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