Unless the VKS says they're retiring the Kh-102 there's no reason to believe that.
Even if they developed a nuclear ramjet powered cruise missile of unlimited range and had them in enormous numbers today (btw... fit them with retractable undercarriage and more than one droppable nuclear warhead and call them UCAVs so they don't count in START treaties), then the nuclear armed Kh-102s could still be used against a wide range of targets that don't require unlimited range missiles...
Most of europe for instance.
The B-2 was designed with the concept that it would be completely invisible to any radar, so it can calmly stroll into any airspace, drop its bombs and casually walk away.
And then out of nowhere, reality bit them in the back.
Yes, when flying at medium altitudes their fuel efficient engines give them good range and the compact nature of nuclear bombs meaning large numbers of targets could be engaged made it a good idea... as long as the enemy couldn't see it.
Problem is that even their slowest oldest interceptors could catch it and shoot it down... directed to visual range by ground based radar.
Most interceptors in Russia have IRST which would have done too.
US also has OTH radars around their mainland. They will detect those tu-95 pretty far away. They also have hundreds of f-15 and f22 supported by a huge fleet of tankers to intercept them far away and using AIM 120D with around 150km range against such bombers.
Except those amazing air defences will have already been hit by ICBMs and SLBMs and will likely not be in any condition to do anything operationally for quite some time... but more than that the bombers themselves will be carrying Gzur 1,500km range nuclear armed missiles that fly at mach 6 and are intended to destroy any operation radars or air bases or indeed aircraft in the air... plus of course the fact that by the time the Bears get there flying low they wont be an easy target to spot 5,000kms away from the targets they are about to launch attacks at... the Blackjacks would have already been there and done that and turned and left at mach 2...
The 5000km range for kh-102 isn't official or proved. It comes directly from a random guy on wikipedia. I wouldn't bet on more than 3000km.
Of course... because the Kh-55SM from the 1980s at 6 metres long and 1.5 tons in weight that has a proven range of 3,000km would obviously suggest that a new missile that is 7.4 metres long and a ton heavier couldn't possibly have extended its flight range any distance at all.... yep... 3,000km is the limit...
And it comes from the Russian military. 4,500km for the conventionally armed Kh-101 and 5,000km for the nuclear armed Kh-102.
The kh-102 is as stealth for US OTH radars as new US missile for russian OTH radars.
Very true, but the ICBMs and SLBMs hitting the fewer OTH US radars will be actively evading their ABMs, while the much older US ICBMs and SLBMs wont be trying to evade the ABMs around the Russian OTH radars...
Then they can guide the f-16/15/22 to destroy them in flight or coordinate their patriot batteries. They will probably get more AD systems to counter PGM as they saw the good results of pantsir/tors against their missiles in Syria.
They will probably try... but as I said those bombers will be carrying missiles to clear the way and could and probably will only be engaging targets from great distances...
They can also keep 2 carrier on both coast to watch for the bombers with ground vased AWACS and their AEGIS cruisers.
The current state of their carrier fleets... would they have them in position in time?
Tu-95 is good against other nuclear states but not so much against US.
I think you are over estimating the air defence ability of the US to protect itself after being hit by a full scale nuclear attack...
In times of tension they tend to send the bombers out first for several reasons. 1) they are recallable 2) it stretches out the decision time while allowing dialogue to continue 3) they risk being destroyed on the ground so get them into the air. 4) it reduces the chance of a first strike by the enemy as they know there is plenty of capacity to retaliate if they strike 5) it gradually increases pressure on the enemy without forcing split second responses.
Indeed, but those bombers don't race out to positions near enemy air space... it is likely SLBMs and ICBMs will be landing hours before the bombers launch their cruise missiles...
And US bombers will be little to no threat to Russian bombers.
It might be of interest that both sides fly their aircraft low as they approach enemy territory to make detection harder... and that includes B-2s and B-1Bs and B-52s and the funny thing is that at low level a Bear is actually faster than a B-52 and has much better flight range.
Bears are also much cheaper to fly than Blackjacks.