PAK-DA: News

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.

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.

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.

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...

x_54_u43 wrote: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.

Berkut wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote: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.

Oh yes, some random user on Russiadefence forums wrote some silly post with half of it in random bold text; that totally proved both the USAF and Russian MoD wrong. What will they do now?!?

Berkut wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote: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.

Oh yes, some random user on Russiadefence forums wrote some silly post with half of it in random bold text; that totally proved both the USAF and Russian MoD wrong. What will they do now?!?

max steel wrote:Hypersonic maneuverable gliders on Topol/RS-26 anyone? Nope they've their own delivery system

x_54_u43 wrote:

max steel wrote:Hypersonic maneuverable gliders on Topol/RS-26 anyone? Nope they've their own delivery system

Pretty sure Sarmat is supposed to carry it. And I just put the only names of Russian ICBMs I know, considering they have names like Molodets in them, they all kind of blend together for me.

Berkut wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote: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.

Oh yes, some random user on Russiadefence forums wrote some silly post with half of it in random bold text; that totally proved both the USAF and Russian MoD wrong. What will they do now?!?

Azi wrote:
What kind of design will PAK-DA have?
Well, the best concept for a sneaky bomber is a flying wing. With a flying wing you will have a minimum of reflecting surface. The problem for a flying wing is the aerodynamic characteristic, because without a tail the whole plane is instable at flight. The problems are not that massive and easy to master (see B-2), but russian engineer prefered at every time good aerodynmic characteristic. A second point is that in russian aviation history flying wings are complete exotic and so there is no really expertise in building this kind of aircraft, it's a new field.

So maybe it is possible to see with the PAK-DA a massive stealth bomber with a tail and not only a flying wing. Russians are specialist to finding a good solution for a good price and i will bet my ass, that the PAK-DA will not cost 1 billion dollar per unit

(Sorry for my english!)

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Horten Ho-229 was tailless and seemed to fly fairly good. In 1944.

Giulio wrote:And why a tailless wing should be "unstable"? A tailless wing should be aerodynamically very efficient: she has not the tail, so, less drag.
The only "unstable" aircrafts I know are military, high performance fighters like F-15 or Su-27. For those fighters, unstable does not mean the common meaning of the word, but it means the ability to easily exit from its flight attitude, took on another attitude and maintain it without any difficulty (like the "Cobra").
A normal aircraft is stable in the meaning that the aircraft returns automatically in the former attitude when an external force disturbs him.
If you put in a wing two down-forced wing tips, you don't need a tail. With downforced (inverted foil) tips, the wing is auto-stable, without a tail and without a flight computer. So, when you pull up, the wing tips become less down-forced, they begin to go up and the nose goes down; when you go in a descent, the wing tips become more down-forced, so they pull down the wing and the nose returns up.

max steel wrote:A B-2 Bomber coming from Pacific maybe Japan or Guam or Diego Garcia for an example can't they be traced in AIDZ zones ?

jhelb wrote:

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.

Berkut wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote: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.

Oh yes, some random user on Russiadefence forums wrote some silly post with half of it in random bold text; that totally proved both the USAF and Russian MoD wrong. What will they do now?!?

Militarov wrote:

Fanmade naturally

x_54_u43 wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Fanmade naturally

Repost naturally

Singular_trafo wrote:5-6 kg pu, 10-20 kg depleted uranium, few grams tritium.Any heavy metal should be good instead of the depleted uranium

Singular_trafo wrote:but using lead cut into half the yield of the bomb.

jhelb wrote:

Singular_trafo wrote:5-6 kg pu, 10-20 kg depleted uranium, few grams tritium.Any heavy metal should be good instead of the depleted uranium

Thank You. Just to clarify, these are the [approximate] figures for warheads on any ICBM/SLBM and not just Topol, isn't it?

Singular_trafo wrote:but using lead cut into half the yield of the bomb.

Can you expand on this part, what exactly you meant by "lead cut into half"? Thanx.