PAK FA, T-50: News #1

You seem to be under the impression that the lens is there to 'mask' .. the aircraft in some way.

Aegean i can assure you that i am not under any type of impression about the subject , instead i am under the clear impression that you have not idea about the basis working mechanism of a similar Luneberg Lens.

It is a RADAR REFLECTOR with almost isotropic RCS magnification capabilities ,clear ?

It NEED to be irradiated in order to work, clear ?

I don't know how radar transparent the F-22 materials are, but what you are suggesting there is also lacking serious basis because even if you use full on fiberglass

That was mine assertion :

1) F-22's airframe is not constructed with polyetherimide composites
It is NOT radar transparent in any scattering regime !

What part of ...."NOT radar transparent".... is not clear ?

And again you seem to believe that the lens is outside any reradiating point. It is not.

Obviously not; What i believe and know is that the placement of this reflector render it totally incapable to be even only illuminated by enemy radar in the most critical aspect projections of the aircraft and would be, therefore, absolutely incapable to "hide" actual RCS of F-22 where that most count ( a purpose already laughable for itself : hide from whom ? From us ? WE have developed the entire Phisics Theoretic architecture around which ALL the low observable vehicles around the world has been designed or constructed in the latest 40 years ).


It is a bit more than a radar beacon with a secondary role in preventing enemy radar operators to extract and store RCS peack data, for each aspect of illumination, linked to weapon bay opening so to "set" radar receiver's parameters on those data.


A EF Thyphoon , a Rafale, a MiG-31BM or an SU-35S in a typical "nose on" vector of interception with an F-22 equipped with this lens would obtain Raptor's RCS totally non influenced by it .

J-20 Assassin's MACE ? ( Air International )

J-20-1
J-20-2
J-20-3

Mindstorm will be dissapointed with this news

Russian Air Force chose subsonic stealth bomber

Austin wrote:Mindstorm will be dissapointed with this news

Russian Air Force chose subsonic stealth bomber

He will not. Source is famous Izvestiya.

To be honest I think a subsonic stealthy bomber makes a lot of sense financially too.

Strategic bombers don't need to penetrate heavily defended enemy airspace as by the time they get there the ICBMs and SLBMs will have already done serious damage to the infrastructure of the enemy.

In a conventional role having stand off long range weapons makes more sense than flying over the target in a bomber.

If we look at Russian experience during the cold war and since having a hypersonic bomber would be useful as a deterrent, but as a practical weapon it would not have been used.

On the other hand a subsonic can be much cheaper to buy and operate and can carry very large conventional payloads over theatre missions like engaging targets in Afghanistan or Chechnia with enormous volumes of weapons over reduced ranges, or a smaller strategic payload over much greater distances.

A moderate level of stealth for the aircraft can be translated into an MPA and perhaps widebodied airliner and perhaps inflight refuelling tankers and AWACs aircraft.

If it were up to me of course I would have gone for a flying wing with a horizontal tail to allow supercruising performance to allow a strategic and theatre bomber and also a heavy interceptor and MPA as well as tanker, jammer, recon, and AWACS models so the one aircraft could replace the Tu-160, Tu-95, Tu-142, A-42, Il-78, Il-76, Il-78, and Mig-31.

I do however suspect that shaping for super cruising might reduce internal volume and make some of the goals I am suggesting difficult...

I am all for investing in hypersonic missiles and aircraft with the goal to runway to space and back again aircraft...

GarryB wrote:I am all for investing in hypersonic missiles and aircraft with the goal to runway to space and back again aircraft...

Its inevitable. Future belongs to hypersonic. It is only matter of time who will be the boldiest`s one and go for it first.

It isn't easy being at the bleeding edge however.

Sometimes is it better to come second and learn from the failures of the first.

Less prestige, but cheaper and safer... who cares about prestige... this is about defending the realm.

Having a few hypersonic bombers that very rarely fly because they are expensive to buy and operate is one thing.

Having relatively cheap long range subsonic bombers that are flexible... subsonic means you can hang large external loads on them without dramatically reducing their performance, means cheaper and easier to maintain that third leg of the nuclear triad that also offers potential for future growth.

Some sort of tailed flying wing with a low drag but large internal volume structure to allow large amounts of weapons for theatre roles or a decent strategic load with lots of fuel has lots of potential without breaking the bank.

New generation supercruising engines could be developed, perhaps with scramjet technology for sustained high speed flight... it doesn't need to be hypersonic... supercruising 15,000km at mach 1.5 would be a significant step up in current flight performance for a heavy bomber without requiring exotic materials.

As a civilian airliner that should shrink the flight from London to Sydney or Auckland by half. Further development and even higher speeds should be achievable without making the aircraft expensive.

Hypersonic development could focus on missiles and smaller aircraft to begin with and eventually lead to hypersonic large aircraft.

Agree. And the next US bomber ( B-3 ) will be subsonic also.

I have read some Russian made article where is said that Russians don`t believe US will make many of B-3 (mostly about 20 or so), but

buy that time (around 2025-2030) they will completely shift toward hypersonic bomber flying at much higher attitude and speed.

So when you look at the Russian concept of aerospace defense, it is meant for just that. Fighting air threats of much higher

capabilities than that of today. It is basically envisaged around the idea to shoot down everything that fly`s in Russian aerospace,

cruise missiles/bombers with the speeds of up to Mach 20 and attitude of up to 120km, ICBM/SLBM and of course all of today`s threats.

Doctrine of its functioning is still being discussed at the highest levels but the threat level expressed by Aerospace officers

clearly shows Russian way of thinking about the US army capabilities in 20+ years.

WoW excellent news. Next year testing of PAK-FA engine begins.

I think program is on time and with anticipated 17.5+ ton trust it will give PAK-FA 35+ ton of trust which is brutal to say at least.

Testing of the new engine for the PAK FA in 2014


Scientific production association "Saturn" the beginning of a new engine for the preparation of the future fighter T-50 (PAK FA) for bench testing. On this, as reported by "and-mash," said Yevgeny Marchuk, General Designer, Director of the Scientific and Technical Center Cradles name, part of the "Saturn". Engine test in 2014.

"In iron engine will be ready in two years, and will begin bench testing, will go to finishing. This - essentially a new engine, so it creates a long enough" - said Marchuk. According to him, the weight of the new power plant will be 30 percent less than that of the AL-41F1 ("Item 117", the modified version of the engine AL-41F1S for the Su-35), known as the engine of the first stage.

As expected, the life-cycle costs will also be almost a third less than that of the AL-41F1S and according Marchukova, "he should be cheaper." New engine for the PAK FA engine known as the second phase or "Type 30" will be significantly different from the currently used "Products 117". The latter will be installed in the first production car, until the end of the development of "Type 30".

A new propulsion system for the T-50 is still unknown for many. According to preliminary data from the AL-41F1 engine will differ increased thrust and improved fuel efficiency. According to unconfirmed reports, the power plant will be able to develop a thrust of 107 kN in cruise flight and 176 kN afterburning mode.

In April 2011, the general director of "Saturn," Ilya Fedorov said that the establishment of the second stage engine is ahead of schedule, and the beginning of new power plants supply the Russian Defense Ministry is scheduled for 2015. In the same year, the Russian air force to do the first production T-50.



LINK

Viktor, your charts are not properly balanced.

If you are going to include Tu-22M3 and Tu-22M3M then you would also have to add F-15Es to the US chart.

There were about 200 F-15E aircraft in service last time I looked it up.

I also suspect that the number of Backfires in service in 2024 will be closer to 30 than 74.

A subsonic PAK-DA means developing a new 5th gen bomber engine wont benefit the Tu-160 or Tu-22M3... a new 5th gen supercruising engine for the PAK-DA could have been used as an upgrade for both Tupolevs and extended their useful lives a few decades, but a useful purpose of the PAK-DA is to replace the Bear and Blackjack in strategic roles and the Backfire in theatre roles so getting it right is important.

If the US thinks that by 2025 their scramjet technology will be good enough to start looking at hypersonic long range aircraft then perhaps Russia might be able to make a hypersonic PAK DA...

The new engine for the PAK FA looks very interesting... 1/3rd lighter... cheaper, more fuel efficient... all very good features.

BTW 176KN translates to 18,000 kgf, or 18 tons of thrust, which means 36 tons thrust in an aircraft smaller and lighter than a Flanker...

Not as powerful as the R179 engine of the Yak-141 which in later models had 22,000kgs thrust, but then the engines of single engine aircraft need to be more powerful than those in twin engined fighters.

The 30% weight loss does seem to be "magical" almost.

Hell a 15% weight decrease would be a big achievement on its own.

It definitely implies new materials, manufacturing processes, and fundamentally different design from the Al-31 family (and derivatives) will be used.

GarryB wrote:Viktor, your charts are not properly balanced.

If you are going to include Tu-22M3 and Tu-22M3M then you would also have to add F-15Es to the US chart.

There were about 200 F-15E aircraft in service last time I looked it up.

Well, non-strategic range Tu-22M3 can become strategic bomber with the simple add on of a refueling probe.

I think refueling probe on Tu-22M3 was originally envisaged but latter removed because of nuclear agreements with US although

those probes can be add up in a simple manner. That`s why it is on the chart and F-15E is not.

GarryB wrote:I also suspect that the number of Backfires in service in 2024 will be closer to 30 than 74.

I think 30 will be a number of modernized Tu-22M3 in Russian number, not its overall number.

I remember the talk in the 90s about new generation engines about how they use fewer parts which makes them simpler and lighter, so I would expect that would be part of it.

Newer materials needing less cooling systems and made of fewer parts might also effect the result too.

Well, non-strategic range Tu-22M3 can become strategic bomber with the simple add on of a refueling probe.

I think refueling probe on Tu-22M3 was originally envisaged but latter removed because of nuclear agreements with US although

those probes can be add up in a simple manner. That`s why it is on the chart and F-15E is not.

But add aerial refuelling and the F-15E has near strategic range too and it already has the equipment and the tanker support in place... unlike the Backfire.

I rather doubt they want to give inflight refuelling capability to the Backfires because that makes them strategic aircraft that limits where they can be based and how they are used etc.

I very much suspect they will scale down the numbers of Backfire significantly... if they are only going to upgrade 30 I don't think they will keep those they don't upgrade... unless they keep those for a dedicated maritime strike role to support the Mistrals.

GarryB wrote:But add aerial refuelling and the F-15E has near strategic range too and it already has the equipment and the tanker support in place... unlike the Backfire

Yes, if you add fuel tanks on all pylons and put conformal fuel tank and add tanker by its side making of him

one huge bucked of fuel it will have close to strategic reach.

GarryB wrote:I rather doubt they want to give inflight refuelling capability to the Backfires because that makes them strategic aircraft that limits where they can be based and how they are used etc.

If political situation deteriorates to a point where nuclear exchange is possible, Tu-22M3 can be with ease converted to a strategic

bomber. I don`t think US did ever misplaced that thought.

GarryB wrote:I very much suspect they will scale down the numbers of Backfire significantly... if they are only going to upgrade 30 I don't think they will keep those they don't upgrade... unless they keep those for a dedicated maritime strike role to support the Mistrals.

I don`t see the point of 30 Backfires modernized to conduct precise bombing missions while Su-34 is entering service and will be

in numbers by 2020 while Backfires primary mission is being disregarded.

Yes, if you add fuel tanks on all pylons and put conformal fuel tank and add tanker by its side making of him

one huge bucked of fuel it will have close to strategic reach.

Not at all. You could take off from a US air base in the US with a few belly mounted guided bombs, four wing tanks and sidewinders and fly over the atlantic with a tanking half way across and then another over Europe, and then attack a target in North Africa and then fly back to the US with several refuelling topups on the way.

The Ah-64 is actually designed to be able to self deploy to Europe with four wingpylon mounted fuel tanks and the 1200 round ammo magazine removed and replaced with an auxiliary fuel tank.

If political situation deteriorates to a point where nuclear exchange is possible, Tu-22M3 can be with ease converted to a strategic

bomber. I don`t think US did ever misplaced that thought.

The Backfires would have enough threatre range targets to deal with on Russias borders... including Europe, the Middle East, and China/Japan, and more than half will be attacking shipping rather than land targets anyway.

I don`t see the point of 30 Backfires modernized to conduct precise bombing missions while Su-34 is entering service and will be

in numbers by 2020 while Backfires primary mission is being disregarded.

Backfires will operate over similar ranges to the Su-34 but can carry weapons the Su-34 can't. With a 24 ton payload capacity the Tu-22M3M will be able to carry very heavy weapons like FAB-5000, and Kh-32 and indeed 4-8 Brahmos missiles.

With its variable geometry wing it can orbit a target area for very long periods with heavy internal payloads.

Numbers of Su-34 will replace the Su-24, and the loss of the Mig-27 and Su-17 fighter bombers of the past.

You could take off from a US air base in the US with a few belly mounted guided bombs, four wing tanks and sidewinders and fly over the atlantic with a tanking half way across and then another over Europe, and then attack a target in North Africa and then fly back to the US with several refuelling topups on the way.

The Ah-64 is actually designed to be able to self deploy to Europe with four wingpylon mounted fuel tanks and the 1200 round ammo magazine removed and replaced with an auxiliary fuel tank.

As far as i could find, longest f15e mission so far was 15.5 hours. One article mentioned how limiting factor of Rafale was oil supply, and that it meant Rafale can't fly for over 12 hours at a time. If true, I am sure f15e too has oil as a limiting factor. Flying over the atlantic, then turning to north africa, doing a mission over midLibya and going back would involve at least 15000 km of straightest line flying possible. In realitly probably a bit more. At the most fuel efficient speed, which is for f15 not over 750 km/h. (it is highly unlikely time would be of more importance than saving fuel for the air force in such a looong mission) We're talking about, realistically, a minimum of 22 hour mission. It it highly questionable such a feat is possible.

Also, I don't know what was meant with ah64 being able to selfdeploy to europe but if it means that a clean ah64 with maximum fuel can cross the atlantic on its own - it certainly can't. I've never seen a single source stating ah64 can in ferry configuration reach 2000 km. And one would need close to 4500 km to connect most eastern part of US with most western part of Spain or UK. Also i've never seen operational ah64 with in flight refuelling system.

PAK-DA being subsonic bomber is a concept of past and you can pretty much track any stealth aircraft using Sensor Fusion , Bi-Static ,Passive Sensors and exponential increase in signal processing.

So this whole idea to make PAK-DA subsonic is a big step backword if true.

I was hoping for a Supersonic , Stealthy bomber based on Tu-160 as they had mentioned previously. Since Russia does not have global air base around the world and wont be attacking turd world country the idea of Stealth Bomber with Persistance and Loitering capability has no relevance to Russia.

All it needs is a bomber that can quickly go from its launching destination to a preassigned point where it can launch it Nuclear Long Range Hypersonic/Subsonic cruise missile and come back safely.

Also i've never seen operational ah64 with in flight refuelling system.

I am not surprised... it doesn't have one.

As I said it was designed so that with external fuel tanks on all four wing pylons and the 1200 round internal magazine for its 30mm cannon removed and replaced with a large internal fuel tank it can self deploy from the US to Europe as part of its design.

Regarding the F-15E lets just say that with 24 tons of bombs the Tu-22M3Ms attack radius is 2,000km and with a much smaller payload that extends to about 3-4,000km, so if it is to be included in a list of strategic bombers then it should make sense to also include the F-15E which can also deliver payloads to targets at 4,000km range using inflight refuelling.

PAK-DA being subsonic bomber is a concept of past and you can pretty much track any stealth aircraft using Sensor Fusion , Bi-Static ,Passive Sensors and exponential increase in signal processing.

Yes, and no. The B-52 and Tu-95 are actually bomber designs of the past and still perform their primary mission admirably. Soviet strategic "bombers" were not actually bombers, they were cruise missile carriers and as such never have to get within 1,000km of the enemies air defences to do their job. More importantly in the global nuclear role the faster the bomber gets to the launch area the more likely it is that there will be enemy fighters there to deal with them. It is trivial to put a rocket motor on a ramjet powered missile and accelerate it from subsonic speed to high speed and high altitude where its jet propulsion system can carry it at high speed over long ranges. It is incredibly expensive right now to accelerate an object the size of a strategic bomber to hypersonic speed and keep it flying at that speed over intercontinental ranges.

There is no gain in getting to the launch area 4 hours before a Tu-95 does and launching your missiles first. What there is however is an enormous difference in the energy expended to get that entire aircraft and the missiles it is carrying to that speed and that distance.

If you have scramjet engines for a bomber ready to go then that changes things as that will make at least the challenge of high speed one step easier, but you still have to develop brand new materials that will withstand the heat of flying that fast and that long and then make them stealthy.

The reality is that a subsonic aircraft can have a huge payload, a huge range, and will be cheap to buy in numbers that makes it able to replace a wide range of platforms like the Tu-95, Tu-142, Tu-160, Tu-22M3, Il-22, and in the AWACS and inflight refuelling roles of the Il-76. When variable cycle jet engines that can be turbofans at subsonic speed (to maximise efficiency), turbojets at transonic speeds, ramjets up to about mach 3-4, and then scramjets beyond become available then look at hypersonic bombers.

The problem is that you are talking about breaking the speed barrier before propellers were replaced with jet engines... it is just not practical (ie only rocket engine boosters which are too inefficient).

So this whole idea to make PAK-DA subsonic is a big step backword if true.

Actually it should be a step forward... one aircraft that is actually stealthy and modern that is made in Russia that can replace a large number of existing aircraft with one type.

I was hoping for a Supersonic , Stealthy bomber based on Tu-160 as they had mentioned previously. Since Russia does not have global air base around the world and wont be attacking turd world country the idea of Stealth Bomber with Persistance and Loitering capability has no relevance to Russia.

Any one of their new SSNs, which would technically be called SSGNs now that they have Club can attack targets anywhere in the world within hours.

All it needs is a bomber that can quickly go from its launching destination to a preassigned point where it can launch it Nuclear Long Range Hypersonic/Subsonic cruise missile and come back safely.

Having an SSGN stationed near hotspots means they can already have that...

Of course I can't see Russia destroying baby milk factories around the world like the US does.

Garry you dont get it that Russian Bombers are first essentially nuclear triad then as secondary conventional cruise missile carrier , infact if the primary objective is not to be a nuclear carrier then there is no need for strategic bomber as they have multiple asset to do the job.

In a Nuclear war or in case if pre-emptive strike , Russian Bombers would get approximately 20 minutes to reach its launching point after take off , the question is which aircraft can do that quicly a subsonic or supersonic one.

I would bet its supersonic and time is of crucial importance for Strategic Bomber even if ICBM reaches its target first. IF the Russian get prior intelligence and can itself do a preemptive strike then too a Supersonic bomber can do the job well.

A Bomber like B-2 depends purely on Stealth to do its task and its been proven in Kosovo conflict that even against an enemy with 60's AD it needed jammer support which itself defeats the purpose of stealth not to mention that with Sensor Fusion and Bistatic radar you can pretty much track stealth from long distance which takes our Survivability by Stealth from B-2 arsenal , which would be the same fate of any Russian Bomber using Subsonic Approach.

Supersonic and Stealth can in some way gurantee that LO and Time to Target challenge is met and they need to get the right balance where the aircraft is sufficiently supersonic and yet be sufficuently stealthy to beat if not completely defeat enemy AD.

I think a supersonic stealthy Tu-160 would meet the needs and it would be within the reach of russian scientific community and industry to deliver it.

US can still afford to have Subsonic Bomber for NGB as its far less expensive to build them for them and most of the future wars for US would still be against countries that cant afford to match US in technology and US will far out class them in Technology and Number game where exploiting both any Subsonic Stealth Bomber would appear as a Winner and True Golden Bullet against a far less capable enemy that US picks and chooses to fight against.

I've got to say, I'm looking at it from Austin's point of view.
The Tu-160 is a fantastic aircraft, considering its introduction date. Also, Russia does not have the number of worldwide bases the USA has. Russia also has a VAST area to defend.

Sub-sonic speed does have problems in a strategic and localised environment. Surely the solution is to "stealthify" a modern day Tu-160. Likewise, perhaps a sub-sonic Pak Da could be heavily modified to allow supersonic speed.

Military tech is about continual developments. I cant see how the Tu-160 could now be considered to be at a "dead end".

Austin wrote:Garry you dont get it that Russian Bombers are first essentially nuclear triad then as secondary conventional cruise missile carrier , infact if the primary objective is not to be a nuclear carrier then there is no need for strategic bomber as they have multiple asset to do the job.

The primary reason for Russian strategic bombers is to launch nuclear tipped KH-55 and Kh101/102 cruise missles. Launching conventional tipped cruise missles is secondary.
Conventional bombing runs with loitering time are not main missions of the Russian Strategic bombers (Tu-95 and Tu-160). For those missions Russians have used Tu-22s in Afghanistan and Georgia.
The subsonic PAK-DA (if reports are true) primary mission will be just like a Tu-95's I.e. carry and launch nuclear cruise missiles.

In a Nuclear war or in case if pre-emptive strike , Russian Bombers would get approximately 20 minutes to reach its launching point after take off , the question is which aircraft can do that quicly a subsonic or supersonic one.

20 minutes at Mach 2 will get you only a few hundred kilometers, no way near launching point. By the way it will take more than 20 minutes for a supersonic bomber to take-off , gain altitude and reach Mach 2.

I would bet its supersonic and time is of crucial importance for Strategic Bomber even if ICBM reaches its target first. IF the Russian get prior intelligence and can itself do a preemptive strike then too a Supersonic bomber can do the job well.

ICBMs and SLBMs will have obliterated their targets hours before the strategic bombers launch their first cruise missiles and it will take another few hours before the cruise missiles hit their targets. Wether you have a supersonic or subsonic bomber will not really matter.

A Bomber like B-2 depends purely on Stealth to do its task and its been proven in Kosovo conflict that even against an enemy with 60's AD it needed jammer support which itself defeats the purpose of stealth not to mention that with Sensor Fusion and Bistatic radar you can pretty much track stealth from long distance which takes our Survivability by Stealth from B-2 arsenal , which would be the same fate of any Russian Bomber using Subsonic Approach.

You mentined earlier that Russia is not expected to bomb smaller nations thousands of miles away. The subsonic stealthy PAK-DA will not be used to penetrate air-defenses, it will deliver its weapons from stand off range. Its stealth is usefull to avoid long range detection or interception on the way to target or on return leg. Would like to see NATO interceptors "escorting" PAK-DA over the North sea or Atlantic.

Supersonic and Stealth can in some way gurantee that LO and Time to Target challenge is met and they need to get the right balance where the aircraft is sufficiently supersonic and yet be sufficuently stealthy to beat if not completely defeat enemy AD.

Of course, having supersonic speed and stealth does not hurt anything ...expect the defence budget.

I think a supersonic stealthy Tu-160 would meet the needs and it would be within the reach of russian scientific community and industry to deliver it.

That is like a Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA project that is 4-5 times larger and about as many times more expensive.

US can still afford to have Subsonic Bomber for NGB as its far less expensive to build them for them and most of the future wars for US would still be against countries that cant afford to match US in technology and US will far out class them in Technology and Number game where exploiting both any Subsonic Stealth Bomber would appear as a Winner and True Golden Bullet against a far less capable enemy that US picks and chooses to fight against.

Stealth and high-tech does not come cheap. Each of these B2s cost about 1 billion $$ (20 years ago) . With their massive defence budget, the US could build only 20 of them. How many supersonic stealth bombers do you think the US can afford to build? How many do you think Russia can afford?

Super sonic vs Sub sonic bombers, either way i am loving this debate

As I said it was designed so that with external fuel tanks on all four wing pylons and the 1200 round internal magazine for its 30mm cannon removed and replaced with a large internal fuel tank it can self deploy from the US to Europe as part of its design.

AH-64 self deployment from US to Europe ? GarryB, where you have read this notion ?

It is absolutely impossible for an AH-64 to cover more than 4700 km only with internal fuel and external tanks.

Regarding the F-15E lets just say that with 24 tons of bombs the Tu-22M3Ms attack radius is 2,000km and with a much smaller payload that extends to about 3-4,000km

Tu-22M3 has a combat range much higher than that originally "sold" to West in URSS's era(and also at the time both DIA adn CIA had much more than a solid suspect on the real combat range figure of "Backfire" bomber) it is a real "open secret" by now .

Its primary task was :

1) To sink CVBGs in plain Pacific Ocean and Mediterranean Sea with Kh-22 .
2) To interrupt NATO's North European resupply sea lanes.
4) To utterly destroy NATO's main Airfields ,C4 and tactical nuclear weapons storage with barrages of Kh-15.


The combat range of Tu-22M3 was, just to successfully accomplish similar missions, in the 4000 km mark -full high-altitude flight's profile- even when armed with three Kh-22Ms (as already foreseen by DIA and CIA in those years).

Both the platform in itself and its unique weapon selection put Tu-22M3 in a completely different league in respect to F-15E.

Garry you dont get it that Russian Bombers are first essentially nuclear triad then as secondary conventional cruise missile carrier , infact if the primary objective is not to be a nuclear carrier then there is no need for strategic bomber as they have multiple asset to do the job.

If there was one leg of the nuclear triad that could 100% always get through then what would the use of the other two legs be?

The bomber force was never part of the triad because it could always make it to its target... its advantage was that it was flexible... something the other two legs were not... SSBNs can't surface in enemy waters to say "Hey we are serious... if you continue doing what you are doing we will get used." In times of tension actually choosing NOT to deploy your bombers sends a clear message to the other side that you want to talk and not start a war both sides will lose.

Equally if the other side is not taking you seriously you can launch your bombers and have them fly to their initial staging points as an option you can step back from if the other side takes note and starts to cooperate. Strategic aircraft also have the added benefit in that they can be used as heavy bombers in conventional conflicts... which Russia is now taking advantage of adding Ms to the designations... ie Tu-160M, Tu-95SM16M, and Tu-22M3M.

The bomber force is the only part of the triad you actually ever want to use, which makes it more useful.

BTW for jobs this vital you want several ways of doing the same thing in case the other side develops a capability that seriously degrades the effectiveness on one technology or another.

In a Nuclear war or in case if pre-emptive strike , Russian Bombers would get approximately 20 minutes to reach its launching point after take off , the question is which aircraft can do that quicly a subsonic or supersonic one.

The idea of a surprise attack happening without any warning at all is pretty unlikely. With humanint (ie spies) neither side would be able to mount a full scale nuclear attack "by surprise"... and a half assed attack would likely backfire because if you don't use your full force straight away you might find the remaining force is not available to use when you want it.

BTW the bombers don't need to reach their launching points within 20 minutes of takeoff, they just need to be away from their air bases 20 minutes after the attack is started.

I would bet its supersonic and time is of crucial importance for Strategic Bomber even if ICBM reaches its target first. IF the Russian get prior intelligence and can itself do a preemptive strike then too a Supersonic bomber can do the job well.

Well that could become a problem because a hypersonic aircraft is going to be much more expensive to buy, to operate, and take rather longer to prepared for a flight than a subsonic bomber... realistically the bombers will already be prepared because of the heightened tensions and already in the air before either side even decides to strike... it is the only reason both aircraft (Bear and Blackjack) even need inflight refuelling as both aircraft can already fly to their launching positions from their air bases with internal fuel...

A Bomber like B-2 depends purely on Stealth to do its task and its been proven in Kosovo conflict that even against an enemy with 60's AD it needed jammer support which itself defeats the purpose of stealth not to mention that with Sensor Fusion and Bistatic radar you can pretty much track stealth from long distance which takes our Survivability by Stealth from B-2 arsenal , which would be the same fate of any Russian Bomber using Subsonic Approach.

The only US radars that could detect and track stealth aircraft are enormous and largely fixed and just after a massive nuclear strike would have serious difficulty operating in highly ionised airspace. Equally the Tu-160 and Tu-95 will not get within 4,000km of their targets with the Kh-101 and Kh-102, which will both be flying very low and very fast. You pretty much need an IAD like Russias to stop a dedicated cruise missile attack and after the ICBMs and SLBMs have detonated over the west that is not something they will have any more.

I think a supersonic stealthy Tu-160 would meet the needs and it would be within the reach of russian scientific community and industry to deliver it.

I disagree. The Tu-160 is expensive to operate and is not actually that much more survivable than a Tu-95 even though it looks very different. The choice is to either go very fast or go very stealthy. It very much depends on the investment and results of scramjet technology.

Think of them at a point where everyone uses propellers and jet engines are new. Supersonic flight is now becoming possible but needs some work in aerodynamics and engine power. With the promise of ramjets, or a variable cycle turbojet that can act like a ramjet at high speed (like the engine on the SR-71) then speeds of mach 3-4 are perfectly possible with current materials, though with a few design compromises. With scramjet technology perfected however then you are pretty much heat limited to any speed you can manage.

I personally think a flying wing with a horizontal tail for supercruising (mach 1.5) which would make it a very difficult target for a 4++ gen interceptor, without making the project enormously expensive. Use these aircraft to replace a range of airframes to save money, and then invest in scramjets and make hypersonic long range missiles. Perfect such things will add technology that will make a hypersonic bomber practical. PAK DA2 can be hypersonic.

True Golden Bullet against a far less capable enemy that US picks and chooses to fight against.

Russia doesn't go around picking fights but sometimes they will have conflict thrust upon them... effective bombers will be useful for Russia too.

The Tu-160 is a fantastic aircraft, considering its introduction date. Also, Russia does not have the number of worldwide bases the USA has. Russia also has a VAST area to defend.

The Tu-160 is a cruise missile carrier first and bomber second... it is not an interceptor, though an interceptor version was proposed (Tu-160P). The problem with the Tu-160 is that there are not enough airframes and no chance to build more, so they need a new design.

How many supersonic stealth bombers do you think the US can afford to build? How many do you think Russia can afford?

More importantly why spend money on capabilities you may never need? Going straight to a hypersonic bomber is risky... the normal progression is start small... a missile or weapon or small fighter with a scramjet engine... develop the new technologies and materials to make it fly and then look at scaling it up to larger aircraft like bombers and perhaps civilian passenger jets...

AH-64 self deployment from US to Europe ? GarryB, where you have read this notion ?

It is absolutely impossible for an AH-64 to cover more than 4700 km only with internal fuel and external tanks.

For emergency use only, but part of the design requirements.

Tu-22M3 has a combat range much higher than that originally "sold" to West in URSS's era(and also at the time both DIA adn CIA had much more than a solid suspect on the real combat range figure of "Backfire" bomber) it is a real "open secret" by now

Actually yes and no. The CIA was adamant that the Backfire (Tu-22M2) had a flight range of 6,000km which made it a strategic bomber for a one way mission. The actual range was much less than that. The new engines in the Tu-22M3 improved performance significantly and there are suggestions that 6,000km is an underestimate, but either way both aircraft lost their inflight refuelling probes.

Its primary task was :

1) To sink CVBGs in plain Pacific Ocean and Mediterranean Sea with Kh-22 .
2) To interrupt NATO's North European resupply sea lanes.
4) To utterly destroy NATO's main Airfields ,C4 and tactical nuclear weapons storage with barrages of Kh-15.

Actually number 4 was the main priority for DA Backfires, plus of course hitting SAM sites and major radar facilities with ARM guided Kh-22Ms as well. The jobs 1 and 2 were for the Naval Aviation Backfires.

Both the platform in itself and its unique weapon selection put Tu-22M3 in a completely different league in respect to F-15E.

I think there is a chart on Mr Kopps website showing one Backfire performing the mission of two F-111s with inflight refuelling support.

I think if Brahmos II is adapted to be carried externally on the Backfire it will remain a formidable aircraft for some time to come.

I would love to see NZ buy a dozen Backfires and give them a Tu-22M3M upgrade... at least they would be impressive at air shows and could fly to Australia without needing external fuel tanks... plus I think they are .

ah-64 requirement to deploy to europe is not meant to be understood as non-stop flight over atlantic. with 1420 liters of internal fuel and maximum externtal fuel (four tanks of 870 liters each) it can get to around 1900 km of ferry range. we are talking about 4 tons of fuel there. To get to 3800 km (which still doesn't get us over the atlantic) we'd need 8 tons of fuel. difference between mto weight and empty weight for ah64 is little over 5 tons. plus the added weight requires more lift which creates more drag. it is just impossible for ah64 to lug around 9-10 tons of fuel required for a trip from most eastern part of US to most western part of UK or Spain.

Plus, such a flight would still be part of a larger mission of more flights to get to actual deployment areas. It would thus be more logical to deploy with more of the hops, more flights, but each one being shorter. US-Canada-Greenland-Iceland-UK-Continental Europe is a much more plausible deployment scenario IF one had to do it quickly and transport AC weren't available.