PAK YA is able to replace all long-range aircraft

A promising strategic missile carrier (PAK DA) will be able to replace all types of Far aviation and at the same time it will be cheaper in production and operation, TASS reported citing a source in the military-industrial complex.

One of the main tasks assigned by the military department to the creators of the promising long-range aviation complex (PAK DA) is for the new aircraft to perform the functions of all three current missile carriers (Tu-160, Tu-95MS and Tu-22М3) and at the same time cost much cheaper Tu-160

- Said the source agency.

At the same time reducing the cost of the aircraft will contribute to the fact that the new missile carrier subsonic, said a source. This will in no way affect the combat capabilities of the PAK DA, since the capabilities of high-precision cruise missiles make it possible to launch them from a long distance without entering the zone of action of enemy air defense. In addition, the subsonic bomber is easier to prepare for flight and it consumes less fuel.

Today, no country in the world, including such powerful military powers as Russia and the United States, simply draws the design and construction of a supersonic bomber that meets all the criteria of the 5 generation

- considers the agency interlocutor.

In July, Deputy Defense Minister for armaments Yuri Borisov called the key parameters of the new aircraft: low visibility, high payload and flight duration, the ability to use any airfields.

Comments

[210ox]

Let's create the first Chickens in the fall count.

[maxim947]

Good of course, but the news is about nothing.

[Barshchik-M]

Quote: maxim947

Good of course, but the news is about nothing.

Well, why ... Recently, an article here was that the modernized Tu-160 Anglo-Saxons were called "super-bomber" ...
And if this one enters the series, then what will they call ..?

[maxim947]

The opinion of the Anglo-Saxons should concern us last, and it is better not to worry at all. As for PAK YES, these are so distant prospects that such conclusions do not look serious.

[Iline]

Quote: maxim947

As for PAK YES, these are so distant prospects that such conclusions do not look serious.

As for the distant prospects, it will become clear in a very short period of time (until the end of the year) when the amounts of expenditures on new weapons for the next decade will be approved at the government level. So it’s better to leave your opinion on this issue with you for a while, rather than say so confidently.

[okko077]

The Tu-160 has an outdated design feature that is not optimal from the point of view of efficiency and resource related to the variable sweep of the wing ... They restore the production of the Tu-160M2 forcefully and pursue two goals that are not entirely related to military necessity ... First, on this wave to ensure the operability of the old TU-160, because there is almost no serviceable equipment on it or it has not been manufactured for a long time, or the price is prohibitive .... Second, prepare for the production of PAK DA, restoring and completing the production of TU-160M2 .....

[Vladimir Gordeev]

funny .... you don’t have to be smart, somehow it turns out silly .... read what you wrote - the nonsense of a couch expert ...

[maxim947]

it turns out in a very short period of time when the government will approve the amount of expenses
Unfortunately, This will become clear not when the money starts to be distributed, and not even from the beginning of the outline design, but when the direct production begins.

[The_lancet]

PAK YA is able to replace all long-range aircraft

Has no analogues?
On this site they like to add such words

[_Ugene_]

Oh, the hard worker pulled himself up. Do you have piecework or hourly work? How much do they pay for the comment?

[The_lancet]

Oh, the hard worker pulled himself up. Do you have piecework or hourly work? How much do they pay for the comment?

I go to this resource to read some interesting news. And an article like this is garbage.
The words “has no analogues” are often found in articles. This is my observation. But in almost all cases, there are analogues
Think it's sarcasm

[_Ugene_]

Judging by your comments in all other articles, you’re accessing this resource clearly not to read interesting news, but to touch it.
And if the

article like this - trash

, then why comment on the trash? Are you a garbage specialist? Apparently at work they do not ask if you want to or not - you need to troll.

[The_lancet]

Apparently at work they do not ask if you want to or not - you need to troll.

This is done by Russian bots.
No, I’m interested in quality written material.
And annoying stupid and deceitful comments about my country. There are
certain flaws. However, most commentators write nonsense and misinformation

[_Ugene_]

This is done by Russian bots.

Oh, of course, the insidious Russian bots, the Americans are not doing this, how could I think that? An exceptional nation.

And annoying stupid and deceitful comments about my country.

And stupid and deceitful comments about my country are constantly pouring from you. From which I conclude - either Russophobe or at work.

[APASUS]

Quote: The_Lancet

I am interested in quality written material.

So you have the opportunity not only to discuss someone else’s material, but also write your own. And here we look at your awareness and knowledge of the issue (in your opinion) For one, show that you are not a bot

[Vladimir16]

Quote: The_Lancet

However, most commentators write nonsense and misinformation

Exceptional?
You watch yourself.

Quote: The_Lancet

Articles often contain the words "has no analogues"

This refers more to the mattress articles and speeches of your chief. It was black who loved to shout about the exclusivity of everything American, (in your opinion - having no analogues). And the blond woman is singing along with her ex.
And what the hell to climb on a Russian site if everything is annoying you here.
There is a Russian proverb "not your mind business."

[Pirogov]

Quote: The_Lancet

And annoying stupid and deceitful comments about my country

Hear irritated, and the fact that your country has been financing for war and terrorism for more than a century, and then profits on human grief, is it also a lie?

[Pete mitchell]

Quote: Pirogov

Quote: The_Lancet

, and the fact that your country has more than a century, finances wars and terrorism, and then profits on human grief, is also a lie?

Not not how you can - they are all sincerely and well-meaning. After all, they love to see their country strong and courageous. The fact that they do it at the expense of everyone around them does not care and Lancet is a real example: in the states everything is beautiful, any opinion is contrary: Russian, Chinese, Martian - fake, because the GDP is a spy and manipulates everything .. It's boring and not interesting, although very sad

[Tersky]

Quote: The_Lancet

However, most commentators write nonsense and misinformation

Yeah , but there’s a “small" difference ", simple users write nonsense to us and they don’t spread further than the site. But you, my American" friend ", write nonsense and misinformation at the Department of State, are unanimously accepted by the Congress and spread all over the world. . Psaki won't let you lie, and old Hillary will give a tooth So there’s nothing to blame for the mirror, since the face is crooked .

[SCHWERIN]

In American forums, too, not only Einsteins are sitting. So what is ....

[Bolo]

and a tolerant American bot has to analyze garbage in Russian-language sites in order to justify the green card put forward by the owners.

[Filxnumx]

The_Lancet quote
No, I’m interested in quality written material.

Well, of course, and especially with the marks "secret", "Sov. Secret" and "special importance" and without fail with the attachment of photo and video recording materials

[Lex.]

Has no analogues?
On this site they like to add such words
Each sandpiper praises its swamp, you also have the f-22, the best in the world, nothing to be amused

[SPACE]

Quote: maxim947

Good of course, but the news is about nothing.

It's just that this is far from news.

A promising strategic missile carrier (PAK DA) will be able to replace all types of Long-Range Aircraft and at the same time it will be cheaper to manufacture and operate,

The idea is right! It is in “small” military aviation that there are many conflicting tasks for airplanes, an interceptor, a fighter, a fighter-bomber, a front-line bomber, an attack aircraft, these planes are radically different in terms of both characteristics and spectrum of tasks, which in turn does not allow to fully unite everything requirements in one machine, as we see in the example of Ф-35.
As for the long-range bomber missile-carrying aircraft, firstly, the range of tasks to be solved is much smaller, the number of required vehicles is also small. Secondly, the development of air defense systems has reached such extreme heights and speeds that it practically negates the possession of such aircraft the advantages of high speed, especially in the absence of maneuverability unusual for a bomber. Thirdly, strike rocket technology has received serious development both in speed and in range, navigation and control, which allows launching missiles without entering the enemy’s air defense zone, and it is also easier to make missiles inconspicuous and even maneuverable. Summarizing the requirements and available technologies, it seems very logical and correct to create a unified universal transport platform PAK DA. We give up high speed and multi-mode, simplify, reduce the cost, it is quite reasonable to use the integrated fighter fuselage shape, all this will improve flight performance, range and carrying capacity, reliability, etc. And on the basis of a single carrier platform, already create two specializations, a clean bomber and a missile carrier. So the task in this case is absolutely solvable and the direction of development is chosen correctly. Well done! The plane will be great!

[maxim947]

The fact that the idea is correct from a rational point of view is absolutely obvious, the question is in the implementation of the project, in terms of timing. The topic on PAK YES has been voiced for a relatively long time, but has not yet advanced beyond conversations.

[ID90]

Quote: maxim947

Good of course, but the news is about nothing.

news to keep URYakalok in good shape.

[Aviator_]

No, there is still one infa: PAK YES will be subsonic, it was completely abandoned supersonic.

[SPLV]

Read. Even amusing. Cool analysts-commentators did not see the main information.

Today, no country in the world, including such powerful military powers as Russia and the United States, simply draws the design and construction of a supersonic bomber that meets all the criteria of the 5 generation
- considers the agency interlocutor.

The fact of the matter is that the news is about that. There is no money for research and development and will not be in the near future. And the states are attracted here. They may just have enough money. But most likely only the Chinese will have enough money.

[xtur]

> Today, no country in the world, including such powerful military powers as Russia and the United States, simply cannot pull the design and construction of a supersonic bomber that meets all the criteria of the 5th generation

What is the urgent need for a strategic bomber striking over several thousand kilometers, possessing a huge radar station and relying on electronic warfare, stealth, cruising supersonic, and the ability to work in a network information paradigm?

with the exception of stealth, the remaining qualities can be implemented already on the Tu-160
but the compatibility of great capabilities in electronic warfare and powerful radar with stealth is very doubtful.

It is rather a task for Tu-22M3 aircraft

[RASKAT]

Yeah, we can’t build a Tu-160m in any way, but already we dream of PAK YES. What will we fly? What engines? How much new engine is being created? 10-15 years, well, then the plane will be ready for 30-35 years. It seems to me.

[Pirogov]

Quote: RASKAT

Yeah, we can’t build a Tu-160m in any way, but already we dream of PAK YES. What will we fly? What engines? How much new engine is being created? 10-15 years, well, then the plane will be ready for 30-35 years. It seems to me.

But I am worried about another question, if PAK YES will be subsonic but cheaper than TU 160, then if the point is in such savings?

[Victor N]

Well done: do not cry, but work!
You can endlessly enjoy looking at the workers, at the flowing water ....

[Ace Tambourine]

I will add a little ...
You can admire 4 things for an infinitely long time: running water, burning fire, money and how others work.
The best option is a fire in the savings bank ...

[siberalt]

“Cheaper” is when you need money to do something and earn money at the making stage.

[MoJloT]

He hasn’t even appeared in plasticine, but he can already replace everyone.

[Bourbon]

Quote: MoJloT

He hasn’t even appeared in plasticine, but he can already replace everyone.

and most importantly, the subsonic model is justified .... less fuel ..... kapets ... then what for zircons ?? maybe a million rockets on wood ?? ... it's cheaper ....

[Botanologist]

Quote: Burbon

Quote: MoJloT

He hasn’t even appeared in plasticine, but he can already replace everyone.

and most importantly, the subsonic model is justified .... less fuel ..... kapets ... then what for zircons ?? maybe a million rockets on wood ?? ... it's cheaper ....

You do not confuse the carrier with a weapon. A bullet flies faster than a soldier carries an assault rifle, but no one asks to run faster.

[Bourbon]

Quote: Botanologist

You do not confuse the carrier with a weapon. A bullet flies faster than a machine gun fighter

this fighter is sick and hard .... he does not want to reach the point at the appointed time ..... until the sound is a Mozhaisk airplane in the modern world

[Victor N]

Captain, do you have the beginnings of military knowledge?

[VadimSt]

Super conclusion ... can you explain why announce a project that will replace Mozhaisky?

[Bourbon]

Quote: VadimSt

why announce the project,

it isn’t ..... the project .... there is a desire to make an announcement - then ask for money, then cut it through, then understand that there is little money - then understand what sound is - the last century and it is not relevant

[Vlad.by]

The technology for creating an inconspicuous glider has already been tested on the MS-21, and this is not yet the technology of the “partners”, they started designing the PD-35 (although the basis of the design, the hot part, was again tested on the PD-14), the avionics are being finalized in the context of the Tu 160M, ammunition tested in Syria ...
It remains to combine all this in one design.
There is still a lot of work, but it is working.

[Victor N]

And now, all the same it pleases!

[pvv113]

will be able to replace all types of Long-range aircraft and at the same time it will be cheaper to manufacture

It looks like the skin of an unkilled bear is being shared.

[VadimSt]

And more specifically, can it be specifically between “who” and “what”?

[pvv113]

The saying is - talk about what is not

[Solomon Kane]

And it is not known whether ....
Judging by the words of our Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, we are already "flying on the 5th generation" of fighters ...

November 14, 2017, AEX.RU - The Russian Su-35 generation 4 ++ combat aircraft is actually the fifth generation fighter. This was stated by Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, reports Lenta.ru.

“It is much cheaper than any fifth-generation aircraft, and its difference is only in one: the weapon is on the external suspension, and not inside. But in essence [he is a fifth-generation fighter] - according to the radar, if possible, accompany several targets at once and hit them, ”explained the official in charge of the military-industrial complex in the government.

According to Rogozin, the Su-35 is capable of being “invisible” to the enemy and “seeing” it at the same time. “I am sure that this aircraft has a great future,” concluded the Deputy Prime Minister.

So, it’s not a fact that tomorrow the Tu-160 will be declared a successful PAK DA project ....

[pvv113]

Greetings, Konstantin! I fully agree that officials often wishful thinking they give out as valid. Some want to be promoted, some unknowingly. So in this case, there is only the technical task for the design and the proposed image of the PAK DA, and they are already replacing the entire Long-Range Aviation.
If my memory serves me right, then the cycle from the development of terms of reference to the creation of a prototype, including the stage of design development, is about 10-15 years (I can be wrong, plus or minus 5 years). Moreover, with an increase in take-off mass, the duration of the cycle increases. And I'm not talking about the serial release

[Solomon Kane]

From the birth of the "bird" to the moment of landing on the wing - not one decade ...
MiG-29s have been developed since the mid-60s, the first experimental flight was in 1977, and it went into production as early as 1983. And this, mind Volodya, in the USSR, when the military-industrial complex was the best in the world, and the loot was not cut at such a speed ......

[pvv113]

So, thanks to the Soviet backlog, two incomplete Tu-160s were preserved at the Kazan plant, which have now been put into production. My respect for Kazan aircraft builders!
And now it’s necessary to shut up holes in Long-Range Aviation caused by the mass destruction of aircraft in the era of humpback and Yeltsin, and only then think about replacing them with promising models

[Observer2014]

PAK YA is able to replace all long-range aircraft

Yeah, first publish at least the look and then see if he can hang for a long time in the air like the Tu 95. And will he have a speed like the Tu 22 and 160.

[Vlad.by]

Do you bring artificial intelligence algorithms to your home, or will you go yourself?

[Observer2014]

Vlad.by

Do you bring artificial intelligence algorithms to your home, or will you go yourself?

Children of the USSR You are used to discussing your technique in the first publications of the Western press. I don’t even take offense at this. For otherwise you don’t understand how you can. Know and be proud of your technique. From your sources of information. Receive this very information. Legacy of a totalitarian past “We have it! But it's secret” And wait for the article to be published in the West

[Vlad.by]

What comes out in the West was reliable with humpback and drunk. They opened everything they could. And what did this lead to?
Thank God, they began to close the latest developments and open either disu or scarecrows. So - read on to the free press.

[Lavrenti Pavlovich]

It seems to me some sort of divorce. Why build an airplane that is already outdated? What does it mean expensive? - you need to steal less, you can’t save on your own safety. It is necessary to design planes like the Soviet TU-95, TU-160, TU-22 - how many years have passed, but they do not become obsolete, they are only being modernized.

[Piramidon]

Yuri Borisov called the key parameters of the new aircraft: stealth, high payload and flight duration, ability to use any airdromes.

Shove the unbearable. Such a "fool" and take-off and landing from the primer, like today's transporters.

[K-50]

A promising strategic missile carrier (PAK DA) will be able to replace all types of Long-range aircraft and at the same time it will be cheaper to manufacture and operate

What a stupid thing.
Universalism is ALWAYS more expensive, because in order to fulfill this condition a lot of not always relevant decisions are laid, which obviously does not reduce the cost.
Examples? I have them.
There was such a USV gun, a brainchild, at least lobbied, by the notorious Tukhachevsky. Equally poorly solved all the tasks delegated to her.
From the closest, F-35. Only the lazy did not write about the cost, but did not hear and did not read only the child, well, or some kind of “blonde”. About the solvability of tasks is not yet known. At least the F-117 was no less shock "invisible", but still cost less.
So to rub about the cheapness of universal solutions is not necessary.
Sweeping universalism is not the task. But to try to do really something worthy, a very big and expensive work., Both in terms of execution and payment for this work.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: K-50

Universalism is ALWAYS more expensive

Quote: K-50

So to rub about the cheapness of universal solutions is not necessary.

No need to rub about the high cost of universalism, practice has shown that it is more profitable to do one MBT than many light \ medium \ heavy \ infantry \ assault highly specialized tanks, i.e. in practice, it turned out to be more profitable to have a universal tank but with specialized ammunition than highly specialized tanks.

[K-50]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

No need to rub about the high cost of universalism, practice has shown that it is more profitable to do one MBT than many light \ medium \ heavy \ infantry \ assault highly specialized tanks,

Of course, because now all the tanks have become HEAVY.
And the fact that they were called the main weather does not.

[Vlad.by]

How do you like the Su-35? equally good on land, on water and in the air.
Just not vertical take-off.

[K-50]

Quote: Vlad.by

How do you like the Su-35? equally good on land, on water and in the air.

And what is better than the Su-35 or MiG-31 as an interceptor, what is the main "concern" of the fighter?
Please do not forget about the cost.

[Vlad.by]

Mig 31 is good, but the radius is small. A max. the speed of the Su-35 is not critically less. But the time of barrage is one and a half, or even two or three hours more. Despite the fact that missiles largely level the advantage of Miga in the interception zone.
Network-centricity is enough for both and it can still be increased by modernization. At the same time, Mig is a pure interceptor. Flew in, captured, shot and home. Air combat in all manifestations except high-speed interception is contraindicated or even impossible. And Su, by 80 or even more%, blocks Mig’s interception capabilities, but also works on the surface and is ready to get involved in a dog dump. No doubt, the SR-31 is not suitable for intercepting, but Mig is not always suitable for this. But how many of those Blackbirds?

[K-50]

All of what you said is certainly true. One caveat:

Quote: Vlad.by

Flew in, captured, shot and home.

Only need to add quickly flew, etc.
When it comes to intercepting a cruise missile that is heavy enough to intercept a target, the "extra" time to intercept will never be superfluous.

[Vlad.by]

I don’t argue, fast! But, let's calculate how much faster the MiG will take off, compared with the Su-35. I think that the difference in time of reaching the line of missile launch during take-off from one aerodrome will be a couple of minutes on the strength. I got 160 seconds offhand. The turn range from the airfield will be 500 km. Max. We will take the Mig31 speed 3200 km / h, Su-35 - 2500 km / h. Overload during takeoff and speeding to the maximum - 4g. (This is in favor of the MiG-31) Believe me, pure arithmetic.
This is despite the fact that the time to prepare the machine for departure is considered the same. But, I think, Mig31 will take a little longer to prepare than Su-35, so in the end, I believe, they will launch missiles at the same time. So it turns out that from the point of view of interception, the possibilities are approximately equal.

[Filxnumx]

that is, you say that the Tu-160 can in no way carry out combat missions posed to the Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3? Facts, as they say on the barrel.
a subsonic strategist is definitely cheaper than a supersonic one at times: Tu-160, for example, costs about half a green, and B-1 - a little more than 300 lyam. And by the time of reaching the launch line, the difference will be significant if we want to let a vigorous rooster into the mattress, having departed, say, from Ryazan, through Chukotka. And if you fly west from the same Diaghilev, then the whole difference will be that in the case of PAK YES, Western Europe will almost certainly have time to change its pants before death.

[LAWNER]

Neither of which "universal" people did not invent and will not come up!

[fa2998]

Quote: MoJloT

He hasn’t even appeared in plasticine, but he can already replace everyone.

It may be replaced, BUT TWO QUESTIONS.
1. How much will an hour of flight cost? Compare at least with the Tu 95, and the maximum flight time is unknown.
2.And why do we need new Tu 160M2? Or extra billions in the treasury wound up?

[tchoni]

b2 spirit in the us air force has not been replaced by all the bombers ... How did we get that a similar plane will do everything with us?

[Filxnumx]

and before it were set such tasks?

[faiver]

God, it would be better if I didn’t disgrace themselves with such bullshit information stuffing ...

[NEXUS]

What is the article about? Apparently about how our spaceships plow the vast expanses of the vast universe ... The statement about 50 TU-160M2 must be fulfilled first, and then one can speculate about the "ships" and the "universe"

[Dead duck]

A promising strategic missile carrier (PAK DA) will be able to replace all types of Long-range aircraft and at the same time it will be cheaper to manufacture and operate

Yeah ... like the F-35?

[Livonetc]

"so that the new aircraft performs the functions of all three current missile carriers (Tu-160, Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3) and it was much cheaper Tu-160 "
Well, no words ...
"Oh, these tales ..
Oh, these storytellers .. "
Super duper tarantas.
Three penny for you.

[Gml]

PACK YES? replace all types of aircraft - yes? any airdromes - yes? stealth - yes?

[Barshchik-M]

TASS reported, citing a source in the military-industrial complex.

Well, you raised the noise in the cell again ...! Development has been underway for a long time, here such articles are slipping ..
Nobody will spread the performance characteristics here to everyone to be torn to pieces, as well as with "Armata" ..
All hang up and bunk!

[Eurodav]

Quote: The_Lancet

PAK YA is able to replace all long-range aircraft

Has no analogues?
On this site they like to add such words

And we, unlike you, have freedom of speech!

[Eurodav]

Quote: gml

PACK YES? replace all types of aircraft - yes? any airdromes - yes? stealth - yes?

Yes! So you need to dig a dugout, right?

[Old26]

Series Article About nothing. How does a poet cross a horse and a quivering doe? so here. To create a universal aircraft simply does not work. Each of them has its own niche. Or will they drive PAK YES where you can get along with the TU-22M? Or where you need the speed of access to the zone. Yes, the nomenclature of weapons must be reduced, but not to make a fetish out of it, replacing everything with one type - IMHO stupidity ..

In July, Deputy Defense Minister for armaments Yuri Borisov called the key parameters of the new aircraft: low visibility, high payload and flight duration, the ability to use any airfields.

If he replaces the same TU-160 and Tu-95, then such a machine will have a take-off mass of two hundred tons, or even more. In order for such a plane to take off from a dirt airfield, a multi-wheeled chassis will be needed. Look at the same transporters. One thing, for example, the AN-26, which has a conventional chassis. And take a heavy truck like AN-124. The chassis is a completely different type. And retractable in the fuselage. And here they want to connect the unconnectable.
Yuri Borisov has already become known as a storyteller, who sometimes voices such things that his hair stand on end

[Filxnumx]

Yes, what did you run into all the unpaved aerodrome safety strips? Why tear the ass in useless attempts to take off and land the strategist from the ground in the presence of runways of classes 1, 2, 3 with hard artificial turf throughout the country, as well as ice airfields in the north, the preparation of which for using DA aircraft from them does not require any prohibitive efforts and amounts: ram, bring fuel and lubricants with TSA and establish communication. We have half a country in the permafrost zone; in winter, such a runway is not inferior to a half-meter thick concrete. And the time difference in this case will not be very critical: half an hour or an hour maximum

[ufpb]

Yes, the USA and Russia can create a fifth-generation bomber, the question is different - but is it necessary to create it as of November 5?

[groks]

Nda. Many years ago in the USSR they were able to design and build supersonic long-range bombers. Now no one knows how and does not even include in the future. This is somehow not entirely normal.

[Former battalion commander]

Pure water empty balabolstvo. There is not even a ready-made project for this "wunderwaffle", and balabol already promise the golden mountains and the fucking perspectives of the plane. In my opinion, this is the first sign of a failed project, when not a constructor, but a balabola are taken up. It is noteworthy that the "promising" aviation complex in advance laid parameters much worse than that of ALREADY EXISTING aircraft. Having no real technical advantages, the authors of this project are desperate to draw attention to the "low price" of this complex. You need to be a complete idiom to believe that the price of a NEW AND NOT EXISTING aircraft will be lower than that of an already mastered and mass-produced aircraft. Personally, I think you need to hack this idea with PAKDA at the root and will begin to improve existing systems. Moreover, the “invisibility” of a strategic bomber is of absolutely secondary importance (as indicated in the satya, though to justify the subsonicity of the samrlet).

[MadCat]

PAK YA is able to replace all long-range aircraft

And the title is the title, it’s a sinful thing to think that this screen is already mass-produced by thousands and in the troops

[Vlad5307]

Another blah blah blah from the city of Borisov, i.e. reminded of nothing. We should send the vector of the country's development in the right direction, then there will be more money for promising developments! And you will not have to tryndet about them at all angles.

[Stoler]

Crazy article! We have no fucking yet, BUT WE ALREADY WIN ALL !!!

[Nemesis]

I don’t think so. It’s time to replace the Tu-95, if only because it doesn’t have effective means of rescuing the crew at low altitudes, takeoff and landing, in case of an accident, and the aircraft itself is very noticeable, due to the high noise level of its engines and vulnerable, due to the low maximum flight speed, which makes it easy to intercept it with modern enemy fighters .... But abandoning the Tu-160 in favor of PAK YES should not be and that's why .... 1) PAK YES, it will probably be more expensive than Tu -160 in production. 2) PAK DA decided to make subsonic, which means its speed will be low and approximately at the level of Tu-95. All PAK DA protection is STELS technologies that make it inconspicuous for radars, but technologies are rapidly aging and radars are getting better and better. In Yugoslavia, the American stealth F-117 was shot down, and according to some reports, also a pair of B-2s that fell on US-controlled territory and were quietly exported to the USA .. Moreover, after the war in Yugoslavia, the USA stopped production of both F-117 and B -2 .... What do we have as a result, in the dry residue? And in the rest, we can get very expensive PAK DA, which will quickly become obsolete, lose their stealth due to the rapid improvement of the radar of a potential enemy and we will get a very expensive copy of the Tu-95, with very limited capabilities in modern combat, due to the low maximum speed .... I do not propose completely abandoning PAK YES, but I would not have made it the main bomber, but limited its release by equipping it with 3-4 squadrons, no more. That is, I am for restricting the release of PAK YES 36 -48 units ....

[Snakebyte]

Another comedian of the level of Yuri Borisov?

[Cxnumx]

something is not clear to me how the subsonic PAK YES can replace the super-sound TU-160. and the hackneyed phrase about not "going into the zone of defeat" is already tired - they even write about fighters, and then bam! and the affected area is already here.

[Snakebyte]

This Yuri Borisov may well work as a comedian. It is ridiculous.

[Stalnov I.P.]

There was information in the media that the military did revise its decision on subsonic flight speed, asking to create a supersonic aircraft.

[Zomanus]

We will look after rolling out. There is nothing to talk about.
We really have not yet mastered the front-line complex.

[colonel manuch]

If TU -160 has a large supply of modernization options, then PAK DA can wait.

[Anthony]

F35 also had to replace all types of aircraft (including A10) ...

[ont65]

In such a framework, PAK DA at best will replace the barricading TU 95, no more. Ultimately, only the transition to hypersonic missiles will make it possible to reach, to some extent, the level of TU 160. The decision is controversial, probably like many of the modern models adopted for service. We will see. Absolute weapons, contrary to the opinion of the author, do not exist.

[Tda tar]

It is interesting why, as an "argument" to the rejection of supersound, only one is given - "expensive" And for the "smoothing of corners" - there is little hope expressed that for other countries - it will also be too "expensive". A “powerful” argument ... Especially if you look at the cost of modern aviation and the total transition from mass cheap airplanes to single perfect and expensive ones. In addition, it is ridiculous to listen about children's "reasoning" that speed is supposedly not important. That is - now all bomber aircraft will cease to attack mobile military targets? Flight time to the goal - annihilated by the willful decision of the generals (which, incidentally, is not very familiar in the Russian army for more than a century - at the expense of the lives of soldiers)? Now only stationary stationary civilian objects will be attacked - genocide of forever? And all naval aviation - "pennant seal"? Type - anyway, "strong air defense"? Yeah, - "strategists" from poverty ...