PAK-DA: News

Austin wrote:One of the better and authoritative book on Stealth I have come across

Introduction to RF Stealth (Scitech Radar and Defense)
David Lynch (Author)

http://www.4shared.com/document/cfYX1clO/SciTech_-_Introduction_to_RF_S.html

aaah thanks a lot .. it's a great

currently related to stealth i rely on Knott and tuley's "RADAR Cross Section 2nd Edition" and Dr Jenn's "RADAR and LASER Cross section engineering" ..however somehow those books are too advanced to me to understand properly

Russia's Kazan aircraft plant to build next generation bomber

The Kazan aircraft maker will start manufacturing a new strategic bomber, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday.

The plant will continue upgrading Tu-160 and Tu-22 long-range bombers and will then "start assembling a new-generation strategic bomber," he said.

He offered no indication of the new bomber's specifications or exactly when production would start.

Another Kazan-based enterprise - a helicopter plant - will start production of a new Mi-38 helicopter and continue making Mi-8, Ansat and Aktai helicopters that have already proved their worth, Putin also said.

That is interesting that he said they will continue to upgrade the Tu-22.

Perhaps that means the Tu-22M3 does have a future... I have always wondered why they put different engines in the Tu-160 and the Tu-22M3.

Some 5th gen engine with fewer parts that is simpler and lighter, with 30% more thrust but also more fuel efficient makes sense for these aircraft because it will improve takeoff performance at heavier weights and also perhaps increase range and payload.

For the Bear increased thrust is a waste of time because it will not get much faster.
With turboprop aircraft you run into the law of diminishing returns.
In other words with 15,000 hp turboprop engines the Bear is the worlds fastest propeller driven aircraft. To increase its speed x amount will need double the power. If you double the power again you wont get a speed increase of 2x, but 1.5x. If you double the power again you will get an increase of speed (over the 15,000hp model) of maybe 1.75x. All these increases in power will have a terrible effect on your fuel consumption so you will never break that supersonic barrier and your flight range will reduce.

Of course that is also an advantage of subsonic aircraft that because you will never fly supersonic you can carry lots of stuff externally without effecting top speed as drastically as with a supersonic aircraft.

During Soviet standardization was not really on top of the agenda , so they had different type of engine for each aircraft.

Since PAK-FA is developing a new 5th Gen 16.5T thrust engine with Flat nozzle , it would make sense to tweak the same engine with higher thrust specially in non-afterburning mode and use four of these on the new Bomber which is standardisation at its best.

I also expect the new bomber to use significant composite material which will make it much lighter with substantial weight reduction , considering PAK-FA will have 30 % composite by weight and the new civil liner MS-21 has 40 % composite by weight.

A composite use of atleast 40 % by weight is achievable for new bomber requiring much lower thrust.

What will be interesting is if the new Bomber will be Stealth Wing Shape Subsonic or a Variable Wing Tu-160 stealth derivative supersonic bomber , USAF is hell bent on getting subsonic for new bomber with longer loiter time and extereme stealth ~ -70dB for its new bomber.

Well that is true to a degree, though it is rather difficult to understand in this case.
I could understand why the Su-9 and Su-11 used different engines from the externally similar Mig-21 because the Su-9 and Su-11 were interceptors that needed fast acceleration and high top speed... and aircraft design bureaus had close relationships with particular engine and radar and avionics design bureaus.

...but the Backfire and the Blackjack were both Tupolevs you'd think they would want to adapt the Tu-22M3 to the engine developed for the Blackjack.

Still part of the upgrade of the Blackjack is an engine upgrade to improve performance and reliability so perhaps as part of the Tu-22M3 upgrade they can adapt the aircraft to use the Blackjacks new upgraded engine?

With the naval Backfires included they have rather more Backfires than Blackjacks so it makes sense to make their engines the same to reduce costs.

The point is that the current engines used by the Blackjack and Backfire are both 25 ton thrust class engines designed for supersonic flight, which means high exhaust speed. If the new bomber is going to be a flying wing either 25 ton class engine could be turned from a turbojet into a high bypass ratio turbofan with lower exhaust speed but enormously larger airflow to make it a 40 ton thrust class engine that the bomber would only need two of.

Personally I think a 5th gen version of the Blackjacks engine would make a nice 30-35 ton class high exhaust speed engine that might allow a flying wing configuration aircraft to supercruise at very high speed, with no draggy tail or fuselage and of course all internal weapons carriage it should be very easily attainable.

The simple fact is that even today Russian engine makers have gaps of power models that lead to them having to go to the Ukraine for engines.

I would think a new powerful engine of the 5th gen type would be very useful for heavy transports and long range airliners so that 2 engines could be used to make them more efficient and cheaper to operate than they would be if they had to use 4 engines of lower power, because more engines = more weight and drag.

Anyway... back on topic... just read this:

Strategic Bombers. The technical parameters of the new
strategic bomber (PAK DA) will be determined in the next 2-3 years. At that
point, the military will make a decision about procurement. The requirements for
the aircraft include  supersonic speeds, long range, stealth, and ability to use
precision-guided munitions against both air and land targets.

Now long range and supersonic speeds suggests 5th gen engines and super cruise. The ability to use guided weapons against both air and ground targets is interesting too...

Are we going to see PAK-DA replacing the Bear, the Backfire, the Blackjack... and the Foxhound?

PAK-DA will start replacing the Backfire first followed by Bear and Blackjack.

The Russian authorities have mentioned quite a few times they Bear/Blackjack will serve Strategic Forces atleast till 2040 with suitable upgrades.

I agree they have said things like that but do we have any evidence that these aircraft are actually getting the upgrades that are promised?

I guess it really depends on the performance of these new aircraft... because it really doesn't matter what they say now... if these new strategic bombers are classed as strategic bombers like the Bear and Blackjack are and the Backfire is not, then it will become a numbers game where they are allowed x number of strategic weapons platforms so they might want to retire the Backfires first but to keep with their strategic agreements they will have to get rid of some Bears to allow for the new strategic bomber airframes entering service.

Personally I think if they can get strategic range out of these new supersonic stealthy bombers without needing their own escort tankers flying all the way with them then they might be useful maritime patrol aircraft to replace the Tu-142.

This is speculation of course, but I would think a flying wing design with new 5th gen bomber engines might super cruise at say Mach 1.6-1.8 with 4 engines, now a two engined model with all the bombing stuff removed and MPA stuff fitted able to perform high subsonic cruise flights of 10,000km or more might be very useful.
A similar four engined model could be used as an inflight refuelling aircraft, and a two engined model able to fly around for very long periods might be useful with a radar array embedded in its stucture to give 360 degree radar coverage.
Another 2 engine model could be used for medium range strike and replace the Backfires.
And a 4 engined supercruising model could replace the Foxhound as a long range interceptor.

Eventually it could replace a wide range of aircraft with commonality of engines and parts etc.

My reasoning for engine numbers is a super cruising strategic bomber will need 4 engines to get sufficient thrust to supercruise. A two engined version wont be able to supercruise, but that is ok for a maritime patrol aircraft as they spend a lot of time at medium and low level where super cruising is impossible anyway.
The two engined version for strike is to scale back its performance so it doesn't get counted as a strategic bomber and therefore bound by the limitations in basing and use etc.
Two engines should also be enough for an AWACS type as high speed is not as important as time on station and operating altitude.
Four engines for the tanker not for speed but to allow for high takeoff weights to increase the amount of fuel it can offload to "customers", and of course for a long range interceptor it needs to be able to supercruise and also accelerate to higher speeds for certain missions so 4 engines are a must.

GarryB wrote:I agree they have said things like that but do we have any evidence that these aircraft are actually getting the upgrades that are promised?

Evidence as in photos of the upgraded aircraft , cockpit , weapons/sensor suite , NO

Well atleast one Tu-160 is going through the upgrade program , I have not come across any news on Tu-95MS , and one or 2 backfire have already been upgraded with the SV-24 suite.

I think we may not hear much on that front as openly , they would just do it quietly and all blackjack/bear will be upgraded by this decade.

I guess it really depends on the performance of these new aircraft... because it really doesn't matter what they say now... if these new strategic bombers are classed as strategic bombers like the Bear and Blackjack are and the Backfire is not, then it will become a numbers game where they are allowed x number of strategic weapons platforms so they might want to retire the Backfires first but to keep with their strategic agreements they will have to get rid of some Bears to allow for the new strategic bomber airframes entering service.

Actually the good thing about new START is that they have now allowed one bomber to be counter with one warhead , so this will allow them to actually increase the number of bombers without crossing the strategic limits or having any limitations.

So they can have 400 strategic bombers and will be counted as 400 strategic warhead with the overall limit of 1600 warhead as per new start.

So bomber boom so to speak with new START

Personally I think if they can get strategic range out of these new supersonic stealthy bombers without needing their own escort tankers flying all the way with them then they might be useful maritime patrol aircraft to replace the Tu-142.

I just hope they replace the Tu-142 with a Tu-204 aircraft thats the best aircraft to replace Bear and good on money.

This is speculation of course, but I would think a flying wing design with new 5th gen bomber engines might super cruise at say Mach 1.6-1.8 with 4 engines, now a two engined model with all the bombing stuff removed and MPA stuff fitted able to perform high subsonic cruise flights of 10,000km or more might be very useful.
A similar four engined model could be used as an inflight refuelling aircraft, and a two engined model able to fly around for very long periods might be useful with a radar array embedded in its stucture to give 360 degree radar coverage.
Another 2 engine model could be used for medium range strike and replace the Backfires.
And a 4 engined supercruising model could replace the Foxhound as a long range interceptor.

The only thing I can speculate with certainty about the new PAK-DA bomber is it will be Supersonic Bomber ( not subsonic as the US NGB ) ,will have a long range and good weapon carrying capability , with new approach to stealth.

I just hope they replace the Tu-142 with a Tu-204 aircraft thats the best aircraft to replace Bear and good on money.

I agree with you there... an MPA doesn't need supercruise or stealth... its requirements are actually fairly similar to a civilian airliner... which a variant of the Bear was.

The only thing I can speculate with certainty about the new PAK-DA
bomber is it will be Supersonic Bomber ( not subsonic as the US NGB )
,will have a long range and good weapon carrying capability , with new
approach to stealth.

The suggestion that it can engage aerial targets does not mean they could replace the Foxhound, it is more likely to allow the aircraft to defend itself... though with enemy interceptors most likely to be F-22s the best way it could defend itself is with small relatively short range AAMs designed to intercept incoming AAMs.

Will this be Firefox?

The new book Russian Strategic Bomber has interesting bit of information on PAK-DA , essentially bits and pieces of direct quotes and what turn future bomber would take.

The way they define a strategic bomber is ability to hit the farthest possible target ( read deep US ) from the longest possible range which means minimising exposure time from Air Defence and Interceptors ,Radars.

So the new strategic bomber will have the capability to hit with longest possible range using Kh-101 CM and will have the range to reach a point where it can launch from its bomber base.

Russia does not have bomber bases around the world so they cannot forward base their bomber , which makes speed an important aspect in reaching a launching point as quickly as possible from secure bases , hence they need to remain supersonic.

It needs the range without the availability or luxury of having a refuller which means it should carry enough fuel to reach the launching point and return back with some reserves , this would mean it will need persistance and will need be to big enough to carry maximum load and range to match.

For a strategic mission a load of 12 cruise missiles is not actually that heavy... although 12 x 2.2 ton Kh-102s does work out to be heavy for most aircraft at 26.4 tons, but in comparison with its max rated payload of 40 tons that is a fairly light load.

I would expect the new bomber to be able to carry 12 missiles too and to remain supersonic and stealthy they will need to be internally carried.

Perhaps the best design will allow the offloading of internal extra fuel that gives it strategic range will allow a greatly increased payload capacity for the shorter range theatre role missions with long loiter times at subsonic speed or long periods of super cruising orbiting of target areas with enormous numbers of GLASNOSS guided bombs.

Deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin argue on the usefullness of "classical" strategic long range bombers in a perspective environment .


http://www.izvestia.ru/news/526580


Paradoxically the most important Rogozin's statement explaining the reason at the same basis of the debate on future requirements...or even the same operational practicability !.... of future long range bombers , provide instead a good picture on what is the real situation,at today, between Air Forces and IADS of the same generation :

Посмотрите на уровень развития противовоздушной и противоракетной обороны: все эти самолеты никуда не долетят. Ни наши к ним, ни их к нам. Надо думать о совершенно нетривиальных вещах, — заявил Рогозин «Известиям», имея в виду другие средства доставки ядерных боеголовок в стан врага.

Practically main Russian military analysts ,in search of the requirements for PAk-DA, using model taking ,obviously, into account its current anti-air and anti-missile integrated capabilities find that even the feasibility of a strategic bomber ,in its classical concept, is very questionable.

Mindstorm wrote:
the feasibility of a strategic bomber ,in its classical concept, is very questionable.

I'd agree with that. At this point only the B-2 is anything close to survivable, yet how many other strategic bombers are still flying about? This is partly why you get platforms like the Tu-95MS and the B-52H relegated to cruise missile duty when employed in their strategic mission.

I've always maintained that the USAF's biggest recent mistake is actually not the F-35 (don't even start me there, that's a whole different debate ), but in designing the "B-3" as an evolutionary and not revolutionary design. One of my lines a few years ago was that if the new bomber is primarily an air breather, the USAF is wasting money.

20 years ago I might have agreed with them... because 20 years ago the strategic nuclear weapons carriers of Russia were cruise missile carriers with no conventional purpose at all.

They did nothing else and had no other function than their strategic mission and in addition they really didn't have enough Blackjacks to form a viable force.

Right now they would be better off with a force of 30-40 Blackjacks, or perhaps 50 plus another 50 Tu-95SM.

For conventional conflicts like a new conflict in Afghanistan having heavy bombers able to fly for very long periods with precision guided weapons of various weights and guidance options would be a very flexible and powerful support force.

Previously only the Tu-22M3 was used in the conventional support role and it was largely an area bomber able to wipe out large concentrated enemy forces but not so good for picking targets out amongst civilians.

The advantages of a new strategic bomber:

-Work for Tupolev.
-Replacement of three different aircraft types with a potential supercruising civilian airliner in the future, and the potential replacement for the Mig-31 as long range heavy supersonic interceptor and also long range replacement for the Tu-142 MPA.
-Bombers are more flexible than SLBMs and ICBMs which can't really be used, whereas aircraft are multi use weapons that can be used for a range of roles. A large four engined strategic aircraft will have plenty of space for high power jammers and plenty of onboard power to run them for long periods on high settings. The supercuise performance will also make it useful too.

-the new START treat limits platforms as well as warheads, with a platform limit of about 800 "launch platforms" it makes sense to develop a new aircraft able to carry as many warheads as possible... on short range missions where stealth is not so important external carriage would be a useful feature too.

Very simply Russia wants to remain in the aircraft industry and needs to continue to invest in all types of aircraft. It has gone through lots of changes and aircraft number reductions, but they have the simple problem that the Tu-160 is not in production and numbers wont be increased by any large amount, and the Bears can soldier on for some time and can perform its mission because as a second strike weapon it will be operating in airspace that has already been hit with SLBMs and ICBMs already by the time it gets to its launch position.

Having one new aircraft to replace the the Tu-95, Tu-160, and Tu-22M3 will make it more efficient and more effective and more capable in the long term and in the shorter term the Tu-95 can benefit from the introduction of the An-70 by getting new engines perhaps(?), while the new 5th gen heavy engines developed for PAK DA can be developed in stages with the models being tested and used on the Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 to improve their performance, Which along with avionics upgrades should make them much more capable aircraft... perhaps with 30 ton thrust engines and 8 Brahmos missiles carried externally a Tu-22Mx might be of interest to India? Or perhaps with Yakhont of interest to China as long as the order was large enough. With Onyx it might even be of interest to the Russian Navy.

This is partly why you get platforms like the Tu-95MS and the B-52H relegated to cruise missile duty when employed in their strategic mission.

Exactly SOC ,how you well know , at today the real role that the third branch of nuclear triad - Strategic Air Forces- (anyhow the most neglected segment of nuclear delivery vectors among the three by both USA and Russia ) could play in a full thermonuclear conflict ...if any....would be exclusively large ,stand-off ,saturating attack with nuclear tipped cruise missiles.

At this point only the B-2 is anything close to survivable

SOC both of us know perfectly that B-2 was conceived ,in reality, as a survivable tactical nuclear delivery system against Russian Army's fronts,and its mobile IAD, in an hypothetical European invasion scenario and for attack ,at maximum, the weakest inter-nodes of Sovied IADs of the time (and with an associated very high unit-loss risk); that in an environment with an average quality of the detection/tracking/engagement chain , both ground and space based, of Russian Air Defence systems several dozen of times lower than current one.

Not even the most optimistic American professional analyst would get the face to sustain ,behind closed doors, that USA truly believe that B-2 would get even only one chance on one million to come close enough to attack an important target in the air space of very advanced opponent without being destroyed hundreds of kilometers before.

For Russia in particular a single Trident II SLBM represent a menace immeasurably greater than the entire B-2's fleet.

I've always maintained that the USAF's biggest recent mistake is actually not the F-35 (don't even start me there, that's a whole different debate ), but in designing the "B-3" as an evolutionary and not revolutionary design.

SOM ,USA think seriously and work very hard, already today, to revolutionary concepts for offensive means capable to regain the upper hand against today air space defences.
The design of future US "bomber" will keep surely some surprises because the main road is in another direction....

Well my view is that the US has B-1B, B-52 and B-2 bombers and each has certain advantages and limitations.

If we took the B-1B our and replaced it with Tu-160s then you would have ancient but cheap B-52s that are great bomb trucks in WWIII and low intensity conflicts where the enemy has no organised air defence still operational... the Russian equivalent is the Bear and in conventional conflicts the Backfire.

The Tu-160 has a combination of speed and standoff attack capability that would enable it to offer faster attack times against strategic targets, while B-2 offers the potential for first strike capability against most threats except probably Russia.

The latter two are expensive but have capabilities the B-52 lacks.

A flying wing with horizontal tail arrangement to allow for supersonic flight (the tail offering the down and up forces needed for passing through transonic flight where the cg shifts and lift areas change) would offer low drag high internal volume aircraft that can fly at say mach 1.5 in dry thrust which reduces flight speed but is not as expensive as hypersonic speed aircraft.

At the end of the day I think you want an aircraft that is not too expensive (ie not super stealth) that can carry hypersonic and subsonic long range cruise missiles and guided conventionally armed weapons to defeat enemy air defences in conventional and strategic nuclear conflicts.

It is part of a deterrent and a conventional weapon delivery system that would be a real threat to every country, yet not so expensive that they could only afford 20 of them.

Alternative versions I have already mentioned could include AWACS models where the entire leading edge and trailing edge of the wing contains an AESA antenna array for super low drag long range long duration flight ops at high altitudes. The ability to carry cruise missiles in the bomber model could be adapted to carry UAVs in an MPA role, or hypersonic decoys/drones in a SEAD or recon role.

The point is that with the US working on nuclear powered UAVs the days of strategic bombers delivering cruise missiles could be over because next gen cruise missiles that are nuclear powered could be launched from ground bases within your own territory and pretty much fly any long range route to bypass defences and attack from unexpected directions. With the miniaturisation of nuclear warheads and the precision of navigation systems you could fit dozens of small nuclear warheads on each cruise missile and it could operate for years.

Rogozin is just trolling or trying game of one up man ship with the chief of general staff Makarov which he does not like much , Both have given some pro and against statement wrt to new bomber.

Its quite clear that the flexibility offered by Bomber in Nuclear detterent role and the ability to call the mission back is a big physiological advantage something you cant do with SSBN or ICBM.

Most bombers wont be flying over NATO or US airspace but would be using stand off cruise missile launched from distance and away from any ASD, If a bomber ever flew a nations airspace it would either be a friendly one or would have softened the AD before it over flies it.

Either ways bombers offers the tactical and strategic flexibility that no other arm of triad offers for now.

Well said Austin.

A bomber can use stealthy cruise or hypersonic cruise missiles to penetrate defences... or could carry both in both conventional and nuclear conflicts, with the flight range of the missiles maximising the survivability of the manned component to the point where unmanned options are not necessary yet.

Equally the deployment of heavy and powerful conventional specialist weapons enable an attack capability previously only possible using nuclear weapons... which can't be achieved by SLBM or ICBM either.

Its quite clear that the flexibility offered by Bomber in Nuclear detterent role and the ability to call the mission back is a big physiological advantage something you cant do with SSBN or ICBM
Most bombers wont be flying over NATO or US airspace but would be using stand off cruise missile launched from distance and away from any ASD, If a bomber ever flew a nations airspace it would either be a friendly one or would have softened the AD before it over flies it.

Austin i think that the best way to think to similar subjects is employing parametrical data :

- An ICBM in the Topol-M class employ about 15-16 minutes from red button pressed to detonations of the thermonuclear re-entry vehicles in the enemy continental territory ,with an effective warning's window of the incoming attack for the opposing side variating, at best ,between 6 and 11 minutes.
Those times are completely incompatible with even merely the preliminary operations necessary to allow a rushed take-off of a strategic bombers ,moreover a single mid-air nuclear detonation above an airfield would not only destroy 100% of parked aircraft and majority of aboveground structures ,but would render any take-off from the attacked airfield absolutely impossible for weeks....( and a thermonuclear war would ,very likely, last no more than 30-40 minutes !!)


- Talking of strategical cruise missiles on the US's side, we must remember that the only stand-off strategical nuclear missile available for USA today (after AGM-129's decommissioning) is the AGM-86B (in the 2500 km class) ,compatible only with....B-52H.
Here ,therefore,we talk not only of a carrying platform with immense path's covering times (with the linked enormous warning times for the defending side) ,but also of a strategical cruise missile lacking ,by a long margin, the stand-off range necessary to attack the most critical strategical targets in the Central Military District. (the enormous strategical deepness of Russian territory offer ,here, enormous advantages).


Anyone can easily understand that the difference in : operational efficiency ,destructive potential and survivability between ICBM and SLBM and cruise missiles is so huge that slowly this third branch of nuclear triad will need to completely transform itself (accepting new offensive concepts and technical solutions) to remain significative against the exponentially growing capabilities of modern integrated air defence systems.

Mindstorm , you do not get what i am trying to convey.

Strategic Bombers offer you immense psychological advantage or psychological pressure on the enemy , when you see those bombers being fuelled or being loaded with nukes and flying near your territory 1000 km away , its a great pressure point on the leadership

Remember its about detterence and not about using those weapons , an ICBM can certainly reach faster any where but once you fire it its no looking back , detterence is broken and you have Nuclear war , there is no way to call it back.

Bombers flying 1000 km away from your airspace can still be recalled and yet they offer tremendous psychological pressure on your enemy knowing well it carries nukes.

So in actual war they offer you operational and deployment flexibility and a good deal of stealth with modern bomber , cruise missile with low RCS or better hypersonic cruise missile like Zircon-A carried in bomber and Kh-101 can still be the best bet to penetrate IADS of any nation.

But its not only about nuclear war in a scenario like Georgia or Afghanistan it can be used for carpet bombing or stand off bombing.

Bombers flying 1000 km away from your airspace can still be recalled and yet they offer tremendous psychological pressure on your enemy knowing well it carries nukes.

Sorry Austin ,but here i am uncapable to follow your line of reasoning : following it we would have that any TU-160 or TU-22M3 merely flying well within Russian air space,at example over Chukotka (and ,therefore, also under full coverage of VVS's long range interceptors ,fighters and multilayered IADS) would exert a psychological pressure even several times greater than the bomber in your example simply because them are supersonic bombers and all capable to employ Kh-102 (that , with its 5500 km of range , would be capable to attack ,from there, USA's Ground-Based Midcourse Defense , Elmendorf AFB and 2/3 of continental USA ?


Austin, the point raised by D. Rogozin is just that ,at today, a strategical bomber ,for itself, don't represent anymore a significative menace for any advanced nation and all its "deterrent" potential is instead exerted entirely by the very long range cruise missiles it cary (and also them lose theirs penetration potential at an incredible rate any year).

Why do you make Russian using bomber as a one off affair against US.

They can use it against NATO countries or China or US military bases else where.

Its more of a question of flexibility in employment and deployment that bombers offer that the Subs or ICBM cant or have their own limitations.

An example would be like a Bomber is like an Aircraft Carrier , even if you dont use the fighter on it to bomb the mere presence of it near the enemy coast or in intl waters closer to enemy creates a great pyscological pressure on the enemy.

The other part of detterent like ICBM and Submarine of more or less covert , Bomber is a visible and flexible deterrent value of Triad.


As far as Rogozin goes he says many things and so does Gen Makorov .....As long as US maintains and enhances their Bomber fleet Russia will maintain it too for strategic parity and flexibility thats a given thing ...its also a question of protecting ones technology base.

More ever these days bombers are being converted for accurate conventional bombing ......look at Tu-160M upgrade and Tu-22M3M upgrade

Why do you make Russian using bomber as a one off affair against US.

They can use it against NATO countries or China or US military bases else where.

Austin ,your point is absolutely correct if we talk of the overall capabilities of long range bombers ,but Rogozin was talking of the crucial nuclear delivery capabilities of strategic bombers.

I image that you would surely agree that if today is necessary to select the requirements for PAKDA we must "shape" them around the most demanding ,and those are just those that will allow the new Air Force long range nuclear delivery system to carry out its primary mission against any possible enemy and in a future environment, taking into account defence capabilities 25-30 years from now .

The features of long range bombers and those of theirs weapon systems "optimized" for different roles ,outside nuclear delivery tasks, for russain doctrine are only those that ,if employed, will not trigger a nuclear response by part of a main opponent.

A typical example are weapons and systems aimed at provide long range bombers with the capability to reliably and safely destroy enemy naval forces from stand-off range.
In a particular serious crisis between Russian Federation and a main opponent ,after that the enemy naval forces would have, for example, repeatedly refused to remain outside a "safe" distance from Russian coasts ,the selective destruction of an enemy naval group ,will not only not trigger a nuclear response ,but will also likely force enemy's Command to quickly breack an encirclement attempt or even return to the diplomatic table.

More ever these days bombers are being converted for accurate conventional bombing ......look at Tu-160M upgrade and Tu-22M3M upgrade

Yes Austin ,in fact as previously mentioned those modernizations are just aimed to increase the capability of those aircraft to employ new type of weapons at theirs best.


http://www.aviationunion.org/news_second.php?new=93


If instead you mean PGM -Precison Guided Munitions- to be used in local conflicts , the fleet of Su-34 and modernized SU-24M witht theirs new models of the KAB series ,the new UPAB and also the various models of Kh-38M will offerer a very wide option for this type of missions and at a very long range.

Best regards.

Mindstorm wrote:SOC both of us know perfectly that B-2 was conceived ,in reality, as a survivable tactical nuclear delivery system against Russian Army's fronts,and its mobile IAD, in an hypothetical European invasion scenario and for attack ,at maximum, the weakest inter-nodes of Sovied IADs of the time (and with an associated very high unit-loss risk); that in an environment with an average quality of the detection/tracking/engagement chain , both ground and space based, of Russian Air Defence systems several dozen of times lower than current one.

Not even the most optimistic American professional analyst would get the face to sustain ,behind closed doors, that USA truly believe that B-2 would get even only one chance on one million to come close enough to attack an important target in the air space of very advanced opponent without being destroyed hundreds of kilometers before.

Today? Maybe not. In ten years? Probably pretty close to no chance. But when it was conceived, which would be before Russia had widely distributed next-generation sensor systems? The B-2 would've been survivable. Nothing will ever be 100%, but "1 chance in a million" is a ridiculous stretch. The B-2 wasn't going to bomb the front lines. It wasn't going to hit Moscow, either. Want to know where a lot of the money in a B-2 is? The offensive electronics system. Which was designed as an LPI system in large part to find mobile SS-25 TELs (which in turn became hugely amusing when they fitted it with the smaller JDAMs). That made it a weird kind of weapon to have, because that's only truly relevant in a first-strike scenario, unless they figured Russia would be firing silo-based missiles first and keeping mobile SS-25s for the second wave, who knows. Plus, the B-2 is sized right to be a VLO platform in VHF bands as well. It's things like Nebo-M that, if they work as advertised and get exported all over the place, will make the F-35 a colossal waste of effort. Fighter-sized jets can't incorporate very effective counters to VHF bands. The wavelengths are too large to care about what panels you align or what joints you facet. You still get a bit of that on the B-2 (look at the intakes, for example), because nobody in their right mind is dumbassed enough to design for just the VHF band. Fire control radars like the 30N6 TOMB STONE still operate at shorter wavelengths, so you still have to pay attention there as well.

Mindstorm wrote:SOM ,USA think seriously and work very hard, already today, to revolutionary concepts for offensive means capable to regain the upper hand against today air space defences.
The design of future US "bomber" will keep surely some surprises because the main road is in another direction....

If the main road isn't in the direction of "hey look at this we've stayed in orbit for over a year while nobody knows what the hell we're really doing" then I really don't see the point in wasting the money on the "B-3". Actually, I still don't see the need to waste the money for it regardless. If it's subsonic, it won't be responsive enough. If it's a smaller airframe, it won't be effective against modern digital VHF-band radars. If it's a larger airframe, there's no way this country makes it affordable enough to buy in the numbers needed. The whole thing raises the question of "why", as in "why do you people seriously intend on wasting this much money." We DO have CVBGs, and we DO have a buttload of naval platforms capable of ripple-firing bunches of conventional LACMs, so you don't need a new airframe for intimidation or cruise-missile conventional strike. A nuclear mission? ICBMs and SLBMs are a much better idea anyway. But, bombers can be recalled...is a pointless argument. If it gets to the point that you're launching nuclear-armed bombers at somebody, seriously, do you really think a recall is going to happen? If the other guy figures it out (which involves nothing more than a dude with a cellphone somewhere near the base), he's not going to hold back either, and then we'd best be figuring out how to quickly exit this rock because the Stone Age will have nothing on what's left.

Mindstorm wrote:I image that you would surely agree that if today is necessary to select the requirements for PAKDA we must "shape" them around the most demanding ,and those are just those that will allow the new Air Force long range nuclear delivery system to carry out its primary mission against any possible enemy and in a future environment, taking into account defence capabilities 25-30 years from now .

And that's why an air breather is, at this point, completely stupid.