JohninMK Sun Jul 19, 2015 12:09 am
GarryB wrote:15-16 of any large aircraft is a small fleet which limits its potential and increases costs.
Having 100-150 Tu-160s and they probably could have retired the Tu-95MS completely, but building that many would be rather too expensive too.
The Bears are good for another 10-15 years at least and are perfectly fine for the role they are intended for.
A larger fleet of Blackjacks will make them rather more effective and new engines will likely improve performance significantly and reduce the urgency for PAK DA.
Originally the early claims regarding PAK DA was a hypersonic super bomber... which would have been enormously expensive to make and operate... hopefully putting the Blackjack back into production means the introduction of the PAK DA can be delayed and its design parameters could be made a little more ambitious.
rather than a subsonic flying wing... I would like to see a supersonic super cruising flying wing with horizontal tail and no vertical tail surface to reduce drag and RCS.
Using new generation engines with thrust vectoring to negate the need for vertical fins and perhaps allow supersonic flight without AB would greatly increase range performance and vastly improve the time to flight distance.
As an example the Blackjack would fly most of the first part of its flight at subsonic speeds and only fly supersonically for perhaps a 2,000km portion near the target to evade interception... so the entire 12,000km odd range flight would still take 6-8 hours.... whereas a flying wing moving at mach 1.6 all the way could dramatically reduce that flight time without burning an enormous amount of fuel.
More importantly if the engines are based on the Blackjacks engines then any improvements can be retrofitted to the Blackjack to perhaps allow supercruising performance too... which should increase supersonic flight range.
Delaying production of the Blackjacks to 2023 is interesting... I am wondering if they are planning to revise the aircrafts design and make it a fixed wing aircraft with a more modern and sophisticated wing shape... it would reduce weight and complication...
I would have thought that one objective in talking in public about future plans is to keep the pressure on the US until they commit to the Next Generation Bomber and tie up another few $10Billions that might be better spent elsewhere.
Maybe perhaps someone in the MoD is having a strategic rethink and starting to join the dots surrounding the development of smaller, smarter, faster, longer range cruise missiles. Will there actually be a need any more than a few Tu-160s delivering long range missiles in 10 years time? By then something like an Il-76 configured as a missile truck could tip a pack of missiles out the back teamed with a long range stealth drone, say like a stealthier Global Hawk or even a stealth fighter, providing mid course and target guidance if necessary, that is if the missiles have not developed more advanced 'hunting pack' features, like sending out 'scouts', by then.
There is no need to follow the US as the strategic needs of the two countries are different. Russia does not need to project military power over the whole globe, that is bomb anywhere on earth with an 'earthquake' bomb, it just needs to defend itself and neutralise the threats that will, given its geography, be quite close.
With more limited finances Russia has to spend smarter. One way of doing this is to use the country's brainpower in advanced R&D working on a wide range of very plausible projects, taking many to prototype stage. This puts the fear of falling behind into the US making them respond and when they do Russia pulls another hat out of the bag. This is in a way forcing the US to play again the game it honed to perfection in the 50 years after WW11, where the US MIC consumed resources and grew due to often mythical Russian threats, only this time the threats will be factually based. Only now the US is so heavily in debt, compared to back then, that they might have real problems. I call it the 'reverse Reagan' strategy forcing the US rather than Russia to spend more.