The program PAK DA for Russia is more important than the program Su-57

120
Strategic bombers flash in the press much less fighters. Although they are of interest, nevertheless, all other things being equal, it will more often flash and fall into a piggy bank. news About Su-57, than about the new strategic complex PAK DA. However, to protect the state, this particular aircraft is much more important, and it should be given much more attention.





Su-57 is the main newsmaker in the secret confrontation between new aviation complexes. There is great interest in him. At the moment when Turkey talks about "another aircraft" instead of the possible loss of the F-35, the idea of ​​a "Sukhoi" arises.

However, for Russia, a promising set of strategic long-range aviation plays an equally important role. After all, it will lay down the main task of deterring a potential enemy.

History of creation


15 February this year, it became known that the developers successfully defended the so-called project. "80 Products". And before that, 29 of January, the chief designer of PJSC "Tupolev" Alexander Konyukhov said that the PAK DA will be created in the next five to seven years.

For the first time, information about a new long-range strategic bomber appeared in 2008 year - at that time, Dmitry Medvedev took over as president Vladimir Putin. It was assumed that the new promising complex should change at once three strategists - Tu-22М, Tu-95MS and Tu-160. This was said in 2010 by Major General Anatoly Zhikharev, commander of long-range strategic aviation. At the same time, he added that in the 2025-2030 years, the proposed new bomber should join the Air Force.

In 2013, there was evidence that the PAK DA should be built according to the scheme of a flying wing. The maximum take-off weight is assumed to range from 130 to 145 tons. Flight range - about 15 thousand. Km.

The new complex will be equipped with four engines, which, in turn, will be the development of the Tu-160 NK-32 engine line. The power of the new power plant will increase the thrust by about 10 percent. Also, perhaps, in the design will be used developments on the Su-57: in particular, avionics.

According to preliminary data, the developers of the "strategist" focused on stealth. In particular, all weapon will be placed in the internal compartments.

The bomber itself, as previously noted, will be subsonic, in contrast to the Tu-160. However, it will be equipped with hypersonic rockets, which are currently under development. Russia's successes in the development of weapons of this type force the United States to actively invest in similar developments and appropriate means of protection.

In particular, in early April, it became known that the American Raytheon corporation was able to protect the conceptual design of the promising hypersonic DeepStrike rocket. The company has already begun collecting samples. Also, the United States urgently modernizes its missile defense system, investing in its development about 13 billions of dollars and trying to expand its group of observation satellites. In total, the program can cost 24 billion.

It cannot be said that the path of a promising aviation complex is lined with rose petals. Back in June, 2012, Dmitry Rogozin said the project was doubtful, and the new design of the bomber might not be needed. Also, judging by the speech of Vladimir Putin in the same period, the project experienced both technical and financial problems. The final launch of the “80 project” was reported only in the 2018 year.

The program PAK YES is more important than the Su-57


Su-57 as a serial machine may not even see the light or see it, but in limited quantities. Initially it was assumed that all 60 machines of this type would be purchased. If we compare the situation with the United States, more than 2000 5 generation fighters will be put into operation there. How effective are even the best 60 fighter units in the world to withstand hundreds of potential enemy planes?

In order to put at least a few hundred aircraft, you need to establish a system of logistics and production of colossal proportions. This will require hundreds of billions or even trillions of rubles.

Therefore, it is PAK DA that can become the priority wings of the Russian Federation. When the question of "unacceptable" damage for the enemy arises, new methods and means of delivery can create the necessary parity. That is why, for example, Poseidon appeared in Russia. And that is why PAK YES is more important than Su-57.

Although it is quite clear that airplanes have combat missions of different scale. But from the point of view of precisely effective deterrence of a potential adversary, the importance of the PAK DA program is difficult to overestimate.
120 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +12
    April 26 2019 06: 35
    Everything is necessary and PAK-DA and Su-57, especially since they do not overlap each other in time.
    1. +35
      April 26 2019 15: 21
      Quote: mark1
      Everything is necessary and PAK-DA and Su-57, especially since they do not overlap each other in time.

      as always:
      1. +18
        April 26 2019 15: 46
        I can understand the delay with the Su-57 if it is waiting for ROFAR for example. If not, then to hell with the engine, it's time to start the series. But the bomber is not lit yet, the Tu-160M ​​is in the series. I think the Tupolevs are aware of new weapons, because the aircraft is modified for their use.
        1. +25
          April 26 2019 16: 27
          Quote: URAL72
          But the bomber is not burning yet,

          There is no sense in it .. Nobody uses bombs, his whole task is to reach the launch range of the Kyrgyz Republic, and this is 5000-5500km .. So the plane can be any, you can build missiles in your mind and in IL-96 ..
          1. +5
            April 26 2019 17: 01
            Quote: max702
            So the plane can be any, according to the mind and in IL-96 it’s quite possible to attach missiles ..

            In the salon in the 1st grade ...
            1. +3
              April 26 2019 22: 53
              Nice variation ... with coffee in bed! laughing
          2. +3
            April 27 2019 01: 14
            Quote: max702
            There is no sense in it ..

            And please indicate the route for bombers per hour "H" from Russia to the launching points of cruise missiles. How will they be able to fly freely and release their ammunition?
          3. +3
            April 27 2019 08: 01
            Quote: max702
            There is no sense in it.

            Let's think a little ahead. KR flying at 5000km is not just expensive, it's like launching a golden lamborghini with a macron leather interior. And if the development of Russian gunsmiths in the areas of electronic warfare successfully continues, then much cheaper planning ammunition, etc. become where as relevant.
            1. +1
              April 27 2019 14: 39
              Quote: Siberia 75
              KR flying at 5000km is not just expensive, it's like launching a golden lamborghini with a macron leather interior.

              Believe me, everything is much more expensive ... You voiced the tenth part of the cost of reality .. And if you include the cost of a bomber, crew training, the cost of maintenance ..
          4. -5
            April 27 2019 17: 35
            Any large machine or CD is detected by lidar and IR from orbit. Well, there can be no temperature difference lower than defined, for example, like an inversion trace of a fool from 30-40 tons will be for many kilometers, even if the eye does not see its devices and, say, the trace of combustion products can be completely recorded from orbit without speaking from drones, lidars for ranges Hkm is 5-8kg, Raman ones with the ability to determine what flies, lidars of the same type over large distances, say 100-200km, when flying a detection vehicle at 15km altitude, it will climb on the old Sushka or Su-24 if you remove the radar from there and throw the pilots out. I held a 600m mirror in my hands. such 6-7 pieces will fit. With pruning in the Su-27 and without in the Su-24, which it would be time to write off for a long time it would be if the Su-57 were at least 400 pieces. The duckling, the Su-34, is better for what is more serious - there are outstanding internal volumes, people will not be able to withstand such fields - they will die, weapons of directed energy will fit.
            PAK YES is needed as the basis for a passenger plane for 150-200 people with a range of 15-120 thousand km and the ability to land on a strip of less than 1-1,2 km. None of the other machines will have such an opportunity, almost point-to-point logistics.
          5. -1
            April 27 2019 18: 27
            Quote: max702
            There is no sense in it .. Nobody uses bombs, his whole task is to reach the launch range of the Kyrgyz Republic, and this is 5000-5500km.

            Let's imagine: a subsonic subtle strategic bomber with a flight range of 15000 km, hangs in the middle of the air at an 500-600 speed of km / h. whole day without refueling, within a radius of 6000 km from potential targets. Going to the frontier of launching long-range missiles would take no more than half an hour. Detecting it is very difficult. It is like an invisible sword of Damocles hanging almost continuously over the head of an adversary.
            1. +1
              April 28 2019 21: 28
              It only remains for him to fly up in time ...
          6. +1
            April 28 2019 12: 42
            Dude you are cool!
        2. +4
          April 27 2019 11: 22
          The best PAK DA - Sarmat complex. Better mobile. You can railway.
          Plus Caliber and Dagger in the border areas, so that life does not seem to be honey.
          1. +1
            April 27 2019 11: 30
            I do not agree. START is evaluated by several criteria. The bombers have an undeniable advantage in two of them: - they can be on duty in the air, and they can be recalled, unlike ICBMs and SLBMs. In addition, Americans, for example, actively and constantly use them for non-nuclear strikes, including the usual cheap bombs. Unlike tactical aviation, this is a big load and a large radius. From its territory, the Su-34 will not even convey 8 tons to Syria ...
            1. 0
              April 27 2019 14: 43
              Quote: URAL72
              In addition, Americans, for example, actively and constantly use them for non-nuclear strikes, including the usual cheap bombs.

              We are not the United States not for money not for tasks, for us REAL abilities current tactical aviation for the eyes .. Strategists and the fleet were good while the wrecks were Strategic Missile Forces today and now technologies allow solving the same tasks of the fleet and aviation much more efficiently and cheaper by orders of magnitude than before ..
              1. +1
                April 27 2019 15: 18
                Strongly disagree. This is when the Strategic Missile Forces were wretched? And why is China developing a strategist and not abandoning its underperformance? And if we need to bomb the igil in Chad or Niger? Su-34? Not funny. But are there other tasks, for example, to indicate the presence in Cuba, in Venezuela, Vietnam? If we aspire to the status of a superpower, and we simply do not have options, then we need a long hand.
                1. -1
                  1 May 2019 09: 57
                  Quote: URAL72
                  Strongly disagree. This is when the Strategic Missile Forces were wretched?

                  In the 50-70s .. Only in the late 80s did they receive the necessary tools. Therefore, there were the most powerful strategic air forces and a luxurious fleet even by the standards of the USSR (although there wasn’t enough a full-fledged infrastructure for the places where the assets and forces were based, and the expensive fleet led to a rapid decline) today there is no need for the above two tools, the Strategic Missile Forces under the air defense umbrella guarantee unacceptable damage to anyone, and the aerospace forces and without a strategic bomber component will perfectly cope (with proper further development) with any challenges ..
            2. 0
              April 27 2019 16: 24
              From Khmeimim throughout the Middle East, the Su-34 with its 8 tons is a strategist.
              Just like the Americans - with their number of bases around the world - it is simply a sin not to have an aviation component.
              But why is it massive for us?
              Through the North Pole, you can get the States and a group of 60-80 cars. More strategists are not needed.
              All the same, the main blow will be delivered by missiles of all "calibers"
      2. GAF
        +1
        April 27 2019 15: 42
        The impression that the author does not represent what he is writing about. The United States released two dozen B-2s, and it slowed down. It turned out to be too expensive even with a printing press. Although I would have looked at Wiki comparative characteristics with TU -160. In addition to stealth, the V-2 is inferior in absolutely all other characteristics. Therefore, TU-160 and run in a series. The author for some reason drags here the SU-57. Wealthy Americans launched a raw F-35 in a series, and now they are floundering with improvements. The time spent on the SU-57 was no more than on the F-35. How many of them will be needed, it’s better not to us. Erdogan has already said that if the United States refuses to supply F-35s, we will turn to Russia ... Among other things, there is talk of the 6th generation. So the SU-57 can become the basis for an unmanned version ...
  2. +7
    April 26 2019 15: 11
    WHO decides WHAT is more important?
    With "invisibility" everything is not very obvious, although it is already clear that it is NOT!
    Stealth, then just a fad comparison of WHAT and WHAT!
    Now the planes, HUGE CARVES over the okean disappear and NO ONE and SEE ANYTHING!
    In general, see, reason very much then!
    1. +4
      April 26 2019 16: 05
      here the "flying wing" is not so much for stealth as for minimizing fuel consumption (more wing area) and maximizing the amount of this fuel (more tanks in the wings). and all the stealth is just an appendage.
      1. +2
        April 26 2019 18: 22
        So far, the range is as much as the fuel in stock.
        If you think about it, there is nothing fundamentally new in engine building, but this is so far.
        There will be new engines, on new principles, there will be and aviation is changing.
        So we will wait and see!
        1. -4
          April 26 2019 18: 47
          In my opinion, you can’t wait, because you can not wait at all.
          The author of the article is right, such an airplane has a big plus in the fact that being on duty somewhere above the expanses of Siberia, he is absolutely protected. How to find and hit him? Submarines and mines with missiles are vulnerable, the secrecy of mobile Topol is also a concern.
          1. +1
            April 26 2019 19: 40
            Interestingly, I didn’t seem to write that it was necessary to stop the design development, this is a continuous process, actually.
            Just now, so Schaub seriously, nobody shows anything fundamentally new. Maybe just nothing, maybe a big secret.
            When a breakthrough occurs in the engine industry, for example, then fundamental changes can occur in the aircraft industry. We’ll wait and see.
            1. +10
              April 26 2019 19: 58
              Quote: rocket757

              When a breakthrough occurs in the engine industry, for example, then fundamental changes can occur in the aircraft industry. We’ll wait and see.


              And what a breakthrough in engine building can be. if you have adopted the NK-32-02?

              just an old engine of 77 years, with a development period of 65 years. and with digital SU - which gave that increase in profitability. which briskly recorded in a cool upgrade ???

              Well, let them look at the latest modern engines at least ...
              The world does not stand still.
            2. +1
              April 27 2019 03: 59
              Quote: rocket757
              Just now, so Schaub seriously, nobody shows anything fundamentally new. Maybe just nothing, maybe a big secret.

              And nobody is doing anything really new, it is not profitable, more precisely, it is profitable but only to large companies, and their benefit lies in milking the state and seizing other people's developments. Judge for yourself the term of development of a new engine according to the already worked out scheme is 10-15 years, and the term of patenting is 10-13 years. In general, when the manufacturer starts making money on the sale, he will simply wave his pen to the developer and say "we don't owe you anything, your patent has expired." Of course, you can bring the development to an industrial design and there the patenting period is 25 years, but it can be circumvented or covered by another patent, and if you can't, then try to find investments and people to create your own plant ... Therefore, large companies breed "fatal flaws".
          2. AUL
            +5
            April 26 2019 21: 56
            Quote: Fan-Fan
            being on duty somewhere above the expanses of Siberia, he is absolutely protected. How to find and hit him? Submarines and mines with missiles are vulnerable, the secrecy of mobile Topol is also a concern.

            What do you think, how many airfields in the Russian Federation can receive / produce such machines? I think three to five. Well, let a dozen. And they are all under the vigilant surveillance of agents and companions. So every take-off of such an aircraft is immediately recorded, and then it’s a matter of technology.
            IMHO, strategic aviation is currently an anachronism. Its airfields are one of the first targets at hour C.
            1. -2
              April 27 2019 03: 48
              PAK YES just partially solves this problem due to the larger wing area and large tanks
            2. +1
              April 28 2019 13: 50
              further - a matter of technology.
              What technique? If only hundreds of shock drones will scour Siberia or will the Americans deploy their air defense systems in our Siberia? Explain how they bring down such a plane over Siberia?
              Airfields under surveillance, yes. But how will this oversight prevent the take-off of aircraft? Or do you think that their satellites will be able to track a plane flying over Siberia?
  3. +2
    April 26 2019 15: 13
    Su-57 as a serial machine may not see the light at all or see, but in limited quantities. Initially, it was assumed that only 60 vehicles of this type would be purchased. If you compare the situation with the United States, then more than 2000 cars will get into operation there fighter generation.

    The same phrases sounded when they talked about the SU-30MKI. Never entered service.
    The plane was made, there was no money ... India became interested and bought it! For the aircraft received from the sale of India, the Russian Air Force was rearmament.
    The author either simply reprinted (copied) someone’s text or does not understand what he is talking about.
    ... "The right hand is more important for a person than the left!" is it true? maybe yes, maybe no, two hands are somehow better to have! And if you choose, it is better not to fall into a situation where they are deprived of their hands!
    If we compare the situation with the United States, then there will be more than 2000 generation fighter vehicles
    what generation? You at least read what you repost! what
    1. +1
      April 26 2019 16: 13
      Of course, I wildly apologize, but how can you get so much profit from the sale of something that you could buy yourself a hundred percent and not offend the plant?) Maybe it’s worth not throwing yourself with ideas, huh? The appearance of this car because of a contract with India, yes. And the money received from the sale helped to buy and this is already too much for us)))
      1. +9
        April 26 2019 18: 50
        The words are especially touching:
        rearmament of the Russian Air Force

        In my opinion, it is more appropriate to say here: "We patch holes."
      2. -1
        April 27 2019 21: 36
        “... I will explain popularly for ...” (V. Vysotsky)
        The Indian contract paid back the costs of designing and launching in a series, i.e. the most expensive and slowly recouping stages of creating a machine. And to stamp serial aircraft is already a routine, and not so expensive.
    2. +10
      April 26 2019 20: 17
      Quote: Invoce
      Su-57 as a serial machine may not see the light at all or see, but in limited quantities. Initially, it was assumed that only 60 vehicles of this type would be purchased. If you compare the situation with the United States, then more than 2000 cars will get into operation there fighter generation.

      The same phrases sounded when they talked about the SU-30MKI. Never entered service.
      The plane was made, there was no money ... India became interested and bought it! For the aircraft received from the sale of India, the Russian Air Force was rearmament.


      Nonsense...
      The plane did not. They made a layout.

      India fully paid for all R&D for the Su-30MKI. All. We designed it and created it with Indian money.
      just like Caliber.
      as well as the T-90.

      Learn the history of weapons, since you are at a military forum.

      Club- - they (Indians) got in the late 90s, and we in the late 2000s.
      Su-30MKI - they (Indians) received in 1997. and we are his complete tracing - only since 2012.
      T-90 - they took away all the first issues (120 tanks, having completely selected ours. They upgraded. Consider rebuilt again) and received all the technical documentation.
      And we really began to receive T-90s in the troops only in 2004, and for Indians, consider doing since 1992 ...

      Learn the materiel. so as not to smack nonsense ...
      1. +1
        April 27 2019 00: 16
        Mdya ... what nonsense? The first T-90 Indians received in 2001 ... and in the RF Armed Forces the tank was supplied from 1992. Learn verbs!
  4. +18
    April 26 2019 15: 14
    First thing about airplanes? Not ... For our comprador power, yachts and villas in Miami are more important.
    1. +5
      April 26 2019 15: 31
      Well, what compradors ?! Too much for them, just small bloodsucking parasites.))))
      1. +6
        April 26 2019 18: 52
        Although they are small, but there are a lot of them, and therefore dofiga.
  5. +10
    April 26 2019 15: 19
    The naval aviation was left without strategic bombers in general after the "cutting" of the TU-22M ...
  6. +16
    April 26 2019 15: 22
    The same as with Su 57 will be .. 10 years "just about, chichas chichas" and then something more promising will come up
  7. +10
    April 26 2019 15: 26
    A strange decision with a bias from speed towards stealth. We have stated many times that radars will perfectly see F-22, 35 and so on at long distances. And then there was talk about ROFAR, which supposedly should close the topic of the "radar vs stealth" confrontation for a long time. Now it turns out that stealth is a critically important parameter, since it dances from it in aircraft design.
    1. +4
      April 26 2019 15: 28
      Quote: Voyager
      A strange decision with a bias from speed towards stealth. We have stated many times that radars will perfectly see F-22, 35 and so on at long distances. And then there was talk about ROFAR, which supposedly should close the topic of the "radar vs stealth" confrontation for a long time. Now it turns out that stealth is a critically important parameter, since it dances from it in aircraft design.


      Not strange. Rockets are faster and less noticeable.
      1. +1
        April 26 2019 16: 16
        I don’t argue, I wanted to say that this contradicts the criticism of specialists and amateurs who for many years spoke on the Internet, that stealth is overrated
        1. -2
          April 26 2019 19: 34
          the stealth tied to the case and its cover is overrated, now special installations have been created for this.
      2. +3
        April 26 2019 16: 30
        Quote: Pimply
        Missiles are faster and less noticeable.

        and not very exotic planes, the same "bears", can they be carriers?
  8. +5
    April 26 2019 15: 49
    In order to put at least a few hundred aircraft, you need to establish a system of logistics and production of colossal proportions. This will require hundreds of billions or even trillions of rubles.
    as well as specialists, workers, production facilities ..
  9. BAI
    +19
    April 26 2019 15: 53
    The program PAK YES is more important than the Su-57

    This will be the justification for the failure of the Su-57 program.
    And when the PAK YES breakdown is outlined, a new, even more important program will appear, the work on which will explain the PAK YES breakdown. And so on to infinity.
    1. +3
      April 26 2019 22: 59
      At the same time, money is mastered with each program!
  10. +8
    April 26 2019 16: 04
    And that is why PAK DA is more important than the Su-57.


    all new aircraft are important. But here we are faced with reality, and the reality is that "standing on the wing" in the distant 2010th SU-57 still does not have a serial engine of the second stage (the engine with which the SU-57 will become the aircraft of the 5th generation) and will not have it in the next 5 years.
    Yes, that is the engine of the second stage, only this year they launched a series of the engine of the first stage for the SU-57.

    Someone naively thinks that PAK YES with such a pace of creating new aircraft from scratch will go into production before the early 2030s? Our TU-160M2 will go into production only at the beginning of 2022-2023, although there is everything for an airplane (time-tested airplane glider, proven engine, avionics).
  11. 0
    April 26 2019 16: 17
    Well, sho, that the United States has hundreds of 5th generation eroplanes ... Operation of these has shown that, despite the serial production, the planes have a number of problems and shortcomings! Yes ... the Americans are ahead of everyone ... having launched into production (as it is now "clearing up" ...) "raw" unfinished products! No sooner had they dealt with the 5th generation than the 6th was knocking on the door .... For several years they have been "talking" about him ... But if at the beginning the "conversations" had a "unreasonable" character, then over time " the contours of the "6th generation begin to emerge more clearly from the" fog "... And already the" aviation world "is beginning to incline to the idea that it is not a trace of getting hung up on the 5th generation; or perhaps it is better to take up the best in the "five" ... Maybe this is the "delay" of the Russian Defense Ministry? Maybe they decided that if the penny is not enough for the truncated, then wouldn't it be more expedient to "focus" on the concept, which will become more relevant in the near future? Well, a certain number of 5th generation aircraft is needed to better understand: in which direction to develop for the 6th ...!
  12. +1
    April 26 2019 16: 40
    Quote: Pimply
    Not strange. Rockets are faster and less noticeable.

    How many copies were already broken. The author did not substantiate why the bundle PAK DA + X-101 is better than Tu-160М + X-101 ?? If there are some secret considerations, share.
    1. +1
      April 26 2019 16: 53
      Quote: Rafale
      How many copies were already broken. The author did not substantiate why the bundle PAK DA + X-101 is better than Tu-160М + X-101 ?? If there are some secret considerations, share.

      First of all - age. New aircraft are more economical, efficient, more reliable.
      1. 0
        April 26 2019 19: 05
        And there is a hope that this new aircraft will accommodate more air-to-ground missiles, the American B-52 can carry up to 20 tomahawks. If the authorities begin to manage the economy more efficiently, can they find funds for about 50 such bombers? A total of 50 aircraft with 20 missiles each, we get a salvo of 1000 missiles, so let them try to shoot down such a swarm.
        But you can shove an ICBM into it and organize an "air launch".
        1. +2
          April 26 2019 19: 52
          All the extra weight for the sonic bomber will go into powder boosters to disperse hypersonic missiles so that their engine can start. So the Tu-160M2 can take even more Zircon-A or Daggers than PAK DA.
      2. +1
        April 30 2019 17: 08
        why there are four NK-130 engines for an 145-32 ton aircraft, you are going to accelerate it to 4600 km / h, two is enough, and then why repeat American mistakes, I can’t understand why to make a missile carrier with missiles with a range of 5500 km invisible is a waste money, take two dozen Tu-204s that have already been made, which no one flies on anyway, make two inserts in the fuselage in front of the center wing and after the center wing for two revolving launchers for the X-101 / 102, the fuselage will be extended by 16 meters like the Tu- 214 R. Here's a cheap and very effective strategist cue missile.
  13. +6
    April 26 2019 16: 41
    Does someone believe in fairy tales that we can make at least 200 aircraft before they become morally and physically obsolete?
  14. +5
    April 26 2019 16: 46
    Rusal belongs to the Americans ... in 5 years ... or maybe even earlier they will finish off the aluminum industry in Russia and the PAK-DA question will disappear by itself ... these are not emotions ... just an easy analysis based on real facts .. ...
    1. -1
      April 26 2019 18: 11
      For information: the controlling stake in Rusal was bought by the Austrian campaign, which was created by the KGB of the USSR from Soviet times to circumvent the Amerz sanctions to restrict access to technology. At the beginning of 80, he worked in an office that received HP computers and a kit for them directly from them. The office in Austria remained, and only the curators changed.
      1. +4
        April 26 2019 22: 48
        Can you tell me the name? And it’s somehow strange, since part of the Rusal shareholding belongs to a Swiss firm founded by the Americans. Not a controlling stake at all. And it became Swiss after the flight of its founders from the USA ...
        By the way, it also owns a part of Rosneft shares .....
    2. 0
      April 29 2019 22: 14
      Who told you that Rusal belongs to the Americans? Well, at least they looked at Wiki, or something ...
  15. -1
    April 26 2019 17: 26
    Just Su-35 is a little inferior to the Su-57. On the other hand, there is no urgency in updating the long-range - Tu-160 latest versions of the hoo + will soon begin to release the new again from the assembly line
    1. +1
      April 26 2019 20: 46
      Quote: Aleksvv
      Just Su-35 is a little inferior to the Su-57. On the other hand, there is no urgency in updating the long-range - Tu-160 latest versions of the hoo + will soon begin to release the new again from the assembly line

      It is not much inferior to the current Pogosyanovsky Su-57 ...

      Honestly, the Su-57 is a very problematic project - Pogosyan was expelled just behind the Su-57.
      Air ducts - they killed the plane ... They killed the 5th generation in it .. And even though you put the engine in 3 stages - but if in any case the blades are visible in the frontal projection - this is tryndets ..... It will never be the 5th generation. will never be a stealthy destroyer.
      1. -1
        April 26 2019 21: 53
        Quote: SovAr238A
        Air ducts - they killed the plane ... They killed the 5th generation in it .. And even though you put the engine in 3 stages - but if in any case the blades are visible in the frontal projection - this is tryndets ..... It will never be the 5th generation. will never be a stealthy destroyer

        This has long been denied, everything is fine there even without the S-shaped nozzles. See, for example, "The Masked Boy" on YouTube
  16. +1
    April 26 2019 17: 41
    Well, you can’t do that - bricks are better than concrete pillars ... These are fundamentally different weapon systems.
  17. +1
    April 26 2019 17: 54
    Quote: Aleksvv
    Just Su-35 is a little inferior to the Su-57. On the other hand, there is no urgency in updating the long-range - Tu-160 latest versions of the hoo + will soon begin to release the new again from the assembly line

    This is true, of course, and it will help to gain time for the implementation of the PAK DA project. But his subsonic is apparently selected for reasons of economy, which will allow us to take more ammunition. Why then is this notorious one inconspicuous if missile launch is supposed to be from borders that are unattainable for adversary’s air defense? It seems that they are not giving up the bomb load, and therefore he needs stealth. But I'm afraid that by the time the machine is ready, the need for it may disappear - all projects are moving too slowly, and not just in aviation. sad
  18. 0
    April 26 2019 18: 27
    Based on the logic of the author, PAK YES is not needed yet, an urgent need to rivet Sarmatians.
    After all, while they do PAK YES, all Sarmatians will already be on the battlefield, again they have strong IA and anti-aircraft defense at the adversary and our bombers can shoot down, and then BACH and EVERYTHING.
    Such logic has a right to be, but I don’t like it, because armaments must be balanced, bombers without fighters, submarines without surface ships, instead of the strategic nuclear forces triad, land strategic missile forces - all this may not work.
  19. +10
    April 26 2019 18: 32
    An interesting point of view.
    Green grapes on the topic. Yes, and did not want to mess with this Su 57.

    We have on the horizon PAK YES. Now. And yesterday was PAK FA. But dear, for 5 rubles. And today a strategist, albeit 10 rubles, but tomorrow. And there’s something else we’ll come up with.

    The reason is simple, the country is not capable of producing massive high-tech military products. And civilian too.
  20. +1
    April 26 2019 18: 50
    Strange ... and no one will ask a question - NK -32 4 pcs. on the Tu-160 and with a maximum take-off weight of approx. 250 tons. If we refuse fast and the furious and increase the wing area QUESTION why do we need 4 engines per 150 tons of a PAK-DA aircraft? You will see it will be 2 engines! As an option, the development of the idea of ​​Tu-22 m3 is where, with 125 tons of take-off, 2 engines for 25 tons of thrust, and then for afterburner and supersonic flight. Most likely it will be a military version of the PD-18, which is precisely what they are creating by this time as the development of the PD-14.
  21. +6
    April 26 2019 19: 01
    Some conversations. Show that the nit is new and modern in technology, that got on the conveyor. No, it is unlikely to be, as there are technologies in knowledge, but in real life they are not 30-40 years behind in technology and this gap is only growing .
  22. +4
    April 26 2019 19: 21
    The program PAK DA for Russia is more important than the program Su-57

    Sounds like an excuse ...
  23. +5
    April 26 2019 19: 46
    In general, the SU-57 will not go into the series. Clear.
  24. -3
    April 26 2019 19: 50
    I am waiting for comments from those. who says that stealth is seen hundreds of kilometers away and that it is stealth - a fiction ..
    And their opinions. why do our stealth bomber consider it a high priority and spend extra loot on it, depriving us of air defense fighters ...
    1. -4
      April 26 2019 21: 11
      and you are a specialist in this area, you are aware that the F-22 flew a piece of Russia and who saw it, tell me nice to listen to Adventists 8547 days
      1. +2
        April 26 2019 21: 36
        Quote: rayruav
        and you are a specialist in this area, you are aware that the F-22 flew a piece of Russia and who saw it, tell me nice to listen to Adventists 8547 days


        Judging by that. that you answered me ... and evenly put a minus on each of my posts - I will answer.

        I am very interested in those. who writes about that. as we will see the F-35 for 300 kilometers. some specialists even appear from supposedly the principles of radar, a version of the 50s that had never heard of LPI.
        They haven’t written this in manuals.
        I have not heard anything about the F-22, but I clearly know about other things.
        And that. what the F-35s are doing. what they want in Syria is a fact.
        And the fact that the Shell is absolutely stupid reincarnation of the Tunguska is a fact.
        All that is attributed to the Shell, all these dozens of downed UAVs, is made by Thor in fact.
        And the fact that the modern Su-57 is a complete 4th generation without a chance with any engine is a fact. just because. that he has blades - will always shine for hundreds of kilometers - this is a fact.
        And the Indians refuse precisely because of this.
        Changing the air intakes for a modern airplane is unrealistic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        What else do you need? What would you learn to think?
        1. -1
          April 28 2019 11: 50
          SovAr238A, one and the same. Can you explain what LPI mode is? Is there enough strength? And, to write frank misinformation, is enough.
          Show your ... gut.
  25. +2
    April 26 2019 21: 06
    than the Tu-95 is worse, everything rests on a rocket, if it can be lit not very far from the base, why an expensive car and the last where all the nominated T-14s are boomerang, and even this is a misunderstanding like a Chechen battle buggy and then there’s a fable about the pack by the year 2059 just right
    1. +3
      April 26 2019 21: 27
      Quote: rayruav
      than the Tu-95 is worse, everything rests on a rocket, if it can be lit not very far from the base, why an expensive car and the last where all the nominated T-14s are boomerang, and even this is a misunderstanding like a Chechen battle buggy and then there’s a fable about the pack by the year 2059 just right


      The Chechen battle buggy - just on some TVDs - can show itself ...
      Not without reason combat buggies are found in almost all MTRs.


      In fact. if you make a purely rocket bomber, with long-range missiles - then ovch nka is not worth the candle.
      How many such bombers have been made since 45?
      One Valkyrie worth what, One M-4 worth ...
      Single task. prohibitively expensive aircraft - without any military value ...
      And about Hustler or M-52 - there probably is no point in talking.
      And the same Tu-95, B-52 - fly and perform tasks ..
      And the same Tu-160 - well, has never completed the same combat mission. under which it was designed.
      Never.
      We need planes that will equally successfully participate in the "doomsday" war and smash the Papuans.
      When the destruction of the whole world and the destruction of barmaley.
      And there is such an opportunity.
      For about barmaley - you can’t think pejoratively ...
      They can easily settle in Kazan, Novy Urengoy, Kogalym
      and I'm not joking in this matter.
      The same Kogalym is the reserve capital of Dagestan!
      The second Makhachkala, as it turns out. when you really live in Kogalym. at least a couple of days.
      So what? Fly away to the American borders. to be able to launch missiles over 5000 kilometers at their destination?
  26. +4
    April 26 2019 22: 50
    Another long life story.
    1. +4
      April 27 2019 09: 44
      "Either the shah dies, or - the donkey, or - me"
  27. +1
    April 27 2019 09: 43
    They will create it, then a new Gorbachev-Kudrin-Gref-Kokh-Borovoy-Kasyanov-Navalny will come and put the planes under the knife, they will give Crimea to the Americans, they will destroy nuclear weapons, and they will return the uranium to the States.
    All this is worn by their "elites" in tongues ...
    "The people are silent"
    Such things must be created, as in the USSR, by making a radical reorganization of the government. Perhaps through the junta and dictatorship. Otherwise, they will sell the people, they will drag the country among the regions with external management.
  28. +6
    April 27 2019 10: 15
    Interestingly, and when there will be no money for PAK-DA, they will talk about some PAK-SA or PAK-RA, and what is more important than PAK-DA? The main thing is to master the money "for development". The author's article as a customized article - so that people would not be very sad about a possible failure with the PAK-FA.
  29. +5
    April 27 2019 10: 26
    I remember when only the United States had a B-2 just in the "flying wing" scheme - all the "experts" of the RF Ministry of Defense screamed in one op - "this slug" subsonic is useless! This is a dead end road! Supersonic is important, and preferably three supersonic! And "stealth technology" is also about nothing, our most radar radars in the world see them !!!!!! A couple of decades pass and "Hello". Russia is developing its own PAK-DA, which for some reason, according to the scheme, is just a "flying wing". And painfully reminiscent of B-2 Spirit. Just like a carbon copy almost. Is that not black. And it also turns out to be naturally subsonic. And also with stealth technology. And most importantly, it is more important than the PAK-FA fighter! Nothing so lo..tronchik?
    1. +3
      April 27 2019 11: 04
      Around one cartoons! Americans already have a head spin! Actually, this was the goal ...
      1. +1
        April 27 2019 11: 07
        The question is - how are the cartoons and the spinning head of the Americans connected with what I wrote?
        1. +3
          April 27 2019 11: 11
          You talked about the inconsistency of statements in the Russian media. Cartoons are part of a multidirectional propaganda campaign and have become synonymous with misinformation and propaganda. You were talking about misinformation and propaganda, right? Or talking about stupidity?
          1. +5
            April 27 2019 13: 36
            Honestly, I myself am already confused - where is stupidity and where is directional disinformation. In every possible way to ridicule the development and new weapons of the enemy, and after 20 years to begin to develop exactly the same, praising it - is it stupidity or disinformation?
            1. -1
              April 28 2019 21: 31
              This is rhetoric.
    2. 0
      April 27 2019 15: 21
      I'll try to explain.
      Russia's strategy is now aimed at creating the conditions for launching the first disarming strike and minimizing the response. For this, existing carriers and missiles are not suitable. As we have with the Americans. With a massive launch, they are easily detected and the answer flies in any case (as our commander-in-chief used to say).
      Here the geographical and economic position of America and Russia stands on our side. America is surrounded by oceans that have at all times protected them from invasion. Now the opposite. Now the oceans can help us deploy attacking systems covertly and deliver the first blow. Moreover, all US economic centers on the coast.
      Therefore, the B-2 is useless for the Americans. Since it is closer than 4-5 tons of kilometers to the Urals, it does not fly up. But PAK-DA with stealth technology can theoretically, against the background of the sea, get where it is closer to California or New York and launch hypersonic missiles. For the same purpose, both Poseidon and Petrel urgently urgently finish it. And it has already been decided that the next Boreas will be built not with Maces, but with a large number of Zircons. This is all at the same cash desk i.e. a strategy. Secretive deployment and hypersonic shock from a short distance
      That’s why PAK-DA is more important for us than Su-57.
      1. +2
        April 27 2019 15: 32
        Properly explained, thanks. Let's say you're right. But ... As far as we know, the US coast is already very strongly and tightly guarded by the fleet with the Aegis + US Air Force and Canada + Air Defense system on the coast. Not to mention the NATO countries. Well, I really doubt (with all due respect and love for our submarine fleet) that the Americans, with their capabilities and a different network of PLO and detection in the ocean, will allow Russian nuclear submarines and PAK-DA to approach the distance of launching hypersonic missiles. For PAK-DA, this will generally be a one-way mission - without refueling in the air, he will not return, even if he is not knocked down. And then the number of air tankers that Russia has is very small before the tragedy — they will be the first to be hit.
        1. -2
          April 27 2019 15: 54
          The fact that the coast will be lined with air defense is understandable. But here the "curvature of the Earth" comes to our aid. The question is, at what distance is AWACS able to detect a low-flying stealth target against the background of the sea? Well if 100 km. For a hypersonic strike, this is a tiny distance. And besides, the "cartoon" about the flight of the Petrel is also indicative. The point is that he will look for a hole in the air defense until he finds it. And it will do it secretly. PAK-DA can do something similar, given that the emitting AWACS is seen well and far. Much further than he himself can see any target.
          Similar to PLO. It is unrealistic to set up a PLO network at a distance of 300-400 km from the coast. And for the impact of 300-400 km is the most.
          1. +1
            April 27 2019 16: 00
            I hope we never know the outcome of such a confrontation.
            1. 0
              April 27 2019 17: 28
              Most likely it will. It’s just that the possibility of a disarming first strike can be compared with a pistol attached to the enemy’s temple. Even if he also has a gun, then he does not have many options. Rather, one is to accept the conditions.
              1. 0
                April 27 2019 19: 32
                I don’t think that 140 million people can be killed in an instant. Even if all the US warheads fall at once on the cities and military bases of Russia - Russia is too big. Somewhere, in some hidden super-powerful bunkers, anyway, someone from the country's leadership and the military will remain and press the buttons for a retaliatory strike, maybe some kind of "doomsday, dead hand" system, etc., which, recognizing the shuddering of the soil, will determine the blow thermonuclear explosions and launch the surviving missiles in response. Americans know this. And they understand that even a couple of flying warheads will take the lives of tens of millions of New Yorkers, Washington, and so on. Millions burned, irradiated and crippled. Destroyed and contaminated territory for decades. Americans will never go to such damage. He is not acceptable to them. All the bigwigs and billionaires in the United States have children, grandchildren. Bank accounts, colossal business, plans for the future. They are not ready to risk it all. For what? To make a huge part of the landmass - Eurasia and part of the United States - uninhabitable? And gradually large neighboring territories will also be infected. For the chaos and anarchy in the world, following it all? Nobody needs it. Billionaires and lobbyist politicians from the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex need a cold war. For personal enrichment and elimination of business competitors on the world map. Corporations need it to squeeze out funding for various threats. And no one needs a hot war. She will destroy it all. So all these Poseidons, Sarmatians, Virginia nuclear submarines, missile defense here and there, lasers, aircraft carriers and others and others - all this is only for the Cold War and knocking out budgets. Business needs an enemy. For there is an enemy - there is funding. No enemy, no funding. And in 20-30 years they will calmly write off and dispose of all these modern submarines, missiles, tanks, and others. For their place will be taken by new, worth billions. Business. Business only. But local non-nuclear wars and conflicts, in which weapons will participate, ranging from AK-47 to cruise missiles using stealth technology - they will be. And more. For they also bring money and territory. But the world and global business are not destroying.
                1. -1
                  April 28 2019 05: 24
                  Here we must remember the typical expression about the First World War. "Nobody wanted war, war was inevitable." Armaments then were also needed by corporations only to knock out the budget. Then there was also business, huge damage, millions of deaths, etc. And no one wanted war.
                  The Second World War is already a war with ideological content. Communism against fascism. But the origins of the first is just a competition of great powers for dominance. World War I happened in an environment very similar to the present.
                  1. 0
                    April 28 2019 08: 25
                    Neither the 1 World nor the 2 - there were no strikes on the United States of this magnitude. They did not exist. Then there was no means of global destruction, such as thermonuclear charges and in such quantities. No one destroyed the largest US cities on the continent, there were no tens of millions of dead and wounded in the United States in the first minutes of the strikes. There was no threat of total radioactive contamination of a large part of the country. And any damage, such as in Pearl Harbor, is not pleasant, terrible, but was acceptable and repairable, and in the shortest time. 2 World War I - the war between Germany and the USSR lasted for 4, and all losses were stretched for four years. This is enough time to organize resistance and make up material and human reserves, to restore industry and agriculture in the depth of the country to help the front. With the exchange of nuclear strikes - at times more damage is inflicted on the enemy in hours, maximum in 48 hours. And not for a few years. And if in 2-th world after the liberation of the territory from the enemy, it was possible to immediately begin to restore the infrastructure, housing, water supply, roads and other things - then in a territory contaminated with radiation for many years nothing can be restored and lived. If it remains, to whom to live. Not to mention that there are dozens of civilian nuclear power plants in the United States and Russia, which, in the event of damage, will give their share of pollution. Everyone understands this. And therefore, there will be no war. The elite of the world need a business. Big. And not ruin and chaos, in which neither the yachts for millions, nor the paradise islands with villas will save them.
    3. -1
      April 28 2019 13: 36
      all the "experts" of the RF Ministry of Defense screamed in one voice - "this slug" subsonic is useless

      The B-2 appeared over 30 years ago. Then the RF Ministry of Defense did not exist, and the "experts" would have nowhere to scream. In Soviet publications, it was positioned as a very dangerous weapon of aggression in the sense that illusory invisibility provoked the development of adventurous scenarios of a disarming strike. The B-2 concept was to penetrate deep into enemy territory, remaining unnoticed by air defense systems and delivering disarming strikes. Therefore, priority was given to achieving stealth, even to the detriment of flight data and combat load.
      The appearance of PAK YES is unknown to us, maybe in its outward appearance it is similar to B-2. I think the objectives of a breakthrough air defense are not set for him. That is, it will be inconspicuous, but otherwise its purpose is the same as that of the Tu-95 and Tu-160: delivery of weapons over long distances and use without entering the air defense coverage area.
    4. +2
      1 May 2019 02: 46
      Quote: Lapunevsky
      A couple of decades pass and "Hello". Russia is developing its own PAK-DA, which for some reason, according to the scheme, is just a "flying wing". And painfully reminiscent of B-2 Spirit

      I will tell you more. Su-57 painfully reminds F-22. And Boomerang really looks like a Striker. And Buran once was no different from the Shuttle. We have always been told that these are simply general laws of physics, aerodynamics, and so on. For me, this is simply the inability of our gunsmiths to create something of their own. Lugging in the tail is much easier.
      1. +2
        1 May 2019 10: 50
        I agree. For the most part, all of the weapons (except for somewhere in the 30% of military equipment) of the USSR and Russia are technologies stolen from the USA or an attempt to create a similar pursuit.
  30. 0
    April 27 2019 10: 33
    I think it is not advisable to have only one strategist. Maybe you need another 1 - supersonic and smaller? Separation of the type - long-range (strategist), medium (supersonic) and front-line bomber.
  31. +7
    April 27 2019 10: 33
    We cannot build a "maize" for 20 years, Soviet developments for 30-40 years have not yet brought to mind a single one (this, by the way, is also one of them) and have not been brought to serial production, and the production volumes are such that these are rather exhibition samples, even 200-500 pieces, the required thousands, do not play any role, and there is no one to fly them, even with the involvement of women, "advanced consumers" do not want to be pilots and cosmonauts. With the degradation of school education and society, degradation of both engineering and scientific schools. The result of the "rule" of liberals and traders in power, who can not even sell what they eat normally, judging by the provisions of the Sukhoi-Superjet collected from the world, built a production for it, destroying 5 more.
  32. +10
    April 27 2019 10: 40
    In general, instead of PAK FA and PAK DA there will be a plane of a new modification - FIG YOU, using the latest stealth technologies, you will see FIGS.
  33. +1
    April 27 2019 11: 14
    I think that strategic aviation can be useful only in the first sudden strike. In the event of an enemy attack, it will burn at the airfields. Will not have time to fly up. If you don’t want to hit first, you don’t need to build at all.
  34. +7
    April 27 2019 14: 22
    The fifth-generation, powerful multipurpose fighter is the basis of air supremacy.

    No PAK-DA will replace it in importance, unless it is implemented in any revolutionary technology, due to the use of which he himself can ensure air superiority. For example, a huge and powerful radar ROFAR + high-performance missiles in-in + missiles or a laser for self-defense against enemy missiles, which, combined with low visibility, can make it something like a DRLO aircraft and air fortress at the same time, but this seems unlikely.

    It is necessary to bring Su-57 to mind, bring the second stage engines for it, avionics, radar and buy 200-300 in quantities, and if it really turns out to be good, then 400-600 pieces.

    If now its price is 100 million, then in a normal series it should decrease in 1,5-2 times as in F-35, the price of which in 2007 was 160 million and in 2019 should be 83 million. And there will be a normal series and the price, and others will buy, those are the same.

    And to buy for him normal weapons in-in and in-s, and not to use it for bombing with Hephaestus.
  35. 0
    April 27 2019 16: 08
    If they could not make a full-fledged 5th generation fighter, then PAK YES and even more so can not do it.
  36. 0
    April 27 2019 17: 05
    but why did the author take that the TU-22M3 strategist ??? This is a long-range bomber. I did not read further
  37. +1
    April 27 2019 17: 21
    Well, a warhead and a missile will convey, but a massive attack should reflect the aircraft. However, every sandpiper praises its swamp.
  38. 0
    April 27 2019 21: 32
    How much time is there before testing the first real sample of PAK DA, somewhere around 5-7 years. Then a number of tests and time to troubleshoot, upgrade \ for new tasks, then time for readiness for mass production. In our realities, this is 10 years in itself the best option. By that time, the Su-57 should be in the army. (if they don’t hack of course) So the programs diverge in time, the problem is only in financing. And then the state will decide ............ ..........
  39. +3
    April 27 2019 21: 51
    Quote: SovAr238A
    We designed it and created it with Indian money. Just like Caliber.

    Work on the "Caliber", or rather on its predecessor, the 3M51 rocket, began in 1983. Over the past 3 decades, Novator has created a whole system of weapons. So to say that the "caliber" family was created with Indian money does not quite correspond to reality.

    Quote: SovAr238A
    Club- - they (Indians) got in the late 90s, and we in the late 2000s.

    The first ship from the "Calibers" - the frigate of the "Talvar" series, entered the Indian fleet in 2003. Not in the late 90s
    1. The comment was deleted.
  40. +2
    April 27 2019 22: 50
    Quote from rudolf
    So the Chinese were still there. Varshavyanka 636M with Club from the beginning of the 2000s supplied them.

    Deliveries have been started since 2004
    1. The comment was deleted.
  41. +2
    April 28 2019 11: 02
    For decades they have been developing an airplane, praising us how wonderful it is, having no analogues, etc. As a result, when it is almost ready, it turns out that we do not really need it, and in general we make them to sell to "friends" abroad. It's a fiasco, bro!
    1. +1
      April 28 2019 21: 45
      This is a cut and business.
  42. +1
    April 28 2019 21: 44
    Quote: malyvalv
    But PAK-DA with stealth technology can theoretically, against the background of the sea, get where it is closer to California or New York and launch hypersonic missiles. For the same purpose, both Poseidon and Petrel urgently urgently finish it. And it has already been decided that the next Boreas will be built not with Maces, but with a large number of Zircons. This is all at the same cash desk i.e. a strategy. Secretive deployment and hypersonic shock from a short distance
    That’s why PAK-DA is more important for us than Su-57.

    Pretty slender theory. True, one fact is knocked out of it: cartoons and verbal threats from Russia. What for? If a sudden blow is being prepared, then it should be as secretive as possible. And here - just unbridled advertising of terrible means of precision and mass destruction. The management is afraid that the Americans will hit first faster and try to slow them down by a parrot? May achieve the opposite effect ...
  43. 0
    April 29 2019 08: 57
    If it were needed, they would have done it a long time ago, but it is unnecessary, since it is easier to launch missiles with Tu-160 per 3000 km.
  44. 0
    1 May 2019 07: 36
    Given the realities of Russia, the USSR, and the Russian Federation with alternating ups and downs (and, accordingly, the amount of money for maintaining these aircraft), the most correct way is to build a strategist on civilian high-resource units. Which will be able to modernize many times and carry a wide range and the right weight for the desired range of weapons. A fighter (aircraft) is always the forefront of science and technology, and without gaining superiority in the air, no Bomber can act .... and the main armament of both our and American bombers (modern and promising) is air-based missile launchers.
    A question for experts - why do you need a stealth bomber (as well as supersonic)?
  45. -1
    2 May 2019 13: 49
    The maximum take-off weight is assumed to be in the range from 130 to 145 tons. Flight range - about 15 thousand km.
    I don't like numbers like that. I believe that the new strategist should be able to carry the Bulava in the bomb bay. Those. have a lifting capacity of 40+ tons and a compartment size of 12,5 m in length and 2,9 x 2,9 m in cross section. Drop of the Mace in flight with engines forward and a brake parachute at the rear at the head fairing. Such a scheme will allow the bomber and the rocket to "peacefully" disperse. Based on this, the maximum take-off weight of the PAK DA should be in the region of 300 tons, i.e. 2 times more.
    In addition, such a bomb bay will allow the deployment of 1,2 pieces of Kontak aeroballistic missiles on a drum with a diameter of 8 m (having a cross section of 0,74 m in diameter, the third stage on a rocket engine with a wide range of regulation, i.e. maneuvering), upgraded from anti-satellite, three-stage , 4,5 tons, capable of displaying up to 20 kg per 120 km orbit around the Earth. As of 1992 ...... Now, the TTXs can probably be much better, and the rocket will be able to carry the DOS and warheads of the Dagger at the intercontinental range, i.e. more than 5500 km. It is likely that its mass will increase to 5 tons in this case.
  46. 0
    3 May 2019 07: 35
    We have the production of IL 96 (half-dead). Based on it, with appropriate refinement, you can quickly launch a series of cruise missile carriers.
  47. 0
    25 May 2019 12: 08
    That is, when we have Sarmatians, avant-gardes, Poseidon, PAK YES - this is exactly the necessary machine! Without it, just nowhere :) So what? All eggs in one basket - that is, for an unlimited nuclear war? The author does not understand that he wrote stupid things? All means for the least likely scenario. Moreover, missiles can be launched from either 160 or 95 ...
    But the fact that we can confront opponents on a limited theater of operations, against which we need SU 57 to achieve dominance in the air or repel attacks, the probability is much higher. And from that - more important.
    So it’s not necessary to write that PAK YES for a global war, for which there are already enough funds to deal unacceptable damage, is more important than an aircraft that will allow solving more probable problems.