Military Review

PAK DA is designed to replace all three missile carriers

329
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.

PAK DA is designed to replace all three missile carriers


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.
329 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 26 February 2017 12: 00
    +29
    Hi B-2. Yes, all in one, hi F35 lol
    1. Megatron
      Megatron 26 February 2017 12: 04
      +12
      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?)))
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 26 February 2017 12: 08
        +15
        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.
        1. oleg-gr
          oleg-gr 26 February 2017 12: 14
          +30
          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.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 26 February 2017 12: 21
            0
            They will do the plane: there are materials, engines, avionics.
            1. Arh
              Arh 26 February 2017 12: 42
              +3
              And nothing handsome, and a lot of functional, "bomber" !!! good
              1. cniza
                cniza 26 February 2017 12: 49
                +11
                This is still Wishlist, but it is necessary to move in this direction, and there life will prompt and correct.
              2. kamski
                kamski 23 October 2017 14: 47
                0
                draw on paper and airplane two different categories
            2. 33 Watcher
              33 Watcher 26 February 2017 12: 57
              +11
              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 ...
              1. ufpb
                ufpb 26 February 2017 13: 22
                +5
                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.
            3. the most important
              the most important 26 February 2017 14: 07
              +33
              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"?
              1. xtur
                xtur 26 February 2017 14: 20
                +7
                > 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.
              2. Iline
                Iline 27 February 2017 09: 52
                0
                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.
                1. HZ66
                  HZ66 27 February 2017 12: 16
                  0
                  The Tu-160 is not capable of dropping free-fall bombs and has no bombing equipment. They planned to install it during the last upgrade, but something is silent about it.
                  1. Iline
                    Iline 27 February 2017 13: 30
                    +4
                    wassat laughing
                    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. soldier
                    1. HZ66
                      HZ66 2 March 2017 15: 38
                      0
                      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.
                      1. Iline
                        Iline 4 March 2017 19: 54
                        +3

                        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?
                2. the most important
                  the most important 27 February 2017 17: 22
                  +3
                  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.
                  1. Iline
                    Iline 27 February 2017 18: 04
                    0
                    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.
                    1. HZ66
                      HZ66 4 March 2017 15: 14
                      +1
                      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
                      1. 9lvariag
                        9lvariag 5 March 2017 13: 42
                        0
                        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.
                    2. 9lvariag
                      9lvariag 5 March 2017 13: 08
                      +1
                      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! wink am 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. wink 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!
                      1. Iline
                        Iline 5 March 2017 14: 47
                        0
                        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.
              3. Filxnumx
                Filxnumx 28 February 2017 06: 41
                +1
                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.
                1. 9lvariag
                  9lvariag 5 March 2017 13: 43
                  0
                  Well, the so-called "Dutch step" and a lower turning speed in pitch and direction.
            4. Evgeniy667b
              Evgeniy667b 28 February 2017 07: 09
              +4
              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.
          2. commbatant
            commbatant 26 February 2017 13: 37
            +5
            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 ....
          3. opus
            opus 26 February 2017 17: 45
            +31
            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.

            wassat

            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.
            fool
            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!
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 26 February 2017 18: 40
              0
              "There are no materials, no engines, alien avionics." Everything is in iron, as well as materials.
              1. opus
                opus 26 February 2017 18: 52
                +3
                Quote: Vadim237
                Everything is in iron, as well as materials.


                please to the studio
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 26 February 2017 19: 34
                  +1
                  Avionics - work is ongoing.
                  1. opus
                    opus 26 February 2017 19: 52
                    +4
                    Quote: Vadim237
                    work is ongoing.

                    Thales, and yesterday
                2. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 26 February 2017 19: 35
                  0
                  Engine in iron
                  1. opus
                    opus 26 February 2017 20: 05
                    +4
                    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?
                    1. Vadim237
                      Vadim237 26 February 2017 20: 30
                      0
                      "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
                      1. opus
                        opus 26 February 2017 21: 44
                        +3
                        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!
                3. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 26 February 2017 19: 42
                  0
                  Aviation materials are inundated - from carbon composites to aluminum-magnesium, nickel, and titanium alloys.
                  1. opus
                    opus 26 February 2017 20: 06
                    +6
                    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
                    1. Vadim237
                      Vadim237 26 February 2017 20: 48
                      0
                      This is a direct road to you for VIAM - http://viam.ru/history_gs
                      1. opus
                        opus 26 February 2017 21: 45
                        +3
                        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"?
                    2. Vadim237
                      Vadim237 26 February 2017 21: 10
                      +1
                      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.
                      1. opus
                        opus 26 February 2017 21: 51
                        +8
                        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.
            2. Vadim237
              Vadim237 26 February 2017 19: 14
              +3
              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.
              1. Nitarius
                Nitarius 26 February 2017 19: 45
                +1
                ))) students now at least do something)) at least an elephant flying)))
              2. opus
                opus 26 February 2017 20: 07
                +6
                Quote: Vadim237
                see the author - they have one vandervafil.

                the author is simply stupid.
                exploits the soil of patriotism mercilessly
            3. Nitarius
              Nitarius 26 February 2017 19: 44
              +5
              )) think correctly)) so in an Internet with brains not many .. everything else PR .. calculated on rams)) surely everyone noticed)) be patient))) everything will be
            4. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 27 February 2017 01: 44
              +2
              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”!
              1. opus
                opus 27 February 2017 02: 07
                +4
                [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?
                1. Nikolaevich I
                  Nikolaevich I 28 February 2017 04: 05
                  +1
                  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!?
            5. NEXUS
              NEXUS 27 February 2017 15: 32
              +3
              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, hi 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 ... hi
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 27 February 2017 20: 30
                0
                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.
                1. DiKoff
                  DiKoff 1 November 2017 00: 12
                  0
                  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
            6. HZ66
              HZ66 6 March 2017 23: 01
              0
              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.
        2. Albert1988
          Albert1988 26 February 2017 12: 38
          +9
          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.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 26 February 2017 12: 43
            +4
            Why pick up several thousand, when at the declared range, you can shoot from the airfield? winked
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 26 February 2017 12: 54
              +6
              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 hi
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 26 February 2017 14: 14
                +3
                So the racket in his 5.5 thousand did not immediately appear. At first, then he had rockets with a range of 2500 km.
          2. jonhr
            jonhr 26 February 2017 14: 35
            +1
            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 laughing
        3. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 26 February 2017 18: 24
          +2
          Quote: BlackMokona
          They showed themselves very well, very rarely shooting them down for a thousand sorties

          Have they encountered normal air defense somewhere? fool
          Wherever they were used, air defense was at the level of the 70s. And then, the Serbs shot down the S-125, 1961 release! laughing
          1. Scalpel
            Scalpel 28 February 2017 17: 49
            0
            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.
            1. Ingvar 72
              Ingvar 72 28 February 2017 18: 03
              0
              Quote: Scalpel
              any air defense will be hammered into the stone age first thing

              Air defense also does not sit still, is developing.
        4. Alf
          Alf 26 February 2017 22: 06
          +3
          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 ...
          1. EternalStranger
            EternalStranger 28 February 2017 17: 16
            +1
            You can learn more about the B-2 in Yugoslavia. Or you just did not have a snack in the morning?
          2. Scalpel
            Scalpel 28 February 2017 17: 51
            0
            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.
            1. Alf
              Alf 2 March 2017 21: 26
              0
              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.
              1. HZ66
                HZ66 2 March 2017 22: 10
                0
                In total, less than a dozen manned aircraft were shot down by several tens of thousands of sorties.
                1. Alf
                  Alf 2 March 2017 22: 19
                  +2
                  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?
                  1. HZ66
                    HZ66 2 March 2017 22: 52
                    0
                    And this: "And in Yugoslavia, air defense at the level of the Russian army ..." didn’t you write?
                    1. Alf
                      Alf 3 March 2017 19: 24
                      0
                      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.
                      1. HZ66
                        HZ66 4 March 2017 15: 17
                        0
                        At nuclear facilities in Syria, which fell under the distribution of Israeli F-15 and F-16, air defense was at the highest level.
        5. mashinist
          mashinist 27 February 2017 00: 25
          +1
          And why "It is impossible to make a missile carrier invisible to radars and supersonic at the same time"?
      2. Tersky
        Tersky 26 February 2017 12: 33
        +15
        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.
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 26 February 2017 12: 55
          +2
          Quote: Tersky
          about what distance can fly PAK YES not a word.

          Most likely no less than the Tu-160.
        2. HZ66
          HZ66 2 March 2017 22: 52
          0
          With this range, he doesn’t have to take off.
      3. just exp
        just exp 26 February 2017 12: 37
        +14
        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.
        1. Asadullah
          Asadullah 26 February 2017 13: 29
          +3
          if you have 7 thousand km this is one circle above the airfield, then I don’t know what planet you live on.


          laughing There they regularly wind circles, over the cuckoo’s nest .... cripple with beads, my friend)
      4. DanSabaka
        DanSabaka 26 February 2017 12: 58
        +1
        7000 km is a range of only missiles ..... read the text ....
      5. pvv113
        pvv113 26 February 2017 13: 13
        +2
        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 hi
        1. Observer2014
          Observer2014 26 February 2017 13: 51
          +6
          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.
          1. san4es
            san4es 26 February 2017 16: 25
            +9
            ... "hang" in the air "all year round, refueling and changing crews on the fly smile
          2. pvv113
            pvv113 2 March 2017 12: 49
            +1
            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
      6. Koshak
        Koshak 26 February 2017 13: 22
        +1
        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.
        1. venik
          venik 26 February 2017 14: 10
          +1
          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 ...
          1. Koshak
            Koshak 26 February 2017 15: 37
            0
            Quote: venik
            Well, who will tell you ??

            Well, what did I write about?
      7. venik
        venik 26 February 2017 13: 49
        0
        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 !! "
        1. AID.S
          AID.S 26 February 2017 15: 24
          +1
          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 ...
      8. svp67
        svp67 26 February 2017 15: 48
        0
        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 ...
      9. Yarhann
        Yarhann 26 February 2017 16: 27
        +4
        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
        1. svp67
          svp67 26 February 2017 17: 43
          0
          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.
        2. jonhr
          jonhr 26 February 2017 23: 58
          +1
          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
      10. sharp-lad
        sharp-lad 26 February 2017 19: 15
        +1
        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!
      11. nrex
        nrex 26 February 2017 20: 24
        +2
        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.
      12. Alex_Rarog
        Alex_Rarog 26 February 2017 21: 38
        0
        Range of missiles 7000 ... About the plane is not a word ....
      13. avdkrd
        avdkrd 27 February 2017 12: 35
        0
        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.
    2. Monos
      Monos 26 February 2017 12: 07
      +11
      Now it’s clear why TU-160М2 will do it. Speed. PAK YES - subsonic.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 26 February 2017 12: 11
        0
        And PAK YES according to the article will replace Tu160M2
        1. Monos
          Monos 26 February 2017 12: 20
          +10
          Quote: BlackMokona
          And PAK YES according to the article will replace Tu160M2

          Designers TU-160М2 the same TK issued.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 26 February 2017 12: 23
            +5
            So PAK YES will obviously go into service through 15-20 for years. It is necessary to somehow get out of it.
            1. Monos
              Monos 26 February 2017 12: 29
              +12
              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.
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 26 February 2017 12: 34
                +3
                Read the first news about Tu160M2, it directly stated that PAK YES goes to the right strongly and you need to close the hole.
                1. Monos
                  Monos 26 February 2017 12: 40
                  +4
                  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.
              2. SSR
                SSR 26 February 2017 12: 38
                +5
                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.
                1. EternalStranger
                  EternalStranger 28 February 2017 17: 19
                  0
                  Quote: SSR
                  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.
              3. just exp
                just exp 26 February 2017 12: 40
                +8
                +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)
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 26 February 2017 12: 45
                  +1
                  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
                  1. Every
                    Every 26 February 2017 13: 39
                    0
                    The B-2 turned out to be a monstrously expensive aircraft, both in construction and especially in maintenance. So they cut it.
                    1. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 26 February 2017 14: 15
                      0
                      Strategists are generally extremely expensive aircraft both in construction and maintenance.
                    2. jonhr
                      jonhr 27 February 2017 00: 02
                      +2
                      the spirits all who remained 18 out of 20 continue their service. and no one cut
            2. Koshak
              Koshak 26 February 2017 13: 30
              0
              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
              1. commbatant
                commbatant 26 February 2017 13: 43
                0
                "Bears" are unlikely
                1. Koshak
                  Koshak 26 February 2017 14: 11
                  +5
                  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.
                  1. commbatant
                    commbatant 26 February 2017 15: 52
                    0
                    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 ...
                    1. Koshak
                      Koshak 26 February 2017 16: 05
                      +3
                      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.
        2. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 26 February 2017 13: 37
          +4
          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 ...
          1. Koshak
            Koshak 26 February 2017 13: 46
            +1
            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.
            1. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 26 February 2017 14: 42
              +1
              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!
              1. Viktr458
                Viktr458 26 February 2017 15: 36
                +1
                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
          2. EternalStranger
            EternalStranger 28 February 2017 17: 22
            0
            Yes, no one is going to produce anything. All these jumps are only for the delight of the ears of lochtorat
      2. venik
        venik 26 February 2017 13: 52
        0
        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 ???
    3. Tusv
      Tusv 26 February 2017 12: 12
      +1
      Quote: BlackMokona
      Hi B-2
      .
      the Americans modernized their Spirits and still put fu 35 on the wing
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 26 February 2017 12: 17
        +5
        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.
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 26 February 2017 12: 42
          +3
          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.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 26 February 2017 14: 15
            0
            Only different versions of the F-35 have different sizes, so no
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 27 February 2017 12: 23
              0
              Quote: BlackMokona
              Only here, in different versions of the F-35, even the dimensions are different

              belay 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 ...
    4. activator
      activator 26 February 2017 13: 18
      +6
      Quote: BlackMokona
      Hi B-2. Yes, all in one, hi F35 lol

      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.
      1. sharp-lad
        sharp-lad 26 February 2017 19: 20
        0
        Next year will show only the appearance and approximate performance characteristics.
    5. prosto_rgb
      prosto_rgb 26 February 2017 13: 19
      0
      Quote: BlackMokona
      Hi B-2. Yes, all in one, hi F35 lol

      A good idea.
    6. creak
      creak 26 February 2017 14: 03
      +2
      Quote: BlackMokona
      Hi B-2. Yes, all in one, hi F35


      Hello to them already flying from the advance project ... fellow Americans are shocked and buy diapers ... crying
    7. svp67
      svp67 26 February 2017 14: 59
      +3
      Quote: BlackMokona
      Hi B-2. Yes, all in one, hi F35

      And all together - the German Ho.229 ...
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 26 February 2017 15: 36
        +1
        N1-M 1941 USA.
        1. svp67
          svp67 26 February 2017 15: 42
          +1
          Quote: BlackMokona
          N1-M 1941 USA.

          "Flying wings" then did a lot, but only the Germans appeared "stealth"
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 26 February 2017 15: 44
            0
            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.
            1. svp67
              svp67 26 February 2017 16: 23
              +1
              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.
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 26 February 2017 17: 29
                +1
                Or it just happened by chance.
                1. Nikolaevich I
                  Nikolaevich I 27 February 2017 02: 01
                  +1
                  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 ...
    8. av58
      av58 26 February 2017 17: 16
      0
      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.
    9. trantor
      trantor 26 February 2017 19: 23
      +1
      Quote: BlackMokona
      Hi B-2. Yes, all in one, hi F35 lol

      With the F-35 you obviously got excited.
  2. Teberii
    Teberii 26 February 2017 12: 01
    +1
    While the car looks beautiful in the sketches, let's see the filling of the program.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 February 2017 12: 09
      +1
      Thumbnails have not yet been shown.
      1. Teberii
        Teberii 26 February 2017 12: 17
        0
        Where are you looking.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 26 February 2017 12: 40
          +2
          Options flying wing dofigischi - maybe something borrow from someone
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 26 February 2017 12: 46
            +1
            Stealth, subsonic, strategist, drastically reduce the number of options
          2. av58
            av58 26 February 2017 17: 15
            0
            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.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 26 February 2017 18: 43
              0
              The experience of several designers is better than the experience of one.
    2. Tusv
      Tusv 26 February 2017 13: 19
      0
      [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
  3. Mar.Tirah
    Mar.Tirah 26 February 2017 12: 01
    +1
    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.
    1. just exp
      just exp 26 February 2017 12: 04
      +2
      Well, at least they don’t lie that in 2018 it will be in service.
      1. Koshak
        Koshak 26 February 2017 13: 57
        +1
        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
  4. Pirogov
    Pirogov 26 February 2017 12: 02
    +1
    It looks impressive! Only for 2018, there are big doubts.
    1. just exp
      just exp 26 February 2017 12: 05
      +2
      therefore, they added that “there is a possibility”, because a miracle is always possible, but perhaps does not mean that it will happen.
      1. Pirogov
        Pirogov 26 February 2017 13: 40
        0
        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.
    2. Eugene-Eugene
      26 February 2017 12: 05
      +4
      Maybe he was just a model meant
    3. Koshak
      Koshak 26 February 2017 14: 04
      0
      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.
  5. cost
    cost 26 February 2017 12: 02
    +3
    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
    1. Orionvit
      Orionvit 26 February 2017 12: 09
      +4
      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.
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 26 February 2017 12: 44
        +6
        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.
        1. Orionvit
          Orionvit 26 February 2017 12: 50
          +1
          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.
          1. Albert1988
            Albert1988 26 February 2017 12: 58
            0
            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 ...
    2. mr.redpartizan
      mr.redpartizan 26 February 2017 12: 54
      +3
      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.
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 26 February 2017 12: 59
        +2
        Most likely, he simply will not enter the zone of responsibility of enemy fighters ...
      2. Scalpel
        Scalpel 28 February 2017 18: 07
        0
        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.
  6. Vadim237
    Vadim237 26 February 2017 12: 04
    +2
    "A long-range interceptor with a platform for launching spacecraft." Really, the idea has come.
    1. cost 75
      cost 75 26 February 2017 12: 17
      +2
      Subsonic long-range interceptor?
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 26 February 2017 12: 26
        +2
        No, a bomber-based launch platform for launching spacecraft and anti-missile systems.
  7. Irkutsk layman
    Irkutsk layman 26 February 2017 12: 04
    +1
    Yes, if we launch such a beauty, we will watch our “partners” crap without taking off their pants.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 26 February 2017 12: 18
      +8
      They have long had such a B-2 called.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 26 February 2017 13: 46
        +1
        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.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 26 February 2017 17: 48
          0
          Strategic bomber flying wing, subsonic and stealth. A complete description of both PAK YES and B2.
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 27 February 2017 02: 07
            +1
            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 ....
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 February 2017 12: 18
      +5
      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
    3. EternalStranger
      EternalStranger 28 February 2017 17: 24
      0
      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.
  8. PPD
    PPD 26 February 2017 12: 06
    +5
    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.
    1. kepmor
      kepmor 26 February 2017 12: 29
      +6
      ... 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 ...
      1. PPD
        PPD 26 February 2017 13: 39
        0
        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.
        1. PPD
          PPD 26 February 2017 14: 03
          0
          PC savvy i.e. made a reservation.
          But nothing changes in principle.
      2. AID.S
        AID.S 26 February 2017 15: 52
        +1
        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 .....
      3. would
        would 27 February 2017 17: 19
        0
        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.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 February 2017 12: 30
      +1
      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.
    3. Knight Rider
      Knight Rider 26 February 2017 12: 37
      0
      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."
  9. Mar.Tirah
    Mar.Tirah 26 February 2017 12: 19
    +5
    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!
    1. You Vlad
      You Vlad 26 February 2017 12: 39
      0
      No need to rush things, and so our defense industry is moving at a good pace! For which, thanks to her hi
  10. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 26 February 2017 12: 25
    +3
    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? am

    Or, everything is as it is said, but replacement will occur after 2040 - the operation of modernized aircraft is designed for such a period. am Great speed, you can’t say anything! Between the development began and the launch of the series is only one generation.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 26 February 2017 12: 47
      0
      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.
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 26 February 2017 13: 37
      +1
      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.
  11. kefan
    kefan 26 February 2017 12: 29
    +3
    Well, about 2018, there are very big doubts.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 26 February 2017 13: 03
      0
      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.
  12. Irkutsk layman
    Irkutsk layman 26 February 2017 12: 33
    0
    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.
    1. EternalStranger
      EternalStranger 28 February 2017 17: 34
      0
      You have too much fixation on the sexual problems of men. Think about it ..
  13. Moore
    Moore 26 February 2017 12: 35
    +1
    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?
  14. dubowitskij.vick
    dubowitskij.vick 26 February 2017 12: 36
    +2
    Quote: Teberii
    Where are you looking.

    This is not a conceptual design. Handwriting of a dreamer. It has nothing to do with seriousness.
  15. Bronevick
    Bronevick 26 February 2017 12: 44
    0
    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.
  16. Everything is very simple
    Everything is very simple 26 February 2017 12: 45
    +1
    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
  17. Ramadan
    Ramadan 26 February 2017 12: 45
    +1
    "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”.
    1. xtur
      xtur 26 February 2017 14: 43
      +1
      > 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
  18. Lesorub
    Lesorub 26 February 2017 12: 47
    0
    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!
  19. levfuks
    levfuks 26 February 2017 12: 47
    0
    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.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 February 2017 13: 00
      +1
      It is only necessary to make the fuselage - everything else is there, including engines.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 27 February 2017 21: 40
        0
        I think they will put promising PD-35 - 2 pcs.
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 26 February 2017 19: 50
      0
      Quote: levfuks
      It would be nice in 2028.

      In 2018, they will only determine the appearance, that is, they will make a model.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 26 February 2017 20: 05
        0
        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.
  20. jovanni
    jovanni 26 February 2017 12: 54
    +1
    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 ...
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 26 February 2017 13: 58
      +1
      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" ....
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 February 2017 14: 53
      0
      It can help in extinguishing fires, 60 tons of carrying capacity, will allow you to take a lot of bombs, with extinguishing fluid.
    3. san4es
      san4es 26 February 2017 16: 56
      +8
      ...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
    4. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 26 February 2017 19: 51
      0
      Quote: Jovanni
      But the question arises, but what if he will not spray the corn?

      Will be in peacetime.
  21. Victor Kiyashchenko
    Victor Kiyashchenko 26 February 2017 12: 55
    0
    As I think, “Taburetkin” would still be MO-would start with model aircraft circles, and not the development of PAK DA.
    1. Mystery12345
      Mystery12345 26 February 2017 13: 11
      +7
      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.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 26 February 2017 20: 03
        0
        Quote: Mystery12345
        Unfortunately, the site is extremely poor in terms of professionals,

        They flew to the south to winter.
        What article such and comments.
  22. dubowitskij.vick
    dubowitskij.vick 26 February 2017 13: 06
    +1
    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!
  23. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 26 February 2017 13: 12
    +1
    The author is burning! PAK YES will do to replace the Tu-22M2 and all ... bully
  24. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 26 February 2017 13: 14
    +6
    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?
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 February 2017 13: 23
      0
      So in Russia they created materials that are significantly superior to foreign stealth.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 26 February 2017 13: 31
        +5
        "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" belay . There is no information that Russia is leading in this
        region.
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 26 February 2017 13: 46
      +1
      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.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 26 February 2017 15: 14
        +3
        "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 smile ) 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 sad .
        1. Viktr458
          Viktr458 26 February 2017 15: 40
          0
          Vovka, you speak from a position of the present. Only the advance project passed. In 7-8 years something will already be
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 26 February 2017 16: 05
          0
          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.
        3. Dart2027
          Dart2027 26 February 2017 16: 26
          +1
          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.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 26 February 2017 17: 27
            +3
            "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 wink .
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 26 February 2017 21: 03
              0
              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?
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 27 February 2017 12: 02
                0
                AIM120D 180 km
            2. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 27 February 2017 21: 43
              0
              Why not repeat the successful proven idea?
    3. xtur
      xtur 26 February 2017 15: 00
      0
      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
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 26 February 2017 17: 33
        +5
        "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" negative ,
        which knock down, spit "in the meter range" laughing .
        1. xtur
          xtur 27 February 2017 02: 05
          0
          > "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 ;-)

    4. Cossack 471
      Cossack 471 27 February 2017 00: 36
      0
      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
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 27 February 2017 21: 45
        0
        The SR-71 was tracked while taxiing to a lane ... in Norway from Murmansk.
  25. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 26 February 2017 13: 20
    +1
    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.
  26. Svetlana
    Svetlana 26 February 2017 13: 44
    +1
    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.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 February 2017 15: 01
      +1
      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.
  27. mr.redpartizan
    mr.redpartizan 26 February 2017 13: 46
    +1
    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.
  28. OlegYOla
    OlegYOla 26 February 2017 13: 49
    0
    There will also be one, unique product, in the amount of 10 pieces am
  29. Every
    Every 26 February 2017 13: 53
    +1
    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.
  30. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 26 February 2017 14: 12
    0
    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.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 February 2017 15: 03
      0
      And in two years nothing will happen - quickly it is not done.
  31. Wildfox
    Wildfox 26 February 2017 14: 17
    +2
    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. hi
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 February 2017 15: 09
      0
      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.
  32. barclay
    barclay 26 February 2017 14: 23
    +1
    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.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 February 2017 15: 14
      0
      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.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 26 February 2017 17: 52
        0
        F35 was created on the basis of F22, a hell of a lot of details, just modernized spare parts from F22.
  33. Cartalon
    Cartalon 26 February 2017 14: 28
    0
    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.
    1. EternalStranger
      EternalStranger 28 February 2017 17: 49
      0
      but there is no concept. That the people hawala, so they feed him.
  34. Atlant-1164
    Atlant-1164 26 February 2017 14: 30
    +2
    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 !!!
  35. Young_Communist
    Young_Communist 26 February 2017 14: 52
    +10
    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.
    1. mr.redpartizan
      mr.redpartizan 26 February 2017 15: 41
      0
      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.
      1. Redfox3k
        Redfox3k 27 February 2017 11: 25
        0
        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,
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 27 February 2017 21: 46
        0
        But do you suggest not testing the rest of the systems, but waiting for the engines?
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 February 2017 16: 11
      0
      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.
  36. JD1979
    JD1979 26 February 2017 15: 01
    +1
    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 ...
  37. fider
    fider 26 February 2017 15: 03
    0
    "There is a high probability that we will see him in 2018."
    December 31, after lunch, like Tu -144.
    1. sharp-lad
      sharp-lad 26 February 2017 19: 29
      0
      Modelka promise! And not a combat bomber! And, besides, they promise only to show, not to touch!
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 26 February 2017 20: 16
      0
      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.
  38. DM51
    DM51 26 February 2017 15: 31
    +1
    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
  39. fa2998
    fa2998 26 February 2017 15: 37
    0
    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. hi
  40. Zomanus
    Zomanus 26 February 2017 15: 40
    +1
    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.
    1. sharp-lad
      sharp-lad 26 February 2017 19: 34
      0
      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.
    2. EternalStranger
      EternalStranger 28 February 2017 17: 51
      0
      Quote: Zomanus
      But not only missiles, but also drones, probably

      and manned missiles chtoli? wassat
  41. fa2998
    fa2998 26 February 2017 15: 42
    0
    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! lol hi
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 26 February 2017 15: 47
      0
      But the furniture in the planes will be only the highest quality. lol
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 26 February 2017 16: 14
        0
        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.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 26 February 2017 18: 00
          0
          And 4 hotel rooms for tourists
          1. Svetlana
            Svetlana 26 February 2017 18: 42
            0
            and gramophone with a portrait of Edita Peha
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 26 February 2017 19: 47
              0
              This will stand at the navigator - on a folding stand.
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 26 February 2017 18: 48
            0
            These seats on board have already been booked - by the crew of the Zvezda television channel.
    2. Mista_dj
      Mista_dj 2 March 2017 20: 44
      +1
      Quote: fa2998

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

      There will be no scandal. He will give everything to the Omirikants. Officially, through a tender.
  42. sir_obs
    sir_obs 26 February 2017 15: 51
    0
    The bomber must be orbital. The range is unlimited, knocking down is problematic.
    1. fa2998
      fa2998 26 February 2017 16: 07
      0
      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! fool hi
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 February 2017 16: 16
      0
      So far it is very expensive.
    3. sharp-lad
      sharp-lad 26 February 2017 19: 37
      0
      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.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 26 February 2017 19: 51
        0
        This bomber will also be used to "disperse" the Chinese - if they want to chop off our territory.
  43. Former battalion commander
    Former battalion commander 26 February 2017 16: 11
    0
    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 ...
  44. Vasily V
    Vasily V 26 February 2017 16: 50
    0
    That's right, first the cannon (here the rocket), and the plane
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 February 2017 19: 02
      0
      Of course - this new aircraft is made for armaments - which the Tu 160M2 bombs will not fit.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  45. ved_med12
    ved_med12 26 February 2017 17: 06
    0
    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 ...
  46. Vladimir65
    Vladimir65 26 February 2017 17: 22
    0
    "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.
  47. Old26
    Old26 26 February 2017 17: 41
    +3
    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
  48. corporal
    corporal 26 February 2017 18: 20
    0
    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".
  49. nrex
    nrex 26 February 2017 20: 26
    0
    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.
  50. Irkutsk layman
    Irkutsk layman 26 February 2017 20: 42
    0
    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.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 February 2017 21: 13
      0
      You have not seen him yet, that would be called handsome.