Russian source reports PAK DA is developed by Sukhoi, 120 t class, and will be equipped with 4 Al-41 engines. It means Sukhoi has finally won competition with Tupolev for PAK DA program. The new prospective bomber will have the same range like Tu-160 (14+ thousand kms) and will gradually replace Tu-95 (60+ units), Tu-160 (15 units) and partially Tu-22M3. The technical-economic reasons played important role in the decision, the better shape of Sukhoi design house too. To make an adequate replacement for such high number of planes by Tu-160 size bombers (a new kind or refurbished) is impossible, they said.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
so is this the variable-bypass version of Al-41?
ReplyDeleteany info confirming that the same/similar engine will be the `final` PAK-FA engine as well?
...of course, who would be interested in what the competing proposals LOOK LIKE? :-)
ReplyDeleteSukhoi has experience in developing a bomber ,they developed the T-4 bomber which was far ahead of its time then but it was rejected being expensive.
ReplyDeleteOfcourse Tupolev experience will come in handy in designing a bomber.
Igor couple of questions.
1> Will they use the new 18 T engine for the new bomber ?
2> Has it been decided the new bomber will be subsonic or supersonic ?
With 4 X 18 ton class engines, but a weight of a Tu-22M3 the numbers are all wrong.
ReplyDeleteI think the aircraft will operate in two different modes... strategic and theatre.
In strategic mode it will carry a payload of maybe 9-12 tons of cruise missiles and it will likely super cruise all the way to the target at about mach 1.5 or so. Flying all the way in dry thrust will be very efficient, and the high average speed will mean it would get it strategic targets faster than bombers do now.
For theatre mode it will carry a greatly reduced internal fuel load and might carry a 30 ton weapon load over much reduced distances.
I would expect all weapons and fuel to be internal.
Would expect a dash speed of Mach 2 or so to reduce time over target in the theatre role.
Austin,
ReplyDeleteq1 - positive
q2 - the planned speed is 2M. About on dry supersonic capability they yet elaborate, but certainly yes.
better get rteady with bombers. first priority is to bomb the real persisiten t enemy england to be bombed into smithness. send twenty topola nd cruise misisles to kill allt those english coward bastards who plot agasint the world.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------------------------------
nato is an organisation created to serve the piracy and bullying of the thrid rate country england after the second world war-America did nto need not england needed that to serve her purpose on back of American arms
“isolationist” (really an anti-meddling) is a code word used by england and her agents in usa to decry those people in America who do not want the whole of usa resources put to the benefit of English race and england and who may not want the perpetual wars being waged by england on the strength of American arms
NATO is an organisation created to maintain the power of third rate england through American arms to bully Germany and Europeans and to keep Russia down all for benefit of england and usa got sukced into it through British agents in us media and politics and business. that is what isolationist means one who is not willing to sacrifice for the benefit of england.
it is not only neocons who are for perpetual war it is the english race so called British who are instigating the perpetual war of course the English are too coward and weak to fight on their own so they have arranged a charade called NATO to do their dirty work.
Decisions in nato are made not in berlin or Belgium but only in London and some British agents’ place in Washington. NATO WAS CREATED TO KEEP THE INFLUNCE OF WEAKNED BRITISH BASTARDS TO KEEP EUROPEANS DOWN (ESPECIALLY GEMRNS AND FRENCH) AND KEEP RUSSIAN THREATEND. IT WAS NOT CREATED TO counter Russia; it was created to give
support by americans to the British agenda of keeping the world for the e benefit of English and anglosaxon race and that only.
With 4 engines putting out 18 tons of thrust this new plane is more like a B-1B than a Tu-160.
ReplyDeleteThe Tu-23M3 has two 25 ton thrust engines for a total of 50 tons thrust for a max weight of about 120 tons. Having 4 x 18 ton thrust engines means 72 tons of thrust in a plane the same weight as the Tu-22M3.
Being a strategic aircraft it will need an enormous fuel fraction which will leave a fairly small payload capacity.
Even with an extremely efficient flying wing configuration this is going to be less impressive than a Tu-160 in terms of payload range performance...
If it can super cruise then it might be worth it, but it will likely have a strategic payload of perhaps 6 cruise missiles.
Considering the weight and the thrust and the potential for large internal loads of weapons or fuel I wonder if a variant of the PAK DA could be developed to fill the role of the Mig-31.
ReplyDeleteA flying wing is not so manouverable, but a super cruising long range low RCS aircraft with a huge nose mounted AESA and perhaps a 20-30m long wing mounted L band AESA radar with strategic range and a payload of perhaps 10-12 tons of long range AAMs carried internally... it would be a very potent interceptor and would reduce the cost of the PAK DA with numbers, and free the PAK FA up from interception duties.
The izvestia article is bogus. No prototype before 2020. The engines speculation is totally wrong.
ReplyDeleteB.R. Andy_theWiz
Hey Andy... any better engine speculation from you?
ReplyDeleteI would like to see them investing in a 5th gen engine based on the engines used by the Blackjack, or the engines used by the Backfire.
If they make them in stages like they are doing with the PAK FA they could fit the early improved versions to the existing fleet of aircraft... the first thing they should do is create an engine that can be fitted to both the Blackjack and Backfire and that alone will streamline logistics and improve performance for both aircraft.
With proper investment by 2020 they might have an engine powerful and reliable enough that they can go for a single engined medium bomber or three engined heavy bomber (ie reduced engine numbers reduce operational costs, but the increase in power and reliability it wont come at the cost of safety or performance.)
Regards
GarryB
Of course the implications of a 5th gen version of the engines fitted to Backfires and Blackjacks is interesting too.
ReplyDeleteBased on the improvement of the Al-31 from 12,700kg thrust to 18 tons in the 5th gen derivative engine, then we can expect a similar 41.73% increase in thrust for an updated strategic bombers engine so a base thrust of 25 tons suddenly jumps to 35 tons of thrust per engine, which makes it almost double the thrust of the PAF FA engine.
A single seat "light" PAK FA with a single engine for some roles and as a cheap mass production alternative might make an interesting development.
Put a large shrouded prop in the front and it could be used as the basis for a new propfan engine for subsonic long range aircraft too.
Equally a Backfire weight aircraft with two 35 ton engines results in 70 tons of thrust which is better than the current Backfires 50 tons, and very close to the projected PAKDA above with 4 x 18 ton thrust engines, but 2 engines are lighter and cheaper to operate and maintain.
The extra thrust should easily allow super cruising, perhaps even without an AB being fitted.
A civilian version could allow the Concord type dream of mach 2.2 civilian transport in dry thrust with 4 engines to allow super cruising at above mach 2.
This would greatly speed up flights from one side of Russia to the other and really open up the far east.
Strange decision. Even if the Russians were looking for a Backfire-sized tactical bomber why did they turn to Sukhoi instead of Tupolev? Whether in tactical or strategic bombers, Tupolev trumps everyone else in experience.
ReplyDeleteI have the feeling political influence has a lot to do with this decision.
Or perhaps the "russian source" is from inside Sukhoi rather than inside the government or military.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Tupolev is the best place to develop this new strategic aircraft...
We have seen with orders for Indian Frigates that contracts go to different shipyards as each job renovates each yard and prepares it for production... so although the production of Frigates is a little slower, Russia ends up with more yards able to compete for contracts for domestic and export orders which can only be good for domestic and export customers as when domestic orders increase the capacity for production needs to increase too... if all the orders went to one successful shipyard then obviously there would be a problem in the future for supply.
The same should be applied to aircraft design bureaus as the more spread out the work the better variety within the industry for domestic and export customers.
Sure the different aircraft companies are now all part of UAC, but keeping all parts working is much better than starving off half and overworking one or two parts of it.
The Sukhoi bureau needs to focus on Su-35s and Pak Fas and superjets and also UAVs and stop trying to steal other programs from other groups.
Hi Igor,
ReplyDeleteIs Russia taking any steps to improve it's Electronic Warfare capability . Recent newspaper reports in India are suggesting that the EW capability of the PAK FA is inferior to both the F22 & the F 35 .
Regards,
Ramesh
I would assume that if they are bothering to make a 5th gen fighter then they will also be making an effort to make it the best they can make it.
ReplyDeleteThat would mean EW would be developed for it too, but of course with India seeming to turn to other weapon suppliers perhaps Russia is not offering India the best it has because it might assume India will want a combination of Israeli and French EW equipment anyway.
The EW equipment on PAK FA is not really important to India as they will be developing an aircraft based on it that can have anything they want included in the design.
Because of this the new aircraft will likely be the first two seat stealth fighter.
It's not really a question about India's requirements or the PAK FA . It is about Russia's EW capability per se. As Alexander Zelin, head of the Russian air force said during the MAKS airshow that US aircrafts have better EW capabilities than Russian aircrafts.
ReplyDeleteAlso, for a stealth aircraft it is not possible to have Israeli/European EW equipments in a Russian platform . Transferring data between stealth and non stealth aircrafts itself comes with it's fair share of challenges . Plug and play will become more difficult . Going forward countries will ask for the entire package from one country .
Ramesh,
ReplyDeleteThe Israeli version of the F-35 supposedly will have many Israeli components including EW systems. As such I don't see why it would be a problem to integrate Western equipment on the Indian PAK-FA so long as the systems integration is ultimately done by a Russian/Indian firm(as was the case for the Su-30MKI programme).
Hey, Igorr, related to your old news about an Indian firm manufacturing GaN chips in Russia, how far are Russian efforts to induct GaN technology in AESA radars? I understand all current-gen AESA radars use GaAs architecture, but GaN has 3-5 times the power output.
ReplyDelete