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

[FighterJock]

We don't really know anything about what the PAK-DA will look like because it is highly classified at present. We should all just ignore the Fan Art for now and wait for the real design to be revealed.

 

[Flyaway]

What's the betting that it and B-21 don't look that dissimilar to each other, after all there are only so many ways of delivering a subsonic stealthy bomber at the moment.

 

[Airplane]

What's the betting that it and B-21 don't look that dissimilar to each other, after all there are only so many ways of delivering a subsonic stealthy bomber at the moment.

There is no point in the Russians shaping it like the B-2/21 if they can't hold the engineering tolerances of the skins and panel lines. If you look at the Pak Fa, it doesn't look they can hold those extremely tight tolerances which is why they may not have gone for total LO shaping but rather went with a reduced signature shape.

 

[Austin]

Came Across this PAK-DA design from UAC 2015 Annual Report

Full Report here http://uacrussia.ru/uac_ar_2015_en

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Nope, thats the Sukhoi T-4MS as a placeholder.

 

[Austin]

Nope, thats the Sukhoi T-4MS as a placeholder.

Not really , it may resemble that but its just a top view of the Planform of the design , One can argue it also looks like F-117.

Beyond the planform it does not show any details

 

[Dragon029]

Nope, thats the Sukhoi T-4MS as a placeholder.

Not really , it may resemble that but its just a top view of the Planform of the design , One can argue it also looks like F-117.

Beyond the planform it does not show any details

It shows a large lifting body aircraft with swing wings and 4 jet engines; it matches the T-4MS quite accurately.

 

[Austin]

I wonder how you can make out it has swing wing from a top view of a plaform ?

One can easily claim this can easily be an F-117 because the planform looks similar.

If they have done enough work on T-4MS and if they feel the design is worth the money for PAK-DA they might just use it and improvise upon it.

 

[sferrin]

I wonder how you can make out it has swing wing from a top view of a plaform ?

One can easily claim this can easily be an F-117 because the planform looks similar.

If they have done enough work on T-4MS and if they feel the design is worth the money for PAK-DA they might just use it and improvise upon it.

There isn't really any doubt at all. There are line drawings of the T-4MS online all over the place.

 

[Dragon029]

I wonder how you can make out it has swing wing from a top view of a plaform ?

One can easily claim this can easily be an F-117 because the planform looks similar.

The wings have straight forward/aft seams, inconsistent panel lines along the fuselage / wing leading edge, as well as flaps / ailerons that don't make sense on a trailing surface swept ~60 degrees back.

It's considerably different to the F-117 as well; the fuselage has a straight / perpendicular trailing edge, it has four engines, it has a cockpit which is far smaller (relative to the size of the jet) than the F-117's and it also has a small nose that juts out slightly ahead of the fuselage leading edge. The F-117 also has a pronounced tail.

If they have done enough work on T-4MS and if they feel the design is worth the money for PAK-DA they might just use it and improvise upon it.

As Overscan said, it's just a placeholder image; nobody here is suggesting that it's the design for the PAK-FA.

 

[Austin]

Full Report here http://uacrussia.ru/uac_ar_2015_en


There's another image of PAK-DA on page 15 of report

 

[Austin]

I am thinking what is wrong in using improved T-4MS planform/design as basis for PAK-DA ? They must have done enormous research on that and they can certainly make that better.

After all they say Tu-160M2 is a new aircraft under the old Tu-160 design

I dont think these two design on UAC annual report is some lousy content writer putting up there and he just found the T-4MS design to put up there over may be the dozens available ...... This looks like a calculated leak to me just to show the planform.

Most certainly I dont think PAK-DA would be another B-2 lookalike.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

The two images are completely different, so how can they represent one design?

All information to date indicates PAK DA will be a subsonic flying wing with stealth characteristics, developed by Tupolev, powered by non-afterburning NK-32 derivatives. Initial plans for the use of AL-41F foundered on fuel consumption grounds.

 

[Kryptid]

Full Report here http://uacrussia.ru/uac_ar_2015_en


There's another image of PAK-DA on page 15 of report

Looks like an old Northrop-Grumman concept to me:

 

[hesham]

Nice find Austin,

but for PAK DA,I think the drawing is just a hypothetical design.

 

[Airplane]

So if they can't even field a stealth fighter, why would they clone a Spirit in overall outer moldline? Stealth is in the details like GDT and build tolerances. Likely it will be a reduced observable aircraft with supersonic dash to compensate for a larger rcs. Right?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

So if they can't even field a stealth fighter, why would they clone a Spirit in overall outer moldline? Stealth is in the details like GDT and build tolerances. Likely it will be a reduced observable aircraft with supersonic dash to compensate for a larger rcs. Right?

"Can't' isn't the same as "didn't".

The degree of stealth required in an air-to-air fighter is debatable, depending on weighting of various other factors. T-50 appears to be designed to the basic tenets of the *original* ATF before the stealth reset - low front quarter RCS, but not all-aspect stealth.

A flying wing /BWB is pretty much optimal for the subsonic long range mission and can be designed for very low RCS. Even if you have to spray RAM over the access panels before each flight because your manufacturing tolerances are not good enough.

 

[Austin]

The two images are completely different, so how can they represent one design?

All information to date indicates PAK DA will be a subsonic flying wing with stealth characteristics, developed by Tupolev, powered by non-afterburning NK-32 derivatives. Initial plans for the use of AL-41F foundered on fuel consumption grounds.

Can you please share any official information where they said it will be flying wing coz I never came across any , All they said it would be subsonic design and that does not just mean flying wing approach

 

[Austin]

Full Report here http://uacrussia.ru/uac_ar_2015_en


There's another image of PAK-DA on page 15 of report

Looks like an old Northrop-Grumman concept to me:

That looks like the closest to the design the NG Concept has.

 

[Airplane]

So if they can't even field a stealth fighter, why would they clone a Spirit in overall outer moldline? Stealth is in the details like GDT and build tolerances. Likely it will be a reduced observable aircraft with supersonic dash to compensate for a larger rcs. Right?

"Can't' isn't the same as "didn't".

The degree of stealth required in an air-to-air fighter is debatable, depending on weighting of various other factors. T-50 appears to be designed to the basic tenets of the *original* ATF before the stealth reset - low front quarter RCS, but not all-aspect stealth.

A flying wing /BWB is pretty much optimal for the subsonic long range mission and can be designed for very low RCS. Even if you have to spray RAM over the access panels before each flight because your manufacturing tolerances are not good enough.

You think they made a decision to build it less stealthy than their engineering capabilities allowed!? I think if they could have done a true LO fighter that they would have. They're going to have a problem on their hands if push ever comes to shove and it goes head to head against the F-22 or F-35. Even the Chinese *seem* to have the Russians beaten on LO fighters.

 

[SOC]

A true all-aspect LO or VLO fighter would be much more expensive in both R&D and production. If they only have an oeprational need for an air superiority fighter with front-quarter LO, there's no reason to go overboard and make something beyond what the stated requirement is. If you're sent out on an intercept, front quarter LO is going to be the most useful. Same if you're heading in to kill a SAM site or shoot at a defended ground or surface target. They've emphasized front quarter LO and maneuverability, and possibly speed, over having an all-aspect LO fighter.

 

[FighterJock]

This discussion has got me thinking. What would happen if the Tupolev PAK-DA turns out to be a flying wing bomber? Would it have to be all-aspect stealth against frontal-aspect?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

For a subsonic bomber you need all-aspect stealth. You can't control the interception geometry.

However all-aspect stealth is easier on a bomber than a fighter, you don't need to worry about maneuverability or intake high-alpha capability, you can take weight penalties on radar absorbent coatings and non-afterburning engine stealthy exhaust design is much easier.

 

[Airplane]

They've emphasized front quarter LO and maneuverability, and possibly speed, over having an all-aspect LO fighter.

Would you say the USA sacrificed speed and maneuverability with the ATFs of the late 80s? Definitely not. Although there is some debate about high AoA and the 23. Likewise the 23 was even faster than the 22 and *likely* a production variant would have had a lower RCS and definitely had a lower IR signature with hidden exhausts (all relative to the 22).

The Russians have never had the precise GD&T tolerances as the USA with it's war planes. I can't remember the Russian general's name, but shortly after the "end" of the Cold War this nameless Russian general said the USA built it's planes with the precision of Swiss watches, great unless you knock them off the night stand. I can't remember the rest but his comments were to the effect that Russian tolerances were sloppy but they could be flown off dirt road.

I don't think they could have done a "VLO" fighter (mass produced) with their industrial base and what I imagine is a lack of precision mass production (again I'm talking GD&T). If they could have, they would have, and they wouldn't need to sacrifice speed since we're all running about 1.8-2.2 these days. And as the ATFs demonstrated, they didn't need to give up maneuverability.

I guess we will see who is right when the bomber is revealed. Is there a working date?

 

[_Del_]

Again, there is the cost element involved. Multiple nations with "engineering abilites allowing" production of stealth aircraft have not fielded them.
The Russians are having a tough time funding it as is. Developing, manufacturing, and operating bleeding edge capabilities concurrently has potentially cripppled the US force structure moving forward. Even the US is moving toward an "80% of capability for 50% of cost" philosophy.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

They've emphasized front quarter LO and maneuverability, and possibly speed, over having an all-aspect LO fighter.

Would you say the USA sacrificed speed and maneuverability with the ATFs of the late 80s? Definitely not. Although there is some debate about high AoA and the 23. Likewise the 23 was even faster than the 22 and *likely* a production variant would have had a lower RCS and definitely had a lower IR signature with hidden exhausts (all relative to the 22).

Would you say that achieving the balance of stealth speed and maneuverability on ATF added to the cost of development and production over a hypothetical front-quarter-only Stealth ATF?

ATF target price was to not exceed $35 million in 1985 dollars, which is about $56 million in 2000 dollars. How much did each F-22 cost?

 

[Airplane]

They've emphasized front quarter LO and maneuverability, and possibly speed, over having an all-aspect LO fighter.

Would you say the USA sacrificed speed and maneuverability with the ATFs of the late 80s? Definitely not. Although there is some debate about high AoA and the 23. Likewise the 23 was even faster than the 22 and *likely* a production variant would have had a lower RCS and definitely had a lower IR signature with hidden exhausts (all relative to the 22).

Would you say that achieving the balance of stealth speed and maneuverability on ATF added to the cost of development and production over a hypothetical front-quarter-only Stealth ATF?

ATF target price was to not exceed $35 million in 1985 dollars, which is about $56 million in 2000 dollars. How much did each F-22 cost?

In all honesty I don't know that because what I know of 'stealth' is shaping, shaping, shaping, and RAM. I know quite a lot about nuts and bolts manufacturing and stamping out shapes because I stumbled into engineering from a having a pure science degree.

Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but the cost of stamping out a stealthy form is more because it costs more for the tool makers to make a complex curved shape for the tool versus a flat panel tool. But it's useless to try and stamp out a VLO shaped aircraft because if the tool makers can't hold the surgical tolerances, stealth evaporates when the plane is assembled and you have crazy gaps and other features that couldn't be tuned out of the tools because the tool makers don't have the experience or know how. I cut my teeth a long time ago on simple tube and bracket assemblies for fluid transport and quickly learned that its damned near a black art when it comes to predicting the final shape based on the metal being stamped and the shape of the tool. It was a black art that was passed on to engineer from the previous engineer and not something captured in textbooks back then.

I understand your point about the costs of the ATF. But we in the USA were pioneering and inventing it from nothing. The Russians just have to copy what we learned without the same monetary investment. With the ATF there was/is a lot more to the costs than the shape...... a lot of sci fi (at the time) electrical stuff under the hood.

Good debate. Time will tell.

Is there a time table for the Pak Da to roll out?

 

[_Del_]

So, if all that they really need to do is copy the US effort, one obvious thing stopping them from producing one is the cost. They've decided that the cost involved in "stamping" (or otherwise fab'ing, curing, and assembling) airframes to "surgical" tolerances is not worth the benefit. That's a whole different argument from "can not".

 

[Deino]

Small update for the PAK-DA:

Russian manufacturer creates first full-size model of future strategic bomber — source

More:
http://tass.com/defense/933391

+ a reply by:

There is misunderstanding here.

Full scale cockpit wood mock up has been made, not the whole thing. 1:10 scale models made of composites of the real thing.

 

[Deino]

Small update for the PAK-DA:

Russian manufacturer creates first full-size model of future strategic bomber — source

More:
http://tass.com/defense/933391

+ a reply by:

There is misunderstanding here.

Full scale cockpit wood mock up has been made, not the whole thing. 1:10 scale models made of composites of the real thing.

 

[Deino]

https://sputniknews.com/military/201704271053072773-russia-pak-da-strategic-bomber-maiden-flight/

Russia's next generation strategic bomber, known as the Advanced Long-Range Aviation Complex (PAK DA), is due to make its maiden flight in 2025-2026 and may enter mass production a few years later, according to Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov.

Speaking to journalists on Thursday, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov said that the maiden flight of Russia's next generation strategic bomber, known as the Advanced Long-Range Aviation Complex (PAK DA), may take place between 2025 and 2026, RIA Novosti reported.

According to him, the PAK DA is expected to start being mass produced between 2028 and 2029.

 

[flateric]

In December he was talking of 2026-2027 as a year of first flight with production start "at the end of 20s".

 

[FighterJock]

https://sputniknews.com/military/201704271053072773-russia-pak-da-strategic-bomber-maiden-flight/

Russia's next generation strategic bomber, known as the Advanced Long-Range Aviation Complex (PAK DA), is due to make its maiden flight in 2025-2026 and may enter mass production a few years later, according to Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov.

Speaking to journalists on Thursday, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov said that the maiden flight of Russia's next generation strategic bomber, known as the Advanced Long-Range Aviation Complex (PAK DA), may take place between 2025 and 2026, RIA Novosti reported.

According to him, the PAK DA is expected to start being mass produced between 2028 and 2029.

So how long will Tupolev keep the Tu-160 in production under current plans? Considering that the PAK-DA maiden flight is expected in 2025-2026.

 

[Flyaway]

Russia to test next-generation stealth strategic bomber

The deliveries of the PAK DA multirole aircraft to Russia’s Aerospace Force are expected to begin in 2025-2030 after trials

tass.com

 

[FighterJock]

Russia to test next-generation stealth strategic bomber

The deliveries of the PAK DA multirole aircraft to Russia’s Aerospace Force are expected to begin in 2025-2030 after trials

tass.com

Not long to wait then.

 

[Jackonicko]

Sputnik published this.....

 

[flateric]

A reputable source!

 

[GARGEAN]

Very old fake render.

 

[GARGEAN]

Not long to wait then.

If only... It can mean anything between months and decades.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Or not at all.