If it has 4.78 mt why bother? They have the Kh-59Mk2 with 4.2 mt... Can be launched from inside the weapons bay of SU-57, and maybe all others bombers,.
Well can I turn that around and say if it is 6 metres long then why bother when the Kh-55SM and Kh-555 are 6 metres long and have flight ranges of 3,000km already.
What they don't have is a smaller shorter ranged weapon that can be carried in larger numbers than existing Kh-55 and Kh-555 missiles.
The Kh-59MK2 is a 500km range weapon... this weapon is supposed to have at least three or four times that range at about 1,500km or 2,000km...
Kh-50 is a missile build from scratch, they want the missile to have the biggest range possible.
Well they are not achieving that goal if it is 6m long and has less range than existing cruise missile types that size.
By making it 4.78m long they can get them in to the Backfires internal weapon bay, and the Bears internal weapon bay (that can take 6m missiles but not 7.4m missiles) and two in each position on the rotary launcher of a Blackjack (total 24 missiles if necessary).
If they make it 6m long like the Kh-55SM and Kh-555 then it wont fit internally on the Backfire and will fit in the Bear, but why would you carry it on the Blackjack because you are trading one for one with missiles with much better range in the form of the Kh-101/2. Why swap a single 6m long Kh-50 with 1,500km range with a single 7.4m long conventional Kh-101 that can reach 4,500km or 5,000km in the kh-102 nuke model?
What they really need to do is make models to fit the launchers or change the launchers... make all the internal launchers slightly longer so the Bear can take 7.4m long missiles internally, and the Backfire can take 6m long missiles internally and the Blackjack so it can take two 6m long missiles internally and make the replacement for the Kh-101/2 into a 12m long missile to fill up the space properly.
Or they can make the small "tactical" cruise missile a 4.78m long weapon that has a double warhead on the Backfire version with a range of 600km, and a Blackjack version with a range of maybe 2,000km... so it could carry 12 Gzur missiles in one bay and 12 Kh-50 in the other... or 6 of each in one (total 12 missiles) and 6 long range missiles in the other bay for 18 missiles total.
I think they give up on the opportunity of launch 24 missiles from inside the TU-160, I think they have the idea that having more combat radius is more important than launching 24 missiles.
The Gzur could be a Kickback replacement... if it is 6m long then if the Kh-50 is 4.8m long then perhaps they could be paired in one bomb bay.... 6 Gzur missiles and 6 Kh-50s with the other weapon bay carrying 6 x 7.4m Kh-102s.
Yes, but VKS does not have weapons that can attack from a safe distance.Western aviation has many cruise missiles with such capabilities. Russia has such capabilities but only through strategic aviation. Tactical aviation can only attack targets from a direct distance.
You understand the difference between tactical aviation and theatre strike platforms?
Kh-555, and the various air launched weapons like Kinzhal and Kh-32 and even Zircon when it is ready... and what you you mean by safe.... how effective are european SAMs?
Russia still does not have stealth aircraft.
Neither does the west to be honest... unless you really want to could less than 200 F-22s which will most likely be sent back to the US to defend her airspace... the F-35s seem to be a joke and are easily tracked.
Israeli F-35s wont even enter Syrian airspace... so how stealthy are they?
Meanwhile, the US has about 180 F-22 and 500 F-35, plus F35 in Europe, many F-16, EF-2000, Gripen. This is still a huge advantage of Western aviation. Of course, Russian machines have better performance when it comes to range maneuverability but will this offset NATO's advantage in tactical aviation?
What advantage... the more F-35s the HATO forces have the worse things are for them... even the most basic F-16 can go supersonic when it needs to, and with internal weapons only the F-35s are pathetic.
And second because of the detection range which can't be more than 500km anyday soon. Awacs huge ranges are against big rcs targets. Against cruise missiles and new fighter-bombers with coating that absorbs radar waves, even if they use L band, the range will be less than 200km. I even want to say less than 100km... add to that the su-57 pilot will choose the best terrain to hide from any radar by flying low before the launch of the missile.
Any AWACS crew scanning for Su-57s will likely expect their first warning to be an R-37M descending on them at mach 6... when the target is cranking out EM emissions in enormous volumes the game of hide and seek becomes much easier for those hiding...
Name those western air delivered cruise missiles that allow to attack from "safe distance" ,excluding obviously JASSM and JASSM-ER , that are the weapons in debate.
Even JASSMs range of 370km is not good enough... with S-400 able to reach 400km and the fact that it might be located 200km closer to the launch position than the target is, you really want something with a lot more range. The extended range model looks better but would be externally carried making the super expensive stealthy F-35 not stealthy at all...
You could argue with the stand off range it doesn't need to be stealthy but then the Kinzhal and Kh-32 and Kh-555 therefore also don't need stealthy platforms to carry them... and soon Gzur with a mach 6 speed and 1,500km range sounds like an ideal solution to their perceived gap.... as would the Kh-50 with 1,500-2,000km range.
Yes and no. If you want to attack so deep you will need a kalibr with 2500/4000km range. The su-57 with a kh-59mk2 may have the range but it would be suicide mission to send it attack US bases in Germany because even if it is stealth and all that it will be dead alone so deep in enemy territory.
Extended range Iskander and likely ground launched hypersonic missiles like Zircon snr should be able to deal with such problems... keeping most Russian aircraft nice and local.
allowing su-57 to go a little bit in enemy territory and launches its missiles at targets in range. You don't send him to take out targets very far when you have kalibr for them and when you have plenty of targets near the front or as you call them on the first echelon.
Su-57 would be best used picking off AWACS and JSTARS and inflight refuelling aircraft 150km back from the front line... I would use the Su-35s to pick off the F-35s and Rafales... though I might be tempted to leave the F-35s as their use is probably financially crippling the owning country with every flight...