Also from the above list it seems Russians are not yet able to produce any more new Tu-160 airframes. I remember they wanted to pursue a low-rate production of the type. So far in 2016 they produced none of that.
Yeah... of course... they can put the Tu-160 back into production by next tuesday... just like NASA can whack out a half a dozen new Space Shuttles in 6 months... or not.
They are planning to put the Tu-160 back into production with upgraded and improved design features and new tooling etc. The factory they make to build new Tu-160s will also make the PAK DA when it is ready.
The upgraded Tu-160 is supposed to fly in 2019 at the earliest and will be an upgraded existing air frame. New build models wont be produced until at least 2023 and after 50 or so have been built they will build PAK DAs in the same factory.
There will likely be a lot of unification of the designs of both aircraft, though the PAK DA might only have two engines for much lower flight speeds... likely being subsonic.
The duo Cheap simple Aircraft with an exppensive and superior Aircraft is well used by Russia.
True but the cost of keeping a 1970s aircraft in service can only increase over time.
Eventually they will have enough Fullbacks and so the Fencers can be retired.
Or passed on to allies who could use the capabilities at reduced costs (Syria, Iran, Iraq, etc etc).
A logic option should be to restart production of Tu-160M2 until the number of all Tu-160s reaches the 30 approx. And after the introduction of PAK-DA to keep these Tu-160s as a supersonic bomber.
And then retire all Tu-22M3s and Tu-95MS
Probably the plan, though 50-60 Blackjacks is more likely...
Many people has been a fan of the Su-25 instead of the Su-24, but while the Su-24 surprised to some, the Su-25 has been far less usable in a war with very low density of anti-aircraft weapons in the adversaries.
I would disagree. The Su-25 is mobile artillery to support attacks and withdrawal. It was not designed for COIN type operations though it can perform in such situations.
Look at the conflict in Georgia... a few were hit but only a couple were actually brought down... they seemed to be very useful for ground support.
Tu-160 are very expensive. If the pak da is meant to replace them, it will be even more expensive. So I don't think they will replace Tu-22M with it. Their role is not the same. Tu-22M are more tactical bombers used for conventionnal bombing and Tu-160 strategic bombers armed with nuks. Actually they should make 2 pak da one "little" and one "big".
No need. Strategic PAK DA will have lots of fuel and about 10 tons of strategic weapons. That same aircraft in the Theatre role can carry reduced fuel and a much larger conventional payload for ground targets.
Tu-160s are not cheap but no strategic bomber is cheap. The PAK DA will be cheaper to operate without supersonic performance and therefore can be the numbers aircraft.
That's the problem. Even the big military budget of USSR wasn't enough for a lot of Tu-160. If the Pak-Da (not Fa) is at the same price than Tu-160 Russia won't build them a lot and couldn't replace Tu-95 with them. Maybe it won't be as expensive as the Tu-160, a more conventional bomber with new technologies but not the last of te last super expensive tech.
Blackjacks were not unaffordable. Their production was in foreign countries so after 1991 production was no longer possible at any price.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
