Military Review

A contract has been signed for the development of a PAK DA bomber.

215
Recently, new details of the program for creating a promising long-range aviation complex aviation (PACK YES). A contract for the design of a new aircraft has already been signed, and financing of work has also begun. In addition, the PAK DA project is included in the state armament program for 2016-2025.


A contract has been signed for the development of a PAK DA bomber.
The hypothetical image of a possible variant of subsonic PACK DA (image August 2013 g., Http://militaryrussia.ru)


News A. Boginsky, Director of Aviation Industry Department, Ministry of Industry and Trade, announced the progress of the project. During a press conference during the Singapore Airshow 2014 International Air Show, held in Singapore, the official told about the latest news from the PAK DA program. As it turned out, back in December last year, the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Tupolev company signed a contract on the conceptual design of a promising aircraft. Funding has already begun and will continue over the next few years. Thus, the creation of a new bomber is approaching the stage of the appearance of the project, according to which the planes will be built.

The work on the PAK DA program started in 2009, when the Ministry of Defense ordered the Tupolev company to conduct research and design work on a new project. By the middle of 2012, the formation of the technical appearance of the promising bomber was completed, after which the formation of the technical requirements for the project continued. At the end of last year, as follows from the words of the director of the department of the aviation industry of the Ministry of Industry and Trade, a contract was signed to create a preliminary design, as a result of which design work has now begun.

According to the latest statements by representatives of the Ministry of Defense and Industry, the first flight of the PAK DA prototype aircraft will take place in 2019. In the middle of the next decade, it is planned to adopt a new bomber for armament, as well as to begin construction of mass-produced aircraft. Deliveries of mass-produced vehicles will allow the air force to upgrade its fleet of long-range bombers. According to reports, the PAK DA aircraft will replace the currently used missile-carrying bombers Tu-95MS, Tu-22М3 and Tu-160. Thus, by the end of the thirties, promising bombers will become the basis of Russian long-range aviation.

In the past few years, representatives of the Ministry of Defense revealed some details of the PAK DA project. Without going into technical details, they talked about the general features of a promising long-range bomber. According to reports, the PAK DA aircraft will be subsonic and will be able to carry a larger payload than the existing bombers. Such information became the reason for the assumption that the promising bomber will be built according to the scheme of a flying wing.

It is expected that in the design of a promising strike aircraft will be widely used various technical solutions and materials designed to increase flight data and reduce radar visibility. According to statements by representatives of the Ministry of Defense, the PAK DA bomber will be able to carry existing and prospective cruise missiles and bombs of various types. A comparison of the PAK YA combat load with the similar parameter of the Tu-160 aircraft suggests that a promising bomber can carry at least 25-30 tons of weapons. The bomber’s nomenclature may include existing X-55 and X-555 missiles, as well as promising X-101 missiles. If necessary, the aircraft must use guided bombs. In addition, the use of air-to-air missiles designed for self-defense cannot be ruled out.

In August last year, Air Force Commander Lieutenant-General V. Bondarev said that the PAK DA rocket-carrying bomber could carry and use promising hypersonic missiles. At the same time, there is no reliable information on the development of such ammunition, although some developments in this area are available.

To achieve the required flight characteristics, the PAK DA bomber will need to get the appropriate engines. It is known that since 2011, research and design work has been carried out, the purpose of which is to create a promising turbojet engine. In addition, a few years ago, an unverified version of the possible use of the AL-41F1С engines (“Product 117С”) designed for the Su-35С fighter aircraft appeared.

With a payload of at least 25-30 tons, the takeoff weight of the PAK DA bomber must exceed 110-120 tons. Given the requirements for the replacement of existing aircraft, we can assume that the range of the promising bomber will reach 8-10 thousand kilometers. The maximum speed of the aircraft will not exceed 950-1000 km / h. With such characteristics, the aircraft PAK DA will be able to perform a number of combat missions characteristic of existing types of bombers.

In the early stages of the PAK DA program, plans were made for the mass production of new aircraft. It was alleged that by the end of the twenties, the air force would receive a new type of 100 bombers. Since that time, the implementation dates of the program have changed, which is why, apparently, serial vehicles will begin to enter the troops later. New or revised information on the required number of aircraft PAK DA was not announced.

The creation and adoption of the PAK DA aircraft will significantly increase the capabilities of Russian long-range aviation, as well as significantly upgrade its fleet of vehicles. Thus, the newest Tu-95MS bombers were built in 1992, and soon after the construction of the Tu-22М3 aircraft was completed. The delivery of the Tu-160 serial aircraft was completed in 2008 after the transfer of the Vitaly Kopylov b / n 08 aircraft. Thus, the existing long-range bombers gradually develop their resources and will need to be replaced over the next 15-20 years. They should be replaced by the new PAK DA aircraft, the serial construction of which is scheduled to begin in the mid-twenties.


On the materials of the sites:
http://interfax.ru/
http://ria.ru/
http://itar-tass.com/
http://vpk.name/
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-270.html
Author:
215 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Uralets
    Uralets 17 February 2014 08: 04
    +6
    The news is good, but plans may fail ...
    1. Romn
      Romn 17 February 2014 08: 26
      +21
      Work is underway, the plane is being created, it is already pleasing! I hope the project will be a masterpiece that has no analogues, our designers are able to do this! Here you can only wish good luck, we will wait ...
      1. servant
        servant 17 February 2014 08: 46
        +14
        Quote: Romn
        Work is underway, the plane is being created, it is already pleasing! I hope the project will be a masterpiece that has no analogues, our designers are able to do this! Here you can only wish good luck, we will wait ...

        Let's just say, they knew how to do .... One engine for all types, it is certainly good but apparently not from a good life ...
        It is hardly necessary to wait for something breakthrough, but I would like to ....
        1. URAL72
          URAL72 17 February 2014 18: 53
          +7
          "One engine for all types, it is certainly good, but apparently not from a good life ..."

          "Product 117C" has decent power, but with an afterburner, which is not needed for a subsonic bomber. I think the PD-14, currently being developed, will be "tried on" on it - that's the very thing. A load of 25-30 tons, today is no longer permissible - we need a lighter aircraft so as not to be tied to a limited number of airfields, because they are easy to destroy. At the same time, such a car will be cheaper both in price and in operation. A maximum of 12 missiles of 1,5 tons, or less but heavier ... You can also release an unmanned version in parallel, - especially for the Arctic and the Pacific Ocean, - let the birds soar ...
          1. Rus2012
            Rus2012 17 February 2014 19: 53
            +1
            In addition, several years ago, an as yet unconfirmed version appeared about the possible use of AL-41F1С engines (“Product 117С”) designed for the Su-35С fighter.


            Quote: URAL72
            "One engine for all types, it is certainly good, but apparently not from a good life ..."

            ... the author confused a little ... the requirements for LA engines, where the duration of flights for 10 hours of inter-landings and to maneuverable with a relatively short duration of flights (hour, two), are completely different ...
            laughing
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. LaGlobal
        LaGlobal 17 February 2014 09: 26
        +2
        Quote: Romn
        Work is underway, the plane is being created, it is already good!


        - And this is the main point! I think, in 5 years, we will be able to see in the eyes of our Western "partners" a new horror and fear of us !!!
        1. me
          me 17 February 2014 11: 37
          -11%
          The West must be scared by economic power and not military.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. LaGlobal
            LaGlobal 17 February 2014 13: 05
            +20
            Quote: i
            The West must be scared by economic power and not military.


            - and what prevents to frighten him and put in place two options / ways ??
            1. me
              me 17 February 2014 14: 48
              -9
              Probably the leaders of the country should be asked what is in the way. Yes, and scare amers military toys will not work, they have their own in bulk.
              1. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 17 February 2014 23: 59
                +4
                Quote: i
                Yes, and you won’t be able to scare amers with military toys,

                Oh how! So they shouldn't have put them in their pants when they demanded to urgently destroy our BZHRK, "Typhoons", to switch to monoblocks on "Voyevods". And now they are frantically looking for means of intercepting our ICBMs at the OUT, and blame the fact that the new boats cannot hear the combat patrols in the RBD in the scraps.
                So, reckoning himself under Taburetkin, will be obtained! EVEN HOW TO GET!
                Quote: i
                military toys ... they have their own in bulk.

                As long as we have our own toys of this class, the Americans will not climb into our sandbox for fear of receiving physiognomy. Therefore, let their EGOs comfort in the hope of a military advantage.
                But I noticed a long time ago: as soon as they start to play with toys very zealously, our unobtrusive information immediately follows about the new type of ICBMs, hypersonic, maneuvering ICBM ballistic shells, the development of which they are only thinking of starting ... They still do not know everything about ours weapons development based on new physical principles. Material objects (wunderwafers) are good, but wave processes are much more interesting! And when we tighten the electronic base of REO, then here we have something that they don’t have.
                Free advice: sit quietly under the flag of the united Geyropa and be afraid to anger the Russian bear, do not climb into his den with your crap. Yes, and we will soon "desensitize" fleas and parasites, and the liberal singing of mattress makers will diminish. IMHO.
            2. arane
              arane 17 February 2014 23: 50
              +5
              There can be no military power without economic power. Need to scare both
          3. vostok1982
            vostok1982 17 February 2014 14: 01
            +23
            To frighten the West with economic power? Not a good idea. If there is no military power, any economy for the West is just an object of colonization.
            1. FID
              FID 17 February 2014 14: 13
              +18
              Quote: vostok1982
              If there is no military power, any economy for the West is just an object of colonization.

              You are right, brother Slav, you don’t need to run for examples ....
              1. me
                me 17 February 2014 14: 49
                +1
                All these are countries without nuclear weapons.
                1. Associate Professor
                  Associate Professor 17 February 2014 15: 12
                  +13
                  Quote: i
                  All these are countries without nuclear weapons.

                  And nuclear weapons are not included in the military power of the country? And PAK DA is directly related to nuclear power
                  1. me
                    me 17 February 2014 17: 31
                    +1
                    I am not against the pack, although I doubt its effectiveness at the current level of air defense. I just think that a developed economy and foreign investment are a much more restraining factor than any bomber, because it makes military action against a country with which you have multi-billion dollar contracts simply meaningless and unprofitable. Germany, Japan, China are not the most powerful armies in comparison with the United States, but they will not fight with them because almost the entire world economy is tied to them.
                    1. Bezz
                      Bezz 17 February 2014 17: 59
                      +1
                      Quote: i
                      I just think that a developed economy and foreign investment are a much more restraining factor than any bomber, because it makes military action against a country with which you have multi-billion dollar contracts simply meaningless and unprofitable.

                      The current leadership of Russia - Putin and "Ozero" took a different path.
                      Academician D. Lvov: “According to our estimates,
                      during the years of reform about 500 billion dollars were exported ”[49]. Other experts rate
                      total export from 400 to 800 or more billion dollars. "According to experts of the Association
                      Russian banks, the amount of capital transferred abroad in the 90s was determined in the range
                      $ 800 billion - $ 1 trillion. " [http://www.reaestate.ru]. And these are dozens of budgets of our country.
                      According to the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (Fig. 1.529), capital outflows only from the private non-financial sector and
                      only in some recorded ways of withdrawal of money in 1992 - 2009 exceeded 370 billion dollars. This is significantly more than the sum of all federal budget revenues for 1993 - 2000,
                      and approximately equal to 15 federal revenue budgets in 1999.
                      "Capital export from Russia"

                      Section from the book "Russian Reforms in Figures and Facts", http://refru.ru
                      So, allies, there is no need to be afraid of war. Now. And here is how the whole corruption gang will dump abroad, then, as they say in our country - "take advantage of the bulb!"
                    2. Shur
                      Shur 17 February 2014 21: 09
                      +4
                      You called Germany and Japan essentially occupied by the Americans .. But this is not a fact in China .. here you have a real reduction in the world's population and the elimination of a competitor.
                    3. Boa kaa
                      Boa kaa 18 February 2014 00: 15
                      +2
                      Quote: i
                      Germany, Japan, China are not the most powerful armies compared to the United States, but they will not fight with them because

                      ... they do not pose a real threat to the Mattresses. The first commandment of the Anglo-Saxons is to destroy the second world economy, because it can become the first, and then you will lose power.
                      The PRC will now be the object of all sorts of attacks and subversive actions of the "champions of democracy." 60% of the US Navy ships have already been deployed to the Pacific Ocean. Most likely, they will plant some kind of provocation. By the way, they are great masters of this. (The Tonkin incident, for example).
                    4. Associate Professor
                      Associate Professor 18 February 2014 00: 17
                      +1
                      Quote: i
                      I am not against the pack, although I doubt its effectiveness at the current level of air defense.

                      Of course, the capabilities of both modern air defense and, naturally, promising, are taken into account when developing PAK DA. The main advantage is the ability to carry such weapons on board, the range of which will allow them to strike without entering the enemy’s air defense zone
                      Quote: i
                      I just think that a developed economy and foreign investment are a much more restraining factor than any bomber, because it makes military operations against a country with which you have multi-billion dollar contracts simply meaningless and unprofitable. Germany, Japan, China are not the most powerful armies compared to the United States but they will not fight with them because almost the entire world economy is tied to them.

                      China, in spite of its powerful economy, has one of the strongest and largest army in the world. They are second in military spending. As for Japan and Germany, these countries are still occupied by the Americans. The Japanese pay tribute to the Americans, despite the powerful economy. In general, the Americans allowed the development of Japan and Germany after WWII to counterbalance the USSR. So without a powerful army there can be no powerful economy. Therefore PAK YES
                  2. Nick
                    Nick 17 February 2014 23: 52
                    +1
                    Quote: Docent
                    And PAK DA is directly related to nuclear power

                    Exactly! Like her carrier.
                    1. me
                      me 18 February 2014 16: 31
                      -1
                      A missile from a mine will do its job worse. While this pack is flying, there will simply be nothing to bomb, and there will be nowhere to return to it, by the way.
                      1. Nick
                        Nick 18 February 2014 21: 21
                        0
                        Quote: i
                        A missile from a mine will do its job worse. Until this pack arrives to bomb, there will simply be nothing

                        The location of the BSP of mine ICBMs is known to within a meter. But most importantly, IMHO, ICBMs do not project force. They either "peacefully" stand on the database, or, at hour X, go to destroy targets. Loitering close to the borders of the opposing states, PAK DA reminds how the ill-considered behavior of the rival state can end and cool the hot heads of some politicians.
                2. 11111mail.ru
                  11111mail.ru 17 February 2014 18: 16
                  +2
                  Quote: i
                  All these are countries without nuclear weapons.

                  Drop the bomb to the adversary with your white pen? And will you bomb with precision-guided munitions from Airbasses or Boeings, are you our economically powerful?
                  1. me
                    me 17 February 2014 19: 25
                    0
                    Oh, a militant orc showed up. Who is going to bomb?
          4. AVV
            AVV 17 February 2014 15: 24
            +2
            Quote: i
            The West must be scared by economic power and not military.

            One does not interfere with the other, but there must be a replacement, YES is the guarantor of the security of the Russian State !!!
          5. kenig1
            kenig1 17 February 2014 15: 26
            +8
            It's time to remember the axiom: without military power there is no independent economy.
          6. 0255
            0255 17 February 2014 17: 41
            +3
            economic power without military power will not scare the United States, but will push it to a decision to attack!
            Do you want to be bombed and populated with Tomahawks? How about Serbs, Iraqis and Libyans?
            1. me
              me 17 February 2014 19: 37
              -1
              But how can a pack prevent these plans? We would like to attack, we would have attacked a long time ago, but did not wait when we get up from our knees and take a different pose.
              1. arane
                arane 17 February 2014 23: 56
                +2
                You yourself wrote about nuclear weapons! PAK YES element of strategic nuclear forces
              2. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 18 February 2014 00: 24
                +2
                Quote: i
                We would like to attack, we would have attacked a long time ago, but did not wait when we get up from our knees and take a different pose.

                This is what Z. Brzezinski told the US President: "It was necessary earlier, but now it is too late!" This is when he came for advice on the "democratic procedure" over the Russian Federation.
                So the stripes had plans of attack and dismemberment of our country. We thought that we ourselves would fall apart further, therefore the moment was about.
              3. Kir
                Kir 18 February 2014 19: 32
                0
                We had one such a gang who howled with a gang called up, ask the Aviators and Gunners, and for one and the Fleet as he did with his whim.
          7. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 17 February 2014 23: 24
            +4
            Quote: i
            The West must be scared by economic power and not military

            And the military too! As soon as North Korea, angry and hungry, received atomic weapons, the YuSers screamed about the threat to their national interests and their allies in the APR. But they are not particularly afraid of the PRC, although they are taking measures to curb its "expansion" in the APR. So much depends on the foreign policy course of the country's leadership.
            But in reality they are afraid only of us - the only country capable of destroying them in a nuclear war. And while we have something to answer to their Moscow State University and BSU, the Yankes will be afraid and respect us. Tk they are accustomed to respect only strength. It means that we cannot be weak - they will devour at the moment under the slogan of promoting "crap."
            1. arane
              arane 18 February 2014 00: 00
              +2
              Right There’s nothing to add. One American general said that the worst thing the Russians can do is blow up their nuclear weapons on their territory.


              In this situation, we are fast, and the whole world is long and in agony .....
          8. Su24
            Su24 17 February 2014 23: 38
            +2
            Quote: i
            The West must be scared by economic power and not military.


            Is the West a frightening economy? Yes, the West has been building an advanced economy for 500 years, exchange and technology centers are still located there, or in territories controlled by the West. The economic competition with the West is obviously losing, because This is a game according to their rules, in their field.
            That frighten the West with military power is a thing quite feasible, and has already happened.
          9. Nick
            Nick 17 February 2014 23: 50
            0
            Quote: i
            The West must be scared by economic power and not military.

            No need to scare anyone. You just have to have this power! Both military and economic. For this they will respect.
      4. VAF
        VAF 17 February 2014 10: 17
        +17
        Quote: Romn
        , the plane is being created, it is already pleasing!


        While only being designed at the stage of outline design and modeling!
        A priori a project cannot be a masterpiece.
        1. With the expected weights (takeoff and armament), it will need at least 4 engines (with all the ensuing volumes), and it would be desirable for such a "design" to have two.
        2. Kuznetsov engines will be gone .. they will probably try to make either Saturn or Salute.
        3. An increase in the number of engines significantly drags on weight and a decrease in "free volumes", therefore, their significant increase is possible, and this does not correspond to the expected performance characteristics.
        So, "with questions" on TTT will have to ... wait recourse
        1. SHILO
          SHILO 17 February 2014 11: 24
          +6
          Quote: vaf
          So, "with questions" on TTT will have to ... wait


          I am far from this topic. However, one question is tormented: "Why subsonic?"
          Specialists - please answer!
          1. edeligor
            edeligor 17 February 2014 15: 56
            +10
            Quote: SHILO
            Specialists - please answer!

            I personally do not understand this. Most likely, the hope for super-long-range weapons, and hints of hypersonic ammunition slipped into the article. But all this is very controversial.
          2. 11111mail.ru
            11111mail.ru 17 February 2014 18: 27
            +3
            Quote: SHILO
            Specialists - please answer!

            The dependence of air resistance on speed is sharply nonlinear. Resistance builds up faster than the increase in speed. Therefore, the subsonic speed is optimal.
          3. Luke
            Luke 18 February 2014 08: 02
            +1
            Six months ago, there was a mission under Rogozin. We chose the PAK DA project. It was there that they came to the conclusion that a supersonic bomber is expensive and not effective. At supersonic rockets fly. But to bomb some banana republic, of which there are another 8/10 on earth, the most subsonic one. Cheap and harsh)
        2. Rus2012
          Rus2012 17 February 2014 20: 01
          0
          Quote: vaf
          either Saturn or Salute.

          ... if I remember vividly: they have no experience in creating engines for long-range (long-haul) aircraft.
          Only serial production - D-30-KU / KP, Perm development ...
          So harness them and nuno harness ...

          Saturn is happy in the holding under UMPO, as they said ...
      5. Bronis
        Bronis 17 February 2014 10: 28
        +5
        Quote: Romn
        ! I hope the project will be a masterpiece that has no analogues, our designers are able to do this!

        To some extent, it will itself be the "analogue" of the B-2 (subsonic and unobtrusive). There is nothing to be ashamed of: what kind of aircraft is needed - this is what they do.
        "Intrigue" will be in range, combat load and weapons complex (traditionally our "strategists" are more (mostly) pure missile carriers, and the Americans are exactly bombers)
        1. edeligor
          edeligor 17 February 2014 16: 16
          +3
          Quote: Bronis
          To some extent, it will itself be the "analogue" of the B-2 (subsonic and unobtrusive). There is nothing to be ashamed of: what kind of aircraft is needed - this is what they do.

          Well no! B-2 at take-off weight 181440 kg. carries only 17500 kg. And ours stated with a mass of 110-120000 kg should lift 25-30000kg! Masterpiece, this is clearly a hope for engines not from SU-35 ...
          1. Bronis
            Bronis 17 February 2014 20: 14
            0
            Quote: edeligor
            Well no! B-2 at take-off weight 181440 kg. carries only 17500 kg. And ours stated with a mass of 110-120000 kg should lift 25-30000kg! Masterpiece, this is clearly a hope for engines not from SU-35 ...

            An analogue in the concept (subsonic and subtle). Well, the larger requirements for the combat load determine the larger dimensions than the B-2.
            But with the engines, everything is interesting. They should, in theory, be 4 pcs. (on such a colossus) that interferes with stealth + dimensions per se. Engineers will have to solve the difficult task of finding a balance of stealth, energy, and combat load. The latter is likely to dominate. Otherwise there would be a smaller car (just closer to the B-2)
          2. patsantre
            patsantre 17 February 2014 21: 47
            0
            B-2 actually takes 28 tons.
      6. Interface
        Interface 17 February 2014 12: 49
        +2
        Honestly, I don’t understand why we need a subsonic plane when the Americans are developing hypersonic. You need to respond symmetrically, and not create an analogue of B-2,
        1. Associate Professor
          Associate Professor 17 February 2014 12: 56
          +5
          Quote: Interface
          Honestly, I don’t understand why we need a subsonic plane when the Americans are developing hypersonic. You need to respond symmetrically, and not create an analogue of B-2,

          We need to do what we need, and not to repeat after the Americans. No one says that it will be an analogue of B-2.
        2. Bronis
          Bronis 17 February 2014 13: 50
          +6
          Quote: Interface
          Honestly, I don’t understand why we need a subsonic plane when the Americans are developing hypersonic. You need to respond symmetrically, and not create an analogue of B-2,

          So far, Americans are not developing a hypersonic bomber. The project currently being implemented is LRS-B precisely in the ideology of B-2. Subtle subsonic and (preferably) cheaper. And the implementation deadlines are similar to PAK YES. But closer to the 30 years, it is planned to begin developing hypersonic aircraft, adopting it by the end of 30's - the beginning of 40's. So far these are very distant and vague plans.
          1. Rus2012
            Rus2012 17 February 2014 20: 12
            0
            Quote: Bronis
            PAK YES

            PAK YES will probably be a platform or a weapon carrier ... Drove to the desired launch point - unhooked and home. But there are many and, depending on the tasks, different weapons: a carrier of long-range missile defense systems of the Kh-101/102 type, an air patrol with a "long-range air defense / missile defense arm", a long-range patrolling anti-aircraft, anti-satellite and even an ICBM carrier ...
        3. MBA78
          MBA78 17 February 2014 16: 48
          +1
          hypersonic is in order to flee with lightning speed from an air battle ...
          subsonic means he has nothing to fear ... especially in the arsenal of a rocket, air is air ... and probably something else interesting
        4. Setrac
          Setrac 17 February 2014 20: 03
          +1
          Quote: Interface
          We must respond symmetrically, and not create an analogue of B-2,

          The hypersonic bomber has a symmetrical response - hypersonic missiles for the interceptor.
        5. Luke
          Luke 18 February 2014 08: 07
          +1
          What is a hyperplane? Who will manage it? How to fly with such overloads? What is the hypersound range?
        6. artem10103
          artem10103 22 February 2014 17: 39
          0
          An airplane is just a delivery method, it will be missiles flying, but how long it can deliver these missiles or bombs is a different question, and it may be the subsonic option that is most advantageous in terms of delivery distance and the amount of cargo loaded.
    2. scientist
      scientist 17 February 2014 08: 58
      +1
      Quote: Uralets
      but plans can fail

      Most likely, on the contrary, the terms of adoption for service will be significantly reduced.
      1. VAF
        VAF 17 February 2014 10: 19
        +13
        Quote: scientist
        terms for adoption will be significantly reduced.


        This is with what "urya-slogans" you made such an "optimistic" forecast wassat
        1. cherkas.oe
          cherkas.oe 17 February 2014 13: 30
          +7
          Quote: vaf
          This is from what it is "

          And according to the "pike's command" and his will, take out and put PAK YES in five years and not a year later. fellow request recourse
          1. Rus2012
            Rus2012 17 February 2014 20: 14
            +1
            Quote: cherkas.oe
            And according to the "pike's command" and his will, take out and put PAK YES in five years and not a year later.

            ... :))))
            world statistics - an aircraft from "zero" to a wing is created in at least 8 years. And move to it - 10 years ...
      2. Bronis
        Bronis 17 February 2014 10: 22
        +3
        Quote: scientist
        Most likely, on the contrary, the terms of adoption for service will be significantly reduced.

        Probably still not - the general trend in the creation of aviation technology is proof of this. Especially - such a large and complex aircraft. In addition, it should be considered only in conjunction with a complex of weapons. And it also needs to be created. moreover, in parallel (also rather big terms)
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 17 February 2014 19: 47
          0
          In truth, I don’t understand why the modern bomber needs a crew:
          a non-crewed aircraft went automatically into the missile launch area, shot back and went home. If you weren’t allowed to leave, then of course, it’s a pity the plane, but the pilots (operators?) Who didn’t leave their base remained alive and were ready to work again.

          This is me about the bombers. I’m not talking about fighters, because I can’t imagine them without pilots.
        2. Rus2012
          Rus2012 17 February 2014 20: 21
          0
          Quote: Bronis
          it should be considered only in conjunction with a complex of weapons

          armament complex - it can be simpler here, at first it’s possible to adapt the existing ones - X-101 / 102, anti-radar, anti-ship missiles, anti-ship missiles, etc.
          And with the development of other solutions - scramjet modules, anti-satellite ...
          The life span of the complex will be in half a hundred (Tu-95 already go for 60 :)
  2. Internal combustion engine
    Internal combustion engine 17 February 2014 08: 16
    +1
    Air intakes from above are an interesting solution.
  3. NOMADE
    NOMADE 17 February 2014 08: 24
    +2
    We have already discussed this photo. This is a mockup for blowdowns, for choosing the optimal line-up, if you look closely, there are engines (cut out, "fotoshopili") under the wing. Then, there was a heated debate about that. that the placement of engines under the wing (by analogy with civil aviation) negates - stealth.
    And so, the news is good, the main thing is that nothing would be delayed. It is also strange that they are considering the use of an engine with SU-35 ..
    1. Corsair
      Corsair 17 February 2014 14: 37
      +3
      Quote: NOMADE
      It’s also strange that they are considering using an engine with SU-35 ..


      Quote: from article
      In addition, several years ago, an as yet unconfirmed version appeared about the possible use of AL-41F1С engines (“Product 117С”) designed for the Su-35С fighter.


      Will PAK YES really "push back" aerobatics inherent in aircraft with engines with thrust vector control ???
      And aren't these engines "weak" for such a payload?

      PS:Do not judge strictly, these are notes of the AMATEUR ...
      1. FID
        FID 17 February 2014 14: 57
        +6
        You are right, weak, We need one and a half times more powerful ... And UVT, you can not put it.
      2. Rus2012
        Rus2012 17 February 2014 20: 25
        0
        Quote: Corsair
        PS: Do not judge strictly, these are notes of the AMATEUR ...

        already wrote ... the author is mistaken.
        For PAK-DA, other engines are required with other requirements according to TZ-TU
  4. Wiruz
    Wiruz 17 February 2014 08: 45
    0
    the range of a promising bomber will reach 8-10 thousand kilometers

    It’s not enough, how many there are to fly to the states. And the maximum speed could be made supersonic.
    1. FID
      FID 17 February 2014 09: 00
      +15
      What about refueling? The range is quite decent for such a load, and supersonic ... for what? The missile launch range allows you not to enter the air defense zone, fighter aircraft are far from climbing ... Only 15-20 more years to wait for the results, I think. True, under Poghosyan the chair sways more and more. If they remove him (ideally, they will put him in prison) and deal with the KLA (there are prerequisites for this - read the articles in MK and AEX), then perhaps everything will work out ... I would really like it very much!
      1. cherkas.oe
        cherkas.oe 17 February 2014 13: 52
        +2
        Quote: SSI
        True, under Poghosyan the chair sways more and more. If they remove him (ideally, they will put him in prison) and deal with the KLA (there are prerequisites for this - read the articles in MK and AEX), then perhaps everything will work out ... I would really like it very much!

        Your assumptions, yes to God, in the ears, otherwise the main occupation of this huckster becomes "cutting" state budget money, and not the restoration of the Russian aircraft industry.
      2. TSOOBER
        TSOOBER 17 February 2014 20: 31
        +1
        Thank you for the good news. good and if they put it in general drinks there is a question on MS-21 the news about 150 pieces has slipped through (THERE IS SOLID CONTRACTS) - how much truth is there and in general, you as a specialist, when to expect a REAL plane (do you participate in this program), or as with Super, our glider all the filling is imported! Cherkanite when there is time! Best regards! hi
        1. FID
          FID 17 February 2014 20: 45
          +2
          Prefabricated hodgepodge filling. Firm contracts are protocols of intent. The plane is still on paper, although Irkut is establishing production. A year or two later it will be seen ...
      3. dmitrij.blyuz
        dmitrij.blyuz 17 February 2014 22: 39
        +1
        And Manturov in a bundle, so that he wouldn’t go to Canada and push through it unclear what was going to Russian airfields.
      4. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 18 February 2014 00: 41
        +1
        Quote: SSI
        fighter aircraft are far from climbing ...

        This is a coast-based IA. But the carrier-based IA will meet on the route, as is done now, in peacetime when our DA Carcasses pass. Give a photo or believe it?
    2. bya965
      bya965 17 February 2014 09: 04
      +2
      It’s not enough, how many there are to fly to the states. And the maximum speed could be made supersonic.

      Everything changes in life. The bomber should be inconspicuous and hang in the air for a long time, and at the right time to launch missiles. The atomic triad in one word and do not put eggs in one basket. Air defense breakthrough (supersonic at high altitude or extremely low altitude) for an expensive aircraft with bombing, even those who plan now are stupid. Is it to suppress cheap bombs when suppressed air defense. Well, one should not forget that for his control (counteraction) fighters should be near and that means that the potential enemy will have heavy wear and tear on military equipment.

      I think it will succeed. It hurts PAK FA went out successful and beautiful to tears.
      1. FID
        FID 17 February 2014 09: 07
        +5
        Quote: bya965
        It hurts PAK FA went out successful and beautiful to tears.

        It is not necessary, until the appearance of the aircraft (first flight) to praise it. Maybe his appearance will be different ...
        1. bya965
          bya965 17 February 2014 13: 17
          +1
          It is not necessary, until the appearance of the aircraft (first flight) to praise it. Maybe his appearance will be different ...

          You PAK FA (I'm talking about him) with PAK YES mixed up
          1. FID
            FID 17 February 2014 14: 16
            +3
            Quote: bya965
            You PAK FA (I'm talking about him) with PAK YES mixed up

            Exactly, I thought about the big one ... Yes, and superstitious ... Just an omen with us, before the first flight, do not praise.
      2. VAF
        VAF 17 February 2014 10: 32
        +8
        Quote: bya965
        Air defense breakthrough (supersonic at high altitude or extremely low altitude) for an expensive aircraft with bombing, even those who plan now are stupid.


        The only way to overcome the counteraction of air defense and RTV forces and means is to fly to the PMV, all the rest are targets, and even more so with our state of support forces crying

        Quote: bya965
        Is it to suppress cheap bombs when suppressed air defense.


        This is only in children's shooting toys, well, or in the war with the "Papuans" wassat

        Quote: bya965
        Well, one should not forget that for his control (counteraction) fighters should be near and that means that the potential enemy will have heavy wear and tear on military equipment.


        Control bringing him belay and countering him to whom belay

        In order for the fighters to be near, you need to "carry" them with you lol

        After all, the topic is discussed about the aircraft YES, and not IBA and FBA soldier
        1. Fregate
          Fregate 17 February 2014 11: 59
          +5
          Quote: vaf
          In order for the fighters to be near, you need to "carry" them with you

          Well, how in due time, if I am not mistaken, on the TB-3 two I-16s were suspended under the wings. So there are two MiG-35s, they will be smaller wassat
          1. VAF
            VAF 17 February 2014 12: 31
            +4
            Quote: Fregate
            , if I am not mistaken, on the TB-3 two I-16s were suspended under the wings.


            That's right, +! You are not mistaken drinks "Aviamatka" Vakhmistrov. only fighters were 5 wink

            1. Fregate
              Fregate 17 February 2014 12: 36
              +2
              Quote: vaf
              there were only 5 fighters

              Even so smile! I only saw two, but five is not bad at all drinks Top I-153
              1. VAF
                VAF 17 February 2014 12: 55
                +3
                Quote: Fregate
                I only saw two, but five is not bad at all drinks. From above I-153


                There were several options with both 2 and 4 and 5ty.
                Not 153. and simple I-15, and the fifth was I-Z, it took off separately and already in the air from below .. "moored"
                But the basis was the option with two i-16s. Who also took along the 2nd FAB-250, i.e. performed the functions and IBA, and then, after resetting, just IA! wink

                1. Alex
                  Alex 17 February 2014 14: 43
                  +4
                  Let me correct, not I-15, but I-5. By the way, this is visible in the photo.
                  1. VAF
                    VAF 17 February 2014 15: 41
                    +2
                    Quote: Alex
                    Let me correct, not I-15, but I-5


                    Of course I-5 !!! +! drinks
                2. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 17 February 2014 15: 44
                  +5
                  Hi Seryozha, the airplane was sometimes called "Vakhmistrov's circus."
                  1. Alex 241
                    Alex 241 17 February 2014 15: 48
                    +4
                    "Vakhmistrov's Circus" .......................
                  2. VAF
                    VAF 17 February 2014 15: 51
                    +2
                    Quote: Alex 241
                    Hi Seryozha, the airplane was sometimes called "Vakhmistrov's circus."


                    Hello Sasha drinks All right good
                    1. Alex 241
                      Alex 241 17 February 2014 15: 58
                      +3
                      Mercury-S.20 Maia Postal Link Aircraft. United Kingdom
                  3. dmitrij.blyuz
                    dmitrij.blyuz 17 February 2014 22: 43
                    +1
                    Alex, this airplane proved to be effective in 41st when destroying a bridge. Not a bad idea at that time! They took off from under the wing, on approach, knocked down the span of the bridge, and on their own to the base! "Vakhmistrov's Circus and Link" - there is.
          2. bya965
            bya965 17 February 2014 13: 25
            0
            Well, how in due time, if I am not mistaken, on the TB-3 two I-16s were suspended under the wings. So here are two MiG-35s, they will be smaller wassat

            Now there are missiles for this, some for enemy territory, others against airplanes. There was even a Tu-160 project purely with air-to-air missiles for the defense of strategists.
            1. Rus2012
              Rus2012 17 February 2014 20: 36
              0
              Quote: bya965
              There was even a Tu-160 project purely with air-to-air missiles for the defense of strategists.

              and before that - MiG-15 coupled with the Tu-4, Tu-16 and Tu-95 ...




              everything would be fine, but the MiG pilots were freezing, because the engine and comfort systems did not fry ...
              1. Alex 241
                Alex 241 17 February 2014 20: 48
                +2
                Quote: Rus2012
                comfort systems

                LSS-life support systems. There were other developments. At one time they wanted to equip air-to-air missiles of the reverse launch, later they abandoned this idea, although there was an air-to-air bomber. The Tu-4 D-500 super-heavy interceptor, G-310 complex. 1953

                The rapid development of guided air-to-air missiles in the late forties and early fifties was determined, first of all, by the threat of a breakthrough of nuclear weapons carriers to the vital facilities of the USSR. One atomic bomb was enough for almost any target and the bombers could operate alone, which was more in line with the possibilities of using guided air-to-air weapons for the timely destruction of carriers before they used nuclear weapons.
        2. bya965
          bya965 17 February 2014 13: 22
          0
          Of course I am tongue-tied, but everything seems to be written in Russian.
          1. No air defense breakthrough needed
          2. If the air defense is suppressed, then you can just stupidly bomb.
          3. Potential adversary. Either you don’t see the news how NATO once again or Japan raised their fighters to accompany our strategists. PAK YES this is the strategist and they have a completely different resource (engine, glider, maintenance, etc.) compared to fighter jets.
          1. VAF
            VAF 17 February 2014 15: 48
            +1
            Quote: bya965
            Of course I am tongue-tied, but everything seems to be written in Russian.
            1. No air defense breakthrough needed


            In Russian, then in Russian. But here is the topic of aviation, and even more so, it has no tactics of combat use .. well, it’s not even related, you’ll excuse me hi

            1. it's like in the film Kin-Dza-Dza- "... Don't ... you don't need a violinist."
            2. And do not "zae..este" swallow the dust? wassat Well, in the sense of air defense to suppress? wassat
            - on which theater?
            - by what forces and means?
            3. Throughout his conscious life, when he was still flying, he accompanied himself and was accompanied. This is a world practice, all the more so everywhere and everyone is sent fly plans with an accurate description of the route, profile, time. Types of aircraft and call signs. 9 surnames of crew members and FAC. Of course they did not report, but .. they already knew perfectly well wink ).

            Quote: bya965
            PAK YES this is the strategist and they have a completely different resource (engine, glider, maintenance, etc.) compared to fighter jets.


            And here is your pearl for what or to whom belay request
            1. Luke
              Luke 18 February 2014 08: 25
              -1
              So the air defense systems in the world the cat cried. If you discard the s and their plans for a missile defense system in Europe, it turns out that only s have a normal missile defense system. In addition, I very much doubt the air defense systems. They only saw it for about 15 years, officially since 2002, since withdrawing from the ABM Treaty. So far, we have the best amount of anti-aircraft defense, because we, after signing the ABM agreement, built our own anti-aircraft defense area (Moscow), but those who decided to cover the ICBM base crap. And they returned to this topic in the 90s, when ours went forward. So only we possess effective air defense on earth.

              PS The site does not miss the word p.i.nd.so.s. So to the endings (which seem to be off topic) add this word and everything will fall into place!
        3. Rus2012
          Rus2012 17 February 2014 20: 29
          +1
          Quote: vaf
          The only way to overcome the counteraction of forces and means of air defense and RTV

          ... or entrust it to "smart weapons" while staying outside the air defense zone of your own.
          Or already act after the suppression of opposition ... laughing
        4. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 18 February 2014 00: 53
          +2
          Quote: vaf
          In order for the fighters to be near, you need to "carry" them with you

          Good evening, Sergey! I propose to instruct a new aircraft carrier with an atomic engine, an electric catapult, a set of aircraft of the T-50K type (or something like that) to "carry the IA". In another way, PAK YES will be extremely difficult to break through: no bases, no airfields with aircrafts, no air defense systems for clearing a route over the ocean in the near future, as far as I know, are not expected
          So the idea of ​​AVU is in the air again. IMHO.
    3. VAF
      VAF 17 February 2014 10: 25
      +7
      Quote: Wiruz
      It’s not enough, how many there are to fly to the states.


      The declared range is above the roof !!! Otherwise you are like "true fellow ".... the weight of what would be 120 tons, the armament of 25 tons, but what would fly around the globe. and even with supersonic sound wassat
      A ROCKET should fly to something, not a carrier, but since you say it .. with "bare booty. Yes to a hedgehog" wassat

      Quote: Wiruz
      And the maximum speed could be made supersonic.


      Well, yes, and on the back of the "shlongochka" attach the Il-78M (though that's bad luck ... the tanker doesn't fly on suvehzvuk), well then on the external sling TZ-22, or better TZ-40 wassat
      1. TSOOBER
        TSOOBER 17 February 2014 20: 36
        +1
        Well, yes, and on the back of the "hose" attach the IL-78M - presented recourse neighing lol
  5. Yaroslav
    Yaroslav 17 February 2014 08: 53
    +1
    Such news is good. We are waiting for the result.
  6. Ivan Petrovich
    Ivan Petrovich 17 February 2014 08: 55
    +4
    Well, if subsonic and with a large carrying capacity .. let's Ruslan load lionfish and drive into the Stone Age. And then fight with amers on horseradish finally bombers needed?
    1. FID
      FID 17 February 2014 09: 04
      +3
      Hypersound, laser weapons, railgun guns - what else in computer games, oh, yes, even shock drones ... In about a hundred years, maybe computers will even replace people ...
      1. MBA78
        MBA78 17 February 2014 17: 17
        0
        no, not 100, but 30-40 years old ... 3-4 such PAKs imperceptibly and quietly deliver the entire arsenal of smart weapons (folding drones-missiles & scanners (from the beginning these drones quickly scatter balls (each ball has its purpose) to the combat zone) the barazhas inflict a final blow on the enemy) which, with lightning speed, within 5-10 minutes eliminates the enemy’s fighting position
  7. mountain
    mountain 17 February 2014 09: 01
    0
    It seems that by chance they gave a secret and they will test the prototype precisely with the SU-35 engines, which means there is something to experience. The news can not but rejoice.
  8. piokor03
    piokor03 17 February 2014 09: 03
    +2
    Super!!! Waited !!! This is the impetus of the country's economy and science. Similar projects should become the basis of state. order.
  9. rugor
    rugor 17 February 2014 09: 04
    +3
    the PAK DA aircraft will replace the Tu-95MS, Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 bombers currently in operation


    Why shift. You can supplement the existing park. TU-160 is still flying.
    1. FID
      FID 17 February 2014 09: 11
      +7
      Quote: rugor
      TU-160 is still flying.

      I would VERY hope this, but there are a number of reasons ... One of them is the motors ...
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman 17 February 2014 14: 09
        0
        and what is the situation with the NK-32 today: is there production or was it sawed for a long time?
        components from hoards (reserve) or from "donors"?
        hi
        1. Fregate
          Fregate 17 February 2014 14: 27
          +1
          Quote: silver_roman
          Does production exist or have been sawn for a long time?

          Second crying It seems they are going to revive, but what and when and whether it will turn out only to God knows.
      2. typhoon7
        typhoon7 17 February 2014 16: 38
        +1
        Hello, hello. My question is just on this topic. When Prime Minister Sergei Stepashin was in office (if I'm not mistaken), Russia bought one Tu-160 and upgraded one, and this, according to him, should become the norm. It turns out that after him these enterprises were lost? I hope that everything will be fine with the PAK DA project, although the engine is sometimes more difficult to create than the machine itself, but Russia is the homeland of the Kulibins. Everything is fixable.
        1. FID
          FID 17 February 2014 19: 39
          +3
          Quote: typhoon7
          Russia bought one Tu-160 and upgraded one, and this, according to him, should become the norm.

          At KAPO, at one time a workshop was created for welding the center section of the Tu-160 - in what condition it is now - who knows (most likely in none). Stepashin talked about barrels (empty airplane hulls) riveted back in the USSR, we did exactly 3 sets of control systems, more - all ....
          1. typhoon7
            typhoon7 17 February 2014 19: 43
            +1
            Thanks for the info Sergey.
      3. typhoon7
        typhoon7 17 February 2014 17: 00
        +2
        Welcome all! Good news. I hope in my lifetime to see these cars. If the PAK DA aircraft will be subsonic, then comparing it with the Tu-160 is not entirely correct, and the engines for such a machine need new, non-exhaustive and economical ones.
  10. scientist
    scientist 17 February 2014 09: 04
    +2
    It would be nice if together with the 5th generation glider, the corresponding electronic and rocket filling would be developed. That would not be one enemy fighter did not even think of flying up to the patrol area PAK YES.
    1. FID
      FID 17 February 2014 09: 08
      +5
      Do not worry about the corresponding electronics ... By the way, what is a 5th generation glider?
      1. VAF
        VAF 17 February 2014 10: 37
        +5
        Quote: SSI
        By the way, what is a 5th generation glider?


        Hi Seryozha! drinks The same .. I just wanted to ask .. what kind of animal is this .. "glider of the 5th generation" belay
        It can be seen that the comrade is watching the Final issues of Kisilev on RTR ... yes .. yesterday I looked .. Schots Beni Hill .. rests wassat lol
        1. FID
          FID 17 February 2014 10: 55
          +3
          Great flyer! How is your health? Well, people are interested .... By the way, read AEX, a very interesting article came out - the prosecutor general’s office decriminalizes the KLA - somehow it’s called that. True, when I returned from Kazan, I wrote to you about MAP, it seems to have begun, if only it had ended with landings .... I really hope so! AEX is an aviation site.
          1. VAF
            VAF 17 February 2014 11: 23
            +7
            Quote: SSI
            How is your health? Well, people are interested


            Yes ... your prayers drinks pah-pah .. so as not to jinx it. This news has already been "rubbed" in the morning .. almost everything, including me, are sure. which will end with one "talking shop" (we are not 37th year, are we? wassat ).
            You understand yourself. that while Po has such a ROOF belay everything will remain as before crying
            I read Aviation EXplorer, or rather try to "run", regularly wink there are worthy "themes". that's just their position on super-Bobik .. I don't understand request

            Yeah, you are in the know. That on Super-Bobby, when taking off, the hood of the left engine tore off recourse ?
            1. FID
              FID 17 February 2014 11: 41
              +5
              Yes of course. But they will dump everything on the technician on the platform. There are a lot of ardent admirers of the super, as well as here ... I am not against the plane as such, but screaming that this is a breakthrough (a very mediocre plane) ... If you still took it, and did not suck it in. True, there was so much money swelled into it that it would just not be possible to close this project! It will be necessary to explain where the people's money is tampered with. By the way, you noticed that in this article one more Pogo showed up, with the initials of D.A. Apparently - UAC is a family business (the son is the financial director in the SCA)!
              1. VAF
                VAF 17 February 2014 11: 48
                +3
                Quote: SSI
                . By the way, you noticed that in this article one more Pogo showed up, with the initials of D.A. Apparently - UAC is a family business (the son is the financial director in the SCA)!


                Seryozha, so the son was appointed almost half a year ago wink WHOO, "normal" family business of the Po couple wassat
                And about "breakthrough", so how can you not shout to them, because:
                1. It is necessary to report for the grandmother.
                2. it is necessary to "report" to Bobik (chief designer wink ), because the "PR" of Super-Bobik is PR, first of all, of Boeing itself .. well, and then according to the scheme .. I can't tell you bully
                1. user1212
                  user1212 17 February 2014 13: 44
                  0
                  Tupolevites?
                  1. FID
                    FID 17 February 2014 14: 17
                    +2
                    Quote: user1212
                    Tupolevites?

                    Who?
                    1. user1212
                      user1212 17 February 2014 14: 24
                      0
                      Quote: SSI
                      Who?

                      You, of course
                      1. FID
                        FID 17 February 2014 14: 31
                        +6
                        No, I am a specialist in control systems (popularly called autopilots) of aircraft. Field of activity: IL-86 / 96-300 / -400; An-148/158; Tu - a lot of both military and civilian; Yak-130; there are several autopilots for missiles (land, air and sea based) and exotic (newly developed "autopilots"). Something like this. And Waf is a test pilot. So choose for yourself ...
                      2. user1212
                        user1212 17 February 2014 14: 45
                        0
                        What makes you so happy about the failures of superjets?
                      3. FID
                        FID 17 February 2014 15: 22
                        +11
                        Who told you such nonsense? I am not happy with the very approach to aircraft construction, which is preached by Mikhail Aslanovich. "Integration centers", "restoration of competencies", transfer of the UAC document flow into electronic form - does this remind you of the "Golden Calf"? I am not against the aircraft, although, again, I repeat that a fighter company should not design civil aircraft, the design principles are not the same, the tasks are not. Here is a simple example: operational overload of fighters + 9 / -3, bombers + 3 / -1,5, "citizens + 1,4 / -0,7. Super, when it was designed, did not pass strength tests on the wing. I know the company in Taganrog, which redesigned the wing, strengthened it. Hence, the aircraft is overweight by 3 tons. And this is almost 10% of the weight of the aircraft itself. In the old days, the project would not go further. MAP pushed through. From here went nonsense about the versions of full, light ... The plane did not reach the declared characteristics. ”Then“ childhood illnesses ”followed ... But capitalists have to pay for imported equipment right away, and cars to start-up customers should be sold at a discount ... If earlier MAP said that the project would pay off after selling 300 cars, now we are talking about 800. It turns out that each plane, after the sale, brings the SCAC losses ... So it turns out - they threw a lot of dough into the "raw" project and they can't stop all this, like a lump is rolling off the mountain. not right, the failures of the super do not please me, they do not please, but b Most of all, it does not please me, who gave over 30 years of life to aviation, the deplorable, and continuing to deteriorate, the state of our aviation industry. Something like that, I would say.
                      4. user1212
                        user1212 17 February 2014 15: 46
                        +2
                        Do you think that it is impossible to bring SD to mind? And is it really the fact that the Tupolevs did not design? They, too, at one time designed the Tu 22 for a "strategic defect carrier".
                      5. Fregate
                        Fregate 17 February 2014 15: 57
                        +3
                        Do we now have a design bureau that can design a PAK YES so that it truly meets all modern requirements and surpasses the existing long-range missile-carrying bombers in terms of performance characteristics?
                      6. FID
                        FID 17 February 2014 16: 05
                        +6
                        Quote: Fregate
                        Do we now have a design bureau that can design a PAK YES so that it truly meets all modern requirements and surpasses the existing long-range missile-carrying bombers in terms of performance characteristics?

                        In my opinion, while I go to factories, we have lost real design bureaus. Those that remain are remnants of past luxury. From Moscow, design bureaus are being evicted to Zhukovsky (about 40 km from Moscow), who will go there to work? Some competence centers, complexing centers have been created ... People are not engaged in aircraft design, but are coplexing and competing ...
                      7. Fregate
                        Fregate 17 February 2014 16: 26
                        +1
                        Actually, this is the answer I expected to receive. "Sad" times with us sad
                  2. FID
                    FID 17 February 2014 15: 58
                    +1
                    You can bring to mind anything you want, but do not confuse the Soviet time and the present. In the USSR, even though Tupolev was a lump, but remember Yakovlev, who everywhere tried his own company ... but that's not the point. It’s just that there was more money in the USSR, and now the fine-tuning of SD takes money from other aircraft factories ...
                  3. user1212
                    user1212 17 February 2014 18: 49
                    0
                    Which project does not require revision? 334?
                  4. FID
                    FID 17 February 2014 18: 58
                    +1
                    An-148 is a classmate, I'm afraid 334 is already late, there will simply be nobody to do. Ulyanovsk Aviastar may be bent from 476 (they could not recruit workers in 2013) Samara Aviakor is almost no longer a factory, KAPO is a state defense order and, obviously, there are such plans, it will build a QMS ...
                  5. user1212
                    user1212 17 February 2014 19: 27
                    0
                    "Antonov" - aircraft manufacturing concern of Ukraine. Not Russia. It’s kind of already abroad
                    And the rest wrote themselves. Some people cannot recruit, others are "not a factory", and still others have other plans
                  6. FID
                    FID 17 February 2014 19: 40
                    +6
                    At 80% he is ours, Ukrainians themselves DO NOT DO ANYTHING!
                  7. user1212
                    user1212 17 February 2014 19: 51
                    -1
                    If the butch in Kiev continues, I’m afraid that they won’t do it. It remains only to buy Boeing. So don’t let it go, but without SD we would have been left without a passenger plane at all
                  8. FID
                    FID 17 February 2014 20: 02
                    +1
                    VASO bought a FULL set of documentation and does not depend on Kiev, there are no Boeings of this dimension, and NOBODY voluntarily buys SD. Mexicans believe that SD is an Italian car.
                  9. user1212
                    user1212 18 February 2014 04: 43
                    0
                    Here's a LIST of ANYONE: Lao Central Airlines, Pearl Aircraft Corporation, Willis Lease Corporation, Interjet, Sky Aviation, Blue Panorama Airlines. It is only foreign. They also signed contracts at the command of Poghosyan?
                    Quote: SSI
                    VASO bought a FULL set of documentation and does not depend on Kiev

                    And we can produce without Ukraine? Both technically and legally?
                    For comparison, NOBODY except Ukraine, North Korea and Russia even plans to buy An 148. And of the customers, only Polet and Angara are private airlines. And even then 2 and 3 planes, respectively. Why?
                    By the way, what about the 148th's "childhood diseases"? If this is a new plane, then they should be.
              2. user1212
                user1212 18 February 2014 04: 54
                0
                List of Western Suppliers on An-148
                TOTAL 47 manufacturers from 12 countries, plus 34 manufacturers from Ukraine - a total of 81 manufacturers are not from Russia and for their share, for EVERY aircraft, approximately VASO should put about $ 18-20 million! With an aircraft cost of $ 30 million for 2012
                proof: http://superjet100.info/wiki:iz-cego-sdelan-an-148
              3. user1212
                user1212 18 February 2014 06: 13
                -1
                By the way, it seems that the Euro certificate for 148 An was not received. Why?
              4. FID
                FID 18 February 2014 07: 14
                +1
                Well, you have to dig in the net yourself ... You forgot the Rossiya State Transport Company (not to be confused with the SLO) they have 6 cars, they tried to bring the Angara up to 15 - the UAC blocked, yes, I will make excuses, I don’t want to ... That's it. these Lao, Interjet, etc. we buy planes for our money. Domestic a / k do not burst in line. By the way, the Mexicans consider the plane to be Italian, by the way ...
  • scientist
    scientist 18 February 2014 00: 30
    +1
    Quote: vaf
    Hi Seryozha! The same .. I just wanted to ask .. what kind of animal is this .. "glider of the 5th generation"

    Yes, all the same. We just need to stick a buzzword. And what should the journalists and politicians understand? There are no standards! Therefore, each techie argues on the principle that I want to turn things around: firstly he is smart, and secondly all the information is secret. The main thing is that they would give more money. And if later it turns out that it is 4 +++ ...., then it turns out to be not bad either.
    Therefore, beckoning with a specific question, can an enemy fighter be able to take PAK YES at gunpoint with impunity and even get closer? Or again, our pilots will adhere to the tactics of partisans or kamikazes.
    Even if Georgia was able to shoot down the Tu-22, then probably we must draw conclusions.
  • Kuvabatake
    Kuvabatake 17 February 2014 09: 06
    +2
    Chew, see ...
  • NOMADE
    NOMADE 17 February 2014 09: 23
    +1
    Quote: SSI
    Quote: rugor
    TU-160 is still flying.

    I would VERY hope this, but there are a number of reasons ... One of them is the motors ...


    Tell me about the engines, are there problems in that they are not produced here? That is, we have lost the technology and equipment for their manufacture? Or is there another problem?
    1. FID
      FID 17 February 2014 09: 34
      +7
      Trite, the plant in Samara does not work, either, makes motors for missiles for sale in the United States. About a year and a half or two ago, there was a meeting on DA, the Samara factory even a cap. repairing existing engines could hardly ... What can we say about the release of new ... According to rumors, I emphasize - according to rumors, everything in Samara belongs to Deripaska, including the former aircraft plant (the former KuAZ - produced the Tu-154, is now trying to build An-140).
      1. Ivan Petrovich
        Ivan Petrovich 17 February 2014 10: 01
        -14%
        but we have an olympiad ... parasites from the mountains slide down their asses and show it on TV to the whole world ...
        1. Associate Professor
          Associate Professor 17 February 2014 11: 29
          +2
          Quote: Ivan Petrovich
          but we have an olympiad ... parasites from the mountains slide down their asses and show it on TV to the whole world ...

          And that is great
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. master_rem
        master_rem 17 February 2014 10: 12
        0
        Well, as it were, I’m telling you what I heard myself from my relatives (working there) about Kuznetsov: in market conditions, the plant cannot produce NK-32 “to the warehouse.” The military needs only to repair cars. And to maintain the technical process in safety, it is naturally required to carry out a full production cycle. There, in pedivics there is already information about several dozen machines in 15-16 years. Something like this...
    2. abc_alex
      abc_alex 17 February 2014 11: 00
      0
      They have not been produced for a very long time, since they are not being put anywhere except the new Tu-160s.
      Now a decision has been made to restore production. This year they are going to make 4 NK-32.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • morpogr
    morpogr 17 February 2014 09: 27
    0
    The news is good, now we are waiting for news about the start of construction and testing, and that right on time and better sooner.
  • NOMADE
    NOMADE 17 February 2014 09: 36
    +2
    Quote: SSI
    Trite, the plant in Samara does not work, either, makes motors for missiles for sale in the United States. About a year and a half or two ago, there was a meeting on DA, the Samara factory even a cap. repair of existing engines could hardly ... What can we say about the release of new ... According to rumors, I emphasize - according to rumors, everything in Samara belongs to Deripaska, including the former aircraft factory (the former KuAZ - produced the Tu-154, now it is trying to build An-140).


    Thanks, I see. (Sad ..
  • sinukvl
    sinukvl 17 February 2014 09: 40
    +1
    The main thing is that nothing would hinder the embodiment of metal
    1. VAF
      VAF 17 February 2014 10: 39
      +5
      Quote: sinukvl
      The main thing is that nothing would hinder the embodiment of metal


      After the sketch, there will first be a mock-up project (a mock-up made of wood in full size), and you will immediately ... metal wink
  • Zamachus
    Zamachus 17 February 2014 10: 02
    +1
    you don’t fly away with engines like rotten ones, especially since there are already hypersonic rockets that shoot us like nuts, we need new ones much more powerful than existing ones, then we will be kings of air and now the thought does not go around
  • master_rem
    master_rem 17 February 2014 10: 20
    0
    Quote: SSI
    Trite, the plant in Samara does not work, either, makes motors for missiles for sale in the United States.

    Well, there are no motors on rockets, there are mostly motors. And it does not "make motors for missiles for sale to the United States," but sold 37 NK-33s, which Kuznetsov himself "stuck" after unsuccessful launches of N-1. By the way, the Americans use these engines to produce their AJ-26 for Antares, almost like Chinese - bought, remade, okay at least licensed. Now they have their own NK-33
    1. FID
      FID 17 February 2014 10: 26
      +5
      Excuse me, but how does the "motor" actually differ from the "engine"? Or does it just hurt your ears? Is there a "motor" or "engine" in the car? In aviation this business is called a "motor" ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. master_rem
        master_rem 17 February 2014 10: 32
        +1
        We are not talking about aviation
        1. VAF
          VAF 17 February 2014 10: 44
          +4
          Quote: master_rem
          We are not talking about aviation


          Yah? belay And I thought that the future PAK YES is just an aviation topic ..or I don’t understand anything?
          Therefore, in comments, Aviation issues are discussed and people connected with Aviation are solid, and not ..... they have been confessing their whole life to their .. Aviation Slang.
          So we have always had a MOTOR, and if with a PROPELLER, then just "SCREW"!
          And you are told that for PAK YES MOTORS is not expected. and you all .. about amers wassat
          1. master_rem
            master_rem 17 February 2014 10: 56
            +2
            Calmly touched the rocket theme
          2. The comment was deleted.
  • Leshka
    Leshka 17 February 2014 10: 25
    0
    interesting bird when there will be a prototype then there will be more information
  • Alexey Prikazchikov
    Alexey Prikazchikov 17 February 2014 10: 35
    +2
    They didn’t have to give Tupolev this contract. These half-dukes only know how to whine as their evil contempt Poghosyan bent down.
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 17 February 2014 11: 03
      +4
      I agree. Since the days of the USSR, Tupolevs have not been able to bring a single project to the series. As system integrators, they are probably the most disastrous of all.
    2. abc_alex
      abc_alex 17 February 2014 11: 03
      0
      I agree. Since the days of the USSR, Tupolevs have not been able to bring a single project to the series. As system integrators, they are probably the most disastrous of all.
    3. FID
      FID 17 February 2014 11: 45
      +6
      Quote: Alexey Prikazchikov
      These half-dukes only know how to whine as their evil contempt Poghosyan bent down.

      And the Ilyushinites, and the Yakovlevites (MS-21 Pogosyan calls the family a superjet), and the Mikoyans ... They are all fools! But Mikhail Aslanovich is our everything!
      1. Alexey Prikazchikov
        Alexey Prikazchikov 17 February 2014 12: 07
        +2
        And the Ilyushinites, and the Yakovlevites (MS-21 Pogosyan calls the family a superjet), and the Mikoyans ... They are all fools! But Mikhail Aslanovich is our everything!


        Here is silt or yak or nakraynyak dry and had to be given. Those at least have something working. The same ms 21 will be produced as yak 242, plus yak has 130th. Tupolev, in addition to tears about the trampled upon greatness, has no nichert. By the way, these wise men with their affair under the USSR crushed a much more promising Sukhov strategist. Il with grief in half but washed down silt 476, and it’s immediately taken for pay and 114th. About dry just do not say it is hard workers. Just someone whines and who plows that's all.
        1. FID
          FID 17 February 2014 12: 51
          +6
          You try to think somehow at your leisure how the fighter differs from the bomber. For 50 years, the Ilyushinites have been imprisoned for citizens, the Sukhovites, in addition to the fighters, have not done anything for ages - yes, here's an example - a dry superjet. They instructed the fighter company to make a civilian car, and so what? For some reason, in the states, a company specializing in fighter jets does not really go into the production of heavy vehicles and vice versa. As for 476, this is NOT DEVELOPMENT by Ilyushin residents. This is a deep modernization and remotorization of an existing aircraft. IL-114 is a civilian aircraft. Do you sometimes think, please.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. abc_alex
            abc_alex 17 February 2014 17: 47
            0
            You, in my opinion confuse.
            Such a project requires not so much a designer's KB as system integrator. Tu-160, for example, is also not only the development of Tupolevites, there EMNIP hundreds of adjacent design bureaus worked. And the Tupolevs showed themselves extremely poorly from this perspective, they could not even establish after-sales service for their machines.

            Ilyushin residents were able to transfer the production of the 76th to the territory of Russia, having recreated the entire production cycle at our production base.

            Yakovlevites have experience in the development and cooperation with the Yak-130.

            In this sense, Sukhovites are generally unsurpassed in our market. Serial plants and design bureaus work under them.

            And your words about "what is different" generally bring a smile. Look how in the best years of the Soviet aircraft industry the USSR Design Bureau tore each other for ANY project, whether a bomber or a fighter.
            1. FID
              FID 17 February 2014 19: 07
              +7
              Name at least one project of the Tupolev fighter (Tu-3 does not count) and do not need to bring pre-war and military developments. Sikorsky began with what? What does his company do? Integration centers and other nonsense are needed to hide their own incompetence. And please do not drag over the ears of allies. A normal designer knows what he needs on the plane and knows who can do it ...
            2. FID
              FID 17 February 2014 19: 45
              +4
              Quote: abc_alex
              And the Tupolevs showed themselves extremely poorly from this perspective, they could not even establish after-sales service for their machines.

              Sorry, but this phrase is where it came from? Have you ever been to the military unit where the Tu-22M and Tu-160 were operated? Do you know that the Kazan brigades sat there without any danger? You don’t tell somewhere like that ... they don’t understand you, they don’t understand.
              1. Alex 241
                Alex 241 17 February 2014 19: 48
                +4
                Hi Seryozha, confirm repair, improvements, on the first whistle.
                1. FID
                  FID 17 February 2014 20: 08
                  +2
                  Great, Sanya! In the morning I did not have time to greet you! Here, my beloved big ones, I’m butting slowly.
                  1. Alex 241
                    Alex 241 17 February 2014 20: 36
                    +4
                    We sat down like 95! Wow Seryozha! The sound of the engines is unforgettable, and the sight itself, I walked around as if spellbound! I’ve saved it specially for you!
                    1. FID
                      FID 17 February 2014 20: 56
                      +2
                      Quote: Alex 241
                      That’s especially for you!

                      Thank you, Sash! I was always terrified to look at the stern operator. At start-up and warming up, the tail of the 95th, begins to "write" the eight with a swing of, well, I don't know, a meter and a half or two. What vestibular should be ...
          3. Kir
            Kir 17 February 2014 19: 36
            +2
            Sorry, but the T-4, which was not embodied in the T-4MS material, will be whose? By the way, there were rumors that closing the topic could not do without ANT,
            1. FID
              FID 17 February 2014 20: 08
              +1
              Read below, below ... Tupolev, even the general secretaries were afraid ...
              1. Kir
                Kir 17 February 2014 20: 47
                0
                Probably rather Respected, and so Yes. Man was deeply Party, but the fact that some of the closed topics could not have done without him.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 17 February 2014 11: 10
    -2
    WHAT FOR? What the hell is he for? ICBM Topol will perform the same task much faster and more reliably. Why this waste of money? Okay, Americans froze nonsense with the B-2, but why the hell is it to attack other people's rake?
    1. Associate Professor
      Associate Professor 17 February 2014 11: 39
      +4
      Quote: Nayhas
      WHAT FOR? What the hell is he for? ICBM Topol will perform the same task much faster and more reliably. Why this waste of money? Okay, Americans froze nonsense with the B-2, but why the hell is it to attack other people's rake?

      First, ICBMs cannot be called back after a start, and a bomber can scare anyone who needs to be resolved in such a way and recalled. Secondly, it is obvious that PAK DA will carry not only nuclear weapons, but also conventional ones.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 18 February 2014 08: 01
        0
        Quote: Docent
        First, ICBMs cannot be called back after launch, and you can scare anyone with a bomber

        Of the bombers, no scarecrow. The best scarecrow is the open mines of ICBMs.
        Quote: Docent
        Secondly, it is obvious that PAK DA will carry not only nuclear weapons, but also conventional ones.

        This "conventional weapon" is also successfully carried by the old Tu-95, the integration of new types of tactical weapons on board is much cheaper than one PAK-DA wing ...
    2. Setrac
      Setrac 17 February 2014 20: 12
      +3
      Quote: Nayhas
      WHAT FOR? What the hell is he for? ICBM Topol will perform the same task much faster and more reliably. Why this waste of money? Okay, Americans froze nonsense with the B-2, but why the hell is it to attack other people's rake?

      Contrary to popular belief, the launch of an ICBM will not end the war, but begin. ICBMs are one-time weapons.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 18 February 2014 08: 02
        -1
        Quote: Setrac
        Contrary to popular belief, the launch of an ICBM will not end the war, but begin. ICBMs are one-time weapons.

        Yeah, only stones and sticks will be just weapons ...
  • sxn278619
    sxn278619 17 February 2014 11: 16
    +3
    It is necessary to build Submarines of project 885 "Ash" that can carry up to 32 X-101 (X-102) missiles in 8 missile silos. And two aircraft carriers to cover the operational basing of these boats. Cheaper and more efficient.
  • Rattenfanger
    Rattenfanger 17 February 2014 11: 25
    +6
    In addition, the possibility of using air-to-air missiles intended for self-defense cannot be ruled out.

    A 130-mm universal gun to the heap is not stuck, no? For self-defense?
    1. Ruslan
      Ruslan 17 February 2014 11: 38
      +1
      laughing in vain. I read about the desire of designers to push carts of carts for self-defense, on the modification of the Tu-160 and Tu-22m3, but it seems that electronics and radars did not allow it, well, and the collapse of the union. planned RVV-ae, they are lightweight, maneuverable, work on the basis of let-forget. so the idea is not bad, if it can bring down at least anti-aircraft missiles, it’s a profit, and more is not necessary.
      1. VAF
        VAF 17 February 2014 12: 00
        +3
        Quote: ruslan
        laughing in vain. I read about the desire of designers to cram carts of carts for self-defense, on the modification of the Tu-160 and Tu-22m3,


        No wonder Ruslan, no wonder lol +! drinks Read less "any crap" .. it will be much clearer.
        And especially about RVV-AE wink they are only on SMT-shkah, because. "Artyomovskie" and produced for the Algerians, and since the planes were returned to us. then do not throw out the weapons wink
        1. Fregate
          Fregate 17 February 2014 12: 28
          +3
          Vaf, but do we generally have (have) in service with the R-77 (RVV-AE) or something else with an active seeker?
          1. VAF
            VAF 17 February 2014 12: 49
            +5
            Quote: Fregate
            and we generally now have (are) in service with the R-77 (RVV-AE)


            There are also "Ukrainian" RVV-AE and our "Vympelovskie" only called RVV-SD, but ..... crying whether you understand export. bully
            there are many developments, "heads" even with AFAR soldier
            And so .. "active" (or rather, semi-active "is" our everything "in R-27R / 27ER / 27A / 27AE
        2. viktorR
          viktorR 17 February 2014 13: 54
          +1
          And it cannot be said that such missiles, as well as the AIM-120, have "let-and-forget". All the same, the active seeker works in the final phase of the rocket flight, and before that it flies along the INS and the carrier illumination.
  • Watchman
    Watchman 17 February 2014 12: 50
    +1
    Let's hope that this order will help Tupolev Design Bureau to rise from where they are now.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • melan
    melan 17 February 2014 14: 15
    +1
    ... that the flight range of a promising bomber will reach 8-10 thousand kilometers. The maximum speed of the aircraft will not exceed 950-1000 km / h. With such characteristics, the PAK DA aircraft will be able to carry out a number of combat missions typical of existing types of bombers.


    What is it??? Fantasy of the author? Where do these numbers come from? The same TU-160 can develop a speed of more than 2000 km / h and the range with a combat load will be more. Where is the breakthrough and innovation?
    1. Fregate
      Fregate 17 February 2014 14: 30
      +2
      Quote: melan
      Where is the breakthrough and innovation?

      Somewhere in an extraterrestrial civilization.
  • Aleksey_K
    Aleksey_K 17 February 2014 14: 39
    +1
    Dear Readers In vain you rejoice at the new project!
    They again want to throw us THE ENEMIES OF THE MOTHERLAND at the level of 1972 g. And even more. Compare the specifications and you will see that the outdated strategic bombers of the Sukhoi T-4 design bomber outperform the designed PAK-DA design batch of Tupolev. Instead of taking the T-4MS project, which is superior to the current Tu-160 and creating something better than the Tu-160, they create the obviously inferior aircraft. The only thing they want to do is stealth and perhaps modern computer control.
    My opinion is that it’s better to pass this project to Sukhoi Design Bureau!

    Model ………………………………………… ..T-4 ……… ..T-4M ………… ..T-4MS ………… Tu-160 ………… ..PACK YES

    Developer …………………………… .. KB Sukhoi ... KB Sukhoi .... KB Sukhoi ... KB Tupolev ....... KB Tupolev
    The first flight, g ……………………………. 1972 ………………………………………………………… 1981
    Crew, people ........................................ 2 ...... ....... 3 .................. 3 ..................... 4
    Length, m ............................................ 44,5 .. ...... n / a .............. 41,2 ............... 54,1
    Height, m ​​......................................... 11,2 ..... .... n / a ............... 8,0 ................ 13,1
    Wingspan, m .............................. 22,7 .......... n / a .. ....... 40,8 / 25,0 ... ..... 55,7 / 35,6
    The coefficient of elongation of the wing ...... n / a ........... n / a ............ 3,3 / 1,4
    Sweep angle along the leading edge ... n / d ... n / d ........... 30 ° / 72 ° ......... 20 / 65
    Wing area, m² ......................... 295,7 ........... n / a ...... .506,8 / 482,3 ....... 232
    Base chassis, m ..................................... n / a ...... ...... n / a ........... 12,0 .............. 17,9
    Track of the chassis, m ................................... n / a ........ .... n / a ............. 6,0 ............... 5,4
    Empty weight, kg .............................. 55600 .......... n / a .. ........ 123000 ........ 110000 ............. 50000
    Curb weight, kg ................... 57000 ........ 49000 .......... n / a .... ........ 117000
    Normal take-off weight, kg ...... 114000 ....... 131000 ....... 170000 ......... 267600
    Maximum take-off weight, kg .. 135000 ..... 145000 ....... 170000 ......... 275000 ........... 124000
    Mass of fuel, kg .............................. 57000 ....... 82000 ....... .. 97000 .......... 171000 ............... 50000
    Engine ...................................... 4 × RD36-41..4 × RD36- 41 .. 4 × НК-101 .. 4хТРДДФ НК-32..4хАЛ-41Ф1С
    Thrust, kgf ........................................... 4 × 16150 ... ... 4 × 16150 ..... 4 × 20000 ......... 4x14000 .......... 4x15500

    Flight characteristics
    Maximum speed, km / h ........... 3200 ........ 3200 ........... 3200 ........... ..... 2230 ............ 950-1000
    Cruising speed, km / h ................ 3000 ... .. 900 / 3000 ... 3200 / 900 ........... ... 2000
    Practical range, km .............. 6000 .... 7000 / 10000 .... 9000 / 14000 .... 13950 ....... 8000-10000
    Ferry range, km ............. 7000 ........ n / a ............... n / a ... ............. n / a ....... ..... 12000-15000
    Practical ceiling, m ....... ............ 25000 ....... 23000 .......... 24000 ............ Xnumx
    Takeoff run, m ................................... 950 .............. 1050 ... ........ n / a ................. 1100 .............. 2000
    Mileage, m .................................. 800 ..............900 ....... ... .... n / a ................... 950 ................ 900
    Wing load, kg / m² ..................... 184 .......... n / a ........ ..... 335 ................... n / a
    Thrust-weight ratio ............................. 0,56 .......... n / a ...... ...... 0,47 .................. 0,37
    Aerodynamic quality .............. n / a ........... n / a ....... 17,5 / 7,3 ....... ......... n / a

    weaponry
    Combat load, kg ............................. n / a ..... 4000 / 18000 ... 9000 / 45000 ... ... 45000 ............ 30000
    1. FID
      FID 17 February 2014 15: 27
      +6
      What was the T-4 made of? Have you forgotten? Estimate the cost. T-4 did not go, because it was necessary to make the "Goldfish" ... And where is the titanium now? We make blanks for Boeing and Airbus ...
      1. voliador
        voliador 17 February 2014 19: 54
        0
        As far as I know, PAK DA plans 8000 - 10000 not range, but radius of combat use. Accordingly, the range - multiply this figure by two.
        1. Aleksey_K
          Aleksey_K 17 February 2014 21: 22
          +1
          You are mistaken, this characteristic is also described on the Internet, it is two times less than the range.
      2. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K 17 February 2014 21: 28
        0
        The design of the Tu-160 uses titanium alloys. Why it does not surprise you. Or do you think that there will be no titanium in PAK-Yes, you are mistaken. While there is nothing to replace this material, you need to carry 30 tons of weapons and 50 tons of fuel on board. Not every truck (steel car) can carry such a load.
        1. FID
          FID 17 February 2014 21: 57
          +2
          Only the center section is welded, titanium, and not the entire aircraft. You want an example - A-330, payload, well, 50 tons, max take-off 240 tons. Do you think there is a lot of titanium in it? Sorry, I have been in aviation for too long, from development, to sending it into operation, I saw a lot of things, I saw a lot of things ...
          1. Kir
            Kir 18 February 2014 15: 57
            0
            And by the way, what percentage of A-330 composites, if I remember correctly, some European actually has all the composite skin.
        2. dmitrij.blyuz
          dmitrij.blyuz 18 February 2014 21: 15
          0
          Z0 tons of load and only 50 tons of fuel! wassat The plane is not a small car!
  • Igor80
    Igor80 17 February 2014 14: 45
    +4
    It turns out that PAK DA will be inferior to the Tu-160 in terms of basic performance characteristics !? Where is the logic? The speed is lower, the payload is lower, the range is lower ... Something I do not understand is such a "prospect" in our long-range aviation. request
    1. FID
      FID 17 February 2014 15: 33
      +7
      Yes, everything is simple. Tu-160 would fly more than a dozen. But they don’t do motors for it (one member of the forum wrote above that the Samara plant in the market conditions cannot work at the warehouse), the avionics system is out of order, and there is nothing to repair, the electric energy plants (radio electronics elements) aren’t letting out ,,, But the most important thing is money. They will give for development, they will give for OCD, for the construction of an experimental batch they will give ... This is how much you can cut ..
      1. master_rem
        master_rem 17 February 2014 15: 56
        +3
        Yes, and flies until the 30s, motors - they will. The plant is more alive than dead.
        http://www.kuznetsov-motors.ru/press-center/news/dvigatel-nk-33-obespechil-uspes
        hnyi-start-rakety-% C2% ABsoyuz-2-1v% C2% BB
        1. FID
          FID 17 February 2014 15: 59
          +4
          And it pleases!
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K 17 February 2014 21: 30
        0
        Tu-160, of course, would have flown for a long time, but its "insides" are so constructively outdated that its formidability is already in doubt.
        1. FID
          FID 17 February 2014 22: 13
          +4
          Quote: Алексей_К
          Tu-160, of course, would have flown for a long time, but its "insides" are so constructively outdated that its formidability is already in doubt.

          Do you know something about his "guts", have you been on this plane? Please share! I would like to know about SOS-5 and why they installed DUSU-M instead of BDG in the pitch channel ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. abc_alex
      abc_alex 17 February 2014 17: 53
      +3
      If you forget that the necessity of a new stratobomber in itself is doubtful, then the logic here is: to break through NATO’s modern air defense plane almost unrealistic. Therefore, it makes no sense to make a supersonic sound. Breakthrough air defense give missiles. They must be either supersonic and maneuvering or winged with stealth algorithms.
      And for such missiles, the aircraft is required not "fast" but "long and far." So that the planes are constantly on duty in the air.
      1. Shur
        Shur 17 February 2014 21: 19
        +1
        Yes, rather, "smart" missiles are needed, and may even be combined, reaching supersonic at the final section or according to an algorithm (depending on the situation). And this is just a "launcher" in the air.
        I hope they will create electronics (industry) corresponding to the level of our mathematics.
      2. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K 17 February 2014 21: 36
        0
        In the modern war against the United States and NATO, it is necessary to make massive strikes against military targets from all strategic types of weapons. The enemy will knock down part of the attacking means. Therefore - the more - the better.
        About speed. Supersonic is needed for urgent delivery of an aircraft to the desired area, from where it can reach, for example, an aircraft carrier and AUG, with its missiles. If he "cuts" half a day, then other systems of destruction that have freed themselves from the attack on Russia will take over.
        1. Shur
          Shur 18 February 2014 21: 43
          +1
          If the plane is part of a combat complex, then the entire complex must be considered. A missile can have supersonic sound, which in turn will not "cut half a day." In this option, it is necessary to advance as stealthily as possible rather than quickly. And it’s naive to think that such strategists are not under the hood.
  • voliador
    voliador 17 February 2014 19: 29
    -1
    Well, if R&D began five years ago, then you can soon wait for the layout. Although, it’s still long.
  • garik77
    garik77 17 February 2014 20: 28
    +1
    Quote: Igor80
    It turns out that PAK DA will be inferior to the Tu-160 in terms of basic performance characteristics !? Where is the logic? The speed is lower, the payload is lower, the range is lower ... Something I do not understand is such a "prospect" in our long-range aviation. request

    I don’t understand why to make a car similar to the American B-2. If this is a long-range strategic bomber, then in theory, its goal should be as soon as possible penetration to the target of the attack, i.e. Supersound + stealth required. If it’s just a carrier of rocket weapons, then why block the garden and spend huge money on its development, almost any aircraft with the possibility of external weapon suspension will work for launches.
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 17 February 2014 21: 51
      0
      I will answer you. In 1972, Sukhoi Design Bureau received an order for 250 aircraft of the T-4 project. By this time, the T-4М and T-4MS projects were already ready. But Sukhoi did not have a serial plant, only Tupolev. How - Tupolev will make someone else's car? He was the best friend of the Secretary of Defense. And the Moscow Region decided to transfer the project to Tupolev. As a result, the gap is 10 years (the first flight in 1981) and the car is worse than T-4MS, worse than T-4.
      Conclusion - Tupolev threw Russia to 50-55 years ago. Now we would have factories for serial production of strategic aviation throughout Russia. And in stock - one and the same is inferior. And all because of personal ambitions. The new plane will be worse than the old. There is only one definition for this - betrayal!
  • demel2
    demel2 17 February 2014 21: 19
    0
    IMHO KLA and USC so far except cut the dough and haven’t done anything good yet, and such articles about aircraft carriers or about PAK-DA are periodically thrown in order to calm people down. If you’re wrong, correct it.
  • Sobol
    Sobol 17 February 2014 21: 38
    +1
    Quote: 11111mail.ru
    Quote: SHILO
    Specialists - please answer!

    The dependence of air resistance on speed is sharply nonlinear. Resistance builds up faster than the increase in speed. Therefore, the subsonic speed is optimal.

    And why is the TU-160 not optimal?
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 17 February 2014 22: 05
      0
      If you are talking about speed, then the recommended speed is lower than the Tu-160 can achieve. Therefore, it is not optimal. And why? Because the Tu-160 cannot fly at maximum speed for a long time, the materials can’t stand it, it just breaks in the air.
      1. FID
        FID 17 February 2014 22: 16
        +2
        Quote: Алексей_К
        Because the Tu-160 cannot fly at maximum speed for a long time, the materials can’t stand it, it just breaks in the air.

        An example, please. Or is it just blah blah?
        1. Aleksey_K
          Aleksey_K 17 February 2014 23: 44
          0
          The maximum speed of the Tu-160 achieved during testing is 2500 km / h, and the maximum speed recommended by the designers for flights is 2230 km / h. Guess why.
          1. aviator65
            aviator65 18 February 2014 01: 09
            +1
            There are several flight modes. Each has its own optimal speed. For flights in which mode is -2230 km / h recommended?
  • pvv113
    pvv113 17 February 2014 21: 44
    +7
    Quote: Setrac
    Quote: Interface
    We must respond symmetrically, and not create an analogue of B-2,

    The hypersonic bomber has a symmetrical response - hypersonic missiles for the interceptor.

    BIG SHIP - BIG TORPEDO laughing
  • studentmati
    studentmati 17 February 2014 22: 19
    0
    A contract has been signed for the development of a PAK DA bomber.

    I dare to assume that the project under development will have forms very similar to the forms that were already designed in the 50-60-70s by Vladimir Mikhailovich:
  • studentmati
    studentmati 17 February 2014 22: 22
    0
    Or such projects
  • studentmati
    studentmati 17 February 2014 22: 24
    +2
    Or maybe this?
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 17 February 2014 22: 31
      +1
      Quote: studentmati
      Or maybe this?

      ...not
      while 2 options are being considered-
      1. subsonic m = 0,88 will be close to the flying wing pattern, something will be similar to B2
      2. supersonic m = 1.5-2 M, then something similar to the Tu-160, taking into account the requirements of steel technology - a double collapsed keel, beveled edges (see the model in the pipe above)
      1. studentmati
        studentmati 17 February 2014 22: 52
        +1
        Quote: Rus2012
        2. supersonic m = 1.5-2 M, then something similar to the Tu-160, taking into account the requirements of steel technology - double collapsed keel, beveled edges


        In my opinion, an extremely energy-intensive project in terms of consumption. And the "stealth" effect seems to me unprofitable (price-quality).

        Sorry, Rus - did not say hello. Good evening! drinks
    2. abc_alex
      abc_alex 18 February 2014 11: 50
      0
      No, all these objects are typical supersonic.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • studentmati
    studentmati 17 February 2014 22: 37
    +1
    Subsonic, something similar to the M-67?
    Link http://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=428
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 17 February 2014 22: 50
      +2
      Quote: studentmati
      Subsonic, something similar to the M-67?

      probably...
  • Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 18 February 2014 02: 42
    0
    Thanks to the author for the publication and plus in karma, although this is not news to me.
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex 18 February 2014 12: 00
    0
    What can it be in :)
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 18 February 2014 12: 50
      0
      Quote: abc_alex
      What can he be

      It looks like a Mig-25 / 31 design.
      many right angles and keels are not beveled, they try to get around them, because of the requirements of reducing visibility.
  • dmitrij.blyuz
    dmitrij.blyuz 18 February 2014 21: 44
    +1
    Quote: user1212
    Do you think that it is impossible to bring SD to mind? And is it really the fact that the Tupolevs did not design? They, too, at one time designed the Tu 22 for a "strategic defect carrier".

    Do you understand - who are you trying to argue with? Maybe you are trying to understand something in Aviation, but this person is Special. Like VAF, Alex241, etc. You are not a couple with us! Die your ardor. There are SPECIALISTS on the site, but there are also "specialists" lol
    1. user1212
      user1212 21 February 2014 17: 43
      +1
      You can’t argue with a man only because he has been in aviation for 30 years? Yes, quit. I argue with him not on the topic of control systems. Just his judgments (not related to his professional activities) seem biased to me. Let's read together:
      The SSI says there are deficiencies in the design of the SSJ and childhood illnesses, and the incorrect design of a passenger fighter aircraft design bureau. I am interested in the fundamental possibility of fine-tuning SSJ to mind. "Children's diseases" are inherent in any new technique. I mention a clearly disastrous KB Tupolev plane, hinting that they are not without sin. Am I wrong somewhere?
      Further, the SSI writes that fine-tuning the SSJ takes money from other factories. In turn, my answer comes down to the question of the availability of a ready-made aircraft that does not require refinement. Maybe the SSJ started in vain?
      But the next post is suspicious. The SSI mentions “their own” AN 148. I recall that Antonov is still the Ukrainian Design Bureau, and we are kind of about Russian Aviation.
      SSI writes that the plane is 80% ours. I am mentioning the problems of Ukraine. Googled. The result is somewhat inconsistent with the words of the SSI. There are 2/3 foreign suppliers (for money). Also in the network there was information about the desire of VASO to transfer as much work as possible to the side of Ukraine and keep only the "screwdriver assembly". This somehow does not fit with the feelings of my opponent about the deplorable state of the aviation industry in our country. Maybe the "journalists" are lying (I don't think it's impossible at all)?
      SSI writes that NO ONE buys SSJ without pressure. I am interested in how they put pressure on foreign buyers. I give a list of customers. Do Mexicans consider SSJ Italian? I am not a telepath. I can’t “read” what Mexicans think or don’t think. Do the rest buy planes for our money? Can you give more details? At a discount and “for our money” is not the same thing.
      Along the way, I find information on the network that the construction of the An 148 is sponsored from the budget of the Russian Federation (which casts doubt on the words that refining SSJ takes money from other plants and the advantages of 148 are based on this. Here 148 and SSJ are the same. Both are sponsored from budget). There is no answer about the reasons for the lack of an EASA certificate for An 148 (that is, nobody in Europe will buy AN).
      Where did you see the debate on the professional topic for aircraft control systems for aircraft control systems? Here we are only talking about inconsistencies in the words of the opponent. I did not see a clear answer why AN is better (except that AN is in the "sphere of interests" of the SSI).
      You are right, I’m not an expert in the aircraft industry. I fully admit that I'm wrong in something. Yes! Here I am such a bastard. I dared to objectively argue. So explain zasr *** tsu what is he wrong? I want to say right away that phrases like “I’ve been 100500 years in aviation and I know better” do not play a role without arguments
      PS Dear SSI, nothing personal hi
      1. Kir
        Kir 21 February 2014 18: 08
        0
        Sorry of course. But the fact that Antonov’s design bureau is now in Ukraine. a purely political decision, according to the Historical Truth it is Moscow, it is one other thing that Russia has problems with other allies, somehow cooperation with Motor Sich-engines for those same Ka-52s, so ...... Ukraine is still a headache especially in light of recent events. By the way, after all, there were also purely Russian options from the same Tupolev design bureau capable of replacing cars from Antonov's design bureau, and Ruslan was very shy, so they should be emphasized.
        1. user1212
          user1212 21 February 2014 18: 34
          +1
          Political of course, but is this easier for us?
          The carcasses were and are. Found here an interesting post about them during the contest
          At first, the shock (generalized) of the airlines was to shock - to change the dimension from 50-70-90 to 65-75-95 and the first to make the 75-seater version - thereby 324 were “knocked out” of the line, and 414 had to be pulled by another one two rows, or reduce the step of the seats. Another blow that actually hammered a nail into the lid of the coffin was a 334 certificate received “under the Christmas tree” (everyone celebrated all of January, and a data card was released in February). According to him, as one of my colleagues said (somewhat exaggerating), you need to fly only in the summer and early autumn, low and steering wheel. (True, before my departure, they seem to have received an expansion of operating conditions - but again, not as much as I wanted).

          After receiving the certificate (without waiting for the result of the competition), all the remaining sane and old people reached out to the "free bread" from the design bureau. Now from my group in the remains of the Design Bureau only one woman works (but she has been with the company for more than 40 (!) Years)

          It is clear that this post is not an official document, so I can not vouch for the veracity
  • tomcat117
    tomcat117 21 February 2014 19: 27
    +2
    Quote: i
    Probably the leaders of the country should be asked what is in the way. Yes, and scare amers military toys will not work, they have their own in bulk.

    "yaneaikuchkanemoya" - KATz offers to surrender?
  • sasharos
    sasharos 23 February 2014 14: 11
    0
    Just designed an air cruiser, no supersonic, subspace, innovation, a minimum program: to do in order to do, oh and no wonder the superjet was remembered here ...
  • landromat
    landromat 26 February 2014 18: 51
    0
    And will the country's economy pull such cool toys? After all, the army needs to be re-equipped more than completely, for in 25 years the Soviet potential has rusted. And the military budget of the USSR was more than that of the United States .... like the economy ....

    Wiki military budgets of the world in 2013. billion dollars:

    1 USA 526,800
    2 China 114,200
    3 Russia 71,200
    4 UK 58,985
    5 France 58,244
    6 Japan 56,907
    7 Germany 45,200
    8 Saudi Arabia 45,050
    9 India 36,000
    10 Italy 34,730
    1. persei333
      persei333 29 July 2014 11: 39
      0
      One can only hope that the economy will pull.
  • Pavellio
    Pavellio 4 March 2014 17: 37
    0
    That's good smile
  • persei333
    persei333 29 July 2014 11: 38
    0
    I don’t understand why the bomber is subsonic. Is it possible to swing at once to supersonic? Together with Stealth technology of course.