PAK-DA: News

GarryB wrote:

Russia thinks not like you, GarryB. To wait to the Tu-PAK-DA to restart the productionof strategic bombers means 10 years of delay in serial production, and Russia wants not to wait.

First flight for Tu-160M2 is 2018 but serial production wont start till about 2023.

First PAK DA design is supposed to be flight tested in 2019 but serial production wont start until 2025.

5 years ago there was no plan to restart production of the Tu-160... ideas perhaps, but no concrete decision... they could just as easily have decided to just make supersonic PAK DA instead of making Tu-160M2 and then PAK DA if it was supersonic... the delay would be less than 5 years because making a factory able to build precision stealth structures is not cheap or simple... but you are going to need it whether you are building Tu-160M2s or PAK DAs.

This is not realistict. Where come from this data? It must be from very old projections. Not updated. Do you have some link?

When the restart of the production of the Tu-160 was approved the timeline for the Tu-PAK-DA was increased, like we can see in this article:

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/12/12/russia-renew-production-tu-160-strategic-bombers.html

n April 2015, Russian Defense Minister Gen. Sergei Shoigu announced the decision to resume the production of Tu-160 in a modernized version - the Tu-160M2 - and move to the finalization of a new generation bomber PAK DA at a later date.
...
By the end of 2016, the upgrade of the Tu-160M2 (NATO reporting name: Blackjack) supersonic, variable-sweep strategic bomber fleet to Tu-160M2 standard is ahead of schedule. The technical documentation is expected to be fully digitized this month. The maiden flight is shifted from 2019 to 2018 with the tests complete in 2021. Then, the Kazan Aircraft Plant will start serial production. The modernization will increase the aircraft’s life span for another 30 years. The Russian military plans to have 50 aircraft upgraded to the M2 standard.
...
Russia is working on the PAK DA («prospective aviation complex for long-range aviation») new generation strategic bomber. The development is being delayed with the first unit to appear between 2020 and 2025.
...
Actually, the Tu-160M2 is almost a new plane. The only thing left unchanged is the airframe.
...

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. The process of design, test and launch of serial production of a variant, is not like the process for a completely new aircraft. This is the reality. The Tu-160 is now ahead of the schedule after doing the entire digitalization of the documents, the most arduous part of the process. The contruction of the first prototype is to begin fast this year, and like the first fly has been moved one year earlier surely the begin of the serial production can be moved also to 2020.

For the Tu-PAK-DA, the last reports are talking about the first fly (between 2020 and 2025) which means a difference until 7 years for the first fly. In this case Russia has not incentive or interest in to complete the process in the lower possible timeline. Their interest is more in to complete an advanced design for the next 50 years. Despite it, I hope the first fly to be earlier than 2025, because if the difference between the first fly reachs 7 years, the difference in the begin of the serial production can be bigger than 10 years.

I think it would be possible for the Tu-PAK-DA to have the first unit ready around 2025 (it would mean to be in the situation of the Su-PAK-FA in 2015, and remember that today there is not still serial production of the Su-PAK-FA). For it the first fly of the Tu-PAK-DA should be around 2022 and the serial production would not begin befor 2028-2030. But even this would mean an ambitious timeline for the Tu-PAK-DA.

Developers defined preliminary design of a new strategic bomber

https://rns.online/military/Razrabotchiki-zaschitili-avanproekt-novogo-strategicheskogo-raketonostsa-2017-02-23/

In Russia, work is underway to create a new generation of strategic missile (PAK DA, PAK DA), which will come to replace the Tu-22M3 and Tu-160, said in an interview RNS scientific director of FSUE "GosNIIAS" Academician Yevgeny Fedosov.

"According to the prospective long-range aviation complex - PAK DA - we even defined preliminary design", - said Fedosov, responding to a question about the work of the PAK DA.

According Fedosov, VCS requirements for the new long-range aircraft are very high. "The military is not too lazy, and write whatever they think. This strategic bomber, and operational-tactical missile bomber, even a long-range interceptor and a possible platform for spacecraft launches, " 'said Fedosov.


He noted that the development and take into account the economic factor. "Tu-160 - a very expensive. The military decided to make a new airplane is cheaper, but greater in number. He should immediately replace three aircraft - the line Tu-22M3 and Tu-95MS and Tu-160. The solution adopted is: preliminary design score? Came to the conclusion that you need to build, "- said the academician.

At the same time, Fedosov approved the reopening of the modernized Tu-160m2 in Kazan. "I think that Tu-160 - a masterpiece that is still unsurpassed" - Fedosov said.

Russian manufacturer creates first full-size model of future strategic bomber — source

A future bomber is believed to incorporate all the latest achievements in the stealth technology, making the plane invisible to radars

MOSCOW, March 1. /TASS/. The first full-size model of Russia’s future long-range bomber PAK DA, being developed for the Aerospace Force, has been created by the Tupolev company, a source in Russia’s defense-industrial complex told TASS.

"Several scale mock-ups of the PAK DA bomber have been made of composite materials. Also, there is a full-size mock-up made of wood. All models are based on the flying wing concept," the source said.

Its airframe will be made of radar-absorbent material. All weapons will be placed inside the fuselage.

"Also, PAK DA is to be equipped with the latest radioelectronic warfare equipment of domestic manufacture, unparalleled in terms of effectiveness," the source said.

Another source in the Russian defense industry said the first test sample of a future bomber will perform its first flight by 2025. The plane will have a subsonic speed.

TASS has no official confirmation of these data.

Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said earlier the PAK DA bomber may be presented to the public at large in 2018. Its parameters will exceed by far those of the existing bombers. The original plan was the first bombers would be delivered in 2023-2025, while the test flights were to be carried out in 2019-2020. Later, it was announced that the bomber’s creation was postponed in favor of resuming the serial production of the Tupolev-160 bomber.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/933391

1st prototype of the future bomber waited for 2025 and either on 2018 as suggests him(it) Borisov last year !

Beautiful bird



http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4060663

https://lenta.ru/news/2017/03/01/maket/

Russian manufacturer creates first full-size model of future strategic bomber — source

They used the windtunnel BWB model pic again
Other sites are using this fan-art (I think?) one instead/as well

I like that concept too

hoom wrote:

Russian manufacturer creates first full-size model of future strategic bomber — source

They used the windtunnel BWB model pic again
Other sites are using this fan-art (I think?) one instead/as well

I like that concept too

Yes, that one is fan art.

berhoum wrote:1st prototype of the future bomber waited for 2025 and either on 2018 as suggests him(it) Borisov last year !

Beautiful bird



...............

Is that from Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak?

PapaDragon wrote:

Is that from Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak? 

hello It is battlefield 4 to wallpaper hd 1920x1080 

Russia to develop first prototype of next-generation strategic bomber by early 2020s

MOSCOW, April 13. /TASS/. The first experimental prototype of Russia’s next-generation strategic bomber abbreviated as PAK DA is expected to be developed in the early 2020s and the relevant contract has been signed, a source in the country’s defense industry told TASS on Thursday.

The first stage of the R&D work on the new strategic bomber was completed in 2016, the source said.

"Now we are switching to the second stage: the development of design documentation and further on - the manufacture of the aircraft’s experimental prototypes. The military has signed a contract for the fulfillment of works at this stage with the United Aircraft-Building Corporation. The first experimental prototype is expected to be manufactured in the early 2020s," the source said.

The aircraft will be based on the flying wing design and "other schemes are not being considered or discussed. This is the sole and the approved version," the source said.

TASS does not have official confirmation of this information.

Another source in the Russian defense industry earlier told TASS that Tupolev Aircraft Company had already made a full-size wooden mockup model of the PAK DA and also several smaller mockups of composite materials.

PAK DA next-generation strategic bomber

The Perspective Airborne Complex of Long-Range Aviation (PAK DA) is a Russian next-generation strategic bomber being developed by the Tupolev aircraft manufacturer. R&D work on the bomber started in 2009. The PAK DA will fly at subsonic speeds and carry weapons inside its body. The aircraft’s design will maximally use radar-absorbing materials (the stealth technology).

The bomber was initially planned to start arriving for the Russian Armed Forces in 2023-2025 and the first test flights were scheduled for 2019-2020. It emerged later that the bomber’s development had been rescheduled due to the resumed serial production of the Tu-160 strategic missile carrier.

The first flight of the PAK DA experimental prototype is planned for 2025.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/941152

Found this in a french forum. From an book about Tu-160. It's a Tu-170(??) according to them.

Isos wrote:Found this in a french forum. From an book about Tu-160. It's a Tu-170(??) according to them.

Tu-170 was some kind of very early development for conventional bomber on Tu-160 base to evade certain limitations enforced by SALT threaty. It never went further from idea from what i am aware, so this is probably just fan art.

I didn't know. It looks cool with the engines place like that. What do you mean by conventional ? Tu-160 has nothing more than a conventional bomber.

There is not a chance that after more than 30 years, the future Tu-PAK-DA has inferior features than the Tu-160 in key variables (like the speed).

If this would be true the Tu-PAK-DA would be a total failure because the orders of new aircrafts would continue with the Tu-160.

Russia knows it and will not fall on this. And with Tupolev in charge of both projects, their wish of success for both is assured (in fact the future of the company depends of it).

eehnie wrote:
There is not a chance that after more than 30 years, the future Tu-PAK-DA has inferior features than the Tu-160 in key variables (like the speed).

If this would be true the Tu-PAK-DA would be a total failure because the orders of new aircrafts would continue with the Tu-160.

Russia knows it and will not fall on this. And with Tupolev in charge of both projects, their wish of success for both is assured (in fact the future of the company depends of it).

Different concepts, uncomparable.

Its like i just claimed that B-58 Hustler was far better bomber than B-52. Or some similar comparation, choose one of your own.

The PAK FA is slower than the MiG-31... is it a failure too?

Speed is a factor, but is it the critical factor?

Even supersonic bombers like the Tu-160 don't fly at supersonic speed all the way to their launch positions and back... they normally fly high subsonic to approach the danger area and then fly supersonic dash to get closer and then launch and supersonic dash out of range of enemy fighter/air defences and then subsonic home.

For a subsonic bomber the difference is minor if fitted with long range hypersonic cruise missiles able to perform that high speed dash in the danger areas.

GarryB wrote:The PAK FA is slower than the MiG-31... is it a failure too?

Speed is a factor, but is it the critical factor?

Even supersonic bombers like the Tu-160 don't fly at supersonic speed all the way to their launch positions and back... they normally fly high subsonic to approach the danger area and then fly supersonic dash to get closer and then launch and supersonic dash out of range of enemy fighter/air defences and then subsonic home.

For a subsonic bomber the difference is minor if fitted with long range hypersonic cruise missiles able to perform that high speed dash in the danger areas.

The MiG-31 is an interceptor. This is a real difference in role between the MiG-31 and the Su-PAK-FA. Not like in the case militarov said.

If we compare the Su-PAK-FA with other aircrafts of its same or very close role like the Su-35, Su-30, Su-33, Su-27, MiG-35 or MiG-29, the speed is very close. Would you imagine a Mach 1.3 fighter today? We would not be very kind, even the F-35 is Mach 1.6+.

Also we can compare the MiG-41-PAK-DP with the MiG-31 and the MiG-25, and we will see like the future interceptor falls not to lower speed level. Would you imagine a Mach 2 MiG-41? The same.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:
There is not a chance that after more than 30 years, the future Tu-PAK-DA has inferior features than the Tu-160 in key variables (like the speed).

If this would be true the Tu-PAK-DA would be a total failure because the orders of new aircrafts would continue with the Tu-160.

Russia knows it and will not fall on this. And with Tupolev in charge of both projects, their wish of success for both is assured (in fact the future of the company depends of it).

Different concepts, uncomparable.

Its like i just claimed that B-58 Hustler was far better bomber than B-52. Or some similar comparation, choose one of your own.

Lol, well. It will be interesting to see you trying to prove a real divission of roles inside the role of strategic bombing (long range).

You can begin if you wish.

GarryB wrote:Even supersonic bombers like the Tu-160 don't fly at supersonic speed all the way to their launch positions and back

Well Garry ,that depend entirely on the mission to execute, the situation and even more the quality level of opponent ; that said the core mission of Tu-160/M/M2 -continuous cyclical delivery of nuclear or conventional strategic cruise missile toward the most important enemy key military assets to achieve, rapid degradation of its capabilities - would be executed entirely at supersonic speed , at an average speed Mach 1,3 (more than double the average speed of foreign subsonic strategic bombers) and usually with a Hi-Low-Hi mission profile.

The reason ,how i have pointed out more times, are very simple :

- The sustained supersonic speed allow to shorten enormously the delivery cycle of the strategic cruise missiles toward enemy installations, and this element generate a disproportionately faster degradation of enemy military capabilities in comparison with a subsonic delivery cycle of the same ammunitions .
Even a difference of mere few hours and entire air wings instead to be reduced to smoking scraps on the ground would be in the air, potentially capable to intercept a part of your next cruise missile salvo; or some radar installations would be still operative and capable to locate your next salvo and so on......
Obviously the next salvo arrive much earlier adding to the degradation's magnificating effect up-described.


- The sustained supersonic speed allow an incomparably faster relocation in different airfields, enormously complicating enemy ISR (in particular through space-based systems cause the tiem window coverage of a particular Sector) and targeting tasks.
That element by itself multiply of several times the survivability of the strategic bomber.


- The sustained supersonic speed (in comparison with a subsonic cruise speed ) prevent potential enemy aircraft of stance in airfields placed literally in several hundreds of km to partecipate in the attempt of the interception of the cruise missile salvo ,even when alerted by early warning assets and with the necessary in-flight refueling.


Present and even more future military development world-wide is a titanic, frantic, desperate ,all-encompassing race toward speed ,speed and more speed.

Words are a things, products was always and will always be another.........

resent and even more future military development world-wide is a titanic, frantic, desperate ,all-encompassing race toward speed ,speed and more speed. wrote:

PAK DA propably will be subsonic bomber. The future is subsonic stealth bomber like B-21 and PAK DA.

Arrow wrote:PAK DA propably will be subsonic bomber. The future is subsonic stealth bomber like B-21 and PAK DA.

ПАК ДА, and not only it, will be.....period

The future of reusable strategic offensive means will be anything EXCEPT subsonic and ,even more, imaginary self-delusional "stealth" products of any kind.

A very, very careful eye is placed on the long "journeys" in the space of X-37B and its current and projected evolution, not those ,at best, easy and very costly flying targets.



Do you know, anyway a fraction of military expenditure will always be commited to procurement of systems optimized for local conflict against low tech enemies , but for Federation's military budget, not having at its root an offensive-imperialistic Doctrine, procurement of systems optimized for conflicts against high tech opponents will always get the priority.

The MiG-31 is an interceptor. This is a real difference in role between the MiG-31 and the Su-PAK-FA. Not like in the case militarov said.

And for an interceptor speed is critical.

For a bomber and a fighter it is not.

If we compare the Su-PAK-FA with other aircrafts of its same or very close role like the Su-35, Su-30, Su-33, Su-27, MiG-35 or MiG-29, the speed is very close. Would you imagine a Mach 1.3 fighter today? We would not be very kind, even the F-35 is Mach 1.6+.

Flying faster than Mach 1.5 burns up lots of fuel, dramatically shortens the flight range of the aircraft and takes time to accelerate to... so 90% of the time most of the aircraft you mention above never fly that fast.

The MiG-31 and MiG-25 are exceptions to this rule as in their role of high speed interceptors they routinely accelerate to full speed and fly for long periods at that speed... simply because their role requires it.

For most other aircraft it greatly reduces range and time on patrol for little to no benefit.

Also we can compare the MiG-41-PAK-DP with the MiG-31 and the MiG-25, and we will see like the future interceptor falls not to lower speed level. Would you imagine a Mach 2 MiG-41? The same.

Again because speed is a critical factor in their primary role.

If speed was a critical factor then the Tu-95 would have been replaced completely from service and the B-52 would also be gone.

Speed is not a critical factor in most types of theatre and strategic bombing or conventional cruise missile attack.

None of the cruise missile attacks by Tu-160s or Tu-22M3s in Syria were launched at supersonic flight speeds... that would just waste fuel and reduce flight range.

For a strategic mission higher speeds would be useful but the costs are higher fuel burn and higher operational costs.

The Bear is not being replaced by the Tu-160M2 because the Tu-160M2 will have operating costs that are too high to allow it.

The PAK DA will be subsonic which will mean its operational costs will be comparable with the Bear... and therefore affordable to operate in sufficient numbers.

The Tu-160M2 will likely be able to super cruise with new lighter stronger materials and more powerful engines, which will mean flying supersonically all the way to the target and back will be practical and much more efficient... it will actually likely make the Tu-160M2 a much better aircraft in both strategic and theatre roles.

If the PAK DA was going to be a supersonic bomber there would be no need to produce more Tu-160s, because the Blackjacks main feature is higher speed with long range.

The PAK DA is going to be the cheaper to operate subsonic bomber that replaces the Tu-22M3 in the theatre role and the Tu-95 in the strategic role with large bomb loads and odd shaped large hypersonic cruise missiles that wont fit so well in the Blackjack.

Present and even more future military development world-wide is a titanic, frantic, desperate ,all-encompassing race toward speed ,speed and more speed.

Words are a things, products was always and will always be another.........

I agree, speed adds to the performance of a bomber and its attempts to penetrate enemy airspace, but the cost is enormous too.

Tu-160s are rather more expensive to operate that subsonic Tu-95s.

Producing a few new Tu-160s... especially as mentioned if the weight could be reduced with new lighter stronger materials, and the fitting of new more powerful engines that are more fuel efficient and perhaps add the capacity to super cruise in the mach 1.4-1.6 speed range would greatly improve effectiveness and performance while also reducing operational costs and fuel consumption.

They would still be too expensive to have your entire fleet based on them however.

The same solution is in cruise missiles... subsonic stealthy long range, together with hypersonic long range offer the best combination of features and performance.

No matter how you cut it the new long range hypersonic cruise missiles will be big weapons... external carriage might be the only option to begin with... external carriage offers enormous penalties for supersonic stealthy aircraft... the external drag means subsonic flight only and a big increase in RCS. For a subsonic plane like a Bear it wont slow it down that much and it already has a big RCS. for a big flying wing the internal volume for weapons could be huge and big enough for internal carriage.

A modular design allowing theatre range fuel weights plus heavy conventional payloads, or conversely strategic level fuel weights and nuclear payloads for strategic delivery should be fairly straight forward to design.

Flying faster than Mach 1.5 burns up lots of fuel, dramatically shortens the flight range of the aircraft and takes time to accelerate to... so 90% of the time most of the aircraft you mention above never fly that fast.

The MiG-31 and MiG-25 are exceptions to this rule as in their role of high speed interceptors they routinely accelerate to full speed and fly for long periods at that speed... simply because their role requires it.

For most other aircraft it greatly reduces range and time on patrol for little to no benefit.

I'm not an expert in jet engines or fighters engines but it's better to have an engine capable of flying at mach 2.5 than mach 1.6 because, even if those speed won't be reached, it means that your engine is much more solid and the limit is far away from your cruise speed or some top speed you could reach during a fight. While having mach 1.6 max limit means your engine is more suceptible to damage if you reach accidently mach 1.5 or mach 1.6 in afterburners in a dogfight.

Moreover, for bombing mission mach 2.0 is very usefull to get away from the target once destroyed because you can outrun fighters coming to you. Remember the 10 AMRAAMs shot and failed to a Mig-25 in Irak or Pakistani uncapable to intercept Indian Mig-25 near Islamabad. No need to use it all the way long, just to put some distance.

GarryB wrote:

The MiG-31 is an interceptor. This is a real difference in role between the MiG-31 and the Su-PAK-FA. Not like in the case militarov said.

And for an interceptor speed is critical.

For a bomber and a fighter it is not.

If we compare the Su-PAK-FA with other aircrafts of its same or very close role like the Su-35, Su-30, Su-33, Su-27, MiG-35 or MiG-29, the speed is very close. Would you imagine a Mach 1.3 fighter today? We would not be very kind, even the F-35 is Mach 1.6+.

Flying faster than Mach 1.5 burns up lots of fuel, dramatically shortens the flight range of the aircraft and takes time to accelerate to... so 90% of the time most of the aircraft you mention above never fly that fast.

The MiG-31 and MiG-25 are exceptions to this rule as in their role of high speed interceptors they routinely accelerate to full speed and fly for long periods at that speed... simply because their role requires it.

For most other aircraft it greatly reduces range and time on patrol for little to no benefit.

Also we can compare the MiG-41-PAK-DP with the MiG-31 and the MiG-25, and we will see like the future interceptor falls not to lower speed level. Would you imagine a Mach 2 MiG-41? The same.

Again because speed is a critical factor in their primary role.

Then we can agree that your comparation of the speed of the Su-PAK-FA with the speed of the MiG-31 was not right, being both aircrafts of different role.

In the case of the fighters, the speed is also important, in lower measure than in the case of the interceptors, but it is also important. We know today there are also smaller and slower fighters from other countres, even subsonic fighters, in some cases related to trainer aircrafts, but they are obviously inferior than the Russian fighters, and are of not interest for the Russian Armed Forces because of their lower performance. As example, for Russia would be easy to do a fighter variant of the Yak-130, even able to reach Mach 1.2/1.3 approximately, but it is fairly safe to say that would be of inferior performance than the previously cited aircrafts, and would be only to export.

GarryB wrote:If speed was a critical factor then the Tu-95 would have been replaced completely from service and the B-52 would also be gone.

Speed is not a critical factor in most types of theatre and strategic bombing or conventional cruise missile attack.

None of the cruise missile attacks by Tu-160s or Tu-22M3s in Syria were launched at supersonic flight speeds... that would just waste fuel and reduce flight range.

For a strategic mission higher speeds would be useful but the costs are higher fuel burn and higher operational costs.

The Bear is not being replaced by the Tu-160M2 because the Tu-160M2 will have operating costs that are too high to allow it.

The PAK DA will be subsonic which will mean its operational costs will be comparable with the Bear... and therefore affordable to operate in sufficient numbers.

The Tu-160M2 will likely be able to super cruise with new lighter stronger materials and more powerful engines, which will mean flying supersonically all the way to the target and back will be practical and much more efficient... it will actually likely make the Tu-160M2 a much better aircraft in both strategic and theatre roles.

If the PAK DA was going to be a supersonic bomber there would be no need to produce more Tu-160s, because the Blackjacks main feature is higher speed with long range.

The PAK DA is going to be the cheaper to operate subsonic bomber that replaces the Tu-22M3 in the theatre role and the Tu-95 in the strategic role with large bomb loads and odd shaped large hypersonic cruise missiles that wont fit so well in the Blackjack.

Like Mindstorm explained, the speed is also one of the key features of the aircrafts of the strategic bomber role. Unlike in the case of interceptors, the speed is not the feature that defines de role. In the case of the strategic bombers the feature that defines the role is the hability to reach long range, but the speed is also a key feature. Very, very important. This is out of doubt. The argument of Mindstorm is technically correct and is well explained. And also Isos explained an important detail.

Being a better aircraft, the Tu-160 totally killed the procurement of the Tu-95. It is obvious why. Same size, same range, higher speed that leads to a more effective compliance of its main mission, but that also helps in almost every other mission with use of conventional armament over land or sea. The replacement was done and was effective in terms of procurement.

In terms of active service, Russia has been building the number of Tu-160 that considered necessary until now, and plans to build more in the future because they consider necessary to have more of them. And this need is not based only in the analysis of the needs for the compliance of its role with nuclear weapons, also the needs for operations with conventional armament are being considered.

In the previous technological generation, Russia had the Tu-95 and the Tu-22. Booth were and are successful. It is obvious that Russia will not destroy weapons that are useful. Like the T-62 continued in service many years after the entry of the T-90. The T-95 and the T-22 succeeded together because at the time every one had its advantage over the other. The Tu-95 had advantage on size (payload). The Tu-22 had avantage on speed. At the time of the Tu-95 and the Tu-22 was not technically posible to have the size of the Tu-95 and the speed of the Tu-22 in a single aircraft. This was fixed in the next technological generation with the development of the Tu-160, including an improvement for both ways (subsonic T-95 and supersonic T-22) in a single solution that is able to accomplish every mission for the strategic bomber role.

Now we see the deveopment of the next technological generation. Nothing makes to think that the Tu-PAK-DA will be of inferior features than its predecessor. Everyone with a minimum technical and economical knowledge knows that it would be a big failure and the orders of the Tu-160 would continue. There is not a technologically serious argument that can sustain it. And the economic balance that some people try to present is fairly questionable, at a stage of the project where almost everything is unknown. In agreement with what Mindstorm explained about the effect of the speed in the compliance of the missions, the suposed economic advantage of lower speed aircrafts would be obtained at the cost of a worst and fairly riskier compliance of the missions (something that also has its costs, that must be included too in the balance). The technolical efforts in to increase the survivability of the aircrafts have a serious effect of the overall economic balance. One thing is to have T-95s in the arsenals since the 1960s and the 1970s and use them, and other thing is to order in the 2020s aircrafts that have the same flaw.

There is not doubt that there are benefits with the integration of stealth technologies in the future solution for the role (Tu-PAK-DA), but if the introduction is done with the sacrifice of key features of the strategic bombers like the speed, with the benefits there is also an introduction of flaws that were surpassed with the Tu-160.

Obviously, the US has a desperate need of seeing Russia validating as a follower, their failed strategy of sacrificing the speed in favor of the stealth technologies, and they are trying to intoxicate without arguments. But Russia is not silly, and is not a follower of failed strategies. We saw recently in Syria, with the shut-down of the last expensive stealth US drone, how this strategy is failing.

PS: Between the Tu-95 and the Tu-22, I would say that the Tu-22 can remain longer in the Russian Armed Forces than the Tu-95, because it remains more actural as military concept than the Tu-95. Lower speed means today a bigger problem than lower payload at the time of the compliance of the missions vs well armed enemies.

PS: Between the Tu-95 and the Tu-22, I would say that the Tu-22 can remain longer in the Russian Armed Forces than the Tu-95, because it remains more actural as military concept than the Tu-95. Lower speed means today a bigger problem than lower payload at the time of the compliance of the missions vs well armed enemies.

Tu-95 has the advantage of range. It can easily go near the US west coast and lunch cruise missiles at safe distance while Tu-22 can't. Their isn't lot of fighters capable to intercept a bomber 1000km away before it lunch something like a kh-101 ... That's why they will keep them.

Tu-22 can be replaced by Su-34 for all its roles : antiship, strategic, tactical bombing, conventionnal bombing and with better results as it has an all new ECM system, new radar, air to air capabilities ... A Tu-22 was destroyed by Georgia easilly with Buk or tor system. What do you think it would do against F-22, Patriot or Aster missiles. Su-34 has chance and can even carry Kh-21 anti radar missiles for SEAD or R-27T against Stealth fighter. Actually Tu-22 is outdated. Your statement is wrong.

Isos wrote:

PS: Between the Tu-95 and the Tu-22, I would say that the Tu-22 can remain longer in the Russian Armed Forces than the Tu-95, because it remains more actural as military concept than the Tu-95. Lower speed means today a bigger problem than lower payload at the time of the compliance of the missions vs well armed enemies.

Tu-95 has the advantage of range. It can easily go near the US west coast and lunch cruise missiles at safe distance while Tu-22 can't. Their isn't lot of fighters capable to intercept a bomber 1000km away before it lunch something like a kh-101 ... That's why they will keep them.

Tu-22 can be replaced by Su-34 for all its roles : antiship, strategic, tactical bombing, conventionnal bombing and with better results as it has an all new ECM system, new radar, air to air capabilities ... A Tu-22 was destroyed by Georgia easilly with Buk or tor system. What do you think it would do against F-22, Patriot or Aster missiles. Su-34 has chance and can even carry Kh-21 anti radar missiles for SEAD or R-27T against Stealth fighter. Actually Tu-22 is outdated. Your statement is wrong.

The Tu-22 is an strategic bomber. It is an aircraft to be used in long range missions, until what its range allows. These are missions that conceptually a Su-34 can not afford. The Tu-22 has not the same range of the Tu-95 or the Tu-160, but as military concept remains modern and is very well adapted to be used in cases like Syria.

A Tu-22 was shut-down in Georgia by good air defense systems. If a Tu-95 would have been in the place of the Tu-22 would have survived? The commented about survability by Mindstorm is very important. Is technically right. And it means the survability of the Tu-22 properly used is higher than the survability of the Tu-95.

My comment about the life of the Tu-95 and the Tu-22 in the Russian Armed Forces is compatible with some decade more of service of the Tu-95. As example, between the Tu-95 and the Il-38, I would say that the Tu-95 can remain longer than the Il-38 in the Russian Armed Forces. But even this means not that I expect a fast retirement for the Il-38 (that as military concept also meets the requierements of a strategic bomber).