PAK-DA: News

Singular_trafo wrote:

jhelb wrote:

Singular_trafo wrote:5-6 kg pu, 10-20 kg depleted uranium, few grams tritium.Any heavy metal should be good instead of the depleted uranium

Thank You. Just to clarify,  these are the [approximate] figures for warheads on any ICBM/SLBM and not just Topol, isn't it?

Singular_trafo wrote:but using lead cut into half the yield of the bomb.

Can you expand on this part, what exactly you meant by "lead cut into half"? Thanx.

Every modern, three staged thermonuclear bomb contain this stuff, based on the available materials on the internet.
Everyone who know it better will face several decade long prison in every country if sharing any confirmed details : )

The second stage is the lithium hydrate , the first stage nuclear bomb compress it and heats it up, and it needs heavy metal encasing to compress it - it is like a tin can.
If they use cheap depleted uranium then after the ignition of the second stage the fast neutrons will ignite the uranium encasing of the lithium hydrate.This can generate as much energy as the fusion of the hydrogen.

They can use lead or tungsten as well, but in that case only the lithium hydrate will detonate( the excess neutrons from the spark plug and primary will transmute the lithium into tritium,and that will fusionate)

Ok! I get it. So basically the explosion itself, is caused by the use of the 5-6 kg of plutonium only, correct?

The depleted uranium just provides the heavy metal encasing, as you put it?

jhelb wrote:

Ok! I get it. So basically the explosion itself, is caused by the use of the 5-6 kg of plutonium only, correct?

The depleted uranium just provides the heavy metal encasing, as you put it?

Yes and no, the Pu-239 needed to trigger the bomb and it gives only small fraction of the explosion energy. The secondary hydrogen fusion gives at least half of the energy, and the depleted uranium casing gives the other half.

The depleted uranium not needed, the bomb still works with any other heavy metal casing, but the power of explosion will be half as big.

the low fallout thermonuclear bombs are using lead as tamper material, decreasing the fallout by several magnitude, but decrease the explosive power by 50%.


The thermonuclear bomb is acutally three staged,last is the explosion of the depleted uranium casing.

Example the czar bomb was used with lead casing during the test, in the final production version they used depleted uranium.so the field one had twice as big explosive power than the test one.

http://en.yibada.com/articles/157961/20160907/modernization-russia-s-tu-160m-bomber-delays-production-new-pak.htm

I do not think a subsonic solution for the Tu-PAK-DA would be successful. The time will talk.

eehnie wrote:http://en.yibada.com/articles/157961/20160907/modernization-russia-s-tu-160m-bomber-delays-production-new-pak.htm

I do not think a subsonic solution for the Tu-PAK-DA would be successful. The time will talk.

neither me..

Russia needs no less than Super Sonic Bombers with mach 2.5 speed at least. so that they
do skirmishes near US coast , shoot and run ,and evade chasing planes in case of a war.
But ideally Russia will be better with Hypersonic planes or planes at least that can
fly in the mesosphere from 40km altitude to 80km altitude which NATO navies have almost no defense to shut down planes at that altitude. Because is on a zone where there is no oxygen ,
and still gravity ,were missiles can work ,or space mines could operate. Only Rail Guns ,could do it and only one warship they have that can do that. In case of war a dozen of Mesosphere bombers will have a field day sinking NATO battle groups with impunity. and only Main Land defenses like THAAD of Americans or Arrow 3 missiles could try to target them.

Such kind of bombers will force Americans to a new weapons reduction treaty and even
a disarmament ,because their navy will be very vulnerable to such bombers. For Sure they will agree to remove their Missiles and nuclear weapons from Europe in change of Russia destroying those planes.

Vann7 wrote:

eehnie wrote:http://en.yibada.com/articles/157961/20160907/modernization-russia-s-tu-160m-bomber-delays-production-new-pak.htm

I do not think a subsonic solution for the Tu-PAK-DA would be successful. The time will talk.

neither me..

Russia needs no less than Super Sonic Bombers with mach 2.5 speed at least. so that they
do skirmishes near US coast , shoot and run ,and evade chasing planes in case of a war.
But ideally Russia will be better with Hypersonic planes or planes at least that can
fly in the mesosphere from 40km altitude to 80km altitude which NATO navies have almost no defense to shut down planes at that altitude. Because is on a zone where there is no oxygen ,
and still gravity ,were missiles can work ,or space mines could operate. Only Rail Guns ,could do it and only one warship they have that can do that.  In case of war a dozen of Mesosphere bombers will have a field day sinking NATO battle groups with impunity. and only Main Land defenses like THAAD of Americans or Arrow 3 missiles could try to target them.

Such kind of bombers will force Americans to a new weapons reduction treaty and even
a disarmament  ,because their navy will be very vulnerable to such bombers. For Sure they will agree to remove their Missiles and nuclear weapons  from Europe in change of Russia destroying those planes.

They also could get The One Ring and Nazgûls. Or sign a pact with Independence Day alien race.

Militarov wrote:

Vann7 wrote:

eehnie wrote:http://en.yibada.com/articles/157961/20160907/modernization-russia-s-tu-160m-bomber-delays-production-new-pak.htm

I do not think a subsonic solution for the Tu-PAK-DA would be successful. The time will talk.

neither me..

Russia needs no less than Super Sonic Bombers with mach 2.5 speed at least. so that they
do skirmishes near US coast , shoot and run ,and evade chasing planes in case of a war.
But ideally Russia will be better with Hypersonic planes or planes at least that can
fly in the mesosphere from 40km altitude to 80km altitude which NATO navies have almost no defense to shut down planes at that altitude. Because is on a zone where there is no oxygen ,
and still gravity ,were missiles can work ,or space mines could operate. Only Rail Guns ,could do it and only one warship they have that can do that.  In case of war a dozen of Mesosphere bombers will have a field day sinking NATO battle groups with impunity. and only Main Land defenses like THAAD of Americans or Arrow 3 missiles could try to target them.

Such kind of bombers will force Americans to a new weapons reduction treaty and even
a disarmament  ,because their navy will be very vulnerable to such bombers. For Sure they will agree to remove their Missiles and nuclear weapons  from Europe in change of Russia destroying those planes.

They also could get The One Ring and Nazgûls. Or sign a pact with Independence Day alien race.

That would be way cheaper

VladimirSahin wrote: That would be way cheaper

And more likely to happen too...

Russia needs no less than Super Sonic Bombers with mach 2.5 speed at least. so that they
do skirmishes near US coast , shoot and run ,and evade chasing planes in case of a war.

They already have the Tu-160 which can fly at mach 2 for long distances...

They are making more of them.

Why would they bother making more of them if they are making PAK DA into a supersonic bomber?

Unless the PAK DA is supposed to replace the Bear with a stealthy bomber with a large fuel load and a modest strategic weapon load which can be changed for a large bomb load and a modest fuel load for theatre bombing missions so that it can also replace the Tu-22M3 as well.

High speed costs money and expensive aircraft can't be bought or used in large numbers... more Blackjacks and some subsonic stealthy bombers would be an ideal combination... especially considering the Tu-160s seem to have lost their ability to use conventional bombs...

"Machines for the Tu-160m2 and PAK DA will be the same

http://vpk.name/news/171627_Postoyanno_izyiskivaem_rezervyi_chtobyi_vyipolnit_maiskie_ukazyi.html

- Then turn to the long-range aviation. We now have two programs in the field of long-range aviation: a promising aviation complex (PAK), long-range aircraft (DA) and a deep modernization of the Tu-160 and Tu-level 160m2. Do we have enough resources? Do they compete, these programs?

- No. Sometimes, indeed, the question arises: why are you, in fact, the two are being developed? To begin, perhaps, from the fact that the aviation strategic nuclear forces - an integral part of [our nuclear] triad. In the current conflict, we simply have to deal with it, to ensure proper readiness.

Modernization capabilities of the aircraft Tu-160 were significantly higher than that laid first. According to its flight performance is still unparalleled in the world of long-range bombers. It has better performance characteristics, although not produced for almost 30 years.

Therefore, recovery of production - this is a serious and costly step, we will not hide. But it will be a totally different plane. In fact, only the former will remain fuselage appearance. Even reproduced engines NK-32 to 10% more powerful, not to mention the avionics. The control system, navigation, weapons control system - this is a completely different generation. Moreover, the air attack will be others. During this period, they have already gone through several generations. That is, the combat capabilities of the Tu-160 release mid-1980s and the plane, first flight is expected in 2018 - are two big differences.

Serial production of the Tu-160m2 will begin after the completion of all tests, 2021. We give a new life to this plane, save for R & D and spend only on workers' and digitization of the design documentation.

As for the PAK DA, life-is also not standing still and the nature of warfare is changing. As you can see, replacing conventional aircraft weapons come hypersonic airborne weapons with greater range and with greater accuracy. And future aircraft carrier at the turn of 2025-2030's not necessary to have such characteristics as supersonic speed. It should be as long as possible and unobtrusively to be on duty in the air, so that, without going into the affected area, to release their means of destruction on their targets.

However, we are so coordinated with the industry organization of all work that the preparation for the production of the Tu-160 and a new image for the PAK DA is carried out simultaneously. The maximum number of process steps will be the same. Roughly speaking, the machines will be used are the same for the production of the Tu-160 and for the PAK DA. In fact, in the pre-production money is spent once.

Austin wrote:"Machines for the Tu-160m2 and PAK DA will be the same

http://vpk.name/news/171627_Postoyanno_izyiskivaem_rezervyi_chtobyi_vyipolnit_maiskie_ukazyi.html

- Then turn to the long-range aviation. We now have two programs in the field of long-range aviation: a promising aviation complex (PAK), long-range aircraft (DA) and a deep modernization of the Tu-160 and Tu-level 160m2. Do we have enough resources? Do they compete, these programs?

- No. Sometimes, indeed, the question arises: why are you, in fact, the two are being developed? To begin, perhaps, from the fact that the aviation strategic nuclear forces - an integral part of [our nuclear] triad. In the current conflict, we simply have to deal with it, to ensure proper readiness.

Modernization capabilities of the aircraft Tu-160 were significantly higher than that laid first. According to its flight performance is still unparalleled in the world of long-range bombers. It has better performance characteristics, although not produced for almost 30 years.

Therefore, recovery of production - this is a serious and costly step, we will not hide. But it will be a totally different plane. In fact, only the former will remain fuselage appearance. Even reproduced engines NK-32 to 10% more powerful, not to mention the avionics. The control system, navigation, weapons control system - this is a completely different generation. Moreover, the air attack will be others. During this period, they have already gone through several generations. That is, the combat capabilities of the Tu-160 release mid-1980s and the plane, first flight is expected in 2018 - are two big differences.

Serial production of the Tu-160m2 will begin after the completion of all tests, 2021. We give a new life to this plane, save for R & D and spend only on workers' and digitization of the design documentation.

As for the PAK DA, life-is also not standing still and the nature of warfare is changing. As you can see, replacing conventional aircraft weapons come hypersonic airborne weapons with greater range and with greater accuracy. And future aircraft carrier at the turn of 2025-2030's not necessary to have such characteristics as supersonic speed. It should be as long as possible and unobtrusively to be on duty in the air, so that, without going into the affected area, to release their means of destruction on their targets.

However, we are so coordinated with the industry organization of all work that the preparation for the production of the Tu-160 and a new image for the PAK DA is carried out simultaneously. The maximum number of process steps will be the same. Roughly speaking, the machines will be used are the same for the production of the Tu-160 and for the PAK DA. In fact, in the pre-production money is spent once.

If the Tu-PAK-DA is designed subsonic, this project will fall clearly under the performance of the new generation of the Tu-160 (which will be able to carry the same hypersonic weapons) and this will be the main reason of the failure of the Tu-PAK-DA. The Tu-160 will be ordered instead.

Think this is a pretty key statement. I believe the machines mentioned are those used to build the plane, CNC jigs etc

Roughly speaking, the machines will be used are the same for the production of the Tu-160 and for the PAK DA. In fact, in the pre-production money is spent once.

How about almost the same plane for both applications?

The Tu-160M2 as the new supersonic bomber completely re-engineered as per the article and another version Tu-160M3 looking much the same and containing the same electronics etc systems but a much simpler and cheaper build with lower thrust engines and a fixed wing both optimised for sub-sonic performance and duration.

Bear in mind that the US and Russian requirements for this type of aircraft are quite different, primarily the US seeming to want a first strike max-stealth mode, which AFAIK is not in Russia's defence plans. To me it looks like Russia plans to have very similar launch strategies for the three legs of its nuclear triad, SSBN protected near to its coast, bombers protected over its land and ground launched, silo or mobile protected on its land.

GarryB wrote:

Russia needs no less than Super Sonic Bombers with mach 2.5 speed at least. so that they
do skirmishes near US coast , shoot and run ,and evade chasing planes in case of a war.

They already have the Tu-160 which can fly at mach 2 for long distances...

They are making more of them.

Why would they bother making more of them if they are making PAK DA into a supersonic bomber?

Unless the PAK DA is supposed to replace the Bear with a stealthy bomber with a large fuel load and a modest strategic weapon load which can be changed for a large bomb load and a modest fuel load for theatre bombing missions so that it can also replace the Tu-22M3 as well.

High speed costs money and expensive aircraft can't be bought or used in large numbers... more Blackjacks and some subsonic stealthy bombers would be an ideal combination... especially considering the Tu-160s seem to have lost their ability to use conventional bombs...

The design of the Tu-160 is not exhausted, is the best today worldwide, and its production is not exhausted. The whole project will have better economic balance with a re-start of the production.

But over all, if they are ordering more Tu-160 is because new units are needed in a timeline when the new aircraft can not be ready.

It is the same reason that leaded to the development and the orders of the BTR-82 (variant of the BTR-80), in a moment when the Bumerang was being also developed.

The new aircraft will likely overperform the Tu-160, and when it is ready the orders will go to the new aircraft.

But, at same time, we can say safely that the orders of the Tu-160 will switch to the Tu-PAK-DA only if the new aircraft overperforms clearly the old. If not the new aircraft will have the same future of the BTR-90, if not worse (without orders).

JohninMK wrote:Think this is a pretty key statement. I believe the machines mentioned are those used to build the plane, CNC jigs etc

Roughly speaking, the machines will be used are the same for the production of the Tu-160 and for the PAK DA. In fact, in the pre-production money is spent once.

How about almost the same plane for both applications?

The Tu-160M2 as the new supersonic bomber completely re-engineered as per the article and another version Tu-160M3 looking much the same and containing the same electronics etc systems but a much simpler and cheaper build with lower thrust engines and a fixed wing both optimised for sub-sonic performance and duration.

Bear in mind that the US and Russian requirements for this type of aircraft are quite different, primarily the US seeming to want a first strike max-stealth mode, which AFAIK is not in Russia's defence plans. To me it looks like Russia plans to have very similar launch strategies for the three legs of its nuclear triad, SSBN protected near to its coast, bombers protected over its land and ground launched, silo or mobile protected on its land.

I agree with the point about to find safety for the nuclear weapon launchers, but I agree not with to play the cheap card on them. A nuclear weapons launcher is too serious to play this card there, and at same time they are too few to be a real problem of money.

Mobility increases safety, this is valid for all the branches. On land the trend should be to go to full to mobile launchers except for the missiles that are too big for it. And on air platforms I do not see the Russian Armed Forces accepting some downgrade in mobility from the current modern launchers (Tu-160).

eehnie wrote:

Austin wrote:"Machines for the Tu-160m2 and PAK DA will be the same

http://vpk.name/news/171627_Postoyanno_izyiskivaem_rezervyi_chtobyi_vyipolnit_maiskie_ukazyi.html

- Then turn to the long-range aviation. We now have two programs in the field of long-range aviation: a promising aviation complex (PAK), long-range aircraft (DA) and a deep modernization of the Tu-160 and Tu-level 160m2. Do we have enough resources? Do they compete, these programs?

- No. Sometimes, indeed, the question arises: why are you, in fact, the two are being developed? To begin, perhaps, from the fact that the aviation strategic nuclear forces - an integral part of [our nuclear] triad. In the current conflict, we simply have to deal with it, to ensure proper readiness.

Modernization capabilities of the aircraft Tu-160 were significantly higher than that laid first. According to its flight performance is still unparalleled in the world of long-range bombers. It has better performance characteristics, although not produced for almost 30 years.

Therefore, recovery of production - this is a serious and costly step, we will not hide. But it will be a totally different plane. In fact, only the former will remain fuselage appearance. Even reproduced engines NK-32 to 10% more powerful, not to mention the avionics. The control system, navigation, weapons control system - this is a completely different generation. Moreover, the air attack will be others. During this period, they have already gone through several generations. That is, the combat capabilities of the Tu-160 release mid-1980s and the plane, first flight is expected in 2018 - are two big differences.

Serial production of the Tu-160m2 will begin after the completion of all tests, 2021. We give a new life to this plane, save for R & D and spend only on workers' and digitization of the design documentation.

As for the PAK DA, life-is also not standing still and the nature of warfare is changing. As you can see, replacing conventional aircraft weapons come hypersonic airborne weapons with greater range and with greater accuracy. And future aircraft carrier at the turn of 2025-2030's not necessary to have such characteristics as supersonic speed. It should be as long as possible and unobtrusively to be on duty in the air, so that, without going into the affected area, to release their means of destruction on their targets.

However, we are so coordinated with the industry organization of all work that the preparation for the production of the Tu-160 and a new image for the PAK DA is carried out simultaneously. The maximum number of process steps will be the same. Roughly speaking, the machines will be used are the same for the production of the Tu-160 and for the PAK DA. In fact, in the pre-production money is spent once.

If the Tu-PAK-DA is designed subsonic, this project will fall clearly under the performance of the new generation of the Tu-160 (which will be able to carry the same hypersonic weapons) and this will be the main reason of the failure of the Tu-PAK-DA. The Tu-160 will be ordered instead.

High-subsonic bombers are few TIMES cheaper to operate, can allow LO flying wing configuration, extremly long ranges. Using Tu-160 based bomber to strike non-strategic targets on frontline would be major waste of resources.

Something needs to replace Tu-22M in the roles of conventional bomber.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Austin wrote:"Machines for the Tu-160m2 and PAK DA will be the same

http://vpk.name/news/171627_Postoyanno_izyiskivaem_rezervyi_chtobyi_vyipolnit_maiskie_ukazyi.html

- Then turn to the long-range aviation. We now have two programs in the field of long-range aviation: a promising aviation complex (PAK), long-range aircraft (DA) and a deep modernization of the Tu-160 and Tu-level 160m2. Do we have enough resources? Do they compete, these programs?

- No. Sometimes, indeed, the question arises: why are you, in fact, the two are being developed? To begin, perhaps, from the fact that the aviation strategic nuclear forces - an integral part of [our nuclear] triad. In the current conflict, we simply have to deal with it, to ensure proper readiness.

Modernization capabilities of the aircraft Tu-160 were significantly higher than that laid first. According to its flight performance is still unparalleled in the world of long-range bombers. It has better performance characteristics, although not produced for almost 30 years.

Therefore, recovery of production - this is a serious and costly step, we will not hide. But it will be a totally different plane. In fact, only the former will remain fuselage appearance. Even reproduced engines NK-32 to 10% more powerful, not to mention the avionics. The control system, navigation, weapons control system - this is a completely different generation. Moreover, the air attack will be others. During this period, they have already gone through several generations. That is, the combat capabilities of the Tu-160 release mid-1980s and the plane, first flight is expected in 2018 - are two big differences.

Serial production of the Tu-160m2 will begin after the completion of all tests, 2021. We give a new life to this plane, save for R & D and spend only on workers' and digitization of the design documentation.

As for the PAK DA, life-is also not standing still and the nature of warfare is changing. As you can see, replacing conventional aircraft weapons come hypersonic airborne weapons with greater range and with greater accuracy. And future aircraft carrier at the turn of 2025-2030's not necessary to have such characteristics as supersonic speed. It should be as long as possible and unobtrusively to be on duty in the air, so that, without going into the affected area, to release their means of destruction on their targets.

However, we are so coordinated with the industry organization of all work that the preparation for the production of the Tu-160 and a new image for the PAK DA is carried out simultaneously. The maximum number of process steps will be the same. Roughly speaking, the machines will be used are the same for the production of the Tu-160 and for the PAK DA. In fact, in the pre-production money is spent once.

If the Tu-PAK-DA is designed subsonic, this project will fall clearly under the performance of the new generation of the Tu-160 (which will be able to carry the same hypersonic weapons) and this will be the main reason of the failure of the Tu-PAK-DA. The Tu-160 will be ordered instead.

High-subsonic bombers are few TIMES cheaper to operate, can allow LO flying wing configuration, extremly long ranges. Using Tu-160 based bomber to strike non-strategic targets on frontline would be major waste of resources.

Something needs to replace Tu-22M in the roles of conventional bomber.

Only if you count not the costs of the loses in combat.

As example you can compare the operational costs of the Su-24 and the Su-25 for Ukraine in the war.

I would bet that the Tu-160 has not been the aircraft with higher operational costs for Russia in Syria.

eehnie wrote: Only if you count not the costs of the loses in combat.

As example you can compare the operational costs of the Su-24 and the Su-25 for Ukraine in the war.

Actually chances are that per unit (flyaway cost) of Tu-160M2 will be higher than one of PAK-DA. Tu-160 was the most expencive aviation project of USSR, by far, nothing ever came even remotely close to it, same goes for unit cost.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote: Only if you count not the costs of the loses in combat.

As example you can compare the operational costs of the Su-24 and the Su-25 for Ukraine in the war.

Actually chances are that per unit (flyaway cost) of Tu-160M2 will be higher than one of PAK-DA. Tu-160 was the most expencive aviation project of USSR, by far, nothing ever came even remotely close to it, same goes for unit cost.

I would bet that the Tu-160 has not been the model with higher operational costs per aircraft or Km for Russia in Syria. Including aircraft and helicopter loses of course. Otherwise the cost analysis is not fair.

Speed is a plus on safety of the aircrafts. And safety is a gamechanger on costs.

Again, aircrafts that are to go with nuclear weapons are not the right place to play the cheap card, because in combat environments, when it is necessary to begin to count loses, many times cheap is not really cheap. I would bet that the operational costs of the Tu-154, Mi-24 and the Mi-8 for Russia in Syria are higher than the operational costs of the Tu-160.

If the Tu-PAK-DA is designed subsonic, this project will fall clearly under the performance of the new generation of the Tu-160 (which will be able to carry the same hypersonic weapons) and this will be the main reason of the failure of the Tu-PAK-DA. The Tu-160 will be ordered instead.

You are mistaken.

They are not just developing two versions of the Tu-160 to see which is better.

they are rebuilding the tu-160 because they want a long range supersonic strategic cruise missile carrier... their problem is that they only have about 14 of them which is not a viable force... they need more than double that for it to be worth the effort.

The problem is that having 150 Tu-160s would be expensive and also not totally ideal.

What would be more useful is to have 50 supersonic Tu-160s and to have maybe 80-100 subsonic but more stealthy bomber/cruise missile carriers.

they are going to reduce the costs of the PAK DA by making it very similar to the Tu-160 in terms of structure and design, though removing the swing wing capability would make it much cheaper and much simpler to buy and to operate.

And future aircraft carrier at the turn of 2025-2030's not necessary to have such characteristics as supersonic speed. It should be as long as possible and unobtrusively to be on duty in the air, so that, without going into the affected area, to release their means of destruction on their targets.

Ie their future bomber does not need to be supersonic. Critical features mentioned are endurance with being in the air for long periods and to be unobtrusive... ie stealthy. Being able to use long range stand off weapons and attack the enemy without going into enemy territory are the key.

Why make the PAK DA supersonic when its missiles can be hypersonic?

However, we are so coordinated with the industry organization of all work that the preparation for the production of the Tu-160 and a new image for the PAK DA is carried out simultaneously. The maximum number of process steps will be the same.

As I suggested a while back they will make the PAK DA in the same factory that makes the upgraded Tu-160M2s.

The Tu-160M2 as the new supersonic bomber completely re-engineered as per the article and another version Tu-160M3 looking much the same and containing the same electronics etc systems but a much simpler and cheaper build with lower thrust engines and a fixed wing both optimised for sub-sonic performance and duration.

Agree, but for the stealth to be effective it needs all internal weapons carriage so the PAK DA model could have an enlarged internal volume to allow more fuel and more weapons to be carried... along with more emphasis on stealth and a lower speed requirement should make it a very useful addition to the fleet.

The faster aircraft could be fitted with air to air missiles to defend themselves... but more importantly the Blackjack is able to fly at supersonic speed for quite a distance but an upgraded model with more powerful engines and a design update could be made to supercruise at say mach 1.7... which would greatly extend range and reduce flight times to launch positions...

It is the same reason that leaded to the development and the orders of the BTR-82 (variant of the BTR-80), in a moment when the Bumerang was being also developed.

In many ways the BTR-82 is the T-90AM or Su-35. They have taken the base platform (ie BTR-80, T-90M, and Su-27SM) and removed as many faults and problems and then upgraded as far as practically possible without going to a new design.

In this case the Tu-160 has plenty of growth potential even just with modern manufacturing techniques and new materials. The fact that they intend to unify the design with the new PAK DA suggests that there is not too much wrong with the Blackjack, but I suspect changes will be made to get the best possible result...

But, at same time, we can say safely that the orders of the Tu-160 will switch to the Tu-PAK-DA only if the new aircraft overperforms clearly the old. If not the new aircraft will have the same future of the BTR-90, if not worse (without orders).

Actually I think it would be better compared with the BMP-1 and BMP-2 situation.

The BMP was revolutionary, but its design was hampered by the missile technology of the time.

The requirement was to be able to kill the M60 tank with the main armament. The AT-3 missile could not engage a target effectively within 300m or so. That meant the main gun of the BMP had to penetrate an M60 tank within 500m or so so it had to be a 73mm rocket launcher. Later models of the ATGMs led to the 73mm gun being replaced by the 30mm cannon on the BMP-2 but it was actually found that the 30mm and the 73mm guns actually complimented each other. The 30mm was good for a range of targets but some targets required more HE power so the 73mm gun was still useful.

The final result was the BMP-3 with a 30mm cannon and a medium velocity 100mm gun firing a good HE shell.

The point is that stealth and speed are useful. Having a fast strategic bomber is useful but having a slower stealthier bomber would be useful too.

They will be able to combine costs on these two types and they will be different enough to be both useful and capable. And being new builds they can operate for half a century to come.

Mobility increases safety, this is valid for all the branches. On land the trend should be to go to full to mobile launchers except for the missiles that are too big for it. And on air platforms I do not see the Russian Armed Forces accepting some downgrade in mobility from the current modern launchers (Tu-160).

Having a few supersonic bombers does not make sense... the blackjack is not fast enough to evade decent medium range SAMs. It will use standoff range to avoid them.

Having stealthy and fast bombers complicates the problems of the enemy.

Having two types means the Bears and old Blackjacks can be replaced... and the Backfire can be replaced in service by a subsonic aircraft able to carry a heavy conventional payload...

Only if you count not the costs of the loses in combat.

In the strategic role both aircraft will use 5,000km range stand off cruise missiles.

I would bet that the Tu-160 has not been the aircraft with higher operational costs for Russia in Syria.

The fuel bill would make your eyes water.

I would bet that the Tu-160 has not been the aircraft with higher operational costs for Russia in Syria.

If the Russian S-400 battery in Syria was a NATO battery neither the Tu-160 nor Tu-95 would be at risk because both would be launching their cruise missiles from 2,000km range plus.

Speed would no more protect the Blackjack than it would the Bear...

It is the stand off range of the weapons that will keep both types safe.

Stealth is effected by distance... a PAK DA from 4,000km is not going to be detected by anything...

One of the reasons the Tu-95 is in service is its low cost operations... the same could be said for the B-52, though I dare say the fuel bill from 8 thirsty engines is not likely better than from 4 efficient turbofans in the B-2 but they found all sorts of ways to make the B-2 expensive...

About the fuel bill do not go too fast... First you are talking about a country with big oil and gas resources, and state owned resources and production. The government of Russia pays the fuel bill at price of production costs. And second to include the loses of one Tu-154, two Mi-24/25/35 or two Mi-8/... in the economic balance puts the things in the right place. Two units of the Mi-8/..., the cheapest of them, maybe $35-40 millions to add to their operational costs, without talking about the costs related to the death people.

The problem with the BMP-1 and BMP-2 was a problem with the main armament. This is not the case, because the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA will be able to use the same armament. In this case there is not a single reason why the upgraded Tu-160, or even the old Tu-160 can not do the role that is being explained for the Tu-PAK-DA. Also the Tu-160 will be able to use the new hypersonic missiles.

If the Tu-PAK-Da is subsonic will clearly underperform the Tu-160. Despite stealth technologies, that are effectively surpassed in far less time than the life time of an aircraft like this. The importance of the speed for the safety of an aircraft is key. As example, if some hostile missile is detected approaching to one aircraft at Mach 4, 4000 Km (roughly 1 hour) before to reach the aircraft that would be inside the Russia air space, a Tu-160 can move away at Mach 2 another 4000 Km before being reached by the missile giving to the air defenses roughly 2 hours to hit the hostile missile before being reached. And also this may put perfectly the Tu-160 out of the range of the hostile missile and save the aircraft by their own. In the case of a Tu-PAK-FA moving at Mach 0.8, the aircraft only would be able to move 1000 Km away the hostile missile, surely not enough to put the aircraft out of the range of the hostile missile, and would be hit roughly in 1 hour and 15 min. The importance of the speed in the safety is key, and even it is increased operating inside the own air space, where the hostile fire can be detected many time before to hit your aircrafts. And Russia would pay happily the fuel bill.

It was a very interesting post about speed on air warfare. I want to recover it:

Mindstorm wrote:

Militarov wrote:Speed was favoured during Cold War for high and low lvl air defence penetration, today speed wont rly help you much aganist integrated air defence systems.

Speed was and is ,with even much more weight today, by far the most crucial and decisive parameter in the design of any kind of offensive element, and all the military  scientifical efforts of any design bureau around the globe is univocally aimed toward a sharp increase of speed as the unique road possible against today level of integrated air defense networks.

For what concern strategic bombers design it became clear, at least since half of '70 years, that the unique elements assuring to the third branch of strategic triad still a deterrence role in a conflict against a peer/near-peer enemy would be:


1) Air-launched cruise missiles and theirs performance, with particular stress to the range performance for nuclear tipped ones (for the synergistic effect with the other two main requirements).

2) Mean time for full cruise missiles delivery cycle against key enemy installations.

3) Average time and mean area of dispersion of those strategic platforms toward different airfields both before and after cruise missile delivery.


It was found by ГосНИИАС that a supersonic - average 1,3 Mach or more mission speed capable - layout with a fuel efficient mixed-profile flight was over three times more efficient in the strategic cruise missile delivery role and over four times more survivable (obviously not for the interaction with enemy air defense network or with enemy Air Force interceptors having cruise missiles delivering range measured in the thousands of kilometers ,but for the mean area and speed of relocation) than a subsonic platform.

Obviously also measures aimed at reduce radar observability become not only practically irrelevant for strategic cruise missiles delivery from several thousands of kilometers afar but even a liablity, for the sharp increase of service and repair time after each mission (an element that increase of several times the chance to be destroyed on the ground by enemy strategic and sub-strategic attacks).  



Just to provide a brief sample of what said is sufficent to say that a supersonic bomber armed with Х-102 missiles maintaining an averange speed of M 1.3 at 13000 m, taking into account the increase in coasting range for the delivered missiles for a pre-delivery high supersonic dash would reach an useful delivery point 4000 km away from airbase (about 3600 km effective for the just named missile range increase for the high altitude/supersonic dash) in about 2 hours and 38 minutes ,for a total mission flight time of about 5 hours and 16 minutes, a subsonic platform , flying at the same altitude an average speed of M 0,7, would deliver the same Х-102 payload 4000 km away in about 5 hours and 22 minutes for a total mission time of 10 hours and 44 minutes.  


That is : the X-102s delivered against the most important enemy military structures (strategic bomber airbases included.....) by mean of supersonic bombers would detonate before those on board of the subsonic bomber would be merely delivered and those supersonic bombers would be in the air for the second attack before the subsonic ones would have merely returned from the first.


The difference both in strategic survivability and in the degradation speed of the enemy military capabilities and key assets between the two platforms ,put a supersonic and a subsonic bomber in two different league when strategic efficiency is the parameter taken in consideration.

eehnie wrote:
..the aircraft only would be able to move 1000 Km away the hostile missile, surely not enough to put the aircraft out of the range of the hostile missile

Which AA missile has the 1000km range? Let's say there is such missile, how will targeting work with these ranges?

eehnie wrote:About the fuel bill do not go too fast... First you are talking about a country with big oil and gas resources, and state owned resources and production. The government of Russia pays the fuel bill at price of production costs. And second to include the loses of one Tu-154, two Mi-24/25/35 or two Mi-8/... in the economic balance puts the things in the right place. Two units of the Mi-8/..., the cheapest of them, maybe $35-40 millions to add to their operational costs, without talking about the costs related to the death people.

The problem with the BMP-1 and BMP-2 was a problem with the main armament. This is not the case, because the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA will be able to use the same armament. In this case there is not a single reason why the upgraded Tu-160, or even the old Tu-160 can not do the role that is being explained for the Tu-PAK-DA. Also the Tu-160 will be able to use the new hypersonic missiles.

If the Tu-PAK-Da is subsonic will clearly underperform the Tu-160. Despite stealth technologies, that are effectively surpassed in far less time than the life time of an aircraft like this. The importance of the speed for the safety of an aircraft is key. As example, if some hostile missile is detected approaching to one aircraft at Mach 4, 4000 Km (roughly 1 hour) before to reach the aircraft that would be inside the Russia air space, a Tu-160 can move away at Mach 2 another 4000 Km before being reached by the missile giving to the air defenses roughly 2 hours to hit the hostile missile before being reached. And also this may put perfectly the Tu-160 out of the range of the hostile missile and save the aircraft by their own. In the case of a Tu-PAK-FA moving at Mach 0.8, the aircraft only would be able to move 1000 Km away the hostile missile, surely not enough to put the aircraft out of the range of the hostile missile, and would be hit roughly in 1 hour and 15 min. The importance of the speed in the safety is key, and even it is increased operating inside the own air space, where the hostile fire can be detected many time before to hit your aircrafts. And Russia would pay happily the fuel bill.

It was a very interesting post about speed on air warfare. I want to recover it:

Mindstorm wrote:

Militarov wrote:Speed was favoured during Cold War for high and low lvl air defence penetration, today speed wont rly help you much aganist integrated air defence systems.

Speed was and is ,with even much more weight today, by far the most crucial and decisive parameter in the design of any kind of offensive element, and all the military  scientifical efforts of any design bureau around the globe is univocally aimed toward a sharp increase of speed as the unique road possible against today level of integrated air defense networks.

For what concern strategic bombers design it became clear, at least since half of '70 years, that the unique elements assuring to the third branch of strategic triad still a deterrence role in a conflict against a peer/near-peer enemy would be:


1) Air-launched cruise missiles and theirs performance, with particular stress to the range performance for nuclear tipped ones (for the synergistic effect with the other two main requirements).

2) Mean time for full cruise missiles delivery cycle against key enemy installations.

3) Average time and mean area of dispersion of those strategic platforms toward different airfields both before and after cruise missile delivery.


It was found by ГосНИИАС that a supersonic - average 1,3 Mach or more mission speed capable - layout with a fuel efficient mixed-profile flight was over three times more efficient in the strategic cruise missile delivery role and over four times more survivable (obviously not for the interaction with enemy air defense network or with enemy Air Force interceptors having cruise missiles delivering range measured in the thousands of kilometers ,but for the mean area and speed of relocation) than a subsonic platform.

Obviously also measures aimed at reduce radar observability become not only practically irrelevant for strategic cruise missiles delivery from several thousands of kilometers afar but even a liablity, for the sharp increase of service and repair time after each mission (an element that increase of several times the chance to be destroyed on the ground by enemy strategic and sub-strategic attacks).  



Just to provide a brief sample of what said is sufficent to say that a supersonic bomber armed with Х-102 missiles maintaining an averange speed of M 1.3 at 13000 m, taking into account the increase in coasting range for the delivered missiles for a pre-delivery high supersonic dash would reach an useful delivery point 4000 km away from airbase (about 3600 km effective for the just named missile range increase for the high altitude/supersonic dash) in about 2 hours and 38 minutes ,for a total mission flight time of about 5 hours and 16 minutes, a subsonic platform , flying at the same altitude an average speed of M 0,7, would deliver the same Х-102 payload 4000 km away in about 5 hours and 22 minutes for a total mission time of 10 hours and 44 minutes.  


That is : the X-102s delivered against the most important enemy military structures (strategic bomber airbases included.....) by mean of supersonic bombers would detonate before those on board of the subsonic bomber would be merely delivered and those supersonic bombers would be in the air for the second attack before the subsonic ones would have merely returned from the first.


The difference both in strategic survivability and in the degradation speed of the enemy military capabilities and key assets between the two platforms ,put a supersonic and a subsonic bomber in two different league when strategic efficiency is the parameter taken in consideration.

First of all, there is no "SAM" missile in the world with ranges of 1000km... that is absurd, i want to see guidance radar guiding that missile, would be quite a sight.

Also PAK-DA will not have primary role of cruise missile launch platform but conventional bombing. Its supposed to be replacement for Tu-22Ms and then to partially replace TU-95 and to be suplemented by Tu-160M2. While it will be capable of carrying cruise missiles it wont be its primary role. B-2 was almost always used in such role too, conventional high-precision extremly long range bombing. They flew from the US to Yugoslavia, hit targets with PGMs and flew back to States. That would be sort of main role of PAK-DA.

A1RMAN wrote:

eehnie wrote:
..the aircraft only would be able to move 1000 Km away the hostile missile, surely not enough to put the aircraft out of the range of the hostile missile

Which AA missile has the 1000km range? Let's say there is such missile, how will targeting work with these ranges?

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:About the fuel bill do not go too fast... First you are talking about a country with big oil and gas resources, and state owned resources and production. The government of Russia pays the fuel bill at price of production costs. And second to include the loses of one Tu-154, two Mi-24/25/35 or two Mi-8/... in the economic balance puts the things in the right place. Two units of the Mi-8/..., the cheapest of them, maybe $35-40 millions to add to their operational costs, without talking about the costs related to the death people.

The problem with the BMP-1 and BMP-2 was a problem with the main armament. This is not the case, because the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA will be able to use the same armament. In this case there is not a single reason why the upgraded Tu-160, or even the old Tu-160 can not do the role that is being explained for the Tu-PAK-DA. Also the Tu-160 will be able to use the new hypersonic missiles.

If the Tu-PAK-Da is subsonic will clearly underperform the Tu-160. Despite stealth technologies, that are effectively surpassed in far less time than the life time of an aircraft like this. The importance of the speed for the safety of an aircraft is key. As example, if some hostile missile is detected approaching to one aircraft at Mach 4, 4000 Km (roughly 1 hour) before to reach the aircraft that would be inside the Russia air space, a Tu-160 can move away at Mach 2 another 4000 Km before being reached by the missile giving to the air defenses roughly 2 hours to hit the hostile missile before being reached. And also this may put perfectly the Tu-160 out of the range of the hostile missile and save the aircraft by their own. In the case of a Tu-PAK-FA moving at Mach 0.8, the aircraft only would be able to move 1000 Km away the hostile missile, surely not enough to put the aircraft out of the range of the hostile missile, and would be hit roughly in 1 hour and 15 min. The importance of the speed in the safety is key, and even it is increased operating inside the own air space, where the hostile fire can be detected many time before to hit your aircrafts. And Russia would pay happily the fuel bill.

It was a very interesting post about speed on air warfare. I want to recover it:

Mindstorm wrote:

Militarov wrote:Speed was favoured during Cold War for high and low lvl air defence penetration, today speed wont rly help you much aganist integrated air defence systems.

Speed was and is ,with even much more weight today, by far the most crucial and decisive parameter in the design of any kind of offensive element, and all the military  scientifical efforts of any design bureau around the globe is univocally aimed toward a sharp increase of speed as the unique road possible against today level of integrated air defense networks.

For what concern strategic bombers design it became clear, at least since half of '70 years, that the unique elements assuring to the third branch of strategic triad still a deterrence role in a conflict against a peer/near-peer enemy would be:


1) Air-launched cruise missiles and theirs performance, with particular stress to the range performance for nuclear tipped ones (for the synergistic effect with the other two main requirements).

2) Mean time for full cruise missiles delivery cycle against key enemy installations.

3) Average time and mean area of dispersion of those strategic platforms toward different airfields both before and after cruise missile delivery.


It was found by ГосНИИАС that a supersonic - average 1,3 Mach or more mission speed capable - layout with a fuel efficient mixed-profile flight was over three times more efficient in the strategic cruise missile delivery role and over four times more survivable (obviously not for the interaction with enemy air defense network or with enemy Air Force interceptors having cruise missiles delivering range measured in the thousands of kilometers ,but for the mean area and speed of relocation) than a subsonic platform.

Obviously also measures aimed at reduce radar observability become not only practically irrelevant for strategic cruise missiles delivery from several thousands of kilometers afar but even a liablity, for the sharp increase of service and repair time after each mission (an element that increase of several times the chance to be destroyed on the ground by enemy strategic and sub-strategic attacks).  



Just to provide a brief sample of what said is sufficent to say that a supersonic bomber armed with Х-102 missiles maintaining an averange speed of M 1.3 at 13000 m, taking into account the increase in coasting range for the delivered missiles for a pre-delivery high supersonic dash would reach an useful delivery point 4000 km away from airbase (about 3600 km effective for the just named missile range increase for the high altitude/supersonic dash) in about 2 hours and 38 minutes ,for a total mission flight time of about 5 hours and 16 minutes, a subsonic platform , flying at the same altitude an average speed of M 0,7, would deliver the same Х-102 payload 4000 km away in about 5 hours and 22 minutes for a total mission time of 10 hours and 44 minutes.  


That is : the X-102s delivered against the most important enemy military structures (strategic bomber airbases included.....) by mean of supersonic bombers would detonate before those on board of the subsonic bomber would be merely delivered and those supersonic bombers would be in the air for the second attack before the subsonic ones would have merely returned from the first.


The difference both in strategic survivability and in the degradation speed of the enemy military capabilities and key assets between the two platforms ,put a supersonic and a subsonic bomber in two different league when strategic efficiency is the parameter taken in consideration.

First of all, there is no "SAM" missile in the world with ranges of 1000km... that is absurd, i want to see guidance radar guiding that missile, would be quite a sight.

Also PAK-DA will not have primary role of cruise missile launch platform but conventional bombing. Its supposed to be replacement for Tu-22Ms and then to partially replace TU-95 and to be suplemented by Tu-160M2. While it will be capable of carrying cruise missiles it wont be its primary role. B-2 was almost always used in such role too, conventional high-precision extremly long range bombing. They flew from the US to Yugoslavia, hit targets with PGMs and flew back to States. That would be sort of main role of PAK-DA.

Then both of you would design the Tu-PAK-DA to face only the current weapons. In this case I'm not surprised with your arguments.

Well on military engineering (and also on civil engineering) it is necessary something else. It is necessary to look forward. This is not a design for today, the first unit can be build by 2025, and by 2030 the serial production can be in the begin. If you design an aircraft for the current state of the art, in 25 years, when the project must be in its highest point, it will be likely surpassed by the state of the art of the time (around 2040).

This was only one example to see numerically the effect of the speed. But still, surface-surface missiles like the one I commented are a fact today, and a Surface-Air application of them is likely.

eehnie wrote:

This was only one example to see numerically the effect of the speed. But still, surface-surface missiles like the one I commented are a fact today, and a Surface-Air application of them is likely.

There is a huge difference between targeting an air target and surface target. Simple fact that surface stays where it is - you cant just put in the coordinates, fire and forget.
But air target can travel big distances, maneuver use EW and other defense systems.

A1RMAN wrote:

eehnie wrote:

This was only one example to see numerically the effect of the speed. But still, surface-surface missiles like the one I commented are a fact today, and a Surface-Air application of them is likely.

There is a huge difference between targeting an air target and surface target. Simple fact that surface stays where it is - you cant just put in the coordinates, fire and forget.
But air target can travel big distances, maneuver use EW and other defense systems.

Try to open your mind. How would you try to solve it? It is not too difficult to find some option. The necessary technology exists today, but it is used not on this application.

About the fuel bill do not go too fast... First you are talking about a country with big oil and gas resources, and state owned resources and production. The government of Russia pays the fuel bill at price of production costs. And second to include the loses of one Tu-154, two Mi-24/25/35 or two Mi-8/... in the economic balance puts the things in the right place. Two units of the Mi-8/..., the cheapest of them, maybe $35-40 millions to add to their operational costs, without talking about the costs related to the death people.

I agree that when it comes to their nuclear triad they don't care about money as long as the job gets done.

However having said that having a rolls royce pulling a plough when a tractor can do the same job is not something they are known for either.

Actually having a supersonic bomber increases its cost without making it safer in its strategic role.

Both the Tu-160 and the Tu-22M3 can fly at supersonic speed but I would wager a lot of money that during their strikes on Syria they never broke the sound barrier once.

In the case of the Backfire the altitude it was being used kept it safe no matter what speed it was flying at. In the case of the Bear and the Blackjack it was the standoff range by firing 3,000km range cruise missiles that kept them safe.

The problem with the BMP-1 and BMP-2 was a problem with the main armament. This is not the case, because the Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA will be able to use the same armament. In this case there is not a single reason why the upgraded Tu-160, or even the old Tu-160 can not do the role that is being explained for the Tu-PAK-DA. Also the Tu-160 will be able to use the new hypersonic missiles.

I mentioned the BMP and BMP-2 because when they were designed it was thought in the west that the latter would replace the former because they were both designed for the same job... ie troop transportation on the battlefield.

When they were working on the BMP-2 they probably thought the same... a replacement for the BMP. In practise in combat in Afghanistan it was found the BMP-2 didn't replace the BMP... there were targets the 73mm gun was more effective at dealing with and others where the 30mm cannon was better. They complimented each other... the end result is that the actual replacement had both weapon types.

That solution is not practical with the Blackjack and PAK DA... you can't make a supersonic bomber cheaper to operate simply by making it fly slower.

In the case of a Tu-PAK-FA moving at Mach 0.8, the aircraft only would be able to move 1000 Km away the hostile missile, surely not enough to put the aircraft out of the range of the hostile missile, and would be hit roughly in 1 hour and 15 min. The importance of the speed in the safety is key, and even it is increased operating inside the own air space, where the hostile fire can be detected many time before to hit your aircrafts. And Russia would pay happily the fuel bill.

In the WWIII scenario by the time a subsonic plane (Tu-95 and PAK DA) or supersonic plane (Tu-160) arrive to their launch position all of Russias ICBMs and SLBMs would have obliterated the targets and threats hours before...

In the case of a Tu-PAK-FA moving at Mach 0.8, the aircraft only would be able to move 1000 Km away the hostile missile, surely not enough to put the aircraft out of the range of the hostile missile, and would be hit roughly in 1 hour and 15 min. The importance of the speed in the safety is key, and even it is increased operating inside the own air space, where the hostile fire can be detected many time before to hit your aircrafts. And Russia would pay happily the fuel bill.

Speed has an effect on bomber performance but not with no effect.

If the choice is a supersonic PAK DA then why even bother with the restarting of production of the Tu-160? Just withdraw the Tu-160 and Tu-95 and replace them all with PAK DA.

The problem is that a supersonic stealthy PAK DA would be enormously expensive to buy and to operate.

A subsonic PAK DA could be used for a range of roles including conventional bomber, which is a role the Tu-160 seems to have dropped.

this means the PAK DA could replace the Tu-95 and the Tu-22M3, without duplicating the role of the supersonic Tu-160.

They become complimentary.

Sharing major components between the Blackjack and PAK DA further improves both aircraft and makes their operation cheaper and simpler.

To be honest I would prefer to see a supercruising capable PAK DA but that would add cost and complication.

Also PAK-DA will not have primary role of cruise missile launch platform but conventional bombing. Its supposed to be replacement for Tu-22Ms and then to partially replace TU-95 and to be suplemented by Tu-160M2. While it will be capable of carrying cruise missiles it wont be its primary role. B-2 was almost always used in such role too, conventional high-precision extremly long range bombing. They flew from the US to Yugoslavia, hit targets with PGMs and flew back to States. That would be sort of main role of PAK-DA.

I don't quite agree.

The PAK DA will replace the Tu-22M3 as heavy bomber for theatre missions, but for strategic missions it will be a cruise missile carrier just like the Blackjack.

I rather suspect a very long range scramjet powered cruise missile will likely be developed... with folding wings and external fuel tanks of its own... when launched it will start its scramjet engine and climb and accelerate... at some mid range point it will drop its external fuel tanks and possibly even part of its wing to improve high speed low drag performance after which it will accelerate to full flight speed in the hypersonic range to its target... perhaps 6,000km away.

It might even have multiple nuclear warheads it can drop as it flies. two external missiles with say 10-20 small nuke warheads in the 2-5KT range.

Then both of you would design the Tu-PAK-DA to face only the current weapons. In this case I'm not surprised with your arguments.

The spending required to give the US an IADS would bankrupt them over night...

It wont happen any time soon.

Try to open your mind. How would you try to solve it? It is not too difficult to find some option. The necessary technology exists today, but it is used not on this application.

Even if you put an IIR seeker in its nose and sent it constant course corrections to get it within visual range even a basic AAM could probably bring such a large missile down... and such missiles would be very very expensive.