Tupolev 'Article 80' PAK DA bomber (Poslannik / Envoy)

paralay said:
The "ultimate" A-12 attack aircraft appeared later than the F-117 and B-2. Its creators thought otherwise

1390901936_01.jpg
Click to expand...

And if you look into the ATA/A-12 thread you'll see that the A-12 was an unstealthy, very heavy mess. Basically considered unfixable and MDD would have had to develop basically a new aircraft. The design from Northrop Grumman, which is considered superior, had top mounted intakes, like the B-2. And as others already said, the B-21 goes even further with very low profile top intakes. For all we know H-20 will also utilize top intakes, even if it were to be a rumored supersonic aircraft.

Another example, look at Sukhois S-70, or Boeing Phantom Ray, or Taranis, or Neuron, or YFQ-42, or MQ-20, or MQ-25 or RQ-170. These low observable, subsonic UCAVs all went with top mounted intakes. That layout is inherently advantageous when you want a VLO aircraft that doesn't have to pull crazy maneuvers. And I doubt PAK DA will be supermaneuverable and engage in WVR dogfights.

The A-12 is a design that is to be deliberately avoided, unless one looks towards how to not do it. Can an underwing intake work? Surely. But it would unironically be more work to get that configuration to work and deliver the desired results than just putting the intakes up top. And on a large bomber, it's not like top space is much of a concern. And the patents point towards the B-2 approach being taken or at least heavily studied by Tupolev. Which in my eyes is the right call, again nobody needs to reinvent the wheel.
 
I think this assessment is spot on. MD/GD thought they could go with a 3-spike design, and in my view, you are absolutely right that they could not make it work and wanted $B above the $4.2B cost cap Lehman set aside for the program. The inlets were a problem as they wanted all the energy down the ducts and use liners to reduce the signature. Not a good idea and BA tried that with the X-32. Unless you're objective is to spend a lot of money and, in the end, come up with a pile of crap, then damned right this is a design to be avoided at all cost.
 
Depends on the definition of in service, I suppose, which can be liberally stretched.

As far as the article is concerned, I'd take some of the claims with a grain of salt (and definitely ignore the internet sourced, enthusiast rendering, the aircraft won't look like this or even close). I can imagine individual components to be reused from other advanced Russian projects, it only makes sense. Especially avionics, sensors, smaller mechanical components, displays, you name it. In that sense I expect the aircraft to draw from the Tu-160M2 and Su-57S/M as well as bringing plenty of bespoke components and parts into the fold. A strategic bomber is a complex machine though and while Russia has plenty of tooling and people suited for the task, as has been shown by the restarting of the Tu-160 production, the fact that certain tooling and machinery previously freely available on the market has to be procured through third parties at increased cost, or development and manufactured by themselves from scratch is certainly a hair in the soup. Although ultimately just an inconvenience rather than a true hurdle. It causes deadlines to slip though, and that's certainly unpleasant for the people in power.
 
I highly suggest reading the actual leaks on InformNapalm than the inadequate summary on Armyrecognition. Probably want to save it given the volatile lifespan of these activist leak sites. Of interest is that this is just a small snippet of a series of leaks they plan on slowly releasing.

https://informnapalm.org/en/okbm-leaks-classified-documents/
 
Scar said:
Believe!
View attachment 791299
Click to expand...

Yes, in the same way I'm currently battling at another forum in a purely hypothetical discussion with some really hard-core fan-boys about the question "AMCA vs KAAN vs China's so-called 5th generation fighters and cheap UCAV mock-ups" on "Who Leads The Pack?" ;)
 
donnage99 said:
I highly suggest reading the actual leaks on InformNapalm than the inadequate summary on Armyrecognition.
Click to expand...
Both have fundamentally the same content with some fluff surrounding it. The only thing the original source provides that is of semi-interest are the technical data. If one is particularly immersed in the nature and usage of...hinges.

Wake me up when the planform or somethings related to the power plant gets leaked.
 
EmoBirb said:
Both have fundamentally the same content with some fluff surrounding it. The only thing the original source provides that is of semi-interest are the technical data. If one is particularly immersed in the nature and usage of...hinges.

Wake me up when the planform or somethings related to the power plant gets leaked.
Click to expand...
you're on a forum with quite a few technical people so yes for many on this forum that can be quite insightful. beside that, it tells you the exact CNC machines and the countries of origin they tryin to circumvent sanctions to get. Beside it helping with tightening sanctions, if you know the specs of these machines, it potentially can be quite insightful on precision tolerance etc
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom