Russias next Strategic bomber development

[Haavarla]

"Tupolev aircraft maker to develop Russia's new strategic bomber

ZHUKOVSKY (Moscow Region), August 19 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian Defense Ministry and the Tupolev aircraft maker have signed a contract on the development of a new-generation strategic bomber, the company's general director said on Wednesday.

"We signed a contract this year on research and development of a future strategic bomber for the Russian strategic aviation. It will be a conceptually new plane based on the most advanced technologies," Igor Shevchuk said at the MAKS-2009 air show near Moscow.

Tu-95MC Bear and Tu-160 Blackjack bombers, Tu-22M3 Backfire long-range bombers and Il-78 Midas aerial tankers will form the backbone of the Russian strategic aviation in the next decade following extensive modernization.

However, by 2020 they will be obsolete, and the new strategic bomber will allow Russia to maintain the effectiveness of the air component of its nuclear triad in competition with similar foreign aircraft, the official said.

Russia's Air Force commander, Col. Gen. Alexander Zelin earlier said a fifth-generation strategic bomber could be used effectively in both conventional and nuclear conflicts.

"The new plane will use a wide selection of high-precision weapons, and will have a whole range of new combat capabilities, allowing it to apply new methods to carrying out deterrence tasks," he said."


Do any one have any toughts on what the RuAF next bomber will feature?

I don't see any thing near the B2, thats for sure, it will be something far more cheaper and less Stealty.
A heavly improved Tu-160 in both airframe layout and system capabilities perhaps?

Tupolev aircraft maker to develop Russia's new strategic bomber | Top Russian news and analysis online | 'RIA Novosti' newswire (http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090819/155857912.html)

Thanks

[Duffy]

I would guess the next strategic bomber for the RuAF would be along the lines of the Northrop YB-49. I hope Col.Gen Zelin is more concerned with the small numbers of Tu-160 at his disposal. I believe it's 16 operational plus 2 test platforms.Plus some updated maybe half. He has some holes to plug before tying up resources on a strategic bomber project. As we know time will tell
I think classifying the Tu-22 as a long-range strategic bomber is a stretch.

[turin]

Some news reports quoted Zelin quite specifically with saying that this aircraft would be based on a modernised Tu-160. Thats for example what avia.ru said. Rian seems to drop this line quite conveniently. So I would not expect any drastic changes in appearance, certainly not any kind of flying wing-design. It makes sense from a russian point of view, because that way there is actually some hope to get this thing operational in the timeframe specified. Any completely new design might take two decades before making an appearance, if it would ever do.

[Duffy]

Some news reports quoted Zelin quite specifically with saying that this aircraft would be based on a modernised Tu-160. Thats for example what avia.ru said. Rian seems to drop this line quite conveniently. So I would not expect any drastic changes in appearance, certainly not any kind of flying wing-design. It makes sense from a russian point of view, because that way there is actually some hope to get this thing operational in the timeframe specified. Any completely new design might take two decades before making an appearance, if it would ever do.

I thought there was modernization on going for the TU-160. I gave up trying to follow the Russian aircraft industry a few years go. :(

[Rockstar]

Development of is topic to be considered sir, as science of Russia was well known during soviet era, today like all countries showing off the defense power, Russia never until full develop project.
Future generation bomber will not limit itself only till sketch, as growing economy, Russia will sure introduce some thing unexpected. Of course advance bomber will not far but it will change the way of air warfare.
And as said "Time is answer to every question"

[Duffy]

Hello Rockstar and welcome ;)

Considering Tupolev hasn't designed a bomber in over 25 years that we know of. What do you think it will look like?How long do you think it will take before we here anything about it?

[turin]

The bomber will not be revolutionary and it will certainly not change the face of airborne warfare. That is, what can be derived from official sources on this issue including Zelin, who should know (and he likes to exaggerate too, on occasion).

@ Duffy:

They are still modernising the Tu-160 and those planes which actually receive this upgrade are supposed to soldier on for some time. Consider that, even with a perfect schedule (which wont happen) induction of any new aircraft will not happen before 2016, and much more likely around 2020, probably later. Also this new aircraft, whatever it will be in the end, is supposed to not only replace the Tu-160, but primarily the aged Tu-95 (the ones that are conducting these patrols where they end up in rather comic photos together with F-22s these days). So there is a rather large requirement and any new plane would likely come in low numbers initially.

[Duffy]

The bomber will not be revolutionary and it will certainly not change the face of airborne warfare. That is, what can be derived from official sources on this issue including Zelin, who should know (and he likes to exaggerate too, on occasion).

@ Duffy:

They are still modernising the Tu-160 and those planes which actually receive this upgrade are supposed to soldier on for some time. Consider that, even with a perfect schedule (which wont happen) induction of any new aircraft will not happen before 2016, and much more likely around 2020, probably later. Also this new aircraft, whatever it will be in the end, is supposed to not only replace the Tu-160, but primarily the aged Tu-95 (the ones that are conducting these patrols where they end up in rather comic photos together with F-22s these days). So there is a rather large requirement and any new plane would likely come in low numbers initially.

I have noticed that signing a deal for 48 aircraft over 7 years is head line news. I was just being polite.:D

[ghost]

Russia hasn't produced anything after the collapse of USSR. Even the future of Yak-130 is in a dark shadow now. Do you really believe they can make it within 10 years? Almost no money, almost all engineers are either retired or live in USA/Germany now...

[PhysicsMan]

Russia hasn't produced anything after the collapse of USSR. Even the future of Yak-130 is in a dark shadow now. Do you really believe they can make it within 10 years? Almost no money, almost all engineers are either retired or live in USA/Germany now...

Things like building a new strategic bomber (or a new fighter jet) don't just get born in someone's head one day, and people hear on the news "lets build a new strategic bomber!". The planning for such projects (and historically it's been true of both Soviet Union/Russia and US) starts even before the previous gen product is produced, so it won't be like a clean start for the Russian engineers, I'm sure they have plenty of ideas and models to work with, that were detailed (theoretically) during all the years after Tu-160 came out.

[Duffy]

Even if Tupolev did have a complete set of drawings sitting on a shelf they could just dust off. Would they have the means and financial capability to put a design into production. The second question would be why, The Russian strategic bomber has never been anything but a delivery system for Raduga Kh-15 and Kh-555 cruise missile. For that the TU-160 is just fine.

[turin]

Guys, please keep in mind that they mentioned the Tu-160 serving as a baseline quite specifically. Going from there that really sounds like what they have done previously with the Su-27 and its respective modifications. Now please ask yourself how many Su-27-derivates have been presented as "new development" over the past ten years. This wont be a new plane, certainly not something that completely starts at a drawing board. The most likely thing to me seems a modified Tu-160, new engines and avionics etc., probably based on the modifications they added to the few planes currently undergoing modernisation.

As for the why...well strategic capabilities are still the mainstay and most important role of the Russian forces. Its the same as with the modernisation efforts going for the sub forces and ground-based missiles. The Tu-160s wont last forever, so there has to be a replacement. Nuclear deterrence is pretty much all that Russia has left for retaining its status as a great power. So in that light its imperative to keep strategic capabilities operational within the Air Force, its the same really as with the nuclear triad within the US forces, and I am sure that some top brass within the russian air force would like to keep their share of the cake. Otherwise they might lose relevance in future budgetary decisions.

[PhysicsMan]

Guys, please keep in mind that they mentioned the Tu-160 serving as a baseline quite specifically. Going from there that really sounds like what they have done previously with the Su-27 and its respective modifications. Now please ask yourself how many Su-27-derivates have been presented as "new development" over the past ten years. This wont be a new plane, certainly not something that completely starts at a drawing board. The most likely thing to me seems a modified Tu-160, new engines and avionics etc., probably based on the modifications they added to the few planes currently undergoing modernisation.

As for the why...well strategic capabilities are still the mainstay and most important role of the Russian forces. Its the same as with the modernisation efforts going for the sub forces and ground-based missiles. The Tu-160s wont last forever, so there has to be a replacement. Nuclear deterrence is pretty much all that Russia has left for retaining its status as a great power. So in that light its imperative to keep strategic capabilities operational within the Air Force, its the same really as with the nuclear triad within the US forces, and I am sure that some top brass within the russian air force would like to keep their share of the cake. Otherwise they might lose relevance in future budgetary decisions.

Here's a quote by Tupolev's CEO from the article linked below: " This year we signed a contract for R&D and construction work on PAK DA. This will be a radically new flying machine based on the latest innovations."
Then later in the article it says that the financing for the project started in 2008, adding that the work has been going on for a long time before that. Then it says it will be based on Tu-160.

Doesn't sound to me like it's an upgrade similar to Su-27 family work... It sounds to me more like MIG31 being based on MIG25, if one were to draw a comparison.


Link: http://lenta.ru/news/2009/08/19/bomber/

[riksavage]

I wonder if they will consider an unmanned platform? Long endurance without the need to include expensive systems to sustain life-support for crews. By the time the Russian's are ready to deploy a replacement some western nations will be looking at introducing long-range unmanned systems (UK-US Project Churchill for example).

[Duffy]

So it will be based on the TU-160, basically turan was correct. What ever they plan to do its based on a very old design." This will be a radically new flying machine based on the latest innovations." If its based on the TU-160 there not much that can be done to make it a radically new flying machine .:rolleye

[Rockstar]

Thanks for welcome Duffy ;)
Well it is true after fall of USSR, Russia never build any thing powerful, but if considered, Russia has ranked itself into the league of RISING ECONOMIES. And it is known that money can make and buy any thing, and considering the brains in Russia not available its truly false. As NATO is covering and circling the Russia [maximum European countries are now NATO member] and rising China, will sure lead Russia to develop something new or innovative. [no offense to anyone - or i am not favoring Russia, but friends think not only in on defense part but also political and diplomatically].
Moreover years developing countries and under developing countries are purchasing Russian weapons so we can ignore the brains in Russia. for example i don't remember but in some magazine i have read that in air show Russian build Sukio fighter jet have won hearts and standing ovation comparing to its counter part.
As world becoming multi-polar power [rising economies giving imbalance and shift in power from west to Asia] Then here thing to be consider that Russia is among rising economies and growing power.
And to demonstrate their capability and technological advancement Russian will sure i am sure they will come up with something new, no matter if they innovate tu-60 but result will be sure impressive

[turin]

@PhysicsMan:

Well there are certainly varying statements there. But the Tupolev media blurb is the only one talking about a "radically new" flying machine and as Duffy points out, thats somewhat of a contradiction to the claim that they base it on an existing design. I mean there is certainly some room to debate what "based on" means from an engineering POV but for me that sounds like the usual cheap exaggeration we are used to when it comes to Russian concepts of promotion.

@Rockstar:

Russia is certainly growing in economical terms, but there are two points to consider: first they are coming back from the very bottom of industrial and general economical development, so seemingly impressive growth numbers are to be expected, however they dont amount to much in hard cash. Second, the major economical issue in Russia is corruption, both in the private and public sectors. This soaks up a lot of money that would otherwise flow back into new investments. Both of these points mean that Russia, in real terms, will have a hard time turning its perceived growth into something useful, with the obvious repercussions for large-scale defense procurements. But I guess thats getting OT here...

[Duffy]

Rockstar
Things have definitely improved for the military in general in the last five years or so. There are still allot of basic needs that have to be addressed be for the government spends a billion or more dollars on a bomber program..
For the government to spend money on anything that doesn't shore up it defenses at this point would be completely irresponsible.

[Rockstar]

Thank you friends
I got to know great side of Russians [corruption which i was not aware of]
actually as student of competitive civil service we are studying in various things, but when find new things it is like discovery !!!!
:cool:

[Duffy]

I don't know if I would consider that great Rock star ," Corruption" I mean . There is a lot to be learned hear :D
Russia will be fine there is still some things that are hard to adjust to. one of the most frustrating things for people out side of the country is allot of the news that you hear contradicts previous new or endless delays. I don't think its intentional. The media enjoys its freedom as most do.The government, especially the military higher powers seem pressured at times with some of the answers when speaking with the media.
But thats way off subject and not worth a penny :smokie

[KiwiRob]

The TU 160 is still in serial production, the last newbuild was accepted in service in April 2008. 1-2 new aircraft are supposed to be completed every year until the fleet has 35 aircraft.

[icekid]

The Bomber is very real it's called PAKDA a Russian Stealth bomber Defence Aviation (http://www.defenceaviation.com/2008/07/pakda-a-russian-stealth-bomber.html)

The PAK DA is going to be heavily based on Russia’s current supersonic bomber Tupolev Tu-160 and is expected to have it’s maiden flight by 2015.

It's a ambitious project but considering what Russians have learnt from Su-PAKFA and the project being based on already existing and operational Tu-160. I think the out come will be interesting.

[swerve]

The TU 160 is still in serial production, the last newbuild was accepted in service in April 2008. 1-2 new aircraft are supposed to be completed every year until the fleet has 35 aircraft.
Not quite right. Production stopped in 1992. It restarted a few years ago, but "serial production" is probably the wrong term. IIRC the aircraft completed in 2007 & delivered last year was largely assembled from spares, & parts made before production ceased & stored since then. I can't find a clear reference to any others having been delivered yet. And the published sources say one aircraft every one-two years, not 1-2 each year.

[Haavarla]

Not quite right. Production stopped in 1992. It restarted a few years ago, but "serial production" is probably the wrong term. IIRC the aircraft completed in 2007 & delivered last year was largely assembled from spares, & parts made before production ceased & stored since then. I can't find a clear reference to any others having been delivered yet. And the published sources say one aircraft every one-two years, not 1-2 each year.


Yep, to tell the thruth i will be surprised if we see another one emerging next year!

But the upgrade program should keep most of the fleet active far into the next decade.



Thanks

[swerve]

But the upgrade program should keep most of the fleet active far into the next decade.
Even longer, I'd guess. They can't have very many flying hours for their age, & their flight profiles are far less stressful than for fighters.

IIRC they're upgrading something like 4 or 5 a year, so they'll all be done before long.

[Duffy]

The Bomber is very real it's called PAKDA a Russian Stealth bomber Defence Aviation (http://www.defenceaviation.com/2008/07/pakda-a-russian-stealth-bomber.html)

The PAK DA is going to be heavily based on Russia’s current supersonic bomber Tupolev Tu-160 and is expected to have it’s maiden flight by 2015.

It's a ambitious project but considering what Russians have learnt from Su-PAKFA and the project being based on already existing and operational Tu-160. I think the out come will be interesting.

I would like to see them get the production of the TU-160 above two a year before 2015. Commander Aleksandr Zelin has to make up his mind. First there upgrading existing TU-160 to have stealth characteristics(what ever that means)Now a new design based on the TU-160 that"Reports also say that the new bomber will have stealth characteristics.":confused:
To design and build a prototype of a strategic bomber in 5 to 8 years is impossible seeing that they can hardly produce a bomber thats been around for 20 years. Designing a bomber is nothing like designing a fighter. "Stealth or not. It sounds more like the original modification in a new press release and time frame.Basically last years present re raped and given as this years gift.:rolleyes:

[plasmahawk]

Hi Forum,
I saw a link to this and then decided to come out of being a troll, in mother russia the forum trolls you, anyway: reading through the Pak DA articles on Lenta and other resources I would not be surprised if the next bomber is based on the Tu-160. However, what most people do not realize is that the TU-160 was originally on a drawing board of 3-4 Construction Bureaus, and some of the designs were quite novel for their time, such that they could not be constructed at the time with the available technologies.

Here is a screenshot out of the book about the Tu-160,

http://www.galleryss.com/Tu160_1.jpg

So even if there are some technologies that will be borrowed from the Tu-160, who knows maybe it will be based on the prototype designs, now that the technology is finally catching up. Sadly I do agree that the tech and brains in Russia now are at its worst, but the same thing has happened to Russia many times over the last couple of hundred years. The folk are resourcefull and resilient, all we can do is wait and see.

oh and the link to the book is here http://www.galleryss.com/TU-160.rar

All the best Comrades!
In Mother Russia the Forum Trolls you...
Plas

[Duffy]

Hi Forum,
I saw a link to this and then decided to come out of being a troll, in mother russia the forum trolls you, anyway: reading through the Pak DA articles on Lenta and other resources I would not be surprised if the next bomber is based on the Tu-160. However, what most people do not realize is that the TU-160 was originally on a drawing board of 3-4 Construction Bureaus, and some of the designs were quite novel for their time, such that they could not be constructed at the time with the available technologies.

Here is a screenshot out of the book about the Tu-160,

http://www.galleryss.com/Tu160_1.jpg

So even if there are some technologies that will be borrowed from the Tu-160, who knows maybe it will be based on the prototype designs, now that the technology is finally catching up. Sadly I do agree that the tech and brains in Russia now are at its worst, but the same thing has happened to Russia many times over the last couple of hundred years. The folk are resourcefull and resilient, all we can do is wait and see.

oh and the link to the book is here http://www.galleryss.com/TU-160.rar

All the best Comrades!
In Mother Russia the Forum Trolls you...
Plas

Hi plasmahawk in the top link the drawing on the right looks like a conceptual drawing from a program launched in the 60s to counter the B-70 Valkyrie but never materialized because of cost and difficulty. The drawing above the photo doesn't look very practical.
When the Soviet Union launched the multi-mission bomber project in the 70s.Topoloev proposed a design named 160m which was a flying wing. Myasishchev project was the M-19 and the Sukhoi was based on the T-4. Myasishchev M-19 was the super sonic variable-geometry wing bomber that is now the TU-160. The Soviet government liked Myasishchev design but decided that Topoloev would build it because of the complexity of the project. So if the new design is not based on the TU-160 and is instead based on the original Topoloev design 160m. It will most likely be a flying wing.

[plasmahawk]

You are correct Duffy,

The Tupolev pick for the 160 came through for more political favors and because they were already on the Tu-144 path.

However, I must say I do like some of the conceptual designs of that time. Really clever ideas from the US and the Russians, well now that the cold war is on again maybe we will see some of cool designs again.

cold war is on again :D:D

As for improvements on the Tu-160 I have read articles about integration of stealth technologies and apparently there was one plane used for testing of the often discussed but never agreed on "plasma" stealth technology. Like many in this thread have said lets wait and see.

Lol!
In Mother Russia the Forum Trolls You
Plas

[Duffy]

As for improvements on the Tu-160 I have read articles about integration of stealth technologies and apparently there was one plane used for testing of the often discussed but never agreed on "plasma" stealth technology. Like many in this thread have said lets wait and see.

Lol!
In Mother Russia the Forum Trolls You
Plas

Probably something along the lines of what we did to the B1 to make the B1B. Smooth the body out,Changed the air intakes to hide the compressor face, and a few other tweaks. It cut the RCS by something like 70% with out rebuilding the air frame.:)

[Feanor]

The Tu-160 already reduces RCS. Iirc it was posted on here that it has 1/6th the RCS of a conventional design. The PAK-DA is supposed to be an entirely new project that's currently in the conceptual design stage. I.e. they're busy drawing pictures. Speculating about it is sort of pointless.

[anan]

Welcome back Feanor! Don't leave us again for a couple months ;-)

[Duffy]

The Tu-160 already reduces RCS. Iirc it was posted on here that it has 1/6th the RCS of a conventional design.


I have seen a lot of information on the upgrades being done to the TU-160 and haven't herd that they have reduced the RCS 15%



=The PAK-DA is supposed to be an entirely new project that's currently in the conceptual design stage. I.e. they're busy drawing pictures. Speculating about it is sort of pointless.


The PAK-DA was to be based on the TU-160. That's what this thread is about is it not. Plasmahawk and I were discussing which 160? The TU-160 or the 160m. If you don't want people writing about it why don't you just lock the thread.

[plasmahawk]

I have seen a lot of information on the upgrades being done to the TU-160 and haven't herd that they have reduced the RCS 15% .

Re the RCS I did read in a few places a while back, and not only RCS but stealth RAM type coating (in non specific ways that there was RCS improvements made to the existing Tu-160), especially since they were apparently able to penetrate Alaska Airspace without being noticed

from: stealth sources tu-160 (http://www.evrazia.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2196)
В 2005 году дальняя авиация получит 2 абсолютно новеньких ТУ-160. Последний апгрейд - без потери летно-технических качеств, - он невидим как и 117 Стелс, который еще и не летает практически, по утверждению специалистов.

englished by google translate

In 2005, long-range aviation will receive 2 completely brand new TU-160. Last upgrade - without loss of flight performance qualities - it is invisible as the 117 Stealth, which still does not fly in practice, according to experts.


here are the two sources about Tu-160 stealth, as an FYI

Russia in talks over new bomber-04/01/2005-Flight International (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2005/01/04/191944/russia-in-talks-over-new-bomber.html)

Russians claim bomber flights over US territory went undetected-24/04/2006-London-Flight International (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/04/24/206145/russians-claim-bomber-flights-over-us-territory-went.html)


Plas

[Bonza]

In 2005, long-range aviation will receive 2 completely brand new TU-160. Last upgrade - without loss of flight performance qualities - it is invisible as the 117 Stealth, which still does not fly in practice, according to experts.


It's extremely difficult to take such a report seriously, if it's suggesting a Tu-160 with LO modifications attained levels of signature reduction comparable to the F-117.

[Feanor]

The PAK-DA was to be based on the TU-160. That's what this thread is about is it not. Plasmahawk and I were discussing which 160? The TU-160 or the 160m. If you don't want people writing about it why don't you just lock the thread.

I'm not trying to shut down your discussion. I'm just posting what my opinion on the subject is.

[Duffy]

I'm not trying to shut down your discussion. I'm just posting what my opinion on the subject is.

I would agree trying to say exactly how the plan will look is speculation. I just wonder which design it will be based on. Even if its the TU-160 it may not look anything like the TU-160. The structure of the TU-160 is the floor and not the body so it could look drastically different. If its based on the flying wing then things get interesting. :)

[Duffy]

The new ones I would agree have reduced RCS. The older ones pre 2005 (14 AC ) Were to have a three stage upgrade mostly electronics and new counter measures. Are all three stages carried out simultaneously? and is counter measures LO coating?

Since you can see both the F-117 and the TU-160 parked on the tarmac because neither is invisible. Yes the TU-160 is as invisible as the F-117. Misleading but not BS. The TU-160 having a lower RCS ???????????:rolleyes:

I would like to know how the Russian government knows what the US tracks and doesn't track on radar. Just because an F-15 doesn't show up to escort doesn't mean it's undetected.;)

[nevidimka]

I really like the flying wing concept proposed by tupolev. I believe the design was not too advanced for its time. Given the time and funds I've quite sure Tupolev would have produced that flying wing bomber, which seems very stealthy in design. But perhaps cost was the stumbling block.

But with the technology advancement now, I'm sure such kind of plane would be able to be produced at lower cost than at the time it was proposed.

[Salty Dog]

I would like to know how the Russian government knows what the US tracks and doesn't track on radar. Just because an F-15 doesn't show up to escort doesn't mean it's undetected.;)

I agree. if this was a daylight mission the F-15 jocks missed out on a photo op.

[turin]

Even if its the TU-160 it may not look anything like the TU-160. The structure of the TU-160 is the floor and not the body so it could look drastically different. If its based on the flying wing then things get interesting.

When the Russians go "as far" as saying "based on", then given examples of recent developments (meaning anything post-soviet) this means, its a modified Tu-160. Because if it really would be a new project, involving a new design off the drawing board, the usual language used in Russia involves expressions such as "revolutionary" or "unmatched" etc. The whole thing sounded very down-to-earth when it was announced.

I agree that everything is just speculation at this point in time. But claims involving a completely new design have no grounds in reality. The announced first flight-date of 2015 certainly does not support this (even when the usual Russian optimism is being considered). It would however fit quite well with some modification work being done on the Tu-160 platform.

[SpudmanWP]

That is ludicrous for two reasons:

1. It's obvious. There is no way the Tu-160 with RAM treatments could get anywhere near the F-117 which is smaller, was purpose build to be LO, and also has RAM treatments.

2. Since the Russians have never had a pole model to study, they have no idea what the true RCS of the F-117 is. Maybe they can hire Kopp to do a visual study of the F-117? Since they likely have a sample of the RAM from Serbia they would have a better chance at a ball-park number.

[PhysicsMan]

When the Russians go "as far" as saying "based on", then given examples of recent developments (meaning anything post-soviet) this means, its a modified Tu-160. Because if it really would be a new project, involving a new design off the drawing board, the usual language used in Russia involves expressions such as "revolutionary" or "unmatched" etc. The whole thing sounded very down-to-earth when it was announced.

I agree that everything is just speculation at this point in time. But claims involving a completely new design have no grounds in reality. The announced first flight-date of 2015 certainly does not support this (even when the usual Russian optimism is being considered). It would however fit quite well with some modification work being done on the Tu-160 platform.

The first PAK DA flight date coincides with the announced date for the start of production of PAK FA. It may be the case that the two are linked technologically. It's possible, for example, they will use 4 AL41F engines on PAK DA which "should" be ready by 2015.

[SkolZkiy]

That is ludicrous for two reasons:

1. It's obvious. There is no way the Tu-160 with RAM treatments could get anywhere near the F-117 which is smaller, was purpose build to be LO, and also has RAM treatments.

2. Since the Russians have never had a pole model to study, they have no idea what the true RCS of the F-117 is. Maybe they can hire Kopp to do a visual study of the F-117? Since they likely have a sample of the RAM from Serbia they would have a better chance at a ball-park number.

But may be we have something like F-117 - I mean crashed F-117 ;)
Like the one in Iraq or Serbia??

[swerve]

2. Since the Russians have never had a pole model to study, they have no idea what the true RCS of the F-117 is. Maybe they can hire Kopp to do a visual study of the F-117? Since they likely have a sample of the RAM from Serbia they would have a better chance at a ball-park number.
Depending on how much co-operation they had from the Serbs, they may have been able to construct a mock up for RCS testing.

[PhysicsMan]

Depending on how much co-operation they had from the Serbs, they may have been able to construct a mock up for RCS testing.

Cooperation? Everything the Serbs knew, they knew.

[SpudmanWP]

Even if they could duplicate the RAM on the F-117, they would still have a much larger RCS due to shaping and physical size.

[PhysicsMan]

Even if they could duplicate the RAM on the F-117, they would still have a much larger RCS due to shaping and physical size.

Yes, they would still need to take care of those large intakes and hide the blades better as well as the exhaust nozzle - probably the biggest noise makers in this configuration. Overall, though, it's a decent shape for a reduced RCS. As for the RAM, they should be able to do much better than F-117 by now - it's a pretty ancient technology on there (assuming F117 still uses the original coating tech).

[Bonza]

Even if they could duplicate the RAM on the F-117, they would still have a much larger RCS due to shaping and physical size.

Seconded. While they may have incorporated RCS reducing measures on the Tu-160, the suggestion that an airframe not designed for LO (and that goes for ANY airframe) could attain the same levels of RCS reduction as something like the F-117 just isn't credible.

[PhysicsMan]

Seconded. While they may have incorporated RCS reducing measures on the Tu-160, the suggestion that an airframe not designed for LO (and that goes for ANY airframe) could attain the same levels of RCS reduction as something like the F-117 just isn't credible.

There's no such thing as an airframe designed for LO or not. Yes, one can have a plane that totally disregards RCS reduction, but getting a plane to have LO profile is a cumulative effect kind of process, it's not like something is just LO or not LO.
Tu-160 shape was designed with reducing RCS in mind. Statements that something can or cannot achieve this or that result in LO needs to be discussed in terms of concrete changes in design due to the cumulative nature of the reduction process, so unless the only upgrade you're talking about is RAM coating (in that case it wouldn't be as stealthy, of course) the limit is not that well-defined. If they redesign the intakes and nozzles it can be a serious reduction. If they redesign the tail it can be a serious reduction. If they somewhat reshape the wing it can be a serious reduction. If they put a proper cockpit cover on it can be a serious reduction. There are lots of things they can do with the same airframe to reduce RCS a LOT. They say SU-35 frontal RCS is 10 lower than previous Flanker generations, and it was done on the same frame design family.

[SpudmanWP]

Sorry to burst you bubble, but the the F-117, B-2, F-22, and F-35 are all designed to be LO (not VLO) irrespective of RAM.

Engine treatments: Such as S-shaped ducts (F-22 and F-35), grills (ala F-117), inlets on the upper wing surface (B-2) all hide the face of the turbines from radar returns.

Internal weapons bays hide the weapons and pylons from radar

Aligned wing and tail edges ensure a vast majority of the radar is reflected away from the transmitter.

Non-vertical tail surfaces

Very smooth surfaces

No external antenna elements

Hidden engine exhausts (B-2 and F-117)

Angled engine exausts (F-22 and F-35)

Absolutely NO edge that is perpendicular to the plane of travel.

Treated canopies

These items, and much more, contribute the greatest to lowering the RCS and NONE of them deal with RAM coatings.

[Bonza]

There's no such thing as an airframe designed for LO or not. Yes, one can have a plane that totally disregards RCS reduction, but getting a plane to have LO profile is a cumulative effect kind of process, it's not like something is just LO or not LO.
Tu-160 shape was designed with reducing RCS in mind. Statements that something can or cannot achieve this or that result in LO needs to be discussed in terms of concrete changes in design due to the cumulative nature of the reduction process, so unless the only upgrade you're talking about is RAM coating (in that case it wouldn't be as stealthy, of course) the limit is not that well-defined. If they redesign the intakes and nozzles it can be a serious reduction. If they redesign the tail it can be a serious reduction. If they somewhat reshape the wing it can be a serious reduction. If they put a proper cockpit cover on it can be a serious reduction. There are lots of things they can do with the same airframe to reduce RCS a LOT. They say SU-35 frontal RCS is 10 lower than previous Flanker generations, and it was done on the same frame design family.

When you say there's no such thing as an airframe designed for low observability, what then would you call the F-117 airframe? It made serious concessions to aerodynamic performance with the specific intention of reducing radar cross section, how is this anything but being designed for low observability?

I agree with you that it's a cumulative process with a variety of contributing factors. Maybe my post could have been worded better.

My point was that while measures such as the ones you've outlined above will of course decrease the RCS of a given platform, this does not necessarily mean said platform will attain the same levels of low observability enjoyed by something like the F-117, or any of the dedicated "stealth" platforms. Because I'd argue these dedicated platforms have a high degree of LO inherent in their design, rather than something like a Tu-160, which while it may incorporate RCS reducing measures, is clearly not a "stealthy" airframe (by comparison, of course).

Please take this in the context of the specific example I made (the Tu-160's RCS as compared to the F-117). Surely you can see a more dedicated level of concessions made to low observability in one rather than the other.

I apologise if my choice of words was poor and while I agree with you that it's not nearly as simple as "LO or not LO" (and I didn't mean to give that impression), I would debate your point that there's no such thing as an airframe designed for low observability. The F-117, B-2, F-22 and F-35 (and the PAK-FA, whenever it shows up) all have a design goal of high levels of RCS reduction, accomplished through various means, and thus they have been designed as LO airframes.

[PhysicsMan]

Sorry to burst you bubble, but the the F-117, B-2, F-22, and F-35 are all designed to be LO (not VLO) irrespective of RAM.

Engine treatments: Such as S-shaped ducts (F-22 and F-35), grills (ala F-117), inlets on the upper wing surface (B-2) all hide the face of the turbines from radar returns.

Internal weapons bays hide the weapons and pylons from radar

Aligned wing and tail edges ensure a vast majority of the radar is reflected away from the transmitter.

Non-vertical tail surfaces

Very smooth surfaces

No external antenna elements

Hidden engine exhausts (B-2 and F-117)

Angled engine exausts (F-22 and F-35)

Absolutely NO edge that is perpendicular to the plane of travel.

Treated canopies

These items, and much more, contribute the greatest to lowering the RCS and NONE of them deal with RAM coatings.

Apparently you missed the meaning of what I wrote. I said that planes aren't designed LO by some definition or a magic formula, meaning that it's a continual process, with components among which are the things you listed. If you take away any of the above design features from any of those planes they will still be LO in most directions, just incrementally reduced in some. Same (or reverse, I should say) goes for adding such features to an aircraft that already has some features reducing its RCS.

[Bonza]

Apparently you missed the meaning of what I wrote. I said that planes aren't designed LO by some definition or a magic formula, meaning that it's a continual process, with components among which are the things you listed. If you take away any of the above design features from any of those planes they will still be LO in most directions, just incrementally reduced in some. Same (or reverse, I should say) goes for adding such features to an aircraft that already has some features reducing its RCS.

Ah, I think I misunderstood some of what you said as well, apologies for that. However a point I would make regarding the addition of LO features to a pre-existing airframe is that it is not necessarily possible depending on the specific feature.

To go back to the previous example I made, adding the LO features inherent to the F-117's airframe (shaping etc), and thus intrinsic to its RCS reduction, would not necessarily be possible on an airframe such as the Tu-160 without massive changes to the airframe itself (to the point where it would be a new design rather than an existing one).

My contention was based on the report mentioned earlier in the thread, which references upgrades to the Tu-160 such that it attained a level of LO equal to the F-117. I seriously doubt upgrades would be able to provide this comprehensive a level of LO, due to intrinsic differences in the airframes and indeed design goals of the two platforms.

I think we're talking at cross purposes here anyway, and I do apologise for misinterpreting some of what you said. :)

[PhysicsMan]

Ah, I think I misunderstood some of what you said as well, apologies for that. However a point I would make regarding the addition of LO features to a pre-existing airframe is that it is not necessarily possible depending on the specific feature.

To go back to the previous example I made, adding the LO features inherent to the F-117's airframe (shaping etc), and thus intrinsic to its RCS reduction, would not necessarily be possible on an airframe such as the Tu-160 without massive changes to the airframe itself (to the point where it would be a new design rather than an existing one).

My contention was based on the report mentioned earlier in the thread, which references upgrades to the Tu-160 such that it attained a level of LO equal to the F-117. I seriously doubt upgrades would be able to provide this comprehensive a level of LO, due to intrinsic differences in the airframes and indeed design goals of the two platforms.

I think we're talking at cross purposes here anyway, and I do apologise for misinterpreting some of what you said. :)

You bring this discussion to where it should have headed from the beginning - whether it's possible to incorporate significant RCS reducing airframe changes to the existing design of TU-160.
It seems to me that at least some important steps are very doable from engineering and monetary point of view. Redesigning the engine intakes and exhaust nozzles seems to me like one of such steps. Another one that should be simpler (but very important) is swapping the existing canopy glass with one that can't be easily penetrated by radar radiation. The overall shape of the airframe already has some really important LO features - it has a very flat bottom side (minus the engines) that has the wings in the same plane; the nose is flattened (they could sharpen the edges more); the overall shape is very smooth and continuous, with the top not making too many reflective angles either. The wings extend smoothly from the nose, they could probably try to even make it a straight line (tough?..). A big one is the tail shape - I don't know if it's possible to do anything about the perpendicular planes that it makes but I bet it's not an impossible task either. If these things are done plus an advanced RAM coating, I wouldn't bet money on TU-160 being much larger than F-117 in RCS in certain directions. It won't be anywhere near F-22 or B-2 but from what I've read F-117 is not at that level...

[Bonza]

You bring this discussion to where it should have headed from the beginning - whether it's possible to incorporate significant RCS reducing airframe changes to the existing design of TU-160.
It seems to me that at least some important steps are very doable from engineering and monetary point of view. Redesigning the engine intakes and exhaust nozzles seems to me like one of such steps. Another one that should be simpler (but very important) is swapping the existing canopy glass with one that can't be easily penetrated by radar radiation. The overall shape of the airframe already has some really important LO features - it has a very flat bottom side (minus the engines) that has the wings in the same plane; the nose is flattened (they could sharpen the edges more); the overall shape is very smooth and continuous, with the top not making too many reflective angles either. The wings extend smoothly from the nose, they could probably try to even make it a straight line (tough?..). A big one is the tail shape - I don't know if it's possible to do anything about the perpendicular planes that it makes but I bet it's not an impossible task either. If these things are done plus an advanced RAM coating, I wouldn't bet money on TU-160 being much larger than F-117 in RCS in certain directions. It won't be anywhere near F-22 or B-2 but from what I've read F-117 is not at that level...

From what I understand, and for the reasons I've stated previously, I don't think you'd be able to get that level of RCS reduction out of the Tu-160 - there just doesn't seem to be the necessary shaping or design intent in the airframe as it exists now. Keep in mind that even loose screws on the F-117's airframe, during tests, increased RCS incredibly. Now imagine what the engines of the Tu-160 are going to do to the RCS of the otherwise relatively flat bottom...

Another sticking point for me is the idea of directional RCS reduction. I would think in order to attain LO "comparable to the F-117" you would by association be talking about all-aspect LO...however I realise that may be open to interpretation and is only my opinion.

It would be good to get the input of one of the more knowledgeable posters - GF, are you around? Assuming you're not sick to death of answering LO related questions by this point... :P

[PhysicsMan]

From what I understand, and for the reasons I've stated previously, I don't think you'd be able to get that level of RCS reduction out of the Tu-160 - there just doesn't seem to be the necessary shaping or design intent in the airframe as it exists now. Keep in mind that even loose screws on the F-117's airframe, during tests, increased RCS incredibly. Now imagine what the engines of the Tu-160 are going to do to the RCS of the otherwise relatively flat bottom...

Another sticking point for me is the idea of directional RCS reduction. I would think in order to attain LO "comparable to the F-117" you would by association be talking about all-aspect LO...however I realise that may be open to interpretation and is only my opinion.

It would be good to get the input of one of the more knowledgeable posters - GF, are you around? Assuming you're not sick to death of answering LO related questions by this point... :P

You may be right, too bad we don't have hard data on these planes...
On the directional RCS reduction... It has to be an important factor since the radar beam always comes from a certain direction. This should be particularly important for a long range cruise missiles-carrying bomber like Tu-160, which strikes from a long range - it's essential to be able to detect it (and avoid detection on the opposite end) from an even longer distance, and that would be a frontal illumination, hence the frontal RCS should be particularly important for such aircraft...

[Feanor]

The key thing though is that the new Tu-160s have not seen any major airframe redesigning. In fact the "new" Tu-160s so far have been assembled mostly from parts left in factory stocks from the Soviet days.

Granted there is currently a modernization program underway, that replaces the engines, and upgrades the avionics. But it's also not doing anything to the airframe shape.

[vivian]

that's a long long journey for russia to do that .