+46
RTN
xeno
Tolstoy
Atmosphere
Mir
Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E
The-thing-next-door
TMA1
owais.usmani
Backman
lyle6
limb
lancelot
Sujoy
Cyberspec
mnztr
Firebird
marcellogo
william.boutros
Mindstorm
x_54_u43
BKP
JohninMK
PapaDragon
miketheterrible
kvs
Big_Gazza
flamming_python
Arrow
George1
thegopnik
magnumcromagnon
SeigSoloyvov
hoom
Azi
dino00
Viktor
Rodion_Romanovic
Isos
PhSt
Vann7
Gazputin
Hole
GarryB
eehnie
LMFS
50 posters
PAK-DΑ: News #2
mnztr- Posts : 2871
Points : 2909
Join date : 2018-01-21
- Post n°276
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
So in war you expect no one to seriously fuck up? Ever heard of the "fog of war"? Ever heard "no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy"?
PapaDragon- Posts : 13413
Points : 13455
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
- Post n°277
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
mnztr wrote:So in war you expect no one to seriously fuck up? Ever heard of the "fog of war"? Ever heard "no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy"?
Someone always fucks up in war
However if your long range long endurance bombers armed with extremely long range weapons get into contact with short range enemy platforms then you seriously fucked up
And those kinds of epic fuckups almost always result in losing the war
So better don't fuck up that bad
mnztr- Posts : 2871
Points : 2909
Join date : 2018-01-21
- Post n°278
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
What is the maximum situational awareness you can count on? 3-400 km? you don't think the enemy will be trying to ambush you? They could be lying in wait hidden in some clutter from an island on your route with a tanker, then pounce as soon as your planes are observed by a multittude of ways, satelitte radar, long range radar ground observation etc. At that point speed is your friend. I would prefer to be in a TU-22 or 160 in this situation then any stealth bomber.
PapaDragon- Posts : 13413
Points : 13455
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
- Post n°279
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
mnztr wrote:What is the maximum situational awareness you can count on? 3-400 km? you don't think the enemy will be trying to ambush you? They could be lying in wait hidden in some clutter from an island on your route with a tanker, then pounce as soon as your planes are observed by a multittude of ways, satelitte radar, long range radar ground observation etc. At that point speed is your friend. I would prefer to be in a TU-22 or 160 in this situation then any stealth bomber.
Ambush? By carrier aircraft?
Where do carrier aircraft come from? Oh yeah, the carriers
If carriers can sneak up on you then you have no business trying to fight because you are too stupid to win
As for Tu-22s there are just 60 of them in total today
One third will always be in maintenance so you will just have 20 of them for each ocean
That's nothing, they are too few in numbers to be worth keeping in service especially with superior platform available
Also there is no overlap between Tu-22M and Tu-160 other than appearance, they do completely different things
mnztr- Posts : 2871
Points : 2909
Join date : 2018-01-21
- Post n°280
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
PapaDragon wrote:mnztr wrote:What is the maximum situational awareness you can count on? 3-400 km? you don't think the enemy will be trying to ambush you? They could be lying in wait hidden in some clutter from an island on your route with a tanker, then pounce as soon as your planes are observed by a multittude of ways, satelitte radar, long range radar ground observation etc. At that point speed is your friend. I would prefer to be in a TU-22 or 160 in this situation then any stealth bomber.
Ambush? By carrier aircraft?
Where do carrier aircraft come from? Oh yeah, the carriers
If carriers can sneak up on you then you have no business trying to fight because you are too stupid to win
As for Tu-22s there are just 60 of them in total today
One third will always be in maintenance so you will just have 20 of them for each ocean
That's nothing, they are too few in numbers to be worth keeping in service especially with superior platform available
Also there is no overlap between Tu-22M and Tu-160 other than appearance, they do completely different things
You can ambush from land base planes with tanker support quite easily. USAF has 800 tankers. 60 TUs is a very formidable force. 20 TU launched each with 3 KH-32s..you are gonna tell me that is nothing? 60 KH-32s fired at a CBG from several different directions to arrive at the same time.. yeah. That is a pretty fearsome strike package.
Yes they have differnt purposes, which is why it makes sense to keep the TU-22. They are not upgrading the planes and airframes to get rid of them in 4-5 years.
PapaDragon- Posts : 13413
Points : 13455
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
- Post n°281
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
Okay, I will keep this as simple as possible so you could understand:
There are only 20 Tu-22s for each ocean and there will never be more ever again
20 is nothing
USSR had 400 and still they expected to lose majority of them to enemy fire before they could get into position to launch because they would be spotted immediately and intercepted
Once PAK-DA starts arriving Tu-22s will be the first to go the way of museum, their time is ending
Isos- Posts : 11460
Points : 11428
Join date : 2015-11-06
- Post n°282
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
PapaDragon wrote:
Okay, I will keep this as simple as possible so you could understand:
There are only 20 Tu-22s for each ocean and there will never be more ever again
20 is nothing
USSR had 400 and still they expected to lose majority of them to enemy fire before they could get into position to launch because they would be spotted immediately and intercepted
Once PAK-DA starts arriving Tu-22s will be the first to go the way of museum, their time is ending
You are quite wrong. Tu-22 will cover pacific ocean and norther seas since they can make the journey from east to west in few hours.
They are planes not ships.
USSR was going to use them pretty far away. Russia will use them above its territory wheb the carrier comes close. F-35 in combat mission won't go further than 700-800km. New missiles have more than 1000km range so...
Close enough they can have the sukvois protecting them since a sukhoi has more range than f-18 or f-35.
GarryB- Posts : 40006
Points : 40502
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°283
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
Even if enemy F35s or similar launch a brace of AIM-120Cs in a tail chase the Tu-22M3M with the hammer down in a short sprint will likely outpace them.
If the PAK DA is carrying a full range of AAMs I would expect that would include the tiny short range 9M100 based self defence anti missile missile.... a sort of CIWS missile for air, ground, and sea platforms.... hell it has lock on after launch capability with a two way datalink you could launch it from a submerged submarine and have it lock on to a MPA or anti sub helicopter just based on the noise those platforms make...
The PAK DA could launch a few long range R-37Ms and also a few R-77Ms and perhaps even some scramjet powered new R-77s at any fighters present, and while leaving launch short range anti missile weapons against any naval SAM or AAM fired at it...
The thing is that the Blackjacks can launch conventional cruise missiles but will mostly be for strategic roles, the PAK DA has the capacity to carry very heavy conventional payloads and likely their entire range of conventional and nuclear ordinance internally, but they will want it to remain in Russia in terms of basing, while the Tu-22M3M models are still new and very capable and could be based in Syria or new bases around the world where they could do double duty with serious bomb loads but also anti ship weapons that could make friendly countries safe from aircraft carrier based sabre rattling from the colonial west...
Equally the Bears could be transferred to the Navy and be fitted with sensors and equipment and communications gear like their open skies aircraft and new anti ship and anti sub gear and also be based around the world just expanding Russian views and reach.
Seriously I think the Iranian regime is evil, based on how it treats its people, but the saber rattling approach is just pointless.
I find it hilarious that westerners judge Iran as evil... the number of living people made dead in that region because of the actions of a government would be an interesting list and I suspect Iran would be no where near the top of that list... and more ironically the moral and ethical and judgemental western powers that identify other leaders as killers and this or that regime as being evil are head and shoulders at the top of that list.
Look at the death penalty in the US, or Guantanimo Bay concentration camp... if you are poor you die...
Also there is no overlap between Tu-22M and Tu-160 other than appearance, they do completely different things
The Tu-22M is a heavy strike theatre bomber, and is totally different from the Bear and the Tu-160.
The job of the PAK DA is to combine the performance of the Bear... long range strategic cruise missile carrier, with the performance of the Tu-22m3.... where a lot of fuel is offloaded to carry a heavy bomb or conventional weapon load.
You are quite wrong. Tu-22 will cover pacific ocean and norther seas since they can make the journey from east to west in few hours.
Most of the Tu-22M3 were used by long range aviation and would have been used as a deep strike platform attacking SAM sites and Comms centres and HQs in the European theatre. They would mostly use Kh-22M and later Kh-32 missiles which come in a few different models for the different missions... including the land attack grid square remover with a nuclear warhead, but also versions with passive radar and active radar weapons for large structures like ships, large buildings and bridges.
More often than not they would have an escort of Su-27s to support their missions.
I think the long range aviation will use Tu-160s to replace some of the Bears in service, but the rest of the Bears and the Backfires wont retire till replaced by PAK DA.
Both types are still relatively new and with plenty of hours on the clock so they will be retired from strategic missions but will likely be given other roles in Russian bases perhaps around the world.
dino00 and Big_Gazza like this post
mnztr- Posts : 2871
Points : 2909
Join date : 2018-01-21
- Post n°284
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
PapaDragon wrote:
Okay, I will keep this as simple as possible so you could understand:
There are only 20 Tu-22s for each ocean and there will never be more ever again
20 is nothing
USSR had 400 and still they expected to lose majority of them to enemy fire before they could get into position to launch because they would be spotted immediately and intercepted
Once PAK-DA starts arriving Tu-22s will be the first to go the way of museum, their time is ending
The weapons have changed quite a bit, and a fleet of 60 medium and almost strategic bombers is more then almost any country out there except the USA and maybe China. So to say this is nothing is frankly, nonsense. even with dumb bombs, if 40 operational planes we deployed on a carpet bombing mission, that is 1000T of bombs. Do you have any idea of the destruction from one strike like this? You can pretty much obliterate an entire city in a single strike. And once again, how many other nations have this capacity? USA and *maybe* China. If the Russians wanted to stop a CBG or 2 they can send the entire operations fleet of 40 planes, likely can surge to about 55 planes and launch 165 KH-32s ... I am not even sure if there will be any lifeboats floating after such a strike.
mnztr- Posts : 2871
Points : 2909
Join date : 2018-01-21
- Post n°285
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
Question is, what is a reasonable fleet of bombers for Russias needs? They have about 60 TU-95, plan to build up to 50 TU-160, 60 TU-22 and how many PAK-DAs? As its stands they have a pretty staggering fleet. If they are gonna build a lot of PAK-DA plus the AAM capability, does this signal a major change in operational docterine for heavy units?
PapaDragon- Posts : 13413
Points : 13455
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
- Post n°286
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
mnztr wrote:...So to say this is nothing is frankly, nonsense. even with dumb bombs, if 40 operational planes we deployed on a carpet bombing mission, that is 1000T of bombs. Do you have any idea of the destruction from one strike like this?...
Of those 40 only 20 will be available per one coast
And of those 20 majority will be immediately spotted, intercepted and shot down by carrier aircraft
There will be no carpet bombing of enemy fleet
mnztr- Posts : 2871
Points : 2909
Join date : 2018-01-21
- Post n°287
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
PapaDragon wrote:
Of those 40 only 20 will be available per one coast
And of those 20 majority will be immediately spotted, intercepted and shot down by carrier aircraft
There will be no carpet bombing of enemy fleet
The TU-95 can transit coast to coast in 10 hours. They can be fueled up and ready to go as part of a full 40 unit strike armed with KH-32s. Carpet bombing is not an effective naval strike tactic. The 120 KH-32s will be launch well out of the range of the naval fighters. Approaching an just below hypersonic speed they will be incredibly hard to intercept. The Russians can send a 2nd strike with dumb bombs or themobaric bombs to mop up any ships that may be salvageable.
If they were sent to carpet bomb a city or base, they would do the first strike with cruise missile to take out any SAMs, and only then rain bombs down to finish the job.
PapaDragon- Posts : 13413
Points : 13455
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
- Post n°288
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
mnztr wrote:...The 120 KH-32s will be launch well out of the range of the naval fighters...
You just said that F-35s would be waiting in ambush but now they are not in range?
Pick one
mnztr wrote:The Russians can send a 2nd strike with dumb bombs or themobaric bombs to mop up any ships that may be salvageable....
There will not be anything left for second strike, there are only 20 of them to begin with
Also, dumb bombs for ships? What century do you think this is?
Will they have to worry about searchlights and Flak 88s?
mnztr- Posts : 2871
Points : 2909
Join date : 2018-01-21
- Post n°289
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
there will be 40-60 planes you approach from multiple directions with flights of 3 or 4 to mitigate the risk. If the TU-22s are ambushed by F-35 they can out run them because they are considerably faster. So one tactic - the TU's head out with tankers. Top up. fly to release point, launch missiles and egress at Mach 2 meet tankers if necessary and return to base. or they can dash in at mach 2 and egress at mach 2 depending on range/fuel.
In case you didn't notice the Russian can use dumb bombs effectively. As I said, for mopping up
In case you didn't notice the Russian can use dumb bombs effectively. As I said, for mopping up
GarryB- Posts : 40006
Points : 40502
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°290
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
Yes I judge them as evil based on how they treat their own people.
But what is the actual treatment you find to be evil... Considering in Canada you can be arrested for child abuse calling your son male terms when she has decided she identifies as female. I don't think many things are evil, but your country supported the US to kill millions of people in the Middle East and elsewhere while calling anyone who died a terrorist or collateral damage... shoot first and fix any problems with cash payments to survivors... being an athiest I don't really think in terms of good and evil... but if I was to start calling governments evil... like I have said western people should not throw stones.
The USA does do some evil things for sure, as does even Canada and all the western countries and China, but I would live in most of those countries, NO WAY would I live in Iran. Maybe visit but thats it.
So pillage and murder around the world, along with blackmail and theft, has paid off so much you forgive the west their crimes, yet think of Iran as evil.
Interesting.
Question is, what is a reasonable fleet of bombers for Russias needs? They have about 60 TU-95, plan to build up to 50 TU-160, 60 TU-22 and how many PAK-DAs? As its stands they have a pretty staggering fleet. If they are gonna build a lot of PAK-DA plus the AAM capability, does this signal a major change in operational docterine for heavy units?
The problem is that the 15 Blackjacks they currently have is not really a viable force so when they make another 50 or so they can form operational units from those aircraft. The Tu-22Ms don't come in to it because they are theatre strike only and have no strategic purpose.
The purpose of the PAK DA is to form a mixed fleet of supersonic very long range cruise missile and missile carriers (Tu-160 only) and subsonic long range fuel efficient and cheaper to operate bomb and missile carriers that can carry large outsized loads internally with lots of fuel and inflight refuelling for strategic missions with long range and hypersonic long range missiles, or shorter ranged missions with much much heavier conventional loads.
Essentially the Tu-160 is expanded to become the primary anti US strategic cruise missile carrier force, while the PAK DA will replace the Tu-95 in the subsonic strategic role, but extra PAK DAs could be built for other missions like inflight refuelling support of the strategic attack PAK DA... the inflight refuelling versions could carry Zircon missiles and AAMs as well as lots of fuel so as they head over the north pole with the cruise missile armed PAK DAs, they could launch Zircons at AEGIS cruisers in the Arctic Ocean looking for ballistic missile warheads to shoot down, plus long range AAMs to engage any long range cruise missiles or enemy fighter aircraft in the air.
As I said the Tu-160 and PAKDA will replace the Bears and Backfires in their current roles, but that frees these aircraft that are new and up to date for other missions.
New missiles are entering service which would be ideal for the Bears and Backfires to keep them potent and useful... the new Grom, a 1,500km range mach 6 defence penetration missile is one example, while the Kh-50 subsonic stealthy 1,500km range missile is interesting too.
In the short term the Tu-22M3 and Tu-95 that are made redundant as new Blackjacks and PAK DAs are produced could be used as inflight refuelling aircraft, or shorter ranged strike platforms.
The Tu-22M3 operating from Syrian airfields would be much more effective at dropping very heavy loads on insurgent forces without burning a lot of fuel in the process.
Bears based in Syria could carry a wide range of anti ship and anti sub weapons... if the US can base B-1Bs in Norway then Russia could base Bears and Backfires in Cuba or Venezuela, while keeping their actual strategic cruise missile carrying force within the boundaries and safety of Russia and the Russian IADS.
Big_Gazza likes this post
GarryB- Posts : 40006
Points : 40502
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°291
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
Imagine leasing some Tu-22M3Ms to Argentina....
![Twisted Evil](https://2img.net/i/fa/i/smiles/icon_twisted.gif)
Big_Gazza likes this post
Big_Gazza- Posts : 4810
Points : 4802
Join date : 2014-08-25
Location : Melbourne, Australia
- Post n°292
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
GarryB wrote:Imagine leasing some Tu-22M3Ms to Argentina....![]()
..or Venezuela
![Twisted Evil](https://2img.net/i/fa/i/smiles/icon_twisted.gif)
GarryB likes this post
Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E- Posts : 734
Points : 750
Join date : 2016-01-20
- Post n°293
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
![PAK-DΑ: News #2 - Page 12 So-koennte-der-naechste-russische-Bomber-aussehen-Entwickelt-wird-der-PAK-DA-von-Tupolew--169FullWidth-9140939e-1782134](https://imgr1.flugrevue.de/So-koennte-der-naechste-russische-Bomber-aussehen-Entwickelt-wird-der-PAK-DA-von-Tupolew--169FullWidth-9140939e-1782134.jpg)
German Portal flugrevue.de
PapaDragon- Posts : 13413
Points : 13455
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
- Post n°294
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:https://imgr1.flugrevue.de/So-koennte-der-naechste-russische-Bomber-aussehen-Entwickelt-wird-der-PAK-DA-von-Tupolew--169FullWidth-9140939e-1782134.jpg
German Portal flugrevue.de
Old fanart
Big_Gazza likes this post
wilhelm dislikes this post
flamming_python- Posts : 9368
Points : 9430
Join date : 2012-01-30
- Post n°295
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
lyle6 wrote:The Tu-22M3s can still find use in the naval aviation, reprising its long range maritime anti-ship role. They would actually make a far better launcher for the Kinzhal missile than the MiG-31K, for starters carrying 4 missiles instead of the one for the latter. Longer ranged, yet could still do supersonic dashes necessary to outrun interdiction efforts. Really, its a waste if they retire them without at least considering this option.
The main problem with using Tu-22M3s for the role is that they take far longer than the MiG-31K to get to the necessary altitude. The climb rate of the baseline Tu-22M3 is 15 m/s, while that of the baseline MiG-31 is 208 m/s. It will change with the weight of a Kinzhal of course but we're still looking at a an order of magnitude.
Otherwise they would have just used them in the first place and skipped the MiG-31 platform.
As we can see response time is key, when it comes to the Caspian garrison of airborne Kinzhal launchers for instance.
But for long-range patrol with the missile or some such it shouldn't make much difference.
GarryB- Posts : 40006
Points : 40502
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°296
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
The kinzhal is a solid rocket powered missile with fixed burn rates... being based on the Iskander its first stage of fuel will be high energy high power fuel... which burns rapidly but gets the missile up and moving and climbing and accelerating to top speed... the next layer of fuel is designed to burn slower and much much longer and maintain speed and also allow manouverability because it uses thrust vectoring to manouver so fuel needs to be burning for it to turn... the small external fins are fixed stabilisers.
The point is that without any changes at all taking it up to altitude and accelerating it to speed improves its performance enormously because it no longer has to accelerate from stationary and it does not have to climb vertically through the thickest part of the atmosphere.
This means that instead of overcoming inertia and moving several tons of missile off the ground and climbing to altitude the missile is already moving at a good speed and is through the thickest air so it can accelerate to a higher speed and operate at an even higher altitude where the air is even thinner and travel much further.
For best distance and best performance the fastest highest flying platform is best and that is MiG-31K.
For the Tu-22M3 it would make rather more sense to develop an air launched scramjet powered missile which can be optimised for the size and weight of the aircraft.
The new Gzur missile is supposed to replace the Kh-15 short range attack missile... it should be able to be carried internally on the Tu-22M3M in the rotary launcher and it is supposed to have a 1,500km range at mach 6 which is plenty of performance...
I think putting the Kinzhal on another aircraft... other than the MiG-31K is a waste of time... it already has the 800km range Kh-32 mach 5 missile and the potential for newer missiles with more efficient propulsion.
The Tu-22M3M is already a potent aircraft, it does not really need or benefit from the Kinzhal which is an emergency stop gap weapon... very clever... but can be greatly improved upon.
Now the INF treaty is gone new multistage IRBMs will be an interesting development branch that could be used in PAK DA and Tu-22M3M platforms... and naval launched versions would be very interesting too.
Quite some time ago a member called Ironsightsniper suggested a naval Iskander... I remember dismissing it as a bad idea because it would be limited to 500km range and that if they made it they would be accused of violating the INF treaty because it could be used on a land based trailer.
Well now it does not matter, so a 3,000km range multistage ballistic missile with perhaps scramjet powered stages that manouvers to impact could be very very useful and could be ship and sub and land based(truck and rail).
Air launched versions would be interesting too.
The point is that without any changes at all taking it up to altitude and accelerating it to speed improves its performance enormously because it no longer has to accelerate from stationary and it does not have to climb vertically through the thickest part of the atmosphere.
This means that instead of overcoming inertia and moving several tons of missile off the ground and climbing to altitude the missile is already moving at a good speed and is through the thickest air so it can accelerate to a higher speed and operate at an even higher altitude where the air is even thinner and travel much further.
For best distance and best performance the fastest highest flying platform is best and that is MiG-31K.
For the Tu-22M3 it would make rather more sense to develop an air launched scramjet powered missile which can be optimised for the size and weight of the aircraft.
The new Gzur missile is supposed to replace the Kh-15 short range attack missile... it should be able to be carried internally on the Tu-22M3M in the rotary launcher and it is supposed to have a 1,500km range at mach 6 which is plenty of performance...
I think putting the Kinzhal on another aircraft... other than the MiG-31K is a waste of time... it already has the 800km range Kh-32 mach 5 missile and the potential for newer missiles with more efficient propulsion.
The Tu-22M3M is already a potent aircraft, it does not really need or benefit from the Kinzhal which is an emergency stop gap weapon... very clever... but can be greatly improved upon.
Now the INF treaty is gone new multistage IRBMs will be an interesting development branch that could be used in PAK DA and Tu-22M3M platforms... and naval launched versions would be very interesting too.
Quite some time ago a member called Ironsightsniper suggested a naval Iskander... I remember dismissing it as a bad idea because it would be limited to 500km range and that if they made it they would be accused of violating the INF treaty because it could be used on a land based trailer.
Well now it does not matter, so a 3,000km range multistage ballistic missile with perhaps scramjet powered stages that manouvers to impact could be very very useful and could be ship and sub and land based(truck and rail).
Air launched versions would be interesting too.
dino00 likes this post
LMFS- Posts : 5118
Points : 5114
Join date : 2018-03-03
- Post n°297
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
Source: PAK DA will receive a defense complex that will protect it from all types of weapons
According to the interlocutor of the agency, when creating a promising bomber, special emphasis is placed on protecting the aircraft from air defense and missile defense of the enemy using electronic warfare
MOSCOW, June 9. / TASS /. The promising long-range aviation complex (PAK DA), which is being developed at PJSC Tupolev, will receive the most advanced defense complex that will protect the aircraft from all types of weapons. A source in the military-industrial complex told TASS about it.
According to the interlocutor of the agency, when creating a promising bomber, special emphasis is placed on protecting the aircraft from air defense and missile defense of the enemy using electronic warfare. "A completely new airborne defense system is being developed for PAK DA, which will protect it from all types of weapons - radar and optical," he said.
According to him, the promising bomber will carry only intra-fuselage weapons, including long-range missiles. "This will allow the aircraft not to enter the enemy's air defense zone, to hit designated targets from the world's oceans or from the territory of another state," the agency's interlocutor said, adding that a prototype PAK DA is being manufactured. TASS has no official comment on this matter.
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/11601427
According to the interlocutor of the agency, when creating a promising bomber, special emphasis is placed on protecting the aircraft from air defense and missile defense of the enemy using electronic warfare
MOSCOW, June 9. / TASS /. The promising long-range aviation complex (PAK DA), which is being developed at PJSC Tupolev, will receive the most advanced defense complex that will protect the aircraft from all types of weapons. A source in the military-industrial complex told TASS about it.
According to the interlocutor of the agency, when creating a promising bomber, special emphasis is placed on protecting the aircraft from air defense and missile defense of the enemy using electronic warfare. "A completely new airborne defense system is being developed for PAK DA, which will protect it from all types of weapons - radar and optical," he said.
According to him, the promising bomber will carry only intra-fuselage weapons, including long-range missiles. "This will allow the aircraft not to enter the enemy's air defense zone, to hit designated targets from the world's oceans or from the territory of another state," the agency's interlocutor said, adding that a prototype PAK DA is being manufactured. TASS has no official comment on this matter.
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/11601427
dino00 and thegopnik like this post
PapaDragon- Posts : 13413
Points : 13455
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
- Post n°298
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
LMFS wrote:Source: PAK DA will receive a defense complex that will protect it from all types of weapons
..........................
According to him, the promising bomber will carry only intra-fuselage weapons, including long-range missiles. "This will allow the aircraft not to enter the enemy's air defense zone, to hit designated targets from the world's oceans or from the territory of another state,"...........
And there is your defence complex
Simple solutions are usually the best
![Cool](https://2img.net/i/fa/i/smiles/icon_cool.gif)
miketheterrible- Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-06
- Post n°299
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
Isn't that more or less the same job as Tu-160 and after Georgia 2008 conflict, Tu-22M as it was shot down on a recon mission?
I mean, the Russians have had the cruise missiles that have ranges in excess of 2,000km for decades.
I mean, the Russians have had the cruise missiles that have ranges in excess of 2,000km for decades.
PapaDragon- Posts : 13413
Points : 13455
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
- Post n°300
Re: PAK-DΑ: News #2
miketheterrible wrote:Isn't that more or less the same job as Tu-160 and after Georgia 2008 conflict, Tu-22M as it was shot down on a recon mission?
No
Tu-160 is big ticket item and it needs to be visible for the purpose of nuclear signalling
Using them in Syria was a trial run for weapons and doctrine not their intended role (and it was what saved them from retirement and sent them back in production plus it significantly altered requirements for PAK-DA which became much simpler and practical aircraft now)
PAK-DA will be multirole bomber for everything from dropping standard bombs on desert morons and naval strikes (this is important) all the way up to nuclear war but nuclear war will not be it's main role
Tu-160 will be strictly focused on nuclear option, PAK-DA will be mostly for conventional wars
miketheterrible wrote:...I mean, the Russians have had the cruise missiles that have ranges in excess of 2,000km for decades.
All were nuclear and up until recently they didn't have conventional cruise missiles, that changed with Syria and now they need aerial platform for them, diverting strategic resource like Tu-160 for nonsense wars like Syria is wasteful
GarryB likes this post
|
|