Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Sukhoi's T-60 project?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    8,166

    Sukhoi's T-60 project?

    [updated:LAST EDITED ON 07-05-02 AT 04:29 PM (GMT)]Maybe this was discussed earlier, but has Sukhoi put its T-60 project in permamnent storage right now?

    pic 1: earlier design
    pic 2: later design
    Attachments:


    "one is the loneliest number.."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,243

    RE: Sukhoi's T-60 project?

    Upps ... I just found something more ...


    The Sukhoi T-60S ......

    "In 1983, OKB Tupolev and OKB Sukhoi received governmental demands for a new medium-range bomber to replace Tu-22M3 (Backfire) bombers already in service. By this time OKB Sukhoi engineers were already working on the T-60 project, which would replace not only Tu-22M but also Tu-16 and Su-24.
    According to vice-general designer of the OKB Sukhoi O.S.Samoilovich as M.Simonov became vice-minister of Aviation Industry, he pulled-out an idea that all projects should be developed in TsAGI (sort of like NASA) while the actual improvement and construction would be done by the design bureau."

    This kind of project codenamed T-60 with full report on model testing in wind tunnels was transfered to OKB Sukhoi in 1981, and works continued managed by N.Chernyakov and V.F.Marov. The development was almost completely identical to the T-4MS project except for two new and absolutely absurd technical solutions. First was the replacement of turning wing consoles fully under the fuselage without taking into consideration real wing deformations. Second was the use of variable-level double-path jet, the so-called double-tube jet. In this case, the stupidness was lying right on the surface, but for authorities it was presented as an ordinary breakthrough in aviation technology. Especially after that kind of jet was made at OKB Kolesov and actually passed initial tests. At the same time two things weren't taken into consideration: how will such engine will fit into the aircraft and what kind of output would it give to the aircraft in general. Several mistakes were found during the wind tunnel testing program. Despite all that, heavy works on the T-60S project were held all the way until the unfortunate collapse of the USSR.
    It was planned that the aircraft will enter service by 2003.
    The T-60S was briefly mentioned here and there with a few artist impressions appearing in the press, but factual information remains scarce. Recently an interesting article about T-60S and other perspective Russian bomber designs appeared in the Air International (Nov. 1998, pp. 274-278). The article suggests that the T-60S, which weights around 80 tones, may be a high-altitude, high-speed bomber with a lifting body fuselage design and a swing-wing construction. Mach 2 cruise speed on high altitude, stealth technology, internal placement of extreme range stealth cruise missiles will make T-60S an ideal medium range attack aircraft.

    Although no photographs of the T-60S are available, Piotr Butkowski (Air International correspondent on Russian aviation) believes that the T-60S features a variable geometry wing, flat lifting fuselage and two engines, equipped with two-dimensional thrust vectoring nozzles.
    The engine air intakes are believed to be shoulder mounted, slightly forward of the wing root. Armament is understood to include up to six Kh-101 stealthy cruise missiles, as well as Kh-55/65(AS-15) and Kh-15P (AS-16) missiles, free-fall nuclear weapons and precision guided conventional munitions.
    In 1990s the project was kind of frozen due to lack of funding. According to several reports, by 1998 the T-60S remained on the stage of development without any construction taking place and could enter service by late 2020s.
    At the same time, starting from 1994 new aircraft has begun its testing program the Su-34 which is expected to replace the Su-24. And a decision was made to uprate the existing Tu-22M3 («145») to the Tu-22M5 («245») level.
    In March 2000, Russian experts were close to conclusion on who should handle the development of Tu-160 Blackjack replacement. Assuming all that, the T-60S doesn't look so much needed any longer, beside that it's not economically efficient anymore. It's still possible that the T-60S will have some continuation but it's very doubtful to be so."

    from: http://sergib.agava.ru/russia/sukhoi/t/60/t60_e.htm


    ... any comments on this "STRANGE" engine-concept !????


    By the way in the Airforces Monthly special-issue "X-planes Vol. 2" there are some different information:

    The dimensions are a little bit smaller length: 28m / span: 11m - 22m / max. weight 64t and 6t warload ... and the info, that prototype-construction has already begun !!!


    Anyway ... I think this was a wind tunnel model of an early concept (without the swing-wing) and not a MiG-MFI prototype !

    But judge by Yourself ..... Best regards, Deino :-)
    Attachments:

    ...

    He was my North, my South, my East and West,
    My working week and my Sunday rest,
    My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
    I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.

    The stars are not wanted now; put out every one:
    Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
    Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods:
    For nothing now can ever come to any good.
    -------------------------------------------------
    W.H.Auden (1945)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    8,692

    RE: Sukhoi's T-60 project?

    All the reports I have read mentioning new projects for the Russian military make no mention of a requirement in the class of the T-60. I have heard some reports about a new Bear replacement with more powerful pusher Turboprops but at the moment I can't see the Tu-22M3/M5 being replaced any time soon. Certainly the replacement for the Su-24 is on the horizon in the form of the Su-32 but as money is a problem I think the Su-24s will be upgraded with equipment developed for the Su-32 as a short term solution and as money comes available the Su-32s will slowly enter service... freeing the Su-24s for export... non upgraded ones first probably, though the customer might pay for the upgrade if that is offered for export.
    The Tu-22M3s will be upgraded to Tu-22M5s and the Tu-16s will probably be sold or scrapped.
    This means the T-60 class aircraft will not be needed for quite a while.
    It may be that when this class of aircraft is needed many design solutions used in the T-60 design would no longer be state of the art and would be changed for the production aircraft whatever it may be.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    2,503

    RE: Sukhoi's T-60 project?

    I don't think pre Su-24M FENCER-D aircraft have sufficient service life do they? The name of the Su-24 upgrade, Su-24M2, seems to indicate its only being applied to the Su-24M. I reckon they wanna update the relatively newer Su-24Ms (mid-late 80s) and replace the FENCER-Bs and Cs with the Su-32, thats in the short term.

    Is another turboprop bomber really necessary? As it is, the quite numerous Tu-95MS fleet (89 aircraft, with 68 declared under START as 'deployed'), all built after 1981, are expected to serve with upgrades into the 2030s, along with the Tu-160 fleet. Besides, shouldn't Russian turbofan engine tech be sufficiently advanced so as to make turboprops for a new bomber unjustifiable (B-52 was to be turboprop powered until the J57 turbojet I believe), no matter when design of the aircraft starts?

    Do any Tu-16s serve in the Russian Air Force still ... they were in service as late as 1991 for sure, but beyond that I have no idea. The Tu-22M5 upgrade:

    - new radar
    - new avionics: navigation, ECM upgraded
    - airframe: service life extended 'beyond 2010'
    - weapons: capable of carrying four Kh-101 or Kh-SD/65 CALCMs or Kh-102 ALCMs. Primary anti-ship missile armament to replace the Kh-22 will be the Kh-32.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    8,692

    RE: Sukhoi's T-60 project?

    "Is another turboprop bomber really necessary? As it is, the quite numerous Tu-95MS fleet (89 aircraft, with 68 declared under START as 'deployed'), all built after 1981, are expected to serve with upgrades into the 2030s, along with the Tu-160 fleet. Besides, shouldn't Russian turbofan engine tech be sufficiently advanced so as to make turboprops for a new bomber... "

    The Bear is a very impressive aircraft and is often dismissed as backward simply because it uses propellers instead of "modern" jets.
    Ironically it does actually use jets... a turboprop is a type of jet engine... but one that drives most of its thrust by the central shaft of the turbine turning a prop instead of just blowing air through a straw.

    For efficiency at low altitudes where maritime patrol aircraft and bombers fly a turboprop is still an efficient means of propulsion... look at the P-3 Orion.

    ##################
    "Sitting reading my latest AirInt yesterday I see that a large pusher propeller called NK-110. It weighs 2,300kg without props (four blade contra rotating... 4.7m or 15ft) with a takeoff thrust of 21,300shp or 176.5kN/39,683lbs.
    The fuel consumption is described as "Brilliant" and is 0.19lb/h/lb or 5.384mg/Ns.
    This is from the "Transport engines" article in the December 2001 issue of air int.
    (The figures above are from the article, as is the description of the fuel economy.) "
    ###################

    This is how the Bear could be improved... A more modern engine that has a significant increase in thrust and could be used for a transport type as well... The bear is never going to go that much faster but the extra power will shorten takeoff and landing runs and also reduce cruise fuel burn... allowing a lower fuel fraction and perhaps more weapons for the same range or greater range with the same weapon load or longer range.

    Obviously a purpose designed aircraft would benefit more from the pusher prop layout and these days I guess it would have a flying wing layout for high lift low drag.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES