PAK DA and LRS-B: future strategic bombers

Currently the foundation of the strategic aviation Russia and the United States are fairly old aircraft. So, the newest American bomber of the largest type, the Boeing B-52H Stratofortress, was built in 1962, and since then aircraft of this model have only undergone the modernization of various systems. The most massive strategic missile carrier of the Russian Air Force is the Tu-95MS, which also cannot be called new - the first aircraft of this type took to the air in 1979. Despite all the repairs and upgrades, the equipment becomes obsolete both morally and physically, which is why it needs a replacement. It should be noted that the air forces of the two countries also have newer strategic bombers, but they cannot be compared with the “old men” in numbers. In addition, the relatively new Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit and Tu-160 will also become obsolete in the future and will require replacement. As we see, over the coming decades, the United States and Russia will need new strategic bombers that can become a worthy replacement for existing equipment. Projects of such aircraft are already being developed.




PAK DA (Russia)

The perspective aviation complex of the long-range aviation (PAK DA) is one of the most important projects in the framework of the development of the Russian Air Force. According to reports, the aircraft created in the course of this program, in the future will be able to become the main long-range bomber of the domestic Air Force. Its characteristics will allow replacing all existing long-range bombers: Tu-95MS, Tu-22М3 and Tu-160. The main reason for this is the age of the existing technology: by the time of the start of mass production of the PAK DA bombers, some of the existing aircraft must have run out of resources and will have to be written off.

Determining the requirements for a promising strategic bomber for the Russian Air Force began in the late nineties, but then, for several reasons, this work was delayed. Requirements were formed only in the second half of the next decade. Approximately in 2007-2008, a competition was announced for the development of the PAK DA aircraft, which ended in 2009. The contract for the development of the bomber company was "Tupolev".

Since then, employees of OJSC Tupolev and related enterprises have carried out a lot of important work, the purpose of which was to create a preliminary project of a promising aircraft. At the end of last year, it was reported that a preliminary draft was agreed with the customer; in 2014, full-scale development work should begin. Thus, over the next few years, the enterprises of the United Aircraft Building Corporation will be able to begin construction of the first prototype of the new aircraft.

In early April, Jane's reported that at a recent briefing, UAC President M. Poghosyan spoke about the progress of the PAK DA project. As writes the foreign edition, the development of the project is completed. The PAK DA aircraft is already ready “on paper”, and in the near future, construction and testing of some units of the future bomber will begin. Other details remain unknown.

It is still difficult to speak about the exact timing of the completion of the PAK DA project. In recent years, officials have repeatedly called the approximate time of the beginning of a particular phase of the project, but later the stated dates were adjusted. For example, in the middle of the last decade, it was planned to build a prototype aircraft for the 2015 year and soon begin testing it. In 2011, the first flight was “transferred” to the 2020 year, and they were scheduled for adoption in the mid-twenties. At the very end of last year, the commander of long-range aviation, Lieutenant-General A. Zhikharev, said that tests of the new bomber should begin in the 2019 year, and by the 2025-th, deliveries of serial machines to the Air Force will begin.

The exact timing of the appearance of the PAK DA prototype aircraft, the commencement of its tests, or the delivery of mass-produced vehicles to the troops still raises some questions. For a number of reasons of a different nature, the dates may shift in any direction. The first flight of the bomber can take place both earlier and later called the 2019 of the year now. From the available information it follows that now the exact definition of terms is hampered only by the complexity of the design work. An important stage in shaping the aircraft's appearance has already been passed, and now the project developers are busy creating a project, in accordance with which a new technology will be built.

Unfortunately, the bulk of information about the technical appearance of the PAK DA aircraft is still hidden from the public, which contributes to the emergence of various versions and speculations. The announced official information about the requirements for a new aircraft is extremely scarce and allows only the most general conclusions to be made. For example, last summer, Air Force Commander Lieutenant-General V. Bondarev said that the PAK DA aircraft will be subsonic. At the same time he will be able to take on board a large combat load in comparison with the existing Tu-160 aircraft. A little later, the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force announced that the PAK DA would be able to carry various weapons, including hypersonic missiles.

Statements about subsonic speed and long-range, as well as a large payload caused the assumption that the PAK DA aircraft will be built according to the “flying wing” scheme. Such a layout of the aircraft will provide an optimal combination of high flight data and a large amount of internal compartments. In addition, large internal volumes will make it possible to increase the amount of fuel and, as a result, the flight range.

The PAK DA bomber will have to replace several types of aircraft: Tu-95MS, Tu-22М3 and Tu-160. In addition, it is known that it will carry more payload than the Tu-160. From this it follows that a promising bomber will be able to take on board at least 30 tons of missile or bomb weapons of various types. Apparently, PAK DA will be able to use the entire range of weapons of existing long-range bombers, so that it can carry and use X-22 or X-55 missiles, as well as promising weapon, for example missiles X-101.

The number of planned to build aircraft PAK DA has not yet been determined. The appearance of such figures should be attributed to the next stages of the project, when the characteristics and combat capabilities of the new aircraft, as well as its cost, will be known. It cannot be ruled out that there are already approximate plans for this, but they have not yet been announced. Probably, the number of planned bombers will be announced in the second half of this decade. Based on the fact that the PAK DA is intended to replace the existing long-range bombers, it can be built in a series of at least several dozen units.



LRS-B (USA)

Since the middle of the last decade, the United States has been working on its own project of a promising strategic bomber. During this time, the military and aviation industry conducted a series of studies and identified some features of the appearance of the new aircraft. It is noteworthy that the program for developing a new long-range bomber changed its name several times. It started under the designation 2018 Bomber (“2018 Bomber of the Year”), then called NGB (Next-Generation Bomber - “Next Generation Bomber”), and is now known as LRS-B (Long-Range Strike Bomber - “Long Range Bomber Bomber”) .

The 2018 Bomber program was launched with the goal of creating a new strategic bomber capable of replacing the outdated B-52 and B-1. These aircraft are not fully satisfied with the military and therefore require replacement. The goal of the new project, as is clear from its name, was to create a bomber for 2018. Further events within the program showed that such plans were too bold. The time frame for the construction of the aircraft has shifted, and the project has received a new name - NGB.

One of the most important issues in the early stages of the 2018 Bomber / NGB project was the overall appearance of the bomber. Considered the prospects of several proposals. The aircraft could be pre-or supersonic, manned and unmanned versions, as well as other features of the project were considered and compared. As a result, it was decided to build a subsonic bomber with a cockpit. The use of unmanned technology, as well as the creation of a supersonic aircraft, considered impractical. In the future, all requirements for the NGB bomber were formed in accordance with a specific concept.

Even during the use of the name 2018 Bomber, there were suggestions regarding the methods of operation of a promising aircraft. He was supposed to be able to fly long distances, as well as patrol in remote areas. To do this, the plane must be built using the so-called. stealth technology, as well as the use of a set of electronic equipment, allowing him to obtain the necessary data and quickly perform the tasks.

In recent years, the Pentagon has been forced to work under conditions of constant cuts in the military budget, which is why it has to freeze already started projects, as well as postpone the implementation of the planned ones. One of these “unlucky” projects was 2018 Bomber / NGB / LRS-B. Over the past few years, the military and Congress have argued about the need for such development, its features and cost. As a result, the development of the aircraft has not yet begun.

Requirements for the new LRS-B aircraft are constantly being adjusted, but their common features have remained unchanged in recent years. For example, at the beginning of 2011, it was believed that the total cost of the LRS-B program should not exceed 40-50 billions of dollars. For this money, the plan was to acquire 175 aircraft: 10 squadrons for 12 bombers, as well as 55 training and reserve aircraft. It was assumed that to compensate for the increase in the cost of the program, the number of planned aircraft could be reduced at the expense of the reserve.

Aircraft LRS-B, it was decided to do subsonic. Flight range without refueling asked no less than 5000 miles (more than 9200 kilometers). An in-flight refueling system is required, designed to increase range. The combat load of the aircraft should not exceed 28 thousand pounds (about 12,7 tons). It was proposed to include in the nomenclature of used ammunition all existing and prospective guided and unguided types of missile-bomb armament. It was necessary to foresee the possibility of using nuclear ammunition.

The LRS-B bomber must be able to perform combat missions in all conditions and all weather conditions. In addition, it is necessary to ensure the survival of the aircraft when performing combat missions over the territory of the enemy, in the zone of action of its air defense. To do this, the design of the bomber must be done using stealth technology, and the composition of the onboard equipment must include modern electronic warfare systems with high performance.

The LRS-B aircraft was supposed to be equipped with the most modern radio-electronic equipment, allowing to monitor the situation and exchange tactical information with the base and other aircraft. In the future, it was proposed to create an appropriate set of equipment and make an unmanned aircraft based on the LRS-B. Such a version of the bomber, as expected, could have a greater combat potential in comparison with the manned base.

At the end of February 2014, the Air Force Command announced new plans for promising strategic bombers. Now it is assumed that the new aircraft will be ready for mass production in the first half of the twenties. In the middle of the next decade, the US Air Force will receive the first mass-produced cars of the new model. For the time being, it is expected to purchase from the 80 to 100 LRS-B aircraft Their exact number will be determined only after the development of the project and the formation of the final cost of the aircraft.

In the autumn of this year, it is planned to issue a request for proposals for the LRS-B program. This document will be the first step to the competition and the choice of the developer of a promising bomber. It is assumed that the company Northrop Grumman and the alliance of firms Boeing and Lockheed Martin will take part in the competition. Time will tell who exactly will be the lead developer of the LRS-B bomber.

***

The course of the two projects aimed at developing strategic aviation in the United States and Russia is noticeably different, although it has some common features. Countries are not the first year engaged in the creation of new long-range bombers and are already making plans for the completion of the work. In this case, it is impossible not to note the stages at which there are now two projects. The Russian program PAK DA has entered the stage of basic development work, while the American project LRS-B has still not reached the competitive stage. Despite this, both bomber must first take to the air at about the same time - no earlier than the end of the current decade. Delivery of aircraft to the troops is scheduled to begin in the mid-twenties.

In both projects, it is supposed to apply a lot of new ideas and technical solutions that will help the promising aircraft to obtain high performance. The military of the two countries have their own views on the appearance of the distant bomber of the near future, because of which the aircraft will be significantly different. What these differences will be, as well as what promising strategic bombers will look like, is not completely clear. Their similarities and differences can be discussed only in a few years, when project materials will be shown to the general public.


On the materials of the sites:
http://ria.ru/
http://interfax.ru/
http://lenta.ru/
http://flightglobal.com/
http://airforcetimes.com/
http://defensenews.com/
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Igor39 April 29 2014 08: 08 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Flight in 2019, by that time and technology will change and possibly a global device.
    1. FID
      FID April 29 2014 08: 42 New
      • 14
      • 0
      +14
      Quote: Igor39
      Flight in 2019, by that time and technology will change and possibly a global device.

      Please note, Americans, the same, only in 2018 are going to fly. Do you think they have the same technology behind?
      1. mirag2 April 30 2014 12: 26 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        They say that the projects are very different, and right there that nothing is known about the projects themselves.
        Why then the assumption that there are serious differences?
        This, from the author’s point of view, Russian and American bombers will perform different tasks, hence he suggested that the ships themselves will be different.
    2. Sledgehammer
      Sledgehammer April 29 2014 12: 58 New
      • 10
      • 0
      +10
      It is likely that LRS-B flights are already in progress.
      http://chidag.ru/blogs/kurim-i-trepemsja-obo-vsem/novoe-foto-amerikanskogo-tains
      tvennogo-samoleta.html
      1. bigELDAK
        bigELDAK April 29 2014 14: 24 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        wrong links
        http://youroker.livejournal.com/10610.html
        http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=24242
        http://sploid.gizmodo.com/clearer-photo-of-mysterious-ufo-taken-in-1564513147
        http://theaviationist.com/2014/04/17/new-image-triangular-mystery/

        http://alternathistory.org.ua/eto-ptitsa-eto-samolet-da-eto-samolet
        1. Sledgehammer
          Sledgehammer April 29 2014 15: 45 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          wrong links

          Where I found there and gave links.
      2. Drin
        Drin 11 May 2014 16: 28 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        If the Americans did not even have a competition for a promising bomber, why do you assume that he has already flown? In this photo, the B2 bomber is likely to Spirit.
      3. 9lvariag 17 May 2014 18: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Is this a snapshot of the mythical Aurora?
    3. unclevad April 29 2014 13: 01 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Technology in the aircraft industry is always ahead of the curve. Most often, the latest technologies are developed to solve specific problems of production of a new aircraft. For example, the creation of airbuses has developed a technology for dimensional etching of tail sheets to reduce aircraft weight.
    4. gridasov 5 May 2014 16: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      More precisely, whoever changes technology will change the world order. All these technologies are not based on real physics and mathematics. Therefore, they work at the limit of the possible.
  2. super-vitek April 29 2014 08: 32 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    My opinion is skeptical about this class of aircraft, in the literal sense of the word, it will be difficult for them to bomb due to developed air defense systems, and in my opinion, missiles can be fired from less expensive carriers, especially hypersonic ones. We must build 50 cars purely to demonstrate the flag !! !
    1. FID
      FID April 29 2014 08: 43 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: super-vitek
      It is necessary to build 50 cars purely to demonstrate the flag !!!

      Three will be enough to demonstrate ...
    2. patsantre April 29 2014 11: 17 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Fuck, but it’s good if 30 cars are built for the war! And you say 50 to demonstrate ...
    3. bootlegger April 29 2014 13: 03 New
      • 13
      • 0
      +13
      I also think that the time of such supersonic beauties has passed.
      No one will break through to the enemy through air defense in hypersound. I'm talking about an airplane equipped with missiles and bombs.
      And he will not be able to do this effectively, due to the inability to put all mutually exclusive technical requirements into this machine. He will not be able to do this with the advanced air defense and radar capabilities. It is difficult to combine invisibility, high combat load and high flight speed. And without one of Of these parameters, the strategic bomber will not be effective. Well, or it will not be strategic.
      Technically, modern aviation has reached the limit of improvement that firearms approached 30-40 years ago. That is, the costs of developing weapons began to grow much faster than the degree of their technical excellence. The fight is already at a percentage of growth, and payment for it is growing times.
      This way of improvement cannot be arranged, since the need for mass production of weapons has not gone away. And one super-prodigy is not enough for anyone, and hundreds of them will ruin any country. This is clearly seen on the prospects of the F-22, which made it expensive.
      It will be all easier, it seems to me. Strategies will degenerate into transporters barrage outside the enemy’s air defense zones. And maybe even under the protection of their air defense.
      It will be a subsonic and economical vehicle with an EPR repeating any mass plane, passenger or transport. It will simply be disguised from long-range reconnaissance. And it will not be he who breaks through the anti-aircraft defense, but his armament.
      These will be airborne ICBMs or hypersonic rockets with ramjets, it doesn’t matter. It will be possible this and that.
      The point is different: an airplane will be just an inexpensive and reliable weapon carrier and all the requirements for it will fit in reliability, carrying capacity and economy, and military technical excellence will be in weapons. Moreover, rocket perfection, all the same, doesn’t save much.
      His whole task will be to hover somewhere over Siberia or the Arctic, and to carry out combat duty. Being ready to use his weapons at any time, approximately, like the Scalpel or nuclear submarines in the oceans.
      1. FID
        FID April 29 2014 13: 29 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        You described a huge airship made of radiolucent material, maybe even a balloon ...
        1. Bersaglieri April 29 2014 13: 49 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          By the way, as a barrage platform with CD, the airship of the hybrid scheme seems very promising.
          Or, as a platform of AWACS, long-range air defense.
      2. Biolant
        Biolant April 29 2014 14: 04 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        You know)) when several such things, for example, will fly near Syria - the cooling of a couple of violent heads is guaranteed))
      3. Moore April 30 2014 06: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The splash screen really shows something hypersonic. It is clear that this is just a picture.
        Just if you recall the concept of a hypersonic airplane - this is such a big thing (fuel supply and aerodynamic quality) that will fly in the upper discharged layers of the atmosphere (a matter of thermal protection) and make such jumps, starting from dense layers of air. The Nazis seem to have come up with a theory.
        For tactical attacks, it is obviously of little use, for strategic ones - in fact, it must be "suspended", in fact, for a long time.
        Does anyone need this at all?
      4. Mista_dj 3 May 2014 10: 44 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        I want to support your point of view!
        All previous combat experience speaks in your favor.
        No matter how progressive the Tiger was for its time, 34ka and IP - washed it with its simplicity and manufacturability.
        How much the Boer rifle is outdated, and in the mountains, a better carbine is difficult to come up with.
        Whatever is improved in assault rifles, but Kalashnikov is reliable and simple.
        What is the point in 2-3x F22, if Sushka’s squadron is built with this money, doing the same thing, making less demands on the qualifications of pilots who sit on any, even "ushatnoy" concrete.
        No matter how perfect RCC, but one - gets off, but against the pack - it's hard to come up with something.
        What is the point in fancy AWACS aircraft, if jammed by a box worth 6000 rubles !?
        Simplicity, cheapness and maintainability.
        1. 9lvariag 18 May 2014 18: 59 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Your point of view and
          Quote: Mista_Dj
          I want to support your point of view!
          All previous combat experience speaks in your favor.
          No matter how progressive the Tiger was for its time, 34ka and IP - washed it with its simplicity and manufacturability.
          How much the Boer rifle is outdated, and in the mountains, a better carbine is difficult to come up with.
          Whatever is improved in assault rifles, but Kalashnikov is reliable and simple.
          What is the point in 2-3x F22, if Sushka’s squadron is built with this money, doing the same thing, making less demands on the qualifications of pilots who sit on any, even "ushatnoy" concrete.
          No matter how perfect RCC, but one - gets off, but against the pack - it's hard to come up with something.
          What is the point in fancy AWACS aircraft, if jammed by a box worth 6000 rubles !?
          Simplicity, cheapness and maintainability.
          Yes, your point of view has the right to life. Yes, you understand that the RF is now simply being pulled into a new SDI! The whole buzz of which, in that the US military-industrial complex, wants to sleep sweetly, is delicious and cool ...
          And she wants another Lamborghini, and that would not bend in front of the Senate. I also look at all this, pragmatically. And I see how BGM-109 "Tomahawk" was thrown out in batches in 1991. Probably they were no longer needed and stale. This despite the fact that Iraq itself could not counter coalitions. I look in the world media and news feeds, like poorly educated Papuans, bombarded with compositions, special warhead, MOAB, thermobaric and other bombs. And this is in vain to ask them what is there high-level air defense and powerful aviation? Or are we dealing with such a blitzkrieg in the third world? Another side of this question: is it really necessary for the war in these countries high precision weapons? If we also take into account that judging by the conflicts in recent history, it is not at all highly accurate. Who can object, go to Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and look. But in fact, it’s just in fact saving money for war. Because in USAF, already the shaggy first cheap JDAM, still go. And already in the first war in the Gulf, when the prodigy ended, both 43rd-year bombs (peacefully lying in their warehouses) and racquets, which in fact are no longer stored in NATO warehouses, were used! And KBCH went into action and napalm, etc. We go further: I am on the site (in my 4avia.ru). I read an interesting article about the new Chinese STELS. And there the author wrote that many readers, on the understanding, of the tasks facing the Stels planes and represent them as a kind of wunderwaf from the Hollywood blockbusters. It should be understood that, like high-precision war, the Stels themselves are of little use in civilian life. They are (these are at least the first generations), planes for undeclared wars! And needed by states that have such aircraft or want to have, just replace striking force and are needed only for wartime. And the Russian Federation, why are they in massive form? The meaning in such aircraft is lost even in conditions of global war. This is when the advanced powers put their money to use. neutralizing global positioning (goodbye to high-precision ignorance), reconnaissance satellites, reconnaissance. stations on the ground. moreover, they will include all electronic warfare weapons, and suppression with laser beams of reconnaissance and guidance equipment. And what will we have (as the old Odessa Jew said)? The end of the prodigy?
      5. 9lvariag 17 May 2014 19: 41 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        What does the Tupoelva design bureau have to do with it, if the T-60 design bureau is on the photo. Dry. Yes, and in the original modification Chernyakhovsky?
        I read and think to myself: - "adult uncles are sitting at the computers and reading any garbage that they write to them directly from Langley?
        1) That Americans finish “Aurora”, which will be visible locations, at a distance of 3000 km. And even with old missile defense locators mounted in the 70s. And no procedure to lower the EPR will help. Indeed, in an over-the-horizon location, a plasma trace is captured! And he is already at 3,8M. - It will be just drop dead visible. And to all visible in all ranges.
        2) And coming down from claim 1, all attempts to make a purely hypersonic bomber are a bluff. And in terms of fuel economy - it’s zero! The same, zero, in monetary terms - this was proved by the XB-70! This is all from the fact that the USAF - they just threw it during the last war in the bay. And snickering generals made a vine for NATO members. And their Mr. ..na thrown in the US Senate. I myself saw how one was crucifying that the USAF needed a strike aircraft with a radius of 16 thousand. km.http: //www.paralay.com/ngb/ngb.html
        3) Based on paragraph 1, we look at the same anti-ship missiles and missiles? To be honest, we already had air-based missiles flying up to 3,8M. Yes, these are samples mainly under JBCh. What can not be upgraded?
        And I look and laugh at such missiles developed in the variant proposed by the USA - is that such a missile will take a hexogen warhead weighing 1-3 tons? And without it, to fly into the sky, rockets worth hundreds of thousands of $ is just a fake.
        5) All these ALSM, X-15, X-22, X-45 - are mainly designed for special. BLL. Its weight is up to 450 kg. and then probably I greatly overestimated the weight of the warhead. And what will happen if, on the same “Tomahawk”, hang, the main warhead in 1t. , instead of a nuclear warhead weighing 250 kg (I myself saw warhead simulators, for anti-ship missiles with an air start in a landfill)? And where it will fly and whether it will fly with such an overload, and there can be problems with the launch.
        6) The maneuverability of allegedly trending hypersonic UAVs is also garbage. I would like to ask: - guys who, this is another scarecrow. vehemently advocate: - "Do you even know that for a flight, even an aircraft without a crew, there are overload standards?" And they read what was for “Arakhngels”, the maximum overload was in 2G, and for TU-22M, in 2,5G! You considered a turn at such a speed and the fact that it will be at least 50 km.? And the materials? Have you figured out how much it will cost to build rockets capable of withstanding the heating of the bow at 700 degrees? We do not believe we go to http://www.testpilot.ru/usa/lockheed/d/21/d21.htm and read.
        7) If you do not enter the space controlled air defense, then no tricks are needed at all! Hard Stealth is unlikely to be needed, as on the B-2 ?! Enough to remake those aircraft that the Russian Federation has. We don’t need any prodigy! There is also an “air launch,” for Iskander and other missiles. http://www.paralay.com/pakda.html
    4. edeligor April 29 2014 13: 50 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: super-vitek
      My opinion is skeptical about this class of aircraft, in the literal sense of the word, it will be difficult for them to bomb due to developed air defense systems, and in my opinion, missiles can be fired from less expensive carriers, especially hypersonic ones. We must build 50 cars purely to demonstrate the flag !! !

      Strongly disagree! Purely Khrushchev's point of view, when the USSR Air Force was almost completely destroyed. The use of bombers includes a whole range of measures, including the use of electronic warfare, fighter aircraft, etc. I'm not talking about the fact that the bombers do not enter the air defense zone. Therefore, the prospect of developing bomber aircraft should come from the military doctrine of the state. Consequently, the later dates for the introduction of the PAK DA to the Air Force have been calculated.
  3. valentina-makanalina April 29 2014 08: 52 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    We need long-range aviation on constant combat duty. Our fly much further than them. Unfortunately, we do not have as many bases around potential opponents as they are. And the fact that technology changes during its adoption, is not scary. The main thing is not to start from scratch, there will already be developments. But bombing (as super-vitek says) is not necessary. The main thing is missile launches with gifts. Their flight time is shorter than from our territory. It will not be pleasant for some that the "rocket mine" flies along the border. And our beauty.
  4. Nayhas April 29 2014 09: 21 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The question is the most important. Why do we need a strategic bomber? To deliver nuclear weapons to enemy territory? Nonsense, this will make the ICBM more reliable. As far as I understand, the Americans are planning to make a strategist capable of carrying an inconspicuous large number of high-precision munitions over a long distance. But to hell with this? We have acre X-55 and hypothetical X-101 there is nothing more, but they and Tu-160 can convey ...
    1. FID
      FID April 29 2014 09: 33 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Nayhas
      capable of carrying an inconspicuous large number of high-precision ammunition over a long distance.

      5000 miles (by the way, the error in the text is 1 mile = 1609 m, 5000 - 8000 km, in land mile land) - not a very long distance ...
    2. sivuch April 29 2014 09: 53 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      That is, you can make an inconspicuous bomber, but missiles for him (and not only for him), no?
      And the list of hypothetical missiles can be continued, say X-32, I would easily include
      1. Nayhas April 29 2014 10: 36 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: sivuch
        That is, you can make an inconspicuous bomber, but missiles for him (and not only for him), no?

        Well, something we have with this tight. GLONASS brings ska ...
        The thing is that ammunition with a range of 0-20 km is dropped from the strategist. pretty stupid. Desirable from 100 km. Here, accordingly, the question arises of the guidance system, here the “kingdom” of the ANN (inertial navigation system) and the SRNS (space radio navigation system). In the final section, guidance can be different, both thermal and radar, and in comparison with the target image ... But on the march section, you can’t do without ANN and SRNS. And here it’s bad with both the first and second ... So we’re using “flight by cards” ...
        1. edeligor April 29 2014 15: 26 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Nayhas
          drop ammunition from a strategist

          I do not understand your skepticism. Treat PAK DA as a platform carrying a complex of weapons, for example, anti-satellite weapons, which, due to their considerable mass, cannot be suspended from front-line soldiers.
          1. Nayhas April 29 2014 16: 55 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: edeligor
            Treat PAK DA as a platform carrying a complex of weapons, for example, anti-satellite weapons, which, due to their considerable mass, cannot be suspended from front-line soldiers

            What does an anti-satellite weapon mean on a strategic bomber? Why the hell did he give up? And which satellites will he shoot down? TV?
            1. edeligor April 29 2014 18: 48 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Eugene! Who told you this is a STRATEGIC medium? This is a promising long-range aviation complex. Draw conclusions.
            2. 9lvariag 18 May 2014 18: 09 New
              • -1
              • 0
              -1
              Which ones? GPS and other satellites intelligence.
        2. VAF
          VAF April 29 2014 15: 53 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: Nayhas
          The thing is that ammunition with a range of 0-20 km is dropped from the strategist.


          Zhenya. For the Papuans ... the most. but only for the Papuans! wassat

          Quote: Nayhas
          Desirable from 100 km


          Desirable from 1000 km and more otherwise .. "kirdyk" to the strategist crying
          1. Nayhas April 29 2014 16: 53 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: vaf
            Zhenya. For the Papuans ... the most. but only for the Papuans!

            Good day, Sergey!
            It’s wasteful to drive strategists against the so-called Papuans, here you need an arsenal aircraft based on a transport aircraft, like the AC-130 of the latest modification ...
            Quote: vaf
            Desirable from 1000 km and more otherwise .. "kirdyk" to the strategist

            C'mon, stealth will be able to at least 400km. quietly fly up?
            1. leon-iv April 29 2014 17: 03 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              stealth then can at least 400km. quietly fly up?

              For whom? It depends on who and where it looks to recall the case with Amers and Jews?
            2. VAF
              VAF April 29 2014 19: 33 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Nayhas
              It’s wasteful to drive strategists against the so-called Papuans, here you need an arsenal aircraft based on a transport aircraft, like the AC-130 of the latest modification ...


              Absolutely not against, but .. wink it's you .. suggested or suggested wink ..to drop an HSA with a range of up to 20 km wink
              But about the stealth did not understand? belay
              And if the object of impact in all directions is covered by air defense systems ... then while with your 100 km wassat
        3. sivuch April 29 2014 16: 11 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          That is, it is so bad that there is no and is not expected? and missiles also fly with NL-10?
          1. VAF
            VAF April 29 2014 19: 37 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: sivuch
            That is, it is so bad that there is no and is not expected?


            Well, not so bad and ... foreseen bully ..and missiles have long flown with NL-10M and NRK-2M, though windscreens are already accurate .. don’t use (just kidding) +! drinks
      2. VAF
        VAF April 29 2014 15: 50 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: sivuch
        And the list of hypothetical missiles can be continued


        If only on the list of developments .. then yes wink

        Quote: sivuch
        , say X-32, I would easily turn on


        How is everything with you .. wassat . I give a rocket practically at the exit. but what are you going to "carry" on wink
        1. sivuch April 29 2014 16: 07 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          I only have Mazda-3, so it won’t fit, but the Russian air forces were going to Tu-22M3. Have you really not integrated yet? Here are the people of Dubna who reported that they only tweeted 2012 pieces in 12 and are going to increase production. are they sculpting for the future?
          And, sorry for the importunity, the question is about Platan. It’s not really interesting. By the way, recently there was a strange statement on the curl that the TP channel still does not work, but it is not needed. It is unclear how it may not be needed.
          1. VAF
            VAF April 29 2014 19: 48 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: sivuch
            I only have a Mazda-3, so it won’t fit, but the Russian Air Force was going to Tu-22M3


            I have. Of course. A lot. But .. the same .. will not fit. although on a trolley at the back ... freely towed laughing
            Remember the song. It used to be .... "and apple trees will bloom on Mars) (this was about going and .. this is not a question for the Dubna people, but for the KAPO).
            Well, about the report .... the same remember- 2.. and even in the field of ballet. We are ahead of the rest " fellow
            According to Platan .... everything is already working as it should (who could say that IR is not needed wassat ) .. it was necessary to send him ... forest fool
            There was only one "unsolvable" problem .. these are the shading angles .. even on M-ke everything remained as it is, but here .. selyava .. well, we don’t have a sniper ... no request
            1. sivuch April 30 2014 09: 24 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Thank you.
              And who said - do not understand, hidden quoting is unclear to anyone. Toli meant that there was enough radar and a low-level TV camera, only if you had to sleep at night, and not crap around with nonsense.
              But if there are still no carriers for the X-32, it’s somehow shitty
    3. Biolant
      Biolant April 29 2014 14: 10 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      In the USSR, strategists were needed to attack aircraft carriers. Won't you bomb them with ICBMs?
    4. VAF
      VAF April 29 2014 15: 37 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Nayhas
      and they can convey them and Tu-160 ...


      Zhenya, maybe he ... of course he can. but the question is .. how many of them. and after some time how much .. will remain7 recourse

      Further .. you all aim at fixed objects on the territory of the enemy. but the boats than you will ... "sink" wassat
      And they ... have NATs ... these boats though ... eat everything and eat with KR ..... or you think at all ... there will be enough Grachenkov wink or a lone killer ..something there (black sarcasm) + drinks
      1. Nayhas April 29 2014 17: 10 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: vaf
        Zhenya, maybe he ... of course he can. only here is the question .. how many of them. and after some time how much .. will remain

        Well, here the economic question is, to spend the Olympiad rubles on the development of PAK-YES, build 20 of them, then throw them away to service them ...
        Or spend Olympiard / 100 on putting in order the existing Tu-160 + fleet of modernization at least to the level of the early 2000s ...
        Quote: vaf
        but the boats than you will ... "sink"

        So there is no anti-ship missile system, even if the Kh-32 is ready, then it will not fit into any bomb bay for it is giant in size ...
        1. VAF
          VAF April 29 2014 20: 01 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Nayhas
          Well, there’s an economic question


          When one item is in the .. "soap", toyuyune to save laughing

          Why is it in G \ U ... on the Tu-95MS under the plane (like on the Kame-Tu-95K), well, in the 160th and in the belly it is possible .. but not effectively. just ... one.
  5. 222222 April 29 2014 09: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    RF-USA-PRC ... three countries are working to create a new bomber ..
    "The Shanghai Aviation Design and Research Institute (SADRI) is developing the first Chinese long-range bomber to use stealth technologies," Want China Times reports citing China Aviation News, a state-owned agency. The aircraft has been under development since 2008; according to the Chinese classification, it will be refers to the first generation of long-range stealth bombers. "
    Details (anyone interested) here:
    http://www.militaryparitet.com/perevodnie/data/ic_perevodnie/1723/
    http://www.arms-expo.ru/057048049050.html
  6. Magic archer April 29 2014 09: 47 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    in 90 x in some of the magazines in my Technique of Youth there was an article about the unrealized project of the bomber KB Myasishchev. Well, so Pak YES is just one to one! It’s very similar ... And the scheme is the flying wing and the location of the keels!
    1. 0255 April 29 2014 11: 08 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Magic Archer
      in 90 x in some of the magazines in my Technique of Youth there was an article about the unrealized project of the bomber KB Myasishchev. Well, so Pak YES is just one to one! It’s very similar ... And the scheme is the flying wing and the location of the keels!

      It was someone who posted on the network drawings of the T-4MS Design Bureau Sukhoi, which competed with the Tu-160, and wrote that it was PAK YES. And all together they picked up that PAK YES would be like that.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra April 29 2014 14: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        this is not an unrealized project, but one of the three layout options for the Tu-160
        Tu-160 is not a Tupolev plane but a Myasischevsky one. Tupolev and his team constantly stole everything from everyone (Myasishchev, Sukhoi, and others)
        when Myasishchev died, the finished car was given for “sale” to the Tupolev Design Bureau.
        sometimes for their employees they arranged an “exchange of experience” in other design bureaus when they literally walked and copied, sometimes Yakovlev’s employees with their guards simply broke into hangars, photographed and ripped out samples.
        Sukhoi and Myasishchev’s bombers had much in common, but Myasischevsky was better.
        1. 0255 April 29 2014 22: 55 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Kassandra
          this is not an unrealized project, but one of the three layout options for the Tu-160
          Tu-160 is not a Tupolev plane but a Myasischevsky one. Tupolev and his team constantly stole everything from everyone (Myasishchev, Sukhoi, and others)
          when Myasishchev died, the finished car was given for “sale” to the Tupolev Design Bureau.
          sometimes for their employees they arranged an “exchange of experience” in other design bureaus when they literally walked and copied, sometimes Yakovlev’s employees with their guards simply broke into hangars, photographed and ripped out samples.
          Sukhoi and Myasishchev’s bombers had much in common, but Myasischevsky was better.

          I agree with you, but the M-18 was supposed to be cooler - it had to be hypersonic. In general, it is a pity Myasishchev - SUCH projects developed, but almost nothing went into the series sad
          If I were the Minister of Aviation Industry of the USSR, then with me only Myasishevsky planes would fly. Oh, dreams ...
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 1 May 2014 17: 28 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well, why - his Tu-160 just went.
            And the widow P.O. Sukhoi (whom the ANT had surrounded even more) and in fact was persecuted, was then given the Medal of this Tupolev No. 1.
    2. patsantre April 29 2014 11: 20 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Yes, no one knows (except the designers) how it will look.
      1. FID
        FID April 29 2014 13: 32 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        Quote: patsantre
        Yes, no one knows (except the designers) how it will look.

        I am afraid that the designer does not know how he will look. While there is a preliminary design. Often, the output is completely different ...
        1. patsantre April 29 2014 15: 26 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          As I understand from the article, outline design is already completed. According to the author.
  7. Cnukep April 29 2014 09: 49 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    As recent events of the air defense system have shown, potential friends are not so perfect, so it’s better for us when there is long-range aviation, and even a new generation, than it won’t be! In any case, the development of new promising technologies is an impetus for the entire industry and the development of its elemental base, which we lack so much!
  8. DAGESTAN333 April 29 2014 09: 54 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Type of ours which - it looks like he is with hypersonic ambitions))

    I am for the variable wing geometry - for the maximum available speed for the car.
    1. sniper April 29 2014 12: 51 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: DAGESTANETS333
      it looks like he is with hypersonic ambitions))
      Dear, do not confuse supersonic with hypersound, these, as they say in Odessa, are two big differences ... wassat
      Hypersound is a speed over 5M, which is unattainable in aviation, unfortunately ...
      1. DAGESTAN333 April 29 2014 18: 08 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Your excitement is understandable))) The difference between supersonic and hypersound is clearly visualized. Due to the fact that (on the first images) a dark coating is visible on the nose, I allowed myself to admit that this is thermal protection, (then I became completely insolent) and such protection is needed only if the device is hypersonic (well, or 3-4 ) or if he somehow has to dive into the dense layers of the atmosphere. ... But actually I joked about hypersound.
        1. Lars_xiii
          Lars_xiii April 29 2014 19: 22 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Naturally hypersonic! It will be disguised as a meteorite wassat This latest stealth technology laughing
        2. sniper April 29 2014 21: 52 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: DAGESTANETS333
          Your excitement is clear)))

          No worries, brother! I am glad that there is an understanding of speed modes ... wassat
  9. 1c-inform-city April 29 2014 09: 59 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Quote: Nayhas
    The question is the most important. Why do we need a strategic bomber? To deliver nuclear weapons to enemy territory? Nonsense, this will make the ICBM more reliable. As far as I understand, the Americans are planning to make a strategist capable of carrying an inconspicuous large number of high-precision munitions over a long distance. But to hell with this? We have acre X-55 and hypothetical X-101 there is nothing more, but they and Tu-160 can convey ...

    You are a little mistaken. The main task of the strategist is to take off in the face of an attack and survive a nuclear strike, after which try to strike a retaliation strike. Moreover, without entering the air defense zone since the launch range of modern missiles allows this.
    1. leon1204id 10 March 2015 20: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Interestingly, after the nuclear test, what will be achieved? It seems only to register the full n **** c.
  10. Bersaglieri April 29 2014 10: 55 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    And what side does the project of the 70s Sukhoi Design Bureau "200" (T-4MS) have to do with PAK YES? The picture needs to be changed. PAK YES is planned to be subsonic, although also according to the LC scheme, but of a completely different design.
  11. Diviz April 29 2014 11: 05 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    I think so subsonic pack will not be. as you know, 5th generation engines are put on the pack fa but then they will be upgraded. that is, all the nagging in the engines. as I understand it, now they are developing 6th generation engines and what they can only be guessed at.
  12. Anton Gavrilov April 29 2014 13: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The terms on the American plane seem to be rather optimistic. They essentially did not even choose a developer and did not start development as such, but they were already planning to develop it in 5 years, and it doesn’t take the first prototype into the air. In any case, we are on 2 a step ahead, which cannot but rejoice.
    1. Sleeping
      Sleeping April 29 2014 13: 39 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Maybe they already have all the developments on the topic, and a competition for contractors to avert eyes. Etozhok America, they can not be trusted.
  13. postman
    postman April 29 2014 14: 14 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    "Its characteristics will replace all existing long-range bombers: Tu-95MS, Tu-22M3 and Tu-160. "
    ?
    Was touched. Is this type of conditioner shampoo and dandruff remedy in ONE bottle?
    and although the 1st and 3rd planes are of the same class, they are still different, both in principle, in terms of premium, in mass, and in combat load ...
    Why not add the SU-24 to this troika? What would immediately and cheaplywinked

    "The main reason for this is the age of the available technology."
    ? razi.
    And, what then interferes with the proven technologies and materials - PRODUCE NEW. And you don’t have to change the list of weapons, training methods, retrain, etc., etc.
    CAN THE CONCEPT OF APPLICATION BE LIKE, AS THE CARRIERS themselves ARE OUTDATED (morally)? And do not meet the requirements of today ...

    "Unfortunately, the bulk of information about the technical appearance of the PAK DA aircraft is still hidden from the public."
    Nothing to hide, because nothing to show. WITH YOUR IDEA, CONCEPT, PRINCIPLE, NOT DECIDED.
    There are only vague Wishes of the military (different with).
    And Poghosyan will not sing the tugs yet, they’ll burn him with the sci-fi businessman “dtn” Igor Raufovich (Ashurbeyli)

    "Russian program PAK DA entered the main stage development work, and the American project LRS-B still has not reached the competitive stage.
    ??? What is it like?
    Moscow. February 13 2014 - The Russian Ministry of Defense has signed a contract with Tupolev to develop promising the aviation complex of long-range aviation (PAK DA), said the director of the aviation industry department of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation Andrei Boginsky.

    In a month (!) Have you reached OCD? When they were going to start in 2014 (WITHOUT THE MONTH)
    OCD? Full blown? Is that what?


    The Americans still have time:

    they are more concerned about the availability of spare parts for B2 (NO production, no suppliers). There is no clarity with the concept.
    1. domjoly April 29 2014 20: 39 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Judging by open sources, the Americans plan to create a universal bomber by the mid-20s, which will carry out the tasks of delivering nuclear and non-nuclear weapons, covert surveillance, reconnaissance, electronic warfare and, most importantly, having the possibility of both manned and unmanned modes, and this is actually the 6th generation. Ours, apparently, too, focusing on the Americans, want to make a strategic bomber - 'all in one bottle'
      1. postman
        postman April 29 2014 22: 40 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: domjoly
        want to make a strategic bomber - 'all in one bottle'

        Well Tu -22 (M?) THEN NOT A STRATEG !!!! (neither in range nor in the nomenclature of weapons). I meant it
        1. 0255 April 29 2014 23: 02 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Postman
          Well Tu -22 (M?) THEN NOT A STRATEG !!!! (neither in range nor in the nomenclature of weapons). I meant it

          The Tu-22M was deprived of a refueling system under an arms reduction treaty between the USSR and the USA, and the United States did not rank it as a "strategist". Perhaps, in the case of the third world on the Tu-22M, the USSR could establish a refueling system. If I'm wrong, then correct me.
          1. postman
            postman April 30 2014 03: 13 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: 0255
            Tu-22M deprived of the refueling system under the contract

            It is easy to return the fuel rod to its place (the machine itself, as well as the piloting and the complex, is designed for refueling in air

            The main weapon of the aircraft - anti-ship hypersonic cruise missile X-22N

            X-22PSI for aircraft carrier warrants (not the same for areal targets the same, only to the launch point of 500 km, it will be intercepted)
            And about reaching America on the Tu-22M ... Sergey (vaf) is already popular with laughs for me (in his usual manner0 explained on the example of an attack by Iceland and convoys
        2. ty60 April 30 2014 22: 56 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          I find it funnier against the background of the F35, with its idiotic universalization, to read a similar game on our website. Only Bears need replacement. 22 and 160 in modernization
  14. BCO 82-84
    BCO 82-84 April 29 2014 14: 28 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    By 2018 M. Poghosyan will bury the domestic design school.
  15. Leshka
    Leshka April 29 2014 14: 52 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    how will this pack yes
  16. Syrdon April 29 2014 15: 12 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    I am for the early introduction of the Kirovets combat airship into the troops))))))))
  17. Al_lexx April 29 2014 18: 20 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I understood everything, except for one. Namely, what side is the Tu22 related to long-range aviation?
  18. lexx2038 April 29 2014 18: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    You need a plane to fly all the way to the lower cosmic orbits, it is clear that with a human filling the apparatus is not possible to tear itself away from a rocket (overload and all that ...), then we need to make a super-duper super-high-bomb.
  19. jekasimf April 29 2014 18: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    To space, only access to space. The rest is useless against air defense!
  20. Chicot 1 April 29 2014 19: 26 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I doubt that these "inconspicuous" irons will ever be able to replace the supersonic multi-mode bomber / missile carrier. Well, I doubt it very much ...
    The great maximum that these "high-tech" basins will be capable of is the replacement of the Tu-95 and B-52. And then, only when they are brought to mind. And it will not be very, very soon. If ever there will be. For neither the propelled B-2, nor its small brother F-117A, had been inserted a mind after many years. And they preferred to refuse the latter altogether, having handed over the "wonderful" "Night Hawk" to the scrap, where he had the right place ...
    There is another area in which these “newest” kyrogas can be very useful. This is a show off to bash. Americans know how to do it. Fact ... The question is, is it worth taking an example from them? ..

    Tu-160. A great example of a great strategist. Can you say the same thing about an American "invisible" teapot called B-2? ...
    1. Al_lexx April 29 2014 23: 39 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Chicot 1

      Tu-160. A great example of a great strategist. Can you say the same thing about an American "invisible" teapot called B-2? ...

      What does the B2 have to do with it? Everything is exactly the opposite. The Americans have an almost complete analogue of B1A, and we have no analogue of B2.


      .
      At the expense of the discussion about the subsonic wing, I think that it is completely logical, since supersonic now does not save anyone and for nothing. The fighter is still faster, especially the rocket. And the fact that it is possible to fly away further on the subsonic, and load more into the wing is absolutely true. And radio invisibility is already the thirteenth case. How many can hang composites at the right angles, so much and hang. The main thing is that composites are difficult to repair in the field and are still more expensive than aluminum alloys.
  21. Signaller April 29 2014 20: 50 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    Of course, I understand the desire of our designers to engage in advanced topics. But where were they before ????? I even, such a poor designer and architect, in the absence of money, all one developed the design of his house. Then the grandmother came and the house went up. And here???? Not even a concept. Another divorce. Cut is easy to say. E-mobile rested, definitely. Such heads and concepts and operating time-zero. Drawings like our academician Bartini. In my opinion he drew even better. And if you dig into his canduites, then you can not find one like that. And most importantly, everything is serious .. Oh fool us, oh fool us ...
  22. fero April 29 2014 21: 14 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    PAK YES work in progress wink 2 weeks ago they received a draft of technical specifications for a certain "high-pressure apparatus". I will not specifically voice. The design is nothing complicated, but the "devil is in the details": a strict weight limit, a decent margin of safety and a bunch of tests with overloads up to 150g. When I made the first calculations, I was stunned ... the product will have to be cooked from an alloy with a yield strength of at least 1600 MPa lol now we’re sitting and thinking how to do it) if we don’t think of it, then we certainly will not apply for the tender.
    1. postman
      postman April 30 2014 03: 22 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: fero
      with overloads up to 150g.

      150g WHY? Especially for a subsonic glider!
      A-135 ("Gazelle") PR had at the start of 300g (and there it was required to reach the level of 10km in 800 seconds)
      ON RCC granite max 18g (if not forgotten)
      Quote: fero
      the product will have to be cooked from an alloy with a yield strength of at least 1600 MPa

      Springs for a light truck make from strip steel 55С2 (with yield strength not less than 1600 MPa)- use boldly
      NAFUYA current such parameters?
      =========
      some kind of nonsense
      1. FID
        FID April 30 2014 07: 08 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Postman
        NAFUYA current such parameters?

        I can only assume - for example, a rotary wing assembly of variable geometry, loads there ....
        1. postman
          postman April 30 2014 11: 25 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: SSI
          rotary wing assembly of variable geometry, the load there ....

          Quote: SSI
          for example, a rotary wing assembly of variable geometry, loads there ....

          1.Well, there is still no 150g!
          The steering machine on stabilizers (chirping ATGM Milan, Tou), something about 3-4g, MORE that you can’t provide without using a booster, or any other “explosive” accelerator
          2. The concept of stealth-wing variable geometry does not roll.
          3. Why does SOUND (supersonic have no: F-22, SU-27, MIG-29, T-50) a variable sweep?
          4. There are still NO such loads

          Swivel unit and movable console (points of application of all forces) - the essence of the bearing, which is 100 years old at lunch and which does not withstand such loads (al)
          The speed is small — the sweep angle is minimal, the speed increases, the sweep increases (turn ON THE FLOW), the speed drops, the sweep decreases (against the flow turn, but the SPEED drops)
          As far as I know, in supersonic no one moves the wing to the landing position (and automation will not allow it)
          What about the wing? more than 100 years to this wing, and without such yield strengths, the WHOLE full (maximum) weight of the aircraft "bears" this wing, and everything "hangs" on this wing (the wing "rests" on the air "- as I explain to my younger son about his fears, when he sees that JSC employees are WALKING on the wing of the planes: "Dad will not fall off" wink
          =============
          Conclusion: fero does not conduct any work on PAK YES, as just do not understand what it is about. And the numbers are fantastic
          1. FID
            FID April 30 2014 12: 03 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The wing load is not only, and not so much the resistance to the incoming flow: fuel, lift, often motors, and then drag. I meant it. Maybe he wanted to voice the number 15. In the USSR, the safety margin, normative, was 2,4 — this was for machines and mechanisms, in aviation it reached 10 (working load of fighters was +9). Maybe you need to understand that ...
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. postman
              postman April 30 2014 14: 56 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              [quote = ssi] I meant it. Maybe he wanted to voice the number 15 [/ quote]
              -Well, the load (listed) is not related to overloads.
              I can’t even imagine what kind of mechanism there (even in a fighter) can work with overloads (ESSENCE ACCELERATION) at 150g!
              -Maybe I wanted ..., but if such "specialists"
              [quote = fero] 2 weeks ago they received a draft of the technical specifications for a certain “high-pressure equipment”. I won’t specifically voice it. [/ Quote] conduct OCD over PAK YES ....
              Sorry for the pilots, the future

              [quote = SSI] in aviation reached 10 (working overload of fighters +9). [/ quote]

              1. not on all nodes 10
              2. In my opinion, up to +12 (short-term) Or am I confusing it with my ZR?
              3. But not on [quote = fero] some "equipment high pressure".
              4. On PAK YES there will be an Electro-Remote Control System (Fly-by-Wire)
              From this:

              refused (I recall Airbus with its 3 me duplicating systems in the tail)
              Well, where in invisibility with this:



              Yes, and the weight is still



              5. Somewhere in the west (Boeing or Lockheed) I read that in the future they would refuse hydraulics for the chassis. Drive-by-Wire (servo with ECSU), tea is not auto, feedback to the pilot from the chassis is not needed (as for auto: driver, road, steering wheel)
  23. Zomanus 1 May 2014 04: 22 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Yes, let them do it. If there is a clear understanding, why the heck it is needed in the present and future.
  24. 9lvariag 17 May 2014 21: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: 9lvariag
    What does the Tupoelva design bureau have to do with it, if the T-60 design bureau is on the photo. Dry. Yes, and in the original modification Chernyakhovsky?
    I read and think to myself: - "adult uncles are sitting at the computers and reading any garbage that they write to them directly from Langley?
    1) That Americans finish “Aurora”, which will be visible locations, at a distance of 3000 km. And even with old missile defense locators mounted in the 70s. And no procedure to lower the EPR will help. Indeed, in an over-the-horizon location, a plasma trace is captured! And he is already at 3,8M. - It will be just drop dead visible. And to all visible in all ranges.
    2) And coming down from claim 1, all attempts to make a purely hypersonic bomber are a bluff. And in terms of fuel economy - it’s zero! The same, zero, in monetary terms - this was proved by the XB-70! This is all from the fact that the USAF - they just threw it during the last war in the bay. And snickering generals made a vine for NATO members. And their Mr. ..na thrown in the US Senate. I myself saw how one was crucifying that the USAF needed a strike aircraft with a radius of 16 thousand. km.http: //www.paralay.com/ngb/ngb.html
    3) Based on paragraph 1, we look at the same anti-ship missiles and missiles? To be honest, we already had air-based missiles flying up to 3,8M. Yes, these are samples mainly under JBCh. What can not be upgraded?
    And I look and laugh at such missiles developed in the variant proposed by the USA - is that such a missile will take a hexogen warhead weighing 1-3 tons? And without it, to fly into the sky, rockets worth hundreds of thousands of $ is just a fake.
    5) All these ALSM, X-15, X-22, X-45 - are mainly designed for special. BLL. Its weight is up to 450 kg. and then probably I greatly overestimated the weight of the warhead. And what will happen if, on the same “Tomahawk”, hang, the main warhead in 1t. , instead of a nuclear warhead weighing 250 kg (I myself saw warhead simulators, for anti-ship missiles with an air launch, in a landfill)? And where it will fly and whether it will fly with such an overload, and there can be problems with the launch.
    6) The maneuverability of allegedly trending hypersonic UAVs is also garbage. I would like to ask: - guys who, this is another scarecrow, vehemently advocate: - "Do you even know that for a flight, even an aircraft without a crew, there are overload standards?" And they read what was for “Arakhngels”, the maximum overload was in 2G, and for TU-22M, in 2,5G! You considered a turn at such a speed and the fact that it will be at least 50 km.? And the materials? Have you figured out how much it will cost to build rockets capable of withstanding the heating of the bow at 700 degrees? We do not believe we go to http://www.testpilot.ru/usa/lockheed/d/21/d21.htm and read.
    7) If you do not enter the space controlled air defense, then no tricks are needed at all! Hard Stealth is unlikely to be needed, as on the B-2 ?! Enough to remake those aircraft that the Russian Federation has. We don’t need any prodigy! There is also an “air launch,” for Iskander and other missiles. http://www.paralay.com/pakda.html
  25. Tishka 7 October 2014 02: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes, they again gave the project to the Tupolevites, and nothing good will come of it, as the engineers from other laboratories were lured. they will do so. whoever doesn’t go over will be given an experience exchange! Again we are marking time at medium speeds. although back in the 60s. there were ideas about creating tropospheric bombers that could go into outer space. with almost unlimited flight range, as many comments say. and this has its own rational kernel! Not every missile defense system can track it. and bring down, all the more! Fighters of this class, well, except for the MIG 31 F, I have not seen, and missiles, also units that can go into space and hit a flying target. Here is a means of combating the AUG, and without nuclear weapons, such a bird falls out of the upper layers of the troposphere, inflicts a remover, and goes there again, and the fighters below, only wave their wings! And if the speed is more than 3 max, then knocking it down is quite difficult, and if you spotted it, went into space, changed its orbit, and look for it among the wreckage of satellites and other garbage! And it makes a landing at a regular airfield, the prospects are quite interesting, if this idea is worked out using modern materials and developments both in aviation and in space.
  26. leon1204id 19 January 2015 17: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Dear, it’s about technical requirements, it’s usually not a big secret, and the military could share it in general terms, but this doesn’t happen. The development of equipment and technologies is faster than dreams. Development of air traffic control systems, stealth problems, control of plasma flows and their generation, the crew’s inability to process the entire data stream, new electronic warfare equipment, development of LEDs and supercomputers.
    Why build these flying coffins when car numbers are already visible from satellites?. And already photos of flying fighters ...... Now drones can hang for days in the sky and some can be continuous. It’s easier to make hypersonic weapons and that’s not a fact.
    Both superpowers are confused: who will make a mistake and invest the entire budget in weapons that are useless and dear to the heart of the military?
    1. The comment was deleted.
  27. leon1204id 10 March 2015 20: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In the 60s, the Valkyrie project was buried by the improvement of missile defense and MIG25, the strategic bomber Lancer was converted into a tactical one and all because of missile defense systems. satellite detection systems will also see it in the optical range if electronic warfare interferes with the radio frequencies. After that it is doomed. Therefore, do not worry, let's wait, what will be done in the USA.