A start. When will we see the PAK DA strategic bomber?


Against the background of analogues



Nowadays, there are only three countries capable of creating strategic bombers. These are the United States, China and Russia. Moreover, the Middle Kingdom so far only claims to be on a par with the leaders. the only Chinese “strategist” Xian H-6 is nothing more than a deep modernization of the Soviet Tu-16 bomber, and the Chinese have yet to build their own aircraft of this type.

If you look even more closely, you can see that the situation with Russia and the United States is also far from brilliant. The Americans tried for decades to create a replacement for the B-52, but could not do it. At least in the form in which it was planned: neither B-1B, nor even B-2 became a full-fledged alternative Stratofortress, while being regular suppliers of all kinds of problems. As for Russia, after the collapse of the USSR, it remained with a considerable fleet of morally aging Tu-95MS aircraft, as well as a small number of Tu-160 (fortunately, Ukraine later returned some of the aircraft), which are clearly not enough to solve their potential tasks.

If we talk about promising combat vehicles, the situation is ambiguous. Until about 2017, the promising American B-21 bomber generally remained “semi-mythical,” but in recent years the issue has begun to clear up. So, last year, Air Force Magazine reported that the first flight of a promising aircraft can be expected in early December 2021: at least this date was announced by the Deputy Chief of Staff of the US Air Force, General Stephen Wilson.


The de facto USA became the favorite of this contest, while for a long time no one ever remembered the new generation Russian bomber at all. However, at the end of May of this year, it became known that Russian engineers were already building the first experienced bomber developed under the PAK DA program (“Perspective aviation long-range aviation complex ”). “One of the aircraft factories in the structure of the United Aircraft Corporation will be engaged in the manufacture of glider elements of the first machine, the development of working design documentation has been completed, the supply of materials has begun,” one of TASS sources said. “The final assembly of the entire machine should be completed in 2021,” another told the agency, noting that the cockpit was already being manufactured.

It is difficult to say exactly what the new car will be - now we can more or less confidently talk only about the concept. It has long been known from numerous sources that Russia has long abandoned the creation of a supersonic analogue of the Tu-160: the new bomber will be subsonic, inconspicuous, and made with the “flying wing” aerodynamic design. That is, it is seen as a conditional analogue of the American B-2 or B-21 bombers. Moreover, the first rather than the second. At least if we talk about the size and basic performance characteristics. Recall that the B-21, according to the previously presented data, will be smaller than the B-2 and will receive more modest characteristics, in particular, a smaller combat radius and lower combat load.

The French Air & Cosmos magazine previously gave a general idea of ​​how the aircraft will look: however, the image is rather rough, and the device itself is vaguely reminiscent of Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel unmanned reconnaissance aircraft. You can ignore the rest of the images that “walk” around the Web: they most likely have nothing to do with reality at all.

A start. When will we see the PAK DA strategic bomber?

What is known for sure is that in 2018, an announcement on a tender for experimental design work on an engine for a promising long-range aviation complex was published on the government procurement website. According to the data presented, the main and duplicate electronic engine systems must ensure the flight of the aircraft for up to 30 hours. Fuel supply and hydromechanical control systems should remain operational at near-zero and negative overloads of up to 2,7 g and at temperatures from minus 60 to plus 50 degrees Celsius. The minimum engine life should be 12 years. This is a lot by Russian standards.

As for weapons, the aircraft will have to carry long-range cruise missiles, high-precision bombs, as well as weapons with which it can stand up for itself in aerial combat (probably we are talking about medium or short-range air-to-air missiles) . This, by the way, distinguishes the new bomber from all existing "strategists", with the exception of the B-21, which also must be able to shoot down enemy aircraft. At least, such information previously appeared in statements by the US military.


Be on time


According to Tupolev’s data published on the public procurement website, they intend to build three flight prototypes of the PAK DA with the start of preliminary tests in 2023. State tests should begin in 2026, the car should go into a series in 2027. By the way, earlier Deputy Minister of Defense Yuri Borisov called for completely different terms. “There is a high probability that we will see him in 2018,” he said in 2016. The first flight, according to the deputy defense minister, should be carried out in 2021: obviously, now this is no longer relevant. It is appropriate to recall that the stage of engine testing within the framework of the PAK DA program on the Il-76 military transport aircraft will be completed no earlier than 2021. “According to the contract, ground development of the PAK DA engine on the Il-76 aircraft will begin at the end of 2020, and will be completed by the end of 2021. After that, it will be possible to start flights, ”Interfax quoted an informed source in January of this year.

A noteworthy fact: in April 2018, the blog of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies reported with reference to a certain publication of Aéronautique Militaire that the tests of the first prototypes of the bomber were transferred outside the new state arms program and now it is expected no earlier than 2030. As far as judging by the blog post itself, news was an April Fools joke. As they say, in every joke ...

The problem is that the program itself is so complex, expensive and filled with all sorts of risks that nothing can be ruled out. There is another reason why the postponement of test dates is possible. Now Russia is implementing a very complex and extremely ambitious (especially by modern standards) program to restore the production of Tu-160 missile carriers: the prototype of a new-built machine first flew up to the sky on February 2, 2020. As it became known later, the combatant Tu-160 “Igor Sikorsky” (tail number 14 “red”) acted as a base. It is difficult to say whether the country has enough human, technical and material resources to implement two “programs of the century”. Each of them is very expensive, one might even say too much.


However, if you try to summarize the available data, then the situation with PAK YES is seen in a more positive way than you could imagine. If the data on the start of production of the first experimental machine is correct, then with a high degree of probability we will be able to see a new aircraft around 2021-2023, and the first flight can take place approximately in 2025-2027.

As for the timing of the adoption of the complex into service, then, as the experience of other modern combat vehicles shows, this should be expected no earlier than 2030. Of course, after the first flight they will be called much more optimistic dates, but these words should hardly be taken at face value: it’s enough to recall that the Su-57 took off for the first time in 2010. And still it is not in service. But the new "strategist" as a complex will be much more complicated than a fifth-generation fighter.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. NEXUS 2 June 2020 05: 20 New
    • 20
    • 10
    +10
    As for the timing of the adoption of the complex into service, then, as the experience of other modern combat vehicles shows, this is to be expected no earlier than 2030

    If you look at the development of the Raptor, SU-57, F-35, then I think not the year 2030, but rather the mid-thirties. And this is still an optimistic scenario, if our steering wheel does not have such managers as today, with an eternal lack of money for the state, but very bold personal accounts in Western banks. It is enough to recall the Vostochny Cosmodrome, where 5 lard of Russian raccoons have been communized, and to this day they are looking for them with lanterns.
    1. Malyuta 2 June 2020 05: 26 New
      • 11
      • 7
      +4
      Quote: NEXUS
      If you look at the development of the Raptor, SU-57, F-35, then I think not the year 2030, but rather the mid-thirties. And this is still an optimistic scenario, if our steering wheel does not have such managers as today, with an eternal lack of money for the state, but very bold personal accounts in Western banks.

      You are right, all our plans are completely unpredictable. hi
      1. Uncle lee 2 June 2020 05: 51 New
        • 16
        • 6
        +10
        Quote: Malyuta
        our plans are completely unpredictable

        Absolutely predictable - a shift to the right in terms of time and a shift up in the estimate .....
    2. antivirus 2 June 2020 15: 03 New
      • 0
      • 4
      -4
      all plans - from "you can’t scare a partner and force him to over-accelerate in an arms race."
      we live with caution.
      Era of Tupolev -Koroleva ----- CASED FROM A DEEP PIT.
      35 years ago they decided - to catch up in the car industry and roads with resorts, and even put the civilian sectors of the economy here
  2. Not a thankful job - trying to imagine classified appearance of the future sample.
    Personally, I remember very well the alleged variants of the double-barreled “coalition” and “tracked” “Bogdan”. The latter, by the way, was described here in VO as if they had visited the workshop, but it turned out to be generally wheeled.
    So I propose to wait for something official.
  3. Pessimist22 2 June 2020 06: 18 New
    • 4
    • 9
    -5
    And I thought that the future lies with unmanned aircraft, missile weapons and hypersonic gliders, and these projects are a waste of budget funds.
  4. FRoman1984 2 June 2020 06: 32 New
    • 9
    • 14
    -5
    Judging by the Su-57, then in the late 2030s he will be ready for mass production. May be.
    Now there are no personnel (brains and hands) for such serious projects, the cult of personal enrichment prevails over creation, people do not go into the industry.
    1. Alex 2020 2 June 2020 07: 22 New
      • 3
      • 4
      -1
      Of course they don’t go, for that money and attitude. And where do they come from? Educational institutions where they trained technical and working personnel were closed down for the most part. They propagandize everything except love for their Country, Homeland, respect for the working man and work. But I hope that everything will change for the better. hi
      1. unaha 2 June 2020 08: 38 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        “They propagand everything except love for their Country, Homeland, respect for the working man and work” - well, why ... They are just propagandized, only clumsy and reality this propaganda corresponds to the “opposite”.
      2. Hydrogen 2 June 2020 10: 09 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        As for the propaganda, I don’t agree with you, everything is fine, even busting. Every day the Kremlin TV rubs patriotic odes into the brain. What I noticed, the more the regime talks about love for the motherland, the worse things are in our country, in economic terms.
        1. AUL
          AUL 2 June 2020 10: 21 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: Hydrogen
          .What he noticed, the more the regime talks about love for the motherland, the worse things are in our country, in economic terms.

          And vice versa ... Our propagandists are working in the red.
  5. codetalker 2 June 2020 06: 38 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I think the end of the PAK YES program is a matter of a rather distant future. All 20s will be "on the shoulders" of the Tu-160 (it was not for nothing that they decided to produce them de novo), the new strategist will begin to replace it in the 30s. Actually, there is no hurry. We wish success to everyone involved in its creation.
    1. spectr 2 June 2020 13: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      If compared with the Su-57, then plus 20 years from the start of development, i.e. We expect to enter the series by the 40s.
  6. Break through 2 June 2020 07: 02 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    See you soon good
  7. Pvi1206 2 June 2020 07: 32 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    the beginning is half the battle ...
  8. Old partisan 2 June 2020 07: 36 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    As long as the Serdyukovs envy the construction of aviation, Rogozins we will have neither airplanes nor space.
  9. svp67 2 June 2020 08: 10 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Archives were opened at Tupolev, they got old, still Soviet projects, and now they are fully adapting one of them to new requirements, so success is entirely possible ...
  10. 123456789 2 June 2020 08: 12 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    previously Deputy Minister of Defense Yuri Borisov called for completely different terms. “There is a high probability that we will see him in 2018,” he said in 2016. The first flight, according to the deputy defense minister, should be carried out in 2021:

    If the data on the start of production of the first prototype machine is correct, then with a high degree of probability we will be able to see a new aircraft in about 2021-2023, and the first flight can take place approximately in 2025-2027.

    As for the timing of the adoption of the complex into service, then, as the experience of other modern combat vehicles shows, this should be expected no earlier than 2030.

    And there is either a donkey or a padish
    1. antivirus 2 June 2020 15: 06 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      ..... either the moon will fall from the sky
  11. Maks1995 2 June 2020 08: 20 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    ABOUT! Conspiracy thesis went ...
    When when...
    Remember! Serdyukov and K., Rogozin is alive, and immediately everything will become clear ...

    And in pictures and cartoons you can now see ....
  12. lelik613 2 June 2020 08: 23 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Do we need a B-2 clone? Who is seriously going to bomb the USA as Yugoslavs in 1999? To quickly build up CD carriers, you can create a budget vehicle based on the IL-96.
  13. Bez 310 2 June 2020 08: 36 New
    • 3
    • 5
    -2
    If by "we" from the heading we mean adults aged 35-40,
    then the answer is obvious - never.
  14. Cypa 2 June 2020 09: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Pvi1206
    the beginning is half the battle ...

    Yes, just START and STOP
    1. agond 2 June 2020 11: 00 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Under the conditions of Stalin’s sharazhiks, not the worst aircraft could be designed in two months, modern engineers will design the same aircraft for two years or more, despite the fact that they have computers and much more, so the terms for creating a PAK DA can be different, much depends on the conditions in which the problem is being solved, if modern designers create conditions as under Stalin, then the matter will not work, but will fly forward.
  15. BAI
    BAI 2 June 2020 10: 53 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    When will we see the PAK DA strategic bomber?

    Around the time when the Russian Federation will launch an astronaut to the moon. It was not for nothing that the Tu-160 production was restored, everyone is aware of what is happening. Plans and reports for superiors are one thing - but reality is different.
  16. Vlad Malkin 2 June 2020 11: 45 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    It would be interesting to see in flight ...
  17. Elturisto 2 June 2020 13: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Armata No. 2 is what will happen. UAC is now led by ROSTEH and that’s it.
    1. codetalker 2 June 2020 14: 23 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      What is wrong with Armata N1?
  18. Vladimir Mashkov 2 June 2020 13: 18 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    The second article in a row about PAK YES, but more fog. However, the very fact that the work is going well. Good luck smile
  19. mikula 2 June 2020 13: 37 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    When will we see the PAK DA strategic bomber?

    The next day, after the Russian astronauts landed on the moon, or, in extreme cases, after undocking the Federation spacecraft to the ISS.
  20. abc_alex 2 June 2020 13: 49 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    the new “strategist” as a complex will be much more complicated than a fifth-generation fighter.


    And why? In my opinion, the opposite. The strategist does not have such strict requirements for LTX, and a smaller range of weapons ...
  21. Operator 2 June 2020 14: 39 New
    • 3
    • 5
    -2
    There is no PAK YES “construction”: just a cardboard model of the bomber’s cabin is being created to support the Tupolev design bureau pants.
    1. bars1 2 June 2020 18: 09 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Operator
      There is no PAK YES “construction”: just a cardboard model of the bomber’s cabin is being created to support the Tupolev design bureau pants.

      ,, Cardboard layout ", as you deigned to say, was built back in 2017.
  22. Operator 2 June 2020 18: 12 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: bars1
    was built back in 2017

    Drawn.
    1. Nastia makarova 3 June 2020 12: 41 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      there was a video of flights
  23. Old26 2 June 2020 20: 58 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: svp67
    Archives were opened at Tupolev, they got old, still Soviet projects, and now they are fully adapting one of them to new requirements, so success is entirely possible ...

    I don’t know what was opened there at Tupolev. Archives or something else, but I think that problems with the PAK DA will be due to the fact that our production aircraft did not have such an aerodynamic design. if there were LK type aircraft, then these were mainly pre-war projects.
    The Americans, on the other hand, had experience in creating large objects such as a flying wing. Unfortunately, we have no such experience (or practically no). So it is possible that difficulties will be encountered at this stage
    1. vVvAD 2 June 2020 21: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Archives or something else, but I think that problems with the PAK DA will be due to the fact that our production aircraft did not have such an aerodynamic design. if there were LK type aircraft, then these were mainly pre-war projects.

      Tu-160 does not count? This is even written by Wikipedia:
      Sukhoi Design Bureau worked on the T-4MS project (“product 200”), which retained a certain continuity with the previous development - T-4 (“product 100”). Many configuration options were worked out, but in the end, the designers settled on an integrated circuit such as a “flying wing” with rotary consoles of a relatively small area.
      1. agond 2 June 2020 21: 28 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Old26
        Unfortunately, we have no such experience (or practically no). So it is possible that difficulties will be encountered at this stage

        Creating a subsonic PAK YES today is much easier than the Tu-160 at one time, easier than the Su-57, not to mention VTOL. If you decide on the engine, then the prto type could fly next year and in a series in five years .... provided that you do not try to create an airplane for all occasions, and do not cram into it unforgettable. A stealth DA aircraft with a long flight of modest size is required, because it will have to be hidden on the ground
        1. vVvAD 2 June 2020 23: 03 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: agond
          modestly long flight

          Will not work. All strategists are rather big. The same B-21 will have a smaller size and, as a result, less combat load and radius.
          Well, if only the strategic UAV on the next generation of technologies used in the Petrel. But this is not in the foreseeable future, although, I hope, such ideas come to mind for those who are directly involved.
  24. Old26 2 June 2020 21: 11 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: lelik613
    Do we need a B-2 clone? Who is seriously going to bomb the USA as Yugoslavs in 1999? To quickly build up CD carriers, you can create a budget vehicle based on the IL-96.

    I am bastard from such statements. "And we need ...."
    1. And do we need (need) whether we are aircraft carriers. We're not going to fight over the oceans
    2. But do we need a B-2 clone. Who is seriously going to bomb ....
    3. Do we need a ship for the transfer of troops (not UDC or BDK), but something more? We are not going to conduct a landing in South America ...
    4. And do we need .... (enter the necessary)

    Probably all the same, the designers considered that the flying wing bomber might be optimal. For many factors ...
    As for the budget option - the carrier of the Kyrgyz Republic based on IL-96 - go ahead, study the materiel, in particular the texts of the agreements ...
  25. Old26 2 June 2020 21: 37 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: vVvAD
    Archives or something else, but I think that problems with the PAK DA will be due to the fact that our production aircraft did not have such an aerodynamic design. if there were LK type aircraft, then these were mainly pre-war projects.

    Tu-160 does not count? This is even written by Wikipedia:
    Sukhoi Design Bureau worked on the T-4MS project (“product 200”), which retained a certain continuity with the previous development - T-4 (“product 100”). Many configuration options were worked out, but in the end, the designers settled on an integrated circuit such as a “flying wing” with rotary consoles of a relatively small area.

    TU-160 was created not according to the "Flying Wing" scheme. In the same way as the T-4MS, it did not go further than schemes and possibly models for purging. This is not about who and what could draw or what model to do, but about the experience of operating aircraft such as "flying wing"
    Americans in the late 40s tested their bombers such as the LK XB-35 and XB-49. The first with piston engines, the second with jet engines. The test results, though later put in a long box, but nevertheless, they revealed "childhood diseases" on them
    1. vVvAD 2 June 2020 23: 13 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Up to the rotary wing consoles, the Tu-160 actually has a single fuselage that creates lift (except for the central part).
      The Tu-160 really cannot be called a fully flying wing - it is an integral, but, nevertheless, having direct features of the LC.
      I left my previous comment on the fact that the Soviet specialists didn’t have any experience in designing LCs at all.
      1. agond 3 June 2020 00: 15 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        On the basis of the Tu-160 it is possible to create a simplified subsonic DA aircraft, but with folding wings, folding wings are only needed to reduce the size when stored on the ground, such an aircraft (tailless) can be thrust into a small-diameter hangar. because large planes on earth are very vulnerable
        1. vVvAD 3 June 2020 02: 07 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          You can even supersonic, the only question is where it can take off, and where not. You can, but why? The Tu-95 is much more economical and the radius is larger with comparable introductory ones: subsonic speed, lack of stealth technology, bomb load of the same order (2 times less), the ability to launch a CD database.
          And about taillessness, you waved too much: you just won’t be able to take and remove the tail unit - it will not be redesign, but a full-fledged creation of a new aircraft: the center of gravity, air flow around you will shift, the question of stabilization by pitch will come up, and God knows what that designers and specialists on the subject. If you meant the absence of a keel. then this has nothing to do with the tailless.
          The tunnel is good, but expensive and unpromising in view of the presence of concrete-breaker and anti-bunker power supplies among potential opponents. As in China - underground airfields in the mountains ... The Ural mountain range, as it were, stretches across the whole country, and, again, China did, because it can afford it, we do not.
          With our size, the exit for strategists is dispersal across aerodromes and equipping mobile infrastructure at civilian airfields and highways (it will fit 1-2 on the terminal, but they need a lot, which is good for this purpose - it’s bad from organizational and logistic positions, but with modern means of communication it is solvable) since it is doubtful that they will be able to use prefabricated airfields, although my knowledge in this part is superficial, and I could be wrong.
          1. agond 3 June 2020 10: 04 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: vVvAD
            The tunnel is good, but expensive and unpromising in view of the presence of concrete-breaker and anti-bunker power supplies among potential opponents.

            If the tunnel is not underground, but above, that is, a long concrete arch (made embankment or not filled up at all) is not expensive, and then if the “above ground” shelter tunnel has a length of 100 m, and the plane is 40 m, then hit the inside of the plane with one concrete piercing a bomb is possible with a probability of less than 0.5, and for 200m less than 0.2. if both exits of the tunnel have failed, you can disassemble the arches of the tunnel and roll the plane to the side, of course the tunnel is built along taxiing Of course, the “above-ground” tunnel will not protect against direct hit by an anti-bunker bomb, but it will protect against secondary damaging factors and most importantly it is impossible to determine from the outside what is inside.
            1. vVvAD 5 June 2020 09: 47 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              If the tunnel is not underground, but above, that is, a long concrete arch (made embankment or not filled up at all) is not expensive, and then if the “above ground” shelter tunnel has a length of 100 m, and the plane is 40 m, then hit the inside of the plane with one concrete piercing a bomb is possible with a probability of less than 0.5, and for 200m less than 0.2. if both exits of the tunnel fail, you can disassemble the arches of the tunnel and roll the plane to the side, of course the tunnel is built along taxiing

              I wear out for stiffness, but complete nonsense. Concrete ammunition is not designed for this - no one will work on bunkers. The anti-bunker ammunition is capable of penetrating several tens of meters into the ground or punching about 5 m of concrete, after which there is a thermobaric explosion, collapsing the entire 200 m of the tunnel - only a flat pile of debris will remain at the arch site, because it does not burst, but creates an area of ​​reduced pressure - even mountain rocks from such an "explosion" converge.
  26. Old26 3 June 2020 12: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: agond
    If the tunnel is not underground, but above, that is, a long concrete arch (made embankment or not filled up at all) is not expensive, and then if the “above ground” shelter tunnel has a length of 100 m, and the plane is 40 m, then hit the inside of the plane with one concrete piercing a bomb is possible with a probability of less than 0.5, and for 200m less than 0.2. if both exits of the tunnel fail, you can disassemble the arches of the tunnel and roll the plane to the side, of course the tunnel is built along taxiing

    Maybe this concrete-bomb doesn’t hit the plane itself. But she doesn’t need it. Several tons of explosives exploded in a confined space (arched shelter) will multiply the bomber there by zero
    1. agond 3 June 2020 14: 44 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Several tons of explosives exploded in a confined space (arched shelter) will multiply the bomber there by zero

      In tunnels there are special curtains made in case of a gas explosion, but this is not the point, but the fact that even a sufficiently large aircraft can be thrust into a narrow concrete arched shelter if it has folding wings.
      1. vVvAD 5 June 2020 10: 01 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        There are special curtains in tunnels in case of a gas explosion, but this is not the point, but the fact that even a sufficiently large aircraft can be thrust into a narrow concrete arched shelter if it has folding wings

        It is possible, but it does not solve the essence of the problem. There are such hangars, but they are needed to provide sorties, weather protection and small drones. This is the limit. The rest is camouflage, dispersal and active defense.
        Ok, gas curtain of neutral gas overpressure. In the warehouses of fuels and lubricants and BP, this seems to be a good fire prevention measure. And how is this applicable for aviation basing: how under such conditions will the aircraft undergo multi-part pre-flight training, maintenance and other regulatory procedures? But nothing - it will be necessary to roll it out or displace the inert gas with air, so that the technical staff can work normally.
  27. Old26 3 June 2020 15: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: agond
    In tunnels there are special curtains made in case of a gas explosion, but this is not the point, but the fact that even a sufficiently large aircraft can be thrust into a narrow concrete arched shelter if it has folding wings.

    Theoretically, yes. But where to put wings. They will be folded in a vertical plane. And where to put the vertical plumage of the same bomber type TU-160
  28. Comrade Michael 4 June 2020 23: 38 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    20 years later, my forecast ...
  29. silver_roman 5 June 2020 01: 16 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    It seems to me that Yura Borisov should continue to promise a flying pack and by 2018. just like that, contrary to logic ... what if ours invented a time machine (without Makarevich) and can keep their word? wassat
    but seriously, absolutely nothing about the project. better to bring that 160m to mind. and forget about the strange project of the strange bomber. By the way, I wonder what kind of engines they will put on it? obviously some old, because we have no tests of a new engine for 1-2 goals. it seems that they just invest loot anywhere. if you would invest. let’s another promising war veteran instant 41, attack aircraft su 45, what else is there?
    1. vVvAD 5 June 2020 10: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Roman, yes, you are simply not in the subject of works on PAK YES. So why pour your bile here?
      Take the trouble to go at least to the Wikipedia page if it is credible for you, or to more reliable sources, and look there for information about the PAK YES engine.