PAK-DA: News

2. It will use NON-AFTERBURNER engines

Militarov wrote:

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.

hoom wrote:

2. It will use NON-AFTERBURNER engines

Did they actually say that, I thought its using upgraded Tu-160 engines?
Non-afterburning would mean a much smaller plane than Tu-160.

it seems you see what youwant to see red part is titanium that holds wings !!!,blue is aluminium!!!,central box will curve out into flying wing .

Enera wrote:I think if PAK-DA is supposedly a supersonic flying wing, it could be theoretically done; following BAE's Taranis and Dassault's Neuron UCAVs, both are projected to be supersonic when they have the engines for it. After all, a military turbofan can reach supersonic speed without needing afterburners where this is called as supercruise if the engine have enough dry thrust for it. The rest would depend on the shape where the said flying wing must look like some sort of flying spade to minimize drag. In terms of controlling the said flying wing, there were developments into blown flaps/fluidic spoilers in the Western world where air is bled from the engines and toward the wing, to act like a flap.

That said, tail stabilizers in turn can be somewhat mimicked by fluidic thrust vectoring (FTV) where air bypass from the engines are used to affect the thrust direction of the engines' exhausts respectively. Both fluidic spoiler and FTV were simultaneously demonstrated in BAE's Demon UCAV study where it flies (albeit subsonically) without any flap or stabilizers, relying on air bleed to do all traditional maneuvers. Now whether the designers wanted to try something as experimental as aforementioned is anyone's guess but on theoretical standpoint, only budget (and time) would preclude a supersonic flying wing.

GarryB wrote:Yep... that is my understanding too.

I hope they make a few different types... an MPA, an AWACS version, an inflight refuelling tanker, a JSTARS type aircraft... as well as the strategic/theatre bomber version.  None of those need supersonic flight speed and would benefit from long range and decent payload capacity.

eehnie wrote:1.- Links?. Also, I would like you explain your criteria to know when you trust the words of the Russian officials, and when you trust not them (like in the case of the delivery of S-300 to the Syrian Arab Republic).

2.- The example of the Formula 1 engines is easy to see for all the people. Your comment was wrong and was a mistake in one of the most basic things that are learned in every engineering degree with some orientation toward the economic management. Even if we compare the maximum speed relation between (max speed of Formula 1 cars)/(max speed of normal cars) and the relation between the (max speed of supersonic aircrafts)/(max speed of subsonic aircrafts), we can see that the difference is not big, but rating is bigger in the case of the aircrafts, because the difference between speeds is bigger in the case of the aircrafts. It gives to the people some idea of how oversized would be supersonic engines for subsonic aircrafts. With the main structure of the aircraft it happens something similar.

3.- I said nothing about afterburners until now. Then obviously you are liyinga about what I think or said about it. To begin with it, a key question first. Do you think the new Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA will share engines? Taking your argument:

- According to your previous comment, the Tu-PAK-DA will have engines without afterburners because suposedly Russian officials said it (pending link), and as consequence the Tu-PAK-DA can not be supersonic (in your opinion).
- According to your previous comment The new Tu-160 instead, must have engines with afterburners to remain supersonic (in your opinion).

The adition/mix of these two premises implies that the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA can not share engines. Do you really think it?

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:1.- Links?. Also, I would like you explain your criteria to know when you trust the words of the Russian officials, and when you trust not them (like in the case of the delivery of S-300 to the Syrian Arab Republic).

2.- The example of the Formula 1 engines is easy to see for all the people. Your comment was wrong and was a mistake in one of the most basic things that are learned in every engineering degree with some orientation toward the economic management. Even if we compare the maximum speed relation between (max speed of Formula 1 cars)/(max speed of normal cars) and the relation between the (max speed of supersonic aircrafts)/(max speed of subsonic aircrafts), we can see that the difference is not big, but rating is bigger in the case of the aircrafts, because the difference between speeds is bigger in the case of the aircrafts. It gives to the people some idea of how oversized would be supersonic engines for subsonic aircrafts. With the main structure of the aircraft it happens something similar.

3.- I said nothing about afterburners until now. Then obviously you are liyinga about what I think or said about it. To begin with it, a key question first. Do you think the new Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA will share engines? Taking your argument:

- According to your previous comment, the Tu-PAK-DA will have engines without afterburners because suposedly Russian officials said it (pending link), and as consequence the Tu-PAK-DA can not be supersonic (in your opinion).
- According to your previous comment The new Tu-160 instead, must have engines with afterburners to remain supersonic (in your opinion).

The adition/mix of these two premises implies that the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA can not share engines. Do you really think it?

Maybe because you decide on spot what means their statement? Because no Russian official ever stated that S-300 was given to SAA but that it was transfered to Syria, and there is no single proof of that what you belive, we already concluded that... more than once i must add. So the first moment you get proof of Syrian crew in S-300, call us.

Ok, now.

Viktor Bondarev:

"The PAK DA will be a unique project in the history of Russian aviation since it will be a "flying wing" aircraft, a design never used before by Russian engineers. It will fly at subsonic speeds and the large wingspan and design features will provide the jet with reduced visibility to radar." - So flying wing, subsonic.

When its about the engines: http://www.en.take-off.ru/news/107-june2012/728-pd30futurerussianthirtytonner

"Kuznetsov is going to use its gearbox and low-emission combustor technology advance and take the production NK-32’s modified core as a basis of the future design. The government ordered a resumption of the full-rate production of the NK-32 in support of the Defence Ministry, but the volume of production required is small, which will make the use of its core under other programmes, particularly, the PD-30, come in handy."

Getting any vibes from it?

So, subsonic, flying wing with non-afterburner turbofans... naturally it will be hypersonic

Konashenkov wrote:the Syrian Arab Republic received an S-300 anti-aircraft missile system

supposedly Bondarev wrote:The PAK DA will be a unique project in the history of Russian aviation since it will be a "flying wing" aircraft, a design never used before by Russian engineers. It will fly at subsonic speeds and the large wingspan and design features will provide the jet with reduced visibility to radar.

take-off.ru wrote:The Samara Kuznetsov JSC, a subsidiary of the United Engine Corporation (UEC), known for its powerful engines mounted by long-range bombers, is running pilot work on an advanced turbofan with a thrust of 30 tf for airliners and freighters, designated as PD-30. In the future, such an engine could power future passenger and cargo planes, being developed under the Aircraft 2020 programme, and the upgraded Antonov An-124-300 Ruslan heavylifter as well.

hoom wrote:

it seems you see what youwant to see red part is titanium that holds wings !!!,blue is aluminium!!!,central box will curve out into flying wing .

Yes the truely unique bit of engineering of Tu-160 that makes sense to re-use is the giant titanium swing-wing hinge box at least if you're planning on making a swing-wing bomber either a stealthised Tu-160 rework or a modernised T-4MS.
Your blue bit is pretty much just any old bit of aluminium fuselage that makes barely any sense to re-use especially if you're trying to make a B2 type stealth flying wing.

Militarov wrote:

Enera wrote:I think if PAK-DA is supposedly a supersonic flying wing, it could be theoretically done; following BAE's Taranis and Dassault's Neuron UCAVs, both are projected to be supersonic when they have the engines for it. After all, a military turbofan can reach supersonic speed without needing afterburners where this is called as supercruise if the engine have enough dry thrust for it. The rest would depend on the shape where the said flying wing must look like some sort of flying spade to minimize drag. In terms of controlling the said flying wing, there were developments into blown flaps/fluidic spoilers in the Western world where air is bled from the engines and toward the wing, to act like a flap.

That said, tail stabilizers in turn can be somewhat mimicked by fluidic thrust vectoring (FTV) where air bypass from the engines are used to affect the thrust direction of the engines' exhausts respectively. Both fluidic spoiler and FTV were simultaneously demonstrated in BAE's Demon UCAV study where it flies (albeit subsonically) without any flap or stabilizers, relying on air bleed to do all traditional maneuvers. Now whether the designers wanted to try something as experimental as aforementioned is anyone's guess but on theoretical standpoint, only budget (and time) would preclude a supersonic flying wing.

Supersonic and flying wing do not go together, sry. If you want to modify flying wing to be able of being supersonic, it will lose flying wing configuration, it will be some sort of hybrid.

eehnie wrote:Your ardent defense of a US B-2 like aircraft for Russia, trying to make successful the failed US stealth strategy thanks to make Russia a late follower of the US, is not working. Russia seems not to buy the argument and will not make a subsonic war aircraft for the role of strategic bomber. It is to return one step back. It is a non-sense (also looking at the trends on maritime patrol tant give room to increase the number of fast strategic bombers in the future).

Azi wrote:

eehnie wrote:Your ardent defense of a US B-2 like aircraft for Russia, trying to make successful the failed US stealth strategy thanks to make Russia a late follower of the US, is not working. Russia seems not to buy the argument and will not make a subsonic war aircraft for the role of strategic bomber. It is to return one step back. It is a non-sense (also looking at the trends on maritime patrol tant give room to increase the number of fast strategic bombers in the future).

Where B2 or stealth technology failed? China and Russia are adopting stealth technology for their 5. generation fighters, so stealth is a step back?!

Azi wrote:

eehnie wrote:Your ardent defense of a US B-2 like aircraft for Russia, trying to make successful the failed US stealth strategy thanks to make Russia a late follower of the US, is not working. Russia seems not to buy the argument and will not make a subsonic war aircraft for the role of strategic bomber. It is to return one step back. It is a non-sense (also looking at the trends on maritime patrol tant give room to increase the number of fast strategic bombers in the future).

Where B2 or stealth technology failed? China and Russia are adopting stealth technology for their 5. generation fighters, so stealth is a step back?!

eehnie wrote:

Azi wrote:

eehnie wrote:Your ardent defense of a US B-2 like aircraft for Russia, trying to make successful the failed US stealth strategy thanks to make Russia a late follower of the US, is not working. Russia seems not to buy the argument and will not make a subsonic war aircraft for the role of strategic bomber. It is to return one step back. It is a non-sense (also looking at the trends on maritime patrol tant give room to increase the number of fast strategic bombers in the future).

Where B2 or stealth technology failed? China and Russia are adopting stealth technology for their 5. generation fighters, so stealth is a step back?!

The wrong part of the US stealth strategy begins when they decided to sacrifice other key features, like speed, in order to increase the stealth capabilities of their stealth aircrafts. Stealth technologies only give a temporary advantage, for a limited timeline, until detection technologies are improved. In this moment, the warfare that loses its stealth advantage and has sacrified other key features becomes highly obsolete.

As example the B-2. When the aircraft loses its stealth advantage, becomes a B-52 or Tu-95 like aircraft, fairly under the features of the older Tu-160.

The US is facing now the reality of the failure of their stealth strategy approach, with the design of the F-35. Just because on fighters they can not sacrifice key features. Doing it the weakness of the project is clear and evident.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Azi wrote:

eehnie wrote:Your ardent defense of a US B-2 like aircraft for Russia, trying to make successful the failed US stealth strategy thanks to make Russia a late follower of the US, is not working. Russia seems not to buy the argument and will not make a subsonic war aircraft for the role of strategic bomber. It is to return one step back. It is a non-sense (also looking at the trends on maritime patrol tant give room to increase the number of fast strategic bombers in the future).

Where B2 or stealth technology failed? China and Russia are adopting stealth technology for their 5. generation fighters, so stealth is a step back?!

The wrong part of the US stealth strategy begins when they decided to sacrifice other key features, like speed, in order to increase the stealth capabilities of their stealth aircrafts. Stealth technologies only give a temporary advantage, for a limited timeline, until detection technologies are improved. In this moment, the warfare that loses its stealth advantage and has sacrified other key features becomes highly obsolete.

As example the B-2. When the aircraft loses its stealth advantage, becomes a B-52 or Tu-95 like aircraft, fairly under the features of the older Tu-160.

The US is facing now the reality of the failure of their stealth strategy approach, with the design of the F-35. Just because on fighters they can not sacrifice key features. Doing it the weakness of the project is clear and evident.

Even if B-2 was made out of stainless steel, it would still have about... 100 times less RCS than Tu-95, i really hope you are aware of that... Bear is turboprop, its reflecting so much back to reciever that it looks like flying building.

Sure, you sacrifice speed, and you gain range, loitering, stealth... let alone fact that B-2 in terms of avionics is about...lightyears than any other bomber in existence, might even keep being so till replacement arrives.

There is no perfect answer, something needs to be sacrificed. I personally prefer to sacrifice speed out of all above listed.