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

sferrin said:


Something doesn't add up. Smaller than the B-2, 30t payload, 15000km and 52,000lb thrust engines? Burns more fuel than a B-2 but carries the same payload further with less fuel? Really?
Click to expand...
You're right I made a mistake, engine thrust is 230kN combined not each.

Sorry for the mistake.
 
Doubt it will look like this, but nice art nonetheless.

Capture17.PNG


https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.blogspot.com/2019/08/russia-to-test-next-generation-stealth.html
pak-da.png
 
Last edited:

This is a joke? Isn’t it???

„…The deliveries of the long-range strategic bomber PAK DA to Russia’s Aerospace Force are expected to begin in 2025-2030 after trials.“
 
Last edited by a moderator:

More PAK-DA fan art Deino. We all know that the PAK-DA is going to be a subsonic stealthy flying wing design.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FighterJock said:

More PAK-DA fan art Deino. We all know that the PAK-DA is going to be a subsonic stealthy flying wing design.
Click to expand...

So in summary this report is nothing but a piece of crap!?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
 
Last edited:
Speaking of Paralay's forum, seems like the overall current consensus is between this being related to PAK DA or Tu-22M modernization. Some questions have been raised regarding the four crew layout and how that may be fit into a flying wing design.

I personally think that a four crew layout isn't inherently off limits for a flying wing VLO bomber, the guys in the back would just be tucked away with very smol top facing windows I'd assume similar to the WSO on a MiG-31 or SR-71 where the back seat doesn't protude from the fuselage or gets an extension of a large glass canopy like on an F-15 or Su-30.

Could also be related to Tu-22 modernization, who knows. But I'm unsure how much Russia wants to invest into the aging Tu-22s which are burning through their flight hours and can't be replaced IIRC (I could be wrong here, anyone who knows better feel free to correct me). Unlike the Tu-160s where modernization makes sense and new units are actually produced nowadays.

If it is actually related to PAK DA it's certainly very neat. And I personally don't see much issue with retaining four people over reducing the crew to two. I can imagine this gives some opportunities with regards to managing information collected by other airborne or even ground based assets, drone control etc.
 
Speaking of Paralay's forum, seems like the overall current consensus is between this being related to PAK DA or Tu-22M modernization.
Click to expand...
This is related to PAK DA. The aforementioned "КПМ-800" hardware-in-the-loop simulator("iron-bird)" is a system designed to simulate the information and control interface of the izd.80 cockpit.
 
Last edited:
Something interesting, on many speculative layouts like this one, there are generally smaller windows in the back, indicating four people.

So I guess it wasn't really a surprise for people who followed this development for a long time.

39vRR.jpg
 
Have the Russians addressed this program in the last couple years? It seems like so that died on the vine.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
Have the Russians ever addressed this protein the last couple years? It seems like so that died on the vine.
Click to expand...
Something not being constantly talked about doesn't really mean that nothing is happening in the background. Oreshnik came more or less out of nowhere, which made sense given that work on it must have started after the suspension of the INF treaty. As for the LTS, we only found out about it when the mock up was presented, although years of study preceded it, exploring various different planforms and overarching layouts.

But I can imagine that PAK DA has been put on the back burner for a time to get the Tu-160M modernization and new production rolling.
 
flateric said:
Blatantly stolen from Paralay's forum without mentioning the source...
Click to expand...
I disagree.

Screenshots are different than those on Paralay. He posts sources, but not if they don’t work in EU without a VPN.
Source for this: https://zakupki.gov.ru/epz/order/notice/ea20/view/documents.html?regNumber=1073400001524000001
I get a page time out :(

One thing @QuadroFX on Paralay did post but La souris didn’t is the list of weapons PAK-DA can/or will carry.
It includes Izd.810 - a long range air to air missile:
IMG_3480.jpeg

From https://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?p=738883#p738883
 
Acatomic said:
I disagree.

Screenshots are different than those on Paralay.
Click to expand...
Yes, guy independently has discovered the same stuff at solicitation notices site published almost year ago a few hours later than guys from Paralay. Sounds legit.
 
I can find it in my heart to forgive him for this enormous misstep… because I know in the past he was fair:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1701988306160935245
View: https://x.com/la_souris_da/status/1701988306160935245

https://twitter.com/x/status/1617184451640819715
View: https://x.com/la_souris_da/status/1617184451640819715

https://twitter.com/x/status/1694206759236210969
View: https://x.com/la_souris_da/status/1694206759236210969



Back on topic (don’t worry I checked, this was one month before they wrote about it on Paralay):

Production and delivery of a station for metrological analyses of modeling results for the project Reconstruction and technical re-equipment of semi-natural modeling complexes KPM-800. It is a laboratory for R& ;D of the Izd. 80 (?)
https://twitter.com/x/status/1910265383157706917
View: https://x.com/la_souris_da/status/1910265383157706917


There were some doubt that KPM-800 was talking about Izd.80 , but later he found KPM-1600 for Tu-160:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1910993964578058432
View: https://x.com/la_souris_da/status/1910993964578058432
 
paralay said:
But I see

i
Click to expand...
Are you referring to the refueling probe? That could to in various places. Otherwise the Tu-160 looks like that because it's a supersonic aircraft, while PAK DA would most likely be a subsonic, VLO aircraft.
 
serg.gonzp said:
Could that affect the RCS??
Click to expand...

Well, on fighters you have also a protruding forward fuselage and it's generally no big deal. But on a flying wing subsonic bomber it's not really necessary to have it. The B-2 and B-21 look like they do for a reason and that approach seems to work just fine. Surely both have only two people inside, but depending on the dimensions and how the fuselage looks, I don't see why they couldn't just sit behind the guys up front. The poor suckers in the back only need small, upwards facing windows anyway, if any at all. The MiG-31 and SR-71 also integrate(d) the backseater rather seamlessly and only gave them smol windows. Something that's possible to apply here too. Such an extended forward fuselage could make sense when it's a large VLO supersonic bomber, but there are no indications for that really.
 
There are cabin dimensions and probable dimensions of the weapon bay. And there is a 3D model of the B-21. The B-80 model is assembled from them. The configuration of the air intakes is one of the possible options.
 
paralay said:
There are cabin dimensions and probable dimensions of the weapon bay. And there is a 3D model of the B-21. The B-80 model is assembled from them. The configuration of the air intakes is one of the possible options.
Click to expand...

Given the patents I think top mounted intakes are more or less the ideal route for Tupolev. I don't see much of a reason to seriously deviate from the formula established by the B-2. And given that Northrop Grumman stuck with the general layout with the B-21, I'm certain the merits of this configuration are still real.

I think trying to reinvent the wheel is the worst/costliest way to go about this development.
 
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...
That intake has better airflow to the engines, and reduces the risk of compressor stall.

Counter point, the B-21 developed after the A-12, F-117 and B-2 has even greater recessed top mounted intakes. They are nearly invisible from the front.
1747458970161.png
 
serg.gonzp said:
Could that affect the RCS??
Click to expand...
Yes, there was a research paper on how different types of flying wing design's RCS. Cranked arrow has worst off RCS compared to a normal design, especially in this case with the round nose IMO
 
EmoBirb said:
Given the patents I think top mounted intakes are more or less the ideal route for Tupolev. I don't see much of a reason to seriously deviate from the formula established by the B-2. And given that Northrop Grumman stuck with the general layout with the B-21, I'm certain the merits of this configuration are still real.

I think trying to reinvent the wheel is the worst/costliest way to go about this development.
Click to expand...
Top mounted intakes are also more efficient because they suck air over the top of the wing, creating a low pressure region that contributes to lift. Their disadvantage that they get starved of airflow at high AoA is important in a fighter, but not in a bomber.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom