Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+86
GarryB
LMFS
Azi
mnztr
wilhelm
Arctic_Fox
archangelski
SeigSoloyvov
eehnie
DasVivo
franco
Benya
T-47
miketheterrible
Arrow
berhoum
Enera
hoom
Rmf
Singular_Transform
Pierre Sprey
A1RMAN
VladimirSahin
OminousSpudd
Singular_trafo
jhelb
victor1985
kvs
x_54_u43
Isos
Dorfmeister
max steel
JohninMK
AK-Rex
Book.
mack8
PapaDragon
sepheronx
Berkut
william.boutros
Svyatoslavich
Big_Gazza
higurashihougi
Mak Sime
Ranxerox71
marcellogo
2SPOOKY4U
Werewolf
type055
Battalion0415
mutantsushi
magnumcromagnon
Morpheus Eberhardt
Mike E
RTN
xeno
Hannibal Barca
eridan
GJ Flanker
Giulio
Vann7
etaepsilonk
collegeboy16
Rpg type 7v
Hachimoto
TR1
Ogannisyan8887
Zivo
Viktor
KomissarBojanchev
nemrod
Cyberspec
TheArmenian
Sujoy
flamming_python
George1
Firebird
SOC
Mindstorm
Austin
brudawson
Admin
Stealthflanker
Hitman
milky_candy_sugar
Russian Patriot
90 posters

    PAK-DA: News

    eehnie
    eehnie


    Posts : 2425
    Points : 2428
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie Fri Aug 18, 2017 7:34 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Unfortunately for Militarov, he proved before which his real level of knowledge is. Being generous with him, Militarov is a person that in my country would not be allowed to teach mathematics to children over 12 years old, and would not be allowed to teach physics.

    GarryB likely even less.

    True "experts" in the Tu-22 and the Tu-PAK-DA.

    dunno dunno

    Quite sad for your country as i did teach OOP as assistant on technical college lol1

    Quite sad your country man. Obviously is not an industrial country. Quite poor level if you are allowed to teach something (likely not true), when you sneak as fast as possible when linear or surface integration are mentioned (as example). I was learning them at 18, between the basic mathematical formation of the first year in the engineering school. Surely like Mindstorm did too in a very different country.

    Stop posturing man, you have very short way with it. dunno dunno
    eehnie
    eehnie


    Posts : 2425
    Points : 2428
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:04 pm

    Azi, to avoid mistakes is better to take official sources.

    In this one, the designation Tu-22 is used for aircrafts of the Tu-22M variants:

    http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12123314@egNews
    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fstructure.mil.ru%2Fstructure%2Fforces%2Fvks%2Fnews%2Fmore.htm%3Fid%3D12123314%40egNews

    In this one, says the Tu-PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95:

    http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12120918@egNews
    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fstructure.mil.ru%2Fstructure%2Fforces%2Fvks%2Fnews%2Fmore.htm%3Fid%3D12120918%40egNews

    Both very recent and from official sources.
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest


    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Guest Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:11 am

    Azi wrote:
    JohninMK wrote:
    Azi wrote: But why pimping up the Tu-22M extreme if it is intended to replace the Tu-22M with PAK-Da from 2025 on?

    Its not, PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95.
    I heard PAK-DA will replace both. The role of Tu-22M would be splitted between Su-34 und PAK-DA. From 2030 a replacement is more or less needed (~40-50 years of service). But maybe I'm wrong What a Face We will see, when first rollouts occur Wink

    Yes, that is the idea. Intermediate and strike roles will be completely passed to Su-34 while "long-intermediate" and loitering missions will be on PAK-DAs wings.
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest


    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Guest Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:14 am

    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Unfortunately for Militarov, he proved before which his real level of knowledge is. Being generous with him, Militarov is a person that in my country would not be allowed to teach mathematics to children over 12 years old, and would not be allowed to teach physics.

    GarryB likely even less.

    True "experts" in the Tu-22 and the Tu-PAK-DA.

    dunno dunno

    Quite sad for your country as i did teach OOP as assistant on technical college lol1

    Quite sad your country man. Obviously is not an industrial country. Quite poor level if you are allowed to teach something (likely not true), when you sneak as fast as possible when linear or surface integration are mentioned (as example). I was learning them at 18, between the basic mathematical formation of the first year in the engineering school. Surely like Mindstorm did too in a very different country.

    Stop posturing man, you have very short way with it. dunno dunno

    thumbsup

    Seems you dont even know what OOP is tho lol1
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest


    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Guest Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:24 am

    eehnie wrote:Azi, to avoid mistakes is better to take official sources.

    In this one, the designation Tu-22 is used for aircrafts of the Tu-22M variants:

    http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12123314@egNews
    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fstructure.mil.ru%2Fstructure%2Fforces%2Fvks%2Fnews%2Fmore.htm%3Fid%3D12123314%40egNews

    In this one, says the Tu-PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95:

    http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12120918@egNews
    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fstructure.mil.ru%2Fstructure%2Fforces%2Fvks%2Fnews%2Fmore.htm%3Fid%3D12120918%40egNews

    Both very recent and from official sources.

    https://flatearthscienceandbible.com/2016/02/16/introduction-to-the-flat-earth-how-it-works-and-why-we-believe-it/

    Here i have official source explaining Flat Earth theory.

    Obey mortal i gave you link.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40487
    Points : 40987
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:21 pm

    Its not, PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95.

    20 years ago when the Tu-95 was strategic only and the Tu-160 was strategic only then the Tu-22M3 was necessary for theatre bombing and conventional bombing because the Bear and Blackjack were strategic nuclear cruise missile carriers as their only role.

    Today the Blackjack and Bear have been used in conventional cruise missile strike roles.

    The Backfire continues to be used because of its performance with large numbers of small dumb bombs.

    One of the requirements of the PAK DA is to combine the roles of the Tu-95 and the Tu-22M3.

    This is also why it will likely be subsonic because the size it will need to be to carry a large internal payload of conventional weapons will make it rather big, but carrying all its weapons inside will reduce drag and RCS to a minimum... in theatre missions the extra fuel for strategic missions can be offloaded and replaced with a heavier conventional weapons load.

    I heard PAK-DA will replace both. The role of Tu-22M would be splitted between Su-34 und PAK-DA.

    I have read the same where the Su-34 can take on the role of some shorter ranged missions the Tu-22M3 would undertake... including in the anti shipping role with light versions of Brahmos and perhaps Zircon, while the PAK DA will take over longer ranged missions.

    Tu-22M have a much greater payload and combat radius (~24T/2400km) than Su-34 (8-12T/1000km) (*). Tu-22M also has a significant internals weapon bay, suitable for carrying heavy AShMs, and this makes them excel in the "long" range anti-shipping strike role. The Su-34, as good as it is, is not a replacement for the Tu-22M.

    (*) based on admittedly suspect wiki performance data

    Except that the Su-34 can use inflight refuelling to greatly increase range, while the Tu-22M3 cannot.

    The USA have now simply no bomber in the role of the Tu-22M3.

    Actually in terms of performance the B-1B is actually quite similar.

    Obey mortal i gave you link.

    As Mil is hinting Eehnie... it is not enough to have a link... you have to use your brain and think about things...

    For instance if the PAK DA is replacing the Tu-95... well that makes sense if both are relatively cheap and subsonic, because we know they are building new upgraded Tu-160s... if the PAK DA was supersonic then there would be no point... it would make more sense just to make the PAK DA in greater numbers to replace the Backfire, Blackjack, and Bear.

    The fact is that a strategic bomber than can supersonically dash for short periods makes a lot of sense but it is not cheap to buy or operate.

    A new version of the Tu-160 with more powerful engines and new lighter materials and new electronics and more capable avionics might allow for super cruising performance after 4,000km of flight... after it has burned off a few tons of fuel and is a bit lighter and approaching the northern coastline of Canada.

    That would make it an even more formidable weapon as it will be fast but not burn up fuel so rapidly, meaning even better range and performance.

    A subsonic flying wing with enormous internal weapon capacity would make the Tu-22M3 a little redundant for longer range missions... the shorter ranged missions could be performed by the Fullback, or just 5,000km ranged cruise missiles.

    Having three heavy bombers was necessary because two were for strategic missions leaving the lighter Backfire for continental european and chinese targets and of course US carrier groups.

    With the merging of missions to allow the strategic bombers to carry out conventional strikes (mainly from the huge improvement in terminal accuracy of Russian cruise missiles to allow conventional warheads to become effective) means a separate conventional long range strike bomber is not longer critical.

    It appears the Tu-160 has lost its bomb aiming system in the upgrades which suggests it will be a cruise missile carrier only, so the burden of bomber moves to the PAK DA I would suggest.
    George1
    George1


    Posts : 18510
    Points : 19013
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  George1 Sat Aug 19, 2017 1:36 pm

    I think PAK-DA will replace Tu-95 and Tu-160 in nuclear role and Tu-160M will replace Tu-22M3
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest


    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Guest Sat Aug 19, 2017 3:20 pm

    George1 wrote:I think PAK-DA will replace Tu-95 and Tu-160 in nuclear role and Tu-160M will replace Tu-22M3

    Tu-160s are primary cruise missile carriers, so its quite doubtful.

    Tu-22M will be replaced by something that has the ability to loiter alot and use conventional payload, hence partial replacement by PAK-DA, partially by Su-34s.

    Tu-95 shall be replaced completely by PAK-DA on the other hand.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov


    Posts : 3876
    Points : 3854
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:23 pm

    It's been months since I looked into the Tu-160's.

    Don't they have like 16 of these in service right now? how many are the new M2 model?.

    I gotta see if they finished that factory yet and if they are actually building the new 160's.
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest


    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Guest Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:29 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:It's been months since I looked into the Tu-160's.

    Don't they have like 16 of these in service right now? how many are the new M2 model?.

    I gotta see if they finished that factory yet and if they are actually building the new 160's.

    Yeah, 16 still exist and all of them are in use.

    Kazan aviation plant is i belive to expected to build new Tu-160M2.

    None of the models in service are Tu-160M2. But all of them will be modernised to M standard to fill the gap till Tu-160M2s come off the lines.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 13463
    Points : 13503
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  PapaDragon Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:31 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:It's been months since I looked into the Tu-160's.

    Don't they have like 16 of these in service right now? how many are the new M2 model?.

    I gotta see if they finished that factory yet and if they are actually building the new 160's.

    First two M2s will be built from unfinished airframes they have in storage

    Titanium welding system has been built from scratch for production of new aircraft

    Tu160s in service will be upgraded to M2S standard as part of maintenance cycle

    That's the plan that is...
    avatar
    T-47


    Posts : 269
    Points : 267
    Join date : 2017-07-17
    Location : Planet Earth

    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  T-47 Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:35 pm

    Andrei Tupolev is pleased in his grave to see that someone still believes Tu-22M is a variant of Tu-22.

    While he actually gave the name Tu-22M to convince Nikita Khrushchev that this is just an "upgrade" of already then brand new Tu-22, which was not a bullshit as he claimed earlier! But he knew the truth.
    The backfire is based on blinder, doesn't mean its a variant. MiG-31 is also based on MiG-25, so is F-15.
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest


    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Guest Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:43 pm

    T-47 wrote:Andrei Tupolev is pleased in his grave to see that someone still believes Tu-22M is a variant of Tu-22.

    While he actually gave the name Tu-22M to convince Nikita Khrushchev that this is just an "upgrade" of already then brand new Tu-22, which was not a bullshit as he claimed earlier! But he knew the truth.
    The backfire is based on blinder, doesn't mean its a variant. MiG-31 is also based on MiG-25, so is F-15.

    It was far easier to obtain financial support for modernisation of existing platfrom than building entirely new design, which Tupolev used in this case as nomenclature trick.

    But its okay, we have experts onboard Smile
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40487
    Points : 40987
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:00 pm

    The Tu-22 was a very recent aircraft at the time so there was little chance that Tupolev could have gotten funding or support to make a brand new bomber to replace a reasonably new bomber... especially at the time when new designs were all mach 3.

    this is why he tried to pass it off as an upgrade, but almost everything was changed.

    Regarding the Blackjack, there were four airframes unfinished in the factory when the production finished and the Ukraine separated from Russia.

    Two were nearly complete so they were finished in the 1990s, but the other two needed to have the centre titanium box section built and that capacity has been totally lost.

    The recent construction of tooling to make new Blackjacks and then PAK DAs means the reconstruction of the facility to electron wield super large titanium structures, so they have used that capability to complete the remaining two airframes, which means 16 Blackjacks in service and two more on the way soon.

    The two new blackjacks will be upgraded to M2 level and then existing models will also be upgraded and new scratch build models will be produced.

    Eventually PAK DAs will be produced in the same factory, but that wont be for a while.

    the current priority is to get a viable force of 60-70 Blackjacks into service and their improved engines and systems.

    Once that has been achieved then production of the PAK DA will start.

    The question is... will the Tu-160M2 have conventional bomb capability or just cruise missile capability.

    I rather suspect they will keep the Tu-22M3Ms in service as simple bomb trucks as their two engines will use less fuel than the larger blackjacks four simply because they are smaller lighter aircraft.

    The arrival of the PAK DA however will start to replace both the Tu-95 in the strategic role and the Backfire in the theatre role.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 13463
    Points : 13503
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  PapaDragon Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:36 pm

    GarryB wrote:..................
    The question is... will the Tu-160M2 have conventional bomb capability or just cruise missile capability.

    I rather suspect they will keep the Tu-22M3Ms in service as simple bomb trucks as their two engines will use less fuel than the larger blackjacks four simply because they are smaller lighter aircraft.

    The arrival of the PAK DA however will start to replace both the Tu-95 in the strategic role and the Backfire in the theatre role.

    After their showing in Syria you can bet that they will. Low cost + lots of bombs = Jackpot!!!

    PAK-DA will definitely replace both Tu-95 and Tu-22 but I believe that they will build central structure for them in parallel to Tu-160M2 and then continue assembly in some other factory.

    Tu-160M2 and PAK-DA will be produced simultaneously. Not at first but later down the road.
    eehnie
    eehnie


    Posts : 2425
    Points : 2428
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:33 pm

    Some people trying to be "experts" here are only a joke. They know 0, absolutely 0 about the economic and technological meaning of what they are saying.

    It is not possible to hide the development of a new aircraft from 0 as a development from other aircraft. The reason why this is not possible is because the development of a new aircraft from 0 is a lot more expensive than the development of a variant based on a previous aircraft and someone has to pay the difference. Also another very important point against this joke we are reading is in the test protocols, that are very different for the case of a machine totally new and a machine "developed from" a previous machine.

    The development of a variant has a range of cost that is well known by who gives the funds and is very short for the development of a totally new aircraft. The people is saying Tupolev developed the expensive option and hide it under the cheap option. It makes 0 sense. Who payed the part of the cost of the totally new aircraft that is not justified as the development from a previous basis? To drive the cost of a variant developed from a previous basis to the cost level of a totally new aircraft only can be caused by severe mismanagement. Is someone trying to say that Tupolev assumed own mismanagement to hide a totally new aircraft as a variant developed from a previous basis that should have a development a lot cheaper? No way.

    Also it makes 0 sense from the testing side. The test protocols for totally new aircrafts are far stronger than for a variant developed from a previously tested and accepted basis. To hide an aircraft totally new as an aircraft developed from a previous basis, means that Tupolev consciently tried to send an undertested new model to active service. Is someone trying to say this seriously?

    Also the testing engineers are not idiots to know what comes to them. If they see a totally new aircraft they know what they have, and if they see an aircraft developed from a basis they tested previously, they also know what they have. If the testing engineers see something new, they order to test it inmediately. To try to hide a totally new aircraft as a development from a previous aircraft would have been a testing nightmare for Tupolev, would have been profesionally suicidal, and Khruschev/Brezhnev would have been noticed for sure.

    Tupolev was an outstanding engineer. He was known by always to try to include previously developed parts even in new aircrafts to keep the costs of new projects under control, something that made his designs always a little less new or original, than the designs of other offices. But we have still to read some ridiculous things.
    avatar
    T-47


    Posts : 269
    Points : 267
    Join date : 2017-07-17
    Location : Planet Earth

    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  T-47 Wed Aug 23, 2017 5:55 pm

    eehnie wrote:Some people trying to be "experts" here are only a joke. They know 0, absolutely 0 about the economic and technological meaning of what they are saying.

    Well you failed to show that you know more than 0 either. Fortunately you live in 2017 not in Stalin era, so your desire about "official" stuff is getting some value. Stalin didn't do a lots of things "officially" but he actually did them.

    It is not possible to hide the development of a new aircraft from 0 as a development from other aircraft. The reason why this is not possible is because the development of a new aircraft from 0 is a lot more expensive than the development of a variant based on a previous aircraft and someone has to pay the difference. Also another very important point against this joke we are reading is in the test protocols, that are very different for the case of a machine totally new and a machine "developed from" a previous machine.

    Do you know you can develop something new without starting from 0? By based on something already developed but it can still be a new one? And that development is cheap enough? If yes you are at 0 level knowledge with us, if no then you have successfully went into -1.
    According to -1 level knowledge MiG-31 is a "variant" of MiG-25 (Just because it was not developed from 0, rather from MiG-25). Fortunately F-15 is an US aircraft otherwise we would have to label it as "variant" of MiG-25 as well. Also T-90, which is developed from T-72 which is from T-55 which is from T-54 (you can take it further back to T-44 and T-34!). So T-90 is a "variant" of T-54! Again just because it not was developed from 0.

    Anyways "officially" they were not branded as "variant" so you didn't brand them either but as for the case of Backfire and Blinder you did because "officially" it was branded like that. Very cool. thumbsup respekt cheers

    The development of a variant has a range of cost that is well known by who gives the funds and is very short for the development of a totally new aircraft. The people is saying Tupolev developed the expensive option and hide it under the cheap option. It makes 0 sense. Who payed the part of the cost of the totally new aircraft that is not justified as the development from a previous basis? To drive the cost of a variant developed from a previous basis to the cost level of a totally new aircraft only can be caused by severe mismanagement. Is someone trying to say that Tupolev assumed own mismanagement to hide a totally new aircraft as a variant developed from a previous basis that should have a development a lot cheaper? No way.

    And again you have completely failed to understand the thing about the term "developed from". Which can be a new product rather than a variant. The new product which uses the solutions of the previous faulty products. Costs? Do you think Tupolev has bromance only with Khrushchev? The whole command of the Red Air Force was under his influence.
    (Sorry no "official" links for these. You have to learn from history in this case. How about some interviews from old Tupolev employees?)

    Also it makes 0 sense from the testing side. The test protocols for totally new aircrafts are far stronger than for a variant developed from a previously tested and accepted basis. To hide an aircraft totally new as an aircraft developed from a previous basis, means that Tupolev consciently tried to send an undertested new model to active service. Is someone trying to say this seriously?

    Yes darling. Not someone but basically everyone is trying to say this. I know you don't care because I don't have "official" links but I'm still saying. Using solutions from already tested stuffs reduce the time and cost and testing phase significantly. The first Tu-22Ms and Su-24s got a lots of similarity in airframe! Su-24 got first flight in 1967, Tu-22M two years later 1969. Which is 10 years later from Tu-22. (And that is actually a LOTs of time for testing and developing).

    Also the testing engineers are not idiots to know what comes to them. If they see a totally new aircraft they know what they have, and if they see an aircraft developed from a basis they tested previously, they also know what they have. If the testing engineers see something new, they order to test it inmediately. To try to hide a totally new aircraft as a development from a previous aircraft would have been a testing nightmare for Tupolev, would have been profesionally suicidal, and Khruschev/Brezhnev would have been noticed for sure.

    FFS this not even -1 level. This is -2. Someone here is still believing that back in 60s in USSR just some "test engineers" got the power and gut of defying order from Tupolev himself as not branding the aircraft as a variant rather a new one, considering the amount of political links Tupolev had. Daaaayyyyyyyyymmmmmmmmmmmmnnnnnn
    PS: Gulag did exist and there are "official" proofs of that.

    Tupolev was an outstanding engineer. He was known by always to try to include previously developed parts even in new aircrafts to keep the costs of new projects under control, something that made his designs always a little less new or original, than the designs of other offices. But we have still to read some ridiculous things.

    Because you choose to ignore the facts and keep dreaming about "official" declarations! I already wrote it but here, read it again:

    "According to -1 level knowledge MiG-31 is a "variant" of MiG-25 (Just because it was not developed from 0, rather from MiG-25). Fortunately F-15 is an US aircraft otherwise we would have to label it as "variant" of MiG-25 as well. Also T-90, which is developed from T-72 which is from T-55 which is from T-54 (you can take it further back to T-44 and T-34!). So T-90 is a "variant" of T-54! Again just because it not was developed from 0."

    I know you won't follow but still I'm asking, try to understand the thing that just because something is developed from doesn't make it a variant. And stop thinking so much about official comments. Why? Watch North Korea. Full of "official" statements.

    (Well I think all my words are going to be in vein unshaven So I'll just ignore this from now. Unless eehnie can stop from being an "expert" and come down to normal level aka level 0. Which means facts and try to understand what others are saying not just keep blabbering about "official" links)
    JohninMK
    JohninMK


    Posts : 15594
    Points : 15735
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  JohninMK Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:10 pm

    T-47 wrote:
    I know you won't follow but still I'm asking, try to understand the thing that just because something is developed from doesn't make it a variant. And stop thinking so much about official comments. Why? Watch North Korea. Full of "official" statements.

    (Well I think all my words are going to be in vein  unshaven So I'll just ignore this from now. Unless eehnie can stop from being an "expert" and come down to normal level aka level 0. Which means facts and try to understand what others are saying not just keep blabbering about "official" links)
    Someone around here really doesn't understand large bureaucracies and their ability to hide things from the top.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov


    Posts : 3876
    Points : 3854
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:20 am

    JohninMK wrote:
    T-47 wrote:
    I know you won't follow but still I'm asking, try to understand the thing that just because something is developed from doesn't make it a variant. And stop thinking so much about official comments. Why? Watch North Korea. Full of "official" statements.

    (Well I think all my words are going to be in vein  unshaven So I'll just ignore this from now. Unless eehnie can stop from being an "expert" and come down to normal level aka level 0. Which means facts and try to understand what others are saying not just keep blabbering about "official" links)
    Someone around here really doesn't understand large bureaucracies and their ability to hide things from the top.

    Expecting Enhnie to stop being Enhie hell, you got a better chance of all the anti Assad factions in syria suddenly becoming pro-assad.
    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Austin Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:23 pm

    PAK DA will be cheaper than Tu-160, but will be able to replace all long-range aircraft

    Подробнее на ТАСС:
    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4730201


    "One of the main tasks assigned by the military department to the creators of the long-range aviation complex of the long-range aviation (PAK DA) is to ensure that the new aircraft functions as all three current missile carriers (Tu-160, Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3) much cheaper than the Tu-160, "- said the agency's interlocutor. According to him, "the tactical and technical assignment for the PAK DA is approved by the military, in the near future, with the conclusion of the contract, the production of design documentation will begin, with the subsequent manufacture of prototypes."

    Reducing the cost of development, production and operation of PAK DA will be partly facilitated by the fact that this aircraft will be subsonic. This, according to the source, will not affect its combat effectiveness in any way: the presence of high-precision long-range cruise missiles will allow striking without entering the enemy's air defense zone and not using supersonic regimes. Also, a subsonic aircraft is easier and cheaper to prepare for a flight, it uses less fuel.

    "Today, no country in the world, including such powerful military powers as Russia and the US, simply does not pull the design and construction of a supersonic bomber that meets all the criteria of the fifth generation," the TASS source said.

    The specialist did not specify the estimated value of the PAK YES, which appears in the customer's terms of reference.

    The cost of Tu-160

    Expert estimates of the cost of the Tu-160 aircraft range from $ 250 to $ 600 million (in 1993, the media called the sum of 6 billion rubles, which at the time corresponded to approximately $ 600 million). One hour of the missile carrier's flight (without combat use) costs, according to official figures for 2008, 580 thousand rubles (about $ 23.3 thousand). The cost of the American B-1B bomber, close to the Tu-160 for performance, is $ 317 million, the flight hour costs $ 57.8 thousand.
    eehnie
    eehnie


    Posts : 2425
    Points : 2428
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:01 pm

    To be chearper is right, to be able to replace all the current strategic bombers (including those in maritime work) is necessary for Russia, because Russia can avoid to make this effort more than once per warfare generation, but to underperform is not right.

    If the Tu-PAK-DA underperforms the current models, will be very likely a failure. If this is the case, the Tu-160 will overrun the Tu-PAK-DA in the long term. It means shorter life for the Tu-PAK-DA, and lower number of orders.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform


    Posts : 1032
    Points : 1014
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Singular_Transform Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:26 pm

    Austin wrote:

    Expert estimates of the cost of the Tu-160 aircraft range from $ 250 to $ 600 million (in 1993, the media called the sum of 6 billion rubles, which at the time corresponded to approximately $ 600 million). One hour of the missile carrier's flight (without combat use) costs, according to official figures for 2008, 580 thousand rubles (about $ 23.3 thousand). The cost of the American B-1B bomber, close to the Tu-160 for performance, is $ 317 million, the flight hour costs $ 57.8 thousand.
    [/quote]

    The B-1A is the only US military aircraft the is close to the parameters of the Tu-160.

    B-1A cost is above 400 million 2017 dollars.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40487
    Points : 40987
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:07 am

    The B-1B is similar to the Tu-22M3 and not the Tu-160.

    Looking at the statistics is not helpful as the B-1B carries all its weapons internally, but most claims of its payload include external load... which is bullshit.

    The Tu-22M3 is faster than the B-1B and if it had inflight refuelling probe like the B-1B it would have rather good performance if still short of strategic.

    The Tu-22M3 has two 25 ton thrust engines, while the B-1B has four 13 ton thrust engines, so the thrust is very similar.

    the Tu-160 has twice as much thrust with four 25 ton thrust engines and much bigger internal bomb bays (2).

    Either way it just confirms what i have been saying all along.... high speed means high cost in terms of fuel and operational costs and what they need is a nice cheap to run plane like the Tu-95 as a numbers aircraft.

    50-70 Tu-160M2s will be useful for both strategic and theatre roles, but the main force being subsonic makes a lot of sense.

    I would have preferred a supercruising aircraft that used AB for short periods and dry thrust most of the time but a subsonic aircraft can have much more internal volume so fuel and bulky weapon loads.
    KomissarBojanchev
    KomissarBojanchev


    Posts : 1429
    Points : 1584
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 27
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  KomissarBojanchev Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:42 pm

    Lets say a US carrier group is spotted and needs to be destroyed and the PAK DAs are called. Won't it be an advantage for them to be able to go supersonic so they arrive in range of their target faster and escape faster before the F-18s get to them? Even if future Russian cruise missiles have 3 times as long range as X-22s, won't it be still important to go supersonic in case the PAK DAs encounter an F-18 patrol lets say 2000km from the carrier group?
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11593
    Points : 11561
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Isos Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:02 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Lets say a US carrier group is spotted and needs to be destroyed and the PAK DAs are called. Won't it be an advantage for them to be able to go supersonic so they arrive in range  of their target faster and escape faster before the F-18s get to them? Even if future Russian cruise missiles have 3 times as long range as X-22s, won't it be still important to go supersonic in case the PAK DAs encounter an F-18 patrol lets say 2000km from the carrier group?

    Unlikely to happen. F 18 don t have such range. The buddy buddy refueling won t help ...

    Kh 22 is almost at the max range of f 18 ... let alone a new version with increased range.

    Sponsored content


    PAK-DA: News - Page 28 Empty Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Nov 15, 2024 1:52 am