PAK-TA Supersonic Transport aircraft

TR1 wrote:

flamming_python wrote:Sounds like a priority project for Russia

The retirement of the An-22 Cock class is imminent. Russia has nothing to replace it in the 70-90 ton payload class. It can make do for now with its An-124 fleet but ultimately a replacement must be found.
The main alternative is a revival of the Il-106 project; however this is a 90s project that has been forgotten and would have to be redrawn, and subsequently developed essentially from scratch. Is it worthwhile?

The retirement of the An-124 fleet I'm guessing will come sometime in the 2020s. Perhaps they can keep on trucking a 'lil longer, till the early 2030s, but again, it's clear that the 80s built An-124 fleet won't last for too much longer and a replacement must be found for the +100 ton class
The plan was to start up production of An-124s with the Ukraine, but with the Ukraine crisis this is now in jeapordy. Theoretically, it could still be possible to secure enough of the freefalling Antonov enterprise, to be able to go at it alone; however this depends on many variables, and the Ukrainian regime could still create problems with Russia by means of patents, legal rights and so on.
The An-124 is an effective, but old design that can possibly be replaced with something more efficient.

The An-225 was a one-off for the Soviet space program, and officially speaking there haven't been any military requirements for a transport plane with a capacity of this size.
However, the heavy use and contracting of this plane by militaries world-wide show that there is definately a niche for such aircraft. Moreover, armour and vehicle weight has been steadily increasing for the last several decades. With the introduction of the Armata, Kurganets and Bumerang families, each on average heavier than the MBT, BMP and BTR models respectively that preceeded them, it is worth re-examining a possible role for super-heavy transport aircraft in the Russian Air Force.

A unified transport aircraft family, that will be able to replace the An-22, An-124 and An-225 all at once, is very much a desirable option, and though the cost of development may be large, ultimately it would prove cheaper than having to develop a seperate Il-106 project, restart An-124 production and then figure out a seperate solution later on for the super-heavy class, if it proves neccessary.

At the moment I think all talk of supersonic, or hypersonic transport aircraft is fantasy, but it should certainly not be ruled out for the future, when propulsion technologies have reached a higher level of maturity.
For now, the development of a subsonic transport aircraft family with the possibility for redesign for greater speeds in the coming decades, would seem a most prudent course.

A whole new project would also open the door for multination cooperation on its development; at least on the level of funding and research.
In no particular order, I can easily imagine the interest of China, India, Brazil, Argentina & Indonesia in such a project.

Admit it, you just wrote that post for a chance to say An-22 Cock.

Yes. Yes I did.

Last nuclear powered aircraft was Myasischev and Tupovlev in the 60's that powered a Tu-95 with a nuclear engine.

Supersonic flight is still up in the air,..... for now.

It wont be very practical until scramjet engine technology has matured and even then the conflict of very low drag but high internal volume for cargo or strategic weapons for the transport or bomber version will make the design either very very expensive... which is hardly justified, or not very practical... ie a hypersonic bomber able to carry one 500kg bomb at hypersonic speed for 2,000km, or a cargo plane able to carry one jeep at hypersonic speed for 1,000km... and both aircraft being very very expensive.

But until prototypes of the plane are built and begin flying, there is no telling how well the plane will actually perform or if it is even practical.

Yeah... what would Russia know about aircraft design?

I would say a hypersonic transport plane would not be practical, but at least they haven't claimed it will be stealthy and able to supercruise...

What do they expect for 5th gen FFS, anyway now that the Rafale is out they'll have plenty of cash.

They were going to spend 174 million dollars per Rafale... 22 billion on a 10 billion contract... they could have had 10 aircraft carriers with complete MiG-29K air wings for that but the critics who lambasted the carrier deal seem to be suddenly quiet...

4) its stealth features badly engineered.
In what way the stealth is badly engineered is not mentioned anywhere in the article, sound like BS ironically from BS.

I have seen pictures of the first YF-22 and it didn't look so stealthy either... I think the time to criticise is when we see the serial aircraft design...

5)India's share to low.
In what way??

Increasing share is easy... pay more money...

The article brings up some interesting question, how many runways in Russia are capable of handling this bird, the fuel load thing is obvious BS considering it only has one Turbine engine.

They mention three related designs... I suspect the single engine model is the 80 ton payload version with the 150 odd ton model perhaps with 3 or 4 engines and the 250 ton payload model 5-6 engines perhaps with an engine driven blown flaps system aiding lift at takeoff and landing... perhaps reducing the engine requirement... I would normally expect the 80 ton aircraft to be at least a twin engined aircraft and the middle with 4 and the biggest with 6 which would work with the AN-124 design where a reduced scale model with two engines in the 80 ton class could be imagined.

If the assisted fan system can reduce the number of engines required making it a single 80, twin 150, and a four engined 250 ton aircraft would make them cheaper to build and operate assuming rather huge powerful engines, but then the engine for the PAK-DA is based on the 25 ton thrust turbojet, so assuming a lot of bypass air you could increase thrust 4-5 fold with a lower velocity so lots of thrust but no supersonic speed option as it becomes a turbofan.

Would be interesting seeing a transport put on afterburners to take off, but most of the flight it doesn't use full thrust anyway so they would be rather more fuel efficient for most of the flight except takeoff....

Ilyushin, that's great, Tupolev got the PAK-DA if Ilyushin gets the PAK-TA it would be great.

Would be interesting if they cooperated on basic design and propulsion...

Hmmm... sources vary, but seems legit around 135 tons for vanilla C-5 close enough and 142 tons for C-5M.

Bollocks... Vanilla C-5s manage 105 tons when they are operational.... it is not an accident that the An-124s are busy doing NATO business around the world...

Admit it, you just wrote that post for a chance to say An-22 Cock.

Come on TR-1 that sounds like cock envy....

The vid talks about electric fans and gas turbines. It seems there's a battery on board too.

Nahh... batteries are too heavy... it is most likely the electric fans would be driven from an alternater taking power directly from the jet engine/s.

We've seen supersonic and biggish size before - Tu 160.

Except the Tu-160 is only supersonic with its wings swept right back... I rather doubt this transport will have heavy variable sweep wings... which means a moderate sweep as shown in the vid to get airborne with a decent load which would be too high a drag to allow supersonic flight.

I know Russia spoke with Boeing about a supersonic 747 sized jet in the early 1990s. But adding stealth and perhaps range is a whole new issue.

With the Tu-160 and Tu-144M the Russians have rather more operational experience with large fast aircraft than anyone else... yes... even concorde.

I'm a little puzzled at the idea the Pak Da is sub sonic now, but the cargo plane... we believe is actually supersonic. Normally, the 2 are the opposite way round.

If they are both basically flying wings they will both be subsonic... which will make them cheaper and simpler.

Finally, I wonder how much drag the shape would have. And how much stealth. Unlike the B2, it has a tail. And its body, whilst blended is a fair bit wider, and slightly taller.

Have another look at the B-2 is it very fat from side on, but the tail will greatly reduce stealth it will improve control... especially with the largest model carrying 250 ton payloads that will likely include external loads like the huge fuel tanks for super rockets/space planes...

Perhaps it could mean higher quality equipment, but being flexible and able to shuttle it from the Kurils, to the Arctic and even off to Africa at lightening speed.

I rather suspect armata will be used in defensive conflicts rather than invasions so the bid to make them air mobile is based on getting the capability to move an armata brigade from one side of Russia to the other in a few hours instead of days or weeks by train.

I also think the problem of replacing ukrainian antonov based transports is key and if they can kill several birds with one stone and create commonality between the different types and jobs all the better. Right now there is only one An-225 which was designed and built for the purpose of moving oversized payloads for the Soviet space industry... Ukraine now owns the An-225 and has no space industry to speak of, so the issue of replacing the An-225, An-124, An-22, An-70, An-12, An-140, and An-72 and An-26, An-24, and An-32 having a unified design replace the top three simplifies things immensely...

This new 250 ton aircraft would replace the An-225, the 150 ton model replaces the An-124, the 80 ton model replaces the An-22 and the incomplete Il-106, the Il-476 replaces the An-70, the MTA with India replaces the An-12, the Il-112 and the Il-112V and perhaps another model with more engine power replaces the An-24/26/32/72/140.

Yes. Yes I did.

You sound very cock sure...

Several have noticed what is a large plane apparently powered by just one engine. And therefore suspect that it would be a subsonic jet.

A flying wing is very low drag but needs a tail to be supersonic because of the cg shift at transonic speeds. I think this design is subsonic based on the wing sweep angle.

Firebird wrote:Clearly, Russian military doctrine is now focussing on ultra rapid reaction. As seen by the waves of snap exercises.

Russia does have a shortage of airlift equipment  AND the slower naval transport.
With  these transport improvements, I wonder how this willaffect Russia's land forces. Will it mean larger forces focussed on global issues. (Its been unable to guarantee some state's security in the past, due to logistics issues).

Perhaps it could mean higher quality equipment, but being flexible and able to shuttle it from the Kurils, to the Arctic and even off to Africa at lightening speed.

ultra rapid reaction is the way to go x2- as crimea and georgia can attest to. prospect of elite airborne polite people with reaally heavy armor landing in the middle of your backyard airbase/airport is gonna be really big motivator to step back and rethink things a little more- esp. if you dont have nukes.

Firebird wrote:
It could mean the return of genuine allies in Africa and all round the World. Perhaps it will be all part of the new Customs Union. After all, a trade system only works with guarantees on trade stability.

you're making it sound like protection racket- no i think russia should not be obliged to protect its partners for sake of trade- rather give them reasonable deals for self-defence arms.

The aircraft design shown here is an extremely efficient design that is mainly enabled by two technologies that the Russians are for the first time publicizing.

Before I start this brief analysis, I should mention that the aircraft shown here is not supersonic; however, PAK TA may very well be supersonic, but it would then be a different aircraft.

Analysis in outline form will now follow:

1- Enabling technology number 1: high-power-to-weight ratio electrical power generation technology. Traditionally, electrical power generation has been a very low-power-to-weight ratio process, especially when you compare it with a high-power-to-weight ratio system like a gas turbine. However, Russians have had high-power-to-weight ratio electrical power generation technologies involving, for example, gas-turbine-integrated magnetohydrodynamic generators, superconductivity, and ...

2- Enabling technology number 2: high-energy-density electrical energy storage technology. Traditionally, electrical energy storage has been of a low energy per unit mass and of a low energy per unit volume, especially by aviation standards.

3- Given the enabling technologies "1" and "2", an extremely efficient aircraft design, like the aircraft shown, can be developed, using only one gas turbine engine.

4- This is how it works:

(a) During cruise, a highly efficient subsonic aircraft only needs one-fifth of its takeoff thrust; therefore, during cruise, a large part of its installed thrust gets wasted; aditionally, the engine cruise SFC (specific fuel consumption) is double the takeoff SFC.

(b) The single gas turbine charges the batteries before the take off.

(c) During the takeoff, the large takeoff thrust is generated cooperatively by the batteries and the gas turbine.

(d) The batteries only store energy for takeoff and high-thrust maneuvers. They are sized for this purpose.

(e) During cruise, the gas turbine doesn't throttle down massively, to an inefficient, high-SFC regime; it only throttles down to its optimal-SFC thrust, which in this design, of course, happens to be the cruise thrust rating. This means that the advantage, just due to the optimal engine SFC, is an SFC that is only half the cruise SFC of an engine of comparable technology.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:The aircraft design shown here is an extremely efficient design that is mainly enabled by two technologies that the Russians are for the first time publicizing.

Before I start this brief analysis, I should mention that the aircraft shown here is not supersonic; however, PAK TA may very well be supersonic, but it would then be a different aircraft.

Analysis in outline form will now follow:

1- Enabling technology number 1: high-power-to-weight ratio electrical power generation technology. Traditionally, electrical power generation has been a very low-power-to-weight ratio process, especially when you compare it with a high-power-to-weight ratio system like a gas turbine. However, Russians have had high-power-to-weight ratio electrical power generation technologies involving, for example, gas-turbine-integrated magnetohydrodynamic generators, superconductivity, and ...

2- Enabling technology number 2: high-energy-density electrical energy storage technology. Traditionally, electrical energy storage has been of a low energy per unit mass and of a low energy per unit volume, especially by aviation standards.

3- Given the enabling technologies "1" and "2", an extremely efficient aircraft design, like the aircraft shown, can be developed, using only one gas turbine engine.

4- This is how it works:

(a) During cruise, a highly efficient subsonic aircraft only needs one-fifth of its takeoff thrust; therefore, during cruise, a large part of its installed thrust gets wasted; aditionally, the engine cruise SFC (specific fuel consumption) is double the takeoff SFC.

(b) The single gas turbine charges the batteries before the take off.

(c) During the takeoff, the large takeoff thrust is generated cooperatively by the batteries and the gas turbine.

(d) The batteries only store energy for takeoff and high-thrust maneuvers. They are sized for this purpose.

(e) During cruise, the gas turbine doesn't throttle down massively, to an inefficient, high-SFC regime; it only throttles down to its optimal-SFC thrust, which in this design, of course, happens to be the cruise thrust rating. This means that the advantage, just due to the optimal engine SFC, is an SFC that is only half the cruise SFC of an engine of comparable technology.

I should add another aspect to the analysis:

In terms of engine-out capability, the aircraft shown is not like a single engine aircraft. The reason is as follows:

1- If during takeoff a gas turbine failure occurs, the batteries driving the two electrically driven fans provide reasonable engine-out capability.

2- After climb-out, before throttling down to the engine's optimal SFC regime, the aircraft uses the marginal excess thrust of the gas turbine to again fully charge the batteries.

3- If during cruise a gas turbine failure occurs, the two electrically driven fans will switch to the batteries, providing reasonable engine-out capability.

That advanced transport aircraft model was made by Alexey Komarov, a graduate of Moscow’s Stroganov University of the Arts and Industry, received a special prize for his concept of a transport aircraft of the future.

Well i say it has no relationship with real PAK-TA.

Another aspect of the design of the aircraft shown is it's stealth capabilities.

Low acoustic signature is useful for a transport aircraft that is performing paradrops. This aircraft can shutdown or idle its gas turbine engine and rely only on the batteries in the airdrop zone, reducing its acoustic signature substantially.

PAK-DA ....maybe, at least some elements possibly.

The video is probably some sort of concept for a future high tech transport.

PAK-TA will IMO be a more conventional design.

Cyberspec wrote:PAK-DA ....maybe, at least some elements possibly.

The video is probably some sort of concept for a future high tech transport.

PAK-TA will IMO be a more conventional design.

Pity, it would have been a very interesting aircraft that would above all put the Americans to shame.

AlfaT8 wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:PAK-DA ....maybe, at least some elements possibly.

The video is probably some sort of concept for a future high tech transport.

PAK-TA will IMO be a more conventional design.

Pity, it would have been a very interesting aircraft that would above all put the Americans to shame.

It is no shame, Russia gets a new transport aircraft that is good for them. Why would they spend so much time and money just to have some of the coolest transport?

If it airdrops, it airdrops, if it delivers, it delivers. And what really matters is that it can be bought in large numbers. We might be seeing the world's first air lift able blitzkrieg force.

Cyberspec wrote:PAK-DA ....maybe, at least some elements possibly.

The video is probably some sort of concept for a future high tech transport.

PAK-TA will IMO be a more conventional design.

Yes, the video was dated from 2014 design contest for "future cargo aircraft"

http://www.transportjournal.com/en/home/heavylift-breakbulk/artikeldetail/giant-cargo-planes-of-the-future.html

BTW, is it mere coincidence that the ambitious required attributes for the PAK-TA were announced only right after Russia unilaterally pulled out of the CFE treaty? Also could there possibly be secret financing from the Chinese side under the guise of the announced wide-body aircraft cooperation?

AlfaT8 wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:PAK-DA ....maybe, at least some elements possibly.

The video is probably some sort of concept for a future high tech transport.

PAK-TA will IMO be a more conventional design.

Pity, it would have been a very interesting aircraft that would above all put the Americans to shame.

An-225 already puts every other transporter to shame.

http://otvaga2004.ru/armiya-i-vpk/armiya-i-vpk-concept/perspektivnyj-transp-samolet/

Werewolf wrote:
An-225 already puts every other transporter to shame.

Well, Antonov is Ukraine now.

Stealthflanker wrote:Well, Antonov is Ukraine now.

Rotting in Ukraine now is better , unfortunate description of situation with Antonov KB...

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:PAK-DA ....maybe, at least some elements possibly.

The video is probably some sort of concept for a future high tech transport.

PAK-TA will IMO be a more conventional design.

Pity, it would have been a very interesting aircraft that would above all put the Americans to shame.

It is no shame, Russia gets a new transport aircraft that is good for them. Why would they spend so much time and money just to have some of the coolest transport?

If it airdrops, it airdrops, if it delivers, it delivers. And what really matters is that it can be bought in large numbers. We might be seeing the world's first air lift able blitzkrieg force.

Well this is vague, who do you mean by "they"

If Russia: Well considering the current situation with Russia's lack of future super-heavy weight transport aircraft that FP made clear on page one Post n°8, it would be in Russia's best interest to invest in such a project.

If U.S: Cause America must always be number one (#1)

And who says this thing can't be produced in large number, remember this is Russia not the U.S.

Werewolf wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:PAK-DA ....maybe, at least some elements possibly.

The video is probably some sort of concept for a future high tech transport.

PAK-TA will IMO be a more conventional design.

Pity, it would have been a very interesting aircraft that would above all put the Americans to shame.

An-225 already puts every other transporter to shame.

You know better than that WW, the Americans will say:

1) Ooh, that was a special case, cause only one was made.

2) That was made during Soviet times, Russia doesn't has the ability to make those anymore.

3) That was made by Antonov a Ukrainian company, without Ukraine Russia can't make aircraft like those anymore.

Russia needs something that can wipe Americas smugness of the face of the earth.

Yeah, there is always the boring option...

The primary focus is to build a new family of Russian planes so that the Ukrainian planes can be retired or sold off, and we know how conservative the military can be.

Although the advanced concept might be from a graphical artist it is cosponsored by the Volga Dneipr transport company so it is not just very advanced fan art.

The main difference I suspect would be a twin engined model for the 80 ton aircraft to replace the An-22, a 4 engine model for the 150 ton payload model to replace the An-124, and a six engined model in the 250 ton payload range to replace the An-225.

With the Il-476 in the 60 ton payload range, the MTA in the 20 ton payload range, the Il-112 in the 6 ton payload range and the Ryashok replacing the An-2 at the bottom end that means Antonov would be out of the Russian arms market altogether...

She's a looker for sure. I mean come on... Why did they have to design that looks so good? Just gets our hopes up. 

I agree with Garry. They will stick with the boring albeit more practical solution for now, with a PAK-FA family possibly coming sometime thereafter.

Well this meme seems overblown, applying pseudo-official acronyms to a program with no known funding or timeline,
re-using academic sci-fi graphics presented as being of a real program. The depicted aircraft has quite a few issues squaring
with it's claimed attributes, namely wing sweep and the fans themselves, which would grossly impede any supersonic flight...
So as a whole it seems a bit of Russia Strong farce, bandying global-strategic repercussions from hodgepodge of technical BS.

Were the fans able to be removed from the air-flow, e.g. by covering them up in an aerodynamic manner, then one could "talk",
but the concept doesn't seem to even superficially address that issue when it would be central to such a combo of supersonic+large net area fan(s).
Disregarding the supersonic issue, electric linked fans are being globally considered as means for "ultra high bypass" in civil widebodies etc,
using multiple electric linked fans of moderate diameter to avoid the issue of ever-increasing fan diameter...
The 'energy storage' of course being electric energy storage to maximally leverage the fans during take-off/ high thrust scenarios.
That sort of power concept seems more than plausible for the mooted RU-CN widebody project, with a potential 2nd stage/re-engine
timeline for the power system possibly offering enough efficiency boost to take a short-medium scoped widebody to long-range widebody...?

mutantsushi wrote:Well this meme seems overblown, applying pseudo-official acronyms to a program with no known funding or timeline,
re-using academic sci-fi graphics presented as being of a real program.  The depicted aircraft has quite a few issues squaring
with it's claimed attributes, namely wing sweep and the fans themselves, which would grossly impede any supersonic flight...
So as a whole it seems a bit of Russia Strong farce, bandying global-strategic repercussions from hodgepodge of technical BS.

Were the fans able to be removed from the air-flow, e.g. by covering them up in an aerodynamic manner, then one could "talk",
but the concept doesn't seem to even superficially address that issue when it would be central to such a combo of supersonic+large net area fan(s).
Disregarding the supersonic issue, electric linked fans are being globally considered as means for "ultra high bypass" in civil widebodies etc,
using multiple electric linked fans of moderate diameter to avoid the issue of ever-increasing fan diameter...
The 'energy storage' of course being electric energy storage to maximally leverage the fans during take-off/ high thrust scenarios.
That sort of power concept seems more than plausible for the mooted RU-CN widebody project, with a potential 2nd stage/re-engine
timeline for the power system possibly offering enough efficiency boost to take a short-medium scoped widebody to long-range widebody...?

Hence why it is just an unofficial concept. The guy behind it added what he thought may be innovative, and those innovations obviously had to come with drawbacks.

AlfaT8 wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:PAK-DA ....maybe, at least some elements possibly.

The video is probably some sort of concept for a future high tech transport.

PAK-TA will IMO be a more conventional design.

Pity, it would have been a very interesting aircraft that would above all put the Americans to shame.

It is no shame, Russia gets a new transport aircraft that is good for them. Why would they spend so much time and money just to have some of the coolest transport?

If it airdrops, it airdrops, if it delivers, it delivers. And what really matters is that it can be bought in large numbers. We might be seeing the world's first air lift able blitzkrieg force.

Well this is vague, who do you mean by "they"

If Russia: Well considering the current situation with Russia's lack of future super-heavy weight transport aircraft that FP made clear on page one Post n°8, it would be in Russia's best interest to invest in such a project.

If U.S: Cause America must always be number one (#1)

And who says this thing can't be produced in large number, remember this is Russia not the U.S.



An-225 already puts every other transporter to shame.

You know better than that WW, the Americans will say:

1) Ooh, that was a special case, cause only one was made.

2) That was made during Soviet times, Russia doesn't has the ability to make those anymore.

3) That was made by Antonov a Ukrainian company, without Ukraine Russia can't make aircraft like those anymore.

Russia needs something that can wipe Americas smugness of the face of the earth.[/quote]



hahaha true words .