PAK-DA article

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6912
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post28 May 2020, 03:42

Russia can barely afford the SU-57. Which, hasn't been entirely successful either. So, how can they afford a totally new 6th Generation Stealth Bomber. That at best would be built in small numbers....


Sounds like more of the usual "smoke and mirrors" coming from Team Putin! :doh:
Offline

gideonic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 291
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2015, 13:54

Unread post28 May 2020, 13:30

Corsair1963 wrote: "The final assembly of the entire machine should be complete in 2021"


Looking at the timeline, current fiscal climate, etc ...

I guess they will indeed finish it on time but the plane will have such high-tech stealth features that nobody will be able to see it :D
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4161
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post28 May 2020, 15:28

milosh wrote:I really doubt that is shape, if they made S-70 Hunter as real fly wing what is problem to make it in bomber size?

Earlier they talked about price, PAK-DA would be noticable cheaper to be build then new Tu-160. Tu-160 is way to expensive to replace outdated Tu-95. So PAK-DA could have better development path then PAK-FA.

PAK-FA have two stronger opponents, Su-35 which is dirt cheap and S-70 Hunter which is lot more stealthy (and new AF commander is pro-drone orientated).


How can anyone (in Russia or otherwise) possibly know PAK DA will be cheaper than "new" TU-160's? The thing hasn't even FLOWN yet, let alone any testing being done to identify any issues, work arounds etc.. It is a VERY rare occurrence when newer aircraft/systems result in being cheaper than older ones, the only example I can think of being the F-35. And that, due to LM's HUGE production run, costs spread across international partners and decades worth of factory/software/hardware innovations to facilitate it.

And the playing with dates has already begun. Being assembled in 2021, won't fly before 2025 blah blah blah. At this point (and considering the PAK-FA's sordid history with said dates), I wouldn't be surprised to hear PAK-DA went IOC in 2015, its just so stealthy nobody knew.

Including the Russians, LOL
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1138
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post28 May 2020, 17:27

mixelflick wrote:How can anyone (in Russia or otherwise) possibly know PAK DA will be cheaper than "new" TU-160's?


Estimated price.

Price of new build Tu-160 at least for first ten is around 300 million.

Btw this is drawing of design which provided by Butkowski (Polish journalist which have excellent connections in Russia), it look similar to one of wind model from long ago in some documentary (when PAK-DA wasn't even mentioned):
Attachments
pakda.jpg
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4161
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post29 May 2020, 14:23

milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:How can anyone (in Russia or otherwise) possibly know PAK DA will be cheaper than "new" TU-160's?


Estimated price.

Price of new build Tu-160 at least for first ten is around 300 million.

Btw this is drawing of design which provided by Butkowski (Polish journalist which have excellent connections in Russia), it look similar to one of wind model from long ago in some documentary (when PAK-DA wasn't even mentioned):


OK, so it looks to me like they're building a B-2. Which.... after already having a foundation in stealth aircraft, the US wasn't able to produce for less than a BILLION a copy. Granted, short production run but when was the last time Russia (not the former Soviet Union) had a large one (100 or more), at least of a strategic bomber? How about... never?

Even adjusting for the lower cost labor force and some concessions in its overally RCS (I don't see it achieving B-2 levels), I don't see them building this thing for less than $500 million/copy. Something less than $300 million/copy just seems... impossible. Unless they've 1.) Made some sort of breakthrough in materials/manufacturing OR 2.) The RCS is going to be SH like.... I just don't see how.

But hey, let's just see what happens. My guess is that in 10 years, they'll be maybe a half dozen flying prototypes, and 2-3 ground test vehicles. In other words, sort of like the SU-57 is today. Just a LOT more expensive...
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1138
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post29 May 2020, 19:18

mixelflick wrote:Unless they've 1.) Made some sort of breakthrough in materials/manufacturing OR 2.) The RCS is going to be SH like.... I just don't see how.


1) what was high tech in 1980s (when B-2 was developed) is sub standard today, I am talking about advanced machines and computers so in 2020s you surely will have breakthrough in manufacturing compared to 1980s. B-21 is clear example of that.

2) They don't need B-2 like RCS, russian bombers job is cruise missile attacks so PAK-DA could be noticable bigger but still lot smaller then other strategic bomber expect B-2, what is very important as fly wing it would be VLO for EW radars.

Also analogy with PAK-FA is flawed. PAK-FA is more planes in one, it need to cruise at Mach 2 (aka MiG-31 like), to be more agile then Su-35 and to be best multirole they even build.

On other hand PAK-DA is primarily long range stealthy cruise missile truck.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4161
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post30 May 2020, 13:26

milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Unless they've 1.) Made some sort of breakthrough in materials/manufacturing OR 2.) The RCS is going to be SH like.... I just don't see how.


1) what was high tech in 1980s (when B-2 was developed) is sub standard today, I am talking about advanced machines and computers so in 2020s you surely will have breakthrough in manufacturing compared to 1980s. B-21 is clear example of that.

2) They don't need B-2 like RCS, russian bombers job is cruise missile attacks so PAK-DA could be noticable bigger but still lot smaller then other strategic bomber expect B-2, what is very important as fly wing it would be VLO for EW radars.

Also analogy with PAK-FA is flawed. PAK-FA is more planes in one, it need to cruise at Mach 2 (aka MiG-31 like), to be more agile then Su-35 and to be best multirole they even build.

On other hand PAK-DA is primarily long range stealthy cruise missile truck.


Well, if you listen to the Russians they'll tell you that the TU-160M2 is already a stealthy, long range cruise missile truck. Not only that, it's a mach 2 bird! So I'm not sure why they'd want a new one?

Seems like a big waste of $ to me. $ they could be pouring into PAK-FA and other projects..
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1138
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post30 May 2020, 18:04

mixelflick wrote:
Well, if you listen to the Russians they'll tell you that the TU-160M2 is already a stealthy, long range cruise missile truck. Not only that, it's a mach 2 bird! So I'm not sure why they'd want a new one?

Seems like a big waste of $ to me. $ they could be pouring into PAK-FA and other projects..


Tu-95 need replacement. Tu-160 can't be that because it is very expensive to maintain and very expensive to buy. Also as it look like Russia planned to use Tu-160 as naval bomber. It will first get Kindzal and in future Zircon.

On other hand PAK-DA even if cost similar as new Tu-160 will be cheaper to maintain.

Also Tu-160 can't fly close to targets as PAK-DA can. New Kh-50 missile isn't behemoth as Kh-101 so you need bomber with noticable smaller RCS to use it safely.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6912
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post01 Jun 2020, 01:00

milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
Well, if you listen to the Russians they'll tell you that the TU-160M2 is already a stealthy, long range cruise missile truck. Not only that, it's a mach 2 bird! So I'm not sure why they'd want a new one?

Seems like a big waste of $ to me. $ they could be pouring into PAK-FA and other projects..


Tu-95 need replacement. Tu-160 can't be that because it is very expensive to maintain and very expensive to buy. Also as it look like Russia planned to use Tu-160 as naval bomber. It will first get Kindzal and in future Zircon.

On other hand PAK-DA even if cost similar as new Tu-160 will be cheaper to maintain.

Also Tu-160 can't fly close to targets as PAK-DA can. New Kh-50 missile isn't behemoth as Kh-101 so you need bomber with noticable smaller RCS to use it safely.


Russia clearly can't afford something like the PAK-DA. That is just plain fact.... :doh:
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4161
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post02 Jun 2020, 14:50

I wonder if the Russians actually assign people to work on these projects? If so, it has to be a gargantuan waste of talent and rubles. I mean really, let's look at their super-carrier. How many years and rubles were wasted on building such a thing, when it was known pretty much all along that the costs of doing so (nevermind operating a fleet of them) was prohibitive?

Russia has some brilliant minds insofar as airframe design. I mean really, given what they have to work with I think the world of some of their designs. But to tie these people up working on a project that has less than a 50% chance of actually happening?

Seems like a waste of time, money, talent and resources to me..
Previous

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests