PAK-DA: News

LMFS wrote:

Ok... are you submitting that the weapons presented on March 1st are fake? Just asking...

Hole wrote:So all are lying? Amis. Russians. French.

AGM-86 and Kh-55 are roughly the same size and weight. Both can reach a range 0f 2.500 km. This has been tested. By both countries. Feel free to provide data that prove otherwise.

Kh-55SM has more fuel so the range could to 3.000km. Again, this has been tested according to every expert out there.

Isos wrote:Even 2500-3000km in range is enough for tu-95 to attack any country. Most of europe can be attacked since their home bases and US can be attacked on their east coast by flying low when it is at 3500km from the coast.

I would imprive missiles instead of making pak da.

A stealth su-34 would have been better because it needs to go in enemy air space.

Strategic aviation won't be used against tanks with fab-500 bombs ...

They would launch that missile at 2000km as that is the limit it has been tested. No one will rest their nuclear deterrent on untested capabilities.

Isos wrote:Tu-22M can launched kh-22. They are there to counter us carrier in a conventional way. You can't replace them by su-57 and kh-35.

For nuclear deterence missiles should be improved instead of their carriers.

Supercruising is good when you leave the area. When you go on the target protected by air force, supersonic speed isn't a help. You need either stand off missiles or capacities to attack the other fighters. Su-34 has both. Tu-160 has long range missiles only but too expensive to use it every day during war as non strategic tool.

Nuclear tests are forbiden so most of nuclear warehead would be used untested. Russia has 5000 wareheads so they can launch them from even mig-29A if needed.

Vladimir79 wrote:Feel free to issue the test of a Kh-55 at 3000km.  Just because it was accepted as fact doesn't make it so.  I have monitored these tests for years and the launch platform is never more than 2000km away from the target range.  I will tell you why I am going off on this now, the China thread about cruise missiles based on obsolete French turbojets going 1500km is rather insulting to my intelligence.  This is less so as our turbofans are far more advanced than China but they do not exceed the French in fuel efficient turbofan ratios.  We have to partner with Safran just to get the SaM146 efficient enough to make the SSJ100 competitive.  If we have a 2400kg cruise missile that can fly 5000km where is our leap in technology that makes it possible?  

China thread about cruise missiles based on obsolete French turbojets

LMFS wrote:Without wanting to get deep this in this controversy, I would very much doubt any state would reveal the exact range of their strategic CM, either by statements or by publishing test information. So this is an issue we cannot clarify here I'm afraid. And if any of you actually can, then you should not say absolutely anything I guess...

@Vladimir79:

- How and why should the Su-57 replace the Tu-22M3? The later is much bigger, longer ranged and still survivable due to stand-off weapons + speed. In fact I see it as one of the unique and highest value assets in RuAF. It is in fact going to be modernized for many more years of service apparently
- Care pointing out where the nuclear role of Su-57 has been declared? I missed that one, thanks

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Give me your engineering rationale explaining how:
1) civilian turbofans are analogous to cruise missile engines
2)Russia, which has been a world leader in long range cruise missiles since at least the 70s(with the Granat, Granit, and P-500), is more primitive than whatever the puny french MIC can make.

Isos wrote:

Didn't they got kh-55 from ukraine just like iran did in the 90s ?

Vladimir79 wrote:

Isos wrote:

Didn't they got kh-55 from ukraine just like iran did in the 90s ?

Probably, but they didn't get the know how to build it.  If they can't reverse engineer the big turbofans it is even harder to do micro turbofans.  

Isos wrote:

They also have engineers working on that field. Copying is not what they only can do. They can look how it is made, what material is used and then try something by their own. Well it won't be as good as wesern or russian but if it is good enough and with lot of fuel it can go far. They manage to build subs, ships, ICBM ... why not a motor.

Vladimir79 wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:



If you can call Mach 2 missiles cruise missiles, they are not built for range.  

Yes a cruise missile is any long range ground attack missile. Not built for range? Logic is not your strong point. AShMs are by definition built for range, and the P-700/P-500 are some of the best/if not the best in that department. If they can make a mach 2.5 missile go 600km, there sure as F can make a mach 0.8 one go 5 times as far today.

Also you left out the Granat in your comment.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Yes a cruise missile is any long range ground attack missile. Not built for range? Logic is not your strong point. AShMs are by definition built for range, and the P-700/P-500 are some of the best/if not the best in that department. If they can make a mach 2.5 missile go 600km, there sure as F can make a mach 0.8 one go 5 times as far today.  

Also you left out the Granat in your comment.

Vladimir79 wrote:They don't make the engines anymore and they aren't developing new ones.  You can only overhaul and rebuild engines so many times.  By 2030 the last should be removed from service and be replaced by the full fleet of Tu-160M2s.  Of course the timetable of the Tu-160 has been pushed back several years and to expect 50 new aircraft in 12 years is highly unlikely.  There is evidence the Su-57 is being converted to the nuclear strike role.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-su-57-pak-fa-stealth-fighter-nuclear-strike-aircraft-24368

Vladimir79 wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Yes a cruise missile is any long range ground attack missile. Not built for range? Logic is not your strong point. AShMs are by definition built for range, and the P-700/P-500 are some of the best/if not the best in that department. If they can make a mach 2.5 missile go 600km, there sure as F can make a mach 0.8 one go 5 times as far today.  

Also you left out the Granat in your comment.

The definition of a cruise missile is a guided missile that flies at moderate speed and low altitude, hence none of your missiles meet the criterion.  Logic dictates you know the definition first.  

eehnie wrote:It has been published multiple times that modernized Tu-22, modernized Tu-160 and Tu-PAK-DA will share engines. LMFS is right the life of the Tu-22 will be exctended long time..

In the refered to the Strategic bombers Il-38 and Tu-95/142 will be replaced before, very likely also with the Tu-PAK-DA.

Isos wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Yes a cruise missile is any long range ground attack missile. Not built for range? Logic is not your strong point. AShMs are by definition built for range, and the P-700/P-500 are some of the best/if not the best in that department. If they can make a mach 2.5 missile go 600km, there sure as F can make a mach 0.8 one go 5 times as far today.  

Also you left out the Granat in your comment.

The definition of a cruise missile is a guided missile that flies at moderate speed and low altitude, hence none of your missiles meet the criterion.  Logic dictates you know the definition first.  

Name doesn't matter. They used oniks for ground attack role in syria. A mach 3 missile is really hard to intercept if all your air defence soldiers aren't ready for it.

At mach 3 you only need 20 min to go 1000km. Alerting air defence forces, moving Patriot semi mobile system and deploying it takes longer than 20 min. Intercepting it with a fighter is hopless.

Your information is inaccurate they fired KA-61's which is the air to a ground version of the Onik's