PAK-DA: News

GarryB wrote:Sorry Austin... that line drawing is the T-4MS... a design rejected before the Tu-160 was built.

It is certainly not the PAK DA.

More info and nice pics:

http://www.anigrand.com/AA4020_T-4MS.htm

Not really , You wont find UAC using a T-4MS design in new 2015 Report.

I dont think its a T-4 Design , the picture just shows the planform not the detail design there could be lot of many big and small changes on the new PAK-DA design something you cant make out looking at top view of the planform

One can argue that the new PAK-DA design looks like T-4 or F-117 or others that US had proposed

Austin wrote:
Full Report here  http://uacrussia.ru/uac_ar_2015_en

There's another image of PAK-DA on page 15 of report

Seems PAK-DA design will be more broader then longer like Tu-160

The broad planform is good for stealth , carry fuel and weapons load , sort of gives it a flying wing/lifting body like design

kvs wrote:The F-117A was seen by 1960s radars, pathetic.   But it was hard to shoot down with 1960s missiles.   So your story is a non sequitur to my point:
networking radars increases detection and the whole stealth wunderwaffe is so much irrelevant hype.   The T-50 demonstrates this since it only uses
stealth elements and does not sacrifice any other function to achieve "pure stealth" like the F-22 with its sad 2D thrust vectoring.

"like the F-22 with its sad 2D thrust vectoring." - Yeah, because somehow having x-axis limited angle vectored thrust is big time gamechanging... because.. it really isnt.

Militarov wrote:

kvs wrote:The F-117A was seen by 1960s radars, pathetic.   But it was hard to shoot down with 1960s missiles.   So your story is a non sequitur to my point:
networking radars increases detection and the whole stealth wunderwaffe is so much irrelevant hype.   The T-50 demonstrates this since it only uses
stealth elements and does not sacrifice any other function to achieve "pure stealth" like the F-22 with its sad 2D thrust vectoring.

"like the F-22 with its sad 2D thrust vectoring." - Yeah, because somehow having x-axis limited angle vectored thrust is big time gamechanging... because.. it really isnt.

2D actually means two axis, the f22 has one axis of movement.

so it is 1D properly.

The vectoring useful for low speed manoeuvring.

So, the actual usefulness of it depending on the expected amount of low speed manoeuvring.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

kvs wrote:The F-117A was seen by 1960s radars, pathetic.   But it was hard to shoot down with 1960s missiles.   So your story is a non sequitur to my point:
networking radars increases detection and the whole stealth wunderwaffe is so much irrelevant hype.   The T-50 demonstrates this since it only uses
stealth elements and does not sacrifice any other function to achieve "pure stealth" like the F-22 with its sad 2D thrust vectoring.

"like the F-22 with its sad 2D thrust vectoring." - Yeah, because somehow having x-axis limited angle vectored thrust is big time gamechanging... because.. it really isnt.

2D actually means two axis, the f22 has one axis of movement.

so it is 1D properly.

The vectoring useful for low speed manoeuvring.

So, the actual usefulness of it depending on the expected amount of low speed manoeuvring.

Actually it has two vectors formed by the exaust with each having degree of freedom on its own, which makes it 2D thrust vectoring, axis of movement is just part of it.

Today amount of low speed maneuvering for fighter-interceptor-interdiction missions is going from very low to none so usefulness is questionable, but even if we presume it is useful, its out of the question that another DoF would make any significant difference in combat applications.

Militarov wrote:
Actually it has two vectors formed by the exaust with each having degree of freedom on its own, which makes it 2D thrust vectoring, axis of movement is just part of it.

Today amount of low speed maneuvering for fighter-interceptor-interdiction missions is going from very low to none so usefulness is questionable, but even if we presume it is useful, its out of the question that another DoF would make any significant difference in combat applications.

Hm.

The f22 has two engine, so you are right, it has two degree of freedom.


The thrust vectoring should be good for aircraft landing / take off.


However the simple fact the Russians spend this much efforts for this means that they see advantage of it.

I have no idea what is the general expected flight profile for air fight frankly, or what type of manoeuvrers/trainings it can be used.

Re T4 MS pics appearing, and the connection with the Pak-Da:-

I was never clear on the bidding process for the supersonic bomber that became the Tu-160.

I knew that Tupolev didn't win the bid. But I understood they'd taken someone else's design and built that.

However, acc to this link, Sukhoi won the bid, and their T4 MS won.

Tupolev were awarded the contract, because the awarding committee felt Sukhoi had a huge amount of work already. However, Tupolev then continued to improve their Tu-160 and didn't use the

Just before the data table on the page, there is this text:-

" With similar payload and range at the speeds below supersonic, the Tu-160 was 35% heavier than T-4MS and had 2-3 times smaller range at supersonic speed"

If this is true, its quite surprising. I thought the T4MS failed because it was small or unlikely to work (altho that was just my assumption).

Now to me, Tu-160 is a fantastic plane, and a fantastic platform for future planes, both civil and military.

But bearing in mind that the T4MS was a 1970s design, I wonder what it could be turned into today...
Quite a fascinating prospect!

*Perhaps* a transsonic or even supersonic stealth plane isn't that unrealistic.
Or perhaps, a hypersonic plane isn't that far away... Maybe THIS was what people were thinking of when the supersonic transporter plans were discussed?

PS the article even mentions future developments from the T4 MS including stealth!

PPS oops forgot the link:-
http://testpilot.ru/russia/sukhoi/t/4/ms/t4ms_e.htm

T-4MS was a great design for its time , its simply lost out to Tu-160 due to politburo politics not technical.

From the topic of the Tu-160:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t1229p425-tu-160-and-tu-95ms-blackjack-and-bears#188187

Rmf wrote:

hoom wrote:Kazan Aviation plant has started re-learning how to make the main wing beam for Tu-160 http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2245553.html

Google translate wrote:There was a unique equipment to work with the 20-meter monolithic slabs of varying thickness of titanium alloys, because of which made 38% of the construction of the Tu-160.

"Backbone" of the bomber can be called the central titanium beam length of 12.4 m and a width of 2.1 m around which are grouped and other elements of the airframe. For example, at its hinge joints were hung wings. For the manufacture of the beam has been developed process of electron beam welding in a neutral atmosphere or in a vacuum. "Titan is known, is not brewed in the air - begins to burn, and does not extinguish it, so do it either in a vacuum or in a neutral environment, - told the" Online Business "Advisor to the Prime Minister of Tatarstan Nazir Kireev. - When welding everything must go very accurately - all calculated literally fractions of a millimeter. "

The beam milled in two halves and welded in one piece in a vacuum chamber under spetsprisadkami and fluxes. In the scientific and popular literature states that this welding is so far it relates to the unique technologies and can be regarded as national priorities. "Such a welding time was only at the Kazan aircraft plant, and it appeared only in connection with the Tu-160

they say that central body will be same for tu-160 and pak-da.

This is a very interesting detail, that goes against the analysis of those that argued about the Tu-PAK-DA as subsonic using the angles as argument.

eehnie wrote:This is a very interesting detail, that goes against the analysis of those that argued about the Tu-PAK-DA as subsonic using the angles as argument.

How so? Even if true, they will probably just use that centerline segment to be completed into flying wing and we already said at least 20 times that flying wing literally cant be made supersonic. No supersonic flying wing aircraft has ever been actually built, its aganist laws of nature. IF it as they always claimed will be flying wing.

Angles as itself...have very little to do with it.

they say that central body will be same for tu-160 and pak-da.

Interesting  

Now what concept could possibly need to share a giant titanium swing-wing hinge?
*cough*

*hack*

*splutter*


That or I guess more simply putting a new stealthy fuselage around the Tu-160 structure

Why cant PAK-DA be a design that is subsonic , fuel effecient and stealthy when Engines are in non-after burner mode and then go to supersonic when after burners are engaged ?

Why does it have to be a flying wing design like B-2 and not a T-4MS type design both designs can be stealthy

Indeed, the basic T-4MS design is incredibly clean which should make it very amenable to being stealthised.

GarryB wrote:It is the centre body... the angles for it are designed for a supersonic bomber, but it is the outer wing area that actually allows it to fly supersonically... when those outer wing areas are swept back.

On a flying wing if there is no swing mechanism then the wing will either be swept... allowing supersonic flight... but not allowing takeoff or landing... or they will be relatively straight wings allowing takeoff, landing, and subsonic flight.

The question is, does it need this heavy central box structure to house a swing wing mechanism... unheard of in a pure flying wing design of course because swing wing allows low drag for supersonic flight but a flying wing design cannot fly supersonically because the centre of gravity of the aircraft shifts radically as the aircraft moves from subsonic to supersonic flight and only a significant tail surface can correct for that... unless of course they want to use thrust vectoring engines to correct the pitch...

A flying wing with TVC engines and outer wings that can be swept back could possibly be able to fly supersonically and such a low drag design should be able to supercruise fairly easily... it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

dont get carried away it will be subsonic period, that large part behind it is the streghtened titanium and swing wing mechanism and it wont be in pak-da , the circled part  has thick profile anyway and it will curve into low swept thick wing. many componenets will be simmilar or same in both bombers so i guess thats part of the reason why they restart tu-160 anyway .

Rmf wrote:

GarryB wrote:It is the centre body... the angles for it are designed for a supersonic bomber, but it is the outer wing area that actually allows it to fly supersonically... when those outer wing areas are swept back.

On a flying wing if there is no swing mechanism then the wing will either be swept... allowing supersonic flight... but not allowing takeoff or landing... or they will be relatively straight wings allowing takeoff, landing, and subsonic flight.

The question is, does it need this heavy central box structure to house a swing wing mechanism... unheard of in a pure flying wing design of course because swing wing allows low drag for supersonic flight but a flying wing design cannot fly supersonically because the centre of gravity of the aircraft shifts radically as the aircraft moves from subsonic to supersonic flight and only a significant tail surface can correct for that... unless of course they want to use thrust vectoring engines to correct the pitch...

A flying wing with TVC engines and outer wings that can be swept back could possibly be able to fly supersonically and such a low drag design should be able to supercruise fairly easily... it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

dont get carried away it will be subsonic period, that large part behind it is the streghtened titanium and swing wing mechanism and it wont be in pak-da , the circled part  has thick profile anyway and it will curve into low swept thick wing. many componenets will be simmilar or same in both bombers so i guess thats part of the reason why they restart tu-160 anyway .

Structurally this part that would share the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA is very important, not only by the angles, also by the structural resistance that provides to the entire aircraft.

If the Tu-PAK-DA would be subsonic would not need the angles, and would not need the structural resistance of this part of the Tu-160. It would be an expensive non-sense that both aircrafts would share this part.

With the time you will have to try better defending that this aircraft will be subsonic.

eehnie wrote:

Rmf wrote:

GarryB wrote:It is the centre body... the angles for it are designed for a supersonic bomber, but it is the outer wing area that actually allows it to fly supersonically... when those outer wing areas are swept back.

On a flying wing if there is no swing mechanism then the wing will either be swept... allowing supersonic flight... but not allowing takeoff or landing... or they will be relatively straight wings allowing takeoff, landing, and subsonic flight.

The question is, does it need this heavy central box structure to house a swing wing mechanism... unheard of in a pure flying wing design of course because swing wing allows low drag for supersonic flight but a flying wing design cannot fly supersonically because the centre of gravity of the aircraft shifts radically as the aircraft moves from subsonic to supersonic flight and only a significant tail surface can correct for that... unless of course they want to use thrust vectoring engines to correct the pitch...

A flying wing with TVC engines and outer wings that can be swept back could possibly be able to fly supersonically and such a low drag design should be able to supercruise fairly easily... it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

dont get carried away it will be subsonic period, that large part behind it is the streghtened titanium and swing wing mechanism and it wont be in pak-da , the circled part  has thick profile anyway and it will curve into low swept thick wing. many componenets will be simmilar or same in both bombers so i guess thats part of the reason why they restart tu-160 anyway .

Structurally this part that would share the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA is very important, not only by the angles, also by the structural resistance that provides to the entire aircraft.

If the Tu-PAK-DA would be subsonic would not need the angles, and would not need the structural resistance of this part of the Tu-160. It would be an expensive non-sense that both aircrafts would share this part.

With the time you will have to try better defending that this aircraft will be subsonic.

What angles are you talking about again... term "angles" is not very technical, and means literally nothing here. Be abit more precise.

Actually components sharing can only reduce cost not increase it.

Also, "structural resistance" as you call it, can provide bort with longer lifespan, its not only relative to the stress it will face during exploatation.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Rmf wrote:

GarryB wrote:It is the centre body... the angles for it are designed for a supersonic bomber, but it is the outer wing area that actually allows it to fly supersonically... when those outer wing areas are swept back.

On a flying wing if there is no swing mechanism then the wing will either be swept... allowing supersonic flight... but not allowing takeoff or landing... or they will be relatively straight wings allowing takeoff, landing, and subsonic flight.

The question is, does it need this heavy central box structure to house a swing wing mechanism... unheard of in a pure flying wing design of course because swing wing allows low drag for supersonic flight but a flying wing design cannot fly supersonically because the centre of gravity of the aircraft shifts radically as the aircraft moves from subsonic to supersonic flight and only a significant tail surface can correct for that... unless of course they want to use thrust vectoring engines to correct the pitch...

A flying wing with TVC engines and outer wings that can be swept back could possibly be able to fly supersonically and such a low drag design should be able to supercruise fairly easily... it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

dont get carried away it will be subsonic period, that large part behind it is the streghtened titanium and swing wing mechanism and it wont be in pak-da , the circled part  has thick profile anyway and it will curve into low swept thick wing. many componenets will be simmilar or same in both bombers so i guess thats part of the reason why they restart tu-160 anyway .

Structurally this part that would share the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA is very important, not only by the angles, also by the structural resistance that provides to the entire aircraft.

If the Tu-PAK-DA would be subsonic would not need the angles, and would not need the structural resistance of this part of the Tu-160. It would be an expensive non-sense that both aircrafts would share this part.

With the time you will have to try better defending that this aircraft will be subsonic.

What angles are you talking about again... term "angles" is not very technical, and means literally nothing here. Be abit more precise.

Actually components sharing can only reduce cost not increase it.

Also, "structural resistance" as you call it, can provide bort with longer lifespan, its not only relative to the stress it will face during exploatation.

Obviously the angles in the structural nods that are under the cover of the part signaled in the picture, not only the external angles. These angles are designed to support the wings and the efforts of a supersonic aircraft.

And not only the angles, every other dimension (including the affected by the selection of materials) in the main structure or the cover of this part is designed to support the efforts of a supersonic aircraft.

A non-sense to use them in a subsonic aircraft. Now, let me to see your "technical" justification of it please. I will not be the alone passing exams here.

As example GarryB was caught trying to make conclussions in the case of the Il-PAK-TA arguing about angles over the basis of a draw done by freehand drawing (a shame):

https://www.russiadefence.net/t4312-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet#111555
https://www.russiadefence.net/t4312-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet#111604

Let me to see as example if you manage properly the theorical basis of something as basic as the Finite Element Method. Many engineers of three or four years in the engineering school know the use of the method and its variants in some software, but know not the theorical basis of the Method. Are you one of them? Or not even it like GarryB? Despite my lower English level I will see easily if you know of what are you talking about at a theorical level.

Here is your first mistake:

Militarov wrote:Actually components sharing can only reduce cost not increase it.

It shows you have almost 0 konwledge about economic management, something that is not incompatible with some technical formation, but obviously you are not an engineer with knowledge on economic management.

One example to see it easily. The Fiat group would be able to share the engine of their Formula 1 Ferraris with every other car that they sale. But they do not it, and they design other engines for different car models. In this case obviously to share components can increase the costs.

If Russia would be designing a subsonic aircraft and would be looking to share components of other aircrafts to reduce costs, the Il-86/80/96 is in the same weight class of the Tu-160, and has its structure adapted to subsonic requirements.

dont get carried away it will be subsonic period, that large part behind it is the streghtened titanium and swing wing mechanism and it wont be in pak-da , the circled part  has thick profile anyway and it will curve into low swept thick wing

You don't put a swing wing hinge box in a non-swing wing plane.

Edit: wait are you saying they intend to re-use the fuselage bit between cockpit & swing wing hinge?
That seems like a very odd section to re-use

The T-4MS is not a flying wing... it has a fuselage and tail structure.

Its maybe not technically a flying wing but the T-4MS fuselage is more wing-like than the B2 fuselage.

GarryB wrote:

If the Tu-PAK-DA would be subsonic would not need the angles, and would not need the structural resistance of this part of the Tu-160. It would be an expensive non-sense that both aircrafts would share this part.

With the time you will have to try better defending that this aircraft will be subsonic.

With its wings swept forward the Tu-160 is an excellent design for subsonic flight, and for supersonic flight it just needs its wings to swing back.

A fixed near straight wing could be used with the front fuselage of the Tu-160 to make an excellent subsonic only bomber.

One example to see it easily. The Fiat group would be able to share the engine of their Formula 1 Ferraris with every other car that they sale. But they do not it, and they design other engines for different car models. In this case obviously to share components can increase the costs.

Funny, because with their previous two bombers they actually did the opposite to what you are suggesting.

The Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 are both large bomber aircraft intended to fly great distances at supersonic speeds yet their engines have similar specifications yet are different and not compatible...

I suspect the upgraded engine being developed for the Tu-160M2 will also be used for the PAK DA... They might not include afterburner and it might be a high bypass engine optimised for lower speeds but it will likely share the same core.

If Russia would be designing a subsonic aircraft and would be looking to share components of other aircrafts to reduce costs, the Il-96 is in the same weight class of the Tu-160, and has its structure adapted to subsonic requirements.

Except that the Il-96 is not at all stealthy and neither are podded engines.

Being good for subsonic fly, the structure of the Tu-160 is oversized in terms of structural resistance for subsonic fly. Like the Formula 1 engine is oversized to run in the streets every day. If the Tu-PAK-DA is designed subsonic, most of the structural components of the Tu-160 would be oversized for the Tu-PAK-DA.

It is logical to see the Tu-160 and the Tu-22 sharing components because both are supersonic. It is logical to see the Toro Rosso Formula 1 using engines of the Ferrari Formula 1. It is logical to see the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA sharing components, including structural components or engines, despite that Tu-160 is not stealthy (like the Il-86/80/96). But this sharing of components at structural and engine level is not compatible with a Tu-PAK-DA unable to reach supersonic fly like you defend.

Obviously you are not understanding why, but you need to think why the Tu-160 sared components with the Tu-22 instead of with the Tu-95/142.

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Rmf wrote:

GarryB wrote:It is the centre body... the angles for it are designed for a supersonic bomber, but it is the outer wing area that actually allows it to fly supersonically... when those outer wing areas are swept back.

On a flying wing if there is no swing mechanism then the wing will either be swept... allowing supersonic flight... but not allowing takeoff or landing... or they will be relatively straight wings allowing takeoff, landing, and subsonic flight.

The question is, does it need this heavy central box structure to house a swing wing mechanism... unheard of in a pure flying wing design of course because swing wing allows low drag for supersonic flight but a flying wing design cannot fly supersonically because the centre of gravity of the aircraft shifts radically as the aircraft moves from subsonic to supersonic flight and only a significant tail surface can correct for that... unless of course they want to use thrust vectoring engines to correct the pitch...

A flying wing with TVC engines and outer wings that can be swept back could possibly be able to fly supersonically and such a low drag design should be able to supercruise fairly easily... it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

dont get carried away it will be subsonic period, that large part behind it is the streghtened titanium and swing wing mechanism and it wont be in pak-da , the circled part  has thick profile anyway and it will curve into low swept thick wing. many componenets will be simmilar or same in both bombers so i guess thats part of the reason why they restart tu-160 anyway .

Structurally this part that would share the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA is very important, not only by the angles, also by the structural resistance that provides to the entire aircraft.

If the Tu-PAK-DA would be subsonic would not need the angles, and would not need the structural resistance of this part of the Tu-160. It would be an expensive non-sense that both aircrafts would share this part.

With the time you will have to try better defending that this aircraft will be subsonic.

What angles are you talking about again... term "angles" is not very technical, and means literally nothing here. Be abit more precise.

Actually components sharing can only reduce cost not increase it.

Also, "structural resistance" as you call it, can provide bort with longer lifespan, its not only relative to the stress it will face during exploatation.

Obviously the angles in the structural nods that are under the cover of the part signaled in the picture, not only the external angles. These angles are designed to support the wings and the efforts of a supersonic aircraft.

And not only the angles, every other dimension (including the affected by the selection of materials) in the main structure or the cover of this part is designed to support the efforts of a supersonic aircraft.

A non-sense to use them in a subsonic aircraft. Now, let me to see your "technical" justification of it please. I will not be the alone passing exams here.

As example GarryB was caught trying to make conclussions in the case of the Il-PAK-TA arguing about angles over the basis of a draw done by freehand drawing (a shame):

https://www.russiadefence.net/t4312-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet#111555
https://www.russiadefence.net/t4312-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet#111604

Let me to see as example if you manage properly the theorical basis of something as basic as the Finite Element Method. Many engineers of three or four years in the engineering school know the use of the method and its variants in some software, but know not the theorical basis of the Method. Are you one of them? Or not even it like GarryB? Despite my lower English level I will see easily if you know of what are you talking about at a theorical level.

Here is your first mistake:

Militarov wrote:Actually components sharing can only reduce cost not increase it.

It shows you have almost 0 konwledge about economic management, something that is not incompatible with some technical formation, but obviously you are not an engineer with knowledge on economic management.

One example to see it easily. The Fiat group would be able to share the engine of their Formula 1 Ferraris with every other car that they sale. But they do not it, and they design other engines for different car models. In this case obviously to share components can increase the costs.

If Russia would be designing a subsonic aircraft and would be looking to share components of other aircrafts to reduce costs, the Il-86/80/96 is in the same weight class of the Tu-160, and has its structure adapted to subsonic requirements.

And you think that supersonic transport model some random guy on youtube rendered is capable of being supersonic with non-afterburning engines and what-not? Because... that thing, in those drawings, cant be supersonic i can tell you that even without going any deeper than first drawing.

Now when we are about bomber topic, lets pile up what Russian officials said as of now:

1. It will be FLYING WING
2. It will use NON-AFTERBURNER engines
3. It will have number of unifications with Tu-160M2 and PAK-FA

So, you are basically saying that this bomber will be... supersonic flying wing with no afterburners? That, i am sorry to break it for you, isnt possible. Because, if they do that what you are suggesting, i will jump off my building on live stream on Twitch, naked with carrot up my ass and swastika tatooed on my chest. Because Russians obviously mastered anti-gravity tech from Independence day alien race.

Now about components unification. Part itself is just one tiny drop in whole calculation. Do you have any idea how much costs to develop tooling for certain part? It actually costs more than a machine that will use that tool to cast, weld, bash or whatever that piece. Now if you skip new tooling, if you skip new machines, if you skip in future cost of maintenance and spare parts, you elimiate additional technician training etc, etc. There is, no way in hell it will somehow get less expensive to develop something from scratch.

Also your example is totally silly, those two things have nothing in common, first of all i do not want car with Formula 1 engine, because i am not interested in paying registration and fuel for something that has engine lifespan of 10 grocery store runs and drinks fuel like retired Soviet colonel drinks vodka. In our case that we have in front of us, it doesnt really matter at all, we get 10-20% more expencive piece that in return has longer lifespan and reduced overall logistics. On top of everything you basically get half of aircrafts hull structure on the plate.

All this naturally IF they really decide to use this centerline section as it is.