PAK-DA: News

Vann7 wrote:

Benya wrote:
So Vann, I hope you are starting to realize that you are alone against four, if not five of us. You should better stop spewing this hypersonic BS all around.

Will not waste my time replying to an ignorant like you.. but you are 100% wrong . in everything   

You should, if you think that I'm wrong, please prove it.

Benya wrote:

Vann7 wrote:

Benya wrote:
So Vann, I hope you are starting to realize that you are alone against four, if not five of us. You should better stop spewing this hypersonic BS all around.

Will not waste my time replying to an ignorant like you.. but you are 100% wrong . in everything   

You should, if you think that I'm wrong, please prove it.

This is not how this works. Alone or not you have to prove your own statements. You also have to prove, to justify you are right. The number in every side matters not, gives not the reason. Your comment about the number is totally silly, and is a little bully.

There is some link where the Russian Ministery of Defense said that the Tu-PAK-DA will not be supersonic?

No.

eehnie wrote:This is not how this works. Alone or not you have to prove your own statements. You also have to prove, to justify you are right. The number in every side matters not, gives not the reason. Your comment about the number is totally silly, and is a little bully.

Ok eehnie...

The thing is that Vann started this whole argument about this mesospheric-hypersonic BS, and Garry have proved him wrong, then came Azi, then Gazza and I. All of us have made statements, and we have backed them up with facts. But so far, Vann still failed to acknowledge our statements, he just went on, and kept pushing his bollocks all along, showing complete ignorance towards us, and started to call us names like "we collectively fail to understand military tactics and strategy", while he wasn't even talking about them, but he was rather started to ramble about some failed Cold War era stuff.

This wasn't the first case when Vann was like this. In the [b]Strategic Air Defenses S-300/S-400/S-500 thread, he said that: "Why does Russia invests this much into AD missiles, and why doesn't invests more to directed energy weapons, lasers and stuff..."

Then came the artillery thread where we have gotten ourselves into a heated argument when Vann said that Russia needs a 300km surface to surface missile to close the gap between the Iskander and guided Smerch missiles. Russia has zero need to have such rockets.

Oh, and should I mention that every single time he posts something to the Syrian War threads, he constantly whines about how things would escalate and that WW3 is around the corner.

And the absolute worst is the Russian-made Crash Notifications thread, in which whenever a Russian plane crashes, he starts "bleating" like a little girl (as Garry would say), and then provides no facts to back up his claims.

This guy is just absolutely cocky and ignorant, plus he thinks that he knows everything better than everyone, when it comes to military tactics and strategy.

I personally lost all hopes to have a civilized discussion with him.

And then you come to his rescue? Good Lord...

Ugh sad to see Vann doesn't want to reply anymore. It was real amusement to read his comments

But at least see the positive of his arguments. He didn't demand a Star Destroyer where Darth Vann is standing with his lipstick sabre and pink cape! He can always have all the first to last strikes on US like that.

T-47 wrote:Ugh sad to see Vann doesn't want to reply anymore. It was real amusement to read his comments

But at least see the positive of his arguments. He didn't demand a Star Destroyer where Darth Vann is standing with his lipstick sabre and pink cape! He can always have all the first to last strikes on US like that.

Indeed, but I'm sure that he is thinking about equipping Russia with Venator- (oh wait, why not call them Vannator) class star destroyers.

eehnie wrote:There is some link where the Russian Ministery of Defense said that the Tu-PAK-DA will not be supersonic?

No.

No? Bondarev himself said it will be flying wing... now.. unless you know something we do not about aerodynamics and physics it will be subsonic.

"Выбор военных пал на дозвуковой самолет с широким применением технологий малозаметности. Новый стратегический бомбардировщик-ракетоносец будет построен по схеме «летающего крыла» и в силу особенностей данной конструкции не сможет преодолевать звуковой барьер."

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:There is some link where the Russian Ministery of Defense said that the Tu-PAK-DA will not be supersonic?

No.

No? Bondarev himself said it will be flying wing... now.. unless you know something we do not about aerodynamics and physics it will be subsonic.

"Выбор военных пал на дозвуковой самолет с широким применением технологий малозаметности. Новый стратегический бомбардировщик-ракетоносец будет построен по схеме «летающего крыла» и в силу особенностей данной конструкции не сможет преодолевать звуковой барьер."

Put the link to justify your words. These are your words not the words of Bondarev.

It was GArryb who was saying Russia don't need military bases near US..
that their ICBM can reach any place. Laughing what a foolish comments.

If Russia needed military bases near the US it could easily have them right now. I very much doubt Cuba would object to Russia building a port or an airfield or both in their country... but what would be the point of that?

Such a small force would be of no use in WWIII and during peacetime what good would they do?

It was GArryb who was arguing with me that Russia nukes guarantee
no one will attack Russia. again --

I obviously meant not invade or take territory from.

Oh no nobody will dare to attack Russia because have nukes.. Rolling Eyes
And Turkey proved you are dead wrong..

Don't be such a dick head... more than 12 carrier battle groups doesn't prevent US aircraft from being shot down... WTF difference would a few fast fucking bombers make?

Turkey in a cowardly attack shot down a Russian light bomber that was on a mission killing terrorists. A bit like going to the scene of a fire to shoot firemen in the back.

They have since apologised for their actions and are now cooperating in fighting fires with Russia.

Do you think your plan of immediately shooting down a turkish plane would be a better solution?

Listen amateur , No mater how much range and ICBM have,no matter how fast..
it will NEVER REPLACE

Listen moron there is nothing to replace because hypersonic bombers don't exist.

The amount of money needed to actually get a bomber sized aircraft to fly at mach 5 or more would bankrupt the US let alone Russia... it just is not going to happen.

A subsonic bomber that is stealthy and hard to spot except at very close range that could fly at high altitude until it gets to Canada and then can drop down below the radar height and fly a bit further into troll territory before launching a cruise missile attack on the home of apple pie is going to be much cheaper and still get the job done.

During peace time they will be able to use it to cheaply bomb other countries like the Tu-22M3 has been doing except without having to land anywhere.

The PAK DA will be a subsonic flying wing. It wont be a B-2.

A B-2 is a subsonic flying wing designed to deliver bombs on point targets deep in enemy territory, but was never designed for large internal loads of weapons.

The PAK DA will be a theatre bomber with a heavy bomb load, and a strategic cruise missile carrier with long range and hypersonic cruise missiles...

in any way,shape ,or form the importance of having a long range Bomber , that can take by surprise an enemy .. switching from peaceful patrol mode ,to a first tactical strike to decapitate a nation leadership. or just take an aircraft carrier.

No Russian hypersonic bomber flying down the US coastline will be ignored... the US will go on high alert until it is well away from US soil.

there would be no surprise possible even if it could do what you suggest... and as pointed out by others it will be a 30 minute plane with very short range and no ability to loiter.

Put the link to justify your words. These are your words not the words of Bondarev.

Yes Mil... you must post a link because otherwise what you suggest could not possibly be true... I mean we cannot accept that people from a military forum interested in Russian stuff could not possibly be trusted to listen an understand press releases from the Russian military...

I mean obviously I would prefer something slightly more ambitious like a super cruising tailed flying wing design, just to be a little more different, but we know it wont be a hypersonic messy bomber... the point of the PAK DA is to offer a selection of options... WTF is the point of making a mach 2 bomber in the Tu-160M2 and then a hypersonic bomber out of the PAK DA?

When you design something for a job it needs to meet certain criteria... in the case of a strategic bomber it was the ability to carry a nuclear weapon strategic distances. The faster you carry it the more fuel you will burn so the faster you want to fly the bigger and heavier your plane becomes... and guess what... bigger heavier planes need more engine power to get them airborne and moving which burns even more fuel.

What I tried to convey with my examples of cars and car engines that clearly went completely over your head is that if speed is everything then everything has to take second place to the engine... the result will be good for speed records but no good for touring.

Of course the PAK DA will be a safe effective subsonic flying wing that unlike the B-2 will be economical to operate and might even come with wing surface radar leading to a flying wing based AWACS aircraft... being all wing it could cruise for long periods at subsonic speeds for days on the amount of fuel it could carry...

Equally an inflight refuelling tanker version would also be handy too... just for strategic aviation.

Actually that discussion made me wonder about the potential armament of the PAK DA and it made me think that perhaps a useful idea would be a row of single tubes for the UKSK vertical launch system from the centre of the fuselage out to the tips of the wings... sure that will make the wings thick but it means that there would probably be about 24-36 launch tubes for missiles ready to use... for theatre missions you might put dumb bombs in them as well as guided missiles, whereas for a strategic mission you could load 16 tubes with fuel to extend flight range and use the remaining 8-20 tubes for long range missiles like Zircon or Calibr etc etc.

The U in UKSK does stand for universal...

Of course in addition to 360 degree radar antenna it will likely also have internal missile bays for AAMs for self defence too.

GarryB wrote:

Put the link to justify your words. These are your words not the words of Bondarev.

Yes Mil... you must post a link because otherwise what you suggest could not possibly be true... I mean we cannot accept that people from a military forum interested in Russian stuff could not possibly be trusted to listen an understand press releases from the Russian military...

I mean obviously I would prefer something slightly more ambitious like a super cruising tailed flying wing design, just to be a little more different, but we know it wont be a hypersonic messy bomber... the point of the PAK DA is to offer a selection of options... WTF is the point of making a mach 2 bomber in the Tu-160M2 and then a hypersonic bomber out of the PAK DA?

When you design something for a job it needs to meet certain criteria... in the case of a strategic bomber it was the ability to carry a nuclear weapon strategic distances. The faster you carry it the more fuel you will burn so the faster you want to fly the bigger and heavier your plane becomes... and guess what... bigger heavier planes need more engine power to get them airborne and moving which burns even more fuel.

What I tried to convey with my examples of cars and car engines that clearly went completely over your head is that if speed is everything then everything has to take second place to the engine... the result will be good for speed records but no good for touring.

Of course the PAK DA will be a safe effective subsonic flying wing that unlike the B-2 will be economical to operate and might even come with wing surface radar leading to a flying wing based AWACS aircraft... being all wing it could cruise for long periods at subsonic speeds for days on the amount of fuel it could carry...

Equally an inflight refuelling tanker version would also be handy too... just for strategic aviation.

Also these are your own words GarryB. It is as difficult to find a link where the Russian Ministery of Defense says the Tu-PAK-DA will not be supersonic? It is as difficult to find a link where the Russian Ministery of Defense says the Tu-PAK-DA will underperform the features of the Tu-160 in something, and more concretely in a key feature like the speed?

Yes, it is very difficult. In fact there is not link that say it. There is not link official link form the ministery of defense that confirms the opinion of those who deny supersonic speed for the Tu-PAK-DA.

A recent example of official link:

http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12120918@egNews

According to Y Borisov, the Tu-PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95. Also from the new. This aircraft [Tu-PAK-DA] is planned in the State Armament Program 2018-2025. This is official.

The comments about the Tu-PAK-DA being not supersonic instead are your opinions and/or your wishes.

eehnie wrote:
Also these are your own words GarryB. It is as difficult to find a link where the Russian Ministery of Defense says the Tu-PAK-DA will not be supersonic? It is as difficult to find a link where the Russian Ministery of Defense says the Tu-PAK-DA will underperform the features of the Tu-160 in something, and more concretely in a key feature like the speed?

Yes, it is very difficult. In fact there is not link that say it. There is not link official link form the ministery of defense that confirms the opinion of those who deny supersonic speed for the Tu-PAK-DA.

A recent example of official link:

http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12120918@egNews

According to Y Borisov, the Tu-PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95. Also from the new. This aircraft [Tu-PAK-DA] is planned in the State Armament Program 2018-2025. This is official.

The comments about the Tu-PAK-DA being not supersonic instead are your opinions and/or your wishes.

I am not sure if it is way that you have explained it but in your quote it says

"the Tu-PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95"

since the Tu-95 is subsonic that surely is an official indication that the PAK-DA will be the same as if it was going to be supersonic then he would have quoted the Tu-160?

eehnie wrote:
Also these are your own words GarryB. It is as difficult to find a link where the Russian Ministery of Defense says the Tu-PAK-DA will not be supersonic? It is as difficult to find a link where the Russian Ministery of Defense says the Tu-PAK-DA will underperform the features of the Tu-160 in something, and more concretely in a key feature like the speed?

Yes, it is very difficult. In fact there is not link that say it. There is not link official link form the ministery of defense that confirms the opinion of those who deny supersonic speed for the Tu-PAK-DA.

A recent example of official link:

http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12120918@egNews

According to Y Borisov, the Tu-PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95. Also from the new. This aircraft [Tu-PAK-DA] is planned in the State Armament Program 2018-2025. This is official.

The comments about the Tu-PAK-DA being not supersonic instead are your opinions and/or your wishes.

PAK DA is supersonic which also not official either. Rogozin once said about hypersonic but I've never heard about being just "supersonic". Also I don't think its just GarryBs own words/opinion/wishes. Its been in media since 2013 that PAK DA is going to be flying wing, stealth and subsonic.

For example:
https://lenta.ru/news/2013/03/04/fifth/

The supersonic job is for Tu-160M2.

JohninMK wrote:

eehnie wrote:
Also these are your own words GarryB. It is as difficult to find a link where the Russian Ministery of Defense says the Tu-PAK-DA will not be supersonic? It is as difficult to find a link where the Russian Ministery of Defense says the Tu-PAK-DA will underperform the features of the Tu-160 in something, and more concretely in a key feature like the speed?

Yes, it is very difficult. In fact there is not link that say it. There is not link official link form the ministery of defense that confirms the opinion of those who deny supersonic speed for the Tu-PAK-DA.

A recent example of official link:

http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12120918@egNews

According to Y Borisov, the Tu-PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95. Also from the new. This aircraft [Tu-PAK-DA] is planned in the State Armament Program 2018-2025. This is official.

The comments about the Tu-PAK-DA being not supersonic instead are your opinions and/or your wishes.

I am not sure if it is way that you have explained it but in your quote it says

"the Tu-PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95"

since the Tu-95 is subsonic that surely is an official indication that the PAK-DA will be the same as if it was going to be supersonic then he would have quoted the Tu-160?

Do you think the Tu-160 replaced a previous supersonic aircraft? No. Obviously replaced a previous subsonic aircraft. The alone previous supersonic strategic bomber is the Tu-22 that remains active.

There is not basis for the rule you suggest.

T-47 wrote:

eehnie wrote:
Also these are your own words GarryB. It is as difficult to find a link where the Russian Ministery of Defense says the Tu-PAK-DA will not be supersonic? It is as difficult to find a link where the Russian Ministery of Defense says the Tu-PAK-DA will underperform the features of the Tu-160 in something, and more concretely in a key feature like the speed?

Yes, it is very difficult. In fact there is not link that say it. There is not link official link form the ministery of defense that confirms the opinion of those who deny supersonic speed for the Tu-PAK-DA.

A recent example of official link:

http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12120918@egNews

According to Y Borisov, the Tu-PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95. Also from the new. This aircraft [Tu-PAK-DA] is planned in the State Armament Program 2018-2025. This is official.

The comments about the Tu-PAK-DA being not supersonic instead are your opinions and/or your wishes.

PAK DA is supersonic which also not official either. Rogozin once said about hypersonic but I've never heard about being just "supersonic". Also I don't think its just GarryBs own words/opinion/wishes. Its been in  media since 2013 that PAK DA is going to be flying wing, stealth and subsonic.

For example:
https://lenta.ru/news/2013/03/04/fifth/

The supersonic job is for Tu-160M2.

The reality is that there is not a link that show official sources denying supersonic speed for the Tu-PAK-DA. Even in the link you posted, the most solid reference to official statements are in the references to the words of D Rogozin. The references to the hidden sources are far less solid.

GarryB and others have the chance to include links with references to official words about the issue, but they do not. Until they do they are writing the own opinions. The reference of Militarov to words of Bondarev will be credible when he put the link to the exact words of Bondarev.

PS: it was a pressure over the words of Vann, and a bid to ridiculize him, well, now we see in your link some agreement between the words of Rogozin of some years ago and the words of Vann. If someone wants it is the right moment to try to ridiculize also the words of Rogozin. But I doubt someone will be courageous enough.

Do you think the Tu-160 replaced a previous supersonic aircraft? No. Obviously replaced a previous subsonic aircraft. The alone previous supersonic strategic bomber is the Tu-22 that remains active.

For fucks sake Eehnie.... the Tu-22 is not operational with any Russian military units.

The Tu-22M is operational with some Russian military units in the role of theatre bomber.

It is not a strategic bomber.

Never has been.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201704271053072773-russia-pak-da-strategic-bomber-maiden-flight/

https://sputniknews.com/military/201702241051011355-russia-stealth-bomber/

https://sputniknews.com/russia/201703021051190978-russia-next-generation-bomber/

eehnie wrote:
Do you think the Tu-160 replaced a previous supersonic aircraft? No. Obviously replaced a previous subsonic aircraft.

Actually, the Tu-160 didn't replace ANY aircraft. It represented an entirely NEW capability for the Soviet DA, ie intercontinental bomber with supersonic capabilities.

GarryB wrote:

Do you think the Tu-160 replaced a previous supersonic aircraft? No. Obviously replaced a previous subsonic aircraft. The alone previous supersonic strategic bomber is the Tu-22 that remains active.

For fucks sake Eehnie.... the Tu-22 is not operational with any Russian military units.

The Tu-22M is operational with some Russian military units in the role of theatre bomber.

It is not a strategic bomber.

Never has been.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201704271053072773-russia-pak-da-strategic-bomber-maiden-flight/

https://sputniknews.com/military/201702241051011355-russia-stealth-bomber/

https://sputniknews.com/russia/201703021051190978-russia-next-generation-bomber/

Being developed from the Tu-22, the Tu-22M is only a variant of the Tu-22. It is right to use the generic name to include all the variants.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Tu-22M+developped+from+Tu-22&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN

But even in this case, for desperation of GarryB, that is wrong again, some units of the oldest variants remain present in the Russian Armed Forces (in the reserve):

https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Tupolev/Tu-22

In the refered to the links about the Tu-PAK-DA, nothing official deniying supersonic speed in the links. Interesting to note that while one of the links that GarryB posted is of the exact same date of the official report I linked previously they have obvious contradictions (as example about which aircrafts will replace the Tu-PAK-DA. Obviously I take more seriously the new from the Russian Ministery of defense (first link link):

http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12120918@egNews

https://sputniknews.com/military/201704271053072773-russia-pak-da-strategic-bomber-maiden-flight/

But still between the collection of unofficial coments of the second new, there is something interesting to quote about the real state of the question:

Sputnik 27-4-2017 wrote:In early March, some media outlets reported the creation of the first full-size model of the PAK DA, made of wood, as well as several mock-ups made of composite materials in line with the "flying wing" design. The information was never officially confirmed.

Note that the other two links GarryB posted are from earlier.

Big_Gazza wrote:

eehnie wrote:
Do you think the Tu-160 replaced a previous supersonic aircraft? No. Obviously replaced a previous subsonic aircraft.

Actually, the Tu-160 didn't replace ANY aircraft.  It represented an entirely NEW capability for the Soviet DA, ie intercontinental bomber with supersonic capabilities.

Strategic bombing was present in the Soviet Union decades before the design of the Tu-160. The role was there before even in the refered to the more modern missile carriying capability. This is like to say the T-14 is not replacing any of the previous tanks because it has bigger military capabilities.

There is nothing that supports this argument that subsonic aircrafts must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts.

eehnie wrote:bla, bla, bla...

The reality is that there is not a link that show official sources denying supersonic speed for the Tu-PAK-DA. Even in the link you posted, the most solid reference to official statements are in the references to the words of D Rogozin. The references to the hidden sources are far less solid.

bla, bla, bla...

Here is a link, unfortunately in german, but maybe google translate helps you! Parameter für Russlands Bomber der Zukunft - sputniknews german

In an interview with Juri Borisov he stated that the bomber of the future (PAK-DA) doesn't need supersonic speed as main parameter, because most modern AD are too good to evade. He said that the Tu-160 was a concept of the 80ies, trying to evade AD systems with supersonic speed, after the attack and this concept lacks today, because most AD missiles are too fast and have long reach.

Main characteristics for PAK-DA are high payload, extreme loiter time, stealth and the use of every kind of airfield!

There are thousands of links, in Russian, in English etc.! What is official for you? Maybe the chief designer of UAC, Sergej Korotkov?!
Modernized Tu-160M2 Bomber, 'Stepping Stone' to PAK DA 5th Gen Stealth Bomber - sputniknews int.

"The plane’s combat characteristics and armament remain a secret. All that is known is that it will be built according to the "flying wing" design, just like the US B2 Spirit strategic bomber, with an extensive use of composite and radar wave-absorbing materials to reduce weight and make it less visible to enemy radar."

A flying wing design CAN'T be supersonic!!! Physics make a flying wing nearly unpossible to fly with supersonic speed It's because of general aerodynamic and the lack of a tail. It's not complete unpossible, but there are too much problems with a flying wing at supersonic speeds, too much to handle. With subsonic speed a flying wing have great characteristics!

What I understand that eehnie is rooting for a 100% confirmation. Because it is true that most of the sources so far kept telling the word "possible". Even the last link Azi gave includes the line that you can guess if its supersonic or not but thats upto you. Official infos are secret.

And for Viktor Bondarev statements, yes he did tell that it'll be a subsonic flying-wing stealth aircraft. But that was long aog (~2012) can't find the link yet. It was not sputnik link, it was from any russian aviation sites I can remember.

Anyways statements about PAK DA changed several times since 2010, to me the flying wing subsonic stealth is the most likely specs so far. But eehnie is also not wrong that there are no "confirmed" official statements.

eehnie wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

eehnie wrote:
Do you think the Tu-160 replaced a previous supersonic aircraft? No. Obviously replaced a previous subsonic aircraft.

Actually, the Tu-160 didn't replace ANY aircraft.  It represented an entirely NEW capability for the Soviet DA, ie intercontinental bomber with supersonic capabilities.

Strategic bombing was present in the Soviet Union decades before the design of the Tu-160. The role was there before even in the refered to the more modern missile carriying capability. This is like to say the T-14 is not replacing any of the previous tanks because it has bigger military capabilities.

There is nothing that supports this argument that subsonic aircrafts must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts.

Really????

No. Obviously replaced a previous subsonic aircraft.

Ok, pls name the aircraft that was replaced.....

Tu-160 was a NEW CAPABILITY.  It did NOT replace any existing aircraft.  Don't attempt to deny this simple reality with some waffle that strategic bombing predated the Tu-160s IOC.  Of course it did, but that's not the point.

Back to the central issue.  The PAK DA is not going to be "supersonic".  Its known to be a stealthy, long-range, high-loiter, flying wing bomb/missile truck, and flying wings don't do supersonic as the resulting shift in CG causes flight instabilities.  It is however possible that it could prove to be low-supercruising with the use of fancy new tech (adaptive airframe, TVC etc) but it won't be more than M1.1-1.2 at best.  

Its clearly not going to be a high supersonic vehicle, let alone an Uber-Vannish hypersonic.  Why defer a supersonic PAK DA to restart modernised Tu-160 production?????  It makes no sense.

Big_Gazza wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

eehnie wrote:
Do you think the Tu-160 replaced a previous supersonic aircraft? No. Obviously replaced a previous subsonic aircraft.

Actually, the Tu-160 didn't replace ANY aircraft.  It represented an entirely NEW capability for the Soviet DA, ie intercontinental bomber with supersonic capabilities.

Strategic bombing was present in the Soviet Union decades before the design of the Tu-160. The role was there before even in the refered to the more modern missile carriying capability. This is like to say the T-14 is not replacing any of the previous tanks because it has bigger military capabilities.

There is nothing that supports this argument that subsonic aircrafts must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts.

Really????

No. Obviously replaced a previous subsonic aircraft.

Ok, pls name the aircraft that was replaced.....

Tu-160 was a NEW CAPABILITY.  It did NOT replace any existing aircraft.  Don't attempt to deny this simple reality with some waffle that strategic bombing predated the Tu-160s IOC.  Of course it did, but that's not the point.

Back to the central issue.  The PAK DA is not going to be "supersonic".  Its known to be a stealthy, long-range, high-loiter, flying wing bomb/missile truck, and flying wings don't do supersonic as the resulting shift in CG causes flight instabilities.  It is however possible that it could prove to be low-supercruising with the use of fancy new tech (adaptive airframe, TVC etc) but it won't be more than M1.1-1.2 at best.  

Its clearly not going to be a high supersonic vehicle, let alone an Uber-Vannish hypersonic.  Why defer a supersonic PAK DA to restart modernised Tu-160 production?????  It makes no sense.

Taking into account that it is known in which units served the Tu-160, is not as difficult to see which aircraft were replaced by the Tu-160.

184th Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic)

http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/184gvtbap.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/13gvtbad.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/201tbad.htm

121st Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-22 (supersonic). Previously the Tu-22 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic).

http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/121gvtbap.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/15gvtbad.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/22gvtbad.htm

Unfortunately for your argument, the relation of succession is very clear inside the units the aircrafts served in. And not there is not basis to say that today the Tu-95/142 (subsonic) must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts. In the past subsonic aircrafts were replaced by supersonic aircrafts.

eehnie wrote:Taking into account that it is known in which units served the Tu-160, is not as difficult to see which aircraft were replaced by the Tu-160.

184th Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic)

http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/184gvtbap.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/13gvtbad.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/201tbad.htm

121st Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-22 (supersonic). Previously the Tu-22 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic).

http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/121gvtbap.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/15gvtbad.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/22gvtbad.htm

Unfortunately for your argument, the relation of succession is very clear inside the units the aircrafts served in. And not there is not basis to say that today the Tu-95/142 (subsonic) must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts. In the past subsonic aircrafts were replaced by supersonic aircrafts.

Unfortunately for your argument, neither the Tu-16 or Tu-22 were strategic bombers with intercontinental range. Tu-16 ~ 7,200 kms, Tu-22 ~4,900 kms compared to Tu-160 ~12,300. Tu-160 had supersonic performance and the range to truly attack continental US. It didn't replace either Tu-16/Tu-22 - it was a whole new capability.

BTW the Tu-22 was hopelessly short-ranged due to its fuel-guzzling engines and was only fit for theater use.

Anyhow, none of this has anything to do with PAK DA being subsonic or supersonic or some mystical Vannian mega-turbo-hypersonic. My point is that until the Tu-160 entered service, the USSR did not have a supersonic strategic bomber (ie one able to attack continental US and return to own airfield). Neither Tu-16 or Tu-22/22M fulfilled that role. The Tu-95 did the job, but at a much more sedate pace and lacked penetration ability.

Being developed from the Tu-22, the Tu-22M is only a variant of the Tu-22. It is right to use the generic name to include all the variants.

NATO and the ASCC does not. The Tu-22 is the Blinder and the Tu-22M series are all called Backfire.

The Tu-22 looks like this:



And the Tu-22M looks like this:



One has fixed wings and external engines and the other has swing wings and internal engines with full length air intakes... they are not the same.

Their performance is even more starkly different the Tu-22M is a much better aircraft than any version of the Tu-22.

But even in this case, for desperation of GarryB, that is wrong again, some units of the oldest variants remain present in the Russian Armed Forces (in the reserve):

https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Tupolev/Tu-22

Did you even read what that link actually said?

Tu-22 supersonic long range heavy aircraft. Built in the bomber, missile, scout, and the jammer.
The first flight of the prototype Tu-22 (ed. 105) took place on 21 June 1958 .
Engines - two TURBOJET RD-7M2/VD-7M.

On the basis of the Tu-22, a large number of modifications:
Tu-22 and Tu-22B - production versions of the bomber.
Tu-22P(RD/RM/RDM/RDK) - reconnaissance modification.
The Tu-22P(AP) - the supplier of the interference.
Tu-22K(KD/KP) - missile (Kh-22).
The Tu-22U - training.

Tu-22M - deep modernization of the aircraft, in fact, another type.

Strategic bombing was present in the Soviet Union decades before the design of the Tu-160. The role was there before even in the refered to the more modern missile carriying capability. This is like to say the T-14 is not replacing any of the previous tanks because it has bigger military capabilities.

Only old model Tu-95s had the capacity to carry a large bomb load... the Tu-95s and Tu-160s of today are cruise missile carriers. In fact when they needed a heavy bomber they used Tu-16s in Afghanistan to drop FAB-9000 bombs.

There is nothing that supports this argument that subsonic aircrafts must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts.

And there is nothing to say supersonic planes can't be replaced with subsonic ones either.

A flying wing design CAN'T be supersonic!!!

When increasing speed from subsonic to supersonic... the so called transonic speed range... the centre of gravity of an aircraft shifts dramatically. On a fighter plane like a MiG-21 it can counter the shift with its all moving horizontal tail surface to keep its nose at the right angle.... once the aircraft has moved through this speed area it can continue to higher speeds, but an aircraft like a flying wing would not be able to fly through such a speed range with any stability.

Hense I have mentioned in the past that I hoped they would go with a tailed flying wing design to allow for super cruising at some stage when engine power and performance range improves.

Unfortunately for your argument, the relation of succession is very clear inside the units the aircrafts served in. And not there is not basis to say that today the Tu-95/142 (subsonic) must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts. In the past subsonic aircrafts were replaced by supersonic aircrafts.

Which clearly proves your line of logic to be crap.

121st Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-22 (supersonic). Previously the Tu-22 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic).

So what you are saying is that the 121st guards heavy bomber aviation regiment went from a medium bomber of modest range... it was used in Afghanistan because it was the only plane at the time able to drop FAB-9000 bombs... to a missile carrier when it started carrying anti ship missiles... weapons that at the time had no strategic value whatsoever... to Tu-22M, which also either carries conventional bombs or anti ship missiles.. then got Tu-160s which does not carry anti ship missiles and it seems no longer carries dumb bombs either and just carries land attack cruise missiles.

Are you sure that is what you want to stick to?

A subsonic missile carrying aircraft designed to attack US carriers is replaced by a supersonic missile carrying aircraft designed to attack US carriers which is then replaced by a supersonic missile carrying aircraft with no ability to attack ships at all and can only attack fixed targets on land?

You do know regiments get renamed and reassigned all the time so a so called replacement might not actually mean anything...

The Tu-95 did the job, but at a much more sedate pace and lacked penetration ability.

Indeed, which is why both of Russias strategic nuclear bombers are not bombers... they are cruise missile carriers.

Using older models for bombing missions is not new for Russia... the Soviets used the Tu-16 and the Tu-22M2 in Afghanistan to drop FAB-9000 bombs because no other bomber they had could take such large bombs internally.