-1B being rather slower and smaller than the B-1, and the B-2 and now B-21 being slower still.

You seem to care not, until you care, even in the same comment.

I don't care what they think. What they do is relevant, what they think is not.

And everything that they do must be followed, even if proved to be wrong?

The shut-down of a F-117 and the severe damage caused to a B-2 strategic bomber, in 1999, in both cases by SA-5 missiles, today retired in Russia as obsolete, should be enough to show the weakness of the American low speed strategy. To follow them in their mistakes seems not too smart. It only would help to the Americans to save easier their mistakes.

The production of the B-2 ceased in 2000 only one year after the campaign and with only 21 units built. Not casual, and not a sign of happyness with its performance in combat.

GarryB wrote:

The problem is to see the tight money distracted to other solutions that are one step back of the Tu-160 and that would add nothing significant to the Russian Armed Forces.

The Tu-160 is perfectly capable... its only problem is that they only made about 30 of them and half were lost to the Ukraine.

It is no cheap to operate so an engine upgrade to improve performance and reduce operating costs will benefit all aircraft of the type, but the new engine developed for the PAK DA will make the latter aircraft as cheap to operate as the Bear, but as effective as the Blackjack.

The T-160 is perfectly capable yes, and better than a subsonic strategic bomber. It is a non-sense to design a less capable successor.

I have never heard of speed requirements for transport aircraft in my life. Its always class/range horatio, more or less all transport aircraft these days operate on same speeds anyways. There are occasionally special requirements in  terms of runaway width, length, fuel consumption or number of crew members but speed...never heard.

Serbia did not operate S200, system in question is SA03 Goa/S125 Neva, whichever nomenclature you prefer.

Reason why B2 production ceased is simple, USSR was gone and that was main reason why such bomber was developed, and its staggering price tag couldnt be justified anymore in front of Senate.

When its about its performance i must say it was more than adequate, in Yugoslavia B2 was used to hit 33% of all targets, that says alot.

And let me repeat again, fact that PAK-DA is to be subsonic does not mean its step backwards compared to TU160. Speed lost most of its value last 30 years, at least for bombers.

In civil use, in transport by aircraft/helicopter the most clear example is the transport of organs for transplants in humans. There is a clear timeline for them that can not be broken, which means a necessary speed.

In industry is also common the need of using a timeline for some urgent supplies that can be needed to stop not a (big) production line. The timeline has a direct consequence that is a required speed that sometimes can not be reached.

Military environments of war are likely to generate urgences in contested areas with time requirements for transport that instantly become speed requirements (like you know).

About the updated Tu-160 vs a subsonic strategic bomber, let me to know in what would be superior a subsonic strategic bomber. Things that can not reach or can not be included in the updated Tu-160. The can not part is very important.

Well they officially said it will be subsonic, and judging by some drawings we saw around (none are really official) it will be flying wing which is hard to make supersonic, almost impossible, it would require as you said significant changes to the design to achieve supercruising capability. But i guess its not out of question, we shall see soon anyways. However in my mind that 1,6 mach tag is abit unrealistic, even if they make it supercruising capable it wont go over 1,2 mach at best.

A tailed flying wing would be very low drag... operating at high altitude there is no reason why it should not be able to supercruise... if not at the start of its flight where it is mostly fuel to the mid point of flight where it approaches enemy territory and has burned half its fuel and is about to dump its payload too.

In fact it might be possible to get a conventional flying wing to supercruise if it has thrust vectoring engines that allow the angle of thrust to be changed to assist with keeping trim of the aircraft... very low drag and with four engines the potential for differential angling of engines to allow a range of manouver without conventional control surfaces... super stealthy...

Well beside F35 they will keep F15s for quite some time in service and F22s too wont go away for decades. And you have NATO members that operate aircaft that have better kinematic performance (at least in terms of speed) than F35 like EF2000 and Dassault Rafale.

If they talk about a subsonic bomber now then the F35 might be all they think they need. A supercruising bomber will cost NATO a fortune as new interceptors able to intercept it reliably will cost them lots of money...

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."

So they want a super long range bomb truck so they are going for a subsonic flying wing... super low drag and low cost engines. the point is that even if the bomber needs to use AB to get supersonic, if it can fly supersonically in dry thrust that will maximise range and optimise speed so you get the best of both worlds... without the enormous costs of supersonic all the way, or in the case of the Blackjack... subsonic most of the way and supersonic dash.

This is wrong. A transport role is to carry a weight over a distance in a time. The time (more or less) is key in the transport role. Speed requirements are almost always present in a transport work. And sometimes the transport must be fast. Speed is just a combination of the concepts of distance and time.

Most strategic transport goes by sea and takes weeks or months. Compared with that air transport takes hours or days... the difference between subsonic and supersonic is not that important... certainly not worth the enormous cost.

I will quote you for the first time, adding that what you said for "bombers" applies for every type of aircraft, including transport aircrafts:

Bombers need to penetrate enemy air space to hit defended targets... glide bombs, and cruise missiles increase standoff range and make them safer.

Transports don't do that. So there is much less value in speed.

Then a "bomber" (aircraft) at mach 1.6 would be safer than at lower speed. I agree, and defended it constantly.

If you think of the accelerator pedal in a car and the gears in a car as you push down the pedal the revs of the car go up, but each gear has a power range.... below about 1,500 revs you are pretty much idling... at 3,000 to about 5,000 revs you have power and can accelerate in most gears.

the result is that you can sit at certain speeds comfortably but other speeds you are either too high in the revs to maintain or need to go to a different gear.

It is the same for jet aircraft... most modern interceptors can fly very fast but don't tend to fly around at top speed because it takes time to get to that speed and it burns a lot of fuel.

For an F-16 pilot to run down a bomber doing Mach 1.6 he will have to go full reheat. The longer he has to chase you the closer he is to empty... the bomber will be able to fly at such speeds all the time... the small fight only in short bursts.

And everything that they do must be followed, even if proved to be wrong?

the PAK DA is supposed to be the affordable bomb truck that will likely be used in numbers by Russia to replace the Bear and backfire and therefore will have a theatre and strategic role with potentially a very heavy bomb load or exceptionally long range.

The B-2 was supposed to be a first strike weapon able to roam at will over Soviet air space destroying truck launched ICBMs.

Russia is not now copying the US because the US has no truck mobile ICBMs.

The shut-down of a F-117 and the severe damage caused to a B-2 strategic bomber, in 1999, in both cases by SA-5 missiles, today retired in Russia as obsolete, should be enough to show the weakness of the American low speed strategy.

The Serbs didn't have SA-5s, they used SA-3s.

The difference is that in a strategic role the PAK DA will more likely carry 2 or 4 hypersonic cruise missiles, or 12-24 subsonic cruise missiles rather than bombs, and the standoff launch range should keep them completely safe.

The production of the B-2 ceased in 2000 only one year after the campaign and with only 21 units built. Not casual, and not a sign of happyness with its performance in combat.

Desert Storm already proved it was incapable of its primary mission of killing Topols when it failed in ideal conditions to deal with a few Scuds.

The T-160 is perfectly capable yes, and better than a subsonic strategic bomber. It is a non-sense to design a less capable successor.

You are failing to see virtue. The Tu-160 is a capable machine and the improved model will likely be even better but it is not cheap to operate. The PAK DA will have lots of advantages that the Blackjack does not. Real stealth which will complicate US defences. Longer range to allow attacks from flank areas. Stand off cruise missiles the same as the blackjack. Remember stealth reduces detection range so a radar that can see a Blackjack at 5,000km might not see a PAK DA until it is 1,000km away... so when it carries 5,000km range missiles it might never see the PAK DA... it might see the Tu160 but it will launch and then run away at mach 2 so it wont be able to do anything about either.

In civil use, in transport by aircraft/helicopter the most clear example is the transport of organs for transplants in humans. There is a clear timeline for them that can not be broken, which means a necessary speed.

the cost of delivery of such a small item justifies its speed.

I am sure there are lots of things a commander on a front line wants immediately but I am sorry but I think the idea of a supersonic transport plane flying around the front line delivering small parcels to the front line troops when they need it sounds silly. Where would these supersonic transports land?

Surely if time is so critical then paradropping the items directly to where they are needed makes more sense.

the only supersonic delivery of small much needed items on the frontline are delivered by "transports" like the Tu-22M3 and Su-34 and Su-24.

No offense meant.

eehnie wrote:

In civil use, in transport by aircraft/helicopter the most clear example is the transport of organs for transplants in humans. There is a clear timeline for them that can not be broken, which means a necessary speed.

In industry is also common the need of using a timeline for some urgent supplies that can be needed to stop not a (big) production line. The timeline has a direct consequence that is a required speed that sometimes can not be reached.

Military environments of war are likely to generate urgences in contested areas with time requirements for transport that instantly become speed requirements (like you know).

About the updated Tu-160 vs a subsonic strategic bomber, let me to know in what would be superior a subsonic strategic bomber. Things that can not reach or can not be included in the updated Tu-160. The can not part is very important.

As i served on airfield, i had pleasure to see twice organs coming in, once by casual liner Boeing 737 together with everyone else and once by small "private jet" Dassault Falcon, after that they were driven away by ambulance car, speed is important but not THAT important. And one of these is supersonic aircraft, they are both well in subsonic speeds.

Actually almost 95% of supplies for industry is directly delivered via trains or trucks, and secondary transport is almost always by sea. Aircraft is very rarey used due to huge costs and only for very specific parts. Lets say like turbine engines that cant fit on train, or there is no railway nearby they are transported by aircraft. If you have to stop production or building of something coz your parts did not come via supersonic transport, you should quit your job coz your planning sux big time

Yes, transport can become urgency on battlefield, however transports very rarely come near combat lines, they mostly land at least 40-60km behind and then stuff gets delivered to frontline by other means, so speed of transport aricraft barely matters. Also take note that 90% of transport aircraft today in use fly at same speeds, literally noone has advantage in that class, simply coz making supersonic transport in 40t class would cost a fortune. Its viable for small business liners for rich guy and 3 additional hookers.

Well first of all subsonic flying wing would have far lower signature in all spectrums, IR, radio... it would cost alot less to operate most likely too. It should have longer range, should have smaller crew (2 men?). Lower detection chances would increase survivability alot more than supersonic speed would, as there is no chance you would manage to evade modern SAMs no matter how fast you are and they are still biggest threat to bombers during conventional missions.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

In civil use, in transport by aircraft/helicopter the most clear example is the transport of organs for transplants in humans. There is a clear timeline for them that can not be broken, which means a necessary speed.

In industry is also common the need of using a timeline for some urgent supplies that can be needed to stop not a (big) production line. The timeline has a direct consequence that is a required speed that sometimes can not be reached.

Military environments of war are likely to generate urgences in contested areas with time requirements for transport that instantly become speed requirements (like you know).

About the updated Tu-160 vs a subsonic strategic bomber, let me to know in what would be superior a subsonic strategic bomber. Things that can not reach or can not be included in the updated Tu-160. The can not part is very important.

As i served on airfield, i had pleasure to see twice organs coming in, once by casual liner Boeing 737 together with everyone else and once by small "private jet" Dassault Falcon, after that they were driven away by ambulance car, speed is important but not THAT important. And one of these is supersonic aircraft, they are both well in subsonic speeds.

Actually almost 95% of supplies for industry is directly delivered via trains or trucks, and secondary transport is almost always by sea. Aircraft is very rarey used due to huge costs and only for very specific parts. Lets say like turbine engines that cant fit on train, or there is no railway nearby they are transported by aircraft. If you have to stop production or building of something coz your parts did not come via supersonic transport, you should quit your job coz your planning sux big time

Yes, transport can become urgency on battlefield, however transports very rarely come near combat lines, they mostly land at least 40-60km behind and then stuff gets delivered to frontline by other means, so speed of transport aricraft barely matters. Also take note that 90% of transport aircraft today in use fly at same speeds, literally noone has advantage in that class, simply coz making supersonic transport in 40t class would cost a fortune. Its viable for small business liners for rich guy and 3 additional hookers.

Well first of all subsonic flying wing would have far lower signature in all spectrums, IR, radio... it would cost alot less to operate most likely too. It should have longer range, should have smaller crew (2 men?). Lower detection chances would increase survivability alot more than supersonic speed would, as there is no chance you would manage to evade modern SAMs no matter how fast you are and they are still biggest threat to bombers during conventional missions.

While it would be very helpful sometimes, the supersonic transport has not been developed for civil purposes because there is not enough market for it, but it would be very helpful in the case of transport or organs as example to allow to unify the European space for it. Sometimes, there is an organ for a person that need it, but it is too far to come in the right timeline and can not be used. Still there is people that die because of it.

There are cases where some big companies would pay for supersonic transport if it would be available, and the lines of production have stops with important cost for the companies. Of course for the most urgent supplies in the most critic moments which is a very small percentage of the total transport.

About military supersonic transport, I'm not the alone thingking about it, The difference between military urgences and civil urgences, is that the military urgences can be of a lot bigger size. As example you may need a divission that was not previewed in a concrete contested place in a concrete moment. And the time (=>speed) can be a big factor for a success or a defeat. This is the spirit of the purpose that I'm supporting. It would be very useful as example to stop some military coups with external help in the first stages of the coup, something that today can not be done, because today's military transport has not enough small time of reaction.

To reduce the signature of a subsonic strategic bomber has an important aditional cost. I would say that the subsonic American B-2 has been significantly more expensive than the Tu-160. The operational costs have limited importantce if the cost by unit of the aircraft is a half or a third part. And all this spending to limit the signatures on radar... for a limited result. If I remember well, one B-2 was severely hit in your country by SA-5 missiles (that are far of the most modern SAMs) and its production was cut only one year after it after 21 units produced. Plus, supersonic arcrafts can also operate in subsonic conditions. As example the range of the Tu-160 fliying in subsonic conditions is bigger than the range of the American B-2. Subsonic aircrafts are more vulnerable to a bigger number of weapons. I remember this joke from your country:

[quote="GarryB"]

.

The B-2 was supposed to be a first strike weapon able to roam at will over Soviet air space destroying truck launched ICBMs.

Russia is not now copying the US because the US has no truck mobile ICBMs.

Russia had truck launched ICBMs back then ? And How Exactly they planned to find those truck launched icbms becasue Russia still has portable ICBM's and B-2 bomber is off the shelves . Now B-21 will do the same role ?

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:Well they officially said it will be subsonic

In which official document is this said?

"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."

No, no, I'm not asking about external references, I'm asking about some public official document saying it.

I dont belive something of a sort exists. Just statements from Air Force commander and Strategic air wing commander, which are both familiar with project, if anyone.

Official statements should be reflected at least in some official press release or a video with the government official saying it. If we find nothing like this, how can we assure that the aircraft will be subsonic? External references are of very limited value if it is not possible to find some official source.

Also the opinion of "independent military aviation experts" is of very limited value, since most of the times defend the point of who pay them.

Well first of all subsonic flying wing would have far lower signature in all spectrums, IR, radio... it would cost alot less to operate most likely too. It should have longer range, should have smaller crew (2 men?). Lower detection chances would increase survivability alot more than supersonic speed would, as there is no chance you would manage to evade modern SAMs no matter how fast you are and they are still biggest threat to bombers during conventional missions.

Indeed a subsonic only PAK DA would likely only need 2 engines based on the NK-32 engine... the smaller theatre range Tu-22M3M needs two afterburning NK-32 engines to get supersonic, while the much larger strategic Tu-160 needs four, but a low drag flying wing could use four NK-32 based engines to supercruise but with just two it could still be strategic and be lighter and cheaper but would be strictly subsonic. My thoughts of supercruising are to maximise flight speed but without increasing operational costs... a three or four engined PAK DA could supercruise to ranges similar to a subsonic bomber but at much higher average speed that would be difficult for conventional fighters to intercept easily.

Obviously a twin engined model would likely exclude the required thrust in dry mode to get to supercruise, but would reduce operational costs, reduce maintainence costs (two rather than four engines) and reduce weight... those big engines are a couple of tons each plus all the wiring and piping etc.

The thing is that the NK-32 will need to continue to be developed for the Tu-160M2 and I suspect supercruising would greatly benefit its performance... as a supersonic bomber it is going to be a low bypass turbofan or a turbojet for the exhaust velocity for supersonic flight.

If the PAK DA uses the same engines then the high exhaust speed would compliment supercruising... so even three engines could be used in a low drag configuration to achieve supercruising easily.

We will know as soon as we see the prototype as a flying wing like the B-2 does not have the wing sweep to supercruise... a much sharper wing sweep and thrust vectoring engines or some sort of tail surface might suggest transonic speed... and yes I know they have said the bomber will be subsonic, but for the reasons I have stated above I think they could aim higher... at the cost of a modest increase in operating costs/complication.

While it would be very helpful sometimes, the supersonic transport has not been developed for civil purposes because there is not enough market for it, but it would be very helpful in the case of transport or organs as example to allow to unify the European space for it. Sometimes, there is an organ for a person that need it, but it is too far to come in the right timeline and can not be used. Still there is people that die because of it.

I rather doubt it. People who need new hearts obviously wont live forever, but the difference between getting the heart in 2 hours via concord or 8 hours via Boeing I really don't think is actually that likely... flying a heart from the UK to the US is very unlikely... there are plenty of people in the UK that could probably use it anyway... and flying a heart from one US city to another is so close the extra speed is irrelevant... especially when supersonic flight for civilian aircraft is restricted AFAIK when the europeans developed concord and the us did not manage to get an equivalent into service.

There are cases where some big companies would pay for supersonic transport if it would be available, and the lines of production have stops with important cost for the companies. Of course for the most urgent supplies in the most critic moments which is a very small percentage of the total transport.

Concord sold tickets but was never in enough demand to build more.

It would be very useful as example to stop some military coups with external help in the first stages of the coup, something that today can not be done, because today's military transport has not enough small time of reaction.

the problem is that it is not really possible at the moment, and for the costs involved you could have an entire fleet of transport aircraft for the price of one supersonic model with limited range and payload.

The Tu-144 was a total failure because it was a transport aircraft that no body needed.

If I remember well, one B-2 was severely hit in your country by SA-5 missiles (that are far of the most modern SAMs) and its production was cut only one year after it after 21 units produced.

No B-2s have been shot down and Serbia used SA-3s, not SA-5s.

They only made 21 because the cold war ended and after desert storm the one niche role they claimed it could perform that no other US bomber could manage, was proven to be rubbish.

they claimed as a stealth bomber it could roam around Soviet skies with impunity and destroy truck mounted ICBMs at will with cheap small bombs.

In Desert Storm however it was proven with all their satellites intact, with total air superiority, with a country the size of Iraq instead of the size of Russia, and with no functioning air defence or air force to stop them, they still did not hit a single scud launcher before it could launch its missile.

The scenario in WWIII over the Soviet Union would be 1000X harder in all aspects.

Russia had truck launched ICBMs back then ? And How Exactly they planned to find those truck launched icbms becasue Russia still has portable ICBM's and B-2 bomber is off the shelves . Now B-21 will do the same role ?

Topol entered operational service in 1985. There was a train based system in service in the 1980s too from memory.

They have nothing to engage road and rail mobile ICBMs.

Official statements should be reflected at least in some official press release or a video with the government official saying it. If we find nothing like this, how can we assure that the aircraft will be subsonic? External references are of very limited value if it is not possible to find some official source.

they have delayed the development cycle of the PAK DA with the resuming production of the Tu-160M2 so there is plenty of scope for the design to change between now and when the prototype flys.

By suggesting supercruise capability we are not suggesting lasers and anti satellite capability... the flying wing design is very low drag and its engines will be shared with a supersonic type so I really don't think making it supercruise would make it that more expensive... a greater wing sweep and an extra engine or two... it would also increase the max TOW with extra engine power...

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

In civil use, in transport by aircraft/helicopter the most clear example is the transport of organs for transplants in humans. There is a clear timeline for them that can not be broken, which means a necessary speed.

In industry is also common the need of using a timeline for some urgent supplies that can be needed to stop not a (big) production line. The timeline has a direct consequence that is a required speed that sometimes can not be reached.

Military environments of war are likely to generate urgences in contested areas with time requirements for transport that instantly become speed requirements (like you know).

About the updated Tu-160 vs a subsonic strategic bomber, let me to know in what would be superior a subsonic strategic bomber. Things that can not reach or can not be included in the updated Tu-160. The can not part is very important.

As i served on airfield, i had pleasure to see twice organs coming in, once by casual liner Boeing 737 together with everyone else and once by small "private jet" Dassault Falcon, after that they were driven away by ambulance car, speed is important but not THAT important. And one of these is supersonic aircraft, they are both well in subsonic speeds.

Actually almost 95% of supplies for industry is directly delivered via trains or trucks, and secondary transport is almost always by sea. Aircraft is very rarey used due to huge costs and only for very specific parts. Lets say like turbine engines that cant fit on train, or there is no railway nearby they are transported by aircraft. If you have to stop production or building of something coz your parts did not come via supersonic transport, you should quit your job coz your planning sux big time

Yes, transport can become urgency on battlefield, however transports very rarely come near combat lines, they mostly land at least 40-60km behind and then stuff gets delivered to frontline by other means, so speed of transport aricraft barely matters. Also take note that 90% of transport aircraft today in use fly at same speeds, literally noone has advantage in that class, simply coz making supersonic transport in 40t class would cost a fortune. Its viable for small business liners for rich guy and 3 additional hookers.

Well first of all subsonic flying wing would have far lower signature in all spectrums, IR, radio... it would cost alot less to operate most likely too. It should have longer range, should have smaller crew (2 men?). Lower detection chances would increase survivability alot more than supersonic speed would, as there is no chance you would manage to evade modern SAMs no matter how fast you are and they are still biggest threat to bombers during conventional missions.

While it would be very helpful sometimes, the supersonic transport has not been developed for civil purposes because there is not enough market for it, but it would be very helpful in the case of transport or organs as example to allow to unify the European space for it. Sometimes, there is an organ for a person that need it, but it is too far to come in the right timeline and can not be used. Still there is people that die because of it.

There are cases where some big companies would pay for supersonic transport if it would be available, and the lines of production have stops with important cost for the companies. Of course for the most urgent supplies in the most critic moments which is a very small percentage of the total transport.

About military supersonic transport, I'm not the alone thingking about it, The difference between military urgences and civil urgences, is that the military urgences can be of a lot bigger size. As example you may need a divission that was not previewed in a concrete contested place in a concrete moment. And the time (=>speed) can be a big factor for a success or a defeat. This is the spirit of the purpose that I'm supporting. It would be very useful as example to stop some military coups with external help in the first stages of the coup, something that today can not be done, because today's military transport has not enough small time of reaction.

To reduce the signature of a subsonic strategic bomber has an important aditional cost. I would say that the subsonic American B-2 has been significantly more expensive than the Tu-160. The operational costs have limited importantce if the cost by unit of the aircraft is a half or a third part. And all this spending to limit the signatures on radar... for a limited result. If I remember well, one B-2 was severely hit in your country by SA-5 missiles (that are far of the most modern SAMs) and its production was cut only one year after it after 21 units produced. Plus, supersonic arcrafts can also operate in subsonic conditions. As example the range of the Tu-160 fliying in subsonic conditions is bigger than the range of the American B-2. Subsonic aircrafts are more vulnerable to a bigger number of weapons. I remember this joke from your country:

B2 hit was never confirmed and probably never occured, they flew way out of reach for our SAM-s. We did try to get one Dvina battery into function but it was bombed one night before work was done on retrofitting, we tried reinstating it into service to challenge U2 and B2 but i doubt it would have worked.

We had SA3 and SA6 only, SA3 shot down F117A, they are part of my brigade so i would sort of know:) Actually most advanced system of that age would be S300PMU2 as it was offered for export in 1997.

i had believed that the most important factor to a bomber is altitude and jamming
and a laser can easily be put on them
and one advantage of the laser is that it is the right to counter a maneuvrable missile ...... evasive missile cant escape ....... and also jamming cant do nothing ......

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

In civil use, in transport by aircraft/helicopter the most clear example is the transport of organs for transplants in humans. There is a clear timeline for them that can not be broken, which means a necessary speed.

In industry is also common the need of using a timeline for some urgent supplies that can be needed to stop not a (big) production line. The timeline has a direct consequence that is a required speed that sometimes can not be reached.

Military environments of war are likely to generate urgences in contested areas with time requirements for transport that instantly become speed requirements (like you know).

About the updated Tu-160 vs a subsonic strategic bomber, let me to know in what would be superior a subsonic strategic bomber. Things that can not reach or can not be included in the updated Tu-160. The can not part is very important.

As i served on airfield, i had pleasure to see twice organs coming in, once by casual liner Boeing 737 together with everyone else and once by small "private jet" Dassault Falcon, after that they were driven away by ambulance car, speed is important but not THAT important. And one of these is supersonic aircraft, they are both well in subsonic speeds.

Actually almost 95% of supplies for industry is directly delivered via trains or trucks, and secondary transport is almost always by sea. Aircraft is very rarey used due to huge costs and only for very specific parts. Lets say like turbine engines that cant fit on train, or there is no railway nearby they are transported by aircraft. If you have to stop production or building of something coz your parts did not come via supersonic transport, you should quit your job coz your planning sux big time

Yes, transport can become urgency on battlefield, however transports very rarely come near combat lines, they mostly land at least 40-60km behind and then stuff gets delivered to frontline by other means, so speed of transport aricraft barely matters. Also take note that 90% of transport aircraft today in use fly at same speeds, literally noone has advantage in that class, simply coz making supersonic transport in 40t class would cost a fortune. Its viable for small business liners for rich guy and 3 additional hookers.

Well first of all subsonic flying wing would have far lower signature in all spectrums, IR, radio... it would cost alot less to operate most likely too. It should have longer range, should have smaller crew (2 men?). Lower detection chances would increase survivability alot more than supersonic speed would, as there is no chance you would manage to evade modern SAMs no matter how fast you are and they are still biggest threat to bombers during conventional missions.

While it would be very helpful sometimes, the supersonic transport has not been developed for civil purposes because there is not enough market for it, but it would be very helpful in the case of transport or organs as example to allow to unify the European space for it. Sometimes, there is an organ for a person that need it, but it is too far to come in the right timeline and can not be used. Still there is people that die because of it.

There are cases where some big companies would pay for supersonic transport if it would be available, and the lines of production have stops with important cost for the companies. Of course for the most urgent supplies in the most critic moments which is a very small percentage of the total transport.

About military supersonic transport, I'm not the alone thingking about it, The difference between military urgences and civil urgences, is that the military urgences can be of a lot bigger size. As example you may need a divission that was not previewed in a concrete contested place in a concrete moment. And the time (=>speed) can be a big factor for a success or a defeat. This is the spirit of the purpose that I'm supporting. It would be very useful as example to stop some military coups with external help in the first stages of the coup, something that today can not be done, because today's military transport has not enough small time of reaction.

To reduce the signature of a subsonic strategic bomber has an important aditional cost. I would say that the subsonic American B-2 has been significantly more expensive than the Tu-160. The operational costs have limited importantce if the cost by unit of the aircraft is a half or a third part. And all this spending to limit the signatures on radar... for a limited result. If I remember well, one B-2 was severely hit in your country by SA-5 missiles (that are far of the most modern SAMs) and its production was cut only one year after it after 21 units produced. Plus, supersonic arcrafts can also operate in subsonic conditions. As example the range of the Tu-160 fliying in subsonic conditions is bigger than the range of the American B-2. Subsonic aircrafts are more vulnerable to a bigger number of weapons. I remember this joke from your country:

B2 hit was never confirmed and probably never occured, they flew way out of reach for our SAM-s. We did try to get one Dvina battery into function but it was bombed one night before work was done on retrofitting, we tried reinstating it into service to challenge U2 and B2 but i doubt it would have worked.

We had SA3 and SA6 only, SA3 shot down F117A, they are part of my brigade so i would sort of know:) Actually most advanced system of that age would be S300PMU2 as it was offered for export in 1997.

SA-3, yes, my mistake, sorry.

Obviously it is a shame for the US to recognize it, then, no-one expect it.

Surprised that you take not this brilliant success of your country in that war.

eehnie wrote:

SA-3, yes, my mistake, sorry.

Obviously it is a shame for the US to recognize it, then, no-one expect it.

Surprised that you take not this brilliant success of your country in that war.

Well my unit claimed they did hit SOMETHING on that night, however that means very little. No real solid proof ever came up and all B2s were spotted after the war.

We did well, with what we had on our disposal, our success was mainly in our ability to evade airstrikes and save men and equipment.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

SA-3, yes, my mistake, sorry.

Obviously it is a shame for the US to recognize it, then, no-one expect it.

Surprised that you take not this brilliant success of your country in that war.

Well my unit claimed they did hit SOMETHING on that night, however that means very little. No real solid proof ever came up and all B2s were spotted after the war.

We did well, with what we had on our disposal, our success was mainly in our ability to evade airstrikes and save men and equipment.

I see you amazingly skeptik to be Serbian and pro-Russian. It is a little shocking to me

The Foreign Military Review writes about the NATO loses on April 18 and later:

“Despite the fact that American aircraft dominated NATO operations, they weren’t the only aircraft shot down by Yugoslav air defenses. Among the destroyed aircraft were five German “Tornadoes,” several British “Harriers'” two French “Mirages,” Belgian, Dutch, and Canadian aircraft. On June 7 the USAF lost a B-52 strategic bomber, while on May 20 a B-2A “Spirit” was shot down.”

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

SA-3, yes, my mistake, sorry.

Obviously it is a shame for the US to recognize it, then, no-one expect it.

Surprised that you take not this brilliant success of your country in that war.

Well my unit claimed they did hit SOMETHING on that night, however that means very little. No real solid proof ever came up and all B2s were spotted after the war.

We did well, with what we had on our disposal, our success was mainly in our ability to evade airstrikes and save men and equipment.

I see you amazingly skeptik to be Serbian and pro-Russian. It is a little shocking to me

The Foreign Military Review writes about the NATO loses on April 18 and later:

“Despite the fact that American aircraft dominated NATO operations, they weren’t the only aircraft shot down by Yugoslav air defenses. Among the destroyed aircraft were five German “Tornadoes,” several British “Harriers'” two French “Mirages,” Belgian, Dutch, and Canadian aircraft. On June 7 the USAF lost a B-52 strategic bomber, while on May 20 a B-2A “Spirit” was shot down.”

Well i am Serbian and i am pro Russian, however i like to be realistic

Only confirmed loses of NATO during Yugoslav bombing in 1999. were F117A and one F16 and 32 UAVs of various kinds. Another F117A was allegedly damaged together with 2 A10 being damaged. Also two Apaches crashed in Albania due to malfunctions. Other than that maybe some aircrafts were damaged but nothing substational.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

SA-3, yes, my mistake, sorry.

Obviously it is a shame for the US to recognize it, then, no-one expect it.

Surprised that you take not this brilliant success of your country in that war.

Well my unit claimed they did hit SOMETHING on that night, however that means very little. No real solid proof ever came up and all B2s were spotted after the war.

We did well, with what we had on our disposal, our success was mainly in our ability to evade airstrikes and save men and equipment.

I see you amazingly skeptik to be Serbian and pro-Russian. It is a little shocking to me

The Foreign Military Review writes about the NATO loses on April 18 and later:

“Despite the fact that American aircraft dominated NATO operations, they weren’t the only aircraft shot down by Yugoslav air defenses. Among the destroyed aircraft were five German “Tornadoes,” several British “Harriers'” two French “Mirages,” Belgian, Dutch, and Canadian aircraft. On June 7 the USAF lost a B-52 strategic bomber, while on May 20 a B-2A “Spirit” was shot down.”

Well i am Serbian and i am pro Russian, however i like to be realistic

Only confirmed loses of NATO during Yugoslav bombing in 1999. were F117A and one F16 and 32 UAVs of various kinds. Another F117A was allegedly damaged together with 2 A10 being damaged. Also two Apaches crashed in Albania due to malfunctions. Other than that maybe some aircrafts were damaged but nothing substational.

This is like to accept the part of losses of the Ukranian government on the war of Donbass. I do not think they are realistic realistic numbers, I think these are the numbers of the US.

ofcourse they are us numbers. but in the same time would be same thing if serbia would claim that had shoot lot's of us aicrafts ......we know for sure that serbia didn't had quite the latest equipment ...... even so.....the known facts are that a f117 was shoot.....that proves following:
1 SA3 missiles can engage that altitude
2 SA3 radar in special conditions can receive the radio waves from the plane....
3 with some training and add a multi radar function to SA3 they could for sure be a match to f117 ( every TEL of SA3 to comunicate each other)
4 if SA3 or latter would be put on map in a mathematical arrangement they could easy intercept stealth planes

but ....the main problem is that f117 is no more in use .....today main challenge is f22 and f35 wich is something different......... f22 for sure is more powerfull than f117 ....and a war today would end maibe even worse..... giving up may be the best option when is so much pressure ...... i dont know exacly what reasons may be to start such a war against f22 ......if you understand what i mean to say


in my opinion is necessary the transition to s-300 ..... is like replacing a girl you used to know with something much better and offer new posibilities..... but in this case would be need to know exacly what you think about girls and what benefits are offering the new possibility.....
for serbia might be the time to try to approach to russia seriously ....based on a new thinking wich offer a better understanding of both capitalism, comunism ....of russia and russia's way to be .....and then just choose if it is right to join russia ......

Militarov wrote:Speed was favoured during Cold War for high and low lvl air defence penetration, today speed wont rly help you much aganist integrated air defence systems.

Speed was and is ,with even much more weight today, by far the most crucial and decisive parameter in the design of any kind of offensive element, and all the military  scientifical efforts of any design bureau around the globe is univocally aimed toward a sharp increase of speed as the unique road possible against today level of integrated air defense networks.

For what concern strategic bombers design it became clear, at least since half of '70 years, that the unique elements assuring to the third branch of strategic triad still a deterrence role in a conflict against a peer/near-peer enemy would be:


1) Air-launched cruise missiles and theirs performance, with particular stress to the range performance for nuclear tipped ones (for the synergistic effect with the other two main requirements).

2) Mean time for full cruise missiles delivery cycle against key enemy installations.

3) Average time and mean area of dispersion of those strategic platforms toward different airfields both before and after cruise missile delivery.


It was found by ГосНИИАС that a supersonic - average 1,3 Mach or more mission speed capable - layout with a fuel efficient mixed-profile flight was over three times more efficient in the strategic cruise missile delivery role and over four times more survivable (obviously not for the interaction with enemy air defense network or with enemy Air Force interceptors having cruise missiles delivering range measured in the thousands of kilometers ,but for the mean area and speed of relocation) than a subsonic platform.

Obviously also measures aimed at reduce radar observability become not only practically irrelevant for strategic cruise missiles delivery from several thousands of kilometers afar but even a liablity, for the sharp increase of service and repair time after each mission (an element that increase of several times the chance to be destroyed on the ground by enemy strategic and sub-strategic attacks).  



Just to provide a brief sample of what said is sufficent to say that a supersonic bomber armed with Х-102 missiles maintaining an averange speed of M 1.3 at 13000 m, taking into account the increase in coasting range for the delivered missiles for a pre-delivery high supersonic dash would reach an useful delivery point 4000 km away from airbase (about 3600 km effective for the just named missile range increase for the high altitude/supersonic dash) in about 2 hours and 38 minutes ,for a total mission flight time of about 5 hours and 16 minutes, a subsonic platform , flying at the same altitude an average speed of M 0,7, would deliver the same Х-102 payload 4000 km away in about 5 hours and 22 minutes for a total mission time of 10 hours and 44 minutes.  


That is : the X-102s delivered against the most important enemy military structures (strategic bomber airbases included.....) by mean of supersonic bombers would detonate before those on board of the subsonic bomber would be merely delivered and those supersonic bombers would be in the air for the second attack before the subsonic ones would have merely returned from the first.


The difference both in strategic survivability and in the degradation speed of the enemy military capabilities and key assets between the two platforms ,put a supersonic and a subsonic bomber in two different league when strategic efficiency is the parameter taken in consideration.

GarryB wrote:
Topol entered operational service in 1985. There was a train based system in service in the 1980s too from memory.

GarryB, what's the amount of plutonium/enriched uranium in each warhead of the Topol? Thanks.

Mindstorm wrote:

Militarov wrote:Speed was favoured during Cold War for high and low lvl air defence penetration, today speed wont rly help you much aganist integrated air defence systems.

Speed was and is ,with even much more weight today, by far the most crucial and decisive parameter in the design of any kind of offensive element, and all the military  scientifical efforts of any design bureau around the globe is univocally aimed toward a sharp increase of speed as the unique road possible against today level of integrated air defense networks.

For what concern strategic bombers design it became clear, at least since half of '70 years, that the unique elements assuring to the third branch of strategic triad still a deterrence role in a conflict against a peer/near-peer enemy would be:


1) Air-launched cruise missiles and theirs performance, with particular stress to the range performance for nuclear tipped ones (for the synergistic effect with the other two main requirements).

2) Mean time for full cruise missiles delivery cycle against key enemy installations.

3) Average time and mean area of dispersion of those strategic platforms toward different airfields both before and after cruise missile delivery.


It was found by ГосНИИАС that a supersonic - average 1,3 Mach or more mission speed capable - layout with a fuel efficient mixed-profile flight was over three times more efficient in the strategic cruise missile delivery role and over four times more survivable (obviously not for the interaction with enemy air defense network or with enemy Air Force interceptors having cruise missiles delivering range measured in the thousands of kilometers ,but for the mean area and speed of relocation) than a subsonic platform.

Obviously also measures aimed at reduce radar observability become not only practically irrelevant for strategic cruise missiles delivery from several thousands of kilometers afar but even a liablity, for the sharp increase of service and repair time after each mission (an element that increase of several times the chance to be destroyed on the ground by enemy strategic and sub-strategic attacks).  



Just to provide a brief sample of what said is sufficent to say that a supersonic bomber armed with Х-102 missiles maintaining an averange speed of M 1.3 at 13000 m, taking into account the increase in coasting range for the delivered missiles for a pre-delivery high supersonic dash would reach an useful delivery point 4000 km away from airbase (about 3600 km effective for the just named missile range increase for the high altitude/supersonic dash) in about 2 hours and 38 minutes ,for a total mission flight time of about 5 hours and 16 minutes, a subsonic platform , flying at the same altitude an average speed of M 0,7, would deliver the same Х-102 payload 4000 km away in about 5 hours and 22 minutes for a total mission time of 10 hours and 44 minutes.  


That is : the X-102s delivered against the most important enemy military structures (strategic bomber airbases included.....) by mean of supersonic bombers would detonate before those on board of the subsonic bomber would be merely delivered and those supersonic bombers would be in the air for the second attack before the subsonic ones would have merely returned from the first.


The difference both in strategic survivability and in the degradation speed of the enemy military capabilities and key assets between the two platforms ,put a supersonic and a subsonic bomber in two different league when strategic efficiency is the parameter taken in consideration.

Very interesting comment with some details measured like the survival degree by speed.

Mindstorm wrote:

Militarov wrote:Speed was favoured during Cold War for high and low lvl air defence penetration, today speed wont rly help you much aganist integrated air defence systems.

Speed was and is ,with even much more weight today, by far the most crucial and decisive parameter in the design of any kind of offensive element, and all the military  scientifical efforts of any design bureau around the globe is univocally aimed toward a sharp increase of speed as the unique road possible against today level of integrated air defense networks.

For what concern strategic bombers design it became clear, at least since half of '70 years, that the unique elements assuring to the third branch of strategic triad still a deterrence role in a conflict against a peer/near-peer enemy would be:


1) Air-launched cruise missiles and theirs performance, with particular stress to the range performance for nuclear tipped ones (for the synergistic effect with the other two main requirements).

2) Mean time for full cruise missiles delivery cycle against key enemy installations.

3) Average time and mean area of dispersion of those strategic platforms toward different airfields both before and after cruise missile delivery.


It was found by ГосНИИАС that a supersonic - average 1,3 Mach or more mission speed capable - layout with a fuel efficient mixed-profile flight was over three times more efficient in the strategic cruise missile delivery role and over four times more survivable (obviously not for the interaction with enemy air defense network or with enemy Air Force interceptors having cruise missiles delivering range measured in the thousands of kilometers ,but for the mean area and speed of relocation) than a subsonic platform.

Obviously also measures aimed at reduce radar observability become not only practically irrelevant for strategic cruise missiles delivery from several thousands of kilometers afar but even a liablity, for the sharp increase of service and repair time after each mission (an element that increase of several times the chance to be destroyed on the ground by enemy strategic and sub-strategic attacks).  



Just to provide a brief sample of what said is sufficent to say that a supersonic bomber armed with Х-102 missiles maintaining an averange speed of M 1.3 at 13000 m, taking into account the increase in coasting range for the delivered missiles for a pre-delivery high supersonic dash would reach an useful delivery point 4000 km away from airbase (about 3600 km effective for the just named missile range increase for the high altitude/supersonic dash) in about 2 hours and 38 minutes ,for a total mission flight time of about 5 hours and 16 minutes, a subsonic platform , flying at the same altitude an average speed of M 0,7, would deliver the same Х-102 payload 4000 km away in about 5 hours and 22 minutes for a total mission time of 10 hours and 44 minutes.  


That is : the X-102s delivered against the most important enemy military structures (strategic bomber airbases included.....) by mean of supersonic bombers would detonate before those on board of the subsonic bomber would be merely delivered and those supersonic bombers would be in the air for the second attack before the subsonic ones would have merely returned from the first.


The difference both in strategic survivability and in the degradation speed of the enemy military capabilities and key assets between the two platforms ,put a supersonic and a subsonic bomber in two different league when strategic efficiency is the parameter taken in consideration.

I didn't Rogozin posted on RD.net


In all seriousness, very good post, certainly puts a stop to the crazies stating and wanting PAK-DA to be a subsonic stealth bomber, a B-2ski if you will.

Mindstorm wrote:

Militarov wrote:Speed was favoured during Cold War for high and low lvl air defence penetration, today speed wont rly help you much aganist integrated air defence systems.

Speed was and is ,with even much more weight today, by far the most crucial and decisive parameter in the design of any kind of offensive element, and all the military  scientifical efforts of any design bureau around the globe is univocally aimed toward a sharp increase of speed as the unique road possible against today level of integrated air defense networks.

For what concern strategic bombers design it became clear, at least since half of '70 years, that the unique elements assuring to the third branch of strategic triad still a deterrence role in a conflict against a peer/near-peer enemy would be:


1) Air-launched cruise missiles and theirs performance, with particular stress to the range performance for nuclear tipped ones (for the synergistic effect with the other two main requirements).

2) Mean time for full cruise missiles delivery cycle against key enemy installations.

3) Average time and mean area of dispersion of those strategic platforms toward different airfields both before and after cruise missile delivery.


It was found by ГосНИИАС that a supersonic - average 1,3 Mach or more mission speed capable - layout with a fuel efficient mixed-profile flight was over three times more efficient in the strategic cruise missile delivery role and over four times more survivable (obviously not for the interaction with enemy air defense network or with enemy Air Force interceptors having cruise missiles delivering range measured in the thousands of kilometers ,but for the mean area and speed of relocation) than a subsonic platform.

Obviously also measures aimed at reduce radar observability become not only practically irrelevant for strategic cruise missiles delivery from several thousands of kilometers afar but even a liablity, for the sharp increase of service and repair time after each mission (an element that increase of several times the chance to be destroyed on the ground by enemy strategic and sub-strategic attacks).  



Just to provide a brief sample of what said is sufficent to say that a supersonic bomber armed with Х-102 missiles maintaining an averange speed of M 1.3 at 13000 m, taking into account the increase in coasting range for the delivered missiles for a pre-delivery high supersonic dash would reach an useful delivery point 4000 km away from airbase (about 3600 km effective for the just named missile range increase for the high altitude/supersonic dash) in about 2 hours and 38 minutes ,for a total mission flight time of about 5 hours and 16 minutes, a subsonic platform , flying at the same altitude an average speed of M 0,7, would deliver the same Х-102 payload 4000 km away in about 5 hours and 22 minutes for a total mission time of 10 hours and 44 minutes.  


That is : the X-102s delivered against the most important enemy military structures (strategic bomber airbases included.....) by mean of supersonic bombers would detonate before those on board of the subsonic bomber would be merely delivered and those supersonic bombers would be in the air for the second attack before the subsonic ones would have merely returned from the first.


The difference both in strategic survivability and in the degradation speed of the enemy military capabilities and key assets between the two platforms ,put a supersonic and a subsonic bomber in two different league when strategic efficiency is the parameter taken in consideration.

+1

I don't think anyone wants the PAK DA to be subsonic, but the aircraft it is replacing already is, so it is not like it is a step backwards in terms of speed like the F-14 and F-18 or F-15 and F-16, or indeed the F-16 and F-18 to the F-35.

Of course the calculations will change again when a strategic hypersonic cruise missile is developed...

I would think the best bet for a super cruising strategic bomber would be the Tu-160M2 with rather more powerful upgraded engines... if they can get the thrust up to about 35 tons per engine and can increase dry thrust enough they might end up with an aircraft that can perhaps supercruise... or more importantly can retain supersonic speed in dry thrust.

By definition super cruising requires exceeding the speed of sound with just dry thrust... and that is not strictly required. the important feature is to be able to retain supersonic flight in dry thrust even if you need AB to break the speed of sound if you can throttle back to dry thrust and keep supersonic you will save an enormous amount of fuel and have the benefits of supersonic flight.

If they can get the new and upgraded Blackjacks to supercruise then I would just go for two engines in the PAK DA and aim for subsonic to reduce weight and cost and maintainence costs so you can put more in service in a greater range of roles.

Being very long range aircraft both aircraft will be very low drag, so it is of course possible both will be transonic in dry thrust as they approach their launch positions due to the burning of fuel greatly reducing weight allowing a transonic dash home after weapon release.

As mentioned a higher altitude higher speed release will have a significant effect on weapon flight range and average speed and would greatly improve the performance of a hypersonic missile.

Note as I have mentioned in the past the hypersonic missile might start out subsonic with large wings and even external fuel tanks to make it strategic in range with the hypersonic section able to cover the last thousand kms in a few minutes...

As far as I can see, it is the 50 or so Tupolev Tu-160M2 aircraft that are going to replace the Tu-95 Bears.
In my opinion, the PAK-DA will replace the smaller Tu-22M3.

Whether it is supersonic or subsonic is another matter.

The PAK DA was supposed to replace the heavier bomb attack mission of the Tu-22M3M, while the shorter range missions would be carried out by the Su-34, but the PAK DA was also supposed to replace the Tu-95.

The Tu-160M2 is supposed to make the Blackjack a viable force finally... only about 30 were made and half have been scrapped by the Ukraine... 15-16 just wasn't a viable force so new production is to make it so.

With strategic bombers being clearly used in conventional warfare thanks to conventional versions of the strategic weapons they will now be much more useful and more usable... we have seen Tu-22M3s bombing targets but its main function was as a strike aircraft with guided missiles against major SAM sites and HQs and indeed ships... there may be a naval PAK DA.... with the new START treaty being very loose and its replacement not certain who knows what will happen.. I would like to see a force of 50-80 Blackjacks and 40-50 PAK DAs replacing the Bears, Blackjacks, and Backfires... obviously old Blackjacks will be upgraded...

regarding the question about TOPOLs warhead... sorry, I do not know. I couldn't tell you the Uranium content of any Soviet or Russian nuclear warhead.

GarryB wrote:I don't think anyone wants the PAK DA to be subsonic, but the aircraft it is replacing already is, so it is not like it is a step backwards in terms of speed like the F-14 and F-18 or F-15 and F-16, or indeed the F-16 and F-18 to the F-35.

Of course the calculations will change again when a strategic hypersonic cruise missile is developed...

As far as I can see, it is the 50 or so Tupolev Tu-160M2 aircraft that are going to replace the Tu-95 Bears.
In my opinion, the PAK-DA will replace the smaller Tu-22M3.

Whether it is supersonic or subsonic is another matter.