Tupolev 'Article 80' PAK DA bomber (Poslannik / Envoy)

flateric

flateric

ACCESS: USAP
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
1 April 2006
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
8,390
First published by RIAN on April 24
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rian.ru%2Fdefense_safety%2Fweapons%2F20070421%2F64103333.html&langpair=ru%7Cen&hl=ru&newwindow=1&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second appearance in Pravda.

Russia develops new generation strategic bomber

02.05.2007 Source: URL: http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/90775-russian_bomber-0

A couple of months ago the Commander of the Russian Air Force (RFAF) Vladimir Mikhailov mentioned that the development of the Russian strategic aviation will not be focused just on further upgrade of the Tu-160, today’s world best strategic bomber. It was the first time when an official of such level mentioned principally new aircraft. This week this information was publicly confirmed by the Deputy Commander of the 37th Air Army major-general Anatoly Zhiharev, who also gave some details of the project. According to him the designers received technical specifications from the Air Force necessary to implement. R&D on the new aircraft has been already included in the federal budget. The militaries claim that the new aviation complex will be totally different from the existing planes and surpass the characteristics of the foreign analogies. It will be able to take off from different types of runways, including unpaved and short, to penetrate through any systems of air defense, to fulfill mission on any battlefields (over land and sea), in any weather and climatic conditions. It will carry conventional and high precision weapons (missiles and bombs). Unlike the Commander of the RFAF, who earlier said that the new aircraft will hardly appear in the next ten years, Zhiharev speaks about ten years as a usual time between the begging of the R&D and appearance of the new aircraft.

However, in the foreseeable future Tu-160 will be able to fulfill all missions of the strategic aviation. At least in the next ten years even older Тu-95МС and Тu-22М3 “will have no noticeable disadvantages”. All have a perfect platform for upgrade. Combat opportunities of the upgraded aircraft increased drastically. During last experimental bombing the deviation of the bomb dropped from Tu-22M3 did not exceed one meter. Such accuracy can be regarded as high precision arms. According to the official estimation of the Russian Air Force representative existing planes can stay on duty another 20 years, even 50. First of all it concerns Tu-160.

One of the most important developments that took place with Tu-160 is fitting it for conventional arms. This process started in 2005 with the aim of making the Air Force ready to fight terrorism. Then there were several successful tests of the strategic bombers in the Far East, including one held in the presence of the President of the nation. Once the President himself flew the aircraft as a co-pilot. In 2006 the tests continued in the Atlantic, Northern and Indian Oceans. Each year the Air Force gets one or two upgraded Tu-160. Modernization is viewed also as the R&D for the construction of the next generation aircraft, which will carry cruise missiles with the extended range and principally new equipment. Tu-95 will be decommissioned not sooner than in 10 years. Tu-95 is very economic, has excellent take off weight characteristics and can stay in the air for 25 hours. Its upgrade is also focused on using conventional and high precision arms.

Some of the new high precision arms have been commissioned with the Russian Air Force. One of the most recent developments is guided bomb KAB-500S-E. This is Russian analogy of the American JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition). KAB-500S-E will be used by the new aviation complexes at the altitudes of 500- 10000 meters with the speed of the carrier between 550-1100 km/h. Its accuracy is 5-10m. The “brain” of the all weather bomb is 24-channel GLONASS/Navstar PSN-2001 designed by the Moscow based KB Compass. KAB-500S-E is deemed also for export to India and China. Technically it can be used on the newest aircraft Su-32 and Su-35.

Yuri Seleznyov
Pravda.ru


© 1999-2006. «PRAVDA.Ru».

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Yesterday I stumbled upon a drawing online of a supposed new Russian bomber. It was said to be the PAK-DA but I also saw mention of Tu-212. I can't find the link right off but it looked like the forward fuselage of the Su-34 with the rear section looking like some of the swing-wing T-60S drawings. I've not seen either mentioned here so I was wondering what, if anything, there is to it.
 
somewhere here?
http://paralay.com/t60.html

There are less things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are drawn by Paralay :)
 
Cool! I haven't spent much time at the site lately. Usually only if there's a link to a page. It seems much faster, now, thanks.


paralay said:
http://paralay.com/pakda.html B)
Click to expand...
 
Since some years, has becomed clear the steady intention of Russian Airforce to develop a new generation of long range bombers.

www.defenceaviation.com/2008/07/pakda-russian-stealth-bomber.html

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/02-05-2007/90775-russian_bomber-0


Some choices ,like the development of conventional armed very long range stand off missiles (like KH 555 with a range of 3500 km and a CEP of 5-8m) or the further modernization of super high precision medium range one (like KH -59M/MK 2 range: 205 Km CEP 1-2 m with new IIR/TV seeker),suggest the will of acquiring,in the international scenario,a credible(because conventional and HPW equipped) very quick response capable Air Force ,a plan in wich could inscribe also the project of the new bomber platform.

Some question,instead,rise on the type of technology defining it. In fact selecting TU-160 as the basis platform from which the PAK-DA will be developed,the high speed/high takeoff weight component seem to have a preponderant role in its design at the contrary of the VLO- Very Low Observable-component features( at least taking into account classical shape/RAM RCS reduction solutions).

What you think would be ,likely,the time window of operative inclusion of a similar platform and ,above all the main technical differences with the 2018 USA bomber.
 
The only common things about the 2 is that they aim for low risk. Other than that, it's really impossible to say, as the 2018 bomber(shouldn't it be called b-3 instead, since the bomber will most likely won't come in the 2018 time frame) is facing Obama's knife. Gates want the Air Force to review the program, so the requirements of the 2018 bomber that we have seen until now may change. The same thing might happen to the pak da, as it's still very early into the game, the requirements will likely be refined and changed before any serious money being put down. This is not to mention the possibilities of changing requirements in the mids of the program, as new threats/technology/technical obstacles emerge. So any comparison based on what we have seen and heard will likely be moot.

If the pak da will indeed be based on tu-160, then its maiden flight can be expected to be earlier than the 2018 bomber (provide funding is not a factor on both bombers' case, which is unlikely as both has to compete with PAK FA and JSF), which aims for ultra-stealth that will not only be able to penetrate but persist modern air defense, star war-like electronics, possibly directed energy weapons (suddenly the 2018 number sounds too optimistic).

If the fundamental requirements of both bombers don't change much, than we can see that both bombers have completely opposite doctrines. With limited stealth, high speed, the pak da will rely on stand-off weapons from far away (stealthy, or even hypersonic cruise missiles), deliver them, and quickly disappear before oppositions can scramble a counter attack, much like its legacy predecessors, but much more effective. The b-3, on the other hand, being subsonic, long endurance, ultra-stealth, is envisioned to lurk around the battle fields, waiting for threats to emerge to attack. The difference between the b-3 and its closest predecessor, b-2 is that b-2 cannot persist. It is designed to penetrate, but not to lurk around the battle fields waiting for threat to emerge. It is assigned to a target before it takes off the ground, go there, deliver the bomb load, and then come back. The b-3 is envisioned to break this limitation.
 
donnage99 said:
The difference between the b-3 and its closest predecessor, b-2 is that b-2 cannot persist. It is designed to penetrate, but not to lurk around the battle fields waiting for threat to emerge. It is assigned to a target before it takes off the ground, go there, deliver the bomb load, and then come back. The b-3 is envisioned to break this limitation.
Click to expand...

This is not entirely accurate. The B-2's original mission was the penetrate and persist. A wide area system was to monitor the general location of Strategic Relocatable Targets - TELs - and the B-2 was to penetrate and find them using the SAR as well as updates from another offboard system. For example, LACROSSE would map all of the railways, etc. used for rail based ICBMs, and the B-2 would penetrate and follow the rails or take targetting cues from another system. The SAR would find the targets and the B-2 would hit them.
 
donnage99 said:
The difference between the b-3 and its closest predecessor, b-2 is that b-2 cannot persist. It is designed to penetrate, but not to lurk around the battle fields waiting for threat to emerge. It is assigned to a target before it takes off the ground, go there, deliver the bomb load, and then come back. The b-3 is envisioned to break this limitation.
Click to expand...

I am not sure how you would design a stealth bomber that does significantly better than a B-2 in the matter of endurance. There are only three knobs you can tweak, L/D, specific fuel consumption, and fuel fraction. The B-2's L/D, just like the B-3, is dictated by the LO shaping, and is probably pretty good already. The only way to improve the SFC would be to go to higher bypass ratio. but once again, LO considerations push you towards 'slim' engines. Lastly, to increase fuel fraction you can gain a little by using better materials. After that, you can only give up payload for fuel.
Actually, I lied. there is a fourth knob which is size. You can make the bomber bigger, but i think B-2s are already on the large side.

If the B-3 is to have significantly longer endurance compared to a B-2, then you must assume large gains from things such as laminar flow aerodynamics, lower SFC thanks to the various VAATE/IHPTET programs (new engine with adaptative aerodynamics), and advanced composites. It's probably doable, but it will take a lot of time AND money. I am not sure there is abundance of either at the moment.
 
Donnage your analysis is ,as usual,very precise and bright. From the (very few) data we have,appear clear the different ambition of the two projects: wanting to use only two words to descibe them ,we can define russian one more "evolutionary" and the USA one more "revolutionary".

Naturally in that question is inserted also the impossibility of russian developers (likely for the usual resource's problems) to accept a risk level too high for a program who cannot be accepted to fail because its strategic weight is universally stimed too high.
USA scientists ,conversely, can (and probably already do!) afford to try more different and perilous "paths"...even for years , before be forced to choose the features implementable in the final design.

If the fundamental requirements of both bombers don't change much, than we can see that both bombers have completely opposite doctrines. With limited stealth, high speed, the pak da will rely on stand-off weapons from far away (stealthy, or even hypersonic cruise missiles), deliver them, and quickly disappear before oppositions can scramble a counter attack, much like its legacy predecessors, but much more effective. The b-3, on the other hand, being subsonic, long endurance, ultra-stealth, is envisioned to lurk around the battle fields, waiting for threats to emerge to attack.
Click to expand...

I share your examination almost in its completeness but with some notes:
1) Very Low Observability is a feature also more "decisive" (much more than speed) in assessing opponent's Air Force capacity to "scramble" intercepting aircraft, then USA 2018's (or after..) bomber ,if successful, would give to enemy also less time (if any) to react to its space intrusion.
The majority of 2018 bomber "stealth" technology improvements,will likely be aimed at a reducted visibility in the low radar wave bands (already less decisive for bomber-size aircraft) and ,also more, in IR emissions detectability (at now the greater danger in operative scenario against new generation SAM). Overcoming this obstacles would give to USAF probably the most "persistent" attack platform, in a high contested air space, of its wole history!

2)High speed and great take off weight are ,instead,very important features in establishing the mission frequency rate and media unity number for mission accomplishment.
This ,togheter with a likely lower cost, should encode for a platform designed for a counter-offensive (maked wile enemy Air Force is on offensive,because much of its air superiority fighter are committed in the OCA-Offensive Counter Air-role) saturating stand-off missile attack, likely aimed at the attacking opponent's airfields and C3 (the original purpose of the TU-160).
Of course the possibility to repeat a similar counter-attack within 3 o 4 hours from the reentry from the first in a 600 nm range (range,in media,of unrefueled medium intercept mission),become also more decisive.
 
first of all, T-60 has no any connection to PAK DA
 
Here's something on the topic on a different blog. Too bad I don's speak Italian.
http://www.aereimilitari.org/forum/index.php?s=5e5002fe3f59ee1ce93f2f3f09365c66&showtopic=8306&st=15&p=155639&#entry155639
 
Pesholito,pratically all of this images are hypothesis founded on the central concept of variable-sweep wing aircraft, probably for the only true certainty on the PAK-DA project: its heritage from TU-160 design.

The less "credible" among all, is that showing a sort of VLO variable geometry design,definitely too "high risk" theoretically and engeenering-wise for a russian next decade project.
The high speed hypothesis,also without canards ,but ,instead, almost surely with some measure of RCS reduction(other than coating), is,instead, by far the more probable.
 
voidmage said:
What you think would be ,likely,the time window of operative inclusion of a similar platform and ,above all the main technical differences with the 2018 USA bomber.
Click to expand...

I don't know what will be different about them but I have a feeling that they'll both have one thing in common:


39526362_901-free-paper-airplane-instructions.jpg
 
i reckon it'll keep some tu-160 feature in it. probably a tu-160 with the nose section of an su-34
 
voidmage said:
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/02-05-2007/90775-russian_bomber-0
Click to expand...

This rather makes me think that, just maybe, you shouldn't rely on Pravda for your science updates: http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/92157-0/ ::)

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark
 
"This rather makes me think that, just maybe, you shouldn't rely on Pravda for your science updates:"
http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/92157-0/
Click to expand...

Lauge,of course it is not mine reference site for ......scientific subjects :D
It simply reported a very well-known and confirmed news....in short,the painting is original, but (i must admit that)
its frame is at least ..."eccentric" ;D

May be this one is more in line..

http://paralay.com/pakda.html

Best regards
 
I modified the topic name. "T-60" is absolutely wrong. "T" is internal Sukhoi designation for the aircrafts with the triangular and nearly triangular wing. If it is next to "PAK DA", it suggests, that the manufacturer of the new Russian bomber will be Sukhoi. It is of course wrong or at least there is not ANY evidence to support this. Also the designation "T-60" was used in the past for the different project:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,419.0.html
 
voidmage said:
Since some years, has becomed clear the steady intention of Russian Airforce to develop a new generation of long range bombers.

www.defenceaviation.com/2008/07/pakda-russian-stealth-bomber.html

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/02-05-2007/90775-russian_bomber-0




What you think would be ,likely,the time window of operative inclusion of a similar platform and ,above all the main technical differences with the 2018 USA bomber.
Click to expand...


Guys here's a little something from a very good Russian website:
http://paralay.com/pakda.html
http://paralay.com/t60/500.jpg
http://paralay.com/t60/501.jpg
http://paralay.com/t60/pakda1.gif
I believe paralay is also a member of secret projects.
 
Russia gets into the act from Space Daily

Russia's Kazan Aircraft Plant To Build Next Gen Bomber

by Staff Writers
Nizhny Novgorod, Russia (RIA Novosti) Sep 17, 2010

The Kazan aircraft maker will start manufacturing a new strategic bomber, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday. The plant will continue upgrading Tu-160 and Tu-22 long-range bombers and will then "start assembling a new-generation strategic bomber," he said.
He offered no indication of the new bomber's specifications or exactly when production would start.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any speculation from the informed members of this distinguished forum?
 
The new Russian Bomber is atleast a decades aways but it would be interesting if Russia goes for a compromised stealth but Supersonic Bomber or a Subsonic but very stealthy approach as the US prefers it.

I think they are also manufacturing Tu-160 now at the rate of 2 aircraft in 3 years or so that should be a good addition
 
The key word here is "manufacture", right? It doesn't say anywhere that Kazan was actually the proponent of the design, just that they will build it.
 
The development contract was already assigned to Tupolev no?

And regarding the compromised supersonic stealth versus subsonic very stealthy aircraft, I am sure that it will be the first option. When you think about the connections around, type of the land the air force must protect, military doctrine or the airplanes, that the new bomber is going to replace or supplement, it all tells you about the supersonic long range proposal. My personal opinion is, that the new bomber will be less or more the stealthified and improved derivate of the Tu-160.
 
Matej some time back some RuAF chief did mentioned that they would like to base their new bomber on the Tu-160 and aircraft of such type cannot be made invisible.

Did they started production for Tu-160 ? And any idea what upgrade package are they proposing from Tu-22M3 and Tu-160.

I really like the Tu-22M3 its the real bread and butter bomber
 
quellish said:
...and the B-2 was to penetrate and find them using the SAR as well as updates from another offboard system. For example, LACROSSE would map all of the railways, etc. used for rail based ICBMs, and the B-2 would penetrate and follow the rails or take targetting cues from another system.
Click to expand...

Shucks quellish, it's almost like you're being deliberately coy here....
 
Two points:

1. There already is almost complete replacement of the Tu-22M - the Su-34.
2. If Russia cant afford the development of the light and heavy (PAK FA) fighters, its for sure it cant afford two new bombers.
 
What's the current status of START, as it relates to beginning new work on Strategic Bombers? Does Russia have to declare only to inspectors, who are covered by TS or whatever, or is it supposed to be fairly transparent to the world at large?
 
Gridlock said:
What's the current status of START, as it relates to beginning new work on Strategic Bombers? Does Russia have to declare only to inspectors, who are covered by TS or whatever, or is it supposed to be fairly transparent to the world at large?
Click to expand...

New START counts bombers as one warhead in the abstract, however, it has to be declared as a nuclear capable system to be counted. Russia can build 500 (no not likely) conventional bombers with no effect on START.

It is doubtful, IMHO, Russia will maintain very many nuclear bombers in light of the warhead limits in START.
 
Matej said:
Two points:

1. There already is almost complete replacement of the Tu-22M - the Su-34.
Click to expand...

Not True , the capabilities widely differ between Tu-22M3 and Su-34 to be even remotely considered as a replacement for the former , the Su-34 is a replacement for Su-24

2. If Russia cant afford the development of the light and heavy (PAK FA) fighters, its for sure it cant afford two new bombers.
Click to expand...

Yes thats true , may be they will just go for one standard bomber that offers a capability between Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 and will replace in good numbers all the types.

I think the Tu-160 will stay for a long time to come with modernisation as they are quite newly built , while Tu-95 will get replacement on priority basis.
 
Story and video from the Dewline blog:

VIDEO: Picturing PAK-DA -- Russia's next strategic bomber
By
Stephen Trimble
on December 7, 2010 7:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)
Moving quickly behind the PAK-FA fifth-generation fighter program is Russia's replacement for the Tu-160, Tu-95 and Tu-22 fleet. Literally translated as "promising long-range aviation aircraft complex", PAK-DA is a long-term development project, according to Sukhoi's latest annual report (see page 37), although Russian media outlets have reported the schedule calls for first flight within seven years.

It's much too early to speculate on the PAK-DA's appearance, but that hasn't stopped many on the Internet from guessing. The PowerRussiya channel on YouTube earlier this week posted video showing showing a collection of renderings. Each artist's impression appears largely based on current models, including Sukhoi Su-34. Until more authoritative images emerge from the PAK-DA program, here's something to start the discussion on what might be. (The footage includes a brief clip showing a real wind tunnel test, but the aircraft model is almost certainly the Buran space shuttle and not PAK-DA).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuyK8QY1ZaI&feature=player_embedded
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watch at about 2:10 the Russian bomber releases a missile that appear to take out an entire carrier battle group. The Chinese and Russians sure love blowing up American carriers which they obviously see as a quintessential symbol of American military power.
 
Can't believe that Stephen buys that crap from 'PowerRossiya' (strange propagandistic YouTube channell we should think of as one by Russian cute living in London but studying in Moscow Aviation Institute and working in Ilyushin marketing department (!)) for serious. This is collection of Paralay's hypoteses and Josef Gatial paintings, stealed from their sites, idiotic animation from Strike Force TV show, mixing GLL Igla shape with 'plasma stealth' and video of wind tunnel model of 1968 winged orbiter that was a graduate project by Air Force Academy cadets (including Yuri Gagarin).
 
The missile is clearly a special gravity weapon - look at how it pauses above the carrier force for a second before falling and doesn't accelerate at the normal 9.8ms^2... so much to fear in this new arms race!
 
this is PAD-DA for 2017 ?

ROLF

that aircraft in video is the Sukhoi T-4MS «200» proposal from 1971 !
see for self here
http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/sukhoi/t/4/ms/t4ms_e.htm
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8794.0/highlight,t-4ms.html
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6033.0/highlight,t-4ms.html
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1665.0/highlight,t-4ms.html
by the way, last link show picture you see in YT Video
 
As was said before, there really isn't any official drawing, animation or artists impression of the PAK DA and when you are writing the article of any kind, you should use some. This is why almost all the authors use the T-4MS material: its cool looking, futuristic and represents some kind of the advanced bomber. Its like with the PAK FA a few years ago. I decided to limit myself only to the pure text, what is correct, but it still lacks some kind of visual effect and is loosing a few points on the attractivity.
 
The Russian Air Force may receive its first PAK DA next generation long-range bomber about 2020 instead of 2025 as initially planned, Russia’s acting deputy Air Force commander, Major General Alexander Chernyayev, has said.
Click to expand...
So the ChiComs have 2 stealth fighters in development. Russia has the Pak Fa in development. And my country had to scrap the worlds finest finest fighter at 187 copes (probably down to 183 copies not with current incidents), and the rest of the world is in full scale modernization mode. The last bomber we built was limited to 21 copies, which were built during the 3rd largest period of economic boom-times that our nation experienced. Now, matters are worse. I really hope the -35 is good enough, as well as the new variant of missiles in their various stages development.
I know we have some whiz-bang ucavs in the works, but pound-for-pound, a heavy long range VLO bomber armed with VLO stand off weapons would be a better route. Heavy bombers can hit any target on the planet, from any airbase on the planet, and UCAVs have ranges on par with the standoff weapons that heavy bombers carry.
What do you current crop of young guys have to say on the state of affairs in this newest arms race?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom