PAK DA is designed to replace all three missile carriers

According to the informationRussian newspaper", Scientific director of the Research Institute aviation systems, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Evgeny Fedosov announced that the developers of a new strategic missile carrier for the Russian Aerospace Forces (a promising long-range aviation complex, PAK DA) defended the corresponding preliminary project:

The requirements for a new aircraft are very high. The military inscribed everything they think: a strategic bomber, a tactical bomber-missile carrier bomber, and even a long-range interceptor with a platform for launching spacecraft.

In the long-range aviation, the PAK DA is intended to replace all three types of aircraft in service - the long-range missile carrier Tu-22M3, strategic missile carrier bombers Tu-95 and Tu-160.

When creating the PAK DA, the economic factor is also taken into account. Tu-160 is a masterpiece that no one has yet succeeded to surpass, but it is very expensive. The new military aircraft are going to make cheaper, but more massive. The decision on the PAK DA was taken as follows: the advance project was credited, they came to the conclusion that it is necessary to build.

- explained E. Fedorov.

PAK DA is planned to be built according to the "flying wing" scheme. Began development of the engine for the new aircraft, designed for subsonic speeds. The machine will be equipped with a large number of compartments for armament.

It is impossible to make the missile carrier invisible to radar and supersonic at the same time, so the advantage is given to stealth. PAK DA will carry missiles with artificial intelligence and a range of up to seven thousand kilometers. The rocket is the main component of the complex, the task of the carrier is only to deliver it to the launch line. Analyzing the air and radar situation, the rocket itself will decide in which direction, at what altitude and speed it will fly. Such missiles are already there, we are working on them.

- said Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Aerospace Forces Colonel-General Viktor Bondarev.

Earlier, Deputy Minister of Defense Yuri Borisov reportedthat the newest PAK DA bomber can be introduced in 2018:

There is a high probability that we will see it in 2018 year.

Comments

[Blackmokona]

Hi B-2. Yes, all in one, hi F35

[Megatron]

This is all interesting, but while flying wings - stealth, have shown themselves rather poorly.
And the 7000km range, it took off, released, made a circle, got on the airfield?)))

[Blackmokona]

They showed themselves very well, very rarely shooting down a thousand sorties, only they are very expensive. And the scheme, as I understand it, suggests that the enemy will dominate our skies, since with such a range of missiles, we want to cover ourselves with stealth.

[oleg-gr]

Figuratively speaking, customers from the Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation want to get "egg, butter, cheese carrying sow." The desire is commendable, but can the industry embody these Wishlist? Here is the main question.

[Vadim237]

They will do the plane: there are materials, engines, avionics.

[Arh]

And nothing handsome, and a lot of functional, "bomber" !!!

[cniza]

This is still Wishlist, but it is necessary to move in this direction, and there life will prompt and correct.

[kamski]

draw on paper and airplane two different categories

[33 Watcher]

Quote: Vadim237

They will do the plane: there are materials, engines, avionics.

But you don’t need to turn off the Tu-160, and even 22 M3, while it's too early to retire ... And so, let them do it, let's see ...

[ufpb]

95th year entered service? Fly. It will continue to be so. A new long-range carrier bomber will appear, with the simultaneous operation of the Tu-160, 22. Only Tu-95 will be removed from combat duty. All gradually.

[the most important]

Quote: Vadim237

They will do the plane: there are materials, engines, avionics.

And how will it differ from IL-96 except by stealth? The speed is the same ... But why stealth at a launch range of 7000 km? Throw out the seats from the IL and put the drums under the rockets and the new missile carrier is ready. In the states, a strike with such a range is practically from the North Pole, in China and Europe - from the Urals, and why drive barmales with missiles? In this case, bombs are needed .... Drive all Wishlist into one plane ???? But will not it turn out "garbage with a bow"?

[xtur]

> And how will it differ from the IL-96 except for stealth?

The highest ratio of GP to full weight in the "flying wing" scheme, let experts correct me if I'm wrong

And stealth is today a mandatory factor for all new technology. If the creation of the new DA were so simple, the program of parallel launching of the Tu-160 into production would not have begun.

So both planes will be unified in avionics, weapons as much as possible, because they will fly together for several decades. And then no one knows where the military thought will turn.

[Iline]

And why stealth with a launch range of 7000 km?

This range is only for strategic missiles. But there is still a question with the replacement of the Tu-22M3. And they are just the same bombing more than rockets. And their range is quite small. By the way - this is the answer to the question about the need for stealth for this aircraft. From a range of 7000 kilometers you won’t be bombed.

Drive all Wishlist into one plane ???? But will not it turn out "garbage with a bow"?

Do you even know that the Tu-160 can also use bombs. And the corresponding equipment costs .... Another thing is that in practice he never used them for various reasons.

[HZ66]

Tu-160 is not capable of dropping free-falling bombs and there is no equipment for bombing on it. They planned to install with the latest modernization, but they are silent about it.

[Iline]

I would be interested to know which planes I served then?
Read at least on Wikipedia, or something.

After appropriate conversion, the aircraft can also be equipped with free-falling bombs (up to 40 kg) of various calibers, including nuclear, one-time bomb cartridges, naval mines and other weapons

And the re-equipment consists in removing the MKU for missiles in the cargo bays and the ability to then hang up other weapons.

[HZ66]

I don’t know where you served, except for Vicki. Until now, no Tu-160 has been equipped with equipment for dropping free-falling bombs, and the scope has not yet been developed.

[Iline]

In the front of the nose fairing protruding glass does not mean anything? Whoever knows you is our ... Can you tell me what is the name of the sight?

[the most important]

Quote: Iline

Do you even know that the Tu-160 can also use bombs. And the appropriate equipment is worth ....

And you can open the bomb and shoot with a pistol !!!!! I believe that it is impossible to create ONE plane for all tasks. It is impossible to combine a sedan, a bus, a mining truck, a sports car, a truck crane and a cesspool truck and get something good .. Still, it’s better when a fighter is a fighter, a missile carrier is a missile carrier, a bomber is a bomber, and an attack aircraft is an attack aircraft. Can you give an example of at least one product of mankind for versatile purposes? Tu-160 after re-equipment, of course, can drop bombs, but is that really its purpose? And in the "big war" that they can bomb 16 aircraft with simple bombs? Can a “projected pepelats” bomb the enemy for a long time in the area of ​​his air defense having subsonic speed? Even if it is "radio invisible", then such a whopper and from the earth for a hundred miles will be visible in the sky ... and any pilot will make it out even without a locator.

[Iline]

Quote: the most important

And in the "big war" that they can bomb 16 aircraft with simple bombs?

To each his own ... B-52, for example, copes with this quite well on certain TVDs for many thousands of kilometers from its bases.
Combat missions are different and often simple bombers such as Su-34 or attack aircraft such as Su-25 simply physically cannot reach the desired point. But the first and second, in addition to conventional bombs, carry certain missile weapons, and this does not cause any questions.
In the modern world, there are no pure bombers. And if there is, then these are antediluvian cars produced by Mumbo - Yumbo. Never caught yourself on this thought? Lightly analyze all the latest and not very more or less decent aircraft. Then, I hope, and nonsense will fly out of my head.

[HZ66]

In the "modern world", bombers are aircraft designed to destroy ground, underground, surface and underwater targets with missile and bomb weapons. In this sense, both the Tu-95 and B-52 (and others) “pure” bombers

[9lvariag]

Well, the Tu -95 MS, has long been no longer a clean bomber. Inside the rotary MKU. And how mechanics will shoot it at the airfields of the jump is another question.

[9lvariag]

1. line, what are you smoking there? What is ... the place of the Tu-22M3 in strategic aviation and where will they be bombed from? You there that hit a golden stool from Taburetkin! I, wildly apologize, did not serve in Enegels and Poltava on the Tu-160. And then I know that the main purpose of the Tu-22Mx is, first of all, the defeat of naval mobile targets with the help of the Kyrgyz Republic, and secondly, the defeat of coastal infrastructure without coming into contact with the air defense of the same KR-DB! This tactical aircraft (mainly due to the inability to withstand the radius of flight at supersonic sound and the lack of a fuel rod) was simply taken from the Navy. It does not even fit into the concept of DBA on complexes for launching the Kyrgyz Republic. His place in combatant MDI! And they are not in sight. Therefore, we have to support warrants and fly the old Su-24 and newer Su-24M. And we are from the beginning (well, even the army’s nature of emptiness does not like) we use this far reincarnated and not without problem aircraft in the VKS.
2. Moreover, the first Tu-22 (without K-17) and before the Tu-22M2 bomber bombers were all the more bombers with a suspension of free-falling bombs. Those carried freely falling bombs (including nuclear deep ones), RBC, dist. established mines (UDM). The Tu-22M2, as we know, is completely written off as scrap or modernized. The Tu-95MS is also more of a missile carrier than a bomber! :) There is no longer a Tu-16A3 under the FAB bombs - 1500/3000/5000 / 9600M54 and there are almost no targets for these super-explosive bombs. It has long been NO and 3MD and 4M, under which it was hung.
3. What do you propose to bomb with such an airplane? What are the goals? You finally decide we make LR - NGB in Russian, regional cheap bomber. Or a new complex for DBA? You can fly in a global war or in local wars, bomb from high altitudes without MANPADS and without air defense Papuans and yell like the Americans about the FB-22 & NAA B-2 Spirit. The type is not knocked down and not detectable. Knows about your postulate about the shooting down of B-2, you can ask: how many really wanted to shoot it down. Moreover, the B-2 itself is used as a long-range anti-Papuan attack aircraft of global action!

[Iline]

Quote: 9lvariag

this is a defeat, first of all, of marine moving targets with the help of the Kyrgyz Republic, and secondly, a defeat of the coastal infrastructure without coming into contact with the air defense of the same KR-DB!

I agree with you. Only life poses other tasks. Recall the same Georgia. For whom were Tu-22M3 missiles fired from Soltsy and Shaikovka there? Yes, no one, they just bombed. And if there was a little stealth technology, it is very possible that there would be no one downed. Although there is a slightly different story with the root cause.
What are they doing in Syria? That's right - they are also bombed.
Their use as a fight against AUGs has long ceased to be considered as the main one for one simple reason - missile weapons and methods of pointing them for a long time no longer allow them to get closer to AUGs with a launch range and are guaranteed to sink an aircraft carrier.

Quote: 9lvariag

You can fly in a global war or in local wars, bomb from high altitudes without MANPADS and without air defense Papuans and yell like the Americans about the FB-22 & NAA B-2 Spirit.

But when I talked in 92 with the Americans with the B-52, bombed Iraq in the first Persian war, they did not pay attention to the air defense systems and MANPADS, which Iraq had quite enough. They had a vagueness whether or not we would stick into this mess with our aircraft. And when on the approach came the information that Russia was merging Iraq, then for them it was complete relaxation.
This is the question of the Papuans.
Life poses new challenges in new regions of the world. And one must be prepared for this.

[Filxnumx]

Stealth is only a consequence of the chosen aerodynamic layout, so to say an additional bonus. The main advantage of the flying wing is a longer flight range due to less resistance and a larger capacity due to the larger cargo compartment. With a reduced range allows you to take a large overload. So everything is OK.

[9lvariag]

Well, the so-called "Dutch step" and a lower turning speed in pitch and direction.

[Evgeniy667b]

Well, yes, they will build 1-2 copies and calm down on this. Or they will drag for many years the treatment of "childhood diseases" and other tricks. But there will be plenty of enchanting SHOWs and a chill for the whole world, With "No Analogs." At the same time, figures from the military-industrial complex will look back and listen to the Indians blinking there or a 3.14-brotherhood similar to them. Aircraft manufacturing school has left us, there are practically no personnel left at the enterprises. Only at SHOW and capable. And those bombers, such as the Tu-160, are the USSR, it is not necessary to compare incompatible concepts, such as the USSR-RF.
Examples are PAX! Virtually nothing.
But available to cut with us, they can easily! After all, so much non-ferrous scrap metal and for free. Creatures in one word.

[commbatant]

For this reason, you can forget about the 50 Tu-160, which we promised to produce, apparently no longer.
Tu22M3 I would have handed over to the Navy aviation out of harmony, but how everything else will come out is unknown, and the planes can be scrapped without waiting for a new PAK YES.
I looked at the “wiki” in 2016. 1/3 of the bombers were decommissioned without storage (Tu-22 and Tu-95), so in anticipation of a miracle, they will probably be reduced first of all ....

[opus]

Quote: oleg-gr

That is the main question.

Of course not.

Quote: AUTHOR

Scientific Director of the Research Institute of Aviation Systems, Academician of the RAS Evgeny Fedorov reported that: Military entered everything that they think: and a strategic bomber, and an operational-tactical bomber-missile carrier, and even a long-range interceptor with a platform for launching spacecraft.

AFFFOR !!! Well I don’t know who the crap (local or Russian newspaper)
Fedorov Eugene (Konstantinovich), RAS died in 1981. hydrometeorologist he was
and broadcast it Fedosov Evgeny Aleksandrovich

maybe he said it, or maybe not (I am inclined to this version, maybe, he graduated from the Moscow Higher Technical School). I think the zhurnalyuga jammed
3 to 1, shampoo, conditioner and rinse aid. Those. not a fig.

Quote: AUTHOR

There is a high probability that we will see it in 2018 year.

EC.

Where is the "ancient", where is the SSI, now they will explain on fingers what to create a strategist(yes even just a replacement for the Tu-Xnumx) for 1-2 of the year is bullshit.

Quote: Vadim237

there are materials, engines, avionics.

no materials, no engines, alien avionics.

Quote: Arh

And nothing handsome, and a lot of functional, "bomber" !!!

For managers will go, Chubais would draw the same.

1.Winglets, end washers or Whitcomb washers, sharklets - are not needed for the supporting wing, this is a parasitic component.
2.Winglet will significantly increase the EPR
3. If it's keels. This is generally brad.
They are almost on a prependicular held by chz CM La.
WHAT and how will they steer with such a shoulder?
Stabilizers? Yeah
4. Air intakes in this design, without a slit regulator, will prevent it from flying at a normal angle of attack. Razi, that in peak.
5. Well, the mechanization of the wing in this design is not the XX1 century.

In general, everything looks like an empty PR. Konashenkova laurels haunt?
It's great, it's great, it's very good!

[Vadim237]

"There are no materials, no engines, alien avionics." Everything is in iron, as well as materials.

[opus]

Quote: Vadim237

Everything is in iron, as well as materials.

please to the studio

[Vadim237]

Avionics - work is ongoing.

[opus]

Quote: Vadim237

work is ongoing.

Thales, and yesterday

[Vadim237]

Engine in iron

[opus]

Quote: Vadim237

Engine in iron

Samara enterprise "Kuznetsov" (part of the United Engine Corporation, UEC) completed the modernization of the test bench, on which it is planned to test aircraft engines for combat aircraft, including for the updated strategic bomber Tu-160.
feel the difference: STAND and

Quote: Vadim237

Engine in iron

?
Of course tse not that:

In your photo, not even NK-32, but something "a la" AI-222-25

Quote: NI "military" columnist Dave Majumdar

The dimensions of PAK DA will be quite large, writes NI military observer Dave Majumdar. The maximum take-off weight will be 110 tons (for B-2 171 tons, for Tu-160 - 275, with 148 tons being the mass of fuel). In the terms of reference of the Russian Air Force, the developers indicate the range of 12500 kilometers, the payload mass of 30 tons. B-2 Spirit can lift up to 22 tons of bombs and missiles into the air, Tu-160 - 41).

I will not even comment on this down.
what some other pack yes! not?

[Vadim237]

"In your photo, not even NK-32, but something" a la "AI-222-25" This is generally another engine most likely this is NK 56

[opus]

Quote: Vadim237

This is generally another engine. Most likely it is NK 56.

not my "theme" - I do not cut
However note
what side

Quote: Vadim237

this is NK 56

- Soviet aircraft turbojet engine (turbojet engine), developed at the Kuibyshev Motor Plant. Since 1979, it was developed as an engine for promising heavy transport and passenger aircraft. IL-96 was designed under the NK-56. In 1983, engine work was discontinued ..
may have sex with

Quote: Vadim237

Engine in iron

Quote: Vadim237

Everything is in iron, as well as materials.

and the topic PAK YES?
WELL A LITTLE BRAIN - TIGHTEN IT!

[Vadim237]

Aviation materials are inundated - from carbon composites to aluminum-magnesium, nickel, and titanium alloys.

[opus]

Quote: Vadim237

Aviation materials are inundated - from carbon composites to aluminum-magnesium, nickel, and titanium alloys

Mona see them?
and Schaub there was no unnecessary errection, I advise you to read the summary of the Federal Customs Service of the Russian Federation for 2014-2016 import of composite materials and binders into the Russian Federation

[Vadim237]

This is a direct road to you for VIAM - http://viam.ru/history_gs

[opus]

Quote: Vadim237

This is a direct road to you for VIAM

I, what is VIAM, and its products.
no need la la.
What does titanium have to do with PC YES and "invisibility"?

[Vadim237]

In practice, the PAK DA glider can be made of wood, textolite and carbon fiber with aluminum tank inserts. Will fly no worse than iron.

[opus]

Quote: Vadim237

In practice, the PAK DA glider can be made of wood, textolite and carbon fiber with aluminum tank inserts. Will fly no worse than iron.

it is possible and from manure.
But it will not fly.
Read at your leisure:

it’s not just “difficult”, it’s “archisolate”!
aircraft manufacturing is the QUINTESSION of human development
Are you from [/ i]

Quote: Vadim237

can be made of wood, textolite and carbon fiber, with inserts of aluminum tanks

Threat.
[i] Lenin addresses Dzerzhinsky:
-Felix Edmundovich, are you throwing cigarette butts into the urinal?
Dzerzhinsky was embarrassed:
-Well, I.
- In vain, my friend. Arch complicated light up.

[Vadim237]

Probably this technological ugliness has a PAK YES drawing for the article, there is a brother - an even larger .KRA PA genus - a similarity can be traced see the author - they have one vandervafil.

[Nitarius]

))) students now at least do something)) at least an elephant flying)))

[opus]

Quote: Vadim237

see the author - they have one vandervafil.

the author is simply stupid.
exploits the soil of patriotism mercilessly

[Nitarius]

)) think correctly)) so in an Internet with brains not many .. everything else PR .. calculated on rams)) surely everyone noticed)) be patient))) everything will be

[Nikolaevich I]

Why are you so excited? Nothing worth taking seriously at the moment! Neither TTX, nor the picture of the airplane. Besides the fact: the military wants, and the state is going to fulfill their wishlist! Someone somewhere posted a beautiful picture of an airplane, and she liked the author of the “note”. And you rushed to prove that this is not a “float” ... well, indeed, the “fight of the Nanai boys”!

[opus]

[quote = Nikolaevich I] is going to execute "their" Wishlist! [/ quote]
here is the key

[quote] Earlier, Deputy Minister of Defense Yuri Borisov reported that the newest bomber PAK YES mMay be introduced in 2018: [/ Quote]
[quote = Nikolaevich I] And you rushed to prove that this is not a "floating". [/ quote]
not well if: commemorate Fedorova, Eugene (Konstantinovich), RAS died in 1981. hydrometeorologist he was
and they don’t know who such Fedosov, Evgeny Alexandrovich
... you can continue to stay in sweet dreams.
What will it grow? generation of dddowns?

[Nikolaevich I]

Oh ho ho! "... can be presented in 2018 year" ... And how many were “cases” when the devices promised us “in such and such” year, but they appeared a few years later or didn’t appear at all ?! And as for Fedorov and Fedosov ... well, what do you want in the "century" of full-time exam and corrupt university teachers!?

[NEXUS]

Quote: opus

EC.

Where is the "ancient", where is the SSI, they are now explaining on the fingers that creating a strategist (and even just replacing the Tu-22) in 1-2 years is bullshit.

Anton, Here are simple statistics-
The beginning of work on TU-160 was the beginning of the 70s. The first flight of the prototype was December 18, 1981 ... that is, for about 10 years ... more ..
In 1984, the Tu-160 was launched into serial production at the Kazan Aviation Plant (KAPO). The first production car (No. 1-01) took off on October 10, 1984
Total about 12 years from the solution to the production car. And it was in the USSR, that is, 15 republics worked for this project, hundreds of factories in which there was a production base, specialists, designers, etc., plus financing.
Nowadays, such an aircraft, with our frail capabilities in comparison with the USSR, we would have been planing such an aircraft for 25-30 years.
Something like this ...

[Vadim237]

For 5 years they will certainly be able to create a glider, everything else on the finish line is now easier, the equipment is more modern, and CAD is much more advanced.

[DiKoff]

The amateurish argument, the availability of equipment and only practically imported one, does not accelerate the process of creating an aircraft at all, since the brains of operators and technologists are in the 90s of the last century, the presence of CAD will also not save the situation, since there are only a few specialists who really can use it, and the main use of ultramodern materials by designers is never previously it wasn’t used, it’s a constant experiment and the main task for such an aircraft in terms of complexity and tasks is not any easier than the previous ones - the development cycle of a new model until its serial production is 15 - 20 years, and not 5

[HZ66]

1-3. With such a shape of the wing (essentially a trapezoid), the winglets will not be superfluous, but they will not bring much benefit either. Of course, they can not have anything to do with exchange rate stability or management.
2. OT cause some bewilderment. But even more - the location of the nozzles (above a flat surface). With this outflow of gas, a vacuum will be created that provokes a dive moment. In this regard, I suspect that the design provides for the installation of two pairs of engines located one above the other, like an old lightning.

[Albert1988]

Quote: BlackMokona

And the scheme, as I understand it, suggests that the enemy will dominate our skies, since with such a range of missiles, we want to cover ourselves with stealth.

If the enemy, God forbid, dominates our air, then with high probability nothing will be able to take off normally, so stealth will not help here.
Stealth, most likely, is provided in order to minimize the detection of this aircraft at large distances - unnoticed he crept in a few thousand kilometers, fired rockets and just went unnoticed. Rackets will also be stealth ones, so it will not be so easy to detect them from a long distance, which means that the enemy has less time to react.

[Blackmokona]

Why pick up several thousand, when at the declared range, you can shoot from the airfield?

[Albert1988]

Quote: BlackMokona

Why pick up several thousand, when at the declared range, you can shoot from the airfield?

Firstly, you can’t get to some targets from any “airfield”, and secondly, when the launcher flies and is hardly noticeable, the chance to hit it is much lower than if it were, say, a ground launcher,
And then - here the Tu-160 also carries rackets with a flight range of up to 5,5 thousand km. and he himself has a range stock of about 10 thousand, from what would it be? After all, you can also shoot from the airfield

[Blackmokona]

So the racket in his 5.5 thousand did not immediately appear. At first, then he had rockets with a range of 2500 km.

[jonhr]

Something I suspect that one of the stars you earned, on the proof that stealth is a complete guano, but this is with the Americans.
correct me if I'm wrong

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: BlackMokona

They showed themselves very well, very rarely shooting them down for a thousand sorties

Have they encountered normal air defense somewhere?
Wherever they were used, air defense was at the level of the 70s. And then, the Serbs shot down the S-125, 1961 release!

[Scalpel]

And still less than other types of aircraft. The percentage of losses is lower. It is for the sake of this percentage that it is worth bothering with stealth. And as for the air defense - there will be no repetition of Vietnam, any air defense will be hammered into the Stone Age first thing, as was the case in Iraq and Yugoslavia.

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Scalpel

any air defense will be hammered into the stone age first thing

Air defense also does not sit still, is developing.

[Alf]

Quote: BlackMokona

They showed themselves very well, very rarely shooting them down for a thousand sorties,

How many shot down the B-2 and F-117? The 117th didn’t really fight anywhere, the B-2s landed in Yugoslavia, they weren’t used anywhere else. And when you consider that the B-2 was dumped from, by and large, from junk ...

[EternalStranger]

You can learn more about the B-2 in Yugoslavia. Or you just did not have a snack in the morning?

[Scalpel]

B-2 did not shoot down. F-117 played an important role in the destruction of the air defense of Iraq and Yugoslavia. Read how many sorties they made and how many bombs dropped on target.

[Alf]

Quote: Scalpel

F-117 played an important role in the destruction of Iraqi air defense

Did Iraq have air defense? Or a parody of air defense?
And in Yugoslavia, air defense at the level of the Russian army ... Air defense was crushed there almost immediately, but in a clear sky you can fly at least around the clock. But they shot down.

[HZ66]

In total, less than a dozen manned aircraft were shot down by several tens of thousands of sorties.

[Alf]

Quote: HZ66

In total, less than a dozen manned aircraft were shot down by several tens of thousands of sorties.

But there was someone, with what and on what to bring down?

[HZ66]

And this: "And in Yugoslavia, air defense at the level of the Russian army ..." didn’t you write?

[Alf]

Quote: HZ66

And this: "And in Yugoslavia, air defense at the level of the Russian army ..." didn’t you write?

I'm sorry, I forgot to draw a smiley. Sapient sat.
I meant that the air defense of Yugoslavia was, to put it mildly, not quite modern and not densely quantified.

[HZ66]

At nuclear facilities in Syria, which fell under the distribution of Israeli F-15 and F-16, air defense was at the highest level.

[mashinist]

And why "It is impossible to make a missile carrier invisible to radars and supersonic at the same time"?

[Tersky]

Quote: Megatron

And the 7000km range, it took off, released, made a circle, got on the airfield?)))

Read carefully PAK DA will carry missiles with artificial intelligence and a range of up to seven thousand kilometers. We are talking about the range of the missile, about what distance can fly PAK YES not a word.

[Albert1988]

Quote: Tersky

about what distance can fly PAK YES not a word.

Most likely no less than the Tu-160.

[HZ66]

With this range, he doesn’t have to take off.

[just exp]

1) not a single B2 was shot down (although one F-117 was shot down, but due to the negligence of the amers, since it flew the same route). but the Tu-22 in Georgia was shot down altogether stupidly.
2) 7 thousand kilometers, this is not the range of the aircraft, but the range of new cruise missiles, which I dare to remind you, do not return, so 7 thousand km is one way.
3) if you have 7 thousand km, this is one circle above the airfield, then I don’t know what planet you live on.

[Asadullah]

if you have 7 thousand km this is one circle above the airfield, then I don’t know what planet you live on.

There they regularly wind circles, over the cuckoo’s nest .... cripple with beads, my friend)

[DanSabaka]

7000 km is a range of only missiles ..... read the text ....

[pvv113]

Read carefully, 7000 is at the rocket:

will carry missiles with artificial intelligence and a flight range of up to seven thousand kilometers

And about the flight range PAK YES, this article does not say anything

[Observer2014]

pvv113

And about the flight range PAK YES, this article does not say anything

The main task with such a range of missiles at PAK YES is to "hang" in the air of the partners nightmare. Therefore, the range will be no less than that of Tu -160.
7000 km. this is very serious.

[san4es]

... "hang" in the air "all year round, refueling and changing crews on the fly

[pvv113]

That's right, no one will go to reduce the range of the carrier. But increasing the range of missiles will expand the range of capabilities and tasks of a strategic missile carrier

[Koshak]

Quote: Megatron

And the 7000km range, it took off, released, made a circle, got on the airfield?)))

And where did you read about the range of PAK YES? Here I saw only the range of the missiles:

PAK DA will carry missiles with artificial intelligence and a range of up to seven thousand kilometers.

[venik]

Quote: Koshak

And where did you read about the range of PAK YES? Here I saw only the range of missiles

=====
Well, who will tell you ?? This designers themselves do not know !! Well this is only AVANPROEKT - i.e. CONCEPT!! That is, some kind of indicative data is there of course laid down, but Allah alone knows what the result will be .... At least it can be assumed, given the dimensions and shape of the machine (naturally, if what is presented in the video, at least somehow corresponds reality ...), which is no less than that of the "White Swan" ...
Well, and as for the missiles, it was said that they already exist (at least a prototype!) And therefore ALREADY we can talk about specific numbers ...

[Koshak]

Quote: venik

Well, who will tell you ??

Well, what did I write about?

[venik]

Quote: Megatron

range 7000km, it took off, released, made a circle, sat on the airfield?

=====
No, it’s: “He took off, flew (if you need to wait for his time” he went to the zone where the enemy’s missile defense has “gaps”, there he launched rockets and went to the airfield !! "

[AID.S]

Quote: venik

fired rockets and went to the airfield !!

But there is no longer an airfield .... The point is not to destroy the enemy, but to deter, otherwise the product is disposable and there is no point in complicating it ...

[svp67]

Quote: Megatron

This is all interesting, but while flying wings - stealth, have shown themselves rather poorly.

And they are generally actively used by someone? They showed themselves normally, just earlier, so that they would have to completely retrain the pilot, because they have a peculiarity, and a strong one in management. Now, however, due to the fact that the computer is more controlled by the computer, this drawback can be leveled ...

[Yarhann]

you confuse the night bomber f 117 - after Yugoslavia they put an end to them. And B2 is a strategist excellent in performance characteristics both then and now, but fabulously expensive.
The form of a flying wing will make it possible to lift a large load into the air, both for fuel and bomb load, while taking it over a long distance. Classic bombers lose in this regard. Given the fact that everything should be hidden in the case for less radio visibility.
As for stealth, I think it would be weaker than B2, but it doesn’t have to, it will greatly increase the cost of the design and reduce the payload.
We need a good, inexpensive carrier that can hang in the air for a long time, even if it is above our territory, but to ensure the combat alertness of nuclear weapons and their safety. I think it is such a goal as a priority that they will pursue.
And regarding all other goals, let the creators of ammunition hurt their heads

[svp67]

Quote: Yarhann

you confuse the night bomber f 117 - after Yugoslavia they put an end to them. And B2 is a strategist excellent in performance characteristics both then and now, but fabulously expensive.

Not a bit ... That F117, that B-2 aircraft of the "computer era", but in different niches. Apparently for tactical machines, with their need for energetic and frequent maneuvers, this scheme is still inappropriate, but for strategists it’s the norm.

[jonhr]

f-117 participated in the second Iraq campaign and was withdrawn from service in 2007 if I remember correctly. Due to the fact that the raptor appeared, it was decided to send the aircraft for conservation in order to reduce costs. they are not in combat units, but they are and no one has refused them

[sharp-lad]

And the 7000km range, it took off, released, made a circle, got on the airfield?)))
PAK DA will carry missiles with artificial intelligence and a range of up to seven thousand kilometers.
We read carefully, gentlemen, we read carefully and do not disgrace!

[nrex]

Subsonic aircraft, 7000 km missile range. Sense, the launch pad for missiles moving in the air is out of reach for enemy air defense. Its main advantage is the ability to hang for a long time and economically with maximum combat load.

[Alex_Rarog]

Range of missiles 7000 ... About the plane is not a word ....

[avdkrd]

Quote: Megatron

This is all interesting, but while flying wings - stealth, have shown themselves rather poorly.
And the 7000km range, it took off, released, made a circle, got on the airfield?)))

7000 km is about a missile, the one with AI and all of itself promising. In general, a strange decision about “three-in-one.” Replacing the Tu-22m3 with a strategist at first glance seems economically unjustified, although the scope is taken for a large series and relative cheapness (compared to the Tu-160). If only they really built a large series.

[Monos]

Now it’s clear why TU-160М2 will do it. Speed. PAK YES - subsonic.

[Blackmokona]

And PAK YES according to the article will replace Tu160M2

[Monos]

Quote: BlackMokona

And PAK YES according to the article will replace Tu160M2

Designers TU-160М2 the same TK issued.

[Blackmokona]

So PAK YES will obviously go into service through 15-20 for years. It is necessary to somehow get out of it.

[Monos]

Quote: BlackMokona

So PAK YES will obviously go into service through 15-20 for years. It is necessary to somehow get out of it.

I think they will serve together. PAK YES will realize its stealth, “Carcass” - take their own due to speed.

[Blackmokona]

Read the first news about Tu160M2, it directly stated that PAK YES goes to the right strongly and you need to close the hole.

[Monos]

When they make an almost new airplane, it’s not closing holes. The fact that someone wrote something does not bother me much. I value facts and reality.

[SSR]

Quote: Monos

Quote: BlackMokona

So PAK YES will obviously go into service through 15-20 for years. It is necessary to somehow get out of it.

I think they will serve together. PAK YES will realize its stealth, “Carcass” - take their own due to speed.

Supersonic speed is very necessary and important for reaching a given point and the response / start time ... IMHA.
PAK YES will spend 2 - 2.5 times spending time to reach the firing point ... maybe our plan to get out of this position in this direction by launching Zircon-type missiles?
In any case, military strategists know best what they need.

[EternalStranger]

Quote from S.S.R.

PAK YES will spend 2 - 2.5 times spending time to reach the firing point

will not be. For the Tu-160 in fact is not supersonic.

[just exp]

+1, amers and B2 have B1. both serve at the same time. but the fact that they wrote here that PAK YES will replace the Tu-160, is most likely someone misinterpreted.
because Tu-160M2 is just starting to be produced and it will serve for more than a dozen years.
as well as PAK DA, which, although it will become operational later, but by no means in 30-50 years (at least Tu-160M2 will serve as such)

[Blackmokona]

So B-2 was supposed to replace B1, but the USSR collapsed and the program was slaughtered like a pig. And now there will be B3 which is going to replace all again

[Every]

The B-2 turned out to be a monstrously expensive aircraft, both in construction and especially in maintenance. So they cut it.

[Blackmokona]

Strategists are generally extremely expensive aircraft both in construction and maintenance.

[jonhr]

the spirits all who remained 18 out of 20 continue their service. and no one cut

[Koshak]

Quote: BlackMokona

So PAK YES will obviously go into service through 15-20 for years. It is necessary to somehow get out of it.

Naturally. While PAK DA will develop, build prototypes, test, adopt it, make enough to replace the existing ... White Swans, Bears and Backfires still serve and serve

[commbatant]

"Bears" are unlikely

[Koshak]

Quote: commbatant

"Bears" are unlikely

But what is bad about “Bear” with a modern filling? In principle, not much worse than this PAK YES. It can also launch the same rocket for 7000km to the object. Put only the appropriate equipment on it.
Sorry, but I have 22 years of friendship and service with the Bears. I really like this car.

[commbatant]

Quote: Koshak

Quote: commbatant

"Bears" are unlikely

But what is bad about “Bear” with a modern filling? In principle, not much worse than this PAK YES. It can also launch the same rocket for 7000km to the object. Put only the appropriate equipment on it.
Sorry, but I have 22 years of friendship and service with the Bears. I really like this car.

Firstly, not all Tu-95s have such equipment, secondly, we do not produce one of the three types of bombers (Tu-95/142, Tu-160, Tu-22), but decided to resume production of only Tu-160, respectively PAK DA it will be replaced by Tu-95/142 and Tu-22, I’m hoping you will not take into account the length of your experience (we have only recently reduced the types of tanks to three, armored personnel carriers to three), the junk type is expensive, all rubbish for storage or scrap , and the money must be released for the construction of new aircraft, and not to maintain the old (yesterday’s wars) ....
Nobody tells you that tomorrow all the "bears" will be written off, they still fly 15-20 years ...

[Koshak]

Quote: commbatant

Firstly, not all Tu-95s have such equipment, and secondly, we do not produce one of the three types of bombers (Tu-95/142, Tu-160, Tu-22)

No need to distort my words. I did not write about production, but about modernization. With the corresponding "stuffing" all this still serves.

Nobody tells you that tomorrow all the "bears" will be written off, they still fly

And did you read that comment I answered? In it, clearly a friend under the nickname "commbatant" doubts that the 95th will still serve. ATTENTION it is necessary to be in your answers and not ascribe to opponents what they did not say.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: BlackMokona

And PAK YES according to the article will replace Tu160M2

Why are you talking! And in fig tady it is necessary to produce Tu-160М2; to build a plant, practically anew,? And about the "replacement" of the Tu-160М2 in the article not a word! But the Tu-160 and Tu-160М2 are, in fact, different cars ...

[Koshak]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

And on fig tady it is necessary to produce Tu-160M2

Duc, it’s not tomorrow that these PAK YES are riveted so much as to replace all Tu-160s.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Koshak

So, do not rivet these PAK YES tomorrow so much that all Tu-160 are replaced

Us, I don’t believe it! You can see how many articles have been published recently where such praises are "sung" by Tu-160М2! And such a wonderful eroplan in the scrap, when he will be still in the "youthful" age! After all, the Tu-160M2 "is not riveted tomorrow"! Already 50 pieces!

[Viktr458]

why immediately to the scrap? We’ve been exploiting B50 for 52 years and nothing. So we will operate Tu160m2 for 40 years, and add 50 PAK YES to them after the 30th year
still have time to beat

[EternalStranger]

Yes, no one is going to produce anything. All these jumps are only for the delight of the ears of lochtorat

[venik]

Quote: Monos

Now it’s clear why TU-160М2 will do it. Speed. PAK YES - subsonic.

====
Not for that !!! It's simple, really until PAK YES - as before Africa, "cancer" !!! This is still just AVANPROEKT !!! How long did PAK FA (T-50) create? And what to replenish YES at this time ???

[Tusv]

Quote: BlackMokona

Hi B-2

.
the Americans modernized their Spirits and still put fu 35 on the wing

[Blackmokona]

I am joking with the crowd, shouting that the versatility of the F35 and the stealth-flying subsonic wing are G. But in this subject, change shoes for a moment.

[Albert1988]

Quote: BlackMokona

I am joking with the crowd, shouting that the versatility of the F35 and the stealth-flying subsonic wing are G. But in this subject, change shoes for a moment.

And what, in fact, is the universality of PAK YES? Yes, in fact, it can carry and launch a large range of missiles with different purposes. And the problems of the F-35 are primarily not in the versatility of its functions as a combat aircraft, but in an attempt to realize the possibility of different types of take-off - vertical flight, "short" take-off, etc. The vertical has not justified itself, but the design flaws associated with its implementation have left.

[Blackmokona]

Only different versions of the F-35 have different sizes, so no

[Albert1988]

Quote: BlackMokona

Only here, in different versions of the F-35, even the dimensions are different

How did you know that? He has the same dimensions, for all three options. There was something in the matter - we make one glider for everyone, and on its basis we build a vertical line, a shortened take-off and a “regular” fighter, without “bells and whistles”. A vertical line requires some design decisions. not having the best effect on LTX, the vertical line itself actually failed, but the "sharpening" under it remained, and for all, with all the consequences ...

[activator]

Quote: BlackMokona

Hi B-2. Yes, all in one, hi F35

And this thirty years later, they crap, crap the spirit until they poured PAK YES. In general, I believe that any obser of someone else's is badly hidden envy.
But there are doubts that it will be cheaper than 160 and that we will see it in 18, and that it can replace all three bombers. And the picture shows a beautiful infection and does not cause a feeling of the coming apocalypse from invading aliens like a spirit.

[sharp-lad]

Next year will show only the appearance and approximate performance characteristics.

[prosto_rgb]

Quote: BlackMokona

Hi B-2. Yes, all in one, hi F35

A good idea.

[creak]

Quote: BlackMokona

Hi B-2. Yes, all in one, hi F35

Hello to them already flying from the advance project ... Americans are shocked and buy diapers ...

[svp67]

Quote: BlackMokona

Hi B-2. Yes, all in one, hi F35

And all together - the German Ho.229 ...

[Blackmokona]

N1-M 1941 USA.

[svp67]

Quote: BlackMokona

N1-M 1941 USA.

"Flying wings" then did a lot, but only the Germans appeared "stealth"

[Blackmokona]

Nobody did the stealth then, they did not know how to calculate the EPR, the United States tried to make stealth but only with the help of the mathematical formulas of Ufimtsev could they begin to move forward normally.

[svp67]

Quote: BlackMokona

Then no one did the stealth, did not know how to calculate the EPR

Nevertheless, But 229 has all its characteristics, up to the case material used SPECIALLY for absorbing radio waves ... The brothers Walter and Reimar Horten clearly looked far ahead.

[Blackmokona]

Or it just happened by chance.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: BlackMokona

Or it just happened by chance.

It could even be! By that time, aircraft designers were limited in the choice of materials for their device. And then it turned out that the others turned out to be "not good," but they did! PS Although I came across an article where it was alleged that the designers deliberately laid technical solutions in the aircraft structure to reduce the visibility of the device ..... for example, in the visible, infrared ranges ...

[av58]

Before remembering the Americans, better remember your own history. The Soviet designer B.I. Cheranovsky built such gliders and planes back in the 20s. As an example: in 1928 he built the BEACH-8 glider of the same scheme, in 1948 - BEACH-22, and in 1952 - BEACH-26, already reactive. The car flew, and very well.

[trantor]

Quote: BlackMokona

Hi B-2. Yes, all in one, hi F35

With the F-35 you obviously got excited.

[Teberii]

While the car looks beautiful in the sketches, let's see the filling of the program.

[Vadim237]

Thumbnails have not yet been shown.

[Teberii]

Where are you looking.

[Vadim237]

Options flying wing dofigischi - maybe something borrow from someone

[Blackmokona]

Stealth, subsonic, strategist, drastically reduce the number of options

[av58]

Before you look for funny pictures, teach a native story. The Soviet designer B.I. Cheranovsky built such gliders and planes back in the 20s. As an example: in 1928 he built the BEACH-8 glider of the same scheme, in 1948 - BEACH-22, and in 1952 - BEACH-26, already reactive. The car flew, and very well.

[Vadim237]

The experience of several designers is better than the experience of one.

[Tusv]

[quoteTeberii] While the machine looks beautiful in the sketches, let's see the content of the program. [/ quote]
She has an undeniable advantage. Responds to the request

[Mar.Tirah]

There is a high probability that we will see it in 2018. We can see it and see it, At the rate that we are building, they will just use up the entire resource. There will be nothing to change.

[just exp]

Well, at least they don’t lie that in 2018 it will be in service.

[Koshak]

Quote: just EXPL

Well, at least they don’t lie that in 2018 it will be in service.

Yes, it’s not written on “weapons”, but simply “see”, at best, a prototype. So, guys, all three of the listed types (TU22M3 / 160 / 95MS) that this PAK YES should replace, write off early and drink champagne early. They will last a long time

[Pirogov]

It looks impressive! Only for 2018, there are big doubts.

[just exp]

therefore, they added that “there is a possibility”, because a miracle is always possible, but perhaps does not mean that it will happen.

[Pirogov]

Quote: just explo

therefore, they added that “there is a possibility”, because a miracle is always possible, but perhaps does not mean that it will happen.

Officials are reinsured, of course, they always have nothing to do with, it’s always Vanya and Vasya the hard worker who are to blame. Everything says that planning is just a nightmare. It would not be like with the development strategy of the Navy.

[Eugene-Eugene]

Maybe he was just a model meant

[Koshak]

Quote: Pirogov

It looks impressive! Only for 2018, there are big doubts.

Well, the so-called "overall weight model" can very well be. Moreover, now they can be made not from plywood, as before, but printed on a 3D printer.
True, we are not given to know at what stage these developments are. There are no agents in the design bureau.

[cost]

There is a high probability that we will see him in 2018

Hurry up. A universal platform instead of the three previous ones is not bad. Cheaper in production and maintenance. Yes, and in training years. composition

[Orionvit]

Twenty five again. It seems that long ago everyone in the world realized (except the states) that universalism is a dead end branch. To be able to do everything, but badly and a little bit. Unless the missiles deliver to the turn of 7000km, that much mind is not necessary. In general, we will see what happens.

[Albert1988]

Quote: Orionvit

Unless the missiles deliver to the turn of 7000km, that much mind is not necessary.

You can’t imagine - but this is the main thing. what is required of him))))
From the description of the project, it becomes clear that this, in essence, is simply a flying universal launcher for missiles, which will not, say, break through enemy air defense, because it will launch missiles from a much greater distance.

[Orionvit]

Actually, the description says it’s "promising aviation complex"and if life makes you just bomb the old fashioned way? Hope for stealth, this only works with African natives.

[Albert1988]

Quote: Orionvit

Actually, the description says that it is a “promising aviation complex”

Namely, but what is its complexity? In a large number of different missiles that he carries.

Quote: Orionvit

and if life makes you just bomb the old fashioned way?

At the current level of anti-aircraft defense, "bombing the old fashioned way" only against the natives and will work, as in Syria with the bearded ...

[mr.redpartizan]

PAK DA will be able to fully replace the outdated Tu-95MS, but the Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 will remain out of reach. PAK YES - a subsonic bomber with the form of a flying wing glider, i.e. it will fly for a very long time to the turn of missile launch, and if it is detected by the enemy, it will not be able to break away from enemy fighters due to the possibility of a long flight in supersonic. The Tu-160 left the British fighter Eurofighter Typhoon precisely due to the ability of a long flight on afterburner, and the fighters quickly ran out of fuel in this mode.

[Albert1988]

Most likely, he simply will not enter the zone of responsibility of enemy fighters ...

[Scalpel]

Quote: mr.redpartizan

The Tu-160 left the British fighter Eurofighter Typhoon precisely due to the ability of a long flight on afterburner, and the fighters quickly ran out of fuel in this mode.

Where can I read about it? I heard that the Tu-160 on supersonic flying extremely rarely, because saves fuel, airframe and engine life.

[Vadim237]

"A long-range interceptor with a platform for launching spacecraft." Really, the idea has come.

[cost 75]

Subsonic long-range interceptor?

[Vadim237]

No, a bomber-based launch platform for launching spacecraft and anti-missile systems.

[Irkutsk layman]

Yes, if we launch such a beauty, we will watch our “partners” crap without taking off their pants.

[Blackmokona]

They have long had such a B-2 called.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: BlackMokona

They have long had such a B-2 called.

You are confusing something! It is possible for some "reasons" to compare PAK YES and B-21 (B-3). But in this case it is not necessary to "consider" B-2.

[Blackmokona]

Strategic bomber flying wing, subsonic and stealth. A complete description of both PAK YES and B2.

[Nikolaevich I]

The approach to the creation, and, especially, to the use, operation of devices is very similar to PAK DA and B-21. B-2 somehow .... not in everything "fits into this concept ....

[Vadim237]

In the USA, too, a new bomber is created, according to the scheme of the flying wing, B 21, but SR 72 is of most interest

[EternalStranger]

Quote: Irkutsk philistine

we’ll watch our “partners” crap without taking off their pants.

at the same time, they themselves will have nothing to shoot. Everything will go to finance these miracles.

[PPD]

Replace? You build it first!
Yes, and questions about the price. The cost is likely to be such that it will be able to replace in the amount of 1-2pcs.
all planes in general. In the sense that buying the right amount is simply not enough money.

[kepmor]

... replace? You build it first! ...
They will build it ... and don’t even doubt it ... maybe not by the year 18, but they will build it ...
It is not for nothing that Putin introduced his "bulldozer" - Serdyukov - into the KLA leadership ... someone must once again "agie’s stables" rake after active "pohosans" !!!!
And it would be better if this "cleaner" immediately to the government ... side by side with Medvedev ... you look and "cleaned the clearing" under the new prime minister by 18 ...

[PPD]

Quote: kepmor

It was not for nothing that Putin introduced his "bulldozer" - Serdyukov, into the KLA leadership.

That is why doubts ...! Ha by 18 ... By 18, only elections will be!
The polement redoubt at 20380 does not normally shoot. In Syria, they have not been noted. Perfect only tests and is engaged.
PAK FA-Awww!
ETC.

[PPD]

PC savvy i.e. made a reservation.
But nothing changes in principle.

[AID.S]

Quote: kepmor

It is not for nothing that Putin introduced his "bulldozer" - Serdyukov - into the KLA leadership ... someone must once again "agie’s stables" rake after active "pohosans" !!!!
And it would be better if this "cleaner" immediately to the government ... side by side with Medvedev ... you look and "cleaned the clearing" under the new prime minister by 18 ..

Purely hypothetically. Moscow, the year 2024, President Serdyukov and Prime Minister Vasilyeva observe the exercises with the participation of the PakDa division ... At the forums, everyone remembers how "since childhood, for Leicester!" and glorify the glorious past of the Supreme .....

[would]

It is not for nothing that Putin introduced his "bulldozer" - Serdyukov - into the KLA leadership ... someone must once again "agie’s stables" rake after active "pohosans" !!!!

Thank you, all the military are aware of how, and more importantly where he raked.

[Vadim237]

Given the budget for military spending of 27 trillion rubles until 2025, there will be money for new bombers, with the capabilities of peaceful tasks.

[Knight Rider]

Quote: PPD

Yes, and questions about the price. The cost is likely to be such that it will be able to replace in the amount of 1-2pcs.
all planes in general. In the sense that buying the right amount is simply not enough money.

It is written, "make cheaper, but more massive."

[Mar.Tirah]

Quote: just EXPL

Well, at least they don’t lie that in 2018 it will be in service.

They don’t lie! It’s just not said that it’s in service. It is said that we will see !!!! Like PAK FA for example!

[You Vlad]

No need to rush things, and so our defense industry is moving at a good pace! For which, thanks to her

[Gormenghast]

Meanwhile, all three aircraft are being modernized (and Tu-22 - those that are relatively new, and part of the Tu-95 and all Tu-160), that is, what has been said is boltology.

There can be no simultaneous modernization and replacement; one is clearly lying; learned from the Americans?

Or, everything is as it is said, but replacement will occur after 2040 - the operation of modernized aircraft is designed for such a period. Great speed, you can’t say anything! Between the development began and the launch of the series is only one generation.

[Albert1988]

Quote: Gormengast

There can be no simultaneous modernization and replacement

At the same time, no - while the development will go on - there will be an upgrade of the existing one. as they develop, they will begin to replace them. and then, I think. gradually, as the upgraded machines will develop their resource.

[Dart2027]

Quote: Gormengast

There can be no simultaneous modernization and replacement

Building strategists is a long business, so even if the first one is completed in 2018, then a complete replacement is not a year or two, so everything is logical.

[kefan]

Well, about 2018, there are very big doubts.

[Per se.]

The Russian government has nominated candidates for the board of directors of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), it follows from the order published on the government website.
Among the candidates are the industrial director of the aviation cluster of the state corporation Rostec, former Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov.

If Anatoly Eduardovich himself connects, and the chiffoniers fly, moreover in stealth mode ... In general, if this was not in Soviet developments, it is unlikely that they will create anything under the bourgeoisie, especially in the foreseeable future, there were too many economists and lawyers trained , and too few engineers and designers, cut education with science. To everything, why so categorically "In Long-Range Aviation, the PAK DA is designed to replace all three types of aircraft in service - the Tu-22М3 long-range missile carrier, the Tu-95 and Tu-160 strategic missile carriers.", they will be needed for a long time, and a new miracle is unlikely to be in a single and unique form, progress does not stand still.

[Irkutsk layman]

Quote: PPD

Replace? You build it first!
Yes, and questions about the price. The cost is likely to be such that it will be able to replace in the amount of 1-2pcs.
all planes in general. In the sense that buying the right amount is simply not enough money.

And, have you ever met with Russian men working in this field. They are just enthusiasts.
Then, when the debugging begins, the cut begins, and the PR and all other crap. Our enemies have much bigger problems with this. They just do not have men who just stand. Therefore, they offer a different orientation.

[EternalStranger]

You have too much fixation on the sexual problems of men. Think about it ..

[Moore]

When creating PAK DA, the economic factor is also taken into account. Tu-160 is a masterpiece, which no one has yet succeeded in surpassing, but it is very expensive. The military is going to make a new plane cheaper, but more massive.

How much does the Tu-160 supposed to be replaced, which are more expensive, and how many Tu-22M3, which are clearly cheaper? Where is the economic factor here?

[dubowitskij.vick]

Quote: Teberii

Where are you looking.

This is not a conceptual design. Handwriting of a dreamer. It has nothing to do with seriousness.

[Bronevick]

In fact, work on the PAK DA (STARTREK internal design code) was postponed until 2030 due to the resumption of production of the TU-160. In 2030, OCD should begin on PAK YES.

[Everything is very simple]

A missile is the main component of the complex, the task of the carrier is to only deliver it to the launch line. My opinion is that the carrier still needs speed and not invisibility since he will shoot these long-range missiles without entering the zone where someone (the carrier) sees him

[Ramadan]

"The machine will be equipped with a large number of weapon bays." - but in the presentation there are only two compartments so far or I haven’t noticed something.
“It is impossible to make a missile carrier invisible to radars and supersonic at the same time, therefore the advantage is given to stealth” - this is the military’s response to all of their “Wishlist”.

[xtur]

> It is impossible to make the missile carrier invisible to radars and supersonic at the same time

Fedorov smacks some rubbish, I want to show him a finger on the T-50. Which, in addition, in some layout matters, is even more of a bomber than a fighter - a large internal weapons compartment, which is mandatory for all supposedly inconspicuous aircraft, are features of a bomber.

so Fedorov’s interview gives more questions than information

[Lesorub]

Without supersonic speed - it’s hard to quickly respond to tasks or threats !!! And so, the idea with a new bomber is relevant as not when!

[levfuks]

Quote: Mar. Tira

They don’t lie! It’s just not said what is in service. It is said that we will see !!!!

Seriously, it’s clear that people work, it’s clear that in some places they’ve done well, but in 2018 we are unlikely to see anything.
It would be nice in 2028.

[Vadim237]

It is only necessary to make the fuselage - everything else is there, including engines.

[Zaurbek]

I think they will put promising PD-35 - 2 pcs.

[saturn.mmm]

Quote: levfuks

It would be nice in 2028.

In 2018, they will only determine the appearance, that is, they will make a model.

[Vadim237]

We have already decided - a flying wing scheme, subsonic engines, armament: long-range strategic cruise missiles, as well as hypersonic - aeroballistic missiles planning guided and conventional bombs, the ability to land and take off from a dirt airfield, low visibility. Further preparation of design, assembly documentation and construction.

[jovanni]

The requirements for a new aircraft are very high. The military inscribed everything they think: a strategic bomber, a tactical bomber-missile carrier bomber, and even a long-range interceptor with a platform for launching spacecraft.

I don’t want to offend anyone ... But the question arises, but what if he will not spray the corn? As they begin to talk about global universality, so they begin to torment vague doubts ...

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Jovanni

and what if he will not spray the corn?

Duc, the Racean military is not the only one! American tozhets dream of a "universal platform"! Enta platform will be equipped with modular equipment and weapons. and "turn" ... now into a "strategist", then into an operational-tactical device, then into an EW carrier or "flying long-range radar"; "aircraft missile anti-aircraft complex" ....

[Vadim237]

It can help in extinguishing fires, 60 tons of carrying capacity, will allow you to take a lot of bombs, with extinguishing fluid.

[san4es]

...exactly! They will build a glider (to be) and there it will be seen where to come in handy ... maybe a tanker, maybe an Emergencies Ministry

[saturn.mmm]

Quote: Jovanni

But the question arises, but what if he will not spray the corn?

Will be in peacetime.

[Victor Kiyashchenko]

As I think, “Taburetkin” would still be MO-would start with model aircraft circles, and not the development of PAK DA.

[Mystery12345]

70 comments .. based on stupid, and not a single professional, at least from the point of view of the pilot (navigator) YES. Unfortunately, the site is extremely poor in terms of professionals, dummies, dummies, sea ... even more.

[saturn.mmm]

Quote: Mystery12345

Unfortunately, the site is extremely poor in terms of professionals,

They flew to the south to winter.
What article such and comments.

[dubowitskij.vick]

Super universalism. This idea can ruin anything. Without an ultra-long rocket, any such venture is dead. And you need to start, in my opinion, with her. The volume of work is much less than the entire complex, to carry out both faster and cheaper. And at the time of mastering the DA itself, it can be attached to the existing one. With such a rocket, supersonic speed is not really needed. The main thing in this option is the TIME of being on the border of the permissible. If a day without refueling, it would be YES!

[Dzafdet]

The author is burning! PAK YES will do to replace the Tu-22M2 and all ...

[voyaka uh]

Subsonic stealth. This is a recognition of the American concept that
radar stealth is more important than speed.
And the recognition that at present (and in the future, the next 10-20 years, probably)
There are NO radars that could direct air defense missiles on such a plane.
Otherwise, why should the fuss be fenced with a new stealth bomber if the stealth is perfectly (supposedly) visible by the miracle air defense systems?

[Vadim237]

So in Russia they created materials that are significantly superior to foreign stealth.

[voyaka uh]

"So in Russia they created materials" ////

Perhaps, but doubtful. Promising stealth materials are more than just
various mixtures of metal balls and polymers, and practical flexible
microcircuits "smeared" on aircraft coverings. With sensors, sensors ...
Million dollars "paint" . There is no information that Russia is leading in this
region.

[Dart2027]

Quote: voyaka uh

There are NO radars that could direct air defense missiles on such a plane.

If he launches missiles at 7000 km, and air defense missiles fly at several hundred km, then I do not understand what is the meaning of stealth. To use it as an attack aircraft against an enemy with normal air defense? Some nonsense. Rather, there are some other factors.

[voyaka uh]

"If he launches missiles over 7000 km, and air defense missiles fly over several hundred km, then I don’t understand" ///

And I will explain to you: rockets flying over 7000 km cost several million dollars each.
And their releases will be the same piecewise as the release of PAK-DA itself.
And in the future there will be exactly the same situations as now in Syria. "We must help the distant
friend "and bomb some future Islamists (or evil-e-istists ) And they will fill with PAK-DA FABs (or at best CABs) ... And the evil-e-ists, as luck would have it, are mossy Patriots or S-400 (already outdated by that time). But - cheers! - PAK-YES, he is a stealth and his evil spirits will not see in his outdated super-radars. But if they were Tu-95-22-160 with their mighty EPR, they would be shot down, as if they were pretty .

[Viktr458]

Vovka, you speak from a position of the present. Only the advance project passed. In 7-8 years something will already be

[Vadim237]

Well, of course - we need him to bombard the wrong regimes and any newly-minted "Reichs" - like the Ukrainian, as well as to maintain the right, allied states, which the wrong ones will threaten.

[Dart2027]

Quote: voyaka uh

And I will explain to you: rockets flying over 7000 km cost several million dollars each.

I don’t know how much they will cost, but I doubt very much that anyone will send strategists to the enemy’s air defense. To do this, there are cheaper aircraft and specially sharpened for this. Actually now this is happening - the main work is done by drying and this is logical.

[voyaka uh]

"but I doubt very much that anyone will send strategists to the enemy’s air defense" ////

You can run into air defense ... when you are not waiting for it at all.
And not only against air defense stealth helps. The interceptor does not see the stealth strategist from afar, the illumination of the BB missile by a radar is difficult.
As it turns out, the Americans are not so dumb, "did not read the Ufimtsev," if smart Russians repeat their decisions .

[Dart2027]

Quote: voyaka uh

The interceptor does not see the stealth strategist from afar

Well, BB missiles do not fly so far, for example, Python 5 - 20 km, Derby - 50 km, at this distance stealth is unlikely to help. Although if the interceptor cannot find the strategist at a great distance and does not know where to fly, it may work. But again, they will not be covered up?

[Blackmokona]

AIM120D 180 km

[Zaurbek]

Why not repeat the successful proven idea?

[xtur]

Quote: voyaka uh

This is a recognition of the American concept that
stealth radar is more important than speed

No, this is a recognition of the obvious fact that the “flying wing” has the highest GP among other schemes, which means the most effective bomber. If to this we add rockets with a range of 7000 km, then there is simply nothing left with the American concept, given that today the United States has nothing close to X101 / X102 in range

[voyaka uh]

"no, this is a recognition of the obvious fact that the" flying wing "has the largest GP among other schemes" ///

Uh! Caution! You probably have not read the VO forum comments about the B-2 and F-117 ...
Everyone unanimously concluded that these flying wings are "worthless flying coffins" ,
which knock down, spit "in the meter range" .

[xtur]

> "worthless flying coffins"

Well, you can’t say that they are far from reality - because the scheme flying wing possible only through computer control, and I have not heard anything about its over-maneuverability ;-)

 Show / Hide text

Just for a DA that will shoot over 7000 km, it is enough that the GP had a good scheme, and that it wouldn’t consume very much fuel.

[Cossack 471]

I served on the Vega S-200, even the deviation is visible on the screen of the launch officer. frequencies from engine blades I don’t think that there are difficulties with invisibility in modern complexes and there was also a teleoptic sight; it is impossible to create an airplane invisible in all frequency ranges, at least until someone sees

[Zaurbek]

The SR-71 was tracked while taxiing to a lane ... in Norway from Murmansk.

[Mountain shooter]

Yes, the concept of using bombers and strategists has changed a lot. It all started with freely falling atomic bombs. And the "strategist" was supposed to reach the enemy, and throw the load on his head. And then, if possible, fly back again.
Much water has since flowed. Cruise missiles now have speed, range, and maneuverability - not comparable to an airplane. No longer need a platform that breaks through enemy air defense at supersonic - it still will not break. A new concept is a barrage launching platform, inconspicuous, rapidly moving, flying, for example, into the cover zones of OUR air defense, over the Arctic, for example, and from there ...
Well, a couple of tens of tons of "cast iron", if that, on the head of the barmaley, for sure, and not expensive.

[Svetlana]

Quote: Vadim237

bomber-based launch platform for launching spacecraft

A launch platform based on a bomber to launch spacecraft and anti-missiles is certainly good, but the time spent in a given square is small, the engine life is limited. It is necessary in every ocean (Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, Arctic) to have at least one ship with an anti-satellite weapon system similar to Aegis and the ability to rotate the crew from 3 months to half a year.
Because most satellites move in the sky, and those that were 10 minutes ago over the Atlantic - in 10 minutes will already be over Russia. Satellites must be shot down simultaneously over all four oceans in order to break the chains of space communications between them. It will be cheaper to keep 4 ships in the oceans for 3 months each than to send 4pcs PAK DA with a platform for launching spacecraft on alert duty over the oceans.

[Vadim237]

And it’s also an anti-satellite missile - “long-playing”, three-speed, with access to the IEO, and then just waiting for the command to attack.

[mr.redpartizan]

In 2018, a full-size layout is likely to be shown. The PAK DA program was launched in 2009, and the PAK FA in 2002 (first flight - 2010), but at that time it was not yet known about plans to deploy Tu-160M2 production. Of course, there is little chance of seeing a flying prototype of a new bomber next year.

[OlegYola]

There will also be one, unique product, in the amount of 10 pieces

[Every]

And why did many cling to a missile range of 7 km? And he did not understand the statement at all: he needed to take off, launch a rocket and make a circle to land.
What about patrolling?

Quote: BlackMokona

They showed themselves very well, very rarely shooting down a thousand sorties, only they are very expensive. And the scheme, as I understand it, suggests that the enemy will dominate our skies, since with such a range of missiles, we want to cover ourselves with stealth.

Most likely, stealth technologies are needed specifically for covert patrols.
Because, with a range of missiles - 7000 km. the enemy’s air defense breakthrough (like the Tu-160 at speed) or an inconspicuous passage (like the B-2) is not required.
2018 is very doubtful. Is that a layout.

It’s only if the key element of the complex is a missile with a range of 7000 km. And other capabilities - oh, scary.
Won for the "Poliment Redut" still can’t finish the rocket.

[saturn.mmm]

Now they grab onto the Tu-160, then the PAK YES, but as a result there is nothing, as indeed the Navy
Knock money out, powder the people with brains and there is a demobilization.

[Vadim237]

And in two years nothing will happen - quickly it is not done.

[Wildfox]

Beautiful pictures have learned to draw. I think if we see anything in 2018, then they are different from this disgrace. An example of a simple Tu-160 any version provides for the minimum crew comforts, walkways and a place to stretch oneself. They will have to sit for 10 hours in armchairs, who traveled to the intercity knows that after 3 already the ridge and the priests begin to ache. So the cabin ala SU-34 is not the best option. And there is no such need for glazing.
I also did not see air intakes without cutting off the boundary layer. I think even a sketch was made by an "effective manager" far from the TK and sketches of designers.
We will wait a year and discuss the real outline and ideas.
At the expense of supersonic, then on it the Tu-160 also does not fly 10 thousand km, I think a maximum of 4 thousand Passes, comes off and goes on the sound again. Until there are engines for supersonic flights without afterburner it’s right that they design in the form of subsonic platforms.

[Vadim237]

Ours decided to follow the path of greater combat load, cheapness, simplicity and mass, and the engine for hypersonic aircraft — spacecraft — was completed and carried out fire tests in Russia last year.

[barclay]

The requirements for a new aircraft are very high. The military inscribed everything they think: a strategic bomber, a tactical bomber-missile carrier bomber, and even a long-range interceptor with a platform for launching spacecraft.
The military is going to make a new plane cheaper, but more massive.
The requirements are just super high, plus stealth. It is very doubtful that it will be cheaper. There is an example of the furiously expensive inconspicuous F-35. And here - a whole "missile carrier".
There is a high probability that we will see it in 2018 year.
God grant in the layout.

[Vadim237]

But unlike the F 35th - which was created completely from scratch, for PAK DA there are all systems: engines, avionics, even landing gear and ejection seats - everything is already being produced.

[Blackmokona]

F35 was created on the basis of F22, a hell of a lot of details, just modernized spare parts from F22.

[Cartalon]

The dubious concept, then we say that there are no invisibles, then we want to build them ourselves, isn’t it easier to rivet trucks with TU-95 missiles, if we are not economically pulling supersonic ones, and with invisibility it is not clear whether it exists in principle, especially since the appearance This product may be replaced by a couple of generations of radars.

[EternalStranger]

but there is no concept. That the people hawala, so they feed him.

[Atlant-1164]

Earlier, Deputy Minister of Defense Yuri Borisov reported that the newest PAK DA bomber could be introduced in 2018:

I hope they will present as well as Armata, on Victory Day at the May 9 parade .. let the adversaries see !!!

[Young_Communist]

PAK DA is designed to replace all three missile carriers

You first complete the PAK-FA and put it in the army, otherwise look what’s happening in the world, and then boast about rendering 3D models.

[mr.redpartizan]

It starts to strain. It would be better to say right away that supplies will go from 2020. Without engines of the second stage, the PAK FA is not much superior to the Su-35S, but it costs significantly more. One of the main characteristics of the 5th generation is cruising supersonic in the region of 2000 km / h.

[Redfox3k]

about cruising supersonic for an airplane in the region of 2000 km / h - this is something from the field of "star wars", it was just about cruising unsupported supersonic, and this is in the region of 1200-1300 km / h,

[Zaurbek]

But do you suggest not testing the rest of the systems, but waiting for the engines?

[Vadim237]

Most likely he will fly like that until the sixth generation takes off - we have been developing it for four years now. T 50 will be exported - it will be possible to pump out much more money from it than from our defense budget.

[JD1979]

In Long-Range Aviation, the PAK DA is designed to replace all three types of aircraft in service - the Tu-22М3 long-range missile carrier, the Tu-95 and Tu-160 strategic missile carriers.

D.B.I.L.A.L.M.I. Russian land ...

[fider]

"There is a high probability that we will see him in 2018."
December 31, after lunch, like Tu -144.

[sharp-lad]

Modelka promise! And not a combat bomber! And, besides, they promise only to show, not to touch!

[saturn.mmm]

Quote: fider

"There is a high probability that we will see him in 2018."
December 31, after lunch, like Tu -144.

February 30th before lunch.

[DM51]

Rogozin at one time was opposed to the stealth subsonic bomber, he roughly said that we needed a backlog for the future - we need to design a hypersonic aircraft with the possibility of hitting an enemy from near space and here I agree with him

[fa2998]

Quote: Observer 33

Only Tu-160 does not need to be turned off, and even 22 M3, while it's too early to retire ...

Yes, and let the Tu-95 fly too! There they will build it, they will test it. How many more jambs will be treated, and while they will build a significant number, it will take several decades. 3 generations of bombers fly from the Americans, and nothing, everyone has their own niche.
We are lagging behind so far, as I understand it, the new aircraft is an “improved B-2” (subsonic, flying wing). Its radius is not the level of Tu-95, but it is also not a competitor to the Tu-160 supersonic. Maybe it will be written off later 22M3, and part of the Tu-95. And the core of heavy aircraft will be the Tu-160 (will be additionally released) and a new aircraft.

[Zomanus]

It turns out that they make a flying platform for a thuja heap of missiles.
If the Tu-160 is a breakthrough aircraft, then it is stupid as an aircraft carrier, a uterus-rocket.
And taking into account the range of missiles that will be on it, he can even launch them over his airfield.
But not only missiles, but also drones and probably other things.

[sharp-lad]

For this, we need subsonic flight and at least some kind of "invisibility"! It will barrage and wait for requests to launch rockets, and then space satellites, TU 160 2M / 3M and MIG 31/41 will be engaged in guidance.

[EternalStranger]

Quote: Zomanus

But not only missiles, but also drones, probably

and manned missiles chtoli?

[fa2998]

Quote: fider

"There is a high probability that we will see him in 2018."

But how, there they set up Serdyukov to raise the aircraft! I think not the plane we will see, but a new scandal!

[Blackmokona]

But the furniture in the planes will be only the highest quality.

[Vadim237]

It will have the best pilot seats - with heating and massage, as well as a shower stall at the end of the cabin, a kitchen, sleeping places and a toilet.

[Blackmokona]

And 4 hotel rooms for tourists

[Svetlana]

and gramophone with a portrait of Edita Peha

[Vadim237]

This will stand at the navigator - on a folding stand.

[Vadim237]

These seats on board have already been booked - by the crew of the Zvezda television channel.

[Mista_dj]

Quote: fa2998

I think not the plane we will see, but a new scandal!

There will be no scandal. He will give everything to the Omirikants. Officially, through a tender.

[sir_obs]

The bomber must be orbital. The range is unlimited, knocking down is problematic.

[fa2998]

I think the holiday weekend has already dragged on, that people are already writing nonsense! How will the aircraft go into orbit? What should I hook up to the Energia launch vehicle each time during take-off? Or we will follow the American route-2 lateral launch vehicle stages and a large tank ? Do you have any idea how much energy is needed to bring a full-fledged bomber into space. So it’s also necessary to land it!

[Vadim237]

So far it is very expensive.

[sharp-lad]

With modern maneuvering capabilities in near space and real successes in atomizing satellites even by Chinese comrades, it will not be easy to shoot down, but very simple.

[Vadim237]

This bomber will also be used to "disperse" the Chinese - if they want to chop off our territory.

[Former battalion commander]

Storytellers at work: “and better,” “and cheaper,” “and barely”, “and many weapons bays.” The main thing is to draw the state into the project with fraudulent promises, and then they won’t go anywhere. And all this pease ... the brethren will feed, steal and cut loot for more than a dozen years. Then no one will remember what they promised and what they received ... Julie at work ...

[Vasily V]

That's right, first the cannon (here the rocket), and the plane

[Vadim237]

Of course - this new aircraft is made for armaments - which the Tu 160M2 bombs will not fit.

[ved_med12]

A wing aircraft, without tail (from the word at all), with engines close to the fuselage, will have the ax maneuverability ... Add (i.e., subtract) to this speed .... a sad prospect ...
If, make the main bet on new missiles, a la 7000 km. then why are Tu22 bad and even more so 160s? something tells me that low visibility from the earth is not such from space, but soon, we will certainly come to this, both we and the mattresses ...

[Vladimir65]

"Earlier, Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov reported that the newest PAK DA bomber could be introduced in 2018."
I think that if by 2028 something works out, if it is tormented for a long time, then it’s very good.

[Old26]

Quote: the most important

And how will it differ from IL-96 except by stealth? The speed is the same ... But why stealth at a launch range of 7000 km? Throw out the seats from the IL and put the drums under the rockets and the new missile carrier is ready. In the states, a strike with such a range is practically from the North Pole, in China and Europe - from the Urals, and why drive barmales with missiles? In this case, bombs are needed .... Drive all Wishlist into one plane ???? But will not it turn out "garbage with a bow"?

Yes, you can easily throw out all the seats. But the medal always has TWO SIDES. And the second side is our "sworn friend" of the USA. Do you think that if we violate existing agreements, they will sit, watch and do nothing? Look how many IL-96 we have, and how many Boeing-747 they have of all modifications, B-757, B-767, 777, how many DC-10, MD-11, MD-12. Look how many AN-124 we have and how many S-5 and S-17 they have. It is precisely because we have always lagged behind the United States in the number of passenger and transport aircraft, especially in the wide-body ones, and the norm was introduced in the agreement banning such use of transport aircraft. Back in the late 70s, they already had projects to convert the same Boeing 747 into carriers of cruise missiles. I don’t remember the exact amount, but something about 80-100

Quote: Albert1988

And what, in fact, is the universality of PAK YES?

The fact that it is not yet and in the next 10 years will not be, at least in "commodity quantities"

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Quote: BlackMokona

They have long had such a B-2 called.

You are confusing something! It is possible for some "reasons" to compare PAK YES and B-21 (B-3). But in this case it is not necessary to "consider" B-2.

It can be compared with B-21 (B-3). But our "partners" have experience in the construction and operation of the V-2, and we only have to go through this

Quote: Cartalon

The dubious concept, then we say that there are no invisibles, then we want to build them ourselves, isn’t it easier to rivet trucks with TU-95 missiles, if we are not economically pulling supersonic ones, and with invisibility it is not clear whether it exists in principle, especially since the appearance This product may be replaced by a couple of generations of radars.

Quote: DM51

Rogozin at one time was opposed to the stealth subsonic bomber, he roughly said that we needed a backlog for the future - we need to design a hypersonic aircraft with the possibility of hitting an enemy from near space and here I agree with him

But what a trifle, from the neighbor. There is a proposal to make our base of such bombers in Amalthea and from there scam around the United States. Certainly they will not detect the moment of departure ...

Quote: sir_obs

The bomber must be orbital. The range is unlimited, knocking down is problematic.

Yeah, and also have superlight engines so that in a couple of hours you can hit the Alfa Centauri (at the base) for refueling and re-equipment

[corporal]

A missile is the main component of the complex, the task of the carrier is to only deliver it to the launch line

If it's all about a rocket, then why bother at the expense of the carrier?
Theoretically, it (a rocket) can be launched from any "maize".

[nrex]

Subsonic aircraft, 7000 km missile range. Sense, the launch pad for missiles moving in the air is out of reach for enemy air defense. Its main advantage is the ability to hang for a long time and economically with maximum combat load.

[Irkutsk layman]

Actually, such a handsome man should not replace, but supplement one of the components of our airy triad.
With polar bears, yes with 22m3, and with swans side by side. Waving Boream wing over the arctic ocean. Barguzin write a fiery hello. Yarsiki, you do not sleep there.

[Vadim237]

You have not seen him yet, that would be called handsome.

[delvin-fil]

Such missiles already exist, we are working on them.

Sorry, that?

[Operator]

PAK-DA is a budget cut, definitely.

[Meshchersky]

Quote: oleg-gr

Figuratively speaking, customers from the Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation want to get "egg, butter, cheese carrying sow." The desire is commendable, but can the industry embody these Wishlist? Here is the main question.

Demand the impossible - you will get what you want.

[dubowitskij.vick]

Quote: Monos

Now it’s clear why TU-160М2 will do it. Speed. PAK YES - subsonic.

Supersonic for iron that does not fly into the zone of possible counteraction to enemy air defense is an unnecessary headache. The main thing is not supersonic sound, but the super-duration of hovering in the missile launch area. And you don’t need an extra long flight. For the same reason.

[Vlad5307]

There is a high probability that we will see it in 2018 year.

Your words, yes to God's ears! Or rather, our liberal government!

[dubowitskij.vick]

Quote: ved_med12

A wing aircraft, without tail (from the word at all), with engines close to the fuselage, will have the ax maneuverability ... Add (i.e., subtract) to this speed .... a sad prospect ...
If, make the main bet on new missiles, a la 7000 km. then why are Tu22 bad and even more so 160s? something tells me that low visibility from the earth is not such from space, but soon, we will certainly come to this, both we and the mattresses ...

Why does this suitcase need aerial balancing act? The main thing is the highest time spent in the zone of possible missile launch. At (virtually) zero speed. Hang and wait for an order. Day. Two, without refueling. Others will break through the missile defense system AFTER the first disarming strike.

[dubowitskij.vick]

Quote: xtur

> It is impossible to make the missile carrier invisible to radars and supersonic at the same time
Fedorov smacks some rubbish, I want to show him a finger on the T-50. Which, in addition, in some layout matters, is even more of a bomber than a fighter - a large internal weapons compartment, which is mandatory for all supposedly inconspicuous aircraft, are features of a bomber.
so Fedorov’s interview gives more questions than information

Compare the little T-50 with the necessary strategic bomber.... The invisibility of these pieces of iron is a completely different concept. A strategist cannot be made as invisible as a fighter. Moreover, the proposed vehicle should not at all approach the enemy’s air defense range. Hence, why make it supersonic and invisible? Its main task is to pass by aircraft carriers and wait for orders, hanging for many hours without refueling.

[xtur]

>From here, why make it supersonic and invisible?

I didn’t argue with the choice of the PAK DA concept - but the specific argument seemed to me to contradict already existing realities

[Chever]

Is this really what he will look like? If so, then I can see conversations among the relevant contingent in the style of “The Russians have spoiled the design of the B-2 by 146%!!!

[Redfox3k]

But is it okay that the design of the B-2 itself was “stubbed” by Hitler’s Horten Ho 229?
http://weaponscollection.com/27/3875-horten-ho-22
9-nemeckoe-letayuschee-krylo.html

[Blackmokona]

In the USA there were flying wings even before the Second World War.

[Incvizitor]

There are so many comments, full of heated debates and debaters, but in essence there are wishes and dreams + a picture with computer graphics and perhaps the plane will turn out to be different from this one.

That’s how, for me, in a strategist, speed is more important than “stealth”; it is necessary to quickly reach the “partners” at the right time and discharge, and the range of weapons (especially by the 20th year) will definitely allow this to be done without entering the air defense zone.
Although if it actually replaces that 22 m 3, then it can be used in local conflicts and there low visibility will be useful.

[Redfox3k]

There is a saying in Rus': the quieter you drive, the further you will go... and you can take more greetings to our enemies on board. It’s not for nothing that thousands of designers and engineers in the aviation industry receive money that they decided to make the PAK DA subsonic

[gukoyan]

Something weird...

[Redfox3k]

A missile launcher with a range of 7000 km is apparently a greeting to the exceptional. If only PAKDA would have been made unmanned....

[Alexey-74]

I personally liked it, the main thing is that all the stated characteristics are reality. In general, I look at 2018, a lot of things have been announced, and the T-50 and Armata will pass the state. testing and presentation of PAK YES, well, as they say, we’ll see!

[commbatant]

There is a high probability that we will see it in 2018 year.

- “there’s no money, but you’re holding on”...

[Alexandr2637]

Damn dreamers...

[Tolstoevsky]

it would also be nice if it pollinated fields with chemicals and transported bulk cargo

[dubowitskij.vick]

Quote: mashinist

And why "It is impossible to make a missile carrier invisible to radars and supersonic at the same time"?

Because the shape of the body, the rest, especially the protruding parts of this piece of iron, according to one requirement, must be the same, and according to another requirement, completely opposite. It would be possible, the billions of dollars spent by the Americans with their half-baked F-35 would achieve results. And this is a relatively small airplane. With the strategic bomber the situation is even worse. Due to the fact that it is much larger in size. The locators are sharpened to see large areas well.

[dubowitskij.vick]

Quote: Cossack 471

I served on the Vega S-200, even the deviation is visible on the screen of the launch officer. frequencies from engine blades I don’t think that there are difficulties with invisibility in modern complexes and there was also a teleoptic sight; it is impossible to create an airplane invisible in all frequency ranges, at least until someone sees

That's it. And especially since any normal airplane has all sorts of locators working, it communicates by radio, it has all sorts of pulse-based devices that take direction quite well and reliably.

[dubowitskij.vick]

Quote: Redfox3k

But is it okay that the design of the B-2 itself was “stubbed” by Hitler’s Horten Ho 229?
http://weaponscollection.com/27/3875-horten-ho-22
9-nemeckoe-letayuschee-krylo.html

Stop stealing forms. Mathematics is the same in the entire universe, especially on small Earth. If you are faced with the same task, then surrounded by the same constants, any designer, even in Africa, even in Antarctica, will make very similar pieces of hardware.

[dubowitskij.vick]

Quote: Incvizitor

.....
That’s how, for me, in a strategist, speed is more important than “stealth”; you need to quickly reach your “partners” at the right time and discharge yourself, and the range of weapons (especially by the 20th year) will definitely allow you to do this without entering the air defense zone......

Read your own carefully. Without entering the zone.... Then what is invisibility for? Then what is speed for? Preparation and implementation of a surprise attack, in fact, cannot be sudden by definition. From here, the flight time to the launch position of an ultra-long-range missile is calculated in several hours. The attack has been PREPARING for months, no less. The main thing, in my opinion, is constant readiness for takeoff (ease of operation), and incredibly long loitering at the release point without refueling. And invisibility is perhaps no less important, since you will have to break through aviation cordons from aircraft carriers.

[dubowitskij.vick]

Quote: voyaka uh

"So in Russia they created materials" ////
Perhaps, but doubtful. Promising stealth materials are more than just
various mixtures of metal balls and polymers, and practical flexible
microcircuits "smeared" on aircraft coverings. With sensors, sensors ...
Million dollars "paint" . There is no information that Russia is leading in this
region.

Russia is a leader in air defense and missile defense systems. This is much cheaper than billion-dollar research. There will be no distance war carried out only on the couch and with simulators of airplane cockpits. This way you can only fight with an unarmed Libya. The war with Vietnam showed that the realities are much more cruel and brutal. Why dream about victory over Russia?

Doesn't the F-35 lesson teach you anything? To follow this path is to break your neighbor's windows with golden doubloons from a slingshot.

[Scalpel]

It was to prevent Vietnam from happening again that the military came up with the idea of ​​suppressing air defense with weapons and special equipment. And stealth is a good help here.

[Maxom75]

It looks beautiful, but the question is, will soup, porridge and compote in one plate be pleasant to eat?

[Alex_Gazenvagen]

The Americans remain morons, both strategists understand that it is impossible to cram something that cannot be crammed into one product, but we are smarter than the Americans))))

[san4es]

It still has a lot of sweep - it will turn out to be a flying saucer, maybe it will go supersonic

[Nikolai Bolotnikov]

Another nonsense for cheering idiots.

[Tishka]

I am tormented by vague doubts whether this is the same machine that the Americans are trying to abandon, called B-2! That is, we are again following in other people’s footsteps, returning to sub-sonic speeds, for the sake of stealth. Maybe we’ll also put the F-22 with 35 into production, because if it works out, we can create the PAK DA in 18, then start production of the Tu-160 only in 2020, and that’s a big question mark! It turns out there is no point, however, if PAK YES will begin production at 18, then why revive the Tu-2020 in 160?

[Prince of Pensions]

Quote: Silence

for the sake of stealth.

Well, we are an aggressor country and we need stealth aircraft to penetrate enemy territory like we need air. It’s not the FSA that has bases all over the world, it’s not they who are fighting the Papuans, but we are going to penetrate into enemy territory undetected.
And it’s easy to counteract stealth aircraft, put a good afar on a dingy plane with one engine, and lift the required number of such planes into the sky, and that’s it, all stealth will blow away like the wind. Cheap and cheerful.

[Tishka]

You are wrong, we need stealth aircraft like we need air! We spend money, but there are no planes, you can always blame it on the fact that they, invisible, as with the Angara, spent money, and not little, and then admitted that it was a dead-end branch, it was necessary to do it using Stealth technology, Then there would be no questions about what we were thinking about before!

[Free Shooter]

Betting on a subsonic aircraft is stupid!

[Filxnumx]

opus,

So, after 1971, design thought stopped in the USSR? Are milled wafer panels made of aluminum-magnesium alloy still the ultimate dream of Russian designers, just like 40 years ago? Funny, by God!

[Prince of Pensions]

but it is very expensive. The military is going to make the new aircraft cheaper, but more widespread.

Is it really possible to build such a complex from scratch and organize everything and everyone for this business without spending what working with the Tu-160 promises?

[Falcon5555]

It is impossible to make a missile carrier invisible to radar and supersonic at the same time, so stealth is preferred.

What about the F-22? T-50? Scale up, and that’s it. Why repeat the B-2, but with strange wingtips (as the respected opus noted above) and air intakes that evoke a feeling of deja vu (British Vulcan of the 50s)?

even a long-range interceptor with a platform for launching spacecraft.

Subsonic interceptor??? Subsonic launch? Hm...

[EternalStranger]

Oops. Until now, people have said on every corner that stealth is not needed.

[Prince of Pensions]

Quote: EternalStranger

Oops. Until now, people have said on every corner that stealth is not needed.

Not needed if if if. But it looks like these have disappeared.

[iouris]

I think that first we need to prove that YES is needed now. Is not a fact. This money needs to be spent more efficiently.

[Diviz]

For such a vanderfall, well-maintained airfields are needed. Well, let’s say the 2nd generation engines for the T50 will give impetus to the modernization of Pak and Pak aircraft. but I think we need to create Buran 2...at least they made a layout.

[Mista_dj]

Hallelujah!
I am very happy and smile widely.

[Scalpel]

It seems that they are abandoning the concept of breaking through air defense at supersonic speed, following the Americans. In addition, subsonic means more economical engines and a longer flight range. Well, the advantages of stealth are becoming more and more obvious. It’s hard to believe about 2018, but we’ll see. A lot of money will be required, new technologies and production.

[9lvariag]

Yes, all strategists are already subsonic. Look at the flight profile of the Tu-160?

[Navigator Basov]

Nowhere was it ever mentioned that in the presented pictures it was the projected PAK DA. 146% of these pictures were drawn by a certain student (as was the case a couple of years ago with pictures of PAK TA, drawn by student Alexei Komarov), but now journalist-like people are putting these pictures in the news about the project (well, they need to push some pictures, these are them they googled it, since nothing real can be googled), and the expert-like ones seriously discuss the shortcomings of winglets and air intakes. These are pictures! Just pictures of a student, perhaps a designer, but not an aircraft designer; you don’t need to treat them as developments, as a project. There are millions of such pictures on artstation.com, deviantart.com, etc.

Here you can also scold the winglets and air intakes, at least there will be something to laugh about.

[9lvariag]

Quote: BlackMokona

Strategists are generally extremely expensive aircraft both in construction and maintenance.

So yes. But our strategists are all on-site storage aircraft. And “Lame Karl” and “Spirit” are hangar-storage aircraft! Do you feel the difference? Or how?!

[HZ66]

Iline,
Iline,
Freezing in anticipation.

[9lvariag]

Iline,
1. Let’s already agree (especially since this has already been done for a long time and has been discussed 100 times on forums like “Paralaya” and “Airbase”) that the United States itself has no trace of such planes! Right?
2. What is the point of using an aircraft with a flight radius of 2500 km as a strategist? It's ersatz at best.
3. What does “STEALTH” have to do with it, if the generals and district commanders have no brains? He would have helped if it had been different. I think everyone who is even slightly aware of the topic knows how in 2008 in Yeisk, Krymsk, etc. they transported “cast iron” from the Red Banner North and from the Crimea, because they rushed to the FAB, there was little in the warehouses! :) Just as they rushed in Chechnya, and the MiG-27 rotted at the storage sites. Just like in Georgia in 2008, they bombed the Su-25 from ShAP mainly with “cast iron” and desecrated the NURS, they did not hang or use WTO.
3. So, many Ukrainians and others (and ours too) like to cite as an example that incident in Kodori. With the same success, NAA B-1B and F-111C (FB-111B) and F-117A would have been shot down there. With a 100% guarantee, more than one of the three B-52Hs would have been shot down! Flight at subsonic levels and without the use of electronic warfare systems, without escort by means of IAP? Without RTR. What was the point of sending this Tu-22Mx there if it fell behind its flight and leader? And now people have been talking about this for almost 10 years. This was a clear forgiveness of the generals of the Ministry of Defense and the Air Force. And “invisibility” in an ambush from several Ukrov complexes is not a help. Then he hit the Su-34, that Kupol radar? Yes, and it was possible to immediately hang up the PRR and conduct reconnaissance using the Su-27?!
4. “The legend is sacred, but it’s hard to believe,” especially about the B-52Sh and B-1B, over a normal theater of operations with normal, not Arab, air defense. We know how they did not pay attention to the E-3A, E-6, Prowlers and other electronic warfare units on duty in the air, to the AGM-86 ALSM, AGM-105, Tomagvka, GBU-15 Paravey and other joy. USAF & RAF - they love to praise themselves and tell fairy tales that I myself would believe, but life suggests otherwise.
5. An example of an old B-52Sh trough - past the cash register. Everything is just a cheap plane that takes old missile launchers (of which there are plenty) and cheap free-falling nuclear weapons and conventional ammunition. This is not for you to drive a “golden anti-Papuan bomber” to Guam and back. But for some reason the same newer carrier FB-111 was withdrawn from the SAC? Although at 1600 km. He wore a GBU-21 and also delivered other atomic goodies no worse than other aircraft. You are based on SAC and B-1B, but the Americans themselves considered its electronic warfare kit to be incapable of breaking through the army air defense of the USSR/RF.
6. What do you mean by complete STEALTH, and why is it on a strategic missile carrier? Yes, a decrease in EPR from several hundred square meters. meters - this is very good. But to cripple an airplane by making it a clumsy trough - you know, especially since the B-2 simply did not justify its functionality and therefore let’s be realistic that in the US Army the main thing is recoil (remember the case with the GTD -21 and the deck-based "Viglad" and F-111A). That’s why the B-2, despite its high cost, flies to the “baboons” and the B-52 is not cut down.

[Cyril Troekurych]

English volcano, 60 years ago, resurrected
Isaiah rejoice
Amen

[jurijsv]

Electric Stingray