The economic reality is that the T-95 is cheaper to operate than the Tu-160.
The military reality is that the Russians haven't had strategic bombers for decades now, as they have had the Tu-22M3, which is a theatre range aircraft, while the Blackjack and Bear are cruise missile carrier aircraft.
With new upgrades all three aircraft are supposed to get compatibility with guided air to ground weapons and a range of conventional weapons up to an including the father of all bombs.
Unlike the US B-52s the Tu-95 is actually based on the redesigned Tu-142, which has new wings and other new features designed in the late 1970s, and the aircraft themselves were built in the 1980s and 1990s, as were the Blackjacks, so they are still very young aircraft.
With efficient, modern 5th gen engines the new PAK DA might be able to supercruise at mach 1.5 or so, which is slower than the current Blackjack and Backfire, but on long flights works out faster because of the higher average speed over a subsonic aircraft that has a supersonic dash over the target area.
The point is that the new aircraft will still largely be a cruise missile carrier that never needs to get closer than about 4,000km distance from its targets as it will be using 5,000km range cruise missiles on strategic missions. For theatre missions a payload of 30-40 tons of satellite guided munitions would be plenty and with a range of weapon weights would allow a range of targets to be engaged with long loiter times and combat persistence.
Very simply an aerodynamic flying wing shape, that can supercuise and was relatively stealthy with a theatre range payload of 40-50 tons, with 25-35 tons of weapon capacity replaced with extra fuel on strategic missions leaving 15 tons for a cruise missile payload of 6 missiles or so internally would be fine.
Remember having super strategic bombers able to carry 30 cruise missiles will just mean you will only be allowed 20 aircraft or so under START.
Like the Boreys, a reduced number per vessel with more vessels means better coverage of targets and more targets to deal with for the enemy.
The Tu-160 is optimised for range and speed... the range is useful in maritime patrol aircraft, but a lot of flight time for an MPA is at low level and subsonic speed.
The Tu-142 already has a problem that when communicating with subs that are submerged it releases a wire antenna that is several kms long and to keep it near vertical it has to fly dangerously near its stalling speed.
With its swing wings and high lift devices on its wings the Blackjack could probably fly slower more safely than the swept wing Bear, but the purpose of the Blackjack is high speed penetration of enemy airspace.
If the PAK DA is a flying wing configuration aircraft with very long range and the ability to fly relatively slow or fast then I think it might have potential (with perhaps engines optimised for lower speeds) in the MPA role, but I think a long range interception role like the Tu-128 Fiddler might be an option.
There wont be a PAK DA flying till at least 2018, and more likely 2020.
I personally think developing a new 5th gen engine based on the NK-32 that could be fitted to the current Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 would be well worth the money spent. Making them for the Tu-160 alone would make it more expensive as there are rather more Backfires than Blackjacks, so even though the Backfire only uses two engines... currently of a different type (NK-25) but with basically similar performance and specs, that they could do with the bombers what they are doing with the fighters at the moment.
The Su-35 benefits from the improvements made to the PAK FAs engines, and rather more importantly doing this with the bombers means improved compatibility as the new engine will replace two older engines and its development will not only lead to an optimised new engine for the PAK DA, but the existing in service aircraft will also benefit from its development.
Perhaps they could even develop a propfan version for the Tu-95 and Tu-142? If it is powerful enough and reliable enough they could fit two to each An-70 instead of the 4 currently planned.
A view of the russian bombers could be this for the next decade:
Strategic bomber: PAK-DA
Conventional bomber: Tu-160
Fighter Bomber: Su-34
Strike Fighter: Su-30
Attack aircraft: Su-25SM
For the next decade I would think things would stay largely as they are with:
Strategic bomber: Tu-160, Tu-95
Theatre bomber: Tu-22M3
Long range strike: Bomber: Su-34 (and reducing numbers of Su-24)
Fighter/bomber: Su-35 (and Mig-35 if it enters service)
Attack aircraft: Su-25SM
Note my changes to your categories are based on the fact that there are strategic and theatre bomber roles and both might include conventional or nuclear payloads.
Also the Su-30MKI in Indian service is a swing fighter/bomber, but the Su-30 in Russian service is largely an interceptor/airborne command aircraft... sort of a mini AWACS aircraft that uses its superior radar to direct smaller (Mig-29s) or older models (Su-27) on intercept missions so that it can use its superior radar and electronics, while the smaller or older aircraft operate in electronic silence receiving target data from the Su-30 and operating closer to the enemy so they can fire and then withdraw with the Su-30 managing the engagement.
It means the Su-30 can stand off, and engage lots of targets without using its own missiles, while the less capable aircraft benefit from its radar while remaining silent their closer proximity to the target means they can fire and their missiles will arrive much quicker than if the Su-30 had fired its own missiles. After firing the fighter can turn away and accelerate and climb... a very difficult target for a BVR missile... and apart from launching a missile it has done nothing to give away its position or even its presence.