Well I suppose they can use the new PAK-FA engine which is said to be in 18T class for the new Bomber , there is no point in developing a new engine for the bomber.
Of course there is a point in developing a new engine for a bomber.
All your next generation stuff for military usually ends up in civilian use... design a new jet engine for the bomber and then take the AB section off and use it for large military transport aircraft.
Look at the 777... it reduces operational costs by having two engines instead of 4.
Imagine an An-124 with two engines instead of 4 that still has the power of the 4 old engines but better fuel efficiency... plus lower drag, and of course less weight.
Obviously reliability is an issue.
An 18 ton class engine would reduce the performance of existing Russian bombers... both the Tu-22M3 and the Tu-160 have 25 ton class engines.
Regarding hypersonic speed aircraft, the dividends are appealing but the cost will be enormous. You really have two clear options... either go with a hypersonic aircraft that drops bombs... because a hypersonic aircraft will be smaller and cheaper if its payload is smaller and lighter... for the 2.2 tons of the Kh-102 you could carry 15 moderate size nuclear bombs so instead of trying to carry 12 missiles you could carry 30-40 nuclear bombs of much less weight. The problem there is that the capacity for conventional weapons becomes pathetic even over shorter ranges.
Or you can go for hypersonic missiles, which means large internal or even external carriage. It means the plane itself can be much cheaper to buy and to operate and more flexible (nobody needs a hypersonic refuelling aircraft or AWACs or Maritime Patrol Aircraft). Large internal capacity would allow for supercruise capability and also mean that for strategic missions internal capacity could be used for fuel and subsonic missiles, and also room for stuff for other roles like radar for AWACs or fuel for refuelling etc etc.
The reality is that making a scramjet powered long range hypersonic missile would be a fraction of the cost of making a bomber able to fly at hypersonic speeds.
A bomber that is cheaper to operate is more important than a bomber that will get through because a small hypersonic missile is easier to make able to get through than any bomber.
A mix of hypersonic and stealthy subsonic missiles offers the best chance of enemy defence penetration and is probably attainable with the work being done on fast cruise missiles.
The point is that the Tu-22M3 and the Tu-160 are designed for sprint speeds of mach 2, if that was relaxed to a more modest mach 1.5 or so then you could probably get away with 4-6 engines in the 18 ton thrust class for a strategic bomber.
I just think that applying 5th gen technology to the Al-31 results in a 13 ton engine going to 18 ton that applying that same technology to the NK-321 might result in similar gains in power and efficiency that it is worth doing.
At the moment the Russian AF has the Tu-22M3 with two 25 ton class engines and the Tu-160 with 4 25 ton class engines that are not compatible. Building a new engine in the 32-35 ton class range and reducing their spec requirements to the mid mach 1.5s you cold get away with reducing the Tu-22M3 to a single engine aircraft and the Tu-160 to 3 or 2 engines and extend range performance without upsetting other capabilities except for top speed.
The Tu-22M3 is a handy theatre strike aircraft and is also used in the maritime strike role. When you need to deliver 24 tons of bombs to a target 2,000km away it is the ideal choice.