“Move America”: American journalist about the Russian PAK YES

Strategic bombers entered a new development zone amid the fierce struggle of the great powers in the military sphere - China, Russia and the United States. This opinion was voiced by military analyst Sebastian Roblin, who presented his vision of the situation developing in the distant aviation, in the article "Move Around, America ...".

Renaissance Long-Range Aviation

According to him, Moscow intends to receive from the Tupolev Design Bureau the first prototypes of the PAK DA stealth bomber by 2025, in order to begin full-fledged flight tests of the new product in 2026. In 2028, it is planned to begin production of a new machine, which should become an analogue of the American aircraft B-2 Spirit. Until this moment, exclusively design work was carried out. In parallel with this, a new technology of this class is being created in China - the H-20 bomber - and the B-21 Raider in the USA.

Strategic bombers are already experiencing a renaissance against the backdrop of the renewed rivalry of the great powers - China, Russia and the United States

- writes Robin.

Conceptual work on the PAK DA started back in the late 1990s, but planned studies formally started only in 2007. It is assumed that the PAK DA will be equipped with an NK-65 engine based on the NDK-32-02 turbofan used in the Tu-160M2 aircraft. It is the largest power plant ever installed on a combat aircraft. The crew will consist of 4 people. The machine will be equipped with a multi-band radar.

It is planned to arm the aircraft with various types of missiles: cruise missiles, including those stuffed with nuclear weapons, hypersonic (k = 5) and air-to-air class for self-defense. The flight range should be 12 thousand km with a payload of 30 tons.

Rear work

According to Roblin, it is indicative that the Russian leadership came to the conclusion that it is necessary to introduce stealth technologies in aviation, which are already used on the Su-57 and should receive PAK DA. Although earlier, in 2012, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin severely criticized the PAK DA program, as did the invisible bombers in general.

According to the author, "stealth" is necessary for the penetration of aircraft into the airspace of the enemy. However, while the Su-57 is capable of operating at shallow depths, the PAK DA is designed for long-range penetrating attacks.

At the same time, as the author notes, the question arises: why should cars even enter enemy territory? After all, there are Tu-95 and Tu-160M2 capable of firing targets with cruise missiles for hundreds or thousands of miles. However, it should be noted that working in the airspace of the enemy, in his rear, allows destroying key objects located in the depths - strategic weapon and main command posts.

Moscow may consider such an opportunity as a significant investment

Roblin believes, pointing to the low probability of meeting the stated deadlines for the creation of PAK YES: "the path of [its] development will be longer and more complicated than the rather busy schedule announced to the media."

Comments

[Mountain shooter]

"Trembling bourgeois, the last battle has come!" So it turns on the tongue ...

[military_cat]

The name of the media is somehow strangely avoided, which means that it is, most likely, the good old "The National Interest".

[Thunderbolt]

Quote: military_cat

good old "The National Interest".

It is. Sebastian Roblin is a regular contributor to The National Interest. Here is his article today.
8 July 2020 g
Yes, America can put deadly lasers on F-35 fighters

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/yes-america-could-put-deadly-lasers-f-35-stealth-fighters-164311

[Victor_B]

Why such a fool to break through the air defense system?
So that the loss of one bomb carrier at once sets off 12 missiles that can fly thousands of kilometers?

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Victor_B

Why such a fool to break through the air defense system?

Probably for this

work in the airspace of the enemy, in his rear, allows you to destroy the key objects located in the depths - strategic weapons and the main command posts.

[avg]

Missiles should work behind enemy lines (otherwise, why would they need such ranges), and the carrier should remain on its territory under the cover of air defense. And he needs "invisibility" for covert dispersal, getting out of a possible strike at the airfield. and delivery of weapons to the point of launch.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: avg

and the carrier to remain on its territory under the cover of air defense.

Then why would he have a range of 12 km? Yes, and with refueling?

[Victor_B]

Quote: Lipchanin

Then why would he have a range of 12 km? Yes, and with refueling?

On the contrary, I really want to return home.
Alive.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Victor_B

On the contrary, I really want to return home.
Alive.

So if he will not fly far into the territory.
Your words?

What is the depth of theater of operations in the United States?
How many thousand miles?
Will there be enough bomb range for the Kyrgyz Republic?

Why would he then have so many "thousand miles"?

[Victor_B]

Quote: Lipchanin

Why would he then have so many "thousand miles"?

Here you are!
I climbed the distance.
From Novaya Zemlya to Canada about 5,5 thousand km.
About this milestone to California another 5,5 thousand km.
To Florida more than 6 thousand.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Victor_B

I climbed the distance.
From Novaya Zemlya to Canada about 5,5 thousand km.
About this milestone to California another 5,5 thousand km.
To Florida more than 6 thousand.

Again I will refer to your words

Why such a fool to break through the air defense system?

Well, then why, according to your own words, did he fly

From Novaya Zemlya to Canada about 5,5 thousand km.
About this milestone to California another 5,5 thousand km.
To Florida more than 6 thousand.

[Victor_B]

Quote: Lipchanin

About this milestone to California another 5,5 thousand km.
To Florida more than 6 thousand.

In order not to enter Canada’s air defense zone to launch the X- (somewhat there) with vigorous loaves at a distance (like) of 5,5 thousand km.
And let them catch in radioactive smoke (from BR) over America.
By the piece.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Victor_B

In order not to enter Canada’s air defense zone to launch the X- (somewhat there) with vigorous loaves at a distance (like) of 5,5 thousand km.

So we're kind of talking about PAK YES.
If he doesn’t fly to

From Novaya Zemlya to Canada about 5,5 thousand km.
About this milestone to California another 5,5 thousand km.
To Florida more than 6 thousand.

Why then does he have a range of 12 km?
Don't you think that you are completely confused?

[Victor_B]

Quote: Lipchanin

Why then does he have a range of 12 km?

(Slowly and sadly ...)
To the start line, fly from Novaya Zemlya = 5,5 thousand km.
Return to fly home, for the remainder of the fuel, 12000-5500 = 6500 km.
And it would be necessary and more ...
Well, if by that time there would be someone to fill them along the way ...

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Victor_B

(Slowly and sadly ...)

Similarly

To the start line, fly from Novaya Zemlya = 5,5 thousand km.

Do you know where this line is?

In order not to enter the air defense zone of Canada

So all the same, not 5.5 thousand kilometers?

[Victor_B]

Something like that?

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Victor_B

Something like that?

Everything suited me
You convinced me that he needed a PAK YES range of 12 km so as not to

Why such a fool to break through the air defense system?

In order not to enter the air defense zone of Canada

In general, the range is needed so as not to go anywhere
Thank you for the informative conversation.

[Victor_B]

Quote: Lipchanin

Thank you for the informative conversation.

Similarly!

[venik]

Quote: Lipchanin

Well, then why, according to your own words, did he fly

========
Stirlitz stood "at its"..... Only Muller could have come up with such sophisticated torture!

[venik]

Quote: Lipchanin

Why would he then have so many "thousand miles"?

=======
Wow, what a stubborn you are! Yes, just to:
- To be in the air as long as possible (in time) of the so-called keep the enemy in suspense as long as possible;
- Have the ability to enter enemy territory from those directions where the air defense / missile defense is the weakest (that is, attack from where they least expect it);
- attack distant targets outside the territory of the enemy (for example, AOG in remote areas of the oceans).
Well, at least so!

[tikhonov66]

Then why would he have a range of 12 km? Yes, and with refueling?

- and if necessary - for a DAY to barrage over immense Russia - and not a single adversary will guess - WHEN and WHERE there will be a START. And will it ever be ...

[avg]

In order that it is part of the nuclear triad, and in the event of a threat of nuclear war, it (like, for example, American board number 1) will be somewhere in the air, since the country's territory allows it, or covertly move to the launch point if it is completed. this missile range is not enough. That's why he is "invisible" and subsonic and with refueling. And under the "air defense to break through" more than the Tu-160 is sharpened.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: avg

or secretly advance to the launch point

On its territory

and the carrier to remain on its territory under the cover of air defense

Well, from whom will he hide?

[avg]

From all of us. If you shoot from the bush with a rubber bullet, exactly in the ass, then you will at least be surprised, and if you see the arrow in advance, then take action.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: avg

From all of us.

Oh how
And this
[Quote] on its territory under the cover of air defense[/ Quote]
Something does not fit and does not fit

and if you see the arrow in advance, then take action.

Who should take action, PAK YES, or local air defense?

[avg]

In the case I am describing, you must take action. I wrote this in order to stop a pointless argument for the sake of argument.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: avg

In the case I am describing, you must take action.

Nope. Mnu there netuti

to stop a pointless argument for the sake of an argument.

They didn’t tell how it can be that PAK YES

carrier to remain on its territory under the cover of air defense.

But they will still fire.
as you figuratively put it

If you shoot a rubber bullet from the bush, exactly in the ass,

Now I’m not going to sleep and solve this puzzle

[avg]

In this case, the shooter is PAK-YES, and you, excuse me, are in favor of the adversary. So, he needs stealth in order to use weapons unexpectedly. And the later the adversary discovers the use of weapons, the less opportunities he will have to defend himself.
So sleep well ... Ugh, ugh, ugh. Don't worry in general

[Lipchanin]

They did not notice their contradictions
PAK DA will operate under the cover of its air defense, but it needs 12 km range
And you have good dreams

[avg]

Quote: Lipchanin

They did not notice their contradictions

But he is not. D = V x T. D = 12 km and with refueling even more. The question is where to spend these kilometers and time. PAK DA can barrage over its territory and here the time that it can spend in the air, can go to the launch point in the Arctic, or can shoot from the Indian Ocean (where, by the way, our strategists were on duty in Soviet times, etc.) .P. Those. the better LTX, the more opportunities the command has.

[Iline]

This article was written by a journalist who imagines himself a cool specialist in aviation. Flight range is important for civil aviation. It was just that the plane took off from point A and after 12000 km landed at point B somewhere on another continent. For combat aircraft, there is such a thing as combat radius. The plane takes off from point A, flies to the point of use of weapons and returns again to point A without refueling in the air. In our case, it is 12000: 2 = 6000 km. This is the number that you take for range.
In 1992, we flew a Tu-95MS with a friendly visit from Anadyr (Coal Mines) to Barksdale (Louisiana). The planes landed almost empty after 12 hours of flight. Now take the globe and measure the distance covered. This is almost all of the US diagonally. This is the range of action. But in order to use weapons at this air base, you don’t need to reach it at all. To do this, determine the area of ​​use of weapons with the possibility of an aircraft and then return to their airfield.

[Lipchanin]

I get it now. And then spinning like a snake in a pan and crap fuss.
Themselves not in the subject, but clever not childish

[Bez 310]

Quote: Iline

we flew a Tu-95MS with a friendly visit from Anadyr (Coal Mines) to Barksdale (Louisiana). The planes landed almost empty after 12 hours of flight.

I doubt it ...
Tu-95MS is made of Tu-142M, and it flies for 16 hours without problems.
A standard flight to search for submarines is 12 hours, and still remains
fuel for a couple of hours of flight, at least.

[Iline]

Indeed, it is made on the basis of the Tu-142. Only the sizes are different, and it takes less fuel. Of the Tu-142, there is only a chassis, wing shape and flaps, by and large. Each of the Tu-95 (A, B, VM, K, KD, RC, K-22, MR, MS) has its own characteristics. And refueled on before departure "under traffic jams" if it says something. They entered the United States over Seattle (Washington state) and then diagonally almost to the Gulf of Mexico. When refueling at 87t. and a cruising speed of 700 km / h for this aircraft is not difficult to calculate how long it can hold out in the air.

[Bez 310]

Do not tell me about all the modifications of the Tu-95,
we are talking about the Tu-95MS aircraft. I repeat
- this plane does not land "practically empty after
12 hours of flight ".
Who will you be by education - pilot, navigator, technician?
Who worked on the Tu-95MS? What do you know about
maximum range and maximum range flights
duration?
In general, I still doubt ... You did not convince me.

[Iline]

I spent all my service on the Tu-95K (KD), and from 87 to 2008 on the MS. So I have some idea of ​​this plane, don't I? Each aircraft has a different concept of "almost empty" and means the remaining fuel in the tanks at landing, necessary for a go-around or to an alternate airfield in case of unforeseen situations. And I don't even want to convince of something, there are characteristics of this aircraft in the public domain, you can see it yourself.
And the maximum range and maximum duration .... July 28-29, 2010 two Tu-95MS flights were operated at the maximum range and duration. They set a record for range and flew 28 thousand km. The crews spent 42 hours 17 minutes in the air. Is this your maximum range and maximum duration? So there were still four refueling in the air. And the question is rather about the maximum practical range, for the MS it was 10500 km. This indicator is influenced by many factors and the figure given is a flight in almost ideal conditions at cruising speed. Currently, after modifications of the Tu-95MS16 to the Tu-95MSM variant, this figure has decreased after the installation of external ACUs for the X-101 (X-102) missiles. That's just how much I do not know.

[Bez 310]

You did not answer - who are you by education, and what did you do on the plane?
Flying to the maximum range, or to the maximum duration, is not "record flights", but special flight modes provided by the Airplane Flight Manual for a single aircraft or a group of aircraft.
In general, I already realized that you do not own this issue, and nobody needs it except specialists.

[tikhonov66]

Who should take action, PAK YES, or local air defense?

- and each in its place ...
In case of aggression, Russia reserves the right to destroy the aggressor, by all available means

[Cyril G ...]

You can’t hide the PAK YES bomber from space reconnaissance facilities at the Stealth bases ... So, it is highly likely to be tracked in real time.

[Shiva83483]

And also in the rear, the DRG should work, according to the tasks assigned to them ... or have they been canceled for no need?

[Cyril G ...]

I don’t see any reason today to sculpt PAK DA, we are restoring the production of the Tu-160 and waking up. And I don’t see the point of engaging in an analogue of B-2. Let them think better of a combat orbital strike complex for now. Oh how bent. The truth is only at the level of concepts of models and a maximum of reduced samples.

[Orange bigg]

The Tu-160 is much more complicated and expensive and decided to start producing it, since it was necessary to restore competencies in the construction of strategic bombers, to restore the plant, that is, it was a necessary temporary measure, since at that time there was not even any design documentation for the PAK DA and therefore it was impossible to start building even an experienced PAK DA.And so as not to waste time making a decision to resume the production of Tu-160, so that by the time PAK DA was launched the industry was in good shape. PAK DA is a new generation strategist. And you don’t see the point of manufacturing ? Strange. This is the future of our strategic aviation.

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: OrangeBigg

And you don’t see the point of manufacturing it? Strange. This is the future of our strategic aviation.

I really don’t see him as the future. For the stated purposes, to serve as the KR platform, and at the same time to have the ability to dissolve at any airport, the bomber should not be Stealth but should simulate, for example, the most common transport aircraft Il-76 in our volosts, or carefully mow in appearance under Boeing 777 or something else . Cosplay B-2 is now stupid.

[Orange bigg]

I really don’t see him as the future. For the stated purposes, to serve as the platform of the Kyrgyz Republic, and at the same time to have the ability to dissolve at any airport, the bomber should not be Stealth

And do you see B-21 (an analogue of PAK YES) as the future or advise the Americans not to vomit, but to use transporters as strategists? Original

Cosplay B-2 is now stupid.

But is it not stupid to use IL-76 and Boeing 777 as strategists?

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: OrangeBigg

But is it not stupid to use IL-76 and Boeing 777 as strategists?

Of course not. Nonsense is to bury in the ground, finally steal tens of billions of rubles not without any benefit. It is better to buy a pair of bearings or a microelectronics factory. There will definitely be more sense.

Quote: OrangeBigg

and use transporters as strategists? Original

This is adequate. You point blank do not see the difference between the United States and us? if we respond symmetrically to each bunch, we drown nafig. I repeat the question, why is the Stealth platform needed as a carrier of strategic CDs? Moreover, it is not possible to hide this platform at the bases, which means that it must be monitored in real time, unlike the IL-76, for example, or Tu-214 ....

[Orange bigg]

Nonsense is to bury in the ground, finally steal tens of billions of rubles not without any benefit.

Are you talking about?

You point blank do not see the difference between the United States and us?

I don’t see now. About 10 years ago, I would agree with you. And now, in the era of the sunset, the United States, as a hegemon, I don’t agree. Now we have parity with them, including the strategists. And I’m sure that we can build PAK YES, how the Americans can build a B-21.
The construction of a more technologically sophisticated Tu-160M2 from scratch is already underway, although there were also many problems.

if we respond symmetrically to each bunch, we drown nafig.

So we do not answer everyone, but only where there is a need. We keep relative parity with the United States much lower budget. We do not build aircraft carriers and we do not have bases around the world. Yes, and we don’t cut the budget since it is overseas.

I repeat the question, why is the Stealth platform needed as a carrier of strategic CDs? Moreover, it is not possible to hide this platform at the bases, which means that it must be monitored in real time, in contrast to the IL-76, for example, or Tu-214 ..

Stealth is needed for stealth. Like the Su-57 or F-35. Do you think that IL-76 and Tu-214 are easier to hide than PAK YES or B-21?

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: OrangeBigg

Do you think that IL-76 and Tu-214 are easier to hide than PAK YES or B-21?

Sure. If necessary, at any airport, especially considering that the enemy will have to identify bombers from hundreds of similar transport aircraft. And the stealth characteristics for the strategic KR platform are meaningless.

Quote: OrangeBigg

We don’t build aircraft carriers

But some people really want why.

Quote: OrangeBigg

And I'm sure we can build PAK YES,

But why?

[Orange bigg]

If necessary, at any airport, especially considering that the enemy will have to identify bombers from hundreds of similar transport aircraft. And the stealth characteristics for the strategic KR platform are meaningless.

Forgive me of course, but this is frank nonsense.
Maybe you want to replace fighters with transporters, and how many of these Il-76 and Tu-204 do you have from your words at any airport?

Quote: OrangeBigg
And I'm sure we can build PAK YES,

But why?

No need for stupid questions. Moreover, you yourself know very well why we need strategic aviation, especially the new generation in the person of PAK YES, because the old strategists are not eternal, they need an adequate replacement.

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: OrangeBigg

they need an adequate replacement.

The Air Force will have an adequate replacement in the person of Tu-160M2. In about 30 years, come in short to ask grandmas for a new strategist. And now it’s better to let the military raise their official salary by 50 percent, and carefully study the situation and the passage of military service and other regulatory documents with a view to curbing abuses by the command of the units. There are a lot of loopholes. Moreover, the reduction coefficient for retirement will be removed.

Quote: OrangeBigg

Maybe you want to replace fighters with transporters?

Do not foolishly. You perfectly understood what it was about, but preferred to move off the topic. In essence, you can’t justify throwing billions into a new toy. It remains like this.

Quote: OrangeBigg

And how many of these IL-76 and Tu-204 do you have from your words at any airport?

Lot. IL-76 is only in power structures from 140 to 150, and at least 40-50 in civilian companies. So for the defending side this is an undoubted profit. The enemy will get tired of looking for exactly where the bombers are dispersed. Or were you the first to jump into the states? Then it’s not a question you need PAK YES. In any other case, this is a meaningless dough cut.

[Orange bigg]

The Air Force will have an adequate replacement in the person of Tu-160M2.

Its production is a temporary measure. It is more expensive and technologically more complex than PAK DA. In addition, a new generation of strategists is a new generation.

In about 30 years, come in short to ask grandmas for a new strategist.

Since 2009, PAK D. Gotova has been developing working design documentation, and a prototype is under construction. That is, everything is in the process of work now, and not in 30 years.

In essence, you can’t justify throwing billions into a new toy. It remains like this.

This is not a toy, but a new generation strategic bomber. In essence, the Tu-214, IL-76 are not at all intended for the role of strategists. Where will they launch the KR from? Not the same flight range and not those technical characteristics. It is many times less and does not correspond to the level of strategic bombers, as well as a short flight time. The version about the IL-96-400M and even that would be more plausible because it is a long-haul aircraft. And you are talking about medium-haul vehicles, whose flight range is not more than 5000 km.

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: OrangeBigg

Not the same flight range and not those technical characteristics. It is many times less and does not correspond to the level of strategic bombers, as well as a short flight time.

I won’t answer everything. I don’t see the point. However, they could have looked at Wiki or something.
Tu-160 flight range up to 13000 km, IL-76 up to 10000 km. If you load cassettes from the Kyrgyz Republic into the IL that are discarded and add a tank to the cargo compartment, it will cover the Tu-160 in range.

Since 2009, PAK DA Gotova has been developing working design documentation, and a prototype is under construction.

I say in about forty years it will be possible to ask them. Tupolev nonche maximum ARZ., May be their competencies with the Tu-160M2 and restore. But there is no and cannot be any design documentation for PAK YES. There was nobody to do everything there. The country is involved in a cut-perspective and extremely long-term project, so to speak. In short, remember about Ishak and the padishah ... Or, or ...

[Orange bigg]

Tu-160 flight range up to 13000 km, IL-76 up to 10000 km. If you load cassettes from the Kyrgyz Republic into the IL that are discarded and add a tank to the cargo compartment, it will cover the Tu-160 in range.

Have you come up with?

flight data
Flight speed, km / h 750 ... 800
Flight distance, km
with a load of 52 tons of 5000
under load 20 tons 8500
Flight height, m ​​12100
Takeoff run, m 1540

https://topwar.ru/29617-il-76md-90a-ili-izdelie-476.html

But there is no and cannot be any design documentation for PAK YES. The country is involved in a long cut.

Officially announced the beginning of the construction of the prototype PAK DA.Working design documentation was handed over to the plant. The rest is your speculation.

Tupolev nonche maximum ARZ., May be their competencies with the Tu-160M2 and restore.

Tupolev is actually a design bureau, not a factory. They will build the first production Tu-160 M2.
PS
In short, everything is clear with you.

[Cyril G ...]

Have you come up with?

No, I looked at the wiki, but you lied - you didn’t indicate Dmax. Il-76 without cargo.

Have you come up with?

I'm very interested in the question, and you?

Quote: OrangeBigg

about the beginning of the construction of the prototype PAK DA.Working design documentation was handed over to the plant. The rest is your speculation.

You nothing story with Impudent Mercury never taught a hike. It happens. So what about PAK YES it's fairy tales. And the decision was made in favor of the restoration of the Tu-160 series. And with you everything is clear. (C.)

[Orange bigg]

No, I looked at the wiki, but you lied - you didn’t indicate Dmax. Il-76 without cargo.

And what's the point of indicating the maximum range of the IL-76 without cargo? You are going to make a strategic bomber out of it. And one X-101 / X-102 weighs 2,2-2,4 tons. The Tu-160 carries 12 such missiles, and this 26,4-28,8 tons. So, IL-76 should, since you decided to make a strategist out of it, carry 26,4-28,8 tons overseas. And IL-76MD-90A carries 20 tons only at a distance of 8500 km , which is clearly not enough, not to mention navigation equipment, special communications, etc. P.

[Orange bigg]

The story with the Impudent Mercury has not taught you anything about the campaign. It happens. So what about PAK YES it's fairy tales. And the decision was made in favor of the restoration of the Tu-160 series. And with you everything is clear.

And what was you supposed to teach? You tell tales. The corvette of the project Mercury is also under construction. They will also build the serial Tu-160M2 for patching holes and the experienced PAK DA.

MOSCOW, May 26. / TASS /. Russia has begun construction of the first prototype of a strategic stealth bomber as part of the Advanced Long-Range Aviation Aviation Complex (PAK DA, item 80). Two sources in the military-industrial complex told TASS about it.

As another TASS source clarified, the aircraft cockpit is already being manufactured. "The final assembly of the entire vehicle should be completed in 2021," he said.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/8561413

[tikhonov66]

microelectronics factory

- wrote unknown and unknown about what ...
8 - ((

[avg]

Who told you that I don't see the point in PAK YES? I just think that PAK-DA is created under the changed concept of strategic aviation and to a greater extent corresponds to it. But the Tu-160 was created under a different vision.

[Letun]

Quote: Cyril G ...

Let them think better of a combat orbital strike complex for now. Oh how bent. The truth is only at the level of concepts of models and a maximum of reduced samples.

There is a contract (the name I don’t remember who needs to google) on which it is forbidden to place strike weapons in space.

[Cyril G ...]

So all the non-proliferation, reduction and other treaties were terminated at the initiative of the United States. This one is next ...

[venik]

Quote: Cyril G ...

Let them think better of a combat orbital strike complex for now.

========
As soon as such work becomes known (at the official level) - this will be a welcome reason for the United States to officially launch a space arms race! Do we need it?
Maybe in some countries (first of all, I mean 3 superpowers), some such research and development (most likely at the level of some experiments) is being conducted but very secretively ......

[Lipchanin]

Although earlier, in 2012, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin severely criticized the PAK DA program, as did the invisible bombers in general.

Our urchin everywhere ripe

[shinobi]

The difference in approach is immediately visible. Our stealth has no task to fly somewhere far to the rear to the enemy, remain invisible as long as possible on the patrol route, because the pack is not an attack aircraft. from neutral waters. "Invisibility" was needed due to the fact that modern radars see oochen far. Many will not do them. A dozen, well, maybe two. Hold the Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean at gunpoint. So that the AUG is not borzels too.

[Orange bigg]

Pak is not a strike aircraft. This is the future strategic missile-carrier. He just does not need to fly somewhere from neutral waters.

All strategic bombers are attack aircraft that perform their attack functions, including with the help of missiles. The PAK YES has a range of 15000 km. And you say that it does not need to fly far?

[Victor_B]

Quote: Lipchanin

work in the airspace of the enemy, in his rear, allows you to destroy the key objects located in the depths - strategic weapons and the main command posts.

What is the depth of theater of operations in the United States?
How many thousand miles?
Will there be enough bomb range for the Kyrgyz Republic?

[Victor_B]

Quote: Lipchanin

Actually, it’s not me who developed the concept of using PAK YES

And not me either ...
It’s up to the military to decide.

This opinion was voiced by military analyst Sebastian Roblin

You, by chance, do not know what kind of "specialist" it is.
Isn't it from the sofa next to me?

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Victor_B

You, by chance, do not know what kind of "specialist" it is.

Yes, I do not even know "specialist Victor_B (Victor Petrovich)"
Nevertheless, I listen and answer

[Lipchanin]

Actually, it’s not me who developed the concept of using PAK YES
Maybe the military knows better how to use it?

[Orange bigg]

PAK DA and B-21 have the same application concept, they are similar in the same way as the Tu-160 and B -1B at one time.

[orionvitt]

Quote: Victor_B

What is the depth of theater of operations in the United States?

And what, besides the USA, are there no more enemies?

[Victor_B]

Quote: orionvitt

And what, besides the USA, are there no more enemies?

Is.
But the states are farthest.
Therefore, everything that reaches the states and reaches other enemies.

[orionvitt]

For the states, the Strategic Rocket Forces is enough. And not just once.

[A. Privalov]

Sebastien Roblin, of course, is a cool man and a good journalist. His articles are weighted, sufficiently detailed and arouse interest among readers. This is not a new article, but this has not lost its relevance. Nevertheless, such articles should be read carefully including critical thinking, at least a bit. The key points in it are the following lines:
1) "intend to get the first prototypes by 2025 "
2) "so that in 2026 start full flight tests "
3) "in 2028 planned to start to the release of a new car "
which should become an analogue American aircraft B-2 Spirit. (Only an analogue! Until this moment, exclusively design work was carried out.)
This is despite the fact that new equipment of this class is already being created in China - the H-20 bomber - and the B-21, and Raider - in the USA.

[Alexey from Perm]

Does this PakDa need a big question, and then we Su 57 cannot bring to mind where to hang another problem?

[K-50]

work in the airspace of the enemy, in his rear, allows you to destroy the key objects located in the depths - strategic weapons and the main command posts.

There are various types of missiles for this equipment.
And no matter how cheaper it was to use than bombers, with a risk to the lives of crews and equipment.

[codetalker]

Good luck to everyone who participates in the program! But, of course, the timing that leads is too optimistic. No need to rush.

[gdxcvgucdkjl]

Only the author forgot to clarify that the prototype B-21 Raider can take off as early as 21, when PAK YES exists only in the project or as a concept-https: //warspot.ru/17601-stels-bombardirovschik-b-21- uskoryaetsya.

[iouris]

This project has no special military meaning and is unlikely to be brought to a series. The deadline for the completion of design and testing will be shifted to the right by the most ... In short, for many here, this is no longer relevant. Probably, this will advance the technological level of (private) industry, provided that the financial security is sufficient. For the work of comrades!

[Old26]

Quote: avg

Missiles should work behind enemy lines (otherwise why would they have such ranges), and the carrier should remain on its territory under the cover of air defense.

And where should a bomber be in order to work about the center of the USA? And what, the center of the Pacific Ocean is already hiding behind our air defense?

Quote: Mountain Shooter

"Trembling bourgeois, the last battle has come!" So it turns on the tongue ...

Nafig, nafig. If you are a suicide and you do not care about the fate of your loved ones - speak with your tongue as much as possible. And I am not eager to see my loved ones burn in nuclear fire. For how much it is necessary to be stupid in order to think that the answer will not come from us from them ...

Quote: Lipchanin

Quote: avg

and the carrier to remain on its territory under the cover of air defense.

Then why would he have a range of 12 km? Yes, and with refueling?

Like any strategist, he must have a combat radius of at least 8000 km

Quote: Cyril G ...

You can’t hide the PAK YES bomber from space reconnaissance facilities at the Stealth bases ... So, it is highly likely to be tracked in real time.

In addition to space reconnaissance means, our enemy has a large number of radars around the territory of Russia, incl. and early warning radars. I will not be surprised that over-the-horizon radars are working somewhere.

Quote: Cyril G ...

but at the same time to have the ability to dissolve at any airport, the bomber should not be Stealth, but simulate, for example, the most popular Il-76 transport plane in our volosts, or carefully mow in appearance under Boeing 777 or something else.

and if his adversary disguises himself as his own passenger / freight? How do you like this option. Try to recognize which of several thousand aircraft along the borders of Russia is passenger and which is a bomber. It is precisely because of this that a ban on such vehicles was included in the strategic arms treaty.

Quote: Cyril G ...

The Air Force will have an adequate replacement in the person of Tu-160M2. In about 30 years, come in short to ask grandmas for a new strategist. And now it’s better to let the military raise their official salary by 50 percent, and carefully study the situation and the passage of military service and other regulatory documents with a view to curbing abuses by the command of the units. There are a lot of loopholes. Moreover, the reduction coefficient for retirement will be removed.

You still forgot pensioners

Quote: Cyril G ...

So all the non-proliferation, reduction and other treaties were terminated at the initiative of the United States. This one is next ...

Yah? And can you specifically name when and which of all these agreements they terminated?

Quote: shinobi

The difference in approach is immediately visible. Our stealth has no task of flying somewhere far behind to the enemy, they will remain invisible for as long as possible on the patrol route, because the pack is not a strike aircraft ..

Have you come up with yourself or read somewhere? So the strategic bomber (PAK YES) is not a strike weapon? Which one? Auxiliary? Based on this logic, both the TU-160M ​​and TU-95 are not strike aircraft ....

Quote: shinobi

He simply does not need to fly somewhere from neutral waters ..

And if the width of the neutral waters is 7000 kilometers, then what. Where to fly or not to fly ...

Quote: shinobi

A dozen, well, maybe two. Keep the Atlantic and the Pacific at gunpoint. So that the AUG would not hover too.

Strategists are already AUG "chasing", "And a reaper, and a shvets and a gamer on a pipe" ... Well, well

[Orange bigg]

Quote: shinobi
A dozen, well, maybe two. Keep the Atlantic and the Pacific at gunpoint. So that the AUG would not hover too.

Strategists are already AUG "chasing", "And a reaper, and a shvets and a gamer on a pipe" ... Well, well

And what? A normal option, provided that strategic bombers are armed with anti-ship GZUR, which was recently tested from the same Tu-22M3M.

[Bez 310]

The article is nonsense, no PAK YES in the foreseeable future
we will not have. How can you discuss nonsense?

[Old26]

Quote: OrangeBigg

Quote: shinobi
A dozen, well, maybe two. Keep the Atlantic and the Pacific at gunpoint. So that the AUG would not hover too.

Strategists are already AUG "chasing", "And a reaper, and a shvets and a gamer on a pipe" ... Well, well

And what? A normal option, provided that strategic bombers are armed with anti-ship GZUR, which was recently tested from the same Tu-22M3M.

Alexander! A strategic bomber - it has its own tasks - to strike at targets on the territory of the enemy, and not chase the oceans behind the oceans. Okay, we would have many strategists, like the Americans, we could really reorient some of them to fight AOUs ...

[IC]

Given the timing of the creation of new aircraft in recent years, the article is not relevant for the current generation. And making a decade ahead is an ungrateful task.