PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Memory and common sense are not the same thing.

Common sense is tainted by stereotypes and urban myths.

Common sense is not a good measure for anything except public opinion/misconception.

So that kind of aptitude of trying to proof your right even when you know your are wrong.. So will not bother to argue against with him again.. because learned is pointless exercise to argue with him after for long.

I have talked with many knowledgeable people and read fairly widely, so my opinions are often based on facts from people who have actually taken part in real combat and know what they are talking about.

If you think that continuing to back up my position with facts and reasons makes discussion a pointless exercise that is fine... talking to some people does appear pointless.

I suspect the fact that Russia is not cutting all its military programs except a hypersonic bomber program suggests perhaps I am not the only one that thinks like me, but who can be certain?

I would ask why waste billions of dollars making hypersonic bombers when for a fraction of that cost you could make fairly cheap subsonic bombers with hypersonic cruise missiles and get the same effective result.

You say carriers are sitting ducks... could you not say the same of tanks... or individual soldiers... is there any piece of military equipment or hardware that is invincible?

he is clearly wrong ,First Strike capability is everything in a war specially when both nations are nuclear powers. Not about how many ICBM you have or if they are super sonic or hypersonic..Everytime an ICBM is launched in the planet.. Automatically all satellites in the world detect it ,so the surprise effect is totally lost.. with a Strategic stealth mesosphere Bomber you could launch a strike in no time without any warning. and decapitate any nation government overnight and avoid a much worse war..

How would destroying Washington in a first strike be of any benefit to Russia?

How could a single hypersonic bomber do the job an SS-18 cannot?

How will western satellites miss a hypersonic bomber when it can see all ICBM launches?

A first strike needs to be a powerful strike which means 200 bombers, or 200 ICBMs with 500-600 warheads... both of which will be a first strike if initiated first and both of which will fail to catch the other side off guard.

Neither will decapitate the other because they expect a decapitating attack and have developed measures against it... dead hand being the Russian response to ensure any sneak first strike results in a full nuclear retaliation... do you really think the US will not do the same?

NATO would require the UK and France to launch their nukes too and of course there are SLBMs on US subs etc.

US armed forces is working with their Global Strike conventional program..and their SR-72 for nothing.. in any case ..the conversation is about Pak-Fa.. no more discussion about this ..

And lets imagine they build it and it is successful... they kill Putin outright... do you think the Russians will immediately surrender?

If a Russian system kills Obama do you think the US would ignore it and back down?

The US is in the habit of using murdering foreign leaders as a method of foreign policy... Russia does not... and will not.

It is a clear case where Russia is rather more civilised than the West.

BTW thanks for the kind words guys...    making me blush...

If through your intelligence services you have an special case ,that you know war is inevitable ,that will happen.. in matter of days . not if but when.. And that you are told they are preparing a nuclear strike ,and the information is confirmed through so many several sources including close allies ..

Both sides already know the other has prepared for nuclear war with the other and both sides know there is no chance they could attack and get away with it without their own and most other countries being devastated to the point of no return.

Lets say for example ..some radicals get in power after a coup against Obama ,later they plan to give a dozen of nuclear missiles to neo nazis in Ukraine to use it against Russia.. and Russia manage to get support inside of America withing the Generals staff ,and they ready to stop the radicals take power back..but needs help.

Would US generals go to Russia or to the US public?

Some might argue that radicals have been in power in the US for the last century of so.

With Strategic Mesosphere stealth bombers Russia could easily decapitate a radical leadership using conventional precision weapons ,and stop a war before it start.

Really?

Creating Mesospheric bombers wont happen in a vacuum... if the Russians start developing them the US will develop a way of dealing with them perhaps a real use for the airborne laser?

Even if Russia could develop them in total secret and flew them into US airspace how do you get these radicals to go outside so you can bomb them... or do you just flatten the white house or pentagon or wherever they might be?

Wouldn't it just be easier to hold a press conference and shoot them or blow them up with a bomb?

Other examples are Pakistan.. if alqaeda siege power in pakistan ,and manage to control the nukes and they looking to nuke Russia.. it will be foolish for Russia to wait they start launching the missiles. and then with the help of friendly Generals in Pakistan ,help them get power back just using your advantage of first strike very high altitude stealth conventional bombers.

IF Pakistan suddenly became a real nuclear threat to Russia what makes you think they wouldnt just launch a few SLBMs or ICBMs? Both of which would actually be faster than a hypersonic bomber.

nd avoid a major nuclear war. in what way death hand is going to help against terrorist that kidnap a nation? or ICBM missiles? to avoid a major catastrophe? in none in the case Terrorist or Radicals take power of nuclear weapons. they will use nuclear weapons regardless of human life lost.. as i told before.

If radicals or terrorists get hold of nuclear weapons and appear to be keen to use them... and aren't the US military then the obvious solution is to infiltrate them and leak key location data which can be used to steal back the nukes... or neutralise them.

No bomber would be used... subsonic. supersonic, or hypersonic.

Russia Deterrence nuclear program operates under the assumption that the enemy cares about human life.

No, it works under the assumption that the people at the top of the enemies chain of command want to survive. You will notice it is not the leaders of Al Queda that strap on the bombs and blow themselves up.

But will not work against terrorist or people mentally sick taking control of nukes. Best defense is a first strike offensive that can decapitate a leadership that is totally rejected by majority in that country,before they could start a war. This can be very effective if you have Big support near the top of chain command ,and you coordinate with them ,that they retake power ,as soon the leadership is finished in the conventional surprise strikes.

If you have big support near the top of the chain of command then why pss around with hypersonic bombers and just give them a handgun...

The way is now.. Radicals with some military support could take power in USA.. and say ..screw the nation.. lets drops all missiles we have on Russia..

screw the nation? More than it already is? No leadership would be able to declare war on Russia and just attack like that... the military would not allow it I suspect.

and before the attack start.. they moving away in planes to a safe neutral country.. and once both nations destroyed , its industry and military complex.. then European NATO invade and plant a Flag in Russia and take all its energy fields.

Except that the US is part of NATO so if a war starts with the US Russia will also likely fire upon NATO countries too. The resources of Russia would not be so appealing if you have to mine them in radiation suits.

Russia nuclear deterrence program have a major failure.. that always assume the other side will not be ready to sacrifice their nation in order to stop Russia super power status.

Hahaha what idiot thinks destroying Russia and the entire west will create a new world that is better... the radiation levels would likely permanently damage the human genome, and short little webbed toe kids will be normal.

With very high altitude stealth bombers flying at the level of near space earth orbit , Russia could easily do first conventional or nuclear strike anywhere in the world ,without any warning to any satellite ( you fly above them) even enter enemy territory space if need without warning and do first strikes against a hostile leadership and as a bonus those bombers could be used for early defense to intercept in mid course any nukes attacks or shutdown satellites .

If it is only hypersonic then the bomber will be operating inside earths atmosphere ONLY. Satellites tend to fall from the sky when they reach the edge of the atmosphere so the chance of the hypersonic bombers flying above satellites and remaining unseen is pretty much zero.

They will also be much larger than an ICBM penetrator and of course be moving 4-6 times slower.

BTW, is there any concrete plans to bring PAK-FA avionics to Su-27(x)/30(x)/35 or MiG-35 platforms?

Su-35S will have PAK FA Mk1 avionics and systems, but no stealth, but also external carriage of new weapons. So not as good as PAK FA in some areas and better in others.

It seems there is a large profusion of avionics on that side...
Unifying avionics platform would seem to simplify weapons and sensor/defensive integration...
Su-27/30/35 with DIRCM would be great and what with delays MiG-35 should as well...?

The Flanker avionics will be largely unified. The MiG-35 avionics are made by different companies and it is probably a good thing... it means any gaps in the systems of one can be filled with systems of other types... MiG-31 and MiG-35.

The are crazy people in NATO that believe a nuclear strike interchange against Russia will be worth of it..
As i told before. .the people that propose those ideas and billionaires ,and with passports to live anywhere.. but there is also the case of terrorism..

It is OK Vann... there are crazy people all over the place... but the people actually controlling the nukes are actually sensible Chaps. Any of those billionaires come to NZ to ride out the post appocolyptic period... I will personally hunt them down with a shiny stainless steel plated VS-121, and PYa sidearm... ( Rosboronexport please send these items to my address forthwith... )

Just weeks ago one of the Kiev junta told they will get nukes to teach Russia a lesson.. Is not fantasy ,terrorism is real and they could siege power in any nuclear capable nation overnight with the help of the west. But your free to be skeptic..

A member of an illegal coup in the Ukraine said they will be getting nukes and will be teaching Russia a lesson? And exactly what lesson is that? Give nukes to retards and they will use them. Russia probably already knows that... more importantly the US already knows that and they also know that radiation can be analysed to determine the origin of the nuke and it would be quickly discovered as to where the weapon came from and who to retaliate against... just after all of western and central Ukraine is evaporating.

a nuke war sparked by crazed madmen isnt very likely. too many Jack Ryans on both sides that will stop it at all costs.
its also not in the interest of the most powerful conventional military force in the planet to significantly lower the nuke threshold.

More importantly how does a hypersonic high flying bomber help in such a case?

Russia and US already have detonated thousand and thousands of nuclear bomb of any size ,
In their own territory and not a single Russian or american was killed and the planet is doing fine.

Hundreds in the middle of nowhere... and usually not on their own territory... the UK used Australia, the US tended to use Islands in the Pacific, as did France.

the vast majority were underground tests that tended to largely contain widespread contamination.

Hundreds of Marshall Islanders were contaminated and killed, many other island nations don't exist now because the people had to be removed because radiation levels are too high.

All said if ever a full nuclear interchange happen between US and Russia and they throw everything they have.. that will be NOT enough to finish all life. in each nation ..specially not in Russia.Most of it ..yes but not all.

The US could barely cope with Katrina and keeps going on about 11/9... in comparison the loss of life from a full Russian counter attack will end western civilisation as we know it.

Comparing underground tests in remote locations and radiation leaks at nuclear power plants does not give an accurate picture of what would happen when trillions of tons of dust is put up in the stratosphere... even just one volcanic eruption can change the weather...

Most of those Nuclear Submarine bombs are just 10km radius bombs.with multiple war heads. you will need like 150 x bulava missiles or US tridents to end most life of a state of the size of NEw York and about 2,000 to cover all US territory. What happens is that Nuclear bombs most of its explosive power goes Upward.. so much of its power is wasted.

10km radius bomb?

150 Bulava warheads would destroy every city in the US... a 1 MT bomb is less efficient at leveling a city than 3 100KT bombs spaced out around the city even though they are each 10 times less powerful.

It is like a 500kg bomb not being as effective as 200 x 100g blocks of HE each strapped to the person you want to kill. Most hand grenades have about 80 grammes of HE so 100 grammes should be plenty. It is not the amount but the way you distribute it... three nuke warheads airburst over New York and NY will burn for weeks.

Using a single much more powerful bomb and the centre will be rather more destroyed but the damage wont extend as far.

Just THINK for a second.. if USA or Russia had good enough nuclear deterrence to guarantee that "war will never happen".. why US is pushing for an ABM missile shield in europe at Russian Borders? and Why USA keep building nuclear submarines with capability of launchiing more nukes?

The ABM shield is nothing to do with Russian ICBMs and everything about putting US bases in eastern Europe. The ABM shield was going to have mid course interceptors... they intercept ICBMs midcourse so they would be useless anywhere in Europe to stop any missiles actually aimed at Europe because their targets would not be mid course.... they would be in the terminal phase of attack.

If the missiles were to stop ICBMs on the way to the US then why base them in Poland?

Unless the whole idea is to get US bases in Poland to move their pieces closer to Russia?

Why a global Strike Program? Why an SR-72?

At the moment all of that is just talk and plans... like Star Wars.

IF Russia have death hand..revenge nuclear strike..then why Putin worried about NATO ABM shield? answer is always the same .. FIRST Strike Capability. Anyone who strike first will have a huge advantage of minimizing the consequences for them. Specially if you can decapitate the leadership of the other side and provoke a coup.

What? Any first strike can't just take out the leadership... are you not listening... DEAD HAND means that if the leadership is taken out all of Russias nuclear weapons will be launched. the problem is not taking out Russias leadership... it is taking away their ability to strike back... the problem is not killing putin... it is killing all of Russias nuclear weapons and delivery systems before they are used... no hypersonic bomber will do that.

Another more easier way to see your flawed logic.. IF Israel have 200+ nuclear weapons.. and you say nuclear weapons "can end all humanity" ,why they so in panic of of IRAN getting nuclear weapons too?

there have been at least 6 mass extinctions and there will likely be more to come. A full nuclear war will likely end a lot of species and seriously blunt the growth of the human species... even if only a billion are killed in such a war, many billions more will die of starvation afterwards. the world as we know it will be gone.

Nuclear weapons are useless if you are attacked first. in a massive strike that destroy all your industries ,and send back your nation to the stone age. Whats so good about a Revenge or death hand if all your military industries and most of the country destroyed?

What is the good of not having any nuclear weapons and having the US invade you multiple times and remove your leaders when it suits them?

Having nuclear weapons only makes sense if you are prepared to use them... destroying all his cities and industries with your nukes after he has launched weapons to do the same to you is what stops him from doing it to you in the first place...

If terrorist that declares Jihad against Russia control Pakistan.. or Neonazis control of nukes in Ukraine and Russia aware they making preparations for an attack.

The Ukraine does not have any nukes. If a Pakistani based group claims it has a nuke and is going to use it then obviously an investigation into who they are, where they might have gotten a bomb from and how they intend to deliver it to Russia will begin.

evidence will be used to formulate a response, but they almost certainly wont use an ICBM or a nuke... if they find the base the terrorists are operating from in Pakistan they could send a dozen or more conventionally armed cruise missiles to deal with the problem.

With near space orbit bombers launching conventional strikes ,you could in no time eliminate a nation leadership without warning them.

And if Pakistan gave nukes to a terr group how does taking out the Pakistan government help exactly? What makes you think a near space bomb is better able to deal with targets on the ground than say a cruise missile attack from the sea?

What conventional bombs could that near space bomber use that will guaranteed kill specific people?

Top Attacks that comes from space are much harder to detect ,or calculate the path of interception ,specially in missiles fly at hypersonic speeds.

But hypersonic bombers dont fly in space and would approach like any other bomber and would be easily detectable. Any weapons they release will be intercepted by S-400 with the bomber itself shot down by S-500... by putting people in the bomber you are limiting its ability to manouver...

THe ability to fly above most nations air defenses without being touched with hypersonic missiles should not be underestimated so quick.

The vast majority of countries would not notice a cruise missile flying low let alone a high flying aircraft... why waste money creating something that can also be shot down by current in service weapons...

Russia has never has a first strike capability against the US... the Soviet Union had the first operational ICBM, but the US already had nuclear armed short range missiles in Europe that would reach he SU in less than 5 minutes.

Having a first strike capability is pointless if you never want to use it... even if a first strike against the US is successful NATO would be obliged to use its nukes against Russia.

After all her cities are trashed by nuclear warheads from the UK and France and US subs what exactly has Russia gained?

Right now the economic position of Russia is excellent and improving over time... why get your opponents to bomb you into the stone age?

If anyone is not getting it it is you Vann... this global strike crap is just an extension of UCAVs the US would use against third world countries like Yemen and Pakistan to kill people it wants to kill without crossing the nuclear threshold.

Who would Russia use that against?

Global strike would be useless against Russia... S-400 can engage targets flying a 4.8km per second... the only limitation that would prevent it engaging these high flying bombers is the altitude of the bombers... the S-500 can shoot targets down that are actually flying in space and to engage satellites would need to engage targets flying more than twice as fast... over 8km/s... in comparison a hypersonic bomber flying at mach 8 moves at about 2.5km/s... are you starting to see the problem?

Back on topic... cutting the PAK FA program and the carrier programs and cutting funding to everything except hypersonic high flying bombers would be very dumb.

They know it is dumb because they already did it. They built the Buran because they thought it might be used as some sort of super high speed nuclear bomber.

Total waste of money and time... even though the Russian shuttle was a much better design as it was made after the US shuttle and was able to fix its most fundamental flaws.