The ejection seat specially developed for PAK DA entered the testing stage

Work on a promising long-range aviation complex aviation (PAK DA) continue, a new ejection seat, designed specifically for the new Russian bomber, has entered the testing phase. Sergey Pozdnyakov, General Director of the Zvezda Research and Production Enterprise, spoke about this.

The new ejection seat, developed for PAK DA, has begun testing, the delivery of the product to the customer, Tupolev PJSC, should take place next year. Previously, the chair will undergo climatic, resource tests, as well as tests for mechanical impact.

We are almost on schedule. Trials are just beginning

- leads TASS Pozdnyakov's words.

PAK DA is being developed by Tupolev Design Bureau. Earlier it was reported that work on a promising Russian bomber is proceeding according to schedule and without disruption, a new engine has been developed for the aircraft. The promising long-range aviation complex (PAK DA) will replace the Tu-160, Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3 long-range and strategic bombers and missile carriers in service with the Aerospace Forces.

It is assumed that the PAK DA will be subsonic. In addition, based on the voiced data, the new aircraft will be able to carry more weapons than the Tu-160. The nomenclature of armaments should include as hypersonic weapon, and air-to-air missiles - this solution should allow the aircraft to fly unaccompanied.

The first flight of the newest aviation complex should take place in 2025-2026. The start of mass production at the Kazan Aviation Plant is scheduled for 2028-2029. At the same time, the machine can be adopted by the Aerospace Forces until 2027.

Comments

[Normann]

We hope that everything will be so. A new long-range aircraft has long been needed.

[neworange88]

.Earlier it was reported that work on a promising Russian bomber is proceeding according to schedule and without disruption, a new engine has been developed for the aircraft.

I would like to know more about the engine. In fact, this is a breakthrough for the Russian engine building industry. We have never produced an engine with a thrust of 23-24 tons before. Bench tests have been going on for almost 2 years.

[MrFYGY]

At the pace that things are going, I would not think of anything for 2027.

[Yuriy77]

And again the question arises - for what military purposes do we need a subsonic bomber?

[Cheshire]

As an option, barrage near the borders with a strike on request from the ground. The roof is perfect for this. In general, he will be able to stay in the air for a much longer time than everything that exists at the moment.

[SKVichyakow]

Quote: Cheshire

In general, he will be able to stay in the air for a much longer time than everything that exists at the moment

And on what basis did you come to that conclusion?

[Cheshire]

Quote: SKVichyakow

And on what basis did you come to that conclusion?

Based on a comparative analysis of the design of bombers serving in the Republic of Armenia. None have a large wing area design that allows them to stay in the air for long periods of time without refueling.

[South Ukrainian]

Quote: Yuri77

And again the question arises - for what military purposes do we need a subsonic bomber?

Basically, it will be a flying platform carrying hypersonic missiles. Naturally, without entering the enemy air defense zone.

[Iline]

And what, in fact, in today's realities gives supersonic? Overcoming air defense? With modern means of interception - not at all due to the increase in the size of the airframe to provide a very high fuel demand in this mode. Or in a sharp decrease in flight range while maintaining an acceptable airframe size. At the moment, even our probable opponents have already played enough of these toys. The emphasis is on the characteristics of the air weapons themselves. This is what the experience of using in Ukraine shows.

[ailcat]

Reducing the time spent in the enemy air defense detection zone.
The ideal plane is invisible in the front hemisphere and hypersonic to get out after the attack

[Iline]

For the sake of interest, take an interest in the flight range of at least the X-101 missile on strategic missile carriers and correlate this with the target detection range of modern air defense systems. Your desires are more suited to the weapons of strategists. And in this regard, work is being carried out in this direction.

[ailcat]

You've narrowed down the range of aircraft missions to 1 out of about 20. Cool!
PS
At least 90% of the tasks that the B-52 solves require being in the zone of destruction of air defense systems. Note - defeats, not detections (that is, tens of kilometers, not hundreds)! An even higher figure is called for the B-2 (only 1 out of 20 sorties is carried out with the launch of long-range guided missiles. The rest are corrected, or even completely free-falling bombs).
P.P.S
To launch the X101, we already have a plane - this is the Tu-160M2 (by the way, it is hardly noticeable in the forward hemisphere and with supersonic).
Here are just the main tasks of DA in the era of developed aviation were solved by Tu-22M / Tu-16 class machines (and if you look back at China, then it is machines of this class that are most in demand in solving real problems). And the "invisible" B-2 climbed into the same niche. And it should also be closed by the promising PAK DA (plus the ability to solve the tasks of the Tu-160 - with unknown efficiency. What is superfluous, except for the range).

[Iline]

I am responsible with my post for the tasks to be solved by the Tu-160 and Tu-95 MS aircraft, I am not interested in the strange use of strategists in the States. When I was in 1992 on a visit to Barksdale Air Force Base (2 AK SAK, Louisiana) as part of 2 Tu-95MS and An-124, I communicated with the pilots of the local air base. Let me remind you that this was a little later than the American operation in Iraq against Saddam Hussein. American pilots shared their impressions of this operation. They took off on the B-52N from this airbase and how they were tormented until the last moment by male testicles in the throat area. And only when approaching Iraq they were told that the Russians would not participate in this operation. And they were immediately released. And now the question is - why is strategic aviation used in the sphere of tactical and operational-tactical responsibility? Cool or something wrong with aviation in these very States?

[ailcat]

If you believe what is written from official and semi-official sources, the PAK DA is a machine that can simultaneously replace the Tu-22M (including in terms of the ability to use free-fall bombs) and the Tu-95 (in terms of combat radius and the ability to use long-range missiles).
Which, in principle, is logical - we have a nuclear missile carrier (with a dozen X-101s on board), it has been thoroughly updated and new vehicles are being built - there will be enough for 30 new Tu-160M2s for another 22 years. But in the class of "universal long-range" we have a failure - the Tu-3M95M have a small-sized bomb bay and are not capable of using long-range missiles of strategists, the Tu-10MS are stupidly old, there are no engines for it (and will not be) - and how not to modernize it, how not to cannibalize part of the machines for motors and units - these machines have 15-XNUMX years left to live ...

[Iline]

Anachronism is just the Tu-22M3. It is not clear why he is so held in the military department. Our opponents once had an FB-111, but gradually faded into oblivion due to incomprehensible tasks at incomprehensible ranges. At one time, it was considered as one of the links in the fight against aircraft carrier groups, hence its armament in the form of Kh-22 missiles. But times are changing, the weapons of these same groups are changing, and the technical characteristics of the aircraft have remained the same. This aircraft is also not very suitable for delivering massive bombing strikes at a distance of several thousand kilometers - when the bomb bay is fully loaded, the flight range drops sharply.
And the Tu-95MS is not at all an anachronism, unlike the B-52. It was created on the basis of the Tu-142 and I personally received these aircraft until 1991 inclusive at the Samara Aviation Plant. There are engines on it and there are no problems with them. Much more economical than the Tu-160, and performs the same tasks, the equipment is almost the same for these aircraft, in some cases the Tu-95MS is much better due to the larger free area to accommodate this very equipment. And in terms of flight duration ... Search the Internet for records of flight duration on these two aircraft and you will be very surprised.
It's just that there is such a thing as metal fatigue, it's inevitable. Therefore, it is necessary to develop new aircraft. resuming the production of old ones is a little silly. And the fact that the PAK-DA in its characteristics is more similar to the Tu-95 shows the attitude towards its demonstrated capabilities in various operations.

[ailcat]

Does the Tu-95 perform the same tasks as the Tu-160? Don't make fun of my slippers! The Tu-160 is an aircraft designed to carry out one single task: to dig up the Stalin Strait faster than a barbeque is fried in that area. Everything.
Tu-95, of course, can fulfill the task assigned to the Tu-160. But this is not certain (unless they will have a barbecue on the other side, and not meet the "excavators" with music and fireworks).

But the Tu-95 can solve a more urgent problem (like the B-52) - cheap multiply the infrastructure by zero weaker opponent. And at the same time, "when it presses" - to help the Tu-160 dig the strait.
And the Tu-22M (like the B1B) is capable of cheap to multiply by zero the infrastructure of not only an obviously weaker, but also an equal opponent. Only three of our vehicles, the Su-24M, Su-34 and Tu-22M3M, can handle the last task at the moment. But the first is rapidly becoming obsolete, the second has too short a range (and the combat load is too small), and the third are unable to seriously help the "channel diggers" due to the small-sized bomb bay and crew jobs unsuitable for long missions.

[Iline]

Don't confuse my slippers with your arguments. Google "22 tbad". I gave 23 years to the Motherland in this connection, so I’m a little more aware of what and for what it is intended. At the same time, check the used weapons of the Tu-160 and Tu-95MS. You will be unpleasantly surprised by the full compliance of the nomenclature.
When the treaty on limiting strategic offensive arms was signed between Russia and the United States, the Americans did break through the requirement to limit the probability of suspension of missiles on the Tu-95MS from 16 to 6. So instead of the original version, the Tu-95MS16 aircraft appeared in the first series of Tu-95MS6 aircraft. And to the question of how so - after all, the Tu-160 can carry 12 of the same missiles, and even supersonic, the answer was: "Yes, at least 20." Doesn't he talk about anything? Specialists from the USA flew to Engels as an inspection to check the removal of the AKU under the planes of the Tu-95MS and the absence of connectors for connecting them. And in this inspection was Barack Obama, then still an unknown senator. And they looked at the Tu-160 without interest from afar.
The B-1B is a strategic bomber and is comparable in its characteristics to the Tu-160, and the appearance is very similar. And you can’t compare it with the Tu-22M3 in any way, because. the latter is merely a long-range bomber. But his problems are similar to his Russian counterpart, and therefore, somehow, our non-partners at all began to produce the V-2, and now they are actively developing the V-21. Does the situation remind you of anything? And the reasons? But the old B-52 both flew and flies. Interesting situation, isn't it?

[Cheburek]

Definitely for parades and puffing cheeks ...

[Hitriy Zhuk]

A fast rocket is easier and cheaper to make.
This also applies to air defense missiles (plus if they are flying towards a meeting ...).
And the aircraft has a more interesting carrying capacity (and ideally, it would be possible to screw the Shell directly onto it ).

[Normann]

And also the nuclear submarine with Losharik and Poseidon))

[Hitriy Zhuk]

No, the nuclear submarine will not lift the plane.
This is either an ekranoplan, or an airship-like thing (thermoplane?).
But Poseidon is a torpedo.
They launched torpedoes from aircraft.

[JD1979]

The maximum of whom he will replace is the 95th, the rest are made according to the combination of performance characteristics, except for stealth

[Astra55]

The promising long-range aviation complex (PAK DA) will replace the Tu-160, Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3 long-range and strategic bombers and missile carriers in service with the Aerospace Forces.

It is somehow doubtful.
Here is to imagine that the Supreme is sitting and the Gene Designer says this phrase to him.
It is logical to hear the question in response:
- Tell me, dear, how are things with others? What does world experience tell us on this issue? And why, for the same Americans, did not their B-2 flying wing replace an ounce of the old B-52 and the more modern B-1B?
I'm not special, you are special, so you tell me.

[neworange88]

World experience, namely the American one in the form of the B-21 Raider and the Chinese one in the form of the H-20, shows that we made the right choice when developing the PAK DA, since all of the above bombers, which are its analogues, will begin flight tests in a year or two. So this is a trend. They don’t change the V-52 for the same reason that we don’t change the Tu-95 MS, since the replacement is not ready yet.

[Cheburek]

Have you already finished testing the cigarette lighter for this unit?

[AAK]

The ejection seat went to the test, urya-urya .. now it remains only in 20-30 years to design the fuselage, wing, engines, EDSU and other electronics, chassis, hydraulics, etc., then test another 10 years, then 10 years later build prototype...

[neworange88]

Everything has already been designed, engines are being tested, prototypes of the PAK DA are being assembled. Do not take everything so personally.

[neworange88]

Everything has already been designed, engines are being tested, prototypes of the PAK DA are being assembled. Do not take everything so personally.

[Vladimir Michailovich]

Quote from: neworange88

Never before have we produced an engine with a thrust of 23-24 tons. Bench tests have been going on for almost 2 years.

There is no new engine, and there will not be, as well as the PAK YES itself. Another cut.

[neworange88]

Live on in your own world if it's so hard for you to perceive reality.

[Givi_49]

I think it's time to order ejection seats with the ability to take the pilot to a safe distance from the exit point for his guaranteed rescue. I hope that the times of parachute descents on enemy bayonets have irretrievably sunk into oblivion.

[Zaurbek]

the new aircraft will be able to carry more weapons than the Tu-160.
Maybe the bomb bay will be the size of the Tu22M3 and Tu 16?

[Dkuznecov]

Has the K-36DM already stopped working?
Do you need something new? Are there more frills?
The "article" does not give any information about the reason
breakdown of existing technologies.