PAK-DA: News

Isos wrote:

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

It was launched from a bastion p ground launcher. You saying bullshit.

If a bastion P can launch it, a sub can do it. Detecting a sub 500km away is hard if not impossible for most militaries in the world.

The range are increasing with better tech. Today it is 600km for oniks tmr it will be 1000km for hypersonic missiles.

Oh you meant that I was thinking about something else nm there,

However, you are still wrong.

From where the Battery was and the warehouse was super short distance, in real war you will not be able to launch missiles in such a close range at your foes unless you pretty much won already. In real war these lovely situations you talk about where russia has such freedom to use such weapons won't exist.

"Today it is 600km for oniks tmr it will be 1000km "

See now is "Bullshit" has you say.

1. What if's aren't evidence of anything, imaginary missiles that aren't invented are mere figments of imagination. When they make such a missile, like the oniks that goes hypersonic and has that 1000km range then you can talk like it exists. Until then close your mouth and stop acting like imaginary missiles exist BECAUSE by the time Russia fields such missiles tech will be in place to counter them. You act like only missile tech will ever improve and everything else will stand still

I may as well say "Well when russia invents the time machine they can just change the USSR falling apart".

Isos wrote:

What if's aren't evidence of anything, imaginary missiles that aren't invented are mere figments of imagination. When they make such a missile, like the oniks that goes hypersonic and has that 1000km range then you can talk like it exists. Until then close your mouth and stop acting like imaginary missiles exist BECAUSE by the time Russia fields such missiles tech will be in place to counter them. You act like only missile tech will ever improve and everything else will stand still

I may as well say "Well when russia invents the time machine they can just change the USSR falling apart".

Tzirkon and kinzhal already exist as prototypes so yeah those missile will exist.

Having something to counter them doesn't mean you can counter them anytime. Most european countries are protect by only few air defence system that are not capable against hypersonic. Even if they are they have only few of them.

Counting on f-35 or rafale to counter that is useless.

The thing is that russia can also launch many missiles at the same time. It's not one system vs another but an attack against a defence.

Apart of US, no other military on the world can compare to russia. Stop first using the scenario nato vs russia. That has no sense in conventional war. Just like using a scenario like UK vs russia china and india.

1. In wartime everything would be massively beefed up, you are comparing peacetime to wartime which is absurd and shows you lack an understanding of how war works.

2. None of those missiles have yet to prove they have such range, No tests have ever been displayed. To prove they can even go 800km, in order for a missile to be accepted into service all aspects must be confirmed etc it must show it can go that far.

If you believe they would simply say it can because on paper it says so you are quite mistaken. Launch tests prove everything and well Zircon may have the speed I have yet to see it has the range. I do not take some guys word for it. Kinzhal has a claimed speed and range also, no tests were ever conducted for it to get that 1200km range qualification. In the real world missiles actually, have to go that far to be accepted into service for such a range. The Russians merely said "yeah it goes this fast and goes this far" Yeaaaah sorry I am not some sheep who believes things they say without showing it.

Ignorance is no excuse, I have yet to see Kinzhal go mach 10 the russians are known to bluff with there weapons to be fair a lot of others do that. Show me qualification tests, THEN we can talk about that.

3. Where ever russia builds up it's launch platforms that would be mirrored they cannot relocate stuff in a matter of seconds it would take days to relocate even some launch platforms unless you are moving them in REALLY short distance, again you act like people are idiots and would simply let the Russians do this and not react. It's bizarre to me how you dream up these fantasy situations for Russia, you act like russia would be fighting a bunch of monkeys who only know how to fling their crap. Go join the army and get some experience because you are showing you are a civi who really has no clue atm and is simply spewing stuff he read online.

4. War is war, NATO is NATO, Most of the major nations on earth are in NATO and would react if it came to war, I mean if you wanna talk about how Russia would steamroll Cuba sure but if russia ever went to war with any NATO member it drags in all of NATO so yes my point is fair. Saying that doesn't make sense has a conventional war, the hell? dude you really don't know what you are talking about and the more you talk about situations and how things would play out shows me you have lots of understanding to do.

NATO is also the one foe Russia is likely to get into a war with atm. Which is why it relies on it's nuclear arensal t deter, because they know they will lose in a war but they would simply take everyone with them.

SeigSoloyvov wrote: Show me qualification tests

Never gonna happen... Does the US release test results of their gear?

Russia isn't going to give the HATOstanis a friggin' thing. They can go and pound sand.

Do not even mention other forums on here, much less their url.

LMFS wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote: Show me qualification tests

Never gonna happen... Does the US release test results of their gear?

Russia isn't going to give the HATOstanis a friggin' thing.  They can go and pound sand.

This is remarkable isn't it? A Russian (in fact two) saying they don't buy their government's statements unless they see test data. Which of course is never ever going to happen, unless they work in those programs. They should learn some "****.net attitude"

The other guy claims he is a US marine secretly in Syria.  So don't take what he has to say at face value for anything.  He was called out on multiple of times.

Second, no, no one will showcase their full potential.  Yakhont missile launch was 400km away.  It is a supersonic missile.  Khnizal is rated to 3000km with MiG-31 based upon calculations.  We seen it tested.  But have anyone of you got confirmation and data showing how far it flew when launched?  At what speed?

I find it rather ridiculous that people on here expect to be spoon fed all data as if they are mr important.  Add to that, they have no problem eating up bs that comes from US or EU, which both of them have been caught countless of times with their pants down and their lies being way too open compared to Russia, yet don't take even a lick of what Russia says as honest.

Yeah, if Russia starts to field something, like they are already doing with Khinzal, it means they tested it and happy with its performance.  If it is based upon the Iskander missile like so many claim, then I don't see how you guys can deny its capabilities seeing as the Iskander has proven itself and its speed of mach 5.9, and that is with a ground based launch.  High speed air launch of course would be greater.  Add to that, range too simply because it no longer is part of the INF treaty which Russia had to scrap missile programs that had high spped, large range in the 80's.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Hole wrote:Scalp/Storm Shadow weighs 1.300 kg. Warhead: 450kg.
Kh-101/-102 weighs 2.400 kg. Warhead: 400kg.
This would mean nearly a ton more fuel.

Don´t know about your claims about testing, because i wasn´t there personally, but minister Shoigu did mention the range of the weapon after it was used in Syria for the first time as around 4.000km+.


Another point: Russia could build a cruise missile with a range of 3.000km in the 80´s, so a increase of 50% seems feasible.

Plus: the Scalp/Storm Shadow is more a operational-tactical missile, not a strategic one. The Kh-50 seems a better comparison. If it will be fielded.

You misunderstood him he said the missile had an Altitude of 4K, and it's max is like 6k.

It's max range is like 2800km maybe 3000km.

The event you are talking about the missile only flew about 1000km has recorded by EVERYONE. The missile did not fly 4000km that is a big steaming lie.

For the start i must say that truly i do not understand this sort of "battle" -even more just here - on the features of systems by now so well known ,in theirs most important parameters, not only at home but also and above all abroad , this situation begin to appear grotesque and THAT could truly undermine the credibility of this place.

About the words employed by Defense Minister, there is not any misunderstanding in the words of Gen. Сергей Шойгу released after X-101 employment in Syria; it said :

"Самолеты стратегической авиации в реальной боевой обстановке впервые применили новые ракеты воздушного базирования Х-101 с дальностью действия до 4,5 тысячи километров"

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201610061308-y96a.htm

Now that is only one of the dozen and dozen of similar statements and assessment on X-101 by part of domestic and foreign officials and military analysts ,it do not represent even a news anywhere on this planet.
Is to notice that, in the same way of what happened with effective range of 3М-14, similar publicly "open" statements by part of domestic analysts on the features of advanced models has been released only after that foreign ,in particular over-ocean, "partners" have begun to receive in several way a clear picture of theirs real capabilities.

It is X-101 today a more advanced product than similar foreign products (if even a real counterpart could be found abroad) ?
Well it is not "stronkism" but merely "realism" to assert ,that at today, X-101 greatly surpass any foreign VLR air launched cruise missile in almost any cardinal parameters among which combat range, a real competitor could maybe come out of US R&D programs in particular LRSO (for European comanies it would be an almost impossible task, also in the middle period), but as said by some of the most authorative domestic anamysts, such as Виктор Мураховский, is very unlikely that the US would be capable to compensate for the technological gap it this sector in the near period and probably theirs future product will at best reach, but likely to concede ,in the next 5 years what X-101 offer since already 7 years by now.

"У американцев пока нет технологий, которые позволят им производить ракеты, аналогичные российским Х-101. К тому же в 90-е годы они сняли с вооружения ряд ракет воздушного и наземного базирования, поэтому у них вообще нет крылатой ракеты большой дальности. Но в последнее время американцы несколько изменили свою ядерную доктрину, согласно которой расширяется спектр возможных сценариев применения ядерного оружия. И теперь они считают, что им нужны разнообразные инструменты ядерных сил, включая крылатые ракеты воздушного базирования большой дальности. Чтобы в кратчайшие сроки воссоздать такой тип вооружения, и были выделены такие значительные средства. Сейчас трудно сказать, сколько им на это понадобится времени, но, учитывая, что опыт создания подобного вооружения у них есть, думаю, справятся максимум за пять лет. Хотя вряд ли их ракеты смогут превзойти российские, поскольку принципиально новых технологий в этой сфере вооружений у американцев не появилось. В лучшем случае по параметрам их ракеты будут равны нашим, но скорее всего будут уступать. Также нужно учитывать, что за это время российские крылатые ракеты будут неоднократно модернизированы. Кроме того, важным преимуществом российских ВКС стало то, что им в реальных боевых условиях удалось отработать полный цикл пуска крылатой ракеты с большого расстояния. Это позволило отработать алгоритмы ввода координат, усовершенствовать параметры коррекции и контроля данных, полученных в ходе полёта, оценить результаты попадания – всё это даёт возможность быть на шаг впереди"

https://versia.ru/v-ssha-imitiruyut-sozdanie-analoga-rossijskoj-krylatoj-rakety

This is one of the area (some of the most notable others anyone have seen at the beginning of March) where western military industrial and scientifical establishment suffer an heavy gap in comparison with Federation's one.

Obviously exist several others area (surveilance UAV, intelligenge data collection and sharing sytems, several type of microelectronic processor Technologies only to cite some) where the situation is inverted, but negate this simple state of things - probably to adhere to a completely twisted narrative mostly conceived abroad by spin-doctor professionals , a narrative to which obviously not serious western military professional concede a scrap of credibility - would be the most heavy hit to the credibility of this place like of any other.

Vladimir79 wrote:Russia conducted a new test of a Kh-555 air-launched cruise missile - a conventional version of the Kh-55, which has been in service with the strategic aviation since 1981. The first test of Kh-555 was conducted in 1999 and, according to a representative of the Ministry of Defense, was accepted for service in 2004. Development of the new missile is apparently part of a plan to convert some of the strategic bombers for conventional missions. The range demonstrated by the missile in the last test is about 2000 km.

I image that it is not necessary to explain just to you the difference between X-555 and X-101/102 in particular the huge difference in starting mass (almost a metric ton against the version of X-555 with additional fuel tanks and range of 2500 km) and type propulsion among the two; in facts any serious source and analyst provide just that range for the much lighter X-555

In the event of some sudden doubt on the increased range boasted by X-101, it will sufficient for you to take into account specific fuel consumption (0 AGL) even at maximum thrust of ТРДД-50Б and, even more, ТРДД-50M , the increased fuel mass (density of about 0,76 for the kerosene solution) ; you will realize ,after, that the X-101/102 combat range figures declared of Federation officials and experts are actually terribly conservative.....

Mindstorm wrote:
it will sufficient for you to take into account specific fuel consumption (0 AGL) even at maximum thrust of ТРДД-50Б and, even more, ТРДД-50M , the increased fuel mass (density of about 0,76 for the kerosene solution) ; you will realize ,after, that the X-101/102 combat range figures declared of Federation officials and experts are actually terribly conservative.....

 

Very interesting, so The range must be um The ~6000+km range, or they wouldnt develop X-BD, just thinking loud.

Great post as always Mindstorm!

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.

Actually before long range ballistic missiles were considered an option very long range cruise missiles were considered one option for the future and they were fast and enormous.

Even your average modern cruise missile with multi thousand km range fly the early stages of flight at medium altitude to improve flight speed and reduce fuel consumption.

It was decided it was too expensive to integrate the Tu-160 engines into the airframe so it will get a more conservative modernisation.

Isn't it too expensive to have two completely different engines with very similar performance doing the same job on two aircraft where one engine could do the job on both platforms...

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

The only operational versions of Onyx would be land based and ship and sub based models.

AFAIK the only aircraft actually cleared to carry an Onyx family missile is the Su-30MKI which has been adapted to carry Brahmos.

When they make such a missile, like the oniks that goes hypersonic and has that 1000km range then you can talk like it exists. Until then close your mouth and stop acting like imaginary missiles exist BECAUSE by the time Russia fields such missiles tech will be in place to counter them. You act like only missile tech will ever improve and everything else will stand still

You mean like the 2,000km range Kinzhal mach 10 missile based on the ground launched Iskander and launched from a MiG-31K?

I really can't see Kh-50 being launched from Su-57 as proof that they intend to use Su-57 as a replacement for Tu-22M3.
Its proof that like every vaguely recent fighter that its multirole, able to deliver a wide range of weaponry.

I would say the Su-57s would be rather more valuable carrying air to air missiles to defend a Tu-22M3M carrying six Kh-50s internally... especially when they restore the inflight refuelling capability of the Backfire.

Vladimir79 wrote:

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..

It was decided it was too expensive to integrate the Tu-160 engines into the airframe so it will get a more conservative modernisation.  

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.

Tu-95, Tu-22, Tu-160 were all supposed to be replaced by PAK-DA.  It looks like the future of strategic aviation will rely on the new Tu-160 which is fine if they can get the numbers on time.  This of course is my worry with all of the delays.  

At this point some delay is not to worry, because would be still in time for the necessary replacement.

The replacement is clearly launched, and includes three ways in the mix:

1.- Development and production of a new aircraft. The Tu-PAK-DA, with the first fly by 2025.
2.- Modernization of the Tu-160 to the Tu-160 M2 standard, with return to the production of the Tu-160 when all the current units be modernized.
3.- Modernization of the Tu-22 to the Tu-22 M3M standard. If necessary (in the unlikely case of Tu-PAK-DA underperforms) it is possible a return to production when all the available units be modernized.

Russia has advantage over the US at this point on strategic bombers thanks to the Tu-160 and the Tu-22, and will keep it in the future.

The original Kh-55 had a range of about 2,000km, so they upgraded it with external conformal fuel tanks in the Kh-55SM model to increase its range to 3,000km.

Like any jet engine it will operate from sea level up to a dozen or more kms altitude... they operate vastly more efficiently at 8-10km altitude than they do at sea level... and a normal flight profile will involve most of the flight to be at medium altitude with a lower throttle setting.

You can effect max range simply by using a very high throttle setting and flying at very low altitude... not to mention lots of waypoints and direction changes.

The Kh-101/102 are twice the weight of the Kh-55SM, and it is not because their electronics got heavier... all of the extra weight is fuel.

With a 2,000km range missile half the flight would need to be at lower altitudes to prevent long range detection, but with a 5,000km range missile 4/5ths of the flight distance can be at an efficient throttle setting at medium altitude to optimise range.

For testing you could flying in circles and changing altitude and speed to reduce its max range performance.

5,000km missiles makes sense... who wants to fly through Canadian airspace to hit targets in the US?

Of course by the time any bombers get there it will be 4-5 hours after the ICBMs and SLBMs have destroyed everything anyway, so enemy air power should not be a huge problem...

Russia completes work on conceptual design of next-generation strategic bomber

The delivery of PAK DA next-generation bombers are planned for 2025-2030 after their trials are over

KUBINKA /Moscow Region/, August 22. /TASS/. The stage of the conceptual design of the PAK DA (Prospective Airborne Complex of Long-Range Aviation) next-generation strategic bomber is over, Head of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) Yuri Slyusar told Zvezda TV Channel on Wednesday.

"Last year, we completed the stage of the conceptual design work and signed two contracts at the end of the year with the Defense Ministry as the basic customer and with the Industry and Trade Ministry, which provides for creating required basic crucial technologies," the UAC head said.

As Head of the Federation Council Defense Committee Viktor Bondarev said earlier, Russian specialists are completing R&D work on the project of developing the prospective airborne complex of long-range aviation as a multirole plane to replace Tu-22M3, Tu-95MS and subsequently Tu-160 bombers.

The delivery of PAK DA next-generation bombers are planned for 2025-2030 after their trials are over.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/1018255

Dont know where to post so...TsAGI Future aircraft concepts...Hydroaviasalon...


If PAK-DA was This...
Edit: If the Russian speakers can translate what says below the plane

"Product 80": details of the engine PAK DA

The engine of the long-range aviation complex of long-range aviation will be able to operate for about 30 hours, withstand temperatures from minus 60 to plus 50 ° C, and will be resistant to the effects of the damaging factors of the nuclear explosion.

On the site of state purchases, the enterprise that manufactures engines for long-range aviation of PJSC "Kuznetsov" has placed tenders for experimental design work on the engine for the long-range aviation aviation complex (article 80). In the United Engine Building Corporation told the TRC "Zvezda" that the information stated in the document is true.

According to the tender, the electronic engine system (main and back-up) must provide forecasting of the state of the product and its systems, including ensuring the flight duration of 30 hours.

In addition, the units of the fuel supply system and hydromechanical control system should be operable at near-zero and negative overloads up to 2.7 g, and also at temperatures from minus 60 to plus 50 degrees. Skrok service products - 12 years, with the possibility of extending the resource to 21 years.

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201810011041-85e8.htm

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7135p350-russian-stovl-vtol-fighter-development#238829

GarryB wrote:Kinzhal from the MiG-31 has a flight range of up to 2,000km.

The same missile from the Tu-22M3M is expected to have a flight range of about 1,500km.

The total range from the runway the aircraft operates from is not really as important as the range from launch to impact... because that is the distance the launch aircraft will be from the ship defences and that is what counts.

It is not a huge difference in performance, but then Mach 2.4 at probably 12-14 thousand metres altitude vs mach 2 at perhaps 10 thousand metres is not that much of a difference either.

The differences in the range of the Kinzhal missile seems to depend of the speed and altitude of the missile carrier.

Another argument that makes weaker the option of a subsonic Tu-PAK-DA.

Not really.

The Kinzhal is a fast band aide design... someone said lets make a missile that is so fast that US Navy ships can't defend themselves, which means it has to manouver because simple boring ballistic missiles can be intercepted but high speed manouvering targets can't (easily).

So they took the manovuering hypersonic Iskander and mounted it under the fastest plane they had... the MiG-31.

They don't have a lot of MiG-31s (well they have a few but not all are in service and they actually want most of them for interception duties) so they clearly looked for another aircraft to carry more... the Tu-22M3 is a nice big platform able to carry big missiles externally, and with good range... even better with inflight refuelling restored.

What they have pretty much done is adapted a ground launched short range missile to use on aircraft where the altitude and speed at launch has led to a dramatic increase in range and speed of the missile.

It is a solid rocket propelled missile, which is not ideal for long range except when used as a ballistic weapon, and ballistic weapons can be intercepted today despite enormous speeds because their flight paths are predictable.

In 10 years time an air breathing scramjet powered weapon can be developed to greatly increase speed and range, but because it will be jet powered as it gets closer to the target it will get faster because thrust will be the same but the missile will be lighter as it will have burned off several tons of fuel on the way.

The Iskander and Kinzhal on the other hand have solid rocket fuel that at best burns out in less than a minute... probably tens of seconds for the initial rocket burn and then a low rate much longer burn of fuel to counter drag and increase average flight speed to extend range.

With solid rocket fuel the higher you can get the missile initially and the faster it is moving at launch the further it will travel... with a jet fuel powered scramjet missile it will still have an enormous cavity inside it in the scramjet motor area where the fuel burns when it operates as a scramjet so that area can have a solid rocket motor there that accelerates the missile to start with the get altitude and speed, but then the scramjet will take over and it can use a relatively low throttle setting initially to gradually climb and accelerate... to start with it will be full of fuel and heavy, so a lower throttle setting will enable it to cruise towards the target without wasting fuel... as it gets closer it can accelerate to very high speed and then start manouvers to make its approach path unpredictable... and then it can dive on the target in full AB at max speed weaving to avoid defences...

The missile could even have external fuel tanks for a long subsonic flight and folding wings... it could fly 3,000km, and then the wings and fuel tanks fall away and then the main rocket motor lights up and climbs and accelerates the missile and then when the solid rocket motor has burned out it falls away and the scramjet starts up and accelerates the missile to very high speeds and very high altitudes and then goes for the target.

The point is that these new weapons are going to be big but to be stealthy you need to carry them internally, so you need a very big aircraft... which is good because that means when performing a theatre bombing role you have enormous internal space for large numbers of conventional bombs and missiles. For strategic missions it means enormous internal volume for more fuel for strategic missions but also internally carried stealthy subsonic or hypersonic missiles.

Most of the missiles it carries in the strategic role will likely be subsonic and very long ranged... in the theatre role larger higher speed missiles make more sense to defeat the air defences of ships or land SAM sites/HQs and Comms centres or ABM bases etc.

The PAK DA seems to be going to replace the Tu-22M3M and Tu-95SM... if they wanted a high speed bomber I would expect them to be replacing the Tu-160.

Perhaps with new generation variable cycle jet engines with ramjet or scramjet operating modes... a swing wing design would combine the ability to use normal length runways with very low drag for high speed flight.