And yes, turboprops NEED to have HUGE RCS, and you cant make blades from same materials, dont even try suggesting that as its stupid. Blade design is being dictated by laws of physics hence they will always end up being perfect reflective MOVING surfaces. Sometimes you really start talking BS really.
Who is the idiot...
There are no stealth turboprop bombers because when turboprop bombers were made stealth was not an issue.
Are you suggesting it is not possible to make propeller blades from radar invisible materials?
A B-2 is a very large aircraft but because of shaping the radar returns from the aircraft in high frequency are not directed back to the source of the radar emissions.
Its size is actually irrelevant to its RCS because it uses shaping techniques...
It does not use a radar transparent external skin because that would expose internal components to radar waves which would greatly increase its RCS and not reduce it.
Such shaping can be applied to a turboprop bomber design if needed.
Sure, meanwhlie SEAD slams few 88s on your UHF radar and you continue being blind.
Any UHF radar site will have even the most basic SAM system and therefore also capacity to shoot down ARMs at will.
Guiding MiG-21 aganist B-2? How do you exactly imagine MiG-21 finding such target in dark may i ask? I mean please do tell since resolution of UHF radars will put it somewhat like 30-40 miles from the target (if lucky and its actually a target) and.. then what?
Now who is talking shit.. more like a 10km range box of airspace at most.
UHF radars have very low resolution, hence if you detect one target which is supposedly stealthy, its doubtful you would actually see 2 or 3 targets tailing it in close proximity. You could probably hide whole squadron in one reflective surface that UHF radar would present on panoramic display.
Russia has a range of radar types in different frequency ranges... a detection in one frequency range will attract attention in the others at higher power settings...
Ah ye... Lancers and B-52Hs are junk... or wait... they are not, got more modernisations though decades than Russian bombers got their tires changed. Stop downplaying others it looks sad.
In practical terms they are subsonic bombers with no better performance in any parameter than a Tu-95 in a third world war.... fly to launch position... launch cruise missiles... rinse and repeat.
For the Tu-160 the design phase will be significantly shorter, the testing phase will be significantly shorter and the preparation for the serial production phase will be significantly shorter.
You are confusing serial production with upgrades.
The first Tu-160M2s will be upgrades of existing models because no new factory must be built to forge the main titanium box centre section... it is already made.
If they had decided to make the PAK DA supersonic then only minor improvements to the Blackjack could be justified because in the end all strategic bombers could be replaced with the PAK DA... they clearly want both types in service... so why would they want to delay entry of the PAK DA to get more Blackjacks?
Yeah, because B-2 was shot 50 times and has horrible service record. Or not.
Actually the best evidence is that the B-2 has changed from medium altitude penetration to low altitude penetration profiles and that they are not going to make anything like it in the future... neither new B-2s or new subsonic stealthy bombers... their next bomber will be hypersonic...
pak-da will be flying wing with huge range, will it be longer ranged then tu-22m? if so will it have to count as intercontinental bomber and subject to start treaty.
20 years ago the Tu-95 and Tu-160 were strategic bomber/cruise missile carrying strategic aircraft only. The Tu-22M3 was a theatre bomber/missile carrier, though the missiles it carried were not strategic cruise missiles... they were mostly anti ship or anti radiation weapons or weapons designed to hit a specific ground coordinate.
Today, they seem to have removed the bomb capability of the Tu-160s and the Tu-95 seems also to be a cruise missile carrier, but the big change is that both types now involve themselves in conventional warfare at theatre and strategic ranges as well as their strategic nuclear role, while the Tu-22M3 seems to be the theatre bomber of choice due to its range and payload.
The production of more Tu-160s and the future production of the PAK DA suggests a dual role for the PAK DA. The Tu-160 is a supersonic bomber and would have rather higher operation costs than a subsonic flying wing type, so I suspect the PAK DA will operate in two different roles like the Tu-160 was supposed to.
The Tu-160 can carry up to 40 tons of conventional bombs (45 tons reportedly in the upgraded model) but this would reduce range, while on strategic missions a payload of perhaps 12-16 tons would be more common in the form of strategic cruise missiles.
I would expect something similar from the PAK DA... ie perhaps 40+ tons of bombs on theatre range missions... 5,000-7,000km range missions, and strategic range with a strategic payload of say 16 or so tons of cruise missiles.
Hense, the PAK DA will likely replace the Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 in service and be counted as strategic weapons platforms.
I don't think the new START will be replaced with anything with much teeth anyway.