PAK-DΑ: News #2

LMFS wrote:

kvs wrote:There is no particular value of using a flying wing design.   It is not going to be a lifting body anyway, so might as well upgrade the
Tu-160 into an advanced "sealth" design.   Flying wings are some sort of Nazi fetish that suit well the Reich's successors, the USA.  

Based on physics arguments I would argue against using delta-wings.   Too much surface area for not much advantage.  

They already have the Tu-160 and will update it so it will stay there for many many years. The supersonic delivery of nukes with maximum efficiency is therefore ensured, so PAK-DA can cover a much more generalist role, using features like:

> Highest L/D possible for payload and endurance
> Lowest broadband RCS
> Low costs of operation and maintenance based on low fuel consumption and wing load.
> Capability to carry powerful avionics and even DEW for self defence and air control due to big size and internal volume

So the strategic role is just one among many others:

> Naval surveillance /anti-ship / ASW
> Conventional bomber, in theatre or long range, for permissive scenarios
> Conventional missile carrier
> Communications relay and drone control node
> ISTAR

For these missions endurance and low operational cost is a must and stealth is a plus, so IMHO flying wing is definitely a sensible layout...

This is not technically correct.

This is like to say, well the T-90 is well armoured, then the Armata can go with deficient armour and focus on other features.

A non-sense.

At this point is obvious, that Russia is working with Stealth+Supersonic speed for strategic bombers, like they did previously for fighters with the Su-57. And this is because they expect (correctly) to find air defense in the limits of the range of the missiles carried and at longer distances.

Like you can see in the article about the Okhotnik prototype, its structure, its role and its features define the project like a small strategic bomber.

eehnie wrote:

LMFS wrote:

kvs wrote:There is no particular value of using a flying wing design.   It is not going to be a lifting body anyway, so might as well upgrade the
Tu-160 into an advanced "sealth" design.   Flying wings are some sort of Nazi fetish that suit well the Reich's successors, the USA.  

Based on physics arguments I would argue against using delta-wings.   Too much surface area for not much advantage.  

They already have the Tu-160 and will update it so it will stay there for many many years. The supersonic delivery of nukes with maximum efficiency is therefore ensured, so PAK-DA can cover a much more generalist role, using features like:

> Highest L/D possible for payload and endurance
> Lowest broadband RCS
> Low costs of operation and maintenance based on low fuel consumption and wing load.
> Capability to carry powerful avionics and even DEW for self defence and air control due to big size and internal volume

So the strategic role is just one among many others:

> Naval surveillance /anti-ship / ASW
> Conventional bomber, in theatre or long range, for permissive scenarios
> Conventional missile carrier
> Communications relay and drone control node
> ISTAR

For these missions endurance and low operational cost is a must and stealth is a plus, so IMHO flying wing is definitely a sensible layout...

This is not technically correct.

This is like to say, well the T-90 is well armoured, then the Armata can go with deficient armour and focus on other features.

A non-sense.

At this point is obvious, that Russia is working with Stealth+Supersonic speed for strategic bombers, like they did previously for fighters with the Su-57. And this is because they expect (correctly) to find air defense in the limits of the range of the missiles carried and at longer distances.

Like you can see in the article about the Okhotnik prototype, its structure, its role and its features define the project like a small strategic bomber.

I agree with you, since Lider is almost done and you were right about it, as we are awaiting floating out any moment. I think we can all agree you are not brain damaged idiot with broken english but rather worlds foremost expert on...well... everything Russians do.

Militarov wrote:I agree with you, since Lider is almost done and you were right about it, as we are awaiting floating out any moment. I think we can all agree you are not brain damaged idiot with broken english but rather worlds foremost expert on...well... everything Russians do.

Quote me saying this, you can not

So pretty to see you enjoying the "against laws of nature" new Russian supersonic flying wing Okhotnik prototype. You can expect the Tu-PAK-DA by the same way.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t2625p500-pak-da-news#188190

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:This is a very interesting detail, that goes against the analysis of those that argued about the Tu-PAK-DA as subsonic using the angles as argument.

How so? Even if true, they will probably just use that centerline segment to be completed into flying wing and we already said at least 20 times that flying wing literally cant be made supersonic. No supersonic flying wing aircraft has ever been actually built, its aganist laws of nature. IF it as they always claimed will be flying wing.

Angles as itself...have very little to do with it.

   

The reality over you like a truck...

LMFS,, there is not different role between the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA. There is different size like between the Tu-160 and the Tu-22, but not different role. Your technical mistake comes in part  from this, but specially comes from to consider not the speed a key feature of aircrafts to ensure their safety. Like the armour on land armament, the speed is the key feature to ensure better safety of aircrafts in combat situations.

Russia knows that the US has, and will have in the future, increasingly better radars and air defense systems installed on ships and installed on 3rd countries, like Canada and others. Both can be placed at the right distance to engage the Russian strategic bombers before the lauch of their missiles. Only Alaska is not defensible for them by this way.

Austin wrote:Okhotnik    Air International/ Piotr Butwoski

Maximum Take-Off Weight: 25000 Kg
Supersonic speed: 1400 Km/h
Long-range: 5000 Km (very long range for the size of the prototype)
The long range and supersonic nature of the Okhotnik design are clearly exposed.
The stealth nature of the Okhotnik design is also clearly exposed.

And to confirm this there are the words of Alexander Nemov explicitly exposing that Russia is working long range stealth+supersonic UCAVs.

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201802250940-tffd.htm
https://sputniknews.com/military/201802261061999563-russian-long-range-drone-infiltrator/

You have the new Russian supersonic flying wing in front of you. Now you know one. More and better, soon.

GarryB wrote:

eehnie wrote:what can be achieved for the Okhotnik prototype in the refered to the supersonic speed can also be achieved for the future Tu-PAK-DA.

I said it could but it likely wont... look at how slim and high speed that drone looks and that is a rather powerful engine for a drone that size.

For a strategic bomber the PAK DA is going to need an enormous amount of fuel and a big payload capacity to carry all its weapons internally which means it is going to have a very thick wing profile, which means even fairly large engines wont be enough to get it supersonic because supersonic speed burns fuel at two to three times the rate non afterburning engines burn fuel so two to three times more fuel makes it even fatter and slower...

The new high bypass version of the NK-32 would also be useful for other subsonic heavy aircraft like An-124 engines and An-124 replacement engines and also fitting to the Il-106... if they are low bypass turbofans as needed for supersonic flight they would not be very useful at all for heavy transports.

eehnie wrote:By the end, those that insulted me also about this topic, must surrender to the reality.

Habitually the reality does not leave my words in bad place.

At the end of the day all we have is speculation and rumour... we don't know if the PAK DA is a flying wing or a flying wing with a tail section, we don't even know what sort of engines it will have or if they will have TVC...

It is obvious for me, but why to insert this comment in the previous topic when others earlier have been moved to this topic?

The power is not a problem. If they want they can install 2 engines, like every fighter has. But this is not the purpose of this prototype.

About the engines of the Tu-PAK-DA is well known that they will use a variant of the new engines of the Tu-160.

At the end of the day, you can see a real new Russian supersonic flying wing prototype, and you can bet safely the prototype of the Tu-PAK-DA will improve these achievements in the following years.

As expected, the pro-US and pro-Israel commenters of this forum glad not with the important Russian technological achievements exposed by this new Okhotnik prototype, instead they are shocked, and some still in denial mode.

Speed is not about thrust to weight ratio... look at the thrust to weight ratio of a MiG-29 and compare it with the thrust to weight ratio of the MiG-31... which aircraft should be faster?

LMFS,, there is not different role between the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA. There is different size like between the Tu-160 and the Tu-22, but not different role.

There is no difference in role between Tu-95MS16 and Tu-160 but they do the job in a different way using different features with different advantages and different weaknesses.

The Blackjack has the advantage of lower RCS and higher flight speed including supersonic dash if needs be, but the Tu-95 is much cheaper to operate and can carry weapons externally without much performance penalty because it is always going to be a subsonic aircraft so it can carry up to 16 cruise missiles while the Blackjack carries 12 internally with no external options.

It also means the Bear could carry rather larger weapons externally too if needed.

The Tu-22M is a theatre bomber, neither the Blackjack or Bear are intended for theatre bombing missions... they can deliver cruise missiles to theatre targets but not bombs normally.

The PAK DA will replace the Bear and the Backfire in the strategic cruise missile and theatre bombing role where its features of relatively low cost subsonic operation should make it affordable and effective... it will likely have the equivalent of the Gefest & T bombing system making conventional war over very significant distances practical and effective...

In the refered to the size of the Tu-PAK-DA, the issue is mostly defined when we know that will have two engines of the same new series of engines that will be installed in the modernized Tu-160 (4 engines) and the Tu-22 (2 engines). In terms of Maximum Take Off Weight, the Tu-PAK-DA must be a lot closer to the data of the most modernized Tu-22, than to the data of the modernized Tu-160. And this is what we see in the sources that are offering data about the MTOW of the Tu-PAK-DA

The new Tu-22 M3M variant, with the recovery of the refueling system, will be perfectly inside of the range of strategic bombers. In fact it was also before.

In the refered to the aircrafts replaced by the Tu-PAK-DA, very likely the first in line would be the Il-38, also significantly smaller and with significantly lower range than the Tu-95/142 (approximately like the difference between the Tu-22 and the Tu-160).

LMFS, in the refered to the Okhotnik prototype, I think you have still a long digest ongoing.

Morphologically there are not problems to recognize in the Okhotnik prototype, the profile of a long-range design, not very different to recent stealth designs of strategic bombers but scaled at lower size. It is reported to be an armed UAV => UCAV. And, like explained in the article, there are elements used specifically in supersonic designs. To think in this prototype after reading the words of Alexander Nemov is perfectly fair and logical. And habitually articles from Western sources are not generous estimating the features of Russian armament.

PS: The map you posted in other topic shows the US intention of using land and sea based air defenses in the North Pacific. Of course they would be used also against Russian land based Intercontinental missiles and against strategic bombers, with the (lower or higher) success they can achieve.

LMFS wrote:Relevant to discussions here, thoughts coming from US about carriers in the future:

https://csbaonline.org/research/publications/regaining-the-high-ground-at-sea-transforming-the-u.s.-navys-carrier-air-wi/publication

Not sure if you recognize the area drawed, but they painted US land based air defenses even in the Kuril Islands. Fairly optimistic

I guess the S-400 systems and MiG-31´s stationed on Kamtchatka would easily destroy these drones. And good luck of defending the carriers against some Kinzhals.

LMFS wrote:

eehnie wrote:LMFS, in the refered to the Okhotnik prototype, I think you have still a long digest ongoing.

No need for the condescending tone. No offence, but until now I have only seen references to quotes and your particular way of interpreting them (interestingly, many Russian sources indicate the PAK-DA will be subsonic but you decide to ignore them). You may be right or not, who knows. For my part I cannot avoid seeing  design elements on it that contradict the supposed supersonic flight capability, so I will not take supposed "information" for real until evidence is shown. Until now it is nothing but claims from unofficial sources.

Morphologically there are not problems to recognize in the Okhotnik prototype, the profile of a long-range design, not very different to recent stealth designs of strategic bombers but scaled at lower size.

Yes, it is a flying wing, we have noticed it. What you call long range design is actually better known as high fuel fraction design, mainly due to those huge, thick wings that are so bad for flying fast. This high fuel fraction is one of the main advantages of the flying wing layout so no big surprise here.

And, like explained in the article, there are elements used specifically in supersonic designs.

What elements? I can see a few elements of subsonic designs. Not saying it is not supersonic, just asking what is the design evidence apart from one engine with A/B section.

Not sure if you recognize the area drawed, but they painted US land based air defenses even in the Kuril Islands. Fairly optimistic

Yes I did. But they have Abe on the verge of getting the Kurils back isn't it?

Fairly, no

The Russian exit from the Southern Kurils is only possible if the US is expelled of Japan. The last think you can expect is a Russian retirement to see US bases in the Kuril islands

No offense, but I do not see you reading the article.

didn't the head honcho in the Russian Air Force say recently that there is very little real need for the Tu-160s to fly supersonic any more
re new long range standoff weapons ..
so why would they want a supersonic flying wing … it makes no sense at all


anyway if you look at the Tu-95 …. in plan view …. take the long skinny fuselage off …. you've got a huge flying wing haven't you

Gazputin wrote:didn't the head honcho in the Russian Air Force say recently that there is very little real need for the Tu-160s to fly supersonic any more
re new long range standoff weapons ..
so why would they want a supersonic flying wing …?

Because Speed and time is everything in war...
if Russia find itself in a major preventive attack of NATO with nuclear weapons , or that
a happy trigger NATO general ,is attacking Russian warships and they ask for help..
They will need to deploy their bombers near the action is requested as FAST as possible..
in any part of the world or in US eastern and western Coast as soon as possible..
Hypersonic cruise missiles are fast.. but the bombers needs to fly and positioned first in the right
place.. and it could be a  LONG LONG WAY...  If Russian bombers needs to fly from Moscow to US coast..  Also being Fast allow Russian pilots a bigger chance to escape NATO airforces chasing the bomber..  So there is no question Faster is better.. is even more important than having a stealth plane.. But if you have both is even better..

The ideal Bomber for Russia will be one that fly at Hypersonic speed ,faster than air to air missiles ,
that that can reach twice the altitude that NATO airforces can fly.. lets say 40k to 50k altitude.. in near low earth space orbit.. so this will limit the ways NATO can engage with Russia near space bombers... can't send their airforces because is too high.. and AEGIS standard air defenses like PATRIOTS or standard high altitude missiles will not be ideal against planes that fly unpredictable fly path..

ideally Russia should build an near space bomber for each aircraft carrier than US have..that is as fast as possible and carry very fat 20 megaton to 50 megaton nukes in low orbit. So Russia can easily position their bombers in near space orbit ABOVE NATO aircraft carriers formations.. the key word is positioning in the right place ,at the right time and do it very fast.. So that Russia for example can send a near space bomber over atlantic over a NATO formation of warships , and have the ability to launch a hypersonic missile  in a stealth plane ,that hits an aircraft carrier 2-3 minutes surprise attack and NATO options to take down Russia high altitude planes from very few to ideally none..

High Altitude bombers + stealth + option for supersonic or hypersonic speeds in case of Emergencies.
for escaping or for reaching  any place in the world very fast.. Combat planes are worse enemies of  warships , and near space orbit bombers can dominate anything under it.

that said near space orbit Bomber better deterrence than > Submarines > aircraft carriers formations > combat planes... Something like a BURAN space shuttle , armed with many hypersonic nuclear missiles ,made for stealth ,and that fly hypersonic in any emergency could be the most dangerous deterrence that Russia could develop.. It allow Russia to have their nukes in space , for weeks or months closely monitoring NATO warships positions.. To be in position for an strike at any time..
so when the order is given.. Russia don't need to wait many hours to position their planes.. in the right places.. in wars Time and speed is everything.. it cold make the difference between win or lose a conflict.. in a preventive mass scale strike.. if done right..

how do you propose to launch weapons from something flying at hypersonic speed ?
can you imagine the insane cost of what you are talking about ?
Russia's money is far better spent on giving the people a better life …

eg Putin is now getting the mil-plex to apply its knowledge to the civilian sector …
they are building medivac helicopters and airliners … stuff to improve the lives of the people …. and to help other industries eg read this re Gazprom

"An essential aspect of our work is the localization of equipment that has never been produced in Russia and has no domestic counterparts. For Gazprom, it is first and foremost the equipment used in the sectors that we are currently entering. Until recently, we were not very active in such areas as liquefied natural gas, gas processing, and shelf exploration. But with the passage of time, we have come to realize that Gazprom will pursue major projects in those areas in the medium and long term. Together with our domestic producers, especially the military-industrial complex, we are initiating timely work to localize the production of equipment for these sectors."

re carriers …. lol …. all they have on board are F-18s and maybe F-35s ….. both short range and next to useless … launched from useless dinosaurs
I'd be taking out the guided missile cruisers first …. any day … they are far more dangerous

my bet is this Pak-Da will have almost the exact aerodynamic shape as the big Sukhoi UAV prototype that appeared recently ….
both will probably be multi-function very long range strike and border patrol aircraft …. and they both will share a similar subsonic aerodynamic shape
as they will both be designed in the same wind tunnel at Tsagi in Moscow
and what they learn from the Sukhoi UAV will go into the Pak-Da design … Russians are very practical people

anyway you are entitled to your own opinion …. I was simply stating what the chief of the Russian Air Force said …

one thing is for sure you are hugely entertaining

I read the article and as said the only element supporting (or rather compatible with) supersonic flight is the already mentioned A/B section in the engine... but I am all ears if I missed something.

Some might see an AB engine as being for supersonic flight, but it could equally be to allow takeoffs from shorter strips without the complication and weight of adding another engine... so instead of needing two engines it can get away with one for cruising and will only use the AB for taking off and rapid climbs.

If it is carrying AAMs it might also help getting to a higher altitude rapidly too for launching at greater ranges than would be possible at the time.

didn't the head honcho in the Russian Air Force say recently that there is very little real need for the Tu-160s to fly supersonic any more
re new long range standoff weapons ..
so why would they want a supersonic flying wing … it makes no sense at all

More importantly, if they are putting the supersonic Blackjack back into production and they want supersonic bombers... why not just make extra blackjacks instead of developing a new type of strategic bomber as well?

The PAK DA is to replace the Tu-95s and Tu-22M3 so operationally what they need is something that is not enormously expensive to operate over long range missions with a modest payload (ie strategic missions), yet over shorter distances can bring a range of heavy conventional weapons... ie carry 2-3 FOABs internally perhaps...

anyway if you look at the Tu-95 …. in plan view …. take the long skinny fuselage off …. you've got a huge flying wing haven't you

And you can do the same to the Blackjack... but the obvious problem is that when you take away the fuselage you take away the enormous volume of space for fuel and crew and engines and weapons that you then have to squeeze into the wings somehow... so you need to modify the wings by making them thicker.

There was a TsAGI model showing a flying wing with a really thick middle wing section and smaller outer wing parts... basically whether it will have two engines or four engines they will be separated out wide with the space in between for weapons and fuel...

how do you propose to launch weapons from something flying at hypersonic speed ?
can you imagine the insane cost of what you are talking about ?
Russia's money is far better spent on giving the people a better life …

Why make the bomber expensive with excessive speed or excessive stealth when you can make the weapons fast or stealthy or both... having a respectably stealthy flying wing bomber that might be able to supercruise would be useful because an F-35 isn't fast enough to intercept a supercruising target most of the time... and the F-35 will be the most common NATO fighter soon.

re carriers …. lol …. all they have on board are F-18s and maybe F-35s ….. both short range and next to useless … launched from useless dinosaurs
I'd be taking out the guided missile cruisers first …. any day … they are far more dangerous

Taking out the carriers takes away their AWACS support... in the US Navy the carrier is the centrepiece... the ships are there to support the carrier... the commander of the group of ships is on the carrier... taking down the carrier removes the long range eyes of the carrier group and takes away its reason for being there... it also means that rescuing as many of those thousands of american sailor who are now taking a swim means most of those surface ships are now distracted and overloaded too.

my bet is this Pak-Da will have almost the exact aerodynamic shape as the big Sukhoi UAV prototype that appeared recently ….
both will probably be multi-function very long range strike and border patrol aircraft …. and they both will share a similar subsonic aerodynamic shape
as they will both be designed in the same wind tunnel at Tsagi in Moscow
and what they learn from the Sukhoi UAV will go into the Pak-Da design … Russians are very practical people

Even scaling up this new Sukhoi UAV is the wrong shape... it is too slim and could never take the sort of fuel and ordinance they will need for a strategic aircraft.

The Sukhoi UAV is intended to operate as support for fighters... most fighters never exceed the speed of sound because it simply isn't fuel efficient to do so... height is more valuable than speed so these UAVs will likely operate at medium to high altitude possibly at transsonic speeds and launch missiles and look for targets with radar so the PAK FA can remain radar silent and benefit from the extra missiles the drones carry.

In comparison the PAK DA will likely be at the very least a twin engine aircraft... possibly three or four engined aircraft with the engines spaced out with the gaps between being weapons bays and fuel tanks... the section between the engines will be rather thick because these will be high bypass engines like most airliners use... which will be good because this aircraft is most likely going to be the primary carrier of the FOABs and it will carry them internally.

It will also need to carry 11 metre long 6,000km + range cruise missile, and enormous hypersonic missiles internally too... and for theatre range missions a lot of area used for extra fuel for a 12-16K KM range will be replaced with extra space for conventional ordinance so that this aircraft can seriously pound a target to dust.

It will also carry many of the AAMs that the PAK FA will carry for self defence.

It will likely be subsonic, though supercruising... if it could be achieved would be very valuable simply because moving around the place at mach 1.6 or so will make it almost impossible for an F-35 to intercept you, and the F-22 would need full AB to intercept, which would greatly shorten its flight range, but being able to fly at supersonic speeds without AB means retaining good range performance without burning fuel too fast and getting places faster.

Some times that wont be an issue... normally in the 6-8 hours a Tu-95 will take to get to its missile launch position the enemy will have already been obliterated by SLBMs and ICBMs so there wont be any fighters coming up to stop them... getting to its launch position in 3-4 hours instead means the fireballs are still glowing and people are still traumatised... thinking did that really happen...

anyway you are entitled to your own opinion …. I was simply stating what the chief of the Russian Air Force said …

Well travelling at mach 2 for 2,000km like the Blackjack can sort of pales into insignificance when you look at new cruise missiles they have that will have scramjet engines and are 11 metres long and weight 6-10 tons and could probably fly 16,000km at mach 10 or something... the point is that a scramjet is like a long burning rocket motor so before when you had such a weapon it would be an 11 metre long missile with 6 metres being the missile with a ramjet engine that flew at mach 5 at the most and the first 5 metres was a solid rocket booster that accelerated the whole object to mach 4-5 and climb up to say 20km altitude.

With scramjet motors you could have a two stage scramjet powered missile with the rear section being a big fuel tank so the rear 6 metres is a fuel tank with the main engine being a ramjet on the belly of the front missile burning the rear fuel first... a 6 metre long fuel tank would allow the whole missile to climb and gradually accelerate... it wouldn't accelerate as fast as a rocket booster but it will keep burning for minutes instead of seconds and it will climb higher and get the missile moving much much faster than any solid rocket motor and more importantly it wont waste fuel. A solid rocket motor will just burn at the rate it was designed to burn at... a scramjet motor might detect that it doesn't go any faster or climb any faster whether it is using 100 percent throttle or 65 percent throttle so it could throttle back to 65 percent and burn for much longer... a rocket motor would just waste that energy and not make the whole weapon move faster... eventually the rear fuel tank will be empty and can be dropped so the front section with the Scramjet motor still running might have travelled 3,000km and be moving at mach 8 at 30km altitude and now it is a 3 ton 5 metre long missile already moving fast it can throttle back and maintain that speed for thousands of kms till it gets near its target and can throttle up and dive...

The point is that the missiles will be able to be launched from further away, so the requirements and costs of the launch platforms become looser and the aircraft much cheaper to buy and to operate.... all good news for Russia.

Actually good news for everyone because a good deterrence means WWIII becomes less appealing to everyone.

Gazputin wrote:

Russia's money is far better spent on giving the people a better life …

You can't have a "better life" when you are already in the middle of an undeclared war...
from another country on yours.. US will do anything possible to destroy Russia..
and they even hint all the time about it..   So This is one of the most common mistakes
people make about Russia ..
when discussions about Russia Economy and military and politics.. they don't
understand that the west.. US *IS* Right now at war with Russia.. is a PROXY slow war..
 this happened gradually in steps.. or phases.. is a SLOW Proxy war... First was in Syria in 2011
and then Ukraine in 2014 was phase 2... then in 2015 Russia moved to Syria  , and
US hostilities increased...  Russia base attacked in Syria near 50 times by US controlled
Drones... and Russian soldiers attacked by US with weapons they give to terrorist...

Then you have NATO warships deploying warships near Russian borders and arming
Russian borders with weapons aiming at Russia.. The US leaving the Intermediate Range
Missile treaty , and provoking Russian planes every week.. and this is not mentioning
the economic war too on Russia.. Americans seeking to completely SINK Russia economy..
to break it ,to provoke a revolution...  So US is already at war..  And is already fighting Russia
military in Syria and in Ukraine too...  

What will be next?
1)US providing Ukraine hundreds of powerful Missiles intermediate range missiles to hit Moscow
that can be armed with nukes..
2)US disconnecting Russia from the internet and the banking industry in the west..closing embassy.
3)and US starting a war/invasion against Venezuela ,Nicaragua and CUBA at same time and Serbia too..
4)A direct war against Russia..will be the last step..

From 1-3 ..are things that could happen second half of this year 2019..
and early 2020 a mayor direct military confrontation between US and Russia ,that could
cause the start of a world war 3 in no time.. because Trump don't control their military,..
and US and ISrael generals some of them are desperate for war to start a war with Russia..
with a false flags.. where Russia is a accused of attacking a US plane or warship and they
"fight in self defense".


So is not the time for Putin to "enjoy life" ,is the time to prepare for WAR..
anything less will be foolish.. So this is why Putin needs Very Fast long range bombers..at least a couple of dozen of them.. as fast as possible..that can carry many powerful missiles, and even better if they are stealth and can fly in near space orbit.. to fly above US warships formations and be in position to strike with a hypersonic Kinzhall missile and strike at any aircraft carriers in 1-2 minutes from space.. when positioned right above their formations but in low earth orbit at safe distance from their air defenses... This will be a very serious deterrence.. Similar as if a sniper ,position for a clean shot ,from safe distance from you and start harrasing you with the lazer letting adversaries  know ,that any hostile behavior will get their warships sinked..    So if there are 11 aircraft carriers ,then 11 to 22 low earth orbit bombers should be following them at near all times from near space .

This will send a strong message to NATO ,that Russia can finish their entire aircraft carrier naval group ,in the first few minutes of war. if Russian planes are positioned in the right place... This tactics  ,militarization of space are the biggest possible deterrence of all.. Russia can make.. This also can be
used to nuclear snipe from space any Government in the world..and decapitate it.. without warning the entire chain of command.. making it very difficult for a quick counter attack..  is more lethal.than US moving nukes to Ukraine aiming at mowcow. So Russia needs to fight back , and needs to prepare
for the war.. ignoring them is a bad idea... because it will encourage them to continue.. if they see
no negative consequence for their actions.. So Putin needs to make sure.. US feel very vulnerable
and that any mistake will be fatal for them.. in such a way ,that they will not dare to start the hot war.. with Russia and will backdown their hostilities.

Russia to test next-generation stealth strategic bomber

MOSCOW, August 2. /TASS/. The next-generation stealth strategic bomber PAK DA being developed for Russia’s Aerospace Force will undergo trials at the Flight Test and Development Center in the town of Zhukovsky outside Moscow, the Tupolev Aircraft Company announced on Friday.

"There are big plans ahead for testing and further developing the heavily upgraded Tu-22M3M, Tu-160 and Tu-95MS aircraft along with large-scale work for testing the prospective complex of long-range aviation [PAK DA]," the company’s press office quoted Tupolev CEO Alexander Konyukhov as saying at a festive meeting devoted to the 70th anniversary of the Zhukovsky Test Flight and Development Center.

As the Tupolev chief executive said, the Zhukovsky Flight Test and Development Center will be used in the future as the site for conducting work on the medium-haul military transport plane, and also the next-generation supersonic passenger jet "jointly with the leading sectoral research institutes and enterprises."

"The plans also envisage creating and launching a maintenance station for Tu-204 and Tu-214 aircraft at the Zhukovsky Flight Test and Development Center" by the end of 2019," he added.

The Tupolev Aircraft Company’s Flight Test and Development Center was set up in Zhukovsky on the initiative of prominent Soviet aircraft designer Andrei Tupolev in 1949. The Zhukovsky Flight Test and Development Center was used to test and develop all the planes designed by the Tupolev Aircraft Company.

PAK DA strategic bomber
Head of the Defense and Security Committee in the upper house of Russia’s parliament Viktor Bondarev earlier said that the R&D work on the PAK DA multirole aircraft designed to replace Tu-22M3, Tu-95MS and later Tu-160 bombers was nearing completion.

The deliveries of the long-range strategic bomber PAK DA to Russia’s Aerospace Force are expected to begin in 2025-2030 after trials. In January, Tupolev CEO Konyukhov said that the timeframe of creating the PAK DA is comparable with the term of creating the Tu-144 supersonic passenger plane and would equal about five-seven years.

Then-Deputy Defense Minister and currently Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov said at the time that the new strategic bomber might take to the skies in 2025-2026 and go into series production in 2028 or 2029.

I missed replying to the comment a while ago
the USA wants Russia to "overspend" on weapons …. to create an unhappy population
that is the first part of their strategy …

and the other prong of their strategy is to deny Russia the technology to develop its Arctic resources by sanctioning high tech drilling equipment
which after all.... is what this is all about

Russia's best response is assymetrical ….. don't get sucked into a "my penis is bigger than yours" scenario
I don't see any great hurry for this aircraft ….. or stupid aircraft carrier fleets …. or nuclear destroyers ….

I've said it time and again here …. I'd just have SSGNs ….. and fleets of small missile boats …
and S400s and S500s everywhere ….

NATO could never in a million years defeat the Russian land army … nobody ever has

I'd spend the money on the people …. exactly what the Americans don't want to happen …..

re the dickheads flying along the borders …. I'd get my aerobatic teams to "practice" near them and spray Blue, Red and White gunk all over them from the aerobatic teams exhausts ….. see how the fuckwits like that ….

Gazputin wrote:I missed replying to the comment a while ago
the USA wants Russia to "overspend" on weapons …. to create an unhappy population
that is the first part of their strategy …

and the other prong of their strategy is to deny Russia the technology to develop its Arctic resources by sanctioning high tech drilling equipment
which after all.... is what this is all about

Russia's best response is assymetrical ….. don't get sucked into a "my penis is bigger than yours" scenario
I don't see any great hurry for this aircraft ….. or stupid aircraft carrier fleets …. or nuclear destroyers ….

I've said it time and again here …. I'd just have SSGNs ….. and fleets of small missile boats …
and S400s and S500s everywhere ….

NATO could never in a million years defeat the Russian land army … nobody ever has

I'd spend the money on the people …. exactly what the Americans don't want to happen …..

re the dickheads flying along the borders …. I'd get my aerobatic teams to "practice" near them and spray Blue, Red and White gunk all over them from the aerobatic teams exhausts  ….. see how the fuckwits like that  ….

But but Putin Is already overspending..
Didn't he dropped and wasted 65 billions $USD dollars in stupid olympics in 2014 and 2018 ? he also wasted near ~5 billions $USD in populism , in a park in moscow ,completely waste of money..

So Russia don't need to over spend at all , to get a very strong Space force ,of bombers
chasing US aircraft carriers formations at all times. All that Putin needs is to stop wasting Russia budget in meaningless things.. in pretty expensive parks and in financing sports.. and invest instead in a Space force.. also Russia don't need at all , their junk aircraft carrier..
the money Russia will save ,just scrapping it ,and scrapping all the soviet era Destroyers in service ..and money they spend in repairs and payroll of sailors and generals.. will allow Russia to save a lot of money ,they can re-use in building near space orbit bombers ,that can fire hypersonic missiles .  

The US airforce is every week , bragging about their space force ,the things they doing..
And they already have a mini shuttle they can use to attack Russia from space.. but the Monkey President is doing nothing.. to counter their militarization of space..

So Russia will not "enjoy life at all ", while their enemies are preparing for a war with Russia.  It will be a big mistake not take seriously their warnings and their hostile actions
not only on Russia ,but allies too...look what Trump is doing now to venezuela..
a full naval blockade on their country.. and act of war.. and Putin not even blink..
The best thing Putin can do ,if he don't know how to compete with US in business..
is to militarize space.. even if that means decomissioning all their soviet destroyers and
aircraft carriers.. they are useless junk anyway.. and the range of the air defenses in those warships are totally useless . Better instead get their airforce ,to fly at twice the altitude
and observe How US navy panics ,when they discovers Russians can strike from above in 2-3 minutes their warships and sink all of them and they can't fight back.  Space militarization also as bonus will benefit Russia space industry too..  so is a win/win ,major security and major business increase.

Vann7 wrote:....
But but Putin Is already overspending..
Didn't he dropped and wasted 65 billions $USD dollars in stupid olympics in 2014 and 2018 ?  ....

Unlike Russian space program Sochi is generating profit

Only Olympic city to do so

Roskosmos in the meantime...