Military Review

Wrong conclusions, or why Su-57 is more important than PAK YES

104

Mystery plane


Any opinions on Russian aviation you will not find on the vast web! Most often, there are two points of view, and they are polar. Either "Russia is ahead of the rest", or the military-industrial complex "is generally not capable of producing combat-ready aircraft." But there are original estimates.


In a recent article “The PAK DA program for Russia is more important than the Su-57 program” Yevgeny Kamenetsky touched upon the very sensitive issue of the expediency of the Su-57 fighter for Russia. And if earlier doubts about the program were associated with dubious stealth or a banal shortage of money for organizing production, now the author called the cause of uselessness of Su-57 ... PAK DA.

Immediately make a reservation that there is no desire to tarnish other material. He has no specific technical errors, except, perhaps, the media’s characteristic free interpretation of the characteristics of the PAK DA, which, as is known, is still kept secret. That is, now remain unknown and flight range, and the number of engines and arsenal. More or less confidently, we can only talk about the sight on the inconspicuous nature and the choice of the subsonic aerodynamic scheme "flying wing".

Also note that the article can not be called empty in content. Questions specifically to the conclusions of the author.

Wrong conclusions, or why Su-57 is more important than PAK YES


Strategists and tactics


Let's leave the first part, where we are talking about the creation of the aircraft, and go straight to the point. Evgeny Kamenetsky’s thesis is simple: PAK YES is more important than Su-57, because they want to make it an element of the nuclear triad. That is, part of the containment system.

“When the question of“ unacceptable ”damage for an adversary 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 ",

- the author concludes.

Let's start with the fact that in 40 and 50, heavy bombers, such as B-29 or copied from an American Tu-4, could indeed be considered the most effective way of delivering a nuclear charge to the territory of a potential enemy. However, in 1957, the USSR successfully tested the first stories intercontinental ballistic missile Р-7, and already in 1960-m adopted it. The rocket had a range of eight thousand kilometers, but also many shortcomings. A start was made.

In our time, Russia has a full-fledged nuclear triad: intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) ​​and air-based cruise missiles. However, those who consider the “nuclear triad” to be a “dyad” are partly right. And the point is not in the shortcomings of the Tu-95MS or Tu-160 strategic bombers themselves, which are carriers of cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. Just the destructive potential of air-based cruise missiles in our time is not comparable either with the ICBM or with the SLBM. Here plays a role and low speed of flight of the KR, and its relatively short range (on a strategic scale, of course), and the mass of the warhead.



Consider the issue in more detail. The X-55 airborne cruise missile has a maximum range of 2500 kilometers and a 200-500 charge power in kilotons. For comparison, one ICBM of the P-36М2 complex is capable of throwing ten warheads with a power of 800 of kilotons over a distance of more than 11 thousand kilometers. In turn, the newer complex RT-2PM2 Topol-M has a single-block warhead with a charge power of one megaton. And the distance to 12 is thousands of kilometers.

Finally, the cruising speed of X-55 and more modern cruise missiles is subsonic. That is, when (if) they get to the territory of a potential enemy, this enemy itself will no longer be "alive". Recall that the combat units of the ICBM / SLBM in the event of a global war will fall on the heads of Russians and Americans approximately 20 minutes after the launch of the missiles themselves. I wonder if there will be at least one of the B-52 or Tu-160 on earth at this point on the runway? It is better, of course, not to check, but to understand the difference, it must be assumed, it is necessary.



Terrorist killers


Does this mean that the PAK DA is a potentially bad plane? Not at all. The tasks for him are likely to be different, different from those that were relevant in the 50 or 60.

Let's see how things are overseas. The Americans for a very long time could not figure out how to attach their strategic bombers. Finally, they found a worthy role: a kind of bombers capable of dramatically increasing the tactical potential of the US Army through the massive use of cheap precision-guided munitions. One example: from October 2014 to January 2016, the B-1B US Air Force took an active part in air strikes against Islamist militants in Syria in the city of Kobani. Despite the fact that the share of departures of this type of machines amounted to only three percent of the total number of departures, the share of dropped ammunition was almost half of all used by aviation.



And what does the military-political leadership of Russia see the role of the PAK DA? In short, it is about the same as the United States sees it for its bombers. That is, they want to make the plane not so much a highly specialized element of the nuclear triad as a multifunctional operational-tactical complex.

“The military was not lazy, and wrote everything they think. This is both a strategic bomber and a tactical bomber-carrier, even a long-range interceptor and a possible platform for launching spacecraft, "

- Yevgeny Fedosov, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Scientific Director of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise GosNIIAS said in 2017.

If, however, even more closely follow the reports of the PAK DA, then it can be understood that its role in the structure of combat aviation of the VKS has not yet been determined. So the tasks for the promising bomber will intersect with the tasks Tu-160М2, Tu-22М3, Su-34. And even, according to the military, MiG-31BM!

At the same time, the main task of the Su-57 is very simple and clear - winning air superiority. And if Russia does not receive in the future a full-fledged fighter of the fifth generation, then it will lose it (superiority), figuratively speaking. Therefore, to say that PAK YES is more necessary than Su-57 is completely wrong. The fighter of the fifth generation is the most significant program for modern Russia in the field of military aviation. And the most significant convention program in general.



As for the Prospective Aviation Complex of Long-Range Aviation, then, to the great regret of the aircraft enthusiasts, there is a possibility that this machine will never be adopted at all. First, due to purely economic reasons. This is the most complex and most expensive aviation complex in all of Russian history. And the money in the Russian Ministry of Defense in recent years has to be considered.

Secondly, it is quite possible for the Tu-160М2 of the new construction to act as a carrier of guided bombs / tactical cruise missiles. For a “bomber” that is at war with terrorists, stealth is not a key parameter. He can cope well with his tasks and without it, which shows an example of the use of B-52 and B-1 by Americans.

But the project "invisible" B-2, as we know, suffered not the best fate. At the exit, the Americans received a fantastically expensive and almost unnecessary aircraft, which, by the way, they soon plan to abandon, while leaving them in service ... B-52, which performed the first flight in 1952 year. And the creators of PAK DA will have to try very hard so that their offspring do not repeat the fate of B-2 Spirit.
Author:
104 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. sen
    sen 6 May 2019 06: 03
    +14
    Russia has a defensive doctrine. Therefore, the Su-57 is more important. Gaining air superiority is vital. Due to the collapse of the INF Treaty, an increase in the range of cruise missiles, the role of PAK DA is somewhat reduced, but still remains necessary.
    1. Spartanez300
      Spartanez300 6 May 2019 06: 27
      +4
      Why not take into account the money of the budget of the Ministry of Defense, if many try to launch their dirty thieves paw there. But if you didn’t look at it, it would be possible to push through some projects.
      1. luka57
        luka57 6 May 2019 07: 57
        +1
        Quote: Spartanez300
        and some projects could be pushed through.

        good concept, "push through". does not smell like anything?
    2. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 6 May 2019 06: 34
      +19
      Quote: sen
      Russia has a defensive doctrine. Therefore, the Su-57 is more important. Gaining air superiority is vital. Due to the collapse of the INF Treaty, an increase in the range of cruise missiles, the role of PAK DA is somewhat reduced, but still remains necessary.

      Su-57 is more important, because it, like any American aircraft, is a machine for regional conflicts in which superpowers fight for influence. In a direct clash between the Russian Federation and NATO, humanity will perish.
      1. URAL72
        URAL72 6 May 2019 08: 03
        0
        Now, if he were to teach the Su-57 to use the X-101, he would not have a price at all.
        1. 5 – 9
          5 – 9 6 May 2019 14: 21
          -1
          Given the range of the X-101 and kirdyk DRSMD, she does not need any flying carrier :)
        2. FID
          FID 7 May 2019 07: 39
          0
          [Quote] [/ quote]
          And run to the attack ....
    3. merkava-2bet
      merkava-2bet 6 May 2019 09: 34
      +7
      There is no country in the world with only a defensive policy, Russia has a defense strategy, like other countries.
    4. Uncle Sasha_027
      Uncle Sasha_027 6 May 2019 17: 09
      +1
      "The best defense is offense!" And doctrines are for suckers and Western fuckers!
    5. Oleg Kovalchuk
      Oleg Kovalchuk 6 May 2019 18: 13
      +1
      Definitely - the SU-57 is more important!
      As correctly noted - precisely because of our defensive doctrine, Russia is not going to be equal in aggressiveness with the Americans, climbing everywhere and bombing anyone they wanted.
      Therefore, in the AUG fleet - in last place, we do not meddle in other people's affairs.
    6. Yarhann
      Yarhann 7 May 2019 00: 28
      +1
      The FAB and KAB are the main weapons used by the barmaley in Syria, Chechnya, and Afghanistan - all these are carried and used by bombers, and the higher the carrying capacity of this bomb, the cheaper the bombing will cost. KR is the WTO - a very expensive pleasure, especially if they are used against NBF.
      A bomber is needed in any case, and it is a universal bomber that can replace the tu95, tu160, tu22m3 and su34 partially. Without effective means of attack, no defensive doctrine works this axiom.
      And so, in fact, when they finish with the engine of the second stage for the su57, it will be possible to create a pack on 4 such engines already - of course, having modified it to the necessary condition.
      But on-board equipment, you can now begin to create, create a system with an open interface so that you can easily integrate new equipment and software. As for me, these are the two main tasks to create a suitable engine for PAK DA and create a BIOS.
    7. max702
      max702 7 May 2019 09: 31
      0
      If we are making a platform for long-range missile launchers, then there is nothing to be smart with an aircraft, on the basis of the IL-96 it is quite technically possible, and if we need a carrier for bombs and other inexpensive, but a lot, then we take the IL-76 in the new version, we set up "Hephaestus" and do carpet bombing .. Why a new and expensive plane for these purposes? Sculpt invisibility so that he can circle over the heads of opponents of equal strength to make impossible technicallyand you can bomb the Papuans from anything up to PO-2.. But after gaining air, but here you need the SU-57 .. So forget about this grand drank PAK YES and engage in guidance systems and guided ammunition ..
    8. gregor6549
      gregor6549 7 May 2019 11: 56
      +1
      There is no such doctrine. There is a military doctrine of the Russian Federation in which attention is paid to both defensive and offensive strategies, and the main one is the strategy of containing a probable adversary, built on the inevitability of a retaliatory strike. Any bias towards a purely defensive or offensive strategy smells like a new 41 year. Therefore, aviation should be balanced in strength and resources, and the presence of effective fighter aviation does not cancel, but only complements the presence of effective bomber aviation (strategic and frontal). Dominance in the air is also a thing in itself, and it is unlikely that any of the opposing sides will be able to achieve such domination always and everywhere. Therefore, the development of the PAK DA is as necessary as the adoption of the SU 57 (or its modifications. If you recall the USSR, then there was a subsequent practice: the developed weapon model is still being tested, and the developers are already starting to develop new models. And all this was done) without noise and dust and often a probable "partner" learned about the new product when it was demonstrated at parades, or even months and years after it was put into service. For example, the Americans learned about Baikonur only after the first missile launches from this cosmodrome. True, Khrushchev had to to organize the raising of virgin soil to disguise the work on Baikonur, but the desired result was achieved. And now there is continuous advertising, and often that which is not yet, it is not known when and whether it will be at all. You have to be more modest, guys.
      1. Aqela
        Aqela 8 May 2019 14: 02
        0
        Here I look at the comments, and I see no consideration of one fact: Su-57 = PAK FA, i.e. promising aviation complex frontline aviation. Not a fighter, but platform... Its trick lies precisely in the flexibility of use and the ability to quickly reconfigure from a heavy fighter of conquest of superiority to an attack aircraft and a front-line bomber (it was in it, and not a fighter with the ability to use bombs). PAK DA = long-range aviation complex, and even subsonic. It is no less important, in my opinion, than the PAK FA, however, without ensuring the stability of the tactical link, without gaining air superiority, it is practically useless, because it is important not just to load it with explosives (here, indeed, even the An-22, even the Il- 76 will come in handy), and deliver and use ammunition. Or no one noticed that in Syria, for example, conventional high-explosive bombs, when used from a full-fledged "bomber", are quite comparable in effectiveness to guided munitions, although they are much cheaper, and they are not afraid of radio countermeasures (there are no brains in bombs - only bone!). ..
        To solve pinpoint tasks and / or gain superiority, the Su-57 is sufficient and necessary. To solve the same volumetric bombing tasks, the PAK DA, like the Tu-22M3 (the second is weaker, but it exists!) Will quickly justify their existence due to the effective use of inexpensive ammunition. Those. "beat back their price." That the B-2, that the Tu-160 were developed for the use of nuclear ammunition (KR or bombs), they are of little use for operation with conventional bombs, and retargeting for solving problems, for example, long-range reconnaissance, is not at all suitable. tongue
        As I understand it, the fundamental feature of PAK FA and PAK DA is overstockabilityflexibility. However, it is now a fashionable trend. For small, local wars - justified. For large, global conflicts - so-so, because it is more profitable then to use large series of less expensive narrowly specialized devices.
        By the way, in a cutlery, a spoon is not replaced with a knife; among tools, a wrench is much less convenient than a hammer ... Although, due to hopelessness, what kind of movements you will not go for! request
    9. malyvalv
      malyvalv 7 May 2019 15: 35
      -1
      Russia has a defensive doctrine.

      Best defense is attack.
      1. Aqela
        Aqela 8 May 2019 14: 05
        0
        Well, it’s written in the old combat manuals. Without an attack, a battle cannot be won, even without a counterattack. soldier
    10. Twodi
      Twodi 10 May 2019 17: 16
      0
      If there is a missile system with an intercontinental range, then why is it even PAK YES ???? Meaning? Making launchers around the perimeter of the country is enough, finally there is a TU-160M2.
  2. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 6 May 2019 06: 57
    +11
    Doesn't the Author know the saying "the first pancake is lumpy"? B-2 is the very first "stealth" bomber, which, when baked, turned out to be "lumpy" ... And yet ... abandoning B-2, Americans take up B-21 (former B-3. ..)! The author, "remembering" the B-2, for some reason completely "forgets" about the B-21 ... By the way, I do not consider myself a "fan" of the PAK YES ... I think that the production of the Tu-160M2 (even , without "fanaticism" ...) and the modernization of the Tu-22M3 will cover the most urgent needs of the Aerospace Forces until it becomes clearer: is a strategist bomber needed ... and, if so, which one? But still ! Saying "A" must also say "B"! We need answers to the questions: Why do the Americans, leaving the B-52, B-1 and having a "sad experience" in the form of B-2, still “cough up” the idea of ​​the B-21? And if the Author, in addition, would have made it clear that ... "Shurik! It's not our method!" So that we, at least 30%, would understand this .... well, tady oh! By the way, I heard a rumor that, at one time, the An-124 transport aircraft was supposed to be used as a missile carrier of the KR ... (even, quickly installed launchers were invented ...). So, why not figure out a "bouquet to the nose" .. that is, "sniff" the possibility of creating on one platform a transporter, bomber-missile carrier, AWACS, base patrol "anti-submarine", long-range patrolling air defense interceptor ...
    1. spectr
      spectr 6 May 2019 08: 50
      +3
      Yes, let them do it slowly. School must be restored. And even with the restoration of production of the Tu-160, difficulties arose. Moreover, if the detonation engine is doped or something similar to it, these strategists can get a second life.
    2. merkava-2bet
      merkava-2bet 6 May 2019 09: 49
      +11
      I dare not agree with you about the B-2 bomber, a modern and powerful machine, and recently it has been steadily increasing its firepower, KR, heavy-duty concrete bombs, etc. So it’s expensive, it wasn’t created by the Papuans to drive it, but to break into heavy-duty air defense The USSR, thank God, have not been tested in practice. And the fact that the V-52 and B-1B veterans are used, the Yankees are very scrupulous, unlike the USSR / Russia / Ukraine, which gladly allowed magnificent machines to fly and fly under the knife, it's a pity very sorry. And the fact that the Yankees will build a V-21/31/100 I have no doubt that they have everything for this.
    3. Shopping Mall
      Shopping Mall 6 May 2019 13: 44
      +4
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      By the way, I heard a rumor that, at one time, the An-124 transport aircraft was supposed to be used as a missile carrier of the KR ... (even, quickly installed launchers were invented ...). So, why not figure out a "bouquet to the nose" .. that is, "sniff" the possibility of creating on one platform a transporter, bomber-missile carrier, AWACS, base patrol "anti-submarine", long-range patrolling air defense interceptor ...


      After a multifunctional fighter, this could be the most important project for the military. Just going to write an article on this topic in the short term.

      Just need to understand that now bomber - this is only for the Papuans and the Bootyles, and against a serious opponent, this is only missile carrier. I can not imagine that B-2 could calmly bomb something in Russia, for example.
      1. Aqela
        Aqela 8 May 2019 14: 10
        +1
        good I agree. However, the bombing of the “Barmaleev” is still more relevant. Because even the CD looks rather weak against a "response" from a serious enemy in the form of nuclear warheads ... request
    4. 5 – 9
      5 – 9 6 May 2019 14: 27
      +1
      There is no intelligible explanation except for drinking the dough to invent the B-21, instead of screwing long-range cruise missiles on the B-1 or B-2, I do not have.
      Although at the dawn of inventing the B-2 it was supposed to be used to fly over the Bryansk forests to search for Poplar under the yolkas and control them ... which was later deservedly recognized as drug addict delirium. And nothing "lumpy" in B-2 except AGM-129 seems to be not ... well, maybe prices.
      1. Shopping Mall
        Shopping Mall 6 May 2019 15: 51
        +1
        Quote: 5-9
        There is no intelligible explanation except for drinking the dough to invent the B-21, instead of screwing long-range cruise missiles on the B-1 or B-2, I do not have.
        Although at the dawn of inventing the B-2 it was supposed to be used to fly over the Bryansk forests to search for Poplar under the yolkas and control them ... which was later deservedly recognized as drug addict delirium. And nothing "lumpy" in B-2 except AGM-129 seems to be not ... well, maybe prices.


        Both the B-1 and the B-2 resource end, the machine was initially problematic, expensive to maintain. B-52 they have something like AK.
        1. 5 – 9
          5 – 9 7 May 2019 07: 23
          -1
          Nuuuu .. not heard. B-2 almost does not fly, although it really can not and can not. B-1 is not a strategist at all, it does not carry nuclear weapons, CRBD too. Yuzayut it in vain for plowing up all sorts of Afghan rocks. Would you like to save the resource - would save.
          1. Shopping Mall
            Shopping Mall 7 May 2019 07: 26
            0
            Quote: 5-9
            Nuuuu .. not heard. B-2 almost does not fly, although it really can not and can not. B-1 is not a strategist at all, it does not carry nuclear weapons, CRBD too. Yuzayut it in vain for plowing up all sorts of Afghan rocks. Would you like to save the resource - would save.


            B-2 is very expensive at the cost of flying and it's a pity to risk, the coating seems to be peeling off, B-1B is also not cheap at the cost of flying, but it has to be exploited because over time the design fatigue will make itself felt, it does not have such a margin of safety as 52 , and for a transonic aircraft, this is critical - fatigue cracks and all that ...
            1. Aqela
              Aqela 8 May 2019 14: 18
              0
              If sclerosis does not change me, the main flight mode for the B-1B is subsonic, something about 800 km / h, and supersonic is the ability to reach afterburner and for a short time ... There is a fundamental difference from the B-52 in the ability to break through the zone Air defense at low altitude and supersonic, which was bad for the F-111 and not at all achievable for the Superfortress ... recourse
              1. Shopping Mall
                Shopping Mall 8 May 2019 14: 20
                +1
                Quote: Aqela
                If sclerosis does not change me, the main flight mode for the B-1B is subsonic, something about 800 km / h, and supersonic is the ability to reach afterburner and for a short time ... There is a fundamental difference from the B-52 in the ability to break through the zone Air defense at low altitude and supersonic, which was bad for the F-111 and not at all achievable for the Superfortress ... recourse


                Yes, I wrote about this exactly - transonic, i.e. close to the speed of sound. At low altitudes, this seems to be enough for him.
                1. Aqela
                  Aqela 8 May 2019 14: 23
                  0
                  Maybe I'm not accurate, but it seems like "transonic" was said for speeds of Mach 0,9-1,1. recourse
                  1. Shopping Mall
                    Shopping Mall 8 May 2019 14: 24
                    0
                    Quote: Aqela
                    Maybe I'm not accurate, but it seems like "transonic" was said for speeds of Mach 0,9-1,1. recourse


                    According to other data 0,75 to 1,2 M hi
        2. Aqela
          Aqela 8 May 2019 14: 13
          0
          And B-52 they have something like Tu-95 lol
          1. Shopping Mall
            Shopping Mall 8 May 2019 14: 18
            0
            Quote: Aqela
            And B-52 they have something like Tu-95 lol


            B-52 is absolutely unique in terms of service life among all aircraft. The "youngest" B-52 was built in 1962 - it is 57 years of service, our cruisers serve less, and in the United States many aircraft carriers have served so much time. There is a chance that the B-52 will last 100 years! With upgrades, of course.

            Tu-95 in terms of creation is comparable to the B-52, but in service are aircraft production 80-s.
            1. Aqela
              Aqela 8 May 2019 14: 34
              0
              Fair remark. However, during the design and existence of the B-52, how many failed projects that were made to replace it? How many resources were consumed on the B-58 and Valkyrie alone! I'm not talking about FB-111 or B-1 (the original, and not a very different B-1B) ... By the way, what about the new engines for the B-52? Still not finished? Do 286 processors still use onboard systems?
              1. Shopping Mall
                Shopping Mall 8 May 2019 14: 36
                +1
                Quote: Aqela
                By the way, how about the new engines for the B-52? So you did not finish? In onboard systems still use 286-e processors?


                I don’t know exactly about the engines, I didn’t go deep into the subject, in my opinion they didn’t finish it. And the processor is fine! 100 Anniversary Update wink
                1. Aqela
                  Aqela 8 May 2019 15: 10
                  0
                  A stone that cannot be killed! What is the 286th, that the 486th ... As far as I know, in China they are produced for industry and military development. If you don't use "Windows" with the charming "graphonium", then for ordinary calculations, especially in real time, it is enough ...
                  Two facts were recalled. Bill Gates's statement on the sufficiency of 640 kilobytes of RAM for solving any problems laughing And "vodka in small portions is useful in any volume!" drinks wassat
                  By the way! Happy Victory Day! fellow soldier drinks
  3. rocket757
    rocket757 6 May 2019 07: 47
    +1
    Even just to do, design the right thing! It is necessary to check promising options, so as not to catch up later, which will obviously be more expensive and with unpredictable results.
  4. Shorik
    Shorik 6 May 2019 09: 05
    +2
    I think that su57 is an aircraft that can use tactical nuclear weapons much more efficiently in case of emergency than yes. An inconspicuous, maneuverable and high-speed fighter is much more dangerous for the enemy than a subsonic strategist who will be intercepted by enemy air defenses long before reaching the line of attack with his cr. Su57 has more chances than the pack, especially in light of the dominance of enemy aircraft in the air.
    1. Aqela
      Aqela 8 May 2019 14: 38
      0
      The British also tried to use Mosquito during World War II. Only there was not much sense from them ... The Su-57 will not have full-fledged bomber equipment anyway, and the range is not the same ... The same Su-34 is a re-fighter and a non-bombardier ... request
  5. Lieutenant Colonel of the USSR Air Force in stock
    +3
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    Doesn't the Author know the saying "the first pancake is lumpy"? B-2 is the very first "stealth" bomber, which, when baked, turned out to be "lumpy" ... And yet ... abandoning B-2, Americans take up B-21 (former B-3. ..)! The author, "remembering" the B-2, for some reason completely "forgets" about the B-21 ... By the way, I do not consider myself a "fan" of the PAK YES ... I think that the production of the Tu-160M2 (even , without "fanaticism" ...) and the modernization of the Tu-22M3 will cover the most urgent needs of the Aerospace Forces until it becomes clearer: is a strategist bomber needed ... and, if so, which one? But still ! Saying "A" must also say "B"! We need answers to the questions: Why do the Americans, leaving the B-52, B-1 and having a "sad experience" in the form of B-2, still “cough up” the idea of ​​the B-21? And if the Author, in addition, would have made it clear that ... "Shurik! It's not our method!" So that we, at least 30%, would understand this .... well, tady oh! By the way, I heard a rumor that, at one time, the An-124 transport aircraft was supposed to be used as a missile carrier of the KR ... (even, quickly installed launchers were invented ...). So, why not figure out a "bouquet to the nose" .. that is, "sniff" the possibility of creating on one platform a transporter, bomber-missile carrier, AWACS, base patrol "anti-submarine", long-range patrolling air defense interceptor ...

    ***
    I completely agree with you: while serving in the BTA, I knew about the limited bomb capabilities of the BTA, but I always wondered why they are so limited. Ready-made solutions for BTA aircraft using missiles and cr. missiles, bombs could well compete with subsonic strategic and long-range operational tactical aviation such as the B-52, domestic veterans TU-16, TU-95 .... Again, well-developed capacities for these types of carriers make the cost of each unit cheaper.
    As for either - or SU-57 versus PAK DA, we recall that it was precisely the absence of a full-fledged DA from F. Germany in the structure of her Luftwaffe that was her weak point.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 6 May 2019 15: 28
      +2
      I agree with your conclusions ... hi I want to add a little from myself ... In the history of aviation, there are many cases when transport workers served as bombers ... You can mention the famous Li-2 and Junkers-52 of WW2 ...; C-130 as a bomber and a "gunship" in the "Vietnamese "war ..." Bombers-transporters "were An-2, An-12, An-24, An-26 ... now the crews of Il-76 began to" learn to throw bombs "again ... well, and An-124 I have already mentioned ... By the way, transport workers were transformed into "bombers", both through the efforts of those countries where the aforementioned aircraft were supplied, and during the production of aircraft in the USSR (An ..., for example) the "bombing function" was laid. .. if not in all aircraft, then in some modifications ... There are also known anti-submarine aircraft, AWACS, electronic warfare based on transport aircraft or, even, passenger airliners ... So, there are grounds for proposing a "unified aviation platform". ..
      1. Aqela
        Aqela 8 May 2019 14: 39
        +1
        So yes, right off the tongue! good Just wanted to write about it!
  6. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 6 May 2019 09: 50
    +2
    Consider the issue in more detail. The X-55 airborne cruise missile has a maximum range of 2500 kilometers and a 200-500 charge power in kilotons. For comparison, one ICBM of the P-36М2 complex is capable of throwing ten warheads with a power of 800 of kilotons over a distance of more than 11 thousand kilometers. In turn, the newer complex RT-2PM2 Topol-M has a single-block warhead with a charge power of one megaton. And the distance to 12 is thousands of kilometers.


    ..and did you compare the accuracy? small ct with high accuracy are equivalent to mt with small. And you can return the BR, like Tu160 or Tu95. And can BR keep an arm in a threatened period? A non-nuclear warhead BR can solve problems?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 6 May 2019 10: 06
      -2
      Quote: Zaurbek
      And can BR keep an arm in a threatened period?

      Yes, it’s kind of like a barrage. Around the clock and all year round. And not only during the threatened period

      Quote: Zaurbek
      A non-nuclear warhead BR can solve problems?

      Yes. "Prompt Global Strike" (PGS) or "Rapid Global Strike" True, this is a pricey and potentially dangerous nervous reaction from Russia and China. Therefore, while the topic "hung". But work is underway
      1. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 6 May 2019 16: 00
        0
        Yes, it’s kind of like a barrage. Around the clock and all year round.

        Where are the ICBMs patrolling? Is it underground?
        Do not think that the silos of ICBMs are highly protected, for such purposes the Americans allocate several warheads and in the first strike have a chance to damage our underground ICBMs. But a plane with cruise missiles can be raised in advance and let it barrage somewhere above the taiga, there it cannot be tracked.
        During the threatened period, ICBMs will remain in their places, but aviation from the Kyrgyz Republic can be raised to the sky and refueled there.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 6 May 2019 16: 08
          0
          Quote: Fan-Fan
          Where are the ICBMs patrolling? Is it underground?

          Yeah ...

          Quote: Fan-Fan
          for such purposes, the Americans allocate several warheads and in the first strike have a chance to damage our underground ICBMs

          They have a chance to damage the mines. By this time, the ICBMs will fly away to their goals.

          Quote: Fan-Fan
          But a plane with cruise missiles can be raised in advance

          Is not a fact. With a high probability they will not be in time. But to force the pilots to live in the cockpit does not work.

          Quote: Fan-Fan
          During the threatened period, the ICBMs will remain in their places,

          Exactly. They are constantly ready to start. Even if the enemy uses a "disarming strike", by the way, the main option according to their doctrine is the use of XYAN. That is, no "threatened period"

          Quote: Fan-Fan
          but aviation from the Kyrgyz Republic can be raised to the sky and refuel there.

          To repair / maintain too? Even during the threatened period, 100% of airplanes cannot be lifted into the air.
    2. The seventh
      The seventh 6 May 2019 10: 19
      0
      Accuracy does not play a big role, at 200 kt. On Yars or at the same 200kt. On the Kh-55, there will be 250 meters or 10 meters with such a warhead power, there is practically no difference in efficiency. And non-nuclear warheads will work for the Papuans in "peacetime", in this case, the BR is not needed at all, and the CD will be enough, and if you really want to, you can use Pershing and Iskander and the Chinese MRBM for ships ...
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 6 May 2019 11: 46
        0
        Well, the Kyrgyz Republic accuracy is higher at the moment. X-55 is an older version of the Kyrgyz Republic.
        1. The seventh
          The seventh 6 May 2019 11: 52
          +1
          And what's the difference with 200 hundred kilotons? Will it be 300 meters (ICBM), 30 meters with the old Kyrgyz Republic or 7 meters with the new ones? ..
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 6 May 2019 13: 59
            0
            The fact that applying one is morally easier than the other. There will be no secondary victims ..
  7. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 6 May 2019 09: 52
    +6
    We need a bomb carrier (rocket carrier) on civilian units with a maximum resource. And under the widest range of weapons.
  8. Operator
    Operator 6 May 2019 10: 03
    -8
    The aviation component of Russia's nuclear triad for the future is not strategic bombers, but the Burevestnik cruise missiles, which have practically unlimited range, do not need airfields, do not require crews, tankers, fighter cover, etc. etc.

    Cruise missiles with long flight times strike in the second echelon after the disabling of the air defense / missile defense systems, radar and radio communications with the aid of ballistic missiles operating in the first echelon. Therefore, for the CD is not important flight speed.
  9. Ignat Buzo
    Ignat Buzo 6 May 2019 10: 52
    +1
    Evgeni Kamenetsky is probably versed in aviation, like Rogozin in the space field. Here from these effective managers and problems in the country.
  10. The seventh
    The seventh 6 May 2019 11: 05
    0
    That's right, PAK YES finally ... not needed. His only mulch is the stealth-ness within the limits of the radar. The container does not shoot. And if there is no Container, and the White Swan has an advanced and broadband electronic warfare. That ... Again - it makes no difference whether you are a stealth or not a stealth ..)
    1. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan 6 May 2019 16: 06
      0
      The "White Swan" consumes a lot of fuel, but an economical aircraft is needed for long combat duty in the air. In general, I think that the Il-96 can be redesigned for an ICBM or KR carrier.
      1. avg avg
        avg avg 7 May 2019 15: 07
        -1
        You don’t think for a long time, otherwise others will intercept this chip and you won’t get the loot, so act quickly and decisively - we decided to redesign, redesign!
  11. Artur as
    Artur as 6 May 2019 11: 36
    +4
    Again, fairy tales, you will soon die of hunger, and you are talking about weapons for which there is no money, and the guarantor’s friends all have money lol so that request
  12. Paladin
    Paladin 6 May 2019 11: 48
    +1
    “Recall that in the event of a global war, the warheads of ICBMs / SLBMs will fall on the heads of the Russians and Americans about 20 minutes after the missiles are launched. Interestingly, will at least one of the B-52 or Tu-160 on the ground be at the takeoff and landing by this time? It is better, of course, not to check, but to understand the difference, one must suppose, one must. "

    Interestingly, having undertaken to talk about the advantages and necessity of this or that aircraft, the author took the trouble to at least superficially familiarize himself with the tactics of YES? It seems unlikely, because does not have the slightest idea where the pilots and airplanes should be at the moment of pressing the "button" and how long it takes to get up into the air.
    1. The seventh
      The seventh 6 May 2019 12: 15
      -2
      Even if they manage to take off, then with a high probability they will all the same be overwhelmed by the EMP of nearby nuclear weapons ..)
      1. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 6 May 2019 16: 10
        0
        Do you think the Americans will be
        EMR of close nuclear explosives.
        do over the whole taiga and tundra? They also have not many nuclear charges, so they will not bomb the taiga and our planes above the taiga are beyond the reach of the enemy.
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 6 May 2019 13: 23
      -2
      Quote: Paladin
      where at the moment of pressing the "button" the pilots and airplanes should be

      Pilots at home, aircraft at the airport. With a retaliatory strike, for us, mostly.
      1. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 6 May 2019 16: 13
        0
        Pilots at home, aircraft at the airport.
        This will happen if our rulers and generals are completely idiotic, and sensible rulers realize in advance that it is time to disperse the carriers, and to lift airplanes from the Kyrgyz Republic into the air on duty.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 6 May 2019 16: 16
          +1
          Quote: Fan-Fan
          time to disperse carriers

          There is nowhere to "spread out", the missile carriers are too heavy to fly from the ground or from the highway.
      2. Paladin
        Paladin 17 June 2019 13: 46
        0
        The concept as with author, well oh well, let them think so)))
    3. Nastia makarova
      Nastia makarova 7 May 2019 12: 14
      0
      not all heads will fall)))) only for those who live with strategic goals
  13. 5 – 9
    5 – 9 6 May 2019 14: 31
    0
    I don’t understand at all about some kind of "rejection of the Su-57". Just compare the timing of development and appearance in the troops with the F-22 and F-35.
    Well, such nonsense as the production of dozens and hundreds of raw boards, and in several options of underfillment, which then will be finished for money comparable to new or thrown out (I mean the Fy-35 now). Moreover, there is no engine of the 2nd stage yet.
  14. A1845
    A1845 6 May 2019 14: 50
    +1
    Quote: sen
    defensive doctrine. Therefore, the Su-57 is more important. Gaining air superiority is vital

    air superiority is essential for any doctrine
    1. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan 6 May 2019 16: 16
      0
      What I do not like the name - "defensive doctrine", and what, to advance and attack the enemy is not planned at all? What, are we going to sit in the trenches and shoot back?
  15. Ezekiel 25-17
    Ezekiel 25-17 6 May 2019 15: 29
    -2
    You can’t do without PAK YES. Technologies...
  16. Old26
    Old26 6 May 2019 18: 16
    +3
    Quote: URAL72
    Now, if he were to teach the Su-57 to use the X-101, he would not have a price at all.

    And if you teach to use "Sarmat" - the price would not be there. Guys. Maybe we will not shove any weapon where not? The Kh-101 is a strategic weapon and has no place on the SU-57 ...

    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    Saying "A" must also say "B"! We need answers to the questions: Why do the Americans, leaving the B-52, B-1 and having a "sad experience" in the form of B-2, still “cough up” the idea of ​​the B-21? And if the Author, in addition, would have made it clear that ... "Shurik! It's not our method!" So that we, at least 30%, would understand this .... well, tady oh!

    The Americans realized that a strategist of such dimensions as B-2 might not be needed. As far as I understand from open sources - V-21 is a smaller version of V-2, using developments on F-35, in particular engines. Perhaps having calculated, they came to the conclusion that it is better to have a smaller, but more massive (and possibly cheaper, although modern weapons can hardly be called cheap) bomber than not very financially successful B-2.

    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    By the way, I heard a rumor that, at one time, the An-124 transport aircraft was supposed to be used as a missile carrier of the KR ... (even, quickly installed launchers were invented ...). So, why not figure out a "bouquet to the nose" .. that is, "sniff" the possibility of creating on one platform a transporter, bomber-missile carrier, AWACS, base patrol "anti-submarine", long-range patrolling air defense interceptor ...

    All these works were in the mid-70s, and not only the AN-124, but also its 6-engine version of the AN-126, as well as the AN-22 and IL-76, were considered as carriers. But after elaboration, it became clear that it was technically possible to do this, but it would not bring us any benefit, especially with regard to the bomber-missile carrier. It is possible to create an AWACS aircraft on the basis of a transporter; an anti-submarine can, if necessary. To create an air defense interceptor can be technically done, but does it make sense. But the creation of a bomber-rocket carrier ... It was rumored that it was the Soviet side who insisted on the ban on such a rework. Under the OSV-2 agreement, there was a ban on ballistic air-to-ground missiles with a range of 600 km and a ban on the use of transport aircraft as carriers of cruise missiles. The Americans were exploring the use of the Boeing 747 as such a carrier. He was to carry an EMNIP 72 cruise missile. The Soviet side, as they say, insisted on the introduction of this ban for a banal reason. The number of transporters that could be converted into CD carriers by the United States and NATO was good if an order of magnitude greater than ours. And most importantly, it was impossible to say with a 100% guarantee that it was flying - a transport carrier or a missile carrier.

    Below is a project for redesigning a Boeing 747 under a CD carrier



    Quote: AVM
    I can’t imagine that the B-2 could calmly bomb something in Russia, for example.

    And besides Russia in the world there are no other countries at all? And at a certain time, the B-2 was a carrier and a CD. True, these Krs were satisfied quickly removed from service, but what is difficult to replace them with others?

    Quote: Shorik
    An inconspicuous, maneuverable and high-speed fighter is much more dangerous for the enemy than a subsonic strategist who will be intercepted by enemy air defenses long before reaching the attack line with his cr. Su57 has more chances than the pack, especially in light of the dominance of enemy aircraft in the air.

    if the PAK DA will have cruise missiles with a range of at least 5000 km, then I wonder how it will be possible to intercept the PAK DA at such a distance from the target. And who is more likely to strike. PAK DA with a flight range of 12-15 thousand kilometers plus 5000 km of the launch range of the Kyrgyz Republic or SU-57, which will have a range of approximately 1500 km and a launch range of ASPs of 300-400 km? In principle, comparing the performance characteristics of the PAK DA and SU-57 is rather stupid. These are cars of various classes and for different purposes. The question is about priorities. which is more necessary: ​​PAK YES or SU-57, although it is clear that it is necessary to do both, but alas, to build at the same time is unlikely to succeed

    Quote: Fan-Fan
    Yes, it’s kind of like a barrage. Around the clock and all year round.

    Where are the ICBMs patrolling? Is it underground?
    Do not think that the silos of ICBMs are highly protected, for such purposes the Americans allocate several warheads and in the first strike have a chance to damage our underground ICBMs. But a plane with cruise missiles can be raised in advance and let it barrage somewhere above the taiga, there it cannot be tracked.
    During the threatened period, ICBMs will remain in their places, but aviation from the Kyrgyz Republic can be raised to the sky and refueled there.

    Silos are heavily protected. Not all, but certain mine PUs have rather high durability. Yes, the Americans are planning to use the "two by one" concept to strike our silos. that is, two BG SLBMs, one silo each. Taking into account the KVO, there is a possibility of damaging the silo. But unlike our mobile APUs, the reaction time of missiles in silos is much shorter. EMNIP these terms are about 60-65 seconds. That is, there is simply no guarantee that ICBMs from silos cannot take off before the strike.
    The plane can be lifted into the air, no one doubts this. But enemy radar can track such a barrage aircraft. The number of radar among our opponents is banal and they are placed around the perimeter of our territory. Plus there are AWACS aircraft that will occupy their detection segment.
    It is possible to refuel aircraft with KR on board, but very difficult. We have fewer tankers than KR carriers

    Quote: SSEDM
    Accuracy does not play a big role, at 200ct. On Yars or at the same 200ct. On the X-55, there will be 250 meters or 10 with such warhead capacities, there is practically no difference in efficiency.

    Accuracy plays a role, it all depends on the characteristics of the target. For some, there may be no difference in the type of buildings, but accuracy plays a role in fortified goals. As they say, a two-fold increase in accuracy is equivalent to a three-fold increase in power.

    Quote: Zaurbek
    We need a bomb carrier (rocket carrier) on civilian units with a maximum resource. And under the widest range of weapons.

    Alas, there is a ban. And it is not beneficial for us that this ban cease to exist. Our adversary has such corrupted aircraft several times more than ours. And tracking them will be much more difficult for us than our planes

    Quote: Spade
    Quote: Fan-Fan
    time to disperse carriers

    There is nowhere to "spread out", the missile carriers are too heavy to fly from the ground or from the highway.

    There is much to disperse, but there are not many such airfields ...
    1. 2 Level Advisor
      2 Level Advisor 7 May 2019 08: 51
      +1
      I’ll add that during the lifting of missile carriers from the airfield it is necessary to include the receipt / loading / preparation of special ammunition and the arrival of crews from home .. i.e. for the effective use of strategists, a pre-declared full combat readiness is needed - this is the only, but their biggest minus.
  17. Sergey to
    Sergey to 6 May 2019 19: 53
    +1
    Of course, accuracy (CVO) is a key parameter for any missile, be it the CR or the BR. 10 meters or 250 meters are two big differences, as they say in Odessa. With an explosion power of 200 kt at a distance of 10 meters, the pressure in the front of the shock wave is 300 000 kg per square centimeter, and for 250 meters only 15 kg per square. cm.
    1. The seventh
      The seventh 6 May 2019 23: 10
      -1
      Yes, there are no such OBJECTIVES in nature for the Special BCH in 200kt. the same ICBMs or infantry-ballistic regiments for which the difference in 240 meters (250 - 10 = 240) in terms of KVO would play any significant role in the sense of sufficiency in causing unacceptable damage to this GOAL ..)
      1. Sergey to
        Sergey to 6 May 2019 23: 13
        +1
        Protection level silos Minuteman-3 -140 kg / sq. cm
        1. The seventh
          The seventh 6 May 2019 23: 18
          0
          There is simply no such goal for YaRS as the Minitman mine, because by the time the BB YaRS arrives at the Minuteman’s mine, the Minuteman himself doesn’t exist in this mine ...)
          1. Sergey to
            Sergey to 6 May 2019 23: 20
            0
            Not a question for me, but for our superiors - the military doctrine must be changed.
            1. The seventh
              The seventh 6 May 2019 23: 26
              0
              The doctrine will not help, because the gringes will also be able to empty the Minuteman mine well in advance, using the method of retaliation
              1. Sergey to
                Sergey to 6 May 2019 23: 33
                0
                This is theoretically, but practically a counter-strike is not real. Imagine a scene called by the Minister of Defense to the president. and reports good news: in 10 minutes, enemy BBs will achieve their goals. And it doesn’t matter in which country this scene takes place. Then release your imagination and understand everything.
                1. Sergey to
                  Sergey to 6 May 2019 23: 42
                  0
                  Technically, a retaliatory strike has long been implemented both with us and with amers at the beginning of the 1980's. but the human factor.
                2. The seventh
                  The seventh 6 May 2019 23: 55
                  0
                  Yes, there is also "practically" .... "the machine itself works ..", there is NO President in the scheme, or rather it is partially there, and then only in terms of the order to self-destruct their BB that are already in flight in case of safety at the time of issuing such an order own radars of early warning systems and / or satellites of the space constellation involved in the CANCEL scheme ....
                  1. Sergey to
                    Sergey to 6 May 2019 23: 57
                    0
                    the machine turns on only if the Supreme, Minister O and the Prime Minister are no longer alive.
                    1. The seventh
                      The seventh 7 May 2019 00: 09
                      0
                      Her, .. "Our Father is no worse than yours! ..." ..). Your scheme does not dance, because you will not be able to answer the question - How does the machine know that our Father is already in ... Paradise! ??. Ah ... no way, unless he himself calls the machine from there ..)
                      1. Sergey to
                        Sergey to 7 May 2019 00: 16
                        0
                        Sergey, I’m curious as before 1983 of the year with us: two officers: captain, major or underground. They have two keys to 10 missiles and to 10, 40, 60 or 100 warheads. and the fate of mankind. Now they only have the keys to missiles, and the President and the Minister of Defense have warheads.
                      2. The seventh
                        The seventh 7 May 2019 00: 35
                        0
                        The fact is that I have no moral and ethical right to publicly discuss the technical details of the project. I can only lightly highlight the most general formally logical approaches to the formation of the notorious Scheme. I will say this for now - This is not the case when it would be possible, as you write, the fundamental, significant influence of the "human factor" on the final result of the System's operation ...
                      3. 2 Level Advisor
                        2 Level Advisor 7 May 2019 08: 56
                        0
                        Are you catching up terribly by not saying the secret word "Perimeter" within the confines of secrecy? but to discuss not moral and ethical rights should have, but practical and technical knowledge .. well, or maybe theoretical .. in your opinion, then why bother with this suitcase for the president, if everything works anyway, for show-off or what?
                      4. The seventh
                        The seventh 7 May 2019 13: 58
                        0
                        I already wrote, you don’t remember? ... To give the directive on the self-liquidation of domestic BBs, well, for ..ponts too ..
              2. Sergey to
                Sergey to 6 May 2019 23: 34
                0
                But the retaliation is more or less a real thing.
          2. Sergey to
            Sergey to 6 May 2019 23: 24
            0
            In March 1982, the Bolsheviks refused to be the first to use nuclear weapons, in my opinion it remained.
  18. Sergey to
    Sergey to 6 May 2019 20: 08
    +1
    It’s not very clear why PAK YES is needed, if it’s like a clean bomber, if it’s a waste of money, it’s a lot of money to say, why repeat American mistakes, they don’t measure money, they can afford to spend all sorts of stupid things. And you need a clean bomber with an intercontinental range.? The question of who we will bomb, whose air defense we will overcome, can simply take the cheap Tu-204, already produced, on which no one flies anyway, lengthen the fuselage, embed two compartments in front of the center plane and after it under the revolving launchers of the Kyrgyz Republic X-101. Here you have a missile carrier with the 12 th KR with a range of 5500 km.
    1. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 7 May 2019 13: 05
      0
      Incidentally, a sensible thought. Only on the basis of IL-76/96 and with a hundred missiles.
  19. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 6 May 2019 20: 51
    0
    With the advent of an unlimited-range missile-launcher of the Burevestnik type, the need for an aviation component of the "nuclear triad" is questionable.
    A subtle attack aircraft are needed to suppress air defense in the first place.
  20. vfvlasov
    vfvlasov 6 May 2019 20: 53
    -1
    Nonsense all this. Neither the Su-57 nor the PAK DA will be able to carry out their combat missions. if a secret aerospace hypersonic aircraft of the TR-3B type or its numerous modifications gets in their way. The TR-3B has acceleration from 5 km per second per sq. flies in the atmosphere and in space. In space, it can accelerate to 50 km per second !!! In the atmosphere up to 10 km per second and more!
    1. malyvalv
      malyvalv 7 May 2019 15: 55
      0
      In space, it can accelerate to 50 km per second !!!


      It will definitely not return to Earth. Yes, and the solar system, too.
  21. Lieutenant Colonel of the USSR Air Force in stock
    +1
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    I agree with your conclusions ... hi I want to add a little from myself ... In the history of aviation, there are many cases when transport workers served as bombers ... You can mention the famous Li-2 and Junkers-52 of WW2 ...; C-130 as a bomber and a "gunship" in the "Vietnamese "war ..." Bombers-transporters "were An-2, An-12, An-24, An-26 ... now the crews of Il-76 began to" learn to throw bombs "again ... well, and An-124 I have already mentioned ... By the way, transport workers were transformed into "bombers", both through the efforts of those countries where the aforementioned aircraft were supplied, and during the production of aircraft in the USSR (An ..., for example) the "bombing function" was laid. .. if not in all aircraft, then in some modifications ... There are also known anti-submarine aircraft, AWACS, electronic warfare based on transport aircraft or, even, passenger airliners ... So, there are grounds for proposing a "unified aviation platform". ..

    Well, they threw bombs like goods in a primitive, artisanal way, at the command of the navigator and from the AN-12 and from the rest of the IL-76 aircraft from carts from the cargo compartment ... apparently the video did not go far experiments in 2018
  22. Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 7 May 2019 07: 07
    0
    The article is entertaining, but there is one omission globally on how long-range aviation is effective. Strategic aviation planes can be on duty right at the borders of our potential friends. Their rockets in this situation will be among the first to arrive.
    1. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 7 May 2019 13: 10
      0
      Boats with medium-range missiles can also. This is just not unique.


      A strategic missile carrier has one advantage - it can appear at any borders in a day from the moment of issuing the first order, and not just hang there. That is, it is a tool for a sudden attack on a newly identified (declared) enemy. Of course, in the event that the enemy is not worth ICBMs.
      1. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 8 May 2019 07: 04
        0
        A boat can, only here it is an order to give a problem, it is under water, and there is tight communication, but there is no such problem with an airplane.
        1. Sancho_SP
          Sancho_SP 8 May 2019 11: 08
          +1
          So in the 60s, they solved the problem of communication with boats. You can’t download the porn in al-di, of course, but encrypted telegrams at long waves pass)
    2. Karabas
      Karabas 7 May 2019 15: 34
      0
      The article is entertaining, but there is one omission globally on how long-range aviation is effective. Strategic aviation planes can be on duty right at the borders of our potential friends. Their rockets in this situation will be among the first to arrive.

      And which country would allow nuclear bombers to do this? It is tantamount to a declaration of war. But the air defense / missile defense of them in this case will be good IMHO.
      1. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 8 May 2019 07: 00
        0
        Well, for example, the United States does not consider a declaration of war when our Tu-95s are on duty near their borders, and they fly with nuclear charges.
        1. Karabas
          Karabas 8 May 2019 10: 17
          0
          Well, for example, the United States does not consider a declaration of war when our Tu-95s are on duty near their borders, and they fly with nuclear charges.

          This is when it was? belay
  23. Karabas
    Karabas 7 May 2019 15: 32
    0
    And the creators of PAK DA will have to try very hard so that their brainchild does not repeat the fate of the B-2 Spirit.

    In order not to repeat option one - to make a lot cheaper.
  24. malyvalv
    malyvalv 7 May 2019 15: 52
    -3
    The author does not take into account some points.
    1. Technology is stepping forward. Both the Americans and us have seriously advanced in missile defense. Now ICBMs launched from a distance of thousands of kilometers will not scare anyone. They go astray.
    2. Our decision-making and manufacturing centers are located deep in the continent and can be protected from the first blow. The stealth of the attack on us is practically unattainable. B-2s can, at best, fly up several hundred kilometers to our border while remaining invisible. Similarly with the marine component of the Americans. The missiles launched by them can be detected and destroyed in advance. For the same reason, our Tu-160 and Tu 95 also lose their effectiveness.
    3. For Americans, decision-making and production centers are located on the coast. Therefore, the secretive approach of several hundred km to the shore of B-2 class aircraft for Americans takes a completely different turn. A hit by hypersonic missiles in this case is irresistible. For hypersonic missiles, the range is small, therefore, increased stealth is required to be detected as late as possible. Therefore, the B-2 is useless for the Americans, but it is very necessary for us.
    4. The oceans surrounding America are an excellent medium for the secret deployment of underwater vehicles with hypersonic missiles from which the Americans have no protection and will not be there for some time. This is our geostrategic advantage. The oceans surrounding America have historically been their advantage in defending themselves from attack, but with the development of technology they are becoming their vulnerability.
  25. Alexvv
    Alexvv 7 May 2019 19: 17
    0
    Su-57 is more important, but Pak D would not refuse
  26. lukewarm
    lukewarm 8 May 2019 15: 01
    0
    What is needed? I venture to run into criticism, but IMHO PAK YES (unfortunately, yes) is the same chewing gum for us as Armata, Kurgan, Su-57 (it won’t get out of the T-50) and, of course, the terms are shifted to the right. So as not to say directly - ripped off. Due to poverty and incompetence. As a result, there will again be T72-B9993 MBM, Tu-95MS255M. Alas. Further sovietist groundwork - one advertisement in which we have become a little over 30 years old.