GarryB Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:24 am
The T-60 was the supposed Sukhoi design from the 1990s that was supposed to replace the Backfire as a theatre bomb/strike aircraft.
AFAIK it was never intended to be strategic nor to replace either the Bear or Blackjack... and it didn't go anywhere. (as it mentions in the video..)
The difference is that this video seems to be combining potential MiG-31 replacements with what was a Tu-22M3 replacement proposal... the combined turbojet/ramjet propulsion was never considered for the original S-60 and seems to be something they have added...
Ahhh well... at least no one has posted a picture of the T-4M that always gets posted and claimed to be the PAK DA... only problem is that the T-4M design was the one they rejected in the 70s and built the Tu-160 instead...
Flying wing similar to B-2
They won't be spending time and money trying to reinvent the wheel when someone else already did the heavy lifting
They did the same with Buran way back when
I would expect a deeper profile than the B-2 because they want a large internal capacity for weapons (ie large weapons carried internally) so it is not going to be identical to the B-2, but then the Americans are replacing the B-2 with the B-21 which just looks like a B-2 anyway.
NASA spent 2 billion dollars in the 70s to determine the perfect shape for the shuttle... including modelling and testing with super computers of the time... the Soviets would have been stupid to ignore that.
What the Soviets did do is learn the lessons of the US shuttle and build a completely different design.
In a sense the US space shuttle is like a C-130 with an enormous external fuel tank to fuel the onboard engines long enough to make a difference and huge bolt on solid rocket boosters to get the whole thing moving.
The Buran is a glider that sits on an Energya rocket for launch. The difference is that the US system carries ten tons of engines in to space that cost a small fortune to overhaul for reuse and ten tons of dead weight the shuttle carries everywhere it goes. The Soviet system is much more flexible in that if you want to use it as a shuttle it can carry more than double the payload (about 20 tons) because it is not carrying 10 tons of engines everywhere, but most importantly you can leave the Soviet Shuttle on the ground and launch complete 120 ton structures in to space on the back of the rocket, which is important considering construction is slow and difficult in orbit and very expensive.