You do not pair them in the SEAD role.
So a PAK DA performing a subsonic long range bombing mission over Syria would not be escorted by Su-35s or other fighters to protect it from interference?
Do you think the Backfires operated on their own over Syria?
Despite modern aircraft being fully multirole... in fact the French call their Rafales Omnirole because they are not just fighters and interceptors and strike aircraft and recon platforms with their sensors and weapons options, they can be combinations of any of those things on each mission... but obviously the more weapon types carried the fewer weapons for each role will be available so in practise a couple of aircraft in the package will be loaded up with weapons for the primary and secondary targets while other aircraft might carry extra fuel and air to air and anti radiation missiles to engage air and ground based threats.
In a sense it is bomber aircraft being paired with lighter fighter like aircraft to help defend from ground and air threats... but in this case S-70 pairing with Su-35 and Su-34 is for a variety of reasons... S-70s are stealthy and when paired with Su-35s, which are not stealthy offer an opportunity to fly closer to enemy forces and locations without being spotted but they can be used against enemy air and ground systems. When paired with Su-34s they might adopt an overwatch mission where the Su-34s are penetrating enemy airspace low and fast where their lack of stealth is less of a problem because of the problems tracking low flying targets, but in this case you could pair them with S-70s which could use their stealthy shapes to fly at high subsonic speeds at medium to high altitudes maximising the range of their air to air missiles to defend the low flying Su-34s which when loaded with ordinance will also be flying at high subsonic speeds... the high flying stealth drones looking for threats in the air and on the ground ahead of the attacking strike aircraft launching high speed anti radiation missiles at ADs and major radar sites before they spot the low flying Fullbacks...
For an attack on the US then SEAD support for the PAK DA wouldn't make sense unless you used a PAK DA based support aircraft that could match flight performance and range, but for theatre missions an S-70 escort carrying long range AAMs and long range anti radiation missiles also flying high with the PAK DA to maximise range and speed would be useful and help both penetrate quite strong defences.
The current R-37M is reported to have a flight range of about 350km launched at very high speed from a MiG-31, so its flight speed from a high flying subsonic bomber might be 250km, which is still very good... and having S-70s operating with the PAK DA means they could deploy jammers which would make the PAK DA operating with them even harder to spot... enemy forces might think it is just a probing attack to test their defences and find out where their major SAMs and radars and air groups are located at... and then they notice 12 x Mach 10 Zircon missiles suddenly appear over their airspace as the PAK DA turns and heads back to base... mission accomplished...
The job of destroying the enemy's AD systems can be assigned to a swarm of S-70s. Once they have successfully carried out the mission they share the relevant information with the Su-30s, Su-34s and Su-35s who can then target the enemy's infantry and armored units.
That is one way they could be used, but another way might be operating with a group of 24 fighters, where two drones per fighter means 48 drones, so 72 aircraft operating together all armed with a range of missiles all equipped with towed decoys and jammers, all working together to deal with any threats trying to cross into their airspace.
Being relatively stealth the S-70s could operate closer to enemy fighters and defences without being noticed which is an advantage that the Russian forces can use to make their job easier.
The numbers advantage of HATO is not really as substantial as it could be... they don't have the hundreds of F-22s and thousands of F-35s they thought they would have by now, while the quality of Russian aircraft has increased substantially since the 1980s where the main advantages were aerodynamic and not engine or radar related... their air to air missiles also gave them an advantage too and that looks set to continue as well with new weapons entering service.
Large stealthy bombers like the B-2 is a failure.
During peace time or limited war large heavy bombers are incredibly useful... look at the B-52.
What is the failure is thinking a B-52 like plane can penetrate Soviet air space and still do a good job... which it obviously can't, but the PAK DA is not a B-52 or a B-2... it is a subsonic only Tu-160 or Tu-95 which are long range cruise missile carrying platforms for WWIII type scenarios... whether launching 5,000km range subsonic cruise missiles or next generation much longer ranged hypersonic missiles, they won't need to get anywhere near US air defences.... and ironically their low speed will mean launching from Russian bases in the far north it will be 6 to 8 hours before they reach their launch positions... 30 minutes after they take off Russian ICBMs and SLBMs will be devastating US air defences and cities and infrastructure... when they arrive 5-6 hours later to a point mid ocean to launch their long range missiles nothing will be coming to greet them, and anything they spot on the way used to be dealt with using the Kh-15 which is a 500km range mach 5 nuclear armed self defence missile for use against air and ground targets with the blunt instrument of a large nuclear warhead. It has been withdrawn from service, but its replacement is supposed to be a mach 6 missile with a flight range of 1,500km... so in practise if a group of enemy aircraft or large SAM radars light up ahead of the bomber group a bomber will launch a single missile that will streak ahead at 6 times the speed of sound and detonate destroying the aircraft group or the ground based radar well before the bombers get anywhere near them...
They can never be used by the U.S against a near peer competitor like Russia. And yet Russia is going for the PAK-DA. Terrible.
The only way the B-2 could survive any period over the Soviet Union was flying low... the same as the B-52 for all the same reasons... and it didn't take much time in exercises and training to realise actually flying low for long distances reduced flight speed, massively reduced flight range, and also greatly increased wear and tear on the structures of the aircraft reducing their lifespans by 60-70 percent or more and leading to cracking and also increasing the risk of bird strikes...
Their solution was to make a cheaper B-2 but they don't seem to want to make it into a cruise missile carrier... they seem to want a long range fighter that will protect it in hostile airspace... so the PAK DA is not a B-2 and nor is it a B-21... it is a fixed wing Tu-160 in flying wing configuration to replace a cruise missile carrier in the long range strategic role (Tu-95) and also long, medium, and short range strike missiles and bombs in the Theatre attack role (Tu-22M3).
The Tu-22M3 is not expected to use its speed to evade enemy defences, it will be using its standoff weapon range for that, and the PAK DA wont use its stealth to penetrate enemy air defences, it will use standoff weapons and stealth together to likely never be noticed.
A bit like using the F-35 outside Syrian airspace to attack targets inside Syria... except the PAK DA will have massively more ordinance... both attack and self defence...
I see on Wiki the new B-21 is supposed to use the same engines as the F-35 in a bid to make the F-35 cheaper perhaps... ironically I suspect it will only make the B-21 more expensive instead.
Obviously PAK-DA is a "clone" of the B-2. Why else would it have a flying wing design if it was not meant to be a low observable stealth bomber?
Are you American?
The Soviets were flying experimental flying wings before WWII... is the F-15 a clone of the MiG-25?
Building a flying wing design for a long range subsonic strategic cruise missile carrier and theatre bomber or missile carrier means it is not a clone of the B-2 which is a bomber.
The Tu-142 maritime patrol aircraft is often reported as being a Soviet or Russian bomber, which is ironic because it is not a bomber either.
The Tu-95 as in service at the moment is a cruise missile carrier and is not a bomber either... the Bear in its current versions don't carry bombs for any missions, they can use strategic nuclear or strategic or theatre range conventionally armed cruise missiles and that is all.
The Tu-142 can carry depth charges and torpedoes and anti ship missiles but is not a bomber either.
In your own words..."PAK DA should be more stealthy than the Su-57 simply because it lacks vertical tail surfaces and engine nacelles hanging under the aircraft."
It is a flying wing because that gives it low drag and minimal RCS even without any other stealth measures... a flying wing design is a naturally stealthy shape that is even hard to see from some angles, but the Americans make different planes than the Russians do... their B-2 is a bomber only, just like the F-22 was a fighter only... the Russian PAK DA is a cruise missile carrier mostly but it will be able to bomb targets too like the Backfire does, and the Su-57 was designed from the outset to be fully multirole air to air and air to ground.
Suggesting something that follows the same design has the same roles and purpose is wrong.
No, it is not a "clone" of the B-2. It shares the similar concept of B-21...
Does it though?
I kinda get the feeling that the B-21 is just an F-15EX... a rehash of old shit because they don't know a good path forward... the B-21 seems to be a subsonic strategic bomber that they want to use to replace the B-52s and B-1Bs... so in that sense it is a mirror of the PAK DA replacing the Bear and the Backfire... but the American planes are mostly bombers too.
The Soviets and Russians didn't really buy in to the western culture of strategic bombing their enemy into submission, because they know it is not as effective as the west seems to believe.
Remember, VKS professionals know more than you. 1 million times.
To be fair the B-2 was obsolete before it entered service... even flying low level it was too vulnerable to operate over the Soviet Union for very long armed with nuclear free fall bombs, and if the Russians were trying to copy it now I would say they were being stupid too, but they are not.
The Bear is a cheap long range cruise missile carrier, whose standoff missiles keep it safe from enemy air defences, and the longer ranged standoff missiles in development will make the stealthy PAK DA even safer in the strategic role. In theatre roles over Europe or hitting targets in the Middle East or Asia, its stand off weapon range might mean it can launch massive attacks from inside Russian airspace, and in COIN type conflicts like Syria or perhaps Libya they can safely and accurately drop cheap dumb bombs on targets more efficiently than other aircraft types... they should also be able to carry and use some of the larger ordinance in the Russian inventory including FAB-3000, FAB-5000 and FAB-9000 and also the Father Of All Bombs too at about 11 tons....
B-21 according to the makers themselves is basically an upgraded B-2. It will be used in missions that are currently being undertaken by the B-2.
Which makes it totally obsolete against Russia or China, and as we move forward and Russia starts selling AD systems and equipment to the rest of the world the number of countries the west can bully will shrink rapidly.
Kremlin has no such compulsion as it runs all the defence companies.
The Russians aren't making a B-1B or B-52 replacement strategic bomber, they are making a Backfire replacement bomber that can also carry long range cruise missiles like the Tu-95 Bear does. The Bear does not carry bombs in its current models... only nuclear or conventionally armed cruise missiles.
The PAK DA will not carry bombs in its strategic role, only theatre attack role against non HATO countries or groups.
Why would you think that a radar is the only system used to detect a stealth aircraft? A stealth aircraft has to make itself stealthy at the different frequencies including IR, acoustic, visual, and the radar bands.
Not if it never gets within 4,000km of its target it doesn't. Modest stealth like RAM and materials and limiting emissions including from its engines and the natural stealth and aerodynamic efficiency of its basic shape will be plenty.
Design of stealth aircraft are not as effective against less conventional air search or early warning radar wavelengths in either the lower VHF range or much higher millimeter wave range.
That is very true but larger stealth aircraft fare better than smaller stealth aircraft in that regard.
Some of these RADAR use over the horizon technology where they bounce the pulse off of the ionosphere. This means the pulse is hitting the stealth aircraft at a far different angle than the aircraft is optimized against. B-21 or PAK-DA is not going to buck this trend. Radars like the Nebo SVU , Gamma DE and Protivnik GE are accurate enough to direct a missile shot, using the engagement radar primarily as a midcourse command/datalink channel to the missile.
Very true but those radars you mention are Russian... how many of those radars does HATO operate, and more importantly detecting PAK DA at 3,000km is of little use because it is probably about to launch its missiles and turn away and head back to base...
Flying at full AB to try to catch it would massively reduce the already limited flight radius of Rafales and F-35s and Gripens etc that might be trying to intercept it.
Three to four S-70s will be more than adequate to perform all the missions that would require the deployment of a PAK-DA.
S-70 has a flight range of about 5,000km so even without a payload it cannot perform the mission the PAK DA performs... add a 5 ton payload and that flight range is likely reduced further... but 5 tons is two Kh-101 or Kh-102 cruise missiles... the PAK DA will be carrying at least 5 times more than that over distances twice as far...
The only issue I have with your argument is that the S-70 does not have the range to fulfill any strategic or long range tactical missions, but the idea of a long range UAV in the strike role does make sense in future - subject to human control/intervention. Well same goes for any UAV - no matter what military role.
But a long range strike drone version of the PAK DA is essentially just the same design minus the cockpit and they have already mentioned an unmanned model of the aircraft as an option...
Well, some time back there was a rumour that Russia is working on a strategic drone, big enough to carry Kh-101 cruise missiles inside. The PAK-DA could be designed like the Su-75 with manned and unmanned versions.
It might be bigger than we think and it might carry two S-70 drones conformally as payloads of 5,000km range "cruise missiles" that can deliver 5 tons of nuclear bombs... maybe 100 kgs each... maybe 50 nuclear bombs per S-70 drone to scatter around the place.... dirty fission bombs that make a real mess and do radiation damage to the terrain that lasts for a long time...
Why does every single UCAV ever conceived need to fulfill long range missions? For long range missions RuAF already has the Tu-160, Tu-95, Tu-22.
The Purpose of the PAK DA is to replace the Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 in the Russian long range aviation branch of their Air Force... It is a cheaper slower compliment to the Tu-160 strategic missile carrier which likely wont carry bombs at all.
If they still intend to use the S-70 in long range missions it can be armed with the Kinzhal or the Kh-95.
S-70 is a wingman drone and has no business carrying strategic missiles.
Kinzhal is a rocket powered anti ship and land attack missile which gets its extra range and speed from being carried by the MiG-31 and being launched at mach 2.5 speeds and 18km altitudes... neither of which the S-70 could come close to, so Kinzhal launched from the S-70 would have rather ordinary performance in terms of range and speed and therefore would be a waste of resources.
Long range strikes are best carried out by ships and submarines using cruise missiles like Kaliber or Zircon.
Groups of ships and subs are enormously expensive and while mobile and not fast and responsive like long range aircraft are.
Long range airbone tactical mission is an oxymoron.
The Backfire proved rather useful in Syria and its capacity to carry lots of heavy dumb bombs over decent distances was valuable enough for them to base a Backfire in Syria. Its capacity to carry long range supersonic anti ship missiles was also a bonus in that regard too which will likely be shared by the PAK DA being able to do too.
Dodgy, vaccuous tactics devised in the West to rob billions from taxpayers despite the fact that the powers that be knows fully well that stealth bombers will be picked up by enemy space and sea based assets during their long flight thousands of miles away.
Totally agree which is why the heavy bombing theatre role would only be for low intensity conflicts where the enemy has no heavy SAMs or air power.
The Backfire attacked targets with dumb bombs from 8-10km altitude quite safely... a flying wing could probably do the same from 12-16km altitude which adds more safety and also kinetic energy to the bombs being used...
Bombers like B-2, B-21 can bomb the daylight out of a Saddam or Gaddafi but against Russia it is useless. Similarly PAK-DA is equally useless if you intend to bomb targets half way across the world.
If they wanted to bomb targets half way around the world the PAK DA would actually be better than the Backfire which does not have inflight refuelling and has relatively thirsty engines designed for much higher speeds than are needed most of the time.
If the enemy detect bombers coming then Russia can launch from Subs or ships, but if they know the ships are there then an attack from aircraft can be a surprise.
How many countries have OTH radars operational and working... I would say the US, France, and Australia and that is about it.... 90% of the best anti stealth radar are Russian...
Strategic bombers are like principle navy ships. You need them as a show of force. For sabre rattling to keep your enemy in check. In the real war nuclear tipped missiles will do the business, but you can't have missiles flying around in "peace time". Therefor you use bombers and large ships instead.
Bombers and ship and sub launched missiles are flexible and responsive and can be sent almost anywhere at short notice, and unlike ICBMs and SLBMs they can be used in limited conflicts.... sometimes their presence can prevent war... if the US is getting titchy about Venezuela or some other country in that region... being able to send a few Blackjacks or PAK DAs for a visit and some exercises in a few days is a valuable escalation to try to deescalate the situation without firing a shot.
In comparison getting a surface action group of ships together to send them to that region for exercises that might last months is going to take 4 to 6 weeks at best... armed subs could probably get there faster but then to be effective as a deterrence they would need to reveal their presence... which sub captains would hate to do because he will then spend the next few weeks trying to evade western forces trying to locate and follow him...