"Russia to Build Fleet of Supersonic Military Transports" Topic

It looks to me like the future Traveller Sci-Fi period is finally here, IF, and that is a big IF, Russia actually scrapes up the money to build some of these supersonic, military transport aircraft (don't get thrown by the use of the phrase "at hypersonic" speed, like I did – the author just threw that term into the article, presumably thinking it is just a synonym for "supersonic", which we obviously know is incorrect):

link

They are really neat, futuristic-looking designs, worthy of any Traveller RPG scenario.

With this fleet of supersonic aircraft, they plan to be able to deploy 400 of their newest Armata tanks to any point in the world in seven hours. These aircraft will be capable of carrying a 200 ton payload, 4,500 kilometers – 7,000 kilometers.

Russia plans to have a fleet of 80 of them by 2024.

Not sure they'll be able to afford that, but on the plus side, with the ruble down 50%, if they've diversified the country's portfolio well, they'll be able to build them for half the price of what they might have cost, otherwise.

Now, I need some of these in 1/600th scale, to go along with the Russian Bears and Backfires.

Because the Tu-144 worked so well?

TU-144 did work, just the idiot of a pilot crashed it at Paris airshow. The did have a limited life after Paris crash, the engines & airframe were not as efficient as Concorde.

The shown new design is similar to some of NASA idea for blended wing body.

I'll believe it when its flying.

I am curious why people keep posting this kind of propaganda. As with most Soviet/Russian super projects, I will believe it when they build more than just a handful of prototypes. Until then, it really belongs in the SciFi boards.

Similar to a lot of the stuff that comes out of DARPAand elsewhere. I remember when HOTOL first hit the streets in the 1980s. Promises of 45 minute flights to Oz by 2000. That's worked out well so far.

TU-144 did work, just the idiot of a pilot crashed it at Paris airshow.

It was generally perceived as less stable in flight (than Concorde) especially at supersonic speeds (it lacked Concorde's complex wing curves)

"That instability was made evident in 1973, when its very first production model crashed at the Paris Air show, killing all six crewmen and another eight people on the ground. The cause of the crash remains undetermined, with the French and Russian governments still blaming each other for the plane's failure. The Russians think a mysterious French Mirage fighter jet that appeared to be tailing the TU-144 just before it went down caused the crash. The French have accused the Soviet flight crew of trying to bank the plane too hard."

Looking at the footage, I'd go with the latter… it don't bank like a fighter! (I remember dad talking about those issues when banking Concorde at airshows), although from teh footage it looks like structural failure.

"The TU-144 proved incredibly unreliable in commercial flight. In just 180 hours of flight time, the first 16 TU-144's suffered more than 226 failures, nearly a third of them in the air. In May 1978, another Tu-144 crashed in a test flight while being delivered, and the passenger fleet was permanently grounded after only 55 scheduled flights. Including the 55 passenger flights, there were 102 scheduled flights before the cessation of commercial service."

Not a roaring success :-)

But if you are going to put it down…. then put it down!

YouTube link

Who cares if Russia is going to actually build it, the more important question is whose going to make it in miniature form?

You can't but admit that it's a very sexy looking aircraft.

Whether it'll get built in my lifetime depends on a lot of factors, I guess.

John T

Bah! Before the planes can get off the ground, you'd need airports capable of of handling them.

Just the cost of building, maintaining (and defending) runways that can handle 700-800+ tons in every part of the world would bankrupt the Russians.

Very few airports in the world can handle the A380, no way they are making the needed modifications for this thing UNLESS it is much cheaper to fly and maintain then existing aircraft.

Since Russia will probably gone bankrupt till 2017, it will stay as very interesting concept.

That design concept isn't breaking Mach 1, wings are far too straight.

Though I could definitely see a use for a stealthy C130 or C17 equivalent. Because the other option is to modify a standard Boeing to have a drop bay to insert special forces from an established air route on a scheduled flight.

400 tanks anywhere in the world in 7 hours. That would need 100 flights and the Russians are only going to build 80 planes. This doesnt include all supplies needed. Of course we know the Russians are masters of servicing their equiptment so it is always 100% ready.

More of Russia slipping back to old Soviet days of massive propaganda.

The largest payload capability of any aircraft…

… and ONE engine?!?

Yeah, stop watching Star Wars and the Matrix and crack open a book on aircraft design.

My suspicion is they crank these 'design studies' out every few years, so in the off chance someone else makes something similar actually WORK in the next 20 years, they can claim industrial espionage.

Yea, I figure they're trying to do the old Cold War shuffle on us, in order to get us to spend lots of money on counters to it, like we did to them with the XB-70 program.

I guess in the larger scheme of things, supersonic, and/or hypersonic, long range AAMs really won't be that expensive to develop to counter these.

Still, it is a lovely looking design, somewhat reminiscent of the Boeing flying wing commercial jet, though the Russian one looks more advanced to me, given their engine placement.

Need to find some parts to make one, or more of these in 15mm scale, for the local airport/spaceport.

"You can't but admit that it's a very sexy looking aircraft."

I agree. ;-)

But we have this!
link

All talk. You have to have money to pay for them first. Dobby's lucky if he has two rubles to rub together, oh wait he has the secret account, but that's not for the Russian people.

The largest payload capability of any aircraft…

… and ONE engine?!?

I'm pretty sure it has 5 engines. One on top of the airframe, and 4 buried inside at the wing roots.

Ummm… are those two large black areas intakes? Wow, talk about a FOD trap.

I agree, while it is a sexy looking concept, the aspect ratio of those wings (necessary for that degree of lift for a cargo of that size/weight) is going to struggle to get supersonic speeds.

"But we have this!
link"

Uh-oh, The marines are in trouble. When GW reads about somebody launching anything with S-P-*-*E M-A-R-*-*-E-S in it, they will sue the crap outta the Corps!

Remember this from the 1960's artist concepts of the use of a Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) system?
link

Perhaps it's a swing-wing model.

Looks like three, very large engines, to me. The third one is buried between the V-tail, at the rear of the aircraft.

If you go to the link, and scroll down to the Vimeo animated video…

> No swing wing.

> Cargo is 7m x 4m, 200t capacity (shows 4 trucks being loaded)

> 1 gas turbine in the tail

> Two 'electrically powered fans' in the wings with vectored thrust output, which may improve lift at low altitude

May look good on the TV, but frankly I cant see how it can generate anything like sufficient thrust to move that sort of payload…

Especially for the range they're talking. Harriers suck fuel like it's water when using vectored thrust. Can't imagine this thing can do any near what they claim. Would love to see it fly once though (heck, even the Spruce Goose got off the water once). Also not so sure it could go supersonic with the wings swept forward that much. That creates lots of drag as speed approaches supersonic range because the air pressure builds up in front of it rather than sliding off. Yeah, definitely someone's pipe dream.

They "plan" lots of grandiose things but they mostly do it to parade it around on TV to impress thesmselves.

Ummm… are those two large black areas intakes? Wow, talk about a FOD trap.

As high as they are, they're not any worse than the C17's engines for FOD.

And as far as the SUSTAIN project goes, it's great for getting Marines *there*. What about getting them home?

There's a term made famous, back in WWII, for the PT Boat crews, which probably applies, from the movie "They Were Expendable".

Not that I agree with that theory.

Hopefully, someone else is working on an equally brilliant plan to get them back out of their insertion points, safely, after the missions are complete.

Zephyr1 – I like the vapor trail of the one in the background doing a barrel role ;-)

As high as they are, they're not any worse than the C17's engines for FOD.

The C-17 engine intakes are relatively small…

…compared to:

That's going to suck in anything nearby, assuming they relly do have that much power.

"…aviation experts have poured cold water on the idea, saying that the weight and size of the aircraft would require extremely large purpose-built runways and would need a ludicrous amount of fuel. Plus its enormous wingspan would make it an easy target for enemies.

Furthermore, the plans for PAK TA to be a hybrid electric aircraft are particularly unlikely. The technology for supersonic electric planes simply isn't ready yet."

"Two 'electrically powered fans' in the wings with vectored thrust output, which may improve lift at low altitude"

Not sure where people are getting the idea that electrically powered fans are 'ready for primetime'.

The thrust to weight ratios are sketchy at best, and I'm not aware of any concept in the works that would allow a fan of any kind to work effectively at high-supersonic speeds. (SR-71's turbines are basically useless at Mach 3 – the engine is effectively a ram jet running on the afterburner.)

That's going to suck in anything nearby, assuming they relly do have that much power.

First, those are at least 8 feet off the ground, and second, they're set back from the leading edge a bit. Both of which change the airflow patterns.

737s have serious suck-in dangers because their engines are so close to the ground (~3 feet, IIRC), but even that is only within a few feet of the intake.

But yeah, a bird capable of hauling 200 tons someplace isn't going to be rough-field capable in the slightest, even with more wheels in the landing gear than the An226, 747, and A-380 combined.

But with voids that size, bird strikes become a real threat.

The implication appears to be that this is a hybrid system. The electric fans with vectored thrust presumably providing (assuming they can find a way to generate sufficient power) either cruise speed and or some power and control at landing. Therefore the main propulsion, intended to shift this weight through the sound barrier, is the single gas turbine engine…

But with voids that size, bird strikes become a real threat.

No greater than any other plane, really.

But that one gas turbine engine is going to have to push 200,000lbs thrust, minimum!

400 tanks anywhere in the world in 7 hours. That would need 100 flights and the Russians are only going to build 80 planes. This doesnt include all supplies needed. Of course we know the Russians are masters of servicing their equiptment so it is always 100% ready.

More of Russia slipping back to old Soviet days of massive propaganda.

I agree ! I was an Air Ops Officer in the 101 and then of course had been deployed worldwide when on active duty. You just don't load up a bunch of tanks, etc., and deploy. There is a lot more to it, as cwlinsj noted, etc. … I'm going with this is more of a propaganda play, IMO. Like those CGI pics …

Im no flyboy, but wouldnt the minimum thrust force be more like 1,800,000 pounds of thrust?

That plane, loaded & fueled is going to weigh 700-800 tons. The engine in the animation looks like an AAA-cell battery in a refrigerator.

No greater than any other plane, really.

Compare the frontal surface area.