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.
Talking about a mach 2 bomber going back into production should not effect US decisions regarding bombers... it should stimulate discussion on what sort of aircraft they will need to intercept a mach 2 threat potentially carrying Mach 7-8 hypersonic cruise missiles... the F-22 wont cut it... and the F-35 will be rather worse... they haven't got the F-35 into service yet and it is already obsolete... they need a MiG-41 and fast. Pardon the pun.
Regarding the next generation bomber they will need to look at the S-500 and S-400 and the IADS of Russia...
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.
In terms of volume the Il-476 or indeed An-124 could easily carry rather more than any strategic cruise missile carrier ever could carry, but the obvious problem is the current arms agreements means you would have to develop a dedicated aircraft that is identifiable by satellite to carry them and all the problems that would create... and the obvious problem that that makes all Russian civilian airliners and cargo aircraft a justifiable target for military attack.
As a sneaky first strike option it is interesting, but would backfire over time... and they could do the same which just means a proliferation of cruise missiles... which makes defence harder for both sides...
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.
I agree for now, but I rather suspect that the production facilities that are created to build Tu-160M2s could also be used for the production of PAK DAs so the money is not wasted... and the increase in numbers of aircraft make upgrades to engines and avionics easier to justify as larger production numbers make each one cheaper... systems that can be further upgraded for PAK DA too.
In many ways the Tu-160M2 is like the Su-35 to the PAK FA.
In fact if they had 150 Tu-160s they could just work on upgrades and retire their Bears and Backfires and adapt their Blackjacks to a theatre role as well as a strategic one.
As it is they will have a mixed force of Tu-160M2 and PAK DA... the latter will replace the Bears and Backfires.
I call it the 'reverse Reagan' strategy forcing the US rather than Russia to spend more.
Interesting strategy, but I personally don't like to see any country collapse economically... it is usually the poor and innocent that suffer the most, and it creates anarchy where for period the leadership could lash out and anyone to blame for their problems... people talk about fear of a Pakistani collapse of government because those nukes could fall into the wrong hands... what about US nukes if it collapses?
Russia's future PAK DA bomber to be delayed by Tu-160M2 production
The Blackjack is a good aircraft that still does what it is supposed to do... they just don't have enough of them.
Their rotary launchers are huge and can take the Kh-101 and Kh-102 missiles easily, so other large missile types can be accommodated internally too which is good for low drag and low RCS.
the Bears on the other hand carry most of their missile externally so large weapons are not a problem either but the extra drag is not that important for a subsonic aircraft.
I rather suspect they want more time to develop the PAK DA to make it more capable, but if they make another 50 Tu-160M2s that means the PAK DA will replace the Bears and Backfires and will operate with the Blackjacks for some years to come.
I rather suspect a lot of the systems including engines developed for the Tu-160M2 could be used in the PAK DA at least at first anyway to further reduce the cost of operating and maintaining them.
As such as the Tu-160M2 production slows down production of the PAK DA can start in the same factory.
I think 50 Tu 160 + 400 Su 34 better
150 to much
I suspect 50 Tu-160M2s would be enough to make a viable force, and when they are built the PAK DA can start production to replace the Tu-22M3M and Tu-95SM16 in the theatre and strategic roles.
Perhaps 100-150 PAK DA depending on their load capacity and cost, plus the 65 odd Tu-160M/2 fully upgraded aircraft will provide an effective deterrence as well as a significant conventional attack force for world wide threats.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
JohninMK
