The Russian government has approved the final design for the PAK DA strategic bomber aircraft according to state media.
Speaking to state-owned media outlet RIA Novosti, a source in the Russian defense industry revealed that the Ministry of Defense has given the green-light to the PAK DA’s design. The source said that the construction of several prototype PAK DA bombers is currently underway.
Tupolev, the developer of the aircraft, is prioritising stealth characteristics and the employment of long-range weapons.
The TASS Russian News Agency, another state-owned media outlet, previously reported in May 2020 that the construction of the first prototype was ongoing and should conclude in 2021. According to RIA Novosti’s source, the PAK DA will receive internal weapons bays for its armaments, reducing its radar signature. Russia has carried out simulations and tests to assess the bomber’s expected level of visibility on enemy radar. The bomber’s arsenal will include cruise and hypersonic missiles, the source stated.
In addition to carrying out strike missions, the PAK DA’s crew will likely “be able to control groups of unmanned aerial vehicles and will be able to use the entire range of air-to-air missiles”, the source specified. Russia has several ongoing unmanned combat aerial vehicle programmes, such as the Okhotnik-B, which has been tested in conjunction with other combat aircraft.
Late last year, Okhotnik-B prototypes began carrying mock air-to-air missiles as part of training flights. The first operational PAK DAs are not expected to enter service until later in the 2020s. RIA Novosti reported that, under the current schedule, the first should be delivered in 2027.
Once combat-ready, the bombers will replace the aging Tu-95MS.
How useful would a bomber be with a suite of air to air missiles v a dedicated fighter? Can you imagine the cost of fitting the variants to a bomber? We squirm at the cost of fitting of brimstone to f35
Probably more useful than the Rear gun on the existing Bombers !!!!
According to Russian sites, I decided to look on there is talk of the PAK being also able to carry a wide range of air to air missles, with the very latest types in mind.
But at the same time, they are also the upgrading Tu-160M2 and Tu-22M3
The Russians seem to be a bit busy at the moment.
Will anything actually fly out of the hanger though!
The Tu-22M3 upgrade is just a midlife refurbishment of the plane first entering service in 1989 to extend its life. They have had to replace the engine with one which cannot use afterburners because they no longer have the technology to produce the original engines.
If power points could kill Russia would be a super power.
Unlike the undoubted prospect of the Tempest program succeeding though right?
This one probably not very useful in air to air combat, its got a very good range (12,000km/30 hours) but its slower than your average passenger airliner.
It is only capable of about a quarter of the speed of the Tu-22M “Backfire” it would be replacing.
Old site… but a really interesting debate about the future of air dominance and suggestions from a couple of people (who appear to be have sound understanding) that future air dominance could indeed rest with airliner size aircraft loaded up with BVR Missiles.
Fascinating read if nothing else
https://www.defencetalk.com/military/forums/t/aim-9x-vs-asraam.5123/
Depends on the bomber. If we’re talking something along the lines of the Pak DA or B2. Then it could be a very useful platform against 4th gen aircraft, 5th would be a problem. A B52 or Tu22 because of its huge RCS wouldn’t be able to get close enough, even with long range missiles. If the stealth bomber is flying at 45,000ft+ And had some drones or stealth fighters acting as it’s eyes. Then with long range missiles it could be used as an arsenal aircraft. Hunting on its own would be a problem though, as it won’t have the energy to run away quickly enough after firing a missile. It would have to rely on its stealth to hide from a return shot.
depends what AAM you were going to integrate into it. A BVRor off bore sight missile would have its uses. If your engaging an aircraft 30-50MNa away agility is not really the key to winning.
if you work through the whole impact of drone and BVRoff bore sight missile thing, and what is needed to really take advantage of these, then just maybe your small agile single seat fighter may be at a disadvantage to a larger airframe, that can cart along more human brains as well as computing power, EW and other capabilities.
I was wondering about this. With beyond visual range missiles being the way forward along with swam drones, does it over time invalidate the small fighter jet, and push towards much larger platforms that can saturate the skies with missiles. I would guess the b52 etc could carry an insane number of air to air missiles.
Even if the B52 was using Meteor missiles. The incredibly large RCS of the aircraft would mean it will be easily detected, especially by a ground based search radar, but more especially by a AEW platform. It would need an additional or larger booster stage to significantly increase the stand-off range of Meteor, to enable the B52 to operate safely. However, against the S400 or 500 system. It would have to operate a very long way back from the forward line of operations, which would negate its usefulness.
Against the land based SAM the b52 would have cruise/glide missiles, for extreme stand off capability. I’m was more thinking to negate the air component.
The radar cross section is an issue, but only if the other side can launch its missiles before you can. So I guess it comes down to how far realistically can you detect a stealth fighter, a question we will never know the answer to. Additionally how stealthy can you make a long range bomb truck for whatever eventually replaces the b52.
Unfortunately the B52 is a late 40s/50s design, so it was never designed for stealth in the first place, therefore retrofitting or modifying it for stealth is not really an option. The B52 has a frontal radar cross section (RCS) of 100m2 compared to a Typhoon that ranges from 0.25m2 to 0.75m2 depending on what it is carrying. The F22 has 1/1000th the RCS of a Typhoon. The F22’s An/APG-77 radar can detect a 1m2 target at a published range of 240km. Therefore, against a B52 the F22 could theoretically detect at the radar’s extreme range of 300km away. The Su-57 Felon is said to have the same RCS as a clean F18E/F, which is between 0.1 and 1m2 depending on the publisher. This means it will need a chuffing good radar to detect the Su57 before it can be detected itself. The issue here is that even using the F22’s AN/APG-77, the B52 is still likely to be detected before it can detect the Su57, due to its crap RCS.
It could be used as an arsenal aircraft for other stealthier aircraft, but not against 5th gen aircraft. This is because the 5th gen aircraft has a much lower RCS, therefore can get a lot closer before its detected, thus putting the B52 within the enemy’s possible missile envelop.
So that’s the US, China and Russia building new long-range strategic bombers.
I guess Russia seeing the need to try and catch up with the USA
Those built by China will be capable of reaching many of the disputed islands which will again be provocative
And I’m wondering if Russia did actually manage to secure funding and expertise from China which I believe they had made a request
My thinking entirely I am deeply concerned about whats happening and the sudden ability of Russia to finance high tech weapon systems. Could we be seeing something akin to the old Nazi/Japan pact developing here where your enemies make you more of a friend than you would normally be. Russia has long played that game what with Iran, and attempts with Turkey to draw them away from Nato.
My big concern is that while Russia is playing ‘war-games’ against Ukraine the Chinese are picking fights against the likes of India, Indonesia and now the Philippines while threatening Taiwan but also I think disguising those overt threats. I really fear that we might see a mutually agreed attack by Russia into Ukraine while China starts its ‘re integration’ of Taiwan. Makes a lot of sense and would put the West into a nightmare scenario. What would be the response?
The secondary massive immediate effects would be to (at least semi) take out of the Taiwanese companies supporting Western Technology, like TSM which would create horrendous financial and industrial hits to the West for some time while giving China potential access to at least some of its world leading technology. Meanwhile Russia would gain substantial strength strategically, territorially and even economically from Ukraine and both know it will be a massive hit against Biden who despite the previous President enabling much of this perfect storm will get most of the blame by the US public, will have to engage new military engagements abroad perhaps on a massive scale, which they also hate and make the return of Trump or a clone much more likely which they will see (rightly or wrongly) to their advantage. Worrying times ahead I fear and we may be sleep walking right into it as COVID damages us as it promotes the Chinese economy. Hmmm now if North Korea were in on it too (directly or in response to circumstances) then the consequences will be even more scary.
PAK-FA and PAK-DA have both been repeatedly pushed back and delayed, partly due to an atrophied jet-turbine industry. Russia is trying to do the same as us, spread the butter too thin and have high end capabilities across the full-spectrum, although unlike us they are trying to do it all domestically and they clearly can’t afford it. I guarantee that by the time PAK DA goes into production it will already be outmoded and they will not be able to afford more than 2 or 3 dozen, which will make it a huge money-sponge for little result. Russia is being eclipsed by China in all technology areas and they don’t have the economies of scale or industrial efficiencies to compete with them.
The only resource Ukraine has in significant quantities is brown coal, which will soon go the way of the dodo. With Crimea, Russia already dominates the Northern and Eastern Black Sea, what added strategic benefit would a bit more of Ukrainian coastline offer them? The Black Sea fleet will always be trapped in its pond by the Bosphorus.
Taiwan could defend it’s self by deploying over a thousand land based short range and cruise missiles, and ASM’s
They would be outnumbered, and badly, sad to say. I expect a war within the year, started by the PRC.
Really got to wonder how realistic a proposal this is….
I do wonder too, if it really belongs in the model shop along with their aircraft carriers……..
That being said they may need a project so the skills don’t wither.
It looks like our former Vulcan Bomber!
Ah! Comrade you mean Vulkanski Project V?
Every Soviet Project better than Western degenerate project, No?
There FIFY!
Any Soviet project better than nonexistent UK project, comrade. RAF could have have maintained strategic bomber force but money needed to keep politicians in power, voters happy. No one care about defense, so corrupt British politicians cut and cut defense, all in keeping with glorious Marxist-Leninist prophecy.
I don’t understand what utility a strategic bomber force would have for the UK?
other than to spend a huge % of the defence budget: for?
Well, of course, with a constantly decreasing defense budget, nothing is affordable, or useful. Until the war.
Yes, but what is it for?
Who are we bombing that our present large pile of Storm Shadow wouldn’t deal with or F35/Typhoon with laser guided munitions.
I’m honestly asking what would it be for because I can’t see a scenario where it would be more useful than improved investment in other assets?
Yes we often forget that Russia is not a rich nation and does not have the industrial mass of the Soviet Union.
When you actually look at Russian strategic aims, you much ask how exactly would a strategic bomber force support its near abroad policy ?
The Soviet Union had the strategic aim of the destruction of western democracy and capitalism, it needed a strategic bomber force for that. Russia just wants control of it near abroad..not sure how blowing all its defence budget on strategic bombers would really help.
There is a lot in Siberia, yet to be exploited. This new bomber will reach service, but it will take a long time & not be in huge numbers.
Ability to offload significant volumes of ordinance over places such as Black Sea, Syria, chechniya, etc…and also potentially over Arctic as it opens up with a massive coastline beyond reach of most fighters? Not saying it’s a great idea but Putin may want the same theoretical capapabilities as US deployed over Afghanistan etc.
Depends. Putin has had a boost selling gas to Germany. But It looks like a white elephant to me.
The new pipe line is Not yet built, work on it stopped by the companies. It is being blocked by US sanctions. And sanctions on new drilling projects is having effects.
Many thanks. I believe the deal is still in the pipeline as of March 2021. Germany has to do a deal with someone very soon; since Obama’s time Germany has been the U.S.’s favourite European partner so cordial relations are guranteed to continue.. President Biden is, when not ensuring Iran achieves nuclear weapon power status, taking an understanding attitude to this issue; in the event Russia invades somewhere, he wants the Germans to promise to turn off the supply. As for sanctions, Russian companies would be happy to build it I am sure.
The Russian companies would Not be able to operate either in Germany or Poland, because they would Not be able to buy services or anything there. Because of US sanctions applied though the banking system. Germany would Not want exclusively Russian companies working on the project, politically untenable!
The Greens are aganst imported energy!
The US is doing Germany a favour by the sanctions, by helping it to become less reliant on imported energy.
Either end of such cross land construction project would be built by respective industries with fiscal metering taking place at the borders or branch points. I’m sure the US is also doing itself a favour by driving up the cost of German and European manufacturing by limiting energy supply competitiveness.
Lots of big ticket projects being worked on at present, including building new base’s in the Arctic. Poseidon is looking likely too plus the hypersonics…. I can sort of see why the UK has decided to increase the Nuclear Stockpile. Time for a new Stealth Vulcan anyone ?
Part of me wishes we still had the Valiant. We should have gone for the low level B2 version. Then we would not have wasted resources on TSR2, F111K, Tornado…. A late 60s new Valiant would have changed the Avons for Speys. A late 80s version would have change to Tays. A new semi stealth version would use RR Pearls, a V tail & a pointy diamond shape nose.
The Valiant was the worst of the V-Bombers, do you mean the Vulcan or Victor? The Victor certainly had some unusual shapes in the crescent wing and nose, I wonder if some of them may have been (inadvertently) stealthier than your average 50’s/60’s bomber.
We only built one low level “pathfinder” Valiant B2 then scrapped it. Shame as it could have been the basis for a long serving line. The Valiants the RAF got were high level only & lacked the robustness to cope with low level work. When switched to low level because of the SAM threat, they soon became overstressed & were retired. The Valiant had a 32 ft long bomb bay, 6ft wide, 5ft 6 in deep. It could take a 10,000lb conventional bomb, or 21x 1000lb bombs or the Blue Danube 10,000lb nuclear bomb.
Oh I hadn’t heard of that B2 variant, I’ll have to look that up, thanks. For low level what we should have done was develop a “Super-Buccaneer” !
Riussian govenrment approves a lot of designs, primarily so the internet thinks they are big and tough. In reality – like the numerous tanks and carriers and whatvever else it never built or only made a prototype – its destiny is to become an internet meme – which is also a cheap form of power projection.
Dont believe Russia will get any of these aircraft into serial squadron sized production.
Look at T14 Aramata programme. 2500 initially forecast, delayed until 2025 with only low rate initial production and some 20 or so in service with a single guards armoured regiment.
Sukhoi su57 Pak FA. Due to costs a single squadron of 12 aircraft with 2 training and 10 test aircraft.
.
Sukhoi su35 128 only in service with further 12 naval versions. Hardly a polyvalent unit vs F15 or F22 or Eurofighter typhoon.
Mig 35. 14 in service including 6 test and 8 training aircraft.
As you can see by these numbers the Russians are struggling to modernise their airforce to even provide gen 4.5 or 5 aircraft of any numbers or quality.
The majority of Russias airforce is 1970s 80s or at best 90s technology.
Sanctions are crippling and needed to keep pressure on Putin.
could Putin not just sell a few Palace’s ?
Spot on, let’s give Russia credit where it’s due, it has some excellent platforms, especially in the air defence spectrum and able to come up with modern, capable systems. However, as you said, they cannot afford, and organise, production of the these assets in numbers which will make a difference. Which to be fair is lucky for us.
The Russian GNP is probably not the equal of the UK or France. Even that of the USSR was much smaller than most people imagined or estimated, thus the collapse in 1991.
It’s a golden age for the Russian model industry.
Aeroflotfix !!!!
Nailed it!
I am expecting at least a further 5 Aircraft Carrier models by years end. They will have a sort of new model navy at this rate by then to threaten the modellers on their boating lakes..
We still on the April fools gags 😄
Not too bad for an Airfix Model?
Thankfully, we have nothing to worry about as many on here will tell you, it’s never going to happen, so don’t panic, don’t panic
After all, Jonesy is never wrong!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVpB_jwelOc
Any news on china’s H-20 Next-Generation Stealth Bomber? I thought it was due to make an appearance sometime this year?
It looks fantastic, just from a purely neutral point of view. Whether it actually makes it into serial production is another matter, but time will tell.
I do wish we didn’t have such a fractious relationship with the Russians though, they are a lovely people and an extremely innovative bunch as a whole
If they ever make one that is fully functional I will be very surprised.
There is something very odd about the amount of R&D they do and how few functional units they actually produce. Normally getting from #1 -> #5 production is the expensive bit as at that point you have figured out most of the production problems and can start cranking things up. They do this and then stop at low single digit numbers.
I mean the Russians are not dummies……more to do with trying to keep skills alive in the hope that one day….?
Yes I think you are right they can produce great tech in small numbers that goes back to the Space Race era. That said I am totally amazed at just how many US projects get cancelled just prior or during the prototype phase. Yo can pretty much discover a new spaceplane project a month if you go looking with billions put into them and then scrapped just as a prototype is about to leave the factory but I guess the what was learnt does head into the next project so abilities are kept alive. The X37 certainly has roots in the X34 I’m sure. Then I just re acquainted myself with the Cheyanne Attack helicopter and the political ravages (more than the technical) that got that cancelled. They do love a cancellation and rethink especially now budgets are less available. Makes us look quite rational at times.
Another little gem I found was that some of the engineers who worked on the BAC Mustard design were offered places to work on aspects of the Space Shuttle but after a few months the UK refused to further finance it any more and they were brought back… probably to work on tea makers.
I share your wish mate. There was a brief glimmer of hope but unfortunately someone came along with Ideas of Granduer and a desire to become super mega rich.
When was the glimmer of hope?
Gorbachev and a period shortly after when the West began to offer aid and help.
Except many Russians see Gorbachev as a traitor, at least today. For them, he was the instigator of the downfall of their empire and their fall from being a superpower.
I was referring to the West’s point of view….. Personally I have no problem with people, just their so called leaders…. It’s the Leaders that cause all the problems for their people in life. We should be trying to help the Russian People not thinking of them as enemies.
I live here (Russia). Many great people, but lots of poverty. Yesterday I went into a block flats and had never seen poverty so bad in all my time here (and i’ve seen a lot). Even my wife, who is Russian, said the same.
One thing that i’ve learned whilst being here is that Russians need to help themselves first and foremost. I’ve had some Russians themselves come upto me and actually say, “It’s not Putin’s fault, the people don’t want to change for the better. The whole nation is drunk and lazy”.
aah now that is the sort of take only someone living in the given society can truly see. The people as an entity are rarely totally blameless for events at least in most modern societies.
As individuals most are not, but actions enough of them take do often enable the power base that controls their lives. To many wanted a new czar after th inevitable chaos that the fall of communism brought and they willingly gave power to one and many still think he is making Russia great again, its no surprise that that effect filtered even into the US and created similar madness but with little of the foundation for actual grievance which shows how fragile Western society is when internal factors feeding into real and perceived grievance come into play.
We have to take some of the blame for what happens here too enabling a Gov full of elitist prats who put self serving power and financial gain (for party or grouping too beyond that) ahead of everything else. The people only gain where the two aspect form a Venn diagram and tricks down is a failed process for the many. Yet as individuals we have little to no power to change things, we let history govern our constitution and processes over any common sense, its fear of change that we all feel. Its a complex interaction that can best be summed up as being responsible for starting a snowball down a hill but having little say in its progress thereafter. Sadly in a country like Russia or indeed Myanmar even voicing opinions about where the snowball is going will simply get you thrown in front of it.
Yep, got to agree with a lot of that.
The difference with the Russia situation and Myanmar is that people are getting killed rioting there, but they are still rioting. People in Russia tend to stay at home and just accept it or just quietly protest. Yes, there have been some riots lately, but nothing on the scale of what could be. Here, people are either so deeply patriotic or have long come to the point that it’s every man for himself. They are generally a scared and easily controlled population. I can understand it to a degree, as there has been a lot of blood (of their own people) on the hands of former Russian and Soviet leaders.
One married me, so obviously some of them are clever and make good decisions.
In general, there are many great people here, but lots of idiots too… like anywhere really!
Exactly and thats the depressing part and something we and in particular the US are far from immune from especially as economic balance turns against us towards seriously less open societies and we spend time fighting over the deckchairs while we concentrate on who’s to blame for the history of neglect, canvas or wood. The people rarely see the bigger picture of whats happening outside of their little circles of grievance.
Me too. Though yes while a lot of them are a lovely people but its the ones you don’t tend to find chatting to Westerners that you will find are anything but and that can give you a misleading view of any country. I remember a very similar situation in Turkey all the very nice friendly young guys wanting to interact while the ominous older guys giving poisonous looks in the background that you might never notice until you start chatting to a woman.
LOL, this sums up my life. I won’t go any further.
At least the Russians can come up with their own designs instead of just copying US designs like the Chicoms do.
A decent copy in decent numbers can still do damage. “They wiped out our forces, but they just used copies of our weapons” would not be a satisfying critique.
Very true, just because a bit of equipment is Russian or Chinese doesn’t mean that when it goes ‘Bang’ it won’t Kill or Maim any less effectively than any other Nations Equipment does.
It’s a Flying Wing. Take a look at the past, virtually everything they came up with was a copy of something from the West. There is a massive list. Concorde, Harrier, F15, F111, F86, B1, F22, It’s not just the Chinese that do it. They even have a twin Island design for an Aircraft Carrier.
Still be nice not to cut 24 Typhoons guys just in case.
Those 24 Tr.1 Typhoon’s, would have use up most of airframe lifetime by 2025.
Particularly as they take-off very quick, if on QRA, will certainly put a lot of stress on the airframe.
Almost vertical!
True mate but there again there kept Lighting and Phantoms on QRA ,long enough 🍺🇬🇧
We built 337 EEL(Lightnings), in service with 2 Squ’s left by 1987, and last in 1988.
Most were replaced by Phantoms by mid 1970’s.
The UK procured and assembled 180 Phantoms, brought from the US.
The RAF Phantoms lasted until 1992.
My favourite plane of all time the F4. But we did well and truly stuff it up by insisting on a Rolls Royce engine which didn’t fit. So once again we paid well over the odds getting it to work giving employment to our people by not buying off the shelf. No wonder the MOD spend so much.
Have we learnt? Hope so.
The F4 Phantom, the name should be.
Let’s be far around the who air-fix model thing, we have produced a goodly number of strait to air-fix models ourselves, including a lovely aircraft carrier and a number in interesting aircraft.
As long as the Russians are spending billions that they haven’t got why interrupt them? Another 100 fighters would be more worrying.
I’m not sure what a stealth bomber tells us about Russian strategic thinking?
Its a continuation of their strategic thinking that forms their nuclear triad, i.e. sub launched ICMB, land based ICBMs and aircraft carried nuclear cruise missiles. The PAK-DA will give the Russia Air Force a greater chance of reaching the launch point than the T22 or Tu160s.
Looking at the design makes me realize how radical the Vulcan was.
Komet 163, had a big influence mate.
Well yes both the Victor and the Vulcan had a lot of German input by designers who moved here post war. Yes the Vulcan wing form was greatly helped by that mathematical work carried out during the war, though the Komet as an influence is new to me so can’t comment.The swept Victor’s wing was also from a similar German input and possibly its tail (may be wrong on that). But then the Triumph motorcycle was started by a German so such influence its not new. Haven’t heard anything about the Valiant which may or may not speak volumes. But then also the Canberra design comes from 1942 and proceeded them and outlasted them all so not all bad from a British point of view. And we flew a coaxial flow jet in a Meteor test plane that was both more powerful and more reliable than the German engines of the time but was considered not reliable enough to put into service in 45 so its often difficult to get historical handles on the full truth in such matters at times.
Ok you aircraft types….So…are winglets a good thing on a stealth aircraft this big?
Im not an aircraft type, but neither the B-2 or B-21 have them!!! It is my understanding that they aid fuel consumption, however, don’t really know. Only thing I can assume, is that they will not aid its stealth features!!!!!
I have absolutely no idea whatsoever mate !!!! I do know that some Race Rep Road bikes ( motorbikes ) have them, quite why with 70mph limits I’ll never know !
Yes and no. For aerodynamics they are very good for two reasons, reducing lift induced drag and increasing yaw authority.
All true flying wings (no fin) are naturally unstable around the fore-aft axis. This is because there is nothing to counteract a disturbance in this axis. It leads to a rolling oscillation around this axis, which in aircraft speak is known as “Dutch Rolling”. A flying wing aircraft with a highly swept wing can use small winglets to counteract this oscillation, as they are placed at the extreme ends of the wings so are placed further away from the centre of gravity and centre of pressure, thus inducing a greater leverage affect.
The second reason for them is to reduce lift induced drag. This is where the airflow from below the wing mixes with the airflow above the wing at the wing tips creating a swirling vortex. The vortex is wasted energy, with the correct design some of this energy can not only be reduced but also be recovered as thrust. Therefore, the wingtip can have a benefit for increasing the fuel efficiency of the aircraft.
For stealth and RCS reduction they can be counterproductive. A lot will depend on the materials used to manufacture it, but also if the winglet incorporates a moving rudder. If it does include a rudder, then a gap will be required to allow the rudder to move and thermally expand. It will therefore need a method of joining it to the fin and some means of articulating it. This is where an all moving fin has the advantage. It gets rid of the vertical gap and places it horizontally, which is better for evading radar. But it also removes the second hinge point, thus reducing the chances of radar reflecting off that. However, it still needs to be articulated, so this is still a good radar reflector. Then when the fin moves the fin’s underside flat surface is a very good reflector.
Looking at the images of the PAK-DA. The winglets look like they don’t incorporate a rudder. So as they are fixed they can be made from something like fibreglass, which can be transparent to radar. To control yaw they will need the same techniques that the B2 uses which is a combination of split trailing edge flaps and differential engine thrust. The Yaw movement is controlled through fly by wire, by a digital automatic flying control computer, that uses accelerometers to measure velocities in all three axis.
Nice model, not sure but the nose seems to remind me of a dolphin, Ah well. I do wonder how Russia can afford the development and build of this aircraft and for that matter the rest of the new kit they seem to be getting. Road infrastructure in Russia is poor to axle breaking poor, telecom infrastructure is bad, hospitals are poor etc. I now I worked in that part of the world for 10 years, in the cities things are ok, the moment you go 20 miles outside its like being in a diffrent time period. Maybe Putin should invest into the country and the people rather than building vanity projects.
This just looks like a toytown propaganda plane.
We haven’t seen any of these prototypes of course. The Russians seem rather good at presenting models of platform concepts that never actually materialise.
I have studied this model and produced a thorough report on the aircraft for another organisation. I will summarize, but it basically boils down to, if Russia do produce this aircraft, it will be quite a capable bomber, but not in the same league as the B2 let alone the B21. The assumption is that Russia and China for that matter, are still a very long way behind in radar absorbent materials (RAM) compared to the US. For a strategic bomber RAM has a massive influence not only on the overall design but the bomber’s mission capabilities.
However, aerodynamically, they have gone with a tried and trusted design. It is basically a flying wing, though not quite a blended wing body design (centre fuselage section is not a lifting body). The overall design is highly blended though, which means it will have a large internal volume for a large weapons bay and fuel storage, in some respects it is a cleaner design than the B2. The shape and style of the wings means it will be a subsonic aircraft, but have a very good high altitude capability, as the wings have a high aspect ratio, probably better than the B2. The leading edge shape is unconventional for a stealth aircraft and is more reminiscent of the Victor with its crescent shaped wing, although its not as highly swept. This has some pros and cons. Against a single radar, a crescent shaped leading edge will have a small degree of return straight back to the transmitting radar, compared to a highly swept straight one, which reflects the majority away. However, it will have a better average performance against a bi-static radar or a group of radars, as it will generate a scattering effect. Again, the crescent shape lends itself to high aspect wings, which in turn will increase the achievable altitude. The overall flying wing design will have a low frontal radar cross section (RCS) at least below 0.25m2 against C band and above radars, regardless of the skin materials used, especially if the cockpit transparencies are gold coated. Whereas the published data of the B2’s suggests its frontal RCS is below 0.01m2 and the B21 is an order of magnitude better.
The trailing edge is a bit of a fudge though. It does combine a straight swept trailing edge outer wing with an angled joint of the inner wing to the main body. But then then there’s a compound curve between this and the exhaust section. A compound curve side on is not good for RCS, as it allows the aircraft through scattering to be followed by radar. The two wing angles are ok, as these will reflect a radar in separate directions. The inner wing trailing edge angle is the same as the tail trailing edge angle, thereby mitigating the trailing edge radar return from straight behind.
The buried engines I am expecting to be S-ducted (the frontal images for the intakes are quite blurry deliberately), to hide the 1st stage compressor faces. Although the Su57’s can still be seen, so it remains to be seen if they actually do this, but its a quick win for a subsonic aircraft. Hiding the front face of the compressor is crucial for stealth. As a number of radar systems can identify the aircraft based on the overall reflection including the doppler frequency shift caused by the engines. The exhausts are separated but also buried and shielded by the lower fuselage, wings and tail. This is good for reducing the aircraft’s infrared (IR) signature, especially from below. Although the images don’t show it, I am also expecting there to be some shielding in the exhaust to hide the power turbine disc. Again reducing the IR signature, but also the radar signature. The images that have been published have been quite blurry regarding the exhaust, as expected, so we couldn’t tell if there is a thrust deflector to aid pitching etc. The rear airbrake, is placed on the tail a long way behind the centre of gravity, which could be used to aid pitching. But this is only in one plane, so I would expect a corresponding one underneath the fuselage.
Using winglets is a bit of a surprise, as today they aren’t really needed for controlling yaw, but will increase the wing’s efficiency and thus increase the available unrefuelled range. Which is probably more important for a strategic bomber. Though the 12,000km unrefuelled range is a tad optimistic.
The biggest surprise is the crew size, which is stated as four. This suggests each crewman will have a specific role. Two pilot/navigators and two weapon system operators (WSOs). With one WSO probably concentrating on offense whilst the other is defence. It also suggests that the automated systems are not on par comparatively with their Western equivalents and that the sensor fusion is not there, requiring more human intervention. Compare this with a B2 which first flew in 1989 and then introduced into service in 1997, yet uses a crew of two to fight the aircraft.
See the below link to a Russian computer generated video of the aircraft:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ4aUFFoNd0
Overall, if Russia do actually build this aircraft, it will be quite capable, more so than the current Tu22 and Tu160 bombers. However, it still will not be able to do the same penetration missions that the B2, or even the B21 can do, as it is unlikely that its RCS will match the US bombers. But as a stand-off cruise missile carrier it will need to be respected, as it could get a lot closer to its target before being detected.
Thanks Daveyb, that has to be the best reply to an article I’ve ever read on this site.