Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Both NK-65 and NK-35 are mentioned as possible engines for the Il-106 or as replacement for the old D-18. Difference is the thrust: 29,5 t / 35 t.
Well either of those should be fine... the D-18 has something 22-23T thrust... so get both into production and get rid of those Ukie engines on the Russian An-124s... hell, I would even consider putting two on a Bear just for shits and giggles to see how it performs... I would install ejection seats just in case though...
Those are detached before the engine starts...
You are talking about the rear, I was talking about the long nose cone... I don't think taking off the rear bit would shorten it by very much at all... and the nose seems to be largely intact as it falls on that target, which makes me think it does not have a false nose like the Yakhont/Brahmos with a nose mounted scramjet...
For such a high speed launch of course it would not need a huge air intake so it likely just has vents along the nose to let air in and the high speed will provide it with lots of high speed air...
Again, I am eager to see what do they come up with, hope Russians are capable of surprising with something unexpected.
They do not usually disappoint...
I am saying that the supersonic role is definitively to be covered by the Tu-160, they don't even report PAK-DA to replace it any more and besides that restarting the production means 20-30 years more in operation more at least, starting this coming decade. So PAK-DA can take care of all those non-strategic roles we are commenting, apart from some strategic ones.
They are working on increased thrust engines for the backfire and blackjack so they might get to a tipping point where super cruising in the blackjack might be useful.
The thing is the gimmick is not as big a payoff as the ability to fly rather faster without using a lot more fuel.
What I am trying to say is even if they need AB just after takeoff to pass through the speed of sound at medium altitude, if they can fly at supersonic speeds in dry power they will likely greatly increase their flight performance without massively increasing their IR signature and other capabilities....
Having to chase down a subsonic plane in a supersonic fighter is still not easy but certainly a real option... if the blackjack could supercruise it might be more useful to send it to europe to bomb the shit out of them... they will have more trouble stopping it in the trans sonic F-35s than engaging flying wings that are subsonic.
Of course later on you could add a horizontal tail surface to PAK DA and make it trans sonic too...
I mean AAM can be in principle launched starting the engine still inside of the bay with the head pointing outside. Don't know for the R-77 for sure. the launches I have seen are as you describe. No expected frantic manoeuvring on the PAK-DA so launching from unusual spots may be an option.
The R-77 was designed from the start for internal carriage and being ARH does not need to see the target before launch like an R-73 would anyway.
The next gen AAMs being developed for the PAK FA should likely be optimised for internal carriage and therefore also be suitable for PAK DA and MiG-41 use too...
I cannot believe you are denying that a plane needs to be very aerodynamic to be efficient and have huge range as we agree is needed, this applies at any speed > 0. Sure you mean that? One of the main attractives of the flying wing thing is to increase L/D ratio in the end...
This is not going to be an airliner, or a race car... this is a big heavy transport plane.... it transports the heaviest ordinance in the RuAF arsenal, which is going to include some pretty big objects... including but no limited to, Gurza, Onyx, Zircon, FOAB, FAB-9000 to FAB-50, and all manner of new super long range cruise missiles.... both subsonic and hypersonic...
If they are sleek little butterflies like the Tu-160M2 then it struggles to carry more than one Kinzhal in each of its two weapon bays... and making it that slim wont make it supersonic...
Do you think an An-124 would benefit from being much much smaller?
What is the benefit for the An-124 to be marginally faster and being able to carry 150 tons of payload if it is the size of a C-130 and you can't fit 150 tons of very much except sheet steel in it?
I prefer big and bulky because with the right shaping that can appear tiny.... if size mattered then the F-117 is much smaller than a B-2, but it is the extra size of the B-2 that actually allows it to be probably the most stealthy aircraft there is.
You are not understanding what I mean at all, look at the sizes of Tu-22M3 and B-2:
Haven't we already agreed Russia does not need a B-2 hangar queen?
One is a theater and naval bomber, the other a strategic bomber. Empty weight of the Tu-22 is a 80% of the B-2. The difference in max. take off weight is substantial I admit that but this is due to additional fuel for the strategic role. Payload of the B-2 is even smaller than that of a Tu-22. So no huge bomber needed. What is optimum is the enemy of what is possible you know! Size is a direct cost driver in a plane and the PAK-DA pretends to be very stealthy AND cheaper than the Tu-160... no way to achieve that without a contained size among other strategies. My bet is it will be below 80 ton empty weight.
You are forgetting that the Tu-22m3 is also a theatre bomber, so the ability to carry a heavy payload of bombs is of value... and also with the Gefest & T avionics a larger heavier PAK DA could loiter over a battlefield for a whole day with a large payload of cheap simple dumb bombs and just drop bombs all day on targets as they are found... with high accuracy and very short turnaround.... spotted... minutes later boom...
That is more or less what the Tu-22 can carry already though the range is smaller than needed yes. The mission in Syria shows that not so many targets exist that are worth attacking and that target intelligence is more important than brute strike power, Russian tactical planes operating there normally carry meagre payloads actually AFAIK.
The quality of its onboard radar and sensors should be near astounding compared to what is available now, and its communications should be excellent too... in fact I could see in the theatre bomber role the commander on the ground could lase the target and the PAK DA could detect the area and scan it with high resolution optics and radar and IIR sensors and then transmit his view of the target to the commander who could then get a tablet pen and mark the targets he wants hit and indicate areas where friendlies are to avoid and beam it up and the bomber commander can attack the targets in real time... F-14D pilots did that in Afghanistan using LANTIRN pods, so there is no reason why the Russian primary theatre bomber should not be able to do that...
All the bombs will be internal so low drag... why not take more than you need... they might use some or none.... I rather suspect at first everyone will want to try it... I suspect when commanders find out it works they will want them overhead 24/7 and a PAK DA that is huge and has enormous bomb capacity and inflight refuelling can be there... Where you have air control the PAK DA will be very valuable, where you don't... PAK FA supporting Tu-160M2s for big targets and PAK FAs for single targets.
How often did they attack 6-12 targets with cruise missiles in Syria?
Quite a few.
How many other targets were left until later because they didn't trust their luck, of the timing wasn't right...
With a bomber in the air you can change and attack targets that were otherwise not an option when the plane or cruise missile was launched, but became a target to hit after... it would be a waste of a cruise missile to launch in the hope you can hit the target when the missile arrives, but bombers are much more flexible...
We agree on that, but there is no fun there
In terms of fun the Strategic role is not so critical because likely it will only happen once anyway...
For the theatre role the PAK DA will be able to choose from a wide variety of weapons to use to get the job done from lots of smaller bombs to a few very very big ones... and the Russians have some very interesting weapons in their arsenal...
The modernised Tu-95MSM will get a SVP-24 system and a datalink to receive data directly from troops on the ground. It can then use tactical cruise missiles (Kh-50?). In a scenario like Syria a Tu-95MSM could stay airborne for a few hours (6 - 10?) and fire cruise missiles at ad-hoc targets.
Actually I would love to see them do this with Satellite guided 250kg and 500kg bombs... the Bears could carry them in large numbers, and accuracy should be pretty similar, but it should be much cheaper and much faster from command to impact...
Perhaps those Bears and some Backfires could be based in Iran....
Trump is pushing and pushing... will they break or will they snap...
