Military Review

Terms of the PAK DA project implementation are named.

136
December 23 pilots aviation celebrated their professional holiday. On the same day, the commander of long-range aviation, Lieutenant General A. Zhikharev announced some plans of the Ministry of Defense regarding the further development of this type of air force. Of greatest interest are his words regarding the PAK DA project (Advanced Long-Range Aviation Complex). The aircraft created as part of this project should replace several types of equipment currently in use.


According to Zhikharev, the work on the PAK DA program has been going on for several years. During this time numerous research works were carried out. To date, the organizations involved in the program are ready to begin development work. The beginning of this stage is scheduled for next year. The development of a technical project, according to current plans, should take several years, after which the construction of a prototype will begin. The first prototype of the PAK DA bomber should take to the air in 2019 year. Finally, the first production aircraft of the new model will go to the air force in 2025 year. Thus, the PAK DA program in the coming months will enter the stage of creating a project on which new aircraft will be built.

Unfortunately, the commander of long-range aviation did not disclose any specific information about the requirements for a promising bomber or its technical appearance. Allegedly, the PAK DA aircraft will have great combat capabilities compared to existing types of bombers. It will be “a plane of a different class, with other weapons,” RIA quotes Zhikharev. News.

While the design organizations will be busy creating the project of a promising strategic bomber, the Air Force intends to modernize the existing fleet of vehicles. Aircraft Tu-160, Tu-22М3 and Tu-95MS in the foreseeable future must undergo an upgrade, divided into two stages. In the course of these works, the equipment will be repaired and equipped with new radio-electronic equipment. Now the industry and the Ministry of Defense are conducting the first stage of such modernization. The second will start later. Repair and upgrade of aircraft will significantly increase their service life. For example, the Tu-95MS bombers, after all updates, will be able to remain in service until the 2040 year.

In addition to combat aircraft, it is planned to upgrade auxiliary ones. According to Lieutenant General A. Zhikharev, in the near future, the Il-78 tankers will be upgraded. Later, in 2018, new aircraft of this class are expected to emerge, which will gradually replace the existing technology. It is expected that the new tanker will be able to work with both strategic and tactical aviation.

About the beginning of work on a promising strategic bomber it became known several years ago, but so far all the information about it concerns only the approximate dates for the completion of one or another stage. The situation changed a little in August of this year, when information appeared about some of the technical features of the project. It became known that the PAK DA aircraft will be subsonic, and it will be possible to place more weapons in its cargo compartments than the existing Tu-160 bomber. This information allows us to make some assumptions, but their validity will be confirmed or refuted only by official information. Subsonic flight speed and a large combat load can talk about the creation of an airplane scheme “flying wing”. As far as we know, in recent years, domestic scientists have been actively engaged in this topic, and some of the research results can be used in the PAK DA program.

To fully replace existing types of aircraft, a promising bomber will need to have high flight data. Flight range must exceed 11-12 thousand kilometers without refueling in flight. Information about the creation of a subsonic bomber allows you to roughly estimate the performance of cruising and maximum speed.

The nomenclature of the PAK DA bomber will surely include the X-55 cruise missile and its modifications used by the aircraft in service. In addition, the new aircraft should be the carrier of the promising X-101 cruise missiles. To perform the tactical tasks of the Tu-22М3 aircraft, the PAK DA bomber must be able to use guided and free-fall bombs of various types and calibers.

According to press reports, the overall appearance of the PAK DA aircraft was formed about a year and a half ago. Design work on the program to develop a new long-range bomber will begin only next year. Thus, over the coming years, when information about the new aircraft will be published, it will be possible to determine how accurate the assumptions about the appearance of the promising bomber were.


On the materials of the sites:
http://ria.ru/
http://vz.ru/
http://armstrade.org/
http://interfax.ru/
Author:
136 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Stiletto
    Stiletto 25 December 2013 09: 27
    +15
    Timing is not the point. Political will and understanding of the need to invest in such projects are more important. It’s good that such an understanding is present today. The rest is a matter of technology.
    1. AVV
      AVV 25 December 2013 21: 52
      0
      Long-range aviation needs to be done thoroughly !!! High performance plus exclusive combat capabilities that a new project requires !!! And most importantly, surpass the analogues of a potential enemy’s aircraft !!! Time will tell !!!
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 26 December 2013 03: 50
        +3
        But the question is - why do we need a new long-range bomber?

        All the same, it will not operate close to air defense, because there is a long-range missile defense system.
        You can launch these KR from a transport aircraft.
        For state terrorism - carpet bombing of cities in WWII style will no longer be - there is nuclear weapons.
        It would not have been easier to maintain the Tu-22 fleet, for Americans have been using the B-52 for how many years.
        And the remaining money to spend on tactical aviation, air defense ...
        It is clear that the military and the recipients of funds (the military industry) are happy, only blind copying of the Americans is a dead end for us. And in the event of war, it’s not the ALCM carriers that cost $ 1 billion each (which are interchangeable with the same IL-76) that will be valuable, but fighters, interceptors, AWACS, ground-based radars ...
        1. Basileus
          Basileus 26 December 2013 07: 44
          +2
          Americans are developing a promising long-range bomber-flying wing LRS-B with the prospect of a supersonic or even hypersonic in the 40s. At the same time, they are armed with B-1, B-2 and B-52. That is, the situation is similar to ours when there are three strategists in service - Tu-22M, Tu-95 and Tu-160, and one promising one is being developed - PAK YES. At the same time, do not forget that for the first time in many years, in terms of aircraft manufacturing, we are walking with the Americans foot and foot and making direct analogues. I hope ours will come out at least no worse.

          The Chinese, by the way, also make their promising bomber, but they have it more like a Tu-22M.
      2. yehat
        yehat 27 December 2013 12: 35
        0
        Quote: AVV
        And most importantly, surpass the analogues of the aircraft of a potential enemy !!! Time will tell

        This is not only not the main thing, but even harmful.
        It is necessary to make a plane with the required performance characteristics. If it is effective, don't give a damn about someone’s performance characteristics.
      3. yehat
        yehat 27 December 2013 12: 35
        0
        Quote: AVV
        And most importantly, surpass the analogues of the aircraft of a potential enemy !!! Time will tell

        This is not only not the main thing, but even harmful.
        It is necessary to make a plane with the required performance characteristics. If it is effective, don't give a damn about someone’s performance characteristics.
      4. BB2117
        BB2117 4 January 2014 11: 47
        +1
        Quote: AVV
        ... the main thing is to surpass the analogues of the aircraft of a potential enemy !!!

        Today, a likely analogue of a likely adversary is most likely to be the “LRS-B” (long-range strike bomber) from Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Due to competition in the domestic market with Northrop Grumman (the developer of the B-2 stealth bomber), the development of a new promising long-range bomber has repeatedly failed. From there and unreasonable rumors about the high combat effectiveness of the B-52, B-1 and B-2. Someone in the US is not making a lot of money from upgrading these obsolete bombers. In general, the US Air Force DA development program provides for the development of the next supersonic “2037 Bomber” following the “LRS-B”.
  2. fzr1000
    fzr1000 25 December 2013 09: 29
    +4
    Beautiful UFO on the collage. Let it fly in real life.
    1. brainkiller
      brainkiller 25 December 2013 09: 52
      +1
      kite recalled
    2. avt
      avt 25 December 2013 10: 07
      +5
      Quote: fzr1000
      Beautiful UFO on the collage.

      Based on the strategist's Sukhov project, that he won the competition, and that Grandfather "Swan" pushed through.
      1. luiswoo
        luiswoo 25 December 2013 11: 49
        +13
        This Т4М is - the variable geometry of the wing in particular, the supersonic plumage as a whole.
        PACK YES will most likely look like this:

        Only, more "skinny", or rather "flat" - no need to carry passengers.
        Here, by the way, as Tupolev sees, an airplane with a similar glider:


        Passenger Tu-404.
        And this, not so long ago purged in TsAGI:
        1. Basileus
          Basileus 25 December 2013 12: 00
          +7
          This thing was blowing in the summer. I think something like this will work out.
        2. Airman
          Airman 25 December 2013 12: 43
          +2
          Quote: luiswoo
          This Т4М is - the variable geometry of the wing in particular, the supersonic plumage as a whole.
          PACK YES will most likely look like this:

          Only, more "skinny", or rather "flat" - no need to carry passengers.
          ]

          No need to carry passengers? Missiles will be transported - the same "passengers", and a lot of fuel is needed for such a range without refueling. So you can't make it very flat.
          1. luiswoo
            luiswoo 25 December 2013 14: 28
            +12
            Passengers still need more volume - they have strange desires to sit in chairs and walk along the aisles between them, rather than lie calmly in stacks. :)
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 25 December 2013 15: 06
              +5
              rather than lying calmly in stacks.

              Moreover, hanging in a drum, in a dark, leaky closet. Yes, and sometimes thrown out of there. Right in flight.))))
            2. Airman
              Airman 25 December 2013 16: 31
              +1
              Quote: luiswoo
              Passengers still need more volume - they have strange desires to sit in chairs and walk along the aisles between them, rather than lie calmly in stacks. :)

              Missiles do not lie in stacks, they are on the launchers. But they are different, for example, a revolving type in height takes up more space than a passenger compartment.
              1. VAF
                VAF 25 December 2013 16: 37
                0
                Quote: Povshnik
                But they are different, for example, a revolving type in height takes up more space than a passenger compartment.


                Somewhere close, but depending on which salon and what rockets wink +! drinks
                1. Airman
                  Airman 25 December 2013 18: 22
                  0
                  Quote: vaf
                  Quote: Povshnik
                  But they are different, for example, a revolving type in height takes up more space than a passenger compartment.


                  Somewhere close, but depending on which salon and what rockets wink +! drinks


                  Sergei, so strategists do not carry "small" missiles, Vedas design them for large missiles.
                  1. VAF
                    VAF 25 December 2013 18: 39
                    +3
                    Quote: Povshnik
                    Sergei, so strategists do not carry "small" missiles, Vedas design them for large missiles.


                    Yes, yes! drinks But remember ... how many of the "designed" large missiles "reached" the troops recourse
                    After all, the Tu-160 was created by no means under the X-55, but under fellow and.....
                    55,55CM and 555 are the same really good missiles, and the X-101 is generally so, but .... recourse
        3. datur
          datur 25 December 2013 15: 43
          +1
          handsome bastard !!! good
        4. datur
          datur 25 December 2013 15: 43
          0
          handsome bastard !!! good
        5. VAF
          VAF 25 December 2013 18: 43
          +2
          Quote: luiswoo
          variable wing geometry in particular


          I dare to correct wink the wing geometry, in particular, though not .. in particular, remains unchanged in magnitude. wink
          Only the sweep of the wing changes repeat
        6. Impact
          Impact 25 December 2013 21: 50
          +1
          Quote: luiswoo
          And this, not so long ago purged in TsAGI:

          Quote: Basileus
          This thing was blowing in the summer. I think something like this will work out.

          Ph_1

          It Photoshop.
          This model has "erased" the engines under the wing.
          Here is the original:
          tsagi

          But with such an arrangement of engines, there can be no talk of any stealth.
          1. Basileus
            Basileus 26 December 2013 07: 45
            0
            And why not two different models? Or one model with removable engines?)
            1. Impact
              Impact 26 December 2013 20: 33
              0
              Quote: Basileus
              And why not two different models? Or one model with removable engines?)

              Because my photo is taken from official TsAGI site, and yours from the site of visionaries.
              Here is the link: http://www.tsagi.ru/pressroom/news/658/
            2. The comment was deleted.
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 25 December 2013 15: 26
        +1
        "Swan" is simpler, the Americans did not launch "Valkyrie" either.
    3. uhjpysq1
      uhjpysq1 25 December 2013 14: 00
      +1
      ) in 96g at night over Chechnya a UFO flew. such a triangular)
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 25 December 2013 15: 07
        +7
        Priora, 100%. Underestimated. After meeting with belaz. Overpriced. laughing
        1. major071
          major071 25 December 2013 15: 49
          +5
           Wedmak 
          Priora, 100%. Underestimated. After meeting with belaz. Overpriced.

          You are a plus! good Neighing for 5 minutes. I’m sitting, reading comments about PAK YES and here it is. laughing
      2. VADEL
        VADEL 25 December 2013 18: 47
        +2
        Already shown about it

        smile
    4. The comment was deleted.
  3. Wedmak
    Wedmak 25 December 2013 09: 36
    +5
    To perform the tactical tasks inherent in Tu-22M3 aircraft, the PAK DA bomber must be able to use guided and free-falling bombs of various types and calibers.

    Wouldn't such an application correspond to the adage "from a cannon to a sparrow"? Tu-22M3 can easily be replaced by the corresponding modification of the Su-34.
    1. Rakti-kali
      Rakti-kali 25 December 2013 12: 27
      +6
      If it doesn’t complicate you, can you tell how the question of increasing the combat radius of the Su-34 in the corresponding flight profile, with a comparable load, without refueling in the air to the level of Tu-22M3, will be resolved in this case? How will the issue of increasing the combat load of the Su-34 be resolved? How will the issue of increasing the load on one suspension point for the Su-34 be resolved, and will it not require changes in the design of the airframe for this?
      1. VAF
        VAF 25 December 2013 12: 57
        +4
        Quote: Rakti-Kali
        If it doesn’t complicate you, can you tell how the question of increasing the combat radius of the Su-34 in the corresponding flight profile, with a comparable load, without refueling in the air to the level of Tu-22M3, will be resolved in this case?


        To begin with, you need to submit "data" to the studio about the "combat radius" of the Tu-22M3, the "comparable load" is not clear with what to compare ... because. ordinary "cast iron" and WTO .. ​​these are not comparable "things" wassat which means "corresponding profile" belay
        For Tu-22M3, the "corresponding profile" is a flight over the ceilings at the maximum duration mode.
        For the Su-34, this is a flight with a variable profile, on the PMW, including the supersonic flight mode.
        And why is it without refueling? belay Due to the fact that it is not on the Tu-22M3, this system request

        And when you “provide” everything, then it will be possible to discuss the “level” of the Tu-22M3 soldier

        PS In quotation marks I took exclusively your terms, which I understand you understand wink
        1. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 25 December 2013 15: 22
          +4
          Quote: vaf
          First, you need to submit the "data" to the studio

          Dear, on these pages, you seem to be positioned as a person versed in aircraft, and comrade Wedmak himself said that: - "Tu-22M3 can easily be replaced by the corresponding modification of the Su-34", so it's surprising to me that you don't know the capabilities of these military samples technology. On the other hand, as not a professional in this field, I am really interested in the answers to the questions posed.
          Quote: vaf
          In quotation marks I took exclusively your terms, which I understand you understand

          Quote: vaf
          "combat radius"

          The combat radius of action — in military affairs — is the maximum distance at which an airplane (helicopter), group (s) can solve a set combat mission with established fueling, a predetermined mode and flight profiles, and return to the take-off aerodrome without consuming a guarantee reserve and an untapped fuel supply.
          Quote: vaf
          "comparable load"

          Oh, excuse me, I thought that it was already clear that we were talking about "Combat load" - the maximum permissible total mass of ammunition and other expendable resources simultaneously placed on board an aircraft of this type.
          "corresponding profile" - it meant to compare the combat radius of the considered aircraft when flying along the same profile, sorry for the tautology, flight.
          I hope now these terms are clear to you.
          Quote: vaf
          For Tu-22M3, the "corresponding profile" is a flight over the ceilings at the maximum duration mode.

          only if?
          Quote: vaf
          it is not clear what to compare with .. because. ordinary "cast iron" and WTO .. ​​these are not comparable "things"

          Which of the considered samples is not capable of using guided (high-precision) weapons?
          Quote: vaf
          For the Su-34, this is a flight with a variable profile, on the PMW, including the supersonic flight mode.

          For the Tu-22M3 such a profile is impossible?
          Quote: vaf
          And why is it without refueling? Due to the fact that it is not on the Tu-22M3, this system

          Yes, you have to compare the comparable. Air refueling system cannot be installed on TU-22M3?

          Quote: vaf
          First you need

          Quote: vaf
          And that's when you "provide" everything

          Dear, do not tell people who are not subordinate to you what they need to do, and they will not tell you where to go. You will put pressure on authority in the sandbox, okay? wink
          1. VAF
            VAF 25 December 2013 16: 00
            +1
            What is your concept of the WTO? For the Tu-22M3, only the X-22 .. there is nothing more and .. just do not need to give a single instance of Hephaestus as an example .. okay wassat

            On the PMV, I already wrote above, but on supersonic ... the expense will be 2.5 times more .. so. It will fly to the 3rd turn. Slow down and go on landing (I exaggerate, but just to complete the picture) wassat
            The refueling system can be (theoretically) installed only in the manufacturer's factory (KAPO) after .. long-term work. I don’t even say about the training of crews ..... because I understand that, for you. It's that simple .. and all lol

            Quote: Rakti-Kali
            do not tell people who are not subordinate to you,


            Firstly, he did not say, but advised what to do first, so that the conversation would be constructive, but .... the easiest way is to puff out his cheeks, to depict a "distressed" boy who was taken away from his favorite toy or climbed into his sandbox!

            And why press you .. because you yourself know that I don’t need this .. and if I had to .. it’s a long time ago .. "crushed" ... I have the honor .. they will bow, and I ask pardon for the inconvenience and disturbance of your "not a professional, but a very vulnerable soul" hi
            1. Rakti-kali
              Rakti-kali 25 December 2013 17: 49
              +3
              Quote: vaf
              What is your concept of the WTO?

              I already wrote that I am not an expert in aviation, but the term WTO (High-precision weapons) is a weapon that is usually controlled, capable of hitting a target with a given (and high enough) probability with the first shot (launch) at any range within its reach) , is itself objective enough and does not depend on subjective perception.
              Quote: vaf
              For the Tu-22M3, only the X-22 .. there is nothing more and .. just do not need to give a single instance of Hephaestus as an example .. okay

              Those. both samples can use the WTO, but Carcass requires modification to expand the nomenclature, and Drying requires modification to approximate certain parameters of the Carcass not related to the nomenclature of the weapons used, do I understand you correctly? Then it makes sense to compare the capabilities of such modifications, their effect and cost, unless of course this makes it difficult for you.
              Quote: vaf
              On the PMV, I already wrote above, but on supersonic ... the expense will be 2.5 times more .. so. It will fly to the 3rd turn. Slow down and go on landing (I exaggerate, but just to complete the picture)

              I see. Thanks. Can you give the comparative characteristics of the samples in terms of combat radius and combat load when flying at supersonic sound on PMV?
              Quote: vaf
              The refueling system can be (theoretically) installed only in the manufacturer's factory (KAPO) after .. long-term work. I don’t even say about the training of crews ..... because I understand that, for you. It's that simple .. and all

              First, I will answer the second part of your message with your own words: -
              Quote: vaf
              But I am really .. surprised by your "rise ..."

              Secondly, thank you for your opinion on the possibility of installing air refueling equipment on the Tu-22M3.
              And did I understand you correctly that the carcass crews have no training and refueling training in the air?
              Quote: vaf
              Firstly, I didn’t say, but advised what needs to be done to begin with, so that the conversation is constructive

              When you go to the doctor, do you prescribe yourself a prescription? Or does the desire to measure in letters outshines your awareness of the fact that the interlocutor may sincerely be interested in the issue, and not amuse his own FAQ?
              1. VAF
                VAF 25 December 2013 18: 10
                0
                Quote: Rakti-Kali
                Can you give the comparative characteristics of the samples in terms of combat radius and combat load when flying at supersonic sound on PMV?


                Read below .. everything is in detail painted (even more than bully ) in my conversation with Denis wink

                Quote: Rakti-Kali
                Thank you for your opinion on the possibility of installing equipment for refueling in the air on the Tu-22M3.
                And did I understand you correctly that the carcass crews have no training and refueling training in the air?


                This is not an opinion .. this is knowledge soldier
                It was possible to put a barbell and a "shot" device only on the first 10 Threes, but not one of them flies anymore!
                No, no .. only practiced on M2 and only when they had rods .... and even then .. tried in Poltava and Ryazan and then .. for dry contact, only Denisov really refueled!
                1. Rakti-kali
                  Rakti-kali 25 December 2013 18: 58
                  +1
                  Quote: vaf
                  Read below .. everything is described in detail (even more than) in my conversation with Denis

                  Thank. I just answered the posts as I read them, so don’t count them as disrespect, I just didn’t read them before I wrote my new ones.
                  Read below .. everything is in detail painted

                  Do you have any data on Drying?
                  It was possible to put a barbell and a "shot" device only on the first 10 Threes

                  Oh how ... sad Can you explain in more detail why this is so?
                  No, no .. it was practiced only on M2 and then only when there were rods on them .... and even then ..

                  Damn, sad.
          2. VAF
            VAF 25 December 2013 16: 41
            +2
            Quote: Rakti-Kali
            In quotation marks I took exclusively your terms, which I understand you understand


            This does not mean the interpretation of "terms that you understand", but specifics - meters, kilometers, kilograms, tons, etc.

            Quote: Rakti-Kali
            therefore, it is surprising to me that you are not aware of the capabilities of these models of military equipment.


            But I am really .. surprised by your "rise ..." request
        2. yehat
          yehat 27 December 2013 12: 50
          0
          Quote: vaf
          vaf tu22m3 su34

          these planes do not make sense to compare
          Tu22 - this is primarily strategic goals at a considerable distance - static bases, all sorts of objects and ships (almost static)
          Japan as an example. and the 22nd regiment, which in the Far East
          a regiment of dryers there would be too lightweight argument.
          the same - a regiment of carcasses against the NATO fleet in the Atlantic.
          Drying is simply out of work there.
          Su-34 is still a frontal bomber and its goals are completely different - small and smart.
        3. The comment was deleted.
      2. Wedmak
        Wedmak 25 December 2013 14: 52
        +1
        Common sense, but name another aircraft to replace obsolete carcasses?
        1. VAF
          VAF 25 December 2013 15: 06
          0
          Quote: Wedmak
          but call another replacement aircraft obsolete Carcasses?


          Denis is you asking me a question or my opponent Rakti-kali?:

          I seem to have "painted" everything for him in his own terms ... that is. on one of my questions, he should have understood that you are absolutely right in your comment about the Su-34, which can be freely used instead of the Tu-22M3 during modernization! drinks
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 25 December 2013 15: 25
            +1
            To the opponent of course. He asks the correct questions in my opinion, but no one speaks of a replacement at this moment.
            After all, you confirmed the possibility of replacing the Tu-22M3 with dryers. Of course, you will have to redo a lot of things and add, but the Su-34 is just starting its life, and the potential for modernization and options for its modifications are just a lot. Given the history of the Su-27. A whole menagerie has been bred (in a good way)!
            1. VAF
              VAF 25 December 2013 16: 04
              +1
              Quote: Wedmak
              He asks the correct questions in my opinion, but no one speaks of a replacement at this moment.


              Something I didn't see any questions. but only an attempt to "rise ..." wassat Maybe I'm getting old .. although according to his answer to me .. yes .. the fruit is still that .. do not put a finger in your mouth .. "will try to bite off" or "bite".
              I wrote him detailed answers .. sending .. sending .. apparently the moderators today "on .. fox" ... do not let .. they say that it is too long ... sent only the third part. and ... that's it.!
          2. EvilLion
            EvilLion 25 December 2013 15: 30
            0
            Well good luck. Although believers in the life-giving WTO to explain why they make large aircraft is useless.
          3. Rakti-kali
            Rakti-kali 25 December 2013 18: 01
            +4
            Quote: vaf
            I seem to have "painted" everything for him in his own terms ... that is.

            Sorry, dear, but you didn’t explain anything in that answer, but only shook it with the "device", and believe me, it didn’t impress me.
        2. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 25 December 2013 17: 59
          +2
          Quote: Wedmak
          Common sense, but name another aircraft to replace obsolete carcasses?

          The fact of the matter is that I do not know such an aircraft. It is clear that the Su-34, as one character from the movie "Despicable Me" said: - "They are younger than you, they are meaner than you, they are ... younger than you!" - but, as I understand it, it is a replacement Su-24, a front-line bomber, and Tu-22, although Euro, but a strategist.
          So I wonder if the Su-34 can be an adequate replacement for the Tu-22M3, and what needs to be done for this.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 25 December 2013 18: 16
            +1
            So I wonder if the Su-34 can be an adequate replacement for the Tu-22M3, and what needs to be done for this.

            It depends on what is meant by "adequate replacement". If you compare directly - it cannot, if you compare it, given the progress in the field of destruction, aerodynamics, engines and other things - it may well. Conformal tanks / containers, upgrades and we get the same as you put it Eurostrateg. If the main weapon of the Tu-22M3 was the Kh-22, then the Su-34 can be fitted with almost any cruise missiles and bombs, just "update the firmware".
            Not far off, new missiles by the way, there was information, developments are underway, more than a dozen items.
            1. Rakti-kali
              Rakti-kali 25 December 2013 19: 08
              +2
              Quote: Wedmak
              It depends on what is meant by "adequate replacement".

              Well, your point is clear, thanks. Although I would like a little more specifics. But as I understand it, you also take data from open sources and demanding more from you would be simply stupid of me.
              Quote: Wedmak
              If the main weapon of the Tu-22M3 was the Kh-22, then the Su-34 can be fitted with almost any cruise missiles and bombs, just "update the firmware". Not far off, new missiles, by the way, there was information, development is underway, more than a dozen items.

              You do not know if there are supersonic anti-ship long-range missiles among them, well, okromya brahmos?
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 25 December 2013 22: 03
                +1
                But as I understand it, you also take data from open sources and demanding more from you would be simply stupid of me.

                That's right, from the site of this one. Interesting things sometimes tell.
                You do not know if there are supersonic anti-ship long-range missiles among them, well, okromya brahmos?

                I have not seen specifics yet. This is not RVV-MD / SD / DB. These are not ballistic missiles or bombs. That's actually all I know.
          2. yehat
            yehat 27 December 2013 12: 56
            0
            for this, drying should be done 2 times more, an internal large arms compartment should be made, and one and a half mach should be optimized for a long flight. And also completely change the target designation equipment.
          3. yehat
            yehat 27 December 2013 12: 56
            0
            for this, drying should be done 2 times more, an internal large arms compartment should be made, and one and a half mach should be optimized for a long flight. And also completely change the target designation equipment.
      3. Wedmak
        Wedmak 25 December 2013 15: 45
        +2
        Let me tell you, I take data from WIKI, may Vaf correct me wink. We take into account the fact that the Su-34 in the form that is flying now is lower in characteristics than the Tu-22M3, but it was a question of modernized Su-34.
        can you tell how the question of increasing the combat radius of the Su-34 in the corresponding flight profile, with a comparable load, without refueling in the air to the level of Tu-22M3, will be resolved in this case?

        Tu-22M3
        Combat radius with a load of 12000 kg:

        at supersonic speed: 1500-1850 km
        at subsonic speed and extremely low altitude: 1500-1650 km
        on subsonic mixed profile: 2410 km

        Su-34
        Combat radius: 1100 km load not specified. Suppose 8 tons.

        Really smaller, but ... the Su-34 already has a refueling system. Possible upgrades will increase range and payload. Su-34 flight profile - anything from Service ceiling: 17000 m to NVD.
        How will the issue of increasing the combat load of the Su-34 be resolved?

        Do you need a lot? How often do Tu-22M3 load 12 tons? Somehow they uploaded a video here, as a fully loaded 22nd took off. For a small primer did not use after the strip. 8 tons on the suspension are two Onyx. Few? There was a layout with three, but this is an overload, not the fact that it will take off.
        How will the issue of increasing the load on one suspension point for the Su-34 be resolved, and will it not require changes in the design of the airframe for this?

        Of course, alteration and not only a glider will be required. However, the Indians ALREADY integrated Bramos into their dryers. It takes from 1 to 3, but most likely a maximum of two. 34 more and more powerful. Given the modernization, it will easily and easily take away a couple of anti-ship missiles plus 2-4 explosive missiles.
        1. VAF
          VAF 25 December 2013 16: 27
          +1
          Quote: Wedmak
          We take into account the fact that the Su-34 in the form that is flying now is lower in characteristics than the Tu-22M3, but it was a question of a modernized Su-34.


          Vika is she so .... wassat
          The calculation is as follows: empty weight 70 tons, fuel weight 52 tons, maximum 122 tons (it’s possible with 4 more accelerators, it will be 124,4, after take-off and testing they are reset, but .. only the testers in the shelves applied soldier ).
          Further consumption is 7-8 tons on the ceiling, 10-11 tons on the small and PMV, supersonic from 19 and above.
          So now we think it’s a launch, a control check. Taxiing, take-off to the MFR ate 5 tons. (If you got a small profile, then 2,5-3 tons).
          And "we spank at such a rate.
          The result is 122-12 = 110-10 (navigation balance when entering the diagram) = 100-70 (aircraft weight) = 30-3 (5t depending on the flight profile to the target) 27-25 tons of fuel.
          From these numbers, take it and calculate the REAL Radii and Range (divide the fuel by the hourly consumption in tons) according to your profile.
          Yes, the speed along the MV-PMV profile is 650-700 km / h, BV-900-950 km / h, supersonic on BV from 1500 km / h

          Here are the real numbers soldier So what about the Su-34 less wink

          Now Onyx is not used on that one, and there are two X-22s. 12 tons.

          I saw "papers" with comfortable compartments on the Su-34 bully Even without modernization, it carries easily one or three X-59s (+ 4 r BB) or a tank and the 4th X-31 (+ 4 centuries).
          At the same time, take into account that the BKO on the Su-34 good and on the Tu-22 ... crying
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 25 December 2013 16: 33
            +1
            Well, how would I take open data in the nearest source. Too lazy to look for detailed, and only a knowledgeable person can lay out similar calculations.

            I saw "papers" with comfortable compartments on the Su-34

            Eeee ... and where to place them that I will not think something?
            1. VAF
              VAF 25 December 2013 16: 54
              +1
              Quote: Wedmak
              and where to place them, something I won’t understand?


              bully wink drinks soldier

              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 25 December 2013 16: 56
                +1
                AND! By plane!! Got it! wink
                1. VAF
                  VAF 25 December 2013 17: 09
                  +2
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  AND! By plane!! Got it!


                  Well done! drinks



                  Conformal container / tank / compartment for Su-34

                  Side view of 9.8 sq.m
                  Top view 14,84 sqm
                  Front view 1.26 sq.m
                  Volume 5.7 cubic meters, relative volume 15%.

                  In the configuration with the container, without external load, the minimum ESR of the aircraft is 2 square meters, the “normal combat load” is completely removed, for example 15 AB-250 (3750 kg), RCC “Yakhont”, 2 KAB-1500L, etc. .d.

                  Estimated EPR with a normal load can reach 10 - 15 square meters (garland of bombs on an external sling), up to four tons of bombs in a container reduce the EPR to 1 - 2 square meters, that is, about ten times, and this reduces the detection range of Su -34 1.8 times.

                  The container compartment can be removed and replaced with a tank (4 tons of fuel) or a special reconnaissance or electronic warfare container, and finally a submarine search container, rather than carrying the entire set of equipment with you all the time.
                  Such a container with radio equipment allows you to place an additional two tons of electronics.
                  Simonov dreamed about this back in the eighties. recourse

                  Such a container with a normal combat load inside allows reducing the Su-34 EPR from 10 - 15 sq.m (with a normal combat load on the external load) to 1 - 2 sq.m, which reduces its detection range by 1.8 times.
                  1. Wedmak
                    Wedmak 25 December 2013 17: 27
                    +1
                    Interesting.
                    Conformal is a consignment note, but this one somehow ... has something in common with a suspended ventral stealth container for the F-18, they just fit the shape of the inter-motor space.
                    1. VAF
                      VAF 25 December 2013 17: 43
                      0
                      Quote: Wedmak
                      and this one somehow ... echoes the suspended under-fuselage stealth container for the F-18, it just fit the shape of the inter-motor space.


                      On the Su-34 (more correctly on the Su-27IB), these OCDs were made back in 1982.
                      When they started on the F-18 wink

                      And even on the Su-30s and then .. were ready before, that's just ... crying

                      1. TSOOBER
                        TSOOBER 25 December 2013 23: 06
                        +2
                        Hello Sergey drinks ! Something is not visible photo request ! despised please! repeat
                  2. EvilLion
                    EvilLion 25 December 2013 17: 43
                    +1
                    The same things were offered for the super-hornet, but it can make the F-35 unnecessary, no way.
            2. VAF
              VAF 25 December 2013 17: 33
              +2
              Quote: Wedmak
              Well, how would I take open data in the nearest source.


              Then .. drinks

              The tactical radius is a flight "there", "there" (five minutes to conduct a battle on afterburner in fighter aircraft, in bomber aircraft - to leave the target on afterburner after a strike), and "from there".
              Considering that there can be many options for flying "there" and "from there" - flying at criminally low altitudes, at the most advantageous altitudes or in the stratosphere - there are usually several tactical radii.
              Well, from the suspension option Rt Depends - it's one thing to fly with a "sports" suspension, another thing - loaded with "these." or "I can't".
              Therefore, usually they do not use KB data from manuals, but data from field tests, data from the GLIC and TsPPiPLS, summarized in the RLE

              Now about the RANGE.
              Maximum range - it's a theoretical thing, which determines the flight length from fully filled tanks (+ PTB) to completely dry.
              In practice, they don’t fly like that, therefore used either distillation range - this is the same, but not to dry tanks, but to the emergency fuel balance,either practical range-the same thing, but there is a navigational reserve.
              Now everything seems to be drinks
        2. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 25 December 2013 18: 28
          -1
          Quote: Wedmak
          Let me tell you, I take data from WIKI, may Vaf correct me

          Quote: Wedmak
          Combat radius

          Thanks for the clarification. However, I already know these data and the problem is precisely that the combat load and flight profile for the specified radius of the Su-34 are assume, on the airvor, for example, the combat radius is indicated as 600 -1130 km, without explanations for the combat load and flight profile. And I would like to get objective data. In addition, as I understood from the post of the respected Vaf, it is still possible to install equipment for refueling in the air on Carcasses, and I think it is quite possible to train crews to perform this difficult operation, which equates them with Sushki in this parameter. And refueling in the air is not always possible, and the fleet of our air tankers is very small. That does not allow counting on this move as the main one for increasing the aircraft's combat radius, at the moment.
          All of the above does not cancel my gratitude to you for your attention.
          Quote: Wedmak
          Do you need a lot? How often do Tu-22M3 load 12 tons?

          But this is not only an opportunity to carry a lot of weapons, but also an opportunity to take more fuel instead of part of the weapon, I understand correctly?
          Quote: Wedmak
          Of course, alteration and not only a glider will be required. However, the Indians ALREADY integrated Bramos into their dryers. It takes from 1 to 3, but most likely a maximum of two. 34 more and more powerful. Given the modernization, it will easily and easily take away a couple of anti-ship missiles plus 2-4 explosive missiles.

          As for Bramos, the news is good, thanks, but I have never seen reports of flights with these missiles or their launches from an aircraft carrier, they showed the emnip, the layout (not mass, but just dimensional) for the Su-30. And immediately the question arises - a rocket weighs about 2,5 tons, - does Sushki have the possibility of suspending such a load on a single suspension element? And if there is such an opportunity, then how is the launch of this rocket realized, at what altitudes, speeds, how will the launch range correlate with these indicators?
          Z.Y. I’m not scribbled, just curious ... bully
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 25 December 2013 18: 58
            +1
            Quote:
            The bulk models of the BraMos rocket have already been manufactured and delivered to India. Until December of this year, we will conduct tests with them. " According to him, the first launch of an aviation version of the BrahMos rocket is scheduled for June 2014. “The Su-30MKI fighter equipped with the BraMos rocket, we hope, will be ready in September 2015,” Pillai added.
            Read more: http://vpk-news.ru/news/16990
            That is, there is a possibility of suspension. If they want to conduct tests, then the possibility of application was calculated. How, when, from what height, speed, this will already be known after testing for military use.
            That is, development is ongoing, there is an opportunity. 2,5 tons fit most of our aviation ammunition.
            1. Rakti-kali
              Rakti-kali 26 December 2013 00: 57
              0
              Quote: Wedmak
              That is, there is a possibility of suspension.

              Well, the news is good, let's hope they bring the rocket to mind and the deadlines are not dragged out. Thanks for the info.
              But there are some doubts about the suspension, because before on planes of this class something heavier than the cab-1500 (3 pieces at a time) was not planned to be suspended.
              On the Su-30MKI, the KR, when hanging between the nacelles, is mounted on a transition beam with installation on the suspension units, those that are in tandem under the center section, having a suspension mass limit less than the current mass of Bramos + AKU + beam.
              And here the question arises - have the mounting points of the suspensions on the Su-34 changed? What is the weight limit for these very nodes of the suspension on the Su-34? How many of these CRs can he raise at a time? What will be the combat radius of the aircraft with these overall and heavy CR?
              At the same time, there are no difficulties for the Tu-22M3 - even before that, it was carrying almost six-ton ​​X-22s.
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 26 December 2013 20: 24
                +1
                And here the question arises

                I haven’t gone that far. Only designers will answer these questions if these parameters are not classified.
    2. ytqnhfk
      ytqnhfk 25 December 2013 20: 32
      0
      su -34
      Wingspan, m 14,7
      Fuselage length, m 23,3
      Height, m ​​6,0
      Wing Area, sq.m 62,0
      Engine type 2 TRD AL-31F
      The engine thrust is unforced, kgf 2x14000
      Normal take-off weight, kg 39000
      Maximum take-off weight, kg: 44360
      Maximum combat load, kg 8000
      Maximum speed km / h
      at height 11000 m 1900
      at sea level 1400
      Maximum speed, M 1,8
      Practical ceiling, m * 17000
      Practical flight range, km ** 4500
      Combat radius of action, km 600-1130
      Maximum operating overload 7
      Crew, people. 2


      Read more: http://www.arms-expo.ru/049049056051124052054051.html
      Crew 4 rights
      Practical ceiling, m 14
      Maximum flight range, km 7000
      Maximum operational overload + 2,5g
      Maximum speed at high altitude, km / h: 2300 and this is 22 mz Well, now experts explain how you have a multi-mode missile carrier aircraft designed to carry tactical nuclear weapons and break through enemy air defenses! How in itself can this accommodate a su 34 !!!? Front-line bomber fighter ??
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 25 December 2013 22: 12
        0
        Well, now, experts explain how this is your multi-mode missile carrier designed to carry tactical nuclear weapons with a breakthrough of enemy air defenses! How in itself can this accommodate a su 34 !!!? Front-line bomber fighter ??

        Su-34 is also supersonic. But breaking through air defense on an airplane now is suicide. Competent air defense snaps them like nuts. Missiles will do this. Not all will break through, but this is a matter of application tactics. Destruction of important goals involved OTRK and flocks of the Kyrgyz Republic. Areal - MLRS. Destroying large targets, such as enemy AUGs, is more effective than tactical nuclear weapons, which PAK YES will carry. True, if it comes to this, it will be hot for everyone.
        What can the Tu-22M3 and its successor do here? Only take on board high-precision supersonic weapons. But the Tu-22M3 is getting old, and the Su-34 is quite suitable as a "platform" for this weapon.
        1. typhoon7
          typhoon7 26 December 2013 20: 53
          +1
          You are writing off the Tu-22M3 too early. What is it out of date? Avionics, refueling, armament, it is solvable, would be the desire of the country's leadership. Example American B-1B. In terms of striking power, the Tu-22M3 and Su-34 are incommensurable, and while there is no PAK YES, the liquidation of the AUG is still the prerogative of the Tu-22M3.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 26 December 2013 22: 48
            0
            Quote: typhoon7
            What is it out of date?

            Have you decided the issue with the engines? Who is repairing the old ones? Are new ones being released to replace spent ones?
            I'm talking about engines for the Tu-22m3 and Tu-160
  4. brainkiller
    brainkiller 25 December 2013 09: 39
    0
    I honestly do not understand the need for such bombers. When there are powerful delivery vehicles such as ICBMs.
    Only if expanding the range of nuclear weapons, given that ICBMs are limited.
    And will a design bureau pull such a project with such a distant prospect?

    This type of aircraft is unlikely to be sold.
    Maybe you should focus on commercial projects, i.e. those that could be successful in the arms market.
    1. Blad_21617
      Blad_21617 25 December 2013 09: 51
      +4
      ICBMs are all the same purely strategic weapons, at one time Khrushchev relied on missiles and, as a result, all the armed forces suffered. here we need an integrated approach and the bomber fits perfectly into all the niches of the defense, here you have delivery to the target of missiles with SBN, and the WTO and just bombs.
      1. brainkiller
        brainkiller 25 December 2013 10: 29
        +2
        Quote: Blad_21617
        and the bomber fits perfectly into all the niches of the defense industry, and here you have delivery to the target of missiles with SBN, and the WTO and just bombs.

        so yes, but I was very stressed by the shame with the downed Tu-22 in Ossetia, remember? When he was sent for intelligence purposes. What does this tell us?
        You will say this idiocy, I agree, but it would not have happened if the troops had normal domestic UAVs.
        Dreaming is certainly not harmful, but you need to understand that our financial and human resources are very limited.
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 25 December 2013 10: 16
      +3
      Quote: brainkiller
      I honestly do not understand the need for such bombers. When there are powerful delivery vehicles such as ICBMs.

      This is another frozen sausage. We do not need it, but we’ll do it anyway, for we can!
  5. Wedmak
    Wedmak 25 December 2013 10: 12
    +5
    Can we dream (or summarize what we know now) about the appearance, so to speak, from a technical point of view?
    My opinion:
    1. Our planes have always been very graceful and beautiful - therefore there will be no clean wing, but a hybrid wing with the Tu-160. Most likely, the variable geometry of the wing will be abandoned.
    2. PAK YES will be jet, with 4 fuel-efficient engines integrated in the fuselage.
    3. The plumage is either small or absent.
    4. The crew of 4-5 people.
    5. The combat load is in the internal compartments, but there are at least three points of suspension of external weapons.
    6. The armament itself consists not only of the Kyrgyz Republic with nuclear warheads, but also anti-ship missiles, guided and adjusted ammunition, torpedoes, and heavy bombs.
    7. Range of at least 10000 km without refueling.
    8. Several flight modes. Maximum flight altitude of at least 18 km.
    9. Already from science fiction - he can carry several short-range or medium-range air-to-air missiles for self-defense.
    10. The strongest electronic warfare equipment, all-round radar AFAR, data transmission to the ground or airborne gearbox.
    11. PAK DA as the basis for aircraft: the missile carrier itself, anti-submarine, reconnaissance target designation.
    What did you forget? What complement?
    1. Su-9
      Su-9 25 December 2013 10: 24
      +1
      And why for a modern aircraft crew of 4-5 people? (only 11 maximum flight hours)
      1. fzr1000
        fzr1000 25 December 2013 11: 43
        +1
        I support the question. If only it will be beauties to maintain morale? winked
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 25 December 2013 14: 57
          +1
          Gee, just 11 hours of flight? In what condition will the pilot be after 6 hours of flight, will he be able to concentrate also on the use of weapons? Will he route himself too? Well - two. To monitor the air situation, the use of weapons, to monitor very complex equipment in flight, the navigator will be? So three? Suppose 5 people are too much, but 4 are definitely needed.
          1. just exp
            just exp 26 December 2013 02: 03
            0
            have not heard about such a thing as autopilot?
            and that is, the opinion that the pilots will fly and only after the situational sensors work they take everything on themselves.
            so 2x is enough.
            Threat in B2 emnip also 2 pilots, and they could fly across the ocean and then through Europe and complete the task. Are Americans more resilient than Russians?
      2. VAF
        VAF 25 December 2013 13: 54
        +3
        Quote: Su-9
        And why for a modern aircraft crew of 4-5 people?


        Because ... the "modern combat aircraft" is fundamentally different from the modern passenger aircraft. "
        Unlike the "extreme" military man flies with a variable profile where necessary, and not along the "tied routes where it is said."
        Among other things, the "stinking" crew needs to navigate, or you think. that GPS & VOR / DME will also work in wartime conditions.
        And so on and so forth.

        Quote: Su-9
        (only 11 maximum flight hours)


        And you try it yourself .. at least 6-7 hours in an ejection seat, tied, with a CM on the "face", .. without a stewardess in a short skirt, with water or something stronger, without "coffee" and "jogging" to the toilet in the salon wassat and without autopilot from take-off to landing wassat

        When you "feel" all these "charms" on yourself, you will stop asking such stupid questions. wassat

        And even more so about .. "some 11 hours of flight"
        1. fzr1000
          fzr1000 25 December 2013 14: 24
          +1
          And why then in B2 crew of 2 people?
          "The duration of sorties from Whiteman base was more than 30 hours. During one of the sorties, the B-2 remained in the air without landing for 50 hours."
          1. VAF
            VAF 25 December 2013 14: 45
            +2
            Quote: fzr1000
            And why then in B2 crew of 2 people?


            Again, "define" for me the role of "enemy of the people." "Amero-Jodomasson" and "all pro-salipolymer"?
            And to think for yourself or read at the worst?
            Already in the public domain there is a lot of information, where does anyone have what is worth.
            And from here draw conclusions!
            1. fzr1000
              fzr1000 25 December 2013 14: 51
              +1
              Do not understand. When was this? request
              And about open access, I read it, which is why the number of people in the crew in the 21st century long-range bomber is surprising.
              It's nothing personal.
              1. VAF
                VAF 25 December 2013 15: 18
                +1
                Quote: fzr1000
                Do not understand. When was this?


                Yes, I am not for you drinks addressed, and to some "figures on the site", such as SPACE and MIHAN, well, and ... "hummers" - lzheeconomists wassat

                Quote: fzr1000
                And about open access, I read it, which is why the number of people in the crew in the 21st century long-range bomber is surprising.


                Read the composition of avionics and everything will immediately become clear, and the degree of automation based on ... in short crying

                Quote: fzr1000
                It's nothing personal.


                Absolutely, +! drinks
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 25 December 2013 15: 33
                  +3
                  You, automation. Based on the level of 1980's. And the plane, which is supposed to appear in the 2020s, suddenly turns out to be incapable of such a thing. Vaf is such a waf.
                  1. VAF
                    VAF 25 December 2013 17: 54
                    +2
                    Quote: EvilLion
                    And the plane, which should appear in the 2020s, suddenly turns out to be incapable of such a thing. Vaf is such a vaf.


                    No .. just know the real state of things crying and just became silent .. THAT climb to the Urya-patriots.
                    They said it will be, so it will be- "..and even in the field of ballet .we are in front of the whole planet."

                    That's just somehow modestly kept silent about the statement of the respected A. Zhikharev wink
                    quote-"... In addition, the new aircraft should be the carrier of the advanced X-101 cruise missiles."
                    Is that ... all new, well forgotten old? By 2025, do you know how many years this rocket will be?
                    Well this is the one that is already ..... long in service crying
                    1. andrei332809
                      andrei332809 25 December 2013 17: 58
                      0
                      Quote: vaf
                      No .. just know the real state of things

                      Healthy Ser hi
                      honestly, will bring to mind this beast?
                      1. VAF
                        VAF 25 December 2013 18: 16
                        +2
                        Quote: andrei332809
                        honestly, will bring to mind this beast?


                        Hi Andrew! Theoretically yes fellow ..practically ... no comment bully
                      2. andrei332809
                        andrei332809 25 December 2013 18: 19
                        0
                        Quote: vaf
                        ..practically ... no comment

                        I understand that all kinds of subscriptions ... Ser? !! are they stealing heavily there? or can we hope?
                      3. FID
                        FID 25 December 2013 18: 28
                        +5
                        Quote: andrei332809
                        I understand that all kinds of subscriptions ... Ser? !! are they stealing heavily there? or can we hope?

                        Where is there? As far as I know, this very thing was given to Tupolev Design Bureau (project development, etc.) If you are in the know, then last week, once again, the Design Bureau was replaced by the Chief ... A leader from the KLA, some deputy Poghosyan. Then think for yourself. Money in PAK YES (the name is what) is shoved a lot, how much will come - time will tell, it, time, a lot ...
                      4. andrei332809
                        andrei332809 25 December 2013 18: 31
                        +4
                        Quote: SSI
                        divert a lot ..

                        and maybe all of them in "Beria" sharashka? and? what performance was bully
                      5. FID
                        FID 25 December 2013 18: 38
                        +3
                        Quote: andrei332809
                        and maybe all of them in the "Beria" sharashka?

                        I support completely and completely!
                      6. andrei332809
                        andrei332809 25 December 2013 18: 40
                        +2
                        Quote: SSI
                        I support completely and completely!

                        nice ... nice damn it drinks
                      7. alex86
                        alex86 25 December 2013 21: 51
                        0
                        But in KAPO they appointed a new one (the previous one with Pogosyan, they say, did not work out) - what do you say?
      3. fzr1000
        fzr1000 25 December 2013 15: 35
        +1
        OK.
        Those. our today's automation will not be able to provide this? Then it turns out that the flight characteristics of the PAK DA will be ensured precisely due to the design of the airframe and engines, and not at the expense of all kinds of electronic wicks, like B2.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 25 December 2013 16: 24
          +2
          Then it turns out that the flight characteristics of the PAK DA will be ensured precisely due to the design of the airframe and engines, and not at the expense of all kinds of electronic wicks, like B2.

          You look at the cost of B2. Now imagine that this mountain of dough was shot down. Moreover, simply because the pilot "slept" the warning about a missile attack after 6-7 hours of flight. And where was it used? Against sheep herders in Afghanistan, from a height of 15-18 km, where is it from and with a developed air defense system difficult to get?
          1. fzr1000
            fzr1000 25 December 2013 16: 30
            -1
            I left the cost aside, because in any case, the strategist is the most expensive product in the Air Force park.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 25 December 2013 16: 40
              +1
              because, in any case, the strategist is the most expensive product in the Air Force park.

              Exactly. Therefore, for his own safety, it’s better that a separate person sits in it and watches the all-round radar. Holding your finger on the button of the counter equipment, whatever it is.
            2. fzr1000
              fzr1000 25 December 2013 16: 43
              0
              Ok, convinced, although the extra crew member is overweight, a decrease in payload, flight range without refueling and just "less oxygen". And just an increase in the number of the LS regiment. And all of them still need to be trained. What is is what will be.
            3. FID
              FID 25 December 2013 17: 17
              +7
              Quote: fzr1000
              Ok, convinced, although the extra crew member is overweight, a decrease in payload, flight range without refueling and just "less oxygen". And just an increase in the number of the LS regiment. And all of them still need to be trained. What is is what will be.

              Let me, wretched ... There is no domestic radio electronics, all automation is imported (you yourself understand that the Americans do not supply us with special selection, but consumer goods). Now I am engaged in repairing avionics with a new combat training - American m / schemes, production in Taiwan, deliveries through the States. Therefore, although there are good circuit solutions and excellent (in some places) software, failures were, are and will be. An extra person in the cockpit will not hurt ...
            4. fzr1000
              fzr1000 25 December 2013 17: 25
              +2
              Oh, good to see you here again. I’m not arguing, I just wanted more details and arguments. And with our elemental base so far ... trouble, in short.
        2. yehat
          yehat 27 December 2013 13: 03
          0
          on the catapult control, too, let something hold)))
        3. yehat
          yehat 27 December 2013 13: 03
          0
          on the catapult control, too, let something hold)))
  6. VAF
    VAF 25 December 2013 18: 04
    +2
    Quote: fzr1000
    Then it turns out that the flight characteristics of the PAK DA will be ensured precisely due to the design of the airframe and engines, and not at the expense of all kinds of electronic wicks, like B2.


    Probably somewhere close to the truth, + ... they will put all sorts of "foreign" "probambases" or our "old grandfathers, such as SSI fellow ) will be able to sculpt something .. wait and see, or rather .. see drinks
    1. FID
      FID 25 December 2013 18: 10
      +1
      Quote: vaf
      "old grandfathers, like SSI

      Hello to you too!
  • Pon69
    Pon69 25 December 2013 11: 37
    +2
    spacewalk, plasma defense, dive from 100 km altitude lol
  • MBA78
    MBA78 25 December 2013 12: 48
    0
    this model will fly at the speed of sound ... and in this model the mechanism will be applied, the cat will dampen its noise i.e. silent ... and another 2 samples will use something like a mirage and instead of a plane at close range you will see only a blurry gray-blue (against the blue sky) spot i.e. a visually invisible object ... in the arsenal there will still be something like a sound gun.
  • VAF
    VAF 25 December 2013 13: 00
    +1
    Quote: Wedmak
    What did you forget? What complement?


    Denis hello! .. You just .. outlined the "Death Star" fellow + drinks
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 25 December 2013 15: 19
      +2
      Welcome.
      No, no ... I tried very hard to curb my imagination. For there really was an atomic-propelled vehicle drawn, with atmosphere-near space modes with hypersonic missiles on board, its own small air defense, electronic warfare, laser (satellites disable), sleeping places and a crew kitchen, autonomy for at least a month. Well, what else do we have on the avionics best and most promising.
      Agree, if even a quarter of this came true, there would be a breakthrough.
      1. VAF
        VAF 25 December 2013 15: 23
        +1
        Quote: Wedmak
        Agree, if even a quarter of this came true, there would be a breakthrough.


        Absolutely, +! drinks Even if in due time the M-50 and the Sukhovskaya "SOTKA" fellow
        I can’t even imagine at what level we would be now repeat
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman 25 December 2013 16: 58
    +1
    about the engines: maybe they will put 4 engines promising from PAK FA ?! is such a move possible? developing a new engine for a bomber is also very cool. Although it can be done as in PAK FA: first it will fly with existing ones, and then there will be engines of the second stage. Although the tonnage of the aircraft is not known. Maybe two get off, as on the Tu-22? One can only guess.
    But on the account of the fact that PAK YES will be subsonic - is it a fake or is the information true ?!

    Quote: Wedmak
    Range of at least 10000 km without refueling.

    It seems to me that the bet will be on the range of missiles than on the range of the aircraft itself. Nevertheless, it is easier for a missile to overcome missile defense than an aircraft. Although everything can be.

    It seems to me (maybe I'm mistaken) that the STELS technology will not work to the detriment of the thrust ratio. Those. in the question, or STELS, or weapons, the choice will fall on the second, because missile launch is supposed to be carried out outside the air defense!

    purely IMHO!
    Denis... hi
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 25 December 2013 17: 32
      0
      about the engines: maybe they will put 4 engines promising from PAK FA ?!

      You yourself said the tonnage is not known, the airframe scheme is essentially the same (like a wing-set), there are generally darkness here.
      It seems to me that the bet will be on the range of missiles than on the range of the aircraft itself. Nevertheless, it is easier for a missile to overcome missile defense than an aircraft. Although everything can be.

      It’s simpler, but the rocket still needs to be delivered to the launch line, and there are no direct roads, so the range is unlikely to hinder.
      the choice will fall on the second, because missile launch is supposed to be carried out outside the air defense!

      I agree, hoping for stealth is dangerous. It is visible, not visible.
  • clidon
    clidon 25 December 2013 20: 12
    +2
    1. I agree. "Geometry" will be discarded.
    2. With two most likely.
    3. I agree
    4. With two crew members. A maximum of three.
    5 I agree
    6 Probably the maritime theme will still be on specialized machines of this family. However, versatility will come first.
    7 The range is probably somewhere a little less - 7-8 thousand.
    8 Here is the biggest question - will they make a car for ultra-low heights. I think that no, and so it will be loaded.
    9 Something really fantastic
    10. Here you need to cut the sturgeon. Type of all-round visibility. But electronic warfare and links, of course there will be.
    11 The family will be easy, but much will depend on the cost of the car. Therefore, it will also be, and, it seems to me, relatively inexpensive.
  • yehat
    yehat 27 December 2013 13: 15
    0
    for the late-series F-22 all-round AFAR review removed as too expensive
    not work out, do we also?
    but in general, it seems to me, they will put radar equipment to a minimum.
    Accordingly, no air-to-air missiles and flexible tactics with independent determination of new targets.
  • yehat
    yehat 27 December 2013 13: 15
    0
    for the late-series F-22 all-round AFAR review removed as too expensive
    not work out, do we also?
    but in general, it seems to me, they will put radar equipment to a minimum.
    Accordingly, no air-to-air missiles and flexible tactics with independent determination of new targets.
  • Su-9
    Su-9 25 December 2013 10: 21
    +1
    If we exclude a hypothetical, but unlikely breakthrough in "stealth" technologies, and taking into account subsonic speeds, I would now make a new bomber / tanker / drlo / control ship based on the Tu-204/214. This strategy would have many advantages. If you consider that you do not need to fool with civil norms by weight, then you can probably do it
    1) what kind of aircraft already exists - you can use the wing section, the fuselage, etc.
    2) unification of service for all platforms is a huge plus both in the training of pilots and in aerodrome maintenance.
    3) to increase the range / payload from the current 70 tons to 80-85, you can certainly rework the wing / fuselage length and put in new engines (which can be more noisy).
    This is certainly not ideal, but rather "economic". But it is real anyway. Otherwise, PAK YES will be ready by the age of 30 ...
    1. postman
      postman 25 December 2013 10: 52
      +2
      Quote: Su-9
      bomber / tanker / drill / control ship based on the Tu-204/214.

      ?
      - "base", built on the basis of a government decree on the creation of a medium-range aircraft August 11, 1981 and the decision of the MAP board from 1982? Who needs such junk? and why abandon existing ones?
      A letter from the head of the Federal Air Transport Agency Gennady Kuzmich Kurzenkov dated 11.09.09/1.21/2289 No. ГК204-214 (о Tu-XNUMX/XNUMX):
      “According to the State Center for Flight Safety in Air Transport, in 2008, 25 incidents occurred on these aircraft due to aircraft equipment failures. Of these, 30% falls on the air conditioning system, 30% on the PS-90A engine, 20% on doors and hatches and 20% for other reasons. ”

      Quote: Su-9
      1) what kind of plane

      ??? falls apart under "mild" conditions of (civil) operation, what will happen with the combat load and evolutions as a combat aircraft?

      Quote: Su-9
      2) unification of service for all platforms

      it is not a car with a unified platform VW, Audi, Schkoda, Porsche ...

      Quote: Su-9
      to increase the range / payload from the current 70 tons to 80-85 you can certainly rework the wing / length

      ... new plane
      Read for fun (at least)

      Arthur Haley / Overload (Overload, 1979; Russian translation, 1991 (O. Don, A. Kozlov, L. Kraynenkov, A. Kurdyukov), 2007 (V. Kotelkin)
      -there is popular about production, wing, do
  • Russ69
    Russ69 25 December 2013 10: 39
    +2
    What to guess, we will wait when they show. And then argue with foam at the mouth (exact performance characteristics, no one will say) who is cooler than PAK-DA or American strategists. And then compare f-35 and T-50 fed up ... smile
    1. Apollo
      Apollo 25 December 2013 10: 55
      +4
      quote-The first prototype of the PAK DA bomber should fly in 2019 year. Finally, the first production aircraft of the new model will enter the Air Force in the 2025 year.

      1. Spectrum
        Spectrum 25 December 2013 17: 12
        +1
        The presenter simply kills with his burr, as if his mouth is rinsing, in my opinion we are not the United States, someone should have told him that you cannot be a burr-out announcer, blind sniper, armless boxer, and there are a lot of such "announcers". And the news is great!
    2. Cynic
      Cynic 25 December 2013 11: 08
      +6
      Quote: Russ69
      And then argue with foam at the mouth (exact TTX, no one will say)

      The only thing that, personally, will interest me: _ Entering into orbit.
      Without this _ Product based on previous products.
      Give a spaceship !!!
      1. edeligor
        edeligor 25 December 2013 12: 44
        +1
        No, they have already announced, the speed is subsonic. I would also like to, but we, as always, lag behind our "friends".
      2. postman
        postman 25 December 2013 16: 26
        +1
        Quote: Cynic
        I personally will be interested in _ going into orbit.

        Cost of an hour of flight time? Eh .... Rubles so 40 -48 000 000,00?
        Quote: Cynic
        Give a spaceship !!!

        Isn't it easier to place orbital platforms there (in space)?
        But rockets are not needed, solid math, at the right time, over the right longitude-braking impulse and ... and a bun has flown in that cannot be intercepted
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 25 December 2013 16: 37
          0
          But rockets are not needed, solid math, at the right time, over the right longitude-braking impulse and ... and a bun has flown in that cannot be intercepted

          This requires a low orbit, constant adjustments and increases in orbit (braking in the upper atmosphere). Where to get so much fuel? Again, changing the inclination of the orbit and dumping the gift is not a pound of raisins to eat. The platform is large, it will be visible even in the middle telescope. Shoot down ... easy, the Americans have already trained. Although, with adequate funding - why not?
      3. S-200
        S-200 25 December 2013 16: 37
        0
        and the crew will be in it ??
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 25 December 2013 16: 42
          0
          By the way, yes, no one has yet studied how a person will tolerate hypersonic speeds.
          1. brainkiller
            brainkiller 26 December 2013 09: 27
            0
            no one has yet examined how a person will tolerate hypersonic speeds.
            hmm .. if we are talking about speed as such, then any astronaut who has been in orbit is a good example for you =)
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 26 December 2013 20: 28
              0
              then any astronaut who has been in orbit is a good example for you =)

              Yeah, only in space there is no air resistance, turbulence and other atmospheric delights. The problem is not speed itself, but overloads when changing the direction of flight at this speed. To this is added the crew's life support problems. If the spacecraft lacks 10 cm of light skin and the climate of the system, then in the atmosphere it will break like a rag.
              1. yehat
                yehat 27 December 2013 13: 21
                0
                Quote: Wedmak The problem is not speed itself, but overloads when changing the direction of flight at this speed. To this is added the crew's life support problems. [/ quote

                But does the operational experience of the Mig-25, Tu-22 and SR-71 not provide the necessary data?
              2. The comment was deleted.
  • Leshka
    Leshka 25 December 2013 10: 53
    +1
    let's see what they’re getting into
  • Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 25 December 2013 11: 11
    +1
    Recently, significant advances have occurred in the engine industry. New materials have appeared that make it possible to increase the degree of compression and the working temperature. The creators of the second stage engine for PAK FA say that this is not the limit. Moreover, detonation engines are already experiencing. This is what I am for. And to the fact that when the PAK DA is created there will already be engines freely pushing it into supersonic at cruising mode without afterburner, and the center section will be unprepared for this. I believe that PAK DA should initially be supersonic, and our strategic planning continues to limp on all four legs.
  • samoletil18
    samoletil18 25 December 2013 11: 38
    +4
    If you force to return everything stolen, create conditions for all types of business, and exterminate all "Effective managers", then PAK YES and "Armata" can be both, and what else is needed for the Motherland. In the meantime, only concepts, general looks and wishes. 37 years, otherwise the country will be very bad.
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 26 December 2013 10: 21
      0
      Quote: samoletil18
      In the meantime, only concepts, general guises and wishes.

      a little off topic but
      The only prototype of the fifth generation fighter is mothballed
      Secret MiG 1.44 will not be destroyed. According to experts, this development can be used to create a new fighter
      Read on: http://izvestia.ru/news/562966#ixzz2oYju6q2t
  • Andriuha077
    Andriuha077 25 December 2013 13: 53
    0
    Well, Ryabov, well, Cyril, didn’t disclose anything again, he only postponed another five years.

    Maybe it's time to say that you don’t have to replace the existing orthodox bomber.
    Optional drone.
    Subtle.
    For a long time lurking within its own territory, for the savings and subsequent high-altitude launch of the existing and new nomenclature of autonomous weapons.
    Including reconnaissance and patrolling the border area.
    Including SAM, PRO.
    He took off - flew - returned intact.
    Looked - shot - did not forget - hit.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 25 December 2013 15: 34
    0
    At present, the Tupolev Design Bureau, as a developer of any aircraft, except perhaps for the "maize" is dead, so you can not worry if the project will be overwhelmed, transferred to another, or closed.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 25 December 2013 16: 26
      +3
      Oops. Oh really? Only Tupolev’s specialization in the long-range. And they made the Tu-204/214. And they are working on PAK YES. The rest only help, the project is complex.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 25 December 2013 17: 46
        0
        Where is the success? Tu-204 is still a Soviet project, it lives on state orders, commercial operators spit. To create a complex project you need a real team, and not a few old people with all kinds of orders.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 25 December 2013 18: 09
          +1
          commercial operators spit.

          Where do they spit?
          To create a complex project you need a real team, and not a few old people with all kinds of orders.

          To create a complex project you need experience in developing such projects. And the current effective managers can only cut loot effectively.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 25 December 2013 18: 24
            0
            Meanwhile, there are more orders on SSJ than they manage to collect. Tupolev has no experience, people who created the Tu-160 are now retired, or in a better world.
            1. FID
              FID 25 December 2013 19: 08
              +3
              Quote: EvilLion
              Meanwhile, there are more orders on SSJ than they manage to collect.

              Forgive me, the old one, but the plane is successful when it is taken in the domestic market, and not in Mexico and Laos ... And which operators spit on the Tu-204, specifically? You probably talked with many operators ...
              1. alone
                alone 25 December 2013 19: 52
                +2
                Quote: SSI
                Forgive me, the old one, but the plane is successful when it is taken in the domestic market, and not in Mexico and Laos ... And which operators spit on the Tu-204, specifically? You probably talked with many operators ...


                Here, of course, you're right hi .If the plane is sold over a hill, and on domestic routes there are still flying Boeing, which are 20-30 years old, and even repeatedly resold by different countries, a completely logical question arises: If the Superjet 100 is good, why are there almost none on the domestic lines of these aircraft ?
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. yehat
                  yehat 27 December 2013 13: 24
                  0
                  no, because we save on everything - on reliability, on the duration of investments, and even on the number of pilots.
                  carcass features have nothing to do with it. Purely minimizing costs,
                  and far from always justified.
              2. clidon
                clidon 25 December 2013 20: 18
                -1
                The plane is successful when taken at all. It's hard to say this about the Tu-204.
                Some of the exploiters have already taken these "carcasses" for storage ...
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. yehat
        yehat 27 December 2013 13: 01
        0
        Tupolevites use extensive materials from the "weaving", MiG-25, Buran projects, etc.
        A project can do more than just this design bureau.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 25 December 2013 17: 42
    0
    I think it’s clear that YES aircraft have the same functions as nuclear submarines, but they are much more mobile and cheaper. True, they have weaker weapons, but they are more multi-functional. In general, if a country has production facilities for large-scale aircraft manufacturing, then not building YES is simply silly.
  • voliador
    voliador 25 December 2013 18: 10
    +1
    It remains to wait for 2019. But, remembering the mace, I just don’t believe it in these terms.
  • Keeper
    Keeper 25 December 2013 18: 52
    +1
    The main thing is that the filling of the product released in 2019 was not sharpened under Windows 7 or Linux !!!
    Let them think not only about flight performance, but also about the "pedals" that the pilots will have to turn in the event of electrical "interference" ...
    And so - the view is bewitching!
  • hitech
    hitech 25 December 2013 19: 54
    -1
    Quote: vaf
    "data" to the studio about the "combat radius" of the Tu-22M3, "comparable load" is not clear with what to compare request

    And when you “provide” everything, then it will be possible to discuss the “level” of the Tu-22M3 soldier

    PS In quotation marks I took exclusively your terms, which I understand you understand wink

    "Data in the studio":
    Modification of the Tu-22M3
    Wingspan, m
    maximum (65 degrees) 34.28
    minimal (20 degrees) 23.30
    Length, m 41.46
    Height, m ​​11.05
    Wing area, m2
    maximum (65 degrees) 183.57
    minimal (20 degrees) 175.80
    Weight, kg
    empty xnumx
    normal takeoff 112000
    maximum takeoff 126000
    Mass of fuel, kg 53550
    Engine type 2 DTRDF NK-25
    Thrust, kgf
    afterburner 2 x 14500
    afterburner 2 x 25000
    Maximum speed km / h
    at height 2300
    off the ground xnumx
    Cruising speed, km / h 930
    Practical range, km 7000
    Combat radius of action, km
    at a supersonic speed of 1500-1850
    at subsonic speed near the earth 1500-1650
    at subsonic speed along the mixed profile 2410
    Practical ceiling, m 13300
    Crew, people 4
    Armament: one 23-mm gun GSH-23L
    combat load - 24000 kg (maximum) and
    12000 kg (normal)
    1-3 UR type X-22M
    10 Aeroballistic Missiles X-15

    Modification of the Su-34
    Wingspan, m 14.70
    Aircraft Length, m 22.00
    Aircraft Height 5.93
    Takeoff weight, kg
    normal 39000
    maximum 44360
    Engine type 2 TRDF AL-35 (AL-31F)
    Traction unformed, kgf 2 x 14000
    Maximum speed km / h
    at height 11000 m 1900 (M = 1.6)
    at sea level 1400
    Practical range, km 4500
    Combat radius of action, km 600 -1130
    Practical ceiling, m 17000
    Maximum operational overload 7
    Crew, people 2
    Armament: one 30-mm gun GS-301 (180 rounds)
    Combat load - 8000 kg (normal - 4000 kg) on ​​12 suspension units:
    8 SD class класса air-to-air ■ P-73;
    6 SD class класса air-to-air ■ R-27RE or E;
    8 UR class ⌠ air-to-air ■ R-77 (RVV-AE);
    6 UR class ⌠ air-to-surface ■ X-29T / L, X-25ML, S-25LD
    6 UR class ⌠ air-radar ■ X-31P or ⌠ air-ship ■ X-31A;
    1 multi-purpose SD ╚Alfa╩;
    3 SD class класса air-to-surface ■ X-59M;
    3 adjustable bombs KAB-1500L / TK;
    6 adjustable bombs KAB-500KR / L;
    3 bombs caliber 1500 kg, 16 bombs 500 kg, 36 software blocks B-250L) or 48 with C-100 missiles.

    Of course I understand everything, but to compare Su-34 и Tu-22M3 incorrect by definition, they have different tasks. And their combat load is also different.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 25 December 2013 22: 22
      +1
      Of course, I understand everything, but comparing the Su-34 and Tu-22M3 is incorrect by definition, they have different tasks.

      The question was not about comparing the Tu-22M3 and Su-34 as it is now. But the fact is that the Su-34, with appropriate modernization could replace the aging TU-22M3 fleet. The main armament of Tu - missiles Kh-22, Kh-59 or Kh-31. The rest, for universality (not from a good life, probably), because it is stupid to drive a "close" strategist with blanks, and even more so with NURSs. Nonsense in general in my opinion. Su takes almost the same target set of weapons, only the types of missiles are different.
      1. Rakti-kali
        Rakti-kali 26 December 2013 01: 34
        0
        Quote: Wedmak
        Su-34, with appropriate modernization, could replace the aging TU-22M3 fleet

        Rather not replace, but allow not to use Carcasses where they are redundant, and Dryers will be "just right".
        And if you really dream, then Carcasses need to be modernized and they should define a range of tasks as:
        1 - missile carrier to suppress / destroy enemy air defense / missile defense on the Eurasian continent;
        2 - the same and there for the destruction of strategic objects of the military / transport / industrial infrastructure;
        3 - MPA.
        That is, the tasks for this type should be set operational-strategic. Drying should perform operational and operational tactical tasks.
  • rubin6286
    rubin6286 3 January 2014 19: 29
    +1
    I believe that the country does not need a new long-range bomber, but a fundamentally new multi-purpose aircraft. It is a kind of “flying platform”, barrage in space and capable of delivering from there, or from dense layers of the atmosphere, an effective, accurate and lightning strike by means of enemy air defense and missile defense in the event of a local or world military conflict. It seems to me that such aircraft should be part of the aerospace defense forces, be on alert and be in constant combat readiness. Both the aircraft themselves and the airborne weapon systems used by them should be the embodiment of all the latest developments and achievements of Russian science and technology.
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 4 January 2014 14: 57
      +1
      Quote: rubin6286
      This is a kind of “flying platform”, barraging in space and capable of drawing from there, or from dense layers of the atmosphere

      There were such floodlights _

      The only solution would be nonstop good
  • rubin6286
    rubin6286 6 January 2014 15: 13
    0
    Quote: Cynic
    The only solution would be nonstop


    A nuclear power plant on a spacecraft is not a fantasy. It was used on a number of US and Soviet satellites in the mid-70s and early 80s. A non-stop aircraft can be provided if it has a short orbital period. It entered the dense layers of the atmosphere, burned down and everything, like a normal satellite. "Flying Platform" is a manned aircraft on alert. He cannot be non-stop. if only because its equipment, weapons, must periodically undergo maintenance, repair and replacement.
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 6 January 2014 16: 55
      0
      Quote: rubin6286
      this is not fiction.

      Canadians are more than knowledgeable about this.
      Quote: rubin6286
      must be periodically serviced, repaired and replaced.

      Solvable and without landing the entire platform, the modularity of the design is not the latest achievement of science and shade.

      hi