The appearance of the long-range missile carrier PAK DA has been approved after tests of mock-ups for aerodynamics and radar signature

In the cockpit of Tu-160 - illustrative photo

It became known about the approval of the final appearance of the promising long-range aviation complex aviation - PAK YES. As part of the work carried out, we recall that the latest Russian low-visibility missile carrier is being developed.

As reported in the materials RIA News citing a source in the industry, the main design goal is to create an aircraft with a reduced signature, as well as the presence of effective long-range weapons.

The tests of the PAK DA models for radar signature have already been carried out, their aerodynamic characteristics and qualities have been checked. On this basis, the Ministry of Defense approved the technical appearance of the future long-range missile carrier.
It is indicated that several prototypes of the PAK DA are already under construction.

It is known that the "flying wing" scheme was taken as the basis for the creation of the newest combat aircraft. The speed of the aircraft, as stated, will not exceed the speed of sound, which ultimately should ensure a longer stay in the sky.

On the promising bomber, they plan to use exclusively the weapons that will be placed in the internal compartments. In particular, we are talking about hypersonic intra-fuselage missiles.

Additionally, it is reported about the development of on-board equipment for the PAK DA, which will be distinguished by maximum automation. It will also be able to allow the PAK DA to be transferred to unmanned operation mode.

The latest long-range aircraft will also be tested as part of network-centric operations - as an air control tool drones and coordination of their actions.

Comments

[Vladimir_2U]

Slides, slides, slides!

[Grandfather]

and where to see that?

[VO3A]

Learn to work and see the right sites!
See:
https://naukatehnika.com/pak-da-obrel-svoe-liczo.html

[ironic]

Looked at the engines. Neighing. Closed.

[Sarboz]

Quote: ironic

Looked at the engines. Neighing. Closed.

An acquaintance of mine was a programmer at the beginning of 2000. He also laughed all the time when he read messages that our GLONASS continues to develop. I was touched by the comparison of GPS on the palm and GLONASS in a suitcase, the positioning accuracy of one in decimeters and the other in meters. And the main reason why the wheel should be reinvented if there is a ready-made available solution for an American cheap super-accurate GPS. By the way, he turned out to be a bastard, he betrayed the people who raised him as a specialist. So what? 2008 came and everyone understood everything at once. And now GLONASS is not inferior to GPS in terms of parameters.
In short, the dog neighs like a horse, and the caravan moves on.

[ironic]

While they were doing GLONASS and while it was still unfinished before GPS, the world is already moving by leaps and bounds towards a satellite-based broadband network. And one outstanding form of engines and exhaust nozzles, like those of a passenger plane, is worthy of neighing. If only they were already drawing thinkers.

[bayard]

Quote: ironic

Looked at the engines. Neighing.

What's so funny?
And what was he laughing at?
Above the 2019 picture, when was the alleged look first shown? And it was still not clear whether the NK-23 would work? Then an alternative option for installing 4 engines was considered, most likely of the PD-14 series.
But the engine has already appeared and has begun bench tests. The PAK DA line-up has undergone changes - the place and shape of the air intakes, instead of a flat nozzle with 4 engines, are round, but shaded by two huge (up to 3m in diameter) NK-23 engines.
Are you confused by round nozzles?
So look at the F-35 - there are the same, and much less shaded. And hotter ones.
Or does the appearance and layout of the B-21 evoke the same Homeric laughter in you?
But there are also two by-pass engines.
I'm not so funny at all. Everything is quite in the trend of the time. The engines will be very economical and will be used not only for the PAK DA, but also for the remotorization of Ruslans, as well as for new transport aircraft.
For example, it was much more interesting for me to look at the bottom view.
The weapons bays.
Firstly, there are two main ones in the center with a parallel arrangement. Which is quite reasonable.
There will be the main strike weapons.
But the other two - on the outside of the engines ... this is something new.
And interesting.
It looks like an air-to-air missile compartment. For self-defense and breakthrough / defeat of enemy fighters.
A very sensible decision.
And once a contract has been signed for the manufacture of the first prototypes, then these are no longer toys "behind the drawing board", this is already a transition to the practical implementation of the project.
So it's too early to laugh ... or too late (the design dream phase is over).

[ironic]

Are you comparing the F-35 to a strategist? It's even funnier. If you look at the B-21, look at its engines and their fairings and their nozzles. There will be close relatives of the F-35 engines.

[bayard]

Quote: ironic

Are you comparing the F-35 to a strategist?

The nozzle shape of its engine is large, round, unshaded.
And nothing .
A flat nozzle is inefficient in terms of thrust - up to 15% of power is lost.

Quote: ironic

It's even funnier.

Laughter for no apparent reason ...
We also have round nozzles on the Su-57.

Quote: ironic

If you look at the B-21, look at its engines and their fairings and their nozzles.

There have been no photo reports from all angles on this pepelatse yet. And the engines there are with ... a very moderate bypass, which means that they will have a very hot exhaust and, as a result, a very expressive infrared signature. Here it is then with flat nozzles and reduce ... losing on this in traction.

Quote: ironic

There will be close relatives of the F-35 engines.

I know about it . And these are very hot engines ... with very questionable economy.
Engines are certainly good - for a fighter. And the diameter is moderate for a bomber ... but this will affect the range, the lack of which will be compensated for by the amount of fuel ... to the detriment of the payload.
But this is their business, their choice.
In our case, the stake was made on the NK-23D engines with a high bypass ratio, at the level of civilian versions. And they will be installed in addition to PAK YES, also on "Ruslans". Of course, it is possible to reduce the jet stream of an engine with a diameter of 3 meters into a flat nozzle ... but this will make the structure heavier, complicate it and its maintenance, lead to a serious loss of thrust ... Do we need it?
What if the bomber will carry long-range missiles?
With the use of these outside the zone of action of enemy air defense and enemy fighters?
If we and on the Su-57, which is still a fighter, have abandoned such a nozzle?
So I don't see anything funny in such a choice.
And I observe a completely rational approach to the design of military equipment.
I, as a carrier of long-range missile defense systems, would be quite satisfied with the modernized Il-96, as a flying arsenal. Or Il-76MD90A, in the same role.

Now look at the American B-2.
Its price.
Operating cost.
And combat value.
I hope we will see how the B-21 will turn out soon, but its predecessor is by no means an example of rationality.

[ironic]

So this is a fighter-bomber, a front-line fighter, slightly different requirements. A flat nozzle actually in the west was developed only to change the thrust vector, in a vertical plane.

There are not only round nozzles, there are rivets and coating and joints and a lot of things to bring and finish, but that's not the point. In the figure, the engines seem to be from a civilian liner with the same contours and nozzles. It looks ridiculous in the guise of a stealth strategist.

We do not yet know exactly what the engine will be like and how economical it will be. But its contours, exhaust directions, everything is verified. Here a user from Bulgaria gave a couple of pictures of how accurately everything was fitted. And here on the sketch is an attempt to lick the body and two ears of the Cheburashka in the middle. This is ridiculous.

What's wrong with the B-2? He is the first in his class. The series is not great. Technology was new. The price is appropriate. The combat value at the time of its appearance was incomparable, because there was nothing to compare with. The B-21 will be smaller, cheaper, more technologically advanced. And it will turn out like this precisely because it has, albeit not an economical, but a technological predecessor.

[bayard]

Quote: ironic

A flat nozzle actually in the west was developed only to change the thrust vector, in a vertical plane.

Not at all, flat nozzles were considered precisely to reduce the thermal signature; this was much written about in the 80s in specialized publications both in the USA and in the USSR. And we have conducted similar experiments. So for the promising Su-47 "Berkut" a unique engine was being prepared according to the Lebedev scheme on the basis of one AL-41 and two fans placed on board with the transmission of torque through the power take-off shafts. As a result, the thrust of the bundle doubled at the same fuel consumption, and all during the flow were mixed in a single flat and rather wide nozzle ... three-slotted, if memory has not changed. And precisely for cooling and dispersing the hot stream. But they did not have time to finish the engine.
Experiments were made with a flat adjustable nozzle on an AL-31F. It was then that a power loss of up to 15% was established.

Quote: ironic

In the figure, the engines seem to be from a civilian liner with the same contours and nozzles.

The configuration of the outer casing may change, but the engines are really with by-pass parameters as in classic civilian engines, so there is nothing surprising. But the expected high efficiency is by definition.

Quote: ironic

It looks ridiculous in the guise of a stealth strategist.

Well, not funnier than the engines of the A-10 attack aircraft.
Our contours and shapes are quite graceful and brutal.
Only the rear view can be considered unexpected, but this is not a habit for now.

[Sarboz]

Quote: bayard

Quote: ironic

A flat nozzle actually in the west was developed only to change the thrust vector, in a vertical plane.

Not at all, flat nozzles were considered precisely to reduce the thermal signature; this was much written about in the 80s in specialized publications both in the USA and in the USSR. And we have conducted similar experiments.

Our Israeli comrade has impeccable logic. He never pays attention to his arguments, refuted by the interlocutor. It just turns the conversation a little to the side each time. "Discussion" can thus last indefinitely, but at the same time he does not need to recognize as false any of his messages. Therefore, he is always right and on a horse. After all, his task here is not to discuss military technologies as such, his task is to convince interested users who are not too versed in the issue of the inferiority of the Russian defense industry, the mediocrity of our designers, and the venality of the leadership. If the opponent is technically literate, it doesn't matter, he can simply be driven to white heat with senseless arguments about anything and about everything at the same time.

[bayard]

Quite right, I have known this character for a long time.
And my answers are not so much for him as for the forum.

[ironic]

Well, then answer the forum, why are you under my personal post, then write the answer. Add you to the Marshal and you will be a familiar character for the forum.

[Sarboz]

Our ironic Iron got nervous. Cholesterol jumped, fingers do not get into letters, skips spaces.

Quote: ironic

Onas, heedfulness, refutation, nowhere, by the way, to explain, lacks, at least, it never happens, on the basis of, building, fighters, engineers, building.

In two short paragraphs there are so many achepyatki, too many smart ideas to convey to us in a hurry. Well, it is clear that words like "project literacy" in speech slip from an excess of education. And the excess of English-language rubbish, all these "batherts, flames, startups, projects" apparently help to effectively manage projects. And how else can you bring your ingenious ideas to the "literate engineers who are not able to manage the project" to the limit. Only if you completely spoil the Russian language with liberal hashtags: "uryadzdravstvuet both vsevragi and vsevrete".
These scholars come to Russian-language forums, scoff at our language, our history, and also try to impose their own rules on us. They have a standard trick to take and drag the interlocutor into a discussion on issues that are completely irrelevant to the topic - philosophy, logic, terminology:

Quote: ironic

You first figure out what "false" is, and then you can get to what "discussion" is. And no, not read the words in the dictionary, everyone can.

And I am not going to play by their rules with the enemies of my country. On our Afghan forums, such scum would be banned instantly and without regret. Our military officer on Echo of Moscow was removed for a harmless question about the number of Orders of the Red Banner from the grandfathers of the scoundrel and liar Venediktov. And VO moderators with these characters are liberal. After all, our young people read all this nonsense and acquire a firm conviction that they live in the most worthless and vile country.

[ironic]

At least I have onas. I draw attention to the arguments, but they only pull "enemies" for refutation in your highly specialized search engine. Nowhere else. By the way, I am patiently trying to explain why and why in Russia it is not the Kulibins who are lacking, they have always been enough, but competent project managers, not those who know how to do it, but those who at least know how not to do it. You first figure out what "false" is, and then you can get to what "discussion" is. And no, not read the words in the dictionary, everyone can. And to answer the question "why should I believe in this?" No one is always right, but you just wrote another stamp, not a thought. reported. It doesn't bother you. I want to write to people that thinking like you, for example, is worse than not thinking, because this is not thinking at all. This will make everyone healthy and vsevrete. The leadership can not be corrupt, otherwise it will have nothing to interest. This is by the way to the question of marketing literacy. Working as a manager comes for money and working conditions, as well as for ambitions and position in society, and this is a sale. Technical literacy does not necessarily mean project literacy of a manager. I've met a lot of engineers who are literate to the point of not being able to manage a project. And by the way, this is exactly what I am doing, I am in charge of the project. You don't stop your flame, but it doesn't bother you.

[ironic]

What was considered and what went into flight is one thing, and this is another. In fighters in the west, only flat nozzles with a variable vector went into flight, and then only on one serial copy and on the main experimental one. And in the end they came to the conclusion that it did not justify itself. As for the stealth bombers, there is generally a different structure of the body and the diversion of jet streams, incomparable with fighters.

Exactly, how do not change the casing, and if you sew on the ears of the Cheburashka with open air intakes and the same engine nozzles for a civil aircraft on the licked body, then why then build a complex and expensive body at all, which you cannot steer even without complex control algorithms, we take like the Americans, a Boeing 767 and instead of a tanker or an anti-submarine we make a bomb bay for him and everything, economically and cheaply. And the carrying capacity of dofiga and the radius with interest.

A-10, an attack aircraft, the body of which is not made for engines, but for a healthy gatling gun. There was nowhere more engines to hang and invisibility did not threaten him. It was there that the contours were made just for it. Do you think it is justified for a stealth strategist in terms of its tasks and cost, as well as how many years ahead such decisions are being built? Then why are you surprised it's funny?

[3danimal]

About flat nozzles and OBT.

https://youtu.be/VpjTogR8rF0

This is a simulator, of course, but the best in this direction and the most hardcore.
There are also a number of videos from the F-22.
Conclusion: in a 1x1 BVB, a maneuverable fighter with an OVT will not leave a chance for the usual one. (Unless the pilot makes a series of critical mistakes).
In BVR combat, this is no longer so noticeable, it is more important to have stealth, modern radar and missiles with ARL seeker.

[ironic]

Here one point is not taken into account, which I have been trying to convey not for the first time. There will be no such fight. Fighters with super cruise speed will not enter combat with super-maneuvers at speeds of 0.5-0.6M, and there the variable vector practically does not give any advantages. Therefore, they refused to do with such F-15 nozzles, having tested an experimental specimen and therefore the F-35 also did not increase the cost of their complex design, and everyone knows the price of the F-22 ... And for the same reason, the maximum tested controlled angle of attack for the F-35A 50 degrees, and for the F-22 70.

[3danimal]

The F-35A is one of the most maneuverable fighters without OVT.
From what I've seen, modification B is not very far behind.
If there is a convergence, the speed will have to be reduced by maneuvering.
Another thing is that fighters on both sides will fight BVRs for as long as possible.

it is more important to have stealth, modern radar and missiles with ARL seeker.

By the way, here the F-22 has an advantage - less EPR and more missiles.

[ironic]

Its feature is that it has maximum operational maneuverability in the 0.8-1.2M range, including acceleration / deceleration, and in this range it will impose a battle on the enemy.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: 3danimal

in a 1x1 BVB, a maneuverable fighter with an OVT will not leave a chance for the usual one.

This is not true. OVT provides advantages, but mainly for air shows.
Here are the training dogfights of the Su-30MKM and F / A-18D (it is still with a PTB). Loss of clean sheet with a score of 0-3.

[3danimal]

I saw this fight, I myself cited it as an example. Breaking the myth, Western aircraft without OVT are helpless (where are they to MiG-29 and Su-27).
The F-18 is a highly maneuverable aircraft, stable at high angles of attack.
By the way, the F-15 was losing in such battles.
Much depends on the pilot's skill, it is obvious that the F-18 was more experienced.
It is important to be able to shoot in a timely manner "on the fly", here Gatling gives an advantage.
Take a look at the simulation I gave.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: 3danimal

By the way, the F-15 was losing in such battles.

A video or an official report is needed. In what conditions was the battle, what scenario.
On the channel he has a video of an F / A-18 dogfight with an F-15, a draw.

[bayard]

Quote: ironic

In fighters in the west, only flat nozzles with a variable vector went into flight, and then only on one copy of the serial

Not true . Look at the F-35 (you already have it), a STEALTH fighter-bomber with a huge, round, open nozzle. Moreover, it is very hot. And somehow your partners don't worry about it. If you look at the proportions, then the presented prototype has about the same proportions (the ratio of the nozzle diameter to the fuselage size), only two engines ... And the hot jet from them goes in a very decent "cold shirt". So there can be problems with visibility only in the rear hemisphere. As well as the F-35.

Quote: ironic

As for the stealth bombers, there is generally a different structure of the body and the diversion of jet streams, incomparable with fighters.

Do you mean B-2 and B-21?
In B-2, the engines are located on the wing (and their hoods also stick out like Mickey Mouse ears), and in the middle part. With such an arrangement, it was possible to implement a flat nozzle (in the V-2, simply shading by the wing), which is apparently implemented in the V-21.
In the case of the PAK DA, the NK-23D engines were selected. Their diameter is about 3 m. This is both a plus and a minus.
Plus - efficiency and a cold jacket for a hot jet due to the high degree of bypass.
The downside is the difficulty of implementing a flat nozzle.
The engines are located at the rear of the wing and there is simply no room left for converging the jet into a flat nozzle - otherwise the fuselage will lengthen, additional influxes will appear, the aerodynamics will change ... the thrust will drop ...
The first versions of the PAK DA appearance show that the version with 4 smaller engines, most likely PD-14, was previously considered. In that case, the implementation of flat nozzles looked quite organic.
But with the NK-23D everything is completely different.

Quote: ironic

Exactly, don't change the casing here, but if you sew on the ears of the Cheburashka with open air intakes and the same engine nozzles for a civil aircraft on the licked body

And where did you get the idea that there is an open air intake?
The engines are located behind / above the wing, and the air intake is located under the lower edge of the wing. Yes, it is large, but there is a fairly long channel, which will obviously have an S-shaped configuration (as on all fighters, and not only, of the 3rd and 4th generations. So in the front projection its fan will not light up in any way.
But in the rear projection (and only in the rear) - yes. But just as much as the F-35. In addition, it is not yet known whether this sketch is the true and final appearance of the PAK DA. And even if it is, then it will become noticeable only from the back hemisphere - that is, only after completing the task and returning back.
And if we take into account that he will have to use a very long-range weapon (the Kh-101 \ 102 have a range of up to 5500 km, the air version of the Zircon is about 1000 km), then he will have no one to fear. You can shoot over the North Pole without fear of enemy fighters at all, in the European theater of operations - from your own territory, and over the water surface ... you will have to take the Su-57 to cover - its range is long, and even more with refueling.
So I don't see much trouble.

Quote: ironic

Why then build a complex and expensive hull at all, which cannot be steered even without complex control algorithms, like the Americans, we take a Boeing 767 and instead of a tanker or an anti-submarine we make a bomb bay for it and that's it, economically and cheaply. And the carrying capacity of dofiga and the radius with interest.

If we are interested in the arsenal aircraft, then yes, I myself think so. Especially for the Kh-101 \ 102 or its successor, whose range is even more predicted - almost up to 10 km.
But it was the bomber that was ordered, which, possibly, will be prescribed anti-ship functions. And for this, the Il-96 is not at all suitable.

Quote: ironic

Do you think this is justified for a stealth strategist in terms of its tasks and cost, as well as how many years ahead such decisions are being built? Then why are you surprised it's funny?

I repeat - the PAK DA will only break the stealth mode in the rear hemisphere. That is, after completing the BZ, at the exit. When approaching / reaching the launch line, it will be very hidden.
I hope so.
And the range of its weapons is a very good insurance against unexpected encounters with enemy fighters.
And if compartments for armament of explosives are implemented on it, then it will be able to fight back if needed. Even from the missiles themselves - both anti-aircraft and explosives.
But he will shoot FROM A FAR.

[ironic]

Exactly, that they do not soar because, according to its specifics, it needs to have the greatest stealth from the front hemisphere and partly in the lateral projection, and given the fact that it will go to the goal in non-afterburner mode, flat nozzles were considered unnecessary brute force for him, not giving a noticeable advantage. This is not at all the case for a long-range bomber, which can be led and tracked from absolutely any angle and does not possess the maneuverability of a fighter. If the shapes of the F-35 fit very well, and the location of the nozzle in relation to the tail unit, then in the above figure, the engines specifically pop out of the hull, and I can imagine the dimensions of the nozzles that are not protected by the pattern by looking at the Boeing 787.

If you look at the B-2 engine fairings and exhaust vents, then look at this picture. Well, isn't it funny for you to write frank exaggerations?

Where did you get that from? Yes, from the same as in the Su-57. The principle of the location of the air intake, shove it under the fuselage and it's in the bag ... Will the Su-57 accompany it? And that also needs to be re-energized ... From that they will find out. And why is it even needed if missiles are launched at 5000 km?

Anti-rabbits? ... Well, like, first, shove it into the 160th, and then also into the PAK ... you have to fire from project managers for this.

It is generally impossible to violate the stealth mode of a ranged stealth anywhere, because it can be led from any angle and he is not a fighter that, by any means, glows in the rear hemisphere. Otherwise, he is not needed at all. It is much cheaper to forget a flying bomb bay based on existing civil / cargo equipment.

[bayard]

Quote: ironic

Otherwise, he is not needed at all. It is much cheaper to forget a flying bomb bay based on existing civil / cargo equipment.

I repeat once again - if we need an arsenal aircraft, then yes. With such a launch range (up to 5500 km), it is possible to launch it with IL-96 \ 76. Perhaps it will be so. But the bomber has a much wider range of applications:
- installation of sea minefields,
- destruction of aircraft carrier and ship groupings,
- striking with free-falling bombs on the territory not covered by air defense,
and for anything else that this platform will be suitable for.
The arsenal plane is not capable of this.
Look at the Tu-95 ... or better at the B-52. He scatters sea mines, and was the carrier of the Harpoon anti-ship missile system, and the carrier of free-fall bombs, and the missile carrier (Tomahawks). And RL visibility did not interfere with this.
And again about PAK YES. As a carrier of anti-ship missiles with a range of 1000 - 1500 km. it will reach the launch line in full stealth mode. But having carried out the launch, by this fact alone, he will already reveal himself. Here's just to react to the IA, even being 300 km away. from the airplane, he will not be able - he simply will not have time. Even if the Hawkeye detects it at the visibility limit after turning - into the rear hemisphere ... The fighters will not have time to intercept it - the radius will not be enough. And time to get closer.
And absolutely invisible aircraft do not exist, in principle, I am telling you this as a radar specialist. It all depends on the operating frequency range of the radar, the sensitivity of the receivers, the type of signal and, of course, the range.
So the normal scheme for PAK DA, and by the way, it will turn out much easier and cheaper to manufacture and operate than the scheme with 4 PD-14 hidden inside the wing and with slotted nozzles. And where it is easier, there is more reliable.
And I myself have long spoken about the desirability of having arsenals, but this is still to ensure the massive volley from a safe space.

[ironic]

Again. You have not been able to refute a simple thesis. Or simply and cheaply an arsenal plane or already seriously, expensively and with all the technically necessary elements of stealth, a stealth strategist. I explained why half-measure evokes a humorous attitude. You are trying to obscure this with all sorts of near-project considerations. Well, the Su-57 will turn out only in the bomber segment. And expensive and not quite stealth.

PS I know that there are no invisible planes, but the detection distance and the ability to aim the weapon at it, as at a captured target, change. You have a strange opinion that if a missile launch is detected, then you can immediately aim the missile at the carrier. Stealth technology is just needed to make this extremely difficult.

[bayard]

Quote: ironic

Again. You have not been able to refute a simple thesis. Or simply and cheaply an arsenal plane or already seriously, expensively and with all the technically necessary elements of stealth, a stealth strategist.

There is no need to invent a simple and cheap arsenal aircraft - these are BTA aircraft. The same Il-76 in any modification. And the Americans have been actively practicing the method of dumping / launching the CD from it in recent years. Nothing bothers us either.
So there is such an aircraft (arsenal).
And about stealth, so the presented PAK DA fully corresponds to it. Visibility into the rear hemisphere creates risks only after the launch of the cruise missile and the turn to the opposite course. And since the launches will be from a LONG distance, it will be extremely difficult to intercept even a detected bomber because of the distance and the need to attack in pursuit. Yes, and he can fight back ... even from explosive missiles.

Quote: ironic

Well, the Su-57 will turn out only in the bomber segment. And expensive and not quite stealth.

The result is a good stealth bomber.
Others simply do not exist in nature.
They are visible in the meter and decameter ranges without any damage in range, and this is the basis of our duty forces. But for AWACS aircraft and especially fighter airborne radars, they are really unobtrusive. And for the seeker of explosive missiles.
We have a different ideology for using bomber aircraft, and for our strategy and tactics, such aircraft are quite effective and in demand.
And at the same time, our air defense systems on duty quite effectively detect such aircraft of American (and other) production. It is impossible to aim missiles with such means, but to send the interceptor into the detection zone so that it rummages around with its powerful OLS is quite.

Quote: ironic

You have a strange opinion that if a missile launch is detected, then you can immediately aim the missile at the carrier.

Launching missiles, and even simply opening the doors of the armament compartment, the bomber is already unmasking itself. If the launch of the CD is carried out quickly, the doors are closed and stealth is restored, then it will be difficult to hit it with explosive missiles, but the fighters will know where to look for it and will go to intercept and converge, up to the capture of the target with their guidance means. This is what I mean.
But to go to intercept after, at the limit of the radius of action, at the limit of the distance of reach ... it is difficult. And with the correct tactics chosen by the attacking side, the launches of the CD will be carried out BEFORE the lines of possible interception. The range of our weapons allows this.

[ironic]

Those. you are sure that no one will feel it from any corner of the rear hemisphere to the target. So you are going to fly 1500 km from the drop point? Well, probably this point is no further than 2000 km from the border of the Russian Federation.

Yeah, using the technology of partial stealth ... Ie. it will be like with the Su-57 a lot of money, but the rivets are large and the joints are so-so and the coverage is not very good and the air intakes are not quite ... Again the meter range? Well, yes, it flies somewhere. An interceptor was sent, but he was not there.

A short increase in the reflection from the doors and the missile drop do not allow you to confidently aim the weapon at the aircraft. Hop and he disappeared again with his low eclipse behind active interference. But partial stealth will still allow you to detect the plane earlier and lead. And in the rear hemisphere there may be a ship group with powerful AFAR-ami on the masts and an AWACS aircraft with an avik ...

[bayard]

Let's wait for the first flight model to judge its combat value.
While this is a waste of time.

[ironic]

Oh come on. If only yes.

[Piramidon]

Quote: Dead Day

and where to see that?

You want too much. Spiyon, or what? Maybe you still need the keys to the apartment ...

[Thrifty]

Vladimir 2U - you have his exact photos in your mailbox !!!

[Alex777]

Vladimir 2U -in your mailbox you have his exact photos

Next to the slides of the Crimean bridge.

[venik]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Slides, slides, slides!

========
When they said the same thing about "Zircon", "Dagger", "Vanguard" ..... Not you?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: venik

When they said the same thing about "Zircon", "Dagger", "Vanguard" ..... Not you?

Even now I would not refuse to look at "Zircon", what is wrong?

[venik]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Even now I would not refuse to look at "Zircon", what is wrong?

=======
Yes, I - too! But who will show them to us ???
And it would be very curious!

[ironic]

Zircon is not yet clear what it is. The dagger turned out to be an aerobalistic rocket, and the Vanguard was a glider, i.e. we have seen all this in one form or another in history.

[Al_lexx]

Intra-body missile ...
It will be necessary to remember.)))

[Sling cutter]

Quote: Al_lexx

Intra-body missile ...
It will be necessary to remember.)))

I'd rather write it down

[Grandfather]

Quote: Al_lexx

Intra-body missile ...
It will be necessary to remember.)))

do not confuse with a cow ...

[Al_lexx]

Quote: Dead Day

do not confuse with a cow ...

Laugh in what place?

[Grandfather]

Quote: Al_lexx

Quote: Dead Day

do not confuse with a cow ...

Laugh in what place?

yes even cry .. depends on the sense of humor.

[Al_lexx]

Quote: Dead Day

yes even cry .. depends on the sense of humor.

I already checked out your sense of humor. Apparently, it is approximately at the level of the capital's sewage system. However, I am not surprised looking at your comments diagonally.

[pilot306]

Let the author show the fuselage at the "flying wing" on the diagram.

[svp67]

I wonder how much this "Tu" will be outwardly different from the B-21?

And how will their Chinese "brother" be distinguished from them outwardly?

[Grandfather]

Quote: svp67

I wonder how much this "Tu" will be outwardly different from the B-21?

And how will their Chinese "brother" be distinguished from them outwardly?

the computer is likely to decide. and MOSK from him-AI right now, few people own a pencil.

[Ka-52]

I wonder how much this "Tu" will be outwardly different from the B-21?

and what is the interest? Well, there will be a slight external similarity - so from this. The aerodynamic scheme is such - it either exists or it does not. If you want to change it to please all the experts from the couch, you will lose some of the characteristics. In development, everything is based on the customer's specification. For example, he says: I want DB with a combat radius of at least 5500 km, NVM - 150-180 tons, MPN -> 20 tons, wing loading no more than 400 kg / m2, SZ can be neglected, reduced radar signature is the main requirement. And then the Design Bureau begins to develop a model of the future DB. The selection of aerodynamic and power schemes begins to achieve the required characteristics. In principle, an airplane is always a compromise: if you want to increase the range, then you need to increase the S of the wing. But the large wing begins to increase parasitic drag. This means that the fuel consumption increases, the range decreases. Increase the fuel supply - PN falls :)) a vicious circle. So there are more problems here than caring about such a stupid thing as external similarity.

[Yves762]

Quote: Ka-52

and what is the interest?

Well, at least in the general concept, repeating almost literally the bourgeois one with their B-2 / B-21. A fundamental analogy is in the story with the F-22 (although it is present even in the F-4 Phantom II / MiG21 cannons.).
Although the problem is not in "repetition", but in the necessity and compliance with general trends. So the Tu-160 concept seems to be more promising ...

[Alex777]

So the Tu-160 concept seems to be more promising.

What is more promising?

[Yves762]

Mobility.

[Alex777]

What do you mean by mobility?
In ~ 90% of cases, the Tu-160 is subsonic.
As colleagues wrote here, supersonic is achieved on a special fuel, which is only in Engels ...
And its consumption for peacetime is excessive.

[Yves762]

Quote: Yves762

So CONCEPT ( ) Tu-160, it seems, is more promising

[3danimal]

As colleagues wrote here, supersonic is achieved on a special fuel, which is only in Engels ...

Complete nonsense. There are 4 engines with afterburner. Concorde could, B-1 could, but Tu-160 not? Variable wing profile to help him.
But on the afterburner the consumption is really high (2 times higher).

[Alex777]

Concorde is a separate topic.
В-1В - subsonic in fact.
1328 km / h (M = 1,25) (at 15 240 m)
1160 km / h (M = 0,92) (at 61-152 m)

[3danimal]

B-1A (4 cars produced)
Original B-1 version with adjustable air intakes and a maximum speed of Mach 2,2

B-1B (100 cars produced)
A revised version of the B-1, using stealth radar technology and a maximum speed of Mach 1,25. The concept of a low-altitude air defense breakthrough aircraft has been implemented by means of the possibility of flight at ultra-low altitudes with rounding the terrain

A deliberate decision to reduce speed.
But initially it was exactly the prototype of the Tu-160.

[Alex777]

A deliberate decision to reduce speed.

Conscious of course. The engines are weaker, the weight is higher for the B-1B, etc., etc.
And all because by this moment in Lockheed developed and demonstrated the concept of "invisible".
And in the States, they considered this concept more promising.
https://coollib.com/b/413874-ben-rich-skunk-works-lichnyie-memuaryi-moey-rabotyi-v-lokhid/read

[3danimal]

I agree.
I mean, the B-1A also accelerated to 2,2M, nothing prevents its somewhat enlarged "brother" from doing this. Just afterburner. Another question is how long it will be supported (the combat radius will be greatly reduced).

[Alex777]

I mean that the B-1A also accelerated to 2,2M, nothing bothers to do it to a somewhat enlarged "brother".

You look at the engines and the difference in mass and you will understand - everything gets in the way.

[3danimal]

By brother, I meant Tu-160
(I originally compared them:

B-1 could, but Tu-160 not?

)
Everything is clear about the B-1B.

[ironic]

The Concorde had a fundamentally different engine specifically designed for supersonic cruising.

[3danimal]

Obviously, the Concorde is not the best example.
But B-1A is just right. Tu-160 looks like an enlarged version

[ironic]

Imanno and the Americans refused this option. The reasons are well known.

[AML]

Quote: Yves762

Quote: Ka-52

and what is the interest?

Well, at least in the general concept, repeating almost literally the bourgeois one with their B-2 / B-21. A fundamental analogy is in the story with the F-22 (although it is present even in the F-4 Phantom II / MiG21 cannons.).

Look at Horten Ho 229, think a lot, think and look at the Hornet.

[ugol2]

What is the difference between an engineer and a designer in design?
An engineer takes a sample as a basis, improves it, and gets something new at the end.
The designer keeps some patterns in mind and creates something new based on them.
An ingenious constructor can create something new out of "thin air".
With the "engineering" approach, constructions such as Space Shuttle - Buran, Su-27 - J-11 are obtained.
With ingenious designers, we are somehow not very good. Basically, we "improve" what has already been invented.

[Ka-52]

With ingenious designers, we are somehow not very good. Basically, we "improve" what has already been invented.

the usual opinion of ordinary people. Which are not related to design and engineering. Any modern technology is created with the existing technical groundwork in the base. Brilliant breakthroughs happen once every tens of years. For example, when switching from a biplane to a monoplane, from a "piece of wood" to a duralumin, from a piston to a turbojet engine, etc. And in between this there is the painstaking work of dozens of design bureaus (both ours and not ours) to create modern machines for their period.

[ugol2]

Quote: Ka-52

common opinion of ordinary people

Really.
And you can tell why the Shuttle took off before Buran, F-15 before Su-27, B-2 before PAK DA, F-22 before Su-57. Why was the "mouse" invented by Gates and not Ivanov?
This is for iron. But we are in the XNUMXst century. The computer is driving!
The computer is from there. PO to him - from there. Mobile connection to the Internet - from there.
What is ours? Where are our "Brilliant breakthroughs that happen once every tens of years"?

[Alex777]

Where are our "Brilliant breakthroughs that happen once every tens of years"?

What do you do in life?
Did the hypersound pass you by completely?

[svp67]

Quote: ugol2

Can you tell why

Gagarin took off before Shepherd?

Quote: ugol2

F-15 before Su-27

?????? And when did the MiG-25 take off?

Quote: ugol2

B-2 before PAK YES,

Or NO-229?

Quote: ugol2

The F-22 was earlier than the Su-57.

And the Yak-141 before the F-35

Quote: ugol2

Mobile connection to the Internet - from there.

Alas, even here the USSR was "on the cutting edge", it was just that these developments went into the "defense industry"
1957 year ...

[3danimal]

And the Yak-141 before the F-35

They have only a rotary nozzle in common.
The Yak is completely incomparable in terms of avionics and flight characteristics (worse).

[svp67]

Quote: 3danimal

The Yak is completely incomparable in terms of avionics and flight characteristics (worse).

Is that all you can say?

[3danimal]

My point is that go-229 is not a B-2 at all, but Northrop's firm was working on this scheme back in the late 30s:
https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_XB-35
MiG-25 and F-15 are different in tasks and characteristics. The closest American counterpart is the F-14 (with the best weapons).
Gagarin took off earlier, but the N-1 did not take off at all, and this is not an example of a more complex project.
The question is why? - Greater backlog in science and production in the United States, better motivation of people (including foreign specialists) - by welfare, not propaganda, a more efficient model of the economy (as opposed to the Soviet one, conditioned only by ideology and voluntarism of the leadership) and its larger size.
Speaking about H-1, the even more favorable location of the cosmodrome affected - Saturn-5 was transported assembled after full testing on a barge along the rivers, and was not assembled on the launch pad.

[AML]

Quote: ugol2

And you can tell why the Shuttle took off before Buran,

And what for the goat button accordion? SOI heard all that? It was a reaction. We didn't start. And as they say, find 10 differences.

Quote: ugol2

F-15 before Su-27,

Did the F-15 appear an hour after the stolen moment? It even looks like it - 25 wings, 2 engines. The chassis is round. Only the F-2 did not even get close to the MiG 15. Not shmogli. Well stupid.

Quote: ugol2

B-2 before PAK YES,

Does anyone have something cooler than the TU-160?

Quote: ugol2

The F-22 was earlier than the Su-57.

And even earlier, the moment 1.44

Quote: ugol2

Why was the "mouse" invented by Gates and not Ivanov?

Gates did not invent a mouse, but honestly stole it from XEROX, from there he also stole the window interface.
I do not exclude that Ivanov invented it at Xerox. History is silent about this.

Quote: ugol2

This is for iron. But we are in the XNUMXst century. The computer is driving!
The computer is from there. PO to him - from there. Mobile connection to the Internet - from there.
What is ours? Where are our "Brilliant breakthroughs that happen once every tens of years"?

Personally, your breakthroughs are not and will not be, since you whine all the way. Open your eyes first.

[3danimal]

Did the F-15 appear an hour after the stolen moment?

Don't be lazy to research the dates.
The first flight of the F-15 in 1972, 4 years before the hijacking of the Belenko Mig-25 to Japan.
I understand, I want to believe that everything is invented here, but this is not about objectivity.
You are not upset that all the laws of Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Electrical Engineering are named not by the names of Russian scientists, as well as the corresponding units of measurement?

And even earlier, the moment 1.44

It's hard to compare them. A crude prototype, even in the plans did not have characteristics similar to the F-22.

Gates did not invent a mouse, but honestly stole it from XEROX, from there he also stole the window interface.
I do not exclude that Ivanov invented it at Xerox.

Sounds a pity, throw away your complexes. It is necessary not to dwell on history, but to move forward. Like the chinese

Does anyone have something cooler than the TU-160?

There was a B-1A. And even earlier - Valkyrie .. They considered that these planes were not needed.

Personally, your breakthroughs are not and will not be

It's not about whining, but about the organization of research and the "climate."

And as they say, find 10 differences.

Carrying capacity ??
The shuttle took off on its engines + boosters (and carried a large fuel tank, reusable), Buran - on entirely disposable Energy.

[Farewell]

Is it okay that the F-15 was designed as their answer to the MiG-25, and the Su-27 as our answer to the F-15? And that the Su-27 got its appearance, using vortex aerodynamics, precisely because the first prototype did not provide the 30% advantage set by the military over the F-15?

[3danimal]

IMHO, it's a mistake to design too big a bomber.
It is no coincidence that the B-21 is 1,5 times smaller than the B-2.
Smaller size means less visibility, with equal measures to reduce it.
And maybe more (don't put all your eggs in one basket).

[prior]

The main difference is in the location of the cockpit.
Since the bomber works on the ground, the cockpit will be located not from the top, but from the bottom of the fuselage. Convenient for takeoff, landing and bombing. (April is not over)

[AC130 Gunship]

Behind - will be. There is no flat nozzle yet. The hunter flies with a round. Sticks out like a point :)

[AML]

Quote: AC130 Ganship

Behind - will be. There is no flat nozzle yet. The hunter flies with a round. Sticks out like a point :)

And smart people believe that a round nozzle gives all-aspect. What a flat nozzle does not and will not have

[3danimal]

All-roundness for a .. bomber? Or a stealthy strike drone?
What's the point if stealth is more valuable here?

[rocket757]

The appearance of the long-range missile carrier PAK DA has been approved after tests of mock-ups for aerodynamics and radar signature

I had to submit a topic yesterday !!! It went more cheerfully b.

[AUL]

What is this post about? A couple of days ago there was already a similar one!
They are looking only for the appearance of the future car. It means that the horse has not been lying there at all!

[svp67]

Quote from AUL

They are looking only for the appearance of the future car.

No, his appearance is brought to a certain "perfection", as much as possible

Quote from AUL

It means that the horse has not been lying there at all!

No ... already hesitated notably

[NDR-791]

Quote: svp67

No ... already hesitated notably

Really trampled on so if the mock-ups of the tests passed. It turns out with Northrop head to head we go. They really only made a layout to show the whole world a new horror story: The prototype of the aircraft has not yet been created, so its computer generated image is based on initial design developments.
Yes, and the price of a horse there - 511 liams apiece. True and they want 100 pieces.

[3danimal]

$ 500 million for a bomber jacket is very budgetary (the B-2 cost four times as much). Especially with its $ 700 billion.

[AUL]

Quote: svp67

No ... already hesitated notably

Since there is still no general appearance, then it cannot be:
- layout diagram,
- wiring communications,
- centering and balancing the product,
- strength calculations,
- aerodynamic calculations
and much more.
You can, of course, talk about the development and debugging of individual components and assemblies for the future product. This will speed up the work in the future. But, not having a layout scheme, there is a risk that some of the developed units either "will not fit" into the car, or will not be needed at all, but completely different ones will be needed. So the horse has been trampling on here for more than one year!

[Grandfather]

Quote from AUL

They are looking only for the appearance of the future car.

the front end is from the McLaren, and the ass is from the Porsche ... this is (private opinion). although .... do not care ...

[Coconut]

low-visibility missile carrier

this is a big question ... Serbs F117 with our weaving (C-125M "Neva") shot down ...

[Avior]

Low visibility and absolute invisibility are, as it were, not quite the same

[Ka-52]

Low visibility and absolute stealth- it's kind of not quite the same

you can find absolute invisibility only in fairy tales about the invisible hat.

[Avior]

What am I writing about.
Low visibility cannot guarantee that under any circumstances they will not be shot down

[Ka-52]

Low visibility cannot guarantee that under any circumstances they will not be shot down

uh huh. Low visibility can only guarantee that, all other things being equal, the moment of detection (and hence of interception) will come N time later. But it cannot guarantee or not guarantee the fact of destruction.

[Avior]

The use of weapons is, in principle, probabilistic. It's just that the probabilities of defeat are different.

[Grandfather]

Quote: Coco

low-visibility missile carrier

this is a big question ... Serbs F117 with our weaving (C-125M "Neva") shot down ...

I thought no one would remember ...

[URAL72]

It was a modernized Neva, with an ECO. Here with the help of optics and shot down. In addition, the Americans flew as in Vietnam, one route, they were shot down in Vietnamese - from an ambush. Planted in general.

[Roma 1977]

The tactical purpose of the F117 and PAK DA is completely different. F117 - for actions in the sky directly above the target, and the PAK DA will imperceptibly approach the launch line of hypersonic missiles - more than 1000 km from the enemy, without entering the zone of action of not only air defense, but also the air force.

[ironic]

How and under what circumstances do you also remember?

[3danimal]

Study the issue, and do not retell the rumors meaningfully.
Shot down using an optical sight as the plane descended below the clouds. And his leadership relaxed, several times guiding along the same route.

[Jacket in stock]

A flying wing with subsonic speed is a concept of the last century, embodied in the V-2.
It seems to me that the idea of ​​a "flying arsenal" from an ordinary truck with a maximum combat load and a minimum cost of both the apparatus itself and the flight hour will be more promising.

[Sofa batyr]

Quote: Jacket in stock

A flying wing with subsonic speed is a concept of the last century, embodied in the V-2.

Duc, then any wing, "from the last century."

[Kamchatsky]

from the same series ...

[Grandfather]

Quote: Jacket in stock

A flying wing with subsonic speed is a concept of the last century, embodied in the V-2.
It seems to me that the idea of ​​a "flying arsenal" from an ordinary truck with a maximum combat load and a minimum cost of both the apparatus itself and the flight hour will be more promising.

in the transition of the concept to "hypersound", in fact, the speed of the "carrier" is no longer important, the main thing is secrecy.

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: Dead Day

the speed of the "carrier" is no longer important, the main thing is stealth.

It is understandable with speed, although the next topic explains why this is actually important.
And secrecy from what?
If the range of "in-body missiles" more than covers any air defense zone. There is simply no one to hide from.
But an extra couple of tens of tons of rockets or "cast iron" on board will always come in handy.

[Ka-52]

It is understandable with speed, although the next topic explains why this is actually important.

NW bombers for breaking through air defense is a concept of the 70-80s. In principle, it has already lost its relevance. Because in any case, the approach of the missile carriers to the missile launch zone will be detected and intercepted.

If the range of "in-body missiles" more than covers any air defense zone. There is simply no one to hide from.

there is someone from. The closer the missile launch zone is to potential targets, the less time the enemy has to react to intercept them. A CD flying to the target for 2 hours will be guaranteed to be intercepted if it does not possess elements of flight stealth.

But an extra couple of tens of tons of rockets or "cast iron" on board will always come in handy.

they still need to be taken to the place of start / drop. In the air force of any country, the ratio of fighter to bomber aircraft is from 1:25 to 1:80. Think about the chances of missile carriers YES

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: Ka-52

NW bombers for breaking through air defense is a concept of the 70-80s. In principle, it has already lost its relevance. Because in any case, the approach of the missile carriers to the missile launch zone will be detected and intercepted.

That's right, you yourself have confirmed that stealth does not make any sense.
But the speed of reaching the launch position makes sense, and this is the speed of the carrier.

Quote: Ka-52

the ratio of fighter to bomber aircraft is from 1:25 to 1:80. Think about the chances of missile carriers YES

Chances?
100%,
For YES missile carriers will never meet with enemy fighters.
Accordingly, again we have the uselessness of stealth,
Although, in exceptional cases, a couple of dozen long-range air-to-ground missiles can be replaced by long-range air-to-air missiles and a powerful radar, something like the flying S-300, and almost without damaging the strike capabilities.

[Ka-52]

That's right, you yourself have confirmed that stealth does not make any sense.
But the speed of reaching the launch position makes sense, and this is the speed of the carrier.

Not right. For example: let's take as a target the closest target in the United States - Seattle. To shoot the KR package (S 2600), you need to go to the area of ​​the Aleutian islands. To this point Tu-160 from Engelsk will fly 9 hours, and Tu-95 from Ukrainka will fly 6 hours. Plus, the KR from the Aleutian Islands will fly to Seattle for 3 hours. That is, it turns out that the total time, taking into account the launch and flight of the KR, reaches 10-12 hours !!! Yes, during this time the area of ​​the launch lines will be teeming with enemy aircraft!

Chances?
100%,
For YES missile carriers will never meet with enemy fighters.

yeaaaa? Actually, there was a joke among us about suicide bombers. because everyone understood that in case of war it is a one-way flight. The main thing is to have time to shoot, and there are not many chances of returning.

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: Ka-52

To this point Tu-160 from Engelsk will fly 9 hours, and Tu-95 from Ukrainka will fly 6 hours. Plus KR

But then we are discussing a promising aircraft.
And who forbids the same Tu-160 to fly not from Engels, but from the same Ukrainka?
And if, for example, you make PAKDA a supersonic cruise mode, then it will fly to the launch point for 3 hours,
Plus, if the CD is also made supersonic, or better hyper, then they will fly to the target for 1 hour, or even 30 minutes.
Now, if the PAKDA is also subsonic, but the priority is not stealth, but the ammunition, then several more RVVBDs will fly to meet the fighters from it and then the RVVSD, even if the fighters themselves dodge, then they will not hold out there for a long time without tankers. And our PAKDA will meet the launched RVV from fighters with RVVBD.
Let the enemy detect the arrival of stealth twice as close, but he certainly will not be able to fly in supersonic, which means that the enemy will have exactly the same time to meet.
And limited ammunition will not allow you to take RVV with you, i.e. the likelihood of close contact with fighters becomes much higher.

[Ka-52]

And who forbids the same Tu-160 to fly not from Engels, but from the same Ukrainka?

because the 326th TBAD with 95s is based in Ukrinka. And the 22nd GTBAD with 160s is based in Engelsk.

And if, for example, you make PAKDA a supersonic cruise mode, then it will fly to the launch point for 3 hours,

Even if the DB goes at the maximum (1,4-1,8 M), then it will not have enough fuel for 8000 km. Therefore, either refueling or flying on a cruiser with acceleration in front of the launch zone. We forget about flight stealth

Plus, if the CD is also made supersonic, or better hyper, then they will fly to the target for 1 hour, or even 30 minutes.

then it will no longer be a CD in our understanding. But we forget one nuance - the higher the speed, the more problems. 1st - fuel, you will need a lot of it at this distance. We will not fit into the dimensions of an ordinary Caliber, and therefore into a revolver. 2nd - flight in the mode of following the relief should be forgotten. It will be a conventional 9-A-7660 ballistic missile. Again, without any questions about flight stealth.
And yes, we forgot the main thing. Seattle on the Pacific coast. How to hit targets deep in the US? Carry out an air defense breakthrough? Not realistic with such a reaction time

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: Ka-52

And yes, we forgot the main thing. Seattle on the Pacific coast. How to hit targets deep in the US?

I have little idea of ​​the situation of an attack on US territory by our aircraft. More precisely, I have no idea.
For this there are Yars and Laner with a Mace.
But the task of dumping a couple of tens of tons of cast iron on the barmaleev is real combat work.
And here the conditional "Ruslan", loaded with bombs, poses, the string turns out to be 10 times more useful than all the "Swans" and "Bears". And it looks like a promising PAKDa.
In case of compulsion to the world of friends-neighbors, perhaps too. Cover everything that moves with a hundred-rocket salvo from the first bomb carrier, and then finish off with the second without fuss.
But the raid on Seattle is a hypothetical situation that, God willing, will never happen. And even if it does, it will certainly not be in the form of our planes over the "peaceful" city. But for some reason the planes are sharpened on it.

[Ka-52]

And here the conditional "Ruslan", loaded with bombs, poses, the string turns out to be 10 times more useful than all the "Swans" and "Bears". And it looks like a promising PAKDa.
In the case of compulsion to the world of friends-neighbors, perhaps too.

each spoon is good for its own lunch. But even in the case of local conflicts, remember 08.08.08. Not suppressed air defense of Georgia shot down our Tu-22. If Buk could visit PAK YES so easily - it's no longer a fact.

But the raid on Seattle is a hypothetical situation that, God willing, will never happen.

we are building a nuclear triad just for such a hypothetical case. Otherwise, why do we need SSBNs and ICBMs?

And even if it does, it will certainly not be in the form of our planes over the "peaceful" city. But for some reason the planes are sharpened on it.

airplanes are an optional component. There is no universal weapon.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Jacket in stock

But the task of dumping a couple of tens of tons of cast iron on the barmaleev is real combat work.
And then the conditional "Ruslan", loaded with bombs, poses, the string turns out to be 10 times more useful

Specifically, in this case, the arsenal plane is useless from the word at all. There are simply no goals for him. Barmaley operate in small maneuverable groups.
In general, the idea of ​​an arsenal aircraft is interesting. But he goes in the second echelon, against a developed enemy.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Building a strategic bomber in a flying wing is the only sensible step at the moment. Over-the-horizon radars practically do not see it, radars of AWACS and fighters have too short range, not to mention ground radars. He has a chance to reach the line of attack.
The Tu-160 has very few chances. It glows like a Christmas tree in all ranges, if it turns on supersonic speed, then the probability of flying is even less, there is simply not enough fuel.
Subsonic cruise missiles will have a greater range than supersonic and hypersonic ones. And the visibility will be much belowflying at an altitude of several tens of meters, ground-based radars will see (if they see) them at a distance of a couple of tens of kilometers, AWACS and fighters are also difficult to detect against the background of the earth. Super and hyper sonic rockets fly at an altitude of several tens of kilometers, are well distinguishable, and the trajectory is easy to calculate.

The choice of a bomber according to the flying wing scheme (a priori subsonic) with CD is optimal.

[Yves762]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

Build a strategic bomber in a flying wing scheme .... The choice of a bomber according to a flying wing scheme (a priori subsonic) with CD is optimal.

Details of Israel's use of "stealthy" F-35s leave a different impression.

[voyaka uh]

F-35 is used for long-range raids - reconnaissance or strike -
over the territories of eastern Syria, Iraq and Iran.
For short strikes on border areas, the F-16 is used.

[ironic]

Those who fly over Beirut with lenses? Well, yes, a very detailed lens profile.

[Barberry25]

and at the same time, nobody refuses the Tu-160M

[URAL72]

Stealth is always needed, I tell you this as a scout. If it has moved stealthily, then the blow will be sudden. The time to prepare for reflection is reduced.

[Roma 1977]

Until the missile is launched, it should not be detected by the enemy's radar, approaching from unexpected angles.

[Barberry25]

and to be shot down with a 500 km missile ... aha ... the main task is to create an inconspicuous bomber that can both fly over the country and go beyond to work ... if stealth is provided there for 150-200 km ... this is more than enough

[fa2998]

Well, if only the "look" is approved, the aircraft in service will have to wait 20 years!

[Bez 310]

Quote: fa2998

aircraft in service, you have to wait 20 years!

Yes, you are an optimist, as I can see ...

[Roma 1977]

This is normal. Modern R&D works for a very long time. This is a strategy for decades.

[KCA]

If this is true - "airborne control and coordination of unmanned aerial vehicles" it becomes clear why the S-70 subsonic

[Bez 310]

Quote: KCA

If this is true - "aerial drone control

It's just a popular mantra, nothing more.
Exactly the same as "network-centric operations".

[Roma 1977]

That’s not why. The purpose of the PAK YES and the S-70 is to hang unnoticed in the air for a long time in subsonic mode. You can fly fast in supersonic, but not for long, and the point is in the hours of duty.

[Fungus]

We are looking forward to it

[Grandfather]

Quote: Fungus

We are looking forward to it

how old are you ....?

[Fungus]

Lots of whiners

[Lykases1]

I do not understand something. It's like a reusable ship. They wrote and wrote that stealth is a utopia, that the Americans went the wrong way. That the plane, built according to the "flying wing", to put it mildly, not very much. Suddenly it turns out that he is great. The fact that a potential enemy has it flies for several decades is not important. We are promising and the best of the best.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Lykases1

I do not understand something. It's like a reusable ship. They wrote and wrote that stealth is a utopia, that the Americans went the wrong way. That the plane, built according to the "flying wing", to put it mildly, not very much. Suddenly it turns out that he is great. The fact that a potential enemy has it flies for several decades is not important. We are promising and the best of the best.

He is "not very". This scheme has all known disadvantages. And there are well-known pluses. And the choice of this scheme is determined by the customer's requirement. If these requirements do not affect the disadvantages of the scheme (low maneuverability, for example, or the difficulty of implementing supersonic sound), then the aircraft is made as a LK.
Now the military has set the task: a long range, subsonic sound, a large internal volume, plus a decrease in radio signature. These are the advantages of the LC scheme. She is still, "not very" if you have to maneuver ...

[Barberry25]

and the minuses are offset by the production of Tu-160M

[Ros 56]

Let's see what happens in the end, wait, sir.

[Undecim]

The appearance of a long-range missile carrier has been approved
Administration of VO, conduct an educational program with your agitators so that they do not write nonsense.
There is no such stage of design as "shape statement" in design.
Stages of development of design documentation and stages of work in accordance with GOST 2.103-2013.

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: Undecim

There is no such stage of design as "shape statement" in design.

And somewhere it is written that such a stage has been completed?
But the "appearance statement" fits perfectly into the stage of "production and testing and analysis of material models", as a result of this very analysis.

[Ka-52]

There is no such stage of design as "shape statement" in design.

The layout is the appearance. The aerodynamic scheme taken as a basis with the proportionality of the main elements of the airframe. Journalists simply described it as usual in their own way. After all, it is not the Civil Code that writes the article

[ALARI]

Well, where is the look?

[Bez 310]

A set of popular words and phrases "nothing", as usual ...

[Alexander Terentyev]

The layout of a new aircraft model has always been classified information. When I was doing my graduation project at the military academy, the teachers (colonels and lieutenant colonels) from other faculties did not have the right and admission to the graduation project hall. Therefore, do not look for a diagram (sketch) of this aircraft on the Internet.

[ironic]

Is this a MiG-29? Downloaded the photo. Tin! I'll have to post it on our forums.

[Knell wardenheart]

The combination of sound and stealth in such a colossus makes me very skeptical ..

[Aleksandr97]

View dated February 14, 2019, a lot could have changed ...

[timokhin-aa]

Why do winglets paint?

[Volga073]

Are they still playing with layouts?
Palace of Young Technicians)))

[AML]

Quote: Jacket in stock

A flying wing with subsonic speed is a concept of the last century, embodied in the V-2.

Incarnated for another hornet. And the plane, oh horror, the concept of the year before last.

[AML]

Quote: 3danimal

Did the F-15 appear an hour after the stolen moment?

Don't be lazy to research the dates.
The first flight of the F-15 in 1972, 4 years before the hijacking of the Belenko Mig-25 to Japan.
I understand, I want to believe that everything is invented here, but this is not about objectivity.

About objectivity is that moment 25 appeared a decade earlier than F15. But here I see, but here I don't.

Quote: 3danimal

You are not upset that all the laws of Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Electrical Engineering are named not by the names of Russian scientists, as well as the corresponding units of measurement?

Well, again unfounded - everything. The whole world, all civilized humanity, every self-respecting individual. Have you tried to measure what is commensurate? And then somehow 140 million against 7 billion people know it so-so.

[Alarmist79]

But this is 6 years before the Mig, and in one of the early versions of the keels there are two. Moreover, the weight category is the same.

[AML]

Quote: Alarmist79

But this is 6 years before the Mig, and in one of the early versions of the keels there are two. Moreover, the weight category is the same.

Sister name. Name is sister. What year is it? And I also don’t understand what point you chose for - 6 years before. Well, just in case, check the dates, otherwise, as if the overlay did not work out again. And in the light of this opus, it turns out that 1.44 is not junk. It is necessary to somehow be determined, otherwise from throwing it can break into pieces.

[Alarmist79]

This is Vidzhelent A5, the first flight was 1958, for the MiG-25 - 1964.

= And in the light of this opus, it turns out that 1.44 is not junk. =

How, if he is this very thing, with practically no signs of stealth, etc.

[AML]

Quote: 3danimal

Carrying capacity ??
The shuttle took off on its engines + boosters (and carried a large fuel tank, reusable), Buran - on entirely disposable Energy.

A week ago I already had a dialogue on Buran. Search. I will not repeat myself. And you do not scatter your ignorance until you become familiar.
С

[nikolai.soot]

PAK YES if he accepts my proposal: it can fly and defend-attack (act) like the "cavalry of Chinggis Kaan" in Russia and in the world ....

[AML]

Quote: 3danimal

All-roundness for a .. bomber? Or a stealthy strike drone?
What's the point if stealth is more valuable here?

Yeah, for a bomber. Will go to the target and will bombard with missiles. YES is long-range aviation. And what is unrealistic in the fact that he came up and shot at full steam? Do you have real information about the appearance and tasks?