New bomber for long-range aviation: pros and cons

This year, when the Russian Air Force celebrates its centenary, the military aviation involuntarily becoming one of the main newsmakers in the field of military construction. However, in fairness it should be noted that the Russian Air Force has never complained about the lack of attention, and the leadership of the military aviation has always demonstrated a relatively high level of openness and transparency, compared to other branches of the armed forces. An indirect confirmation of this thesis can be the fact that the purchases of the Air Force under the State Armament Program until 2020 are decomposed almost completely unlike, say, the programs of the Ground Forces or the Aerospace Defense.


Among the plans voiced by the Air Force, the program for the creation of a new strategic bomber, which received the name “Advanced Aviation Complex for Long-Range Aviation” (PAK DA), stands out. The level of attention to the program is so high that President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev mentioned it in the summer of 2012.

Concept development

However, the PAK DA program itself is not something fundamentally new, which appeared in 2010. Its roots in the current look go back at least to 2007 the year when the Russian Air Force issued to Tupolev a technical task for the development of a new aviation complex for long-range aviation. It should be noted that R & D funding on this topic was included in the state defense order and, accordingly, in the State Armaments Program (GVV-2015). Funding for R & D for PAK DA was supposed to open in 2008 year. However, a three-year contract to conduct R & D of the Air Force was signed in 2009 year.

There were no special breakthroughs and Stakhanov's successes in the design then - until 2015, the creation program basically had to have a conceptual and research character connected with the definition of the technical “face” of this aircraft. At the end of 2009, the management of the Tupolev Design Bureau announced that it was planned to complete the research on the PAK DA project in 2012, and the development work in 2017. That is, there was already a delay in the readiness of the aircraft, because, according to the original plans, mass production was to begin in 2017.

Probably, the adoption of a new State armaments program up to the 2020 year had a definite influence on the fate of PAK DA. Apparently, compared to the GV-2015, the priority of the PAK DA program has been reduced, since in the four years that have passed since the launch of the program, it is still at the stage of exploratory research.

According to official data, by the middle of 2012, it was possible to form the appearance of a promising bomber (“avanproekt”) and proceed to refinements “according to tactical and technical tasks”. It may well be that all the existing developments for today are the result of a hurt from the last LG. It is known that HPV-2020 has funds only for research and development and shaping the appearance of PAK DA to 2015, and, apparently, the creation of prototypes, but it is planned to move to the mass production stage after the 2020, possibly within the framework of the new HPV-2025 .

This is confirmed by leaks from the circles involved in the creation of the aircraft. The deadlines for the creation of the aircraft are already shifting "to the right" in comparison with the original ideas. Last year, unnamed sources in the aviation industry reported that a new bomber would be built no earlier than 2025 of the year, and a minimum of 15 – 20 years would be required to build a new car.

Aircraft appearance

Today, little is known about the concept of the aircraft itself, and especially about its performance characteristics. In part, this may be due to the fact that the Air Force is not fully determined with the approaches to the new aircraft. Nevertheless, it is believed that PAK DA will not only be able to perform tasks in conventional and nuclear wars, use a wide range of high-precision strike weapons, but also possess a certain set of "qualitatively new combat capabilities allowing to realize completely new ways of solving deterrence tasks."

It is implied that a promising bomber will be created using composite materials and using stealth technology. For it will be created a new complex of onboard radio-electronic equipment (avionics) and developed new weapons.

It is still unclear how the engine will be equipped with a new aircraft. It is no secret that at present the engines for strategic aviation are not mass produced, the Samara OAO Kuznetsov only has the task to restore the production of the NK-32М engine for the Tu-160 strategic bombers, and the first engines will be ready no earlier than 2016 of the year.

However, Samara-based engines based on the projects of the NK-93 engines and the upgraded NK-32М are developing the design of the NK-65 gearbox turbojet engine, which is proposed to be installed both on the upgraded An-124 “Ruslan” transport aircraft and the promising strategic bomber. This may indirectly indicate that the PAK DA may be a subsonic aircraft, possibly close in concept to the American “penetrator” B-2A. Be that as it may, it is obvious that the engine is one of the weak elements of this project, and the timing of the availability of the first prototype and the very possibility of serial production depend largely on the success in its creation.

To this should be added the fact that the Air Force is also, obviously, aware of this problem. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the information that appeared in 2011 that it is being considered to equip the PAK YA with four engines from the PAK FA fighter (it is not clear whether this is an existing 117 product or a promising 129 product), while designing the bomber allegedly will be engaged in the Sukhoi Design Bureau.

Little is known about the armament of the PAK DA. Probably, its final composition will depend on the outcome of the research and what concept will be adopted by PAK DA. This is a platform for a significant number of long-range cruise missiles or a carrier of a small number of high-precision weapons for hitting point targets and breaking through powerful air defenses.

Project Perspectives

Despite the fact that work on the PAK DA, obviously, is already underway and funds have already been spent on it, the question of the feasibility of creating such an aircraft is still open. As of the beginning of 2012, 66 bombers were listed as deployed by Russian strategic aviation: 11 Tu-160 and 55 Tu-95MS, which have about 200 strategic charges (in fact, can carry more). Moreover, a number of aircraft underwent repairs and were located in training units. Note that most of these aircraft were released in 1980 – 1990-s and have a minor plaque, that is, the residual life allows you to continue operating these aircraft at least until 2030-2040-s.

In this regard, the question arises, who should be replaced by PAK DA and in what quantity, although the leadership of the Air Force makes it clear that it is to replace the Tu-95MS / 160. In this regard, it should be noted that the Tu-160 and Tu-95MS, in their present form, are essentially carriers of long-range cruise missiles and have limited capabilities for the use of guided bombs, as well as for the breakthrough of echelonized air defense. This is a significant difference from the strategic aviation of the United States Air Force, which includes the 91 bomber (72 B-52H and 19 B-2A), where B-52H is analogous to the Russian Tu-95MS / Tu-160, and B-2A is the carrier of controlled bombs and designed to break through powerful air defense. In this case, the 64 B-1B bomber is actually reclassified as front-line bombers and serves as direct support for the ground forces.

That is, given the significant resource of the existing fleet of strategic bombers, the development of a new carrier of cruise missiles to replace them in current conditions looks somewhat redundant. Creating a domestic analogue of B-2А or the promising American Next Generation Bomber (also known as Long-Range Strike-B) is again too expensive for the economic realities of modern Russia. An indirect guideline is the estimated cost of developing a new American bomber at 40 – 50 billion, which is one third of the procurement budget of the Russian Air Force, according to GVV-2020, as well as the cost of completing the Tu-160 “from the back of”, for which in 2006, KAPO wanted to get about 24 billion rubles.

In any case, it is clear that the “one-to-one” substitution will hardly be within the power of the domestic budget, besides, the question of the role of the air component in the perspective of strategic nuclear forces remains, for example, after the 2020 of the year. In this regard, it is interesting to note that the PAK DA program has opponents in the Ministry of Defense itself. In their opinion, such complexes of Russia are not needed given the emphasis on the deployment of the Strategic Missile Forces. Moreover, on the R & D of the PAK DA project, one more argument is presented by opponents, too much money is required.

In addition to questions regarding the concept of using the PAK DA and the number of aircraft purchased, the issue of the ability of the Russian aviation industry to design such an aircraft, and the industry to launch its mass production (including the production of the necessary components), is no less urgent. Epic with the development of a less complex aircraft, such as the T-50 fighter (PAK FA), which is far from complete, the deployment of the production of the IL-76MD-90, a new transport aircraft for Russian enterprises, the delay and difficulty in repairing and upgrading the Tu-160 - All this suggests that the development of the PAK DA can be a daunting task for the industry and a “black hole” for the budget.

Even a cursory review of the existing production sites allows us to conclude that it will be possible to “stick in” PAK DA either at KAPO named after Gorbunov (whose existing capabilities to produce PAK DA are in doubt) or to a new plant. The first steps in this direction have been made: in June 2012, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev announced plans to create a new aviation enterprise based on KAPO named after Gorbunov, where the main product will be An-70 military transport aircraft. But the possibility of the release of the PAK DA was not excluded. The price of the issue remains unknown.

A no less vulnerable element of the program is the onboard complex of radio-electronic equipment and EW. The operating experience of the onboard radio-electronic complex Tu-160, which has been brought to mind for almost 20 years, suggests that in the case of the PAK DA история may repeat at least on the same scale, if not worse, taking into account the incommensurable possibilities of the electronic industry of the USSR and Russia.

Alternative

Under current conditions and the current situation in the domestic aviation and industrial complex, the most preferable by the criterion of “cost-effectiveness” is to maintain the fleet of strategic bomber Tu-95MS / Tu-160 at the existing level, which will be used exclusively as carriers of long-range cruise missiles with nuclear and conventional combat units launched from areas controlled by the Russian Air Force.

But the greatest effect can be given by the modernization of the fleet of Tu-22М3 long-range bombers (about 100 deployed and about the same at storage bases), which seems to be the most versatile aircraft for Long-Range Aviation. Given the fact that the Su-34 new front-line bombers will be assigned part of the current functions of the Tu-22М3, the latter unwittingly “move” into the niche of strategic aviation. HPV-2020 provides for the modernization of all 30 aircraft of this type, which is absolutely not enough. Rather, it is this program that should receive priority, including at the expense of funds allocated for the PAK DA theme.

Modernization of the Tu-22М3 should go not only along the lines of improving the accuracy of the on-board sighting system and updating the avionics, but also by equipping the Tu-22М3 fleet with refueling rods, as well as new compact cruise missile, in weight and size characteristics written off with the X-15, but with a significantly increased range (at least 1000 km). It is possible to give the Tu-22М3 and the ability to use guided bombs. It will also require an accelerated resumption of production of the NK-25 engines, probably even to the detriment of the NK-32M program. Thus, the Tu-22М3 can become a kind of analogue of the American B-1B, but with the ability to use and substrategic weapons and be really a kind of small change in future conflicts. The depth and scope of the development of the new aircraft will allow the work to be loaded not only by the Tupolev Design Bureau, but also by KAPO, as well as enterprises of the radio-electronic and rocket industry.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. anchonsha
    anchonsha 27 August 2012 10: 30 New
    • 15
    • 0
    +15
    The designers in the aircraft industry of the future need to be probably slightly on the side with their brains moved a bit, to be a little science fiction ... Well, our people have this feature, dedication too, it remains to wish that the financing of the work be appropriate and forward Russia !!!
    1. bye
      bye 27 August 2012 14: 27 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      I’ll make a reservation right away, I don’t have knowledge of aviation, and a comrade who is well versed in these matters and whose opinion in the aircraft industry I’m unquestionably accustomed to trust, now I decided to stay in the bath “from bell to bell”, I quote him from the post office
      In general, if I appear on the site, then "aposlya" September 20, because the ban
      was for a month, and so if I "get out" earlier, it turns out that I "hung around"
      on their "handout"
      , and I myself seem to have subscribed to these
      laws when registering on the site? And the law says-received
      bans sit don't rock the boat
      (it’s clear that they provoked and
      etc.), but .... received, so received,


      This is a prelude, and now a fact, I read the comments of Urya specialists and realized that if they were instructed to prepare TK for the bomb, it would consist
      - sound
      - super invisibility
      - invulnerability
      - flight around the Earth at one gas station (60 liters)
      - the ability to hide under water
      - carries a bunch of rockets and a laser burn
      .....
      There is no limit to creativity ...

      Dear FID, Respect, the only adequate forum member trying as Danko to convey a thought, based on knowledge and reality ...
      1. not good
        not good 27 August 2012 15: 25 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        I want to add to the TK - it eats everything and the rainbow exhaust laughing
      2. PLO
        PLO 27 August 2012 15: 27 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3

        There is no limit to creativity ...

        preference and courtesan forgot)
        1. bye
          bye 27 August 2012 16: 24 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Not the topic, but it’s kind of like air
          The new Russian transport and passenger helicopter Mi-38 during the 14th World Championship in Moscow Region for Helicopter Sports of the International Aviation Federation (Federation Aeronautique Internationale, FAI) overcame an altitude of 8600 meters and set a new world altitude record for helicopters with take-off weight from 10 to 20 tons, the Russian Helicopters press service said in a statement.
          1. GHG
            GHG 28 August 2012 05: 39 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Almost all of our records
      3. 1976AG 27 August 2012 16: 46 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        In Soviet times, one of the scientists said: Do you know how discoveries are made in our country? Everyone knows that this cannot be done. Young comes, he does not know this and makes a discovery. Of course, this is too simplified, of course, miracles do not happen, but those who are engaged in promising developments should probably be a little bit adventurers and not afraid to try to do something that no one has ever done before.
      4. GHG
        GHG 28 August 2012 05: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Everyone has knowledge, but areas
  2. segamegament 27 August 2012 10: 46 New
    • 25
    • 0
    +25
    Wait and see, the main thing is not to shame the skill and quality of the ancestors ...
    1. GHG
      GHG 28 August 2012 05: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Nano is finally a tryndets, a nanometer ... it's a minuscule. Don’t minus, I’ll fix it ... just like
  3. ShturmKGB 27 August 2012 10: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    A plane is definitely needed, the question is really in use ...
    1. crazyrom 27 August 2012 23: 57 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      ShturmKGB
      The plane is definitely needed


      Necessarily needed. And then we are all flying on the Tu-95 turboprops, but the Tu-160 probably doesn’t have many. And they are not stealth, especially 95.
      1. GHG
        GHG 28 August 2012 05: 46 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes, they all shine on radars, if only the missiles had enough range, although after the first everything will be lit there by EMP, no communication
  4. aksakal 27 August 2012 10: 55 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    "The epic with the development of a less complex aircraft, such as the T-50 fighter (PAK FA), which is still far from complete, the deployment of the production of the Il-76MD-90 transport aircraft "new" for Russian enterprises, the delays and difficulties in repairing and upgrading the Tu-160 - All this indicates that the development of PAK DA can become an overwhelming task for industry and a “black hole” for the budget."- The epic with the development of a less complex rocket, without going into space and unmanned, which is still far from complete, the deployment of other rockets, the delay and difficulty in repairing and upgrading the previous rocket model - all this indicates that the development of a new rocket capable of to go out into space and manned, can become an impossible task for industry and a black hole for the budget laughing laughing If Korolev had listened to such nonsense at one time, then the USSR would not have been the first space power. And he didn’t listen, but made every effort to fulfill the task, regardless of the difficulties and undeveloped ones in the previous one .... He who walks will be overpowered by the road, difficulties will temper spirit and character, and even an attempt, even an unsuccessful attempt (God forbid, of course) to realize this a complex project like PAK YES will still have a positive effect on the Russian aircraft industry. The operating time will remain, in the process of creation there will appear frames that solve everything and everything else. Article minus. Listen to these - why do we need a new machine, they created the AKM, let’s do it in detail - the Picatini bar or what to improve there. A good machine! The rest, in fact, the development of a fundamentally new, expensive, and in scrap ....
    1. St Petrov 27 August 2012 16: 52 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      by the way)
      even the schoolboy whines about the epic of the superjet for the budget, but meanwhile:

      wild and false numbers of tens of billions of dollars are called. The program is blamed almost for the collapse of the entire Russian aviation industry and for "taking all the money." The truth is that Superjet-100 received only 5% of all state money allocated to the domestic civil aviation industry. Less than the budget invested in the reconstruction of the Bolshoi or Mariinsky theaters, less than in the project for the construction of an electric train to Pulkovo Airport. The federal target program “Development of the Civil Aviation until 2015” lists all the funded projects: SSJ, MS-21, Be-200, Il-96T-300/400, Tu-204/214 / 204СМ, Mi-38, Ka-62, and SaM-146, NK-93, PS-90A-2, PD-14, etc. The budget for the entire aviation industry under the federal target programs of 2002-2010 is 111 billion 808,8 million rubles (of course, military aviation is not included here). Budget money for the entire aviation industry in 2011-2013: 144 billion 118,2 million rubles. In total, 2002 billion rubles were allocated for the development of the civil aviation industry for the period 2013-255,9. And 13,7 billion rubles, or $ 0,5 billion, about 5% of the program’s funds were spent on the SSJ project. Where the opposition gorlopans came from figures of several billion dollars, one can only guess.

      1. GHG
        GHG 28 August 2012 05: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The sums are terrible ... but you didn’t try to use the kulman? The most formidable planes only drew on them.
  5. Tog026
    Tog026 27 August 2012 11: 07 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    We could before, they can now! Just obliged to move forward!
    1. FID
      FID 27 August 2012 11: 45 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: TOG026
      We could before, they can now! Just obliged to move forward!

      Sorry, but who can? Can and now - who is this? There are no people at the aircraft factories, many quit their good lives, and some pensioners in the design bureau. Who can?
      1. alexng 27 August 2012 12: 44 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        What kind of aircraft factory are you talking about? List in the studio.
        1. FID
          FID 27 August 2012 12: 58 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          KAPO, VASO, Aviastar are factories specializing in heavy equipment (one of them produces military equipment).
          1. St Petrov 27 August 2012 17: 42 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            A solemn ceremony of commissioning new equipment was held at Aviastar-SP CJSC. From that moment, two high-speed centers of the American company MAG will be operated at the enterprise.

            The centers were purchased as part of the Aviastar federal technical re-equipment program for processing large-sized parts from various materials for the entire line of aircraft manufactured, including the upgraded IL-76MD-90A.



            On August 15, in the territory of Aviastar-SP CJSC, the grand opening of the modern Center for Personnel Training and Development took place. The center will train workers in demand, as well as in narrow specialties that are not taught in the region.

            The total investment in the creation of the Personnel Development Center amounted to about 7 million rubles.



            Aviastar-SP (Ulyanovsk)





            while someone is crying. people work =]

            http://www.aviastar-sp.ru/aviastar_ru/index.htm
            1. St Petrov 27 August 2012 17: 49 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              http://alexeyvvo.livejournal.com/12144.html - отчет ОАК за 11 год
              1. St Petrov 27 August 2012 17: 54 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Aviastar-SP manufactured the first batch of tail samples for the MS-21 aircraft

                On June 26, Aviastar-SP CJSC transferred to Irkut Corporation OJSC the first batch of structurally similar tail units for the new generation MS-21 aircraft. In the manufacture of these elements used parts from high-strength carbon fiber, supplied by ONPP "Technology".



                Aviastar-SP received an order for a new series of Ruslan



                The Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia expressed its readiness to purchase a new series of An-124 Ruslan transport planes. According to Rafael Zakirov, director of the Federal State Unitary Aviation Enterprise of EMERCOM of Russia: "the agency has already placed an order for two transporters, but the delivery dates for new aircraft are still unknown."

                The cost of one "Ruslan" is about 300 million dollars. The production of transporters is scheduled to resume at Aviastar-SP in 2016. About 60 billion rubles will be allocated from the budget for these purposes.

                Currently, the starting order for Ruslans is about 15 aircraft, Izvestia writes. In the future, the Volga-Dnepr transport company intends to acquire a total of 40 aircraft, and the Flight - 15 An-124. The State Arms Program of Russia for 2011-2020 provides for the purchase after 2015 of 20 new transporters for the Air Force.

                At the end of February 2012, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin announced that by 2020 the Aviastar-SP plant will build 60 new An-124 transporters. In addition, during the same period 22 such aircraft will be repaired.




                and yes. the plant is bent wink
                1. FID
                  FID 28 August 2012 08: 34 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Have you been to the factory? Where is the money, Zin?
            2. sazhka0
              sazhka0 28 August 2012 06: 15 New
              • -3
              • 0
              -3
              Pictures are beautiful. Impressive. But the logo on the machine is clearly not Russian ((((. WHERE IS OUR?
            3. FID
              FID 28 August 2012 08: 33 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Beautiful pictures! And where are the workers in these photos? Does everyone have a lunch break? I love posters and people who hang them!
              Quote: c-Petrov
              while someone is crying. people work =]
              1. St Petrov 28 August 2012 15: 23 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                [media = http: //youtu.be/1lmFEzvK8Mk]
              2. St Petrov 28 August 2012 15: 24 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                maybe there was lunch, but what is unrealistic?
                it’s just so nagging that I wonder


                1. FID
                  FID 28 August 2012 16: 04 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Speaking of whining. Where is the Tu-204, Tu-204SM? This is all Aviastar. Will buy Boeing and Airbus? Or fly on Ruslans?
                  1. St Petrov 28 August 2012 16: 20 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    in the published report of Tupolev OJSC for the 1st quarter of this year. According to this document, today Tupolev OJSC has firm contracts in its portfolio of orders for 42 Tu-204SM aircraft with an option for another 35!

                    The following airline data is provided:



                    Red Wings - contract for 15 pcs. with an option for another 10,

                    Bashkortostan (VIM-Avia) - 10 units were contracted, option 12,

                    Aviastar –TU - contract for 5, option for 10,

                    Aeroflot - contract for 6 pcs. (for VladivostokAvia),

                    Space - contract for 3 pcs., Option for 3,

                    Mirninskoye AP of OJSC Alrosa - contract for 3 aircraft.
                    1. FID
                      FID 28 August 2012 16: 31 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Sorry, it's all on paper. I deal with control systems for our aircraft. There are no orders for VSUP-85, VSUT-85, ASChU-204 (this year, and it’s not planned for the next.)
                      1. St Petrov 28 August 2012 18: 09 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        published report of Tupolev OJSC for the 1st quarter of this year - lies?

                        The fact that you are working for the defense industry is a low bow to you.
                      2. FID
                        FID 28 August 2012 18: 38 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        A published report is a protocol of intent, but unfortunately not produced aircraft. I brought my son to work after graduation, in the hope of a revival of aviation. Now I'm afraid I was mistaken. But still I hope! Our country without aviation is a corpse. Excuse me for such a comparison.
                      3. St Petrov 28 August 2012 21: 25 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        they did the right thing to bring a son. one must believe in the country. Now many people bite their elbows from my friends, that after military schools, they threw off their shoulder straps and went looking for the ruble around the world, seeing prosperity and confidence in the future of their peers and senior lieutenants.

                        everything is changing in a good way and the main thing is not to waste this moment. and the moment is right.
    2. sazhka0
      sazhka0 28 August 2012 06: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Saratov. The factory is no more. Is this not enough?
      1. St Petrov 28 August 2012 15: 36 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        what is it for? You are probably talking about how the country in 91 lost sovereignty? And then, in a strange way, 80% of the industry collapsed?

        And Vova came in as a stalemate, which a lot of schoolchildren are now chasing, and stopped this mess, right?

        And about marking on an American machine ... How long do you propose to wait on time for a domestic machine with the same parameters? A year or two? Three?

        Didn’t it bother you that after the war in 45, there were German machine tools all over the union? Or Putin and Stalin simply did not rummage, and you should be at the helm? And as if by magic a factory closed in Saratov appears, the machine-tool industry rushes up, wages at factories will increase by 2 times, and so on. Or what?


        The country lost the war. From this follows a lot of things. We are the loser. We do not even have the Central Bank essentially state-woo. Just think about it. The law is being promoted for the second time on nationalization, roughly speaking, of the ruble (Putin began to do this, by the way, before Vova everyone seemed to be comfortable with this situation). The first time the law failed (!). Now the second time they are trying to promote it. Let's hope that this time everything will be as it should.


        So the plant in Saratov is not the highest priority issue. Now the aviation plants remaining after that hell are being modernized and developed.
        1. FID
          FID 28 August 2012 16: 20 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: c-Petrov
          So the plant in Saratov is not the highest priority issue. Now the aviation plants remaining after that hell are being modernized and developed.

          And for the people who worked at this factory? Is this not a priority issue? And VASO with the dismissal of workers, in order to improve the structure? It’s not the managers who are fired, but the workers. Yes, we lost the war and there is no reason to rejoice at all. As for the beautiful pictures. Believe me, I have to go to aircraft factories. If earlier it was possible to deafen from riveting hammers, then now .... In Ulyanovsk a plant was built to produce 80-100 aircraft per year. And now there is talk of optimizing the territory and production. IL-476 according to the finished documents was built for several years. And this is not the construction of a new aircraft. I probably worry about our aviation more. I WORK in it. IL-96, Tu-204/214 / 204СМ, An-148/158, Yak-130 An-70 .... etc. I work with these machines. But the release of one aircraft per year. And at the same time triumphant reports - it does not fit. And the superjet - do not stand behind it in lines, do not stand. The AFL took under duress (a state-owned company, all the same), Transaero - under duress (to become an appointed carrier to Italy and France), foreigners shun .... I don’t know, I don’t know.
          1. St Petrov 28 August 2012 21: 49 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Prior to this, the issue # 70 people at AvtoVAZ plant solved the issue. saved and pulled out.

            “Kamaz” - saved and pulled out (there I think the number of employees is no less). And I’m sure that I don’t know a lot of such examples.

            Everything has its time. And for employment, now a sufficient number of enterprises have been built in the Saratov region. People will not remain without work. Unemployment in Russia is much better than in 2008
  • John from the USA
    John from the USA 27 August 2012 11: 11 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Paradoxically, the situation recalled what was happening in the German tank building of 42-44 years.
    Then for the Germans there were 2 ways - the modernization of the T-3,4 tanks or the creation of new expensive Tiger, Panther tanks. History has shown the fallacy of the production of the Tigers and Panthers.

    A new bomber is certainly needed, but built on the principle that “we made from what was” will not work.
    A new aircraft with new structural materials with nanotechnology, new engines, possibly hypersonic, new rockets, aerodynamics, electronics.
    1. crazyrom 28 August 2012 00: 04 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Quote: John from the USA
      History has shown the fallacy of the production of the Tigers and Panthers.


      Tigers and panthers were not mistaken, they were good cars, they killed our thirty-fours with one shot, but there were few of them, German industry simply did not keep up with ours. And they didn’t have enough fuel. The Germans more or less fought with ours on these tigers, having great advantages in technology. If they had tanks equivalent to our T-34, then we would have crushed them already in the 43 year.

      Quote: John from the USA
      only built on the principle - "we made from what was" will not work


      really. Therefore, they moved the deadlines to the right, it’s better to plan longer, but then we’ll build well.
  • 1976AG 27 August 2012 11: 49 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Firstly, I don’t remember what would have been plans since 2017. to begin production of PAK DA. 2025-2030 were always indicated.
    Secondly, it is necessary to develop a hypersonic PAK YES, otherwise we will always be in the role of catching up, i.e. lagging behind. Do not be afraid to set ambitious goals, this is the only way to create something worthwhile. And the money invested in promising developments in any case will not be wasted, will advance our science, industry, and technology.
    1. FID
      FID 27 August 2012 11: 54 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Why do we need a hypersonic bomber? It is completely replaced by a rocket. Cruise missiles do subsonic, but here hypersound. Simply, it will be necessary to change the existing bombers after running out of resources. On new with a new avionics and combat complex.
      1. Andrey_K 27 August 2012 12: 31 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Hypersonic needed:
        1) To quickly deliver cruise missiles to where they do not fly under their own power. It is possible that procrastination will be "death alike."
        2) In order not to be shot down by local air defense systems, you may have to "brazenly" fly through foreign borders in peacetime, ignoring foreign territory, without asking.

        Having such an aircraft, you can threaten to bomb any object on the territory of any country, rather than chasing a fleet or a submarine there for the same purposes.
        1. Manager 27 August 2012 12: 35 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Andrey_K
          1) To quickly deliver cruise missiles to where they do not fly under their own power. It is possible that procrastination will be "death alike."
          2) In order not to be shot down by local air defense systems, you may have to "brazenly" fly across foreign borders in peacetime, ignoring foreign territory.


          I will add
          3) Ability to fly in low Earth orbit.
          1. FID
            FID 27 August 2012 12: 43 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            This is no longer a bomber! Then you need to formulate TTZ for a new type of weapon and consider how much it will cost. A hypersound in the atmosphere .... Try to imagine the size and power ratio of such an aircraft.
            1. Andrey_K 27 August 2012 13: 08 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              If you fly in high atmospheric layers, then the air resistance will be reduced.
              And why else are bombers needed, if not in order to minimize energy losses for delivering missiles?
              Suppose a ballistic missile can fly its way to distant points, but for this it needs to be the size of an airplane itself.
              The bomber helps to overcome many missiles energy-intensive section of the path - to disperse them to high speeds and raise to a height from which it is so convenient to plan.
              All that the bomber spends is all the saved rocket fuel and its consumption, in any case, will be more efficient.

              In principle, you don’t even have to cross your borders - the bomber accelerates to hypersound, rises to the stratosphere and launches rockets at the border, and those, even without spending a single drop of fuel on their rise and dispersal, reach their final destination.
              I think such a launch plan can extend the range of missiles by thousands of kilometers.
              1. FID
                FID 27 August 2012 13: 15 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Andrey_K
                The bomber helps to overcome many missiles energy-intensive section of the path - to disperse them to high speeds and raise to a height from which it is so convenient to plan.
                All that the bomber spends is all the saved rocket fuel and its consumption, in any case, will be more efficient.

                Try to imagine the size and power ratio of such an aircraft. Check out photos and a description of an American experimental hypersonic. And the flight altitude .... Visibility improves, it becomes possible to shoot down. Anti-aircraft missiles up to 5M fly.
                1. Andrey_K 27 August 2012 13: 44 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  I wonder how they will bring him down if he launches missiles 2000 km from the target?
                  Or even further.
                  At such a distance and radars do not finish.
                  To get a bomber there, you need another plane, which also accelerates anti-aircraft missiles.
                  1. FID
                    FID 27 August 2012 13: 53 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Dimensions, ramjet engine, structural materials, fuel ... And this is not all the questions.
                    1. Andrey_K 27 August 2012 14: 05 New
                      • -1
                      • 0
                      -1
                      "The road is overpowered by the walking one"
                      The Americans are just now trying to develop something like this, in order to quickly destroy any object in the world from the United States.

                      I am not saying that right now Russia can create an analogue, but one can go in this direction.

                      Make the plane as fast and high-altitude as possible - and the next generation will then be hypersonic and stratospheric.

                      And if you don’t develop any bomber at all ...
                      1. FID
                        FID 27 August 2012 14: 15 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Hypersound is too expensive a pleasure in terms of aerodynamics. Supersound is already expensive. They refused civil supersonic ones - passenger capacity is low. Hyper requires an even greater reduction in the cross section of the aircraft — a rocket is an ideal option (from the conditions of the ratio of the cross section to engine power). In-line engine - voracious beyond measure. Carry fuel with you - the mass increases. In a word, questions above the roof. Development, of course, must be carried out, otherwise we will lag behind for centuries (for several decades in 20 years already behind, sorry for the tautology). But this does not apply to the topic PAK YES.
                      2. Andrey_K 27 August 2012 15: 44 New
                        • -1
                        • 0
                        -1
                        Well, hypersound - this is how I supported the idea in the long run ...
                        In general, a bomber should use this technology exactly:
                        Accelerated faster, climbed higher and pulled with cruise missiles.
                        Those on the main part of the trajectory do not turn on the engine and plan like ordinary bombs - having a square / stealth shape and without a working engine they are invisible to radors, and then when the engine starts to know something to do - the rocket accelerates to hypersound and bum ...
                    2. Zerstorer 27 August 2012 14: 15 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      The next generation can and will be hypersonic. But not now. Work must be done. It is not as expensive as many people think.
                2. Zerstorer 27 August 2012 14: 23 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey_K
                  To get a bomber there you need another plane, which also accelerates anti-aircraft missiles.

                  The missile warheads have learned to hit. And this prodigy can also be destroyed. I am only for high speed and altitude. But not hypersound and aerospace systems.
                  1. Andrey_K 27 August 2012 15: 40 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Learned nothing.
                    Only if the rocket flies in a straight line, and does not turn anywhere.
                    Now they are only trying to develop miraculous technologies of launching missiles at the start (lasers), but even that is in question.
                    And hypersonic missiles do not fly far - they do not have enough fuel (well, or they include hypersound at the end of the trajectory).
                    1. Zerstorer 27 August 2012 18: 12 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey_K
                      Only if the rocket flies in a straight line, and does not turn anywhere.

                      Did you mean by a ballistic trajectory?
                    2. Andrey_K 27 August 2012 19: 31 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Well, yes, the “ballistic trajectory” - it’s too detailed, “in a straight line” - sufficiently explains the situation, especially since according to the latest ideas in physics, the “ballistic trajectory” is the most straight line, but if you start delve into such wilds, then you can go far.
                      And on the map it is the most direct.

                      Therefore, the line is said - it means the line.

                      As in a joke:
                      "-Ihde I? !! Tell hde I ?!
                      -Well ... it's a street ... house number ...
                      -Fuck the details! Which city?"
          2. Zerstorer 27 August 2012 14: 06 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Hypersonic bomber ?! Can you imagine what a difficult task this is? In the Russian Federation, in the near future, this idea cannot be realized. We need industry, which we do not have, we need people who still need to be prepared. Hypersound What will you fill this troglodyte with? Hydrogen?? Well, well, we get the unmeasured dimensions of the aircraft. So let's see what our Air Force really needs. And they need, as I understand it, an aircraft capable of reaching targets with cruise missiles with a special warhead. must be able to break through the air defense of a potential enemy. Must be based on existing aerodromes. should be able to use conventional weapons (not WMD). And then, there should be a lot of planes. I believe that we do not need 2-3 "gold-crystal" hypersonic aircraft. We need a weapon. And there should be a lot of weapons and it should be reliable.
            1. 916-th
              916-th 27 August 2012 21: 48 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              The hypersonic manned aircraft is, unfortunately, only “Wishlist” so far. No one in the world has approached the line of creating such a hypersonic. Even Amer’s X-43A DEMONSTRATOR is the fruit of R&D and is comparable in weight and size with cruise missiles.
              1. 916-th
                916-th 27 August 2012 21: 56 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                In continuation. But their R&D, of course, must be carried out. More precisely, to continue to carry out, since they were launched back in the USSR and led to the creation of the X-90 Koala maneuvering hypersonic missile. It was tested in 2004 in the presence of Putin. Read more about these and other works in the field of hypersound here: http://rnns.ru/14898-udarnaja-sila-pogonja-za-giperzvukom.html
  • 1976AG 27 August 2012 13: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But why bother with missile bombers? Do they even have submarines, surface ships, ICBMs and OTRK? Each combat complex has its own specifics and its own niche. Besides bombers, bombers may also have bombs. It’s not rational to destroy every target with a missile .NS Khrushchev also said why we need guns, planes, if we have missiles.
    1. FID
      FID 27 August 2012 13: 56 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Hypersonic bombing ?? Or is hypersound needed to overcome air defense? If the launch range is outside the anti-aircraft defense, what is hypersound for?
      1. 1976AG 27 August 2012 14: 22 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Excuse me, but what are bombers for, if there are rockets?
        1. FID
          FID 27 August 2012 14: 28 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          And who knows? For something they have done and exist together. The conversation is not about what they are for, but WHAT are needed.
          1. 1976AG 27 August 2012 14: 57 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            But how can we understand WHAT are needed, if we don’t know why they need us, what kind of work will they have to do? To answer this question, we need to look at how they differ from other systems? First of all, it is a carrier of a large Nomenclature of weapons, and not separately bombs or missiles, although both of them also have different purposes. In modern conflicts, the situation can change quickly and a variety of weapons, and not just strategic missiles, may be needed. For our country, which does not have military bases and aircraft carrier groups in different parts of the globe, strategic aviation remains the ONLY means for an OPERATIONAL response to threats in different regions.

            But how can we understand WHAT are needed, if we don’t know why they need us, what kind of work will they have to do? To answer this question, we need to look at how they differ from other systems? First of all, it is a carrier of a large Nomenclature of weapons, and not separately bombs or missiles, although both of them also have different purposes. In modern conflicts, the situation can change quickly and a variety of weapons, and not just strategic missiles, may be needed. For our country, which does not have military bases and aircraft carrier groups in different parts of the globe, strategic aviation remains the ONLY means for an OPERATIONAL response to threats in different regions.
            1. FID
              FID 27 August 2012 15: 04 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Moreover, if the large nomenclature is large dimensions, large dimensions exclude hypersound. That’s all for a short time. But the bombers, especially the strategists and long-range, of course needed! The question is what and how much. After all, the article says that the existing ones will last 10-15 years (true, if the maintenance and repair works are performed in a timely manner).
              1. 1976AG 27 August 2012 15: 32 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                A large nomenclature is not necessary, that one takes everything at once and a lot, it’s certainly absurd. The ASP nomenclature will be selected the same as for the T-50, based on the highest probability of the need for this or that munition, a little bit, a little bit different (roughly speaking).
            2. Irbis9 28 August 2012 02: 51 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              If we already have strategic bombers with a decent resource (Tu-95MS / 160) that are not designed to break through the enemy’s air defense, it is more expedient to develop an aircraft that will occupy this niche.
              Let it wake up smaller and the range of weapons will not be so large.
    2. bye
      bye 27 August 2012 14: 31 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: 1976AG
      But why bother with missile bombers? Are they also in submarines, surface ships, ICBMs and OTRK?

      Because, as a wise proverb says, "You can not put eggs in one basket." The triad is our guarantee against non-aggression ...
      1. 1976AG 27 August 2012 15: 04 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And for that too.
  • Leisure 27 August 2012 11: 57 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Modernization of the aircraft is always the limit. To make a strategic bomber from Tu-22M3 with a refueling in the air, it means to leave yourself in the last century. Be sure to develop a NEW ship.
    1. not good
      not good 27 August 2012 15: 48 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      TU-22s had the opportunity to refuel in the air until the year 90. This was done by Judah Gorbachev, to please the United States, modernized the other way around, moreover, by simply sawing off the rod and riveting the resulting hole. And building a NEW aircraft without exhausting the possibilities of modernizing existing complexes is criminal wastefulness. New aviation the complex is of course necessary
      to create, but so far even the experts do not fully understand what YES is necessary, therefore it is necessary to maintain the existing equipment to the maximum extent possible, and when the formed political tasks and scientific and technical substantiations allow us to formulate a clear technical task, then, on the basis of the COMPETITION between the Design Bureau we will get the real PAK YES.
  • mkpda 27 August 2012 11: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Fortune telling on coffee grounds. There is not even a full terms of reference. And the possible options can radically differ from each other. Simply put - an empty concussion. The only plus is that at least someone will remember how bombers do.
  • ward 27 August 2012 12: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The article is certainly informative ... but minor negligence made when writing ... for example, B-52 is in no way an analogue of TU-160 ... they blurred the impression .. minus ...
  • valokordin 27 August 2012 12: 45 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    My personal annoyance is the desire to give everything to Pogosyan, well, let us entrust him with the creation of space rocket passenger planes as well, and we will entrust Tupolev Design Bureau with the construction of agricultural aircraft of the TU-1 type, with a dust spray system and revolving cluster loading.
  • patsantre 27 August 2012 12: 47 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    There are a lot of developments, investing in which you can "move" science and progress. But we don’t have enough money for everything.
    As for the bomber, I think now it’s worth upgrading all Tu-160 and part of Tu-22 so that they can use the WTO. Tu-95, in principle, does not need this ability, let it remain a strategist, and the new bomber should be made universal (both for LANs and for 3 MV), this is already so clear. I think that sooner or later it will still have to be developed, so it’s better to start now, but the developments on it will be useful to civil aviation.
    On the other hand, YES is not the strongest side of the nuclear triad, and there is not very much money, and you need to spend money on the most necessary ...
    1. FID
      FID 27 August 2012 12: 56 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Even the modernization of the existing fleet of aircraft is not enough money. I'm afraid that all research on PAK YES will end in Sukhoi Design Bureau. Money will be poured there, and the Su-34 will become the prototype of this PAK YES. Judging by the civilian fleet, everything goes to this.
      1. Zerstorer 27 August 2012 14: 11 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: SSI
        I'm afraid that all research on PAK YES will end in Sukhoi Design Bureau. Money will be poured there, and the Su-34 will become the prototype of this PAK YES. Judging by the civilian fleet, everything goes to this.

        Totally agree with you. I just note that this conclusion can be made not only by the state of affairs in the civilian navy - in military aviation the same thing.
        1. FID
          FID 27 August 2012 14: 18 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          I completely agree! And it is very sad!
  • GP
    GP 27 August 2012 13: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Transport workers Ilyushin primary. PAK YES bombers are secondary. The systematic launch of the first and R&D of the second - everything is logical. Moreover, the launch of the same strategists will bring nothing but saliva pride. Selling them even after 50 years is not a fact that they will sell. Solid and huge costs, unlike non-demanding transporters. The club is a good thing, of course, but a shovel is no doubt more useful.
    1. 1976AG 27 August 2012 14: 07 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      A shovel is more useful when you need to dig, but it’s better to fight with something else. People who are close-minded are drooling with pride and should not pay attention to them. For effective resistance to external threats, Russia needs weapons that are not even at the level of the best foreign models, but they are noticeably superior. work in this direction is necessary.
  • Pravdoruba
    Pravdoruba 27 August 2012 14: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The new plane is certainly good, but it seems Rogozin correctly said "He will not fly anywhere" - if now satellites are shooting down missiles.
    At the cost of developing and producing money, it will go more than an aircraft carrier. A small batch in the XNUMXth year, in my opinion, will make a lot of sense. Money can be spent much better by also loading our enterprises with work.
    1. 1976AG 27 August 2012 15: 02 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Oddly enough, now a satellite in orbit is much easier to shoot down than GLA.
  • Yuriy3005 27 August 2012 14: 58 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Regardless of whether PAK YES gets into the series or not, R&D cannot be stopped under any circumstances. It is terrible to lag behind not in the quantity of technology, but in its quality. Having the necessary scientific and technical base and a finished project (even if it is unfinished), you can always set up production when funds are available, otherwise no money will save ...
  • 1976AG 27 August 2012 15: 18 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Pravdorub.
    He won’t fly anywhere. "
    This is precisely the reason that those who say that tanks are not needed — they are still quickly knocked out.
  • USNik
    USNik 27 August 2012 15: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Russia will not pull the new bomber, tu160 has been sawed by the whole union for 20 years. It is more expedient to throw all your efforts into upgrading the Tu22, and to direct the released resources to the development of large UAVs ..
    1. 1976AG 27 August 2012 16: 22 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      It is clear that the capabilities of our design bureaus, unfortunately, are not the same as during the USSR, but it is ungrateful to regret the past. There have been doubters recently that we can create the PAK FA, but almost created it. Yes, it’s hard, but we must try to move forward -only in this case we can maintain our independence.
      1. FID
        FID 27 August 2012 16: 26 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Sorry, but for the most part, PAK FA is also a Soviet development. Poghosyan merged the Mikoyan and Sukhov design bureaus together. For the most part, everything related to PAK FA is from Mikoyan.
        1. Yuriy3005 27 August 2012 18: 01 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          PAK FA is the fruit of the work of Mikoyan and dry, so why not do the same with PAK YES? In conditions of severe financial hunger, than to share a piece of cake is not it better to share it? Not "Corn" in the end we create. And especially since Ragozin wants to see PAK YES hypersonic.
          The Sukhoi Design Bureau has groundwork on Sotka, the Mikoyanovtsy have a line of 3-Makh MiG-25/31, the Tupolevs, in turn, have been engaged in strategic aviation their entire conscious lives. Combine the achievements, create one common group, well, or, as a last resort, each KB has its own, but in order to obey a single center. Thus, the number of possible studies and variants of the aircraft increases, with the possibility of combining the most successful solutions of each of the design bureaus in one aviation complex.
          Competition between design bureaus is certainly good, but not in the current realities, when every special and a penny counts.
        2. 1976AG 27 August 2012 19: 43 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          It’s difficult to say with our knowledge what was taken from the old designs. Externally, the fuselage is completely different, the used composites, we also don’t know these or those, avionics is clearly modern. Explicitly only the 5th generation fighter’s wording. Given that serial production is not was, even the tests were not carried out, there was no production technology. Based on the 2 test flights of the MiG-1.44, I would not say that the PAK FA was created. Maybe it did not meet the requirements by 70%? And after 20 seconds odd years ...
  • Rink 27 August 2012 15: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The author, of course, is right: R&D on the subject of PAK YES is big, huge money. Which are always few that can be spent elsewhere. But ... Failure to start promising work now is the beginning of a strategic lag in the future.
    Now it seems that there is an opportunity to maintain the existing fleet of old cars, okay. But what to do in 8-15 years, when these machines are completely out of date and the need for a fundamentally new machine takes shape?
    Then the situation will be worse than the current one, a neglected disease is more difficult to treat. R&D is primarily the work of scientists and designers, and this is the most complex and delicate tool for creating the technology that we have been proud of for many years. Don’t start financing these works now, where do people go? they will go there where there is work, to the States - and there they will be received with a dear soul.

    Losing a design and science school is easy, but it needs to be developed for decades ... And from this point of view, I’m not sure whether to save so much?

    Who said that: "A nation that does not want to feed its army will feed the army of the winner"?"
    1. FID
      FID 27 August 2012 16: 06 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Napoleon is visible. And the designers and scientists are already working for their uncle (many, but young people somehow go a little to work in KB, it’s sad). But what I completely agree on is that stopping R&D is like death. It is a pity that the current managers do not understand this (or pretend that they do not understand).
  • kenvas 27 August 2012 18: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Someone comment on an article about PAK YES here:
    http://warfiles.ru/show-12183-perspektivnyy-strategicheskiy-bombardirovschik-vvs
    -rf-budet-giperzvukovym.html
    1. mkpda 28 August 2012 12: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And what is there to comment !? Another air shock ...
  • baltika-18 27 August 2012 18: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    What to discuss is what is not. Appears to discuss.
  • bask
    bask 27 August 2012 19: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    We need drones, both tactical and strategic. Attack and reconnaissance. For this, the future.
    1. Yuriy3005 27 August 2012 19: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      But in order to create a drone does not need to perform R&D? Determine the appearance of the aircraft, carry out purges and bench tests?
      Such a complex complex as a strategic bomber will remain under human control for a very long time, since it will take 10, 20, or even 40 years to create a capable artificial intelligence that can be trusted PAK YES with nuclear weapons on board.
      Just imagine the situation, but what if someone can hack into the aircraft AI protection system? This is no harmless reconnaissance drone.
      And it is possible to upgrade to a drone in the future, it would be something to upgrade, and what would be, we must first develop and do it.
    2. Andrey_K 27 August 2012 19: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And I would say no drones are needed, but factories for their production.
      Modern warfare, if there is one, is a competition of who overwhelms anyone with drones.
      Whose plants will produce them faster - and victory (as in the Second World War was with tanks).
      And the concrete design is already secondary.
  • Rink 27 August 2012 19: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And if we talk about the possible combat use of the new strategist, from which his necessary characteristics would follow, then the following comes to mind.

    Air defense is getting cooler, modern missiles leave little chance of "flying somewhere" - that's true. And even the once-promising idea of ​​a spaceplane is most likely irrelevant, because Aegis can also take satellites, and the missile defense system already under construction will have even higher characteristics.
    What options remain to break through to the goal?
    1. Flying in hypersound, which the States have dealt closely with.
    2. Flying at low altitude, following the terrain.

    It is reasonable to leave the first option to cruise missiles (or wingless, as it turns out). Unmanned, that is - it’s both cheaper and more realistic to build.

    But the second option makes sense to consider closer, especially since Russia has a unique T4 (SU100) in Monino, which was once crushed by the authority and envy of Tupolev Design Bureau. Instead, the TU160 went into the series, in which the developments from T4 were partially used.
    I think it would make sense to blow dust off this mega-machine, get working drawings from safes and, if possible, bring them to the modern level. But no - he is already good.

    This car combined the ability to go low (on topography) and quickly. His performance characteristics, which I saw on the Web as I understand it, do not correspond to reality, he was able to get away from any air defense missiles and seemed to climb behind the thermal barrier (thanks to titanium alloys, and a powerful air conditioning system), and each time he returned from flight without stars and airborne rooms - the paint just burned.

    And to remove a bomber going towards a target following the terrain at an extremely low altitude with a speed significantly higher than sound and faster than existing fighters is probably harder than removing a ballistic head of an ICBM or satellite ...
    1. Yuriy3005 27 August 2012 19: 52 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The idea of ​​a supersonic low-altitude aircraft is interesting, but one important detail must be taken into account - fuel consumption, what a ride for a front bomber does not roll for a strategic complex, since fuel consumption at low altitudes is several times greater, our strategy turns into a long-range bomber at best.
      There are no such engines and fuels to implement a low-altitude supersonic flight model throughout the entire trajectory.
      Or do you propose a one-way ticket? Flew, dropped, catapulted, home - on foot (through the radiation desert)?
      1. Rink 27 August 2012 21: 33 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        Quote: Yuri3005
        There are no such engines and fuels to implement a low-altitude supersonic flight model throughout the entire trajectory.
        Or do you propose a one-way ticket? Flew, dropped, catapulted, home - on foot (through the radiation desert)?

        Throughout the site, the trajectory is not necessary.
        But at the stage of overcoming air defense, on approach to the target it would be nice.

        Yes, I know about the difficulties of overcoming the thermal barrier, and I heard something like that about the dependence of the speed of sound on pitch. That is why this unique fully titanium prototype (SU100) is so unique and there is still nothing similar to it.

        Yes, such a "strategist" is difficult to create. But it will be even more difficult to oppose him - which is what is required.

        And if anyone is able to realize the "crazy idea", it’s only the Russians. The Americans won concluded that rocket engines of a closed circuit could not be practically realized, and even attempts were stopped. And ours - they took it and built RD180, and the Yankees with their much-praised technology can only wipe themselves. They can’t even copy it yet, they’re buying from Russia ...
        However, there are many examples, not one ..
    2. 1976AG 27 August 2012 20: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Rink,
      And to remove a bomber going to the target following the terrain at an extremely low altitude at a speed significantly higher than sound and faster than existing fighters is probably harder than removing b
      an allistic ICBM head or satellite ...
      Do you have any idea what flight is at an extremely low altitude at a speed significantly higher than sound ?! At a height of 17 km the thermal barrier starts from 2,6-2,7 M. Therefore, the speed of fighters is limited to 2400-2500 km / h. At low altitude, the speed is up to 1400 km / h, because the air density is higher - the thermal barrier is reached much earlier. corresponding to this flight mode, I generally keep quiet.
      1. FID
        FID 28 August 2012 08: 54 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        It is also useful to keep in mind the reaction speed of the steering surfaces and the resulting overloads on all axes. Not in vain, low-flying cruise missiles, ALL Subsonic!
        1. PLO
          PLO 28 August 2012 09: 20 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          ALL Subsonic!

          uh ... but does granite, volcano, onyx, mosquito fly along low-altitude trajectories to subsonic?
          1. FID
            FID 28 August 2012 09: 58 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Over the ocean with an envelope of terrain .... Do not confuse the Navy and the Air Force. In Soviet times, 3 Tu-22M3 with ABSU-145M p. 4 were built (low-altitude flight was implemented). They were meant for Deer. The machine is heavy, low-altitude (with supersonic) just above the ocean.
          2. Windbreak
            Windbreak 28 August 2012 11: 26 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well, they fly a short distance at low altitude flight
            1. FID
              FID 28 August 2012 11: 35 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Burel

              Well, they fly a short distance at low altitude flight

              Who! If the Kyrgyz Republic, then most of the way, if the bomber, then to complete a combat mission. Low altitude flight is a dangerous thing.
  • KA
    KA 27 August 2012 20: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I agree with the author by half that it is necessary to do the Tu-22M3 modernization, but this will remove the need for PAK YES for the next 20 years, and then a new plane is needed. Therefore, the development of PAK DA must be started now another thing is not a forced pace.
    And in my opinion, PAK DA should not be class like Tu-95/160, but should be similar to Tu-22M3 with stealth and supersonic speed.
    1. bremest
      bremest 27 August 2012 21: 17 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Isn't it easier to invest in an unmanned YES project?
  • Aeneas 27 August 2012 20: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    PAK YES must be a hypersonic drone.
  • bremest
    bremest 27 August 2012 21: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Is PAK YES necessary and is it worth spending huge amounts of money on its development? Answer in the last paragraph of the article. Currently, we can do with modernization, but for now we need to invest in the primary tasks, and not squander funds.
    1. Ivan Tarasov 27 August 2012 21: 32 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Of course you need.
      After using all the nuclear charges, super-heavy guided ammunition (5-8t) will be used. In a total war, it is important not to allow the enemy to rise.
      1. Kshatriy
        Kshatriy 28 August 2012 00: 25 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Ivan Tarasov
        After using all the nuclear charges, super-heavy guided ammunition (5-8t) will be used. In a total war, it is important not to allow the enemy to rise.

        .................. After using ALL nuclear charges ...... on the Earth even cockroaches will not remain ..... and if you use all the thermonuclear charges you will not even memories of our planet ........
        1. Ivan Tarasov 28 August 2012 06: 01 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          This is not a fact; missile defense is being built for that.
  • Ivan Tarasov 27 August 2012 21: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The aircraft must have a cruising hypersonic speed to an altitude of 30-35 km. A very important feature should be the ability to use with unpaved runways (with a normal take-off weight of 200 tons).
    117th engines are not suitable for this, engines of a different principle, a combined circuit (direct-flow and DTRD) are needed. With take-off thrust on afterburner 36t, in direct-flow cruising mode (N-30 km) 11-12t.
  • Ganges
    Ganges 27 August 2012 22: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I think a big mess on my nose. And all these PAK YES are not what. This is an illusion. Of course it is necessary to modernize what is. And the NK-32 second stage is quite suitable for the Tu-22 M2 (M3) engines are very similar. Just 22 will continue to fly with the NK-32 is a better indicator of profitability.
  • suharev-52 28 August 2012 00: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Flashed info about our developments on hyper. The engine is a direct-flow hydrogen-powered engine. An antenna is a plasma that also serves for invisibility. And much more. Information - dial about hypersound. Sincerely.
  • Mr. Truth
    Mr. Truth 28 August 2012 00: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    A new aircraft for long-range aviation is definitely needed, preferably 2 or 3 regiments.
  • mind1954
    mind1954 28 August 2012 03: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Before, with excitement, chew another demagogic
    chatter, you better look how much foreign purchased
    aircraft in recent years and, as an assembly of foreign aircraft,
    going to solve the issue of the lack of local aviation !!!
  • andrey903
    andrey903 28 August 2012 07: 42 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    Sukhoi workers say that even the son of an Armenian woman walks around the factory with numerous guards. So not what money is not enough
  • Kyrgyz 28 August 2012 08: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Strategist must be unmanned