According to the commander of the Long-Range Aviation, Major-General Anatoly Zhikharev, his service formulated a set of technical requirements for a new strategic bomber, known as a PAK DA - "Advanced Aviation Complex for the Long-Range Aviation." The work on the new aircraft will be carried out at the Tupolev Design Bureau. The general expects that the preliminary draft will be completed in 2012 and a flying prototype will be ready in 2020, so the new bomber could begin service in 2025.
The Tupolev Design Bureau has been reportedly working on the preliminary design since about 2009, when the Ministry of Defense placed its first R&D order.
The book
Comments
Am I the only one who is puzzled here? What possible purpose could such plane serve? It will be largely useless against the U.S. and its allies, and the existing fleet of Bears, Backfires and Blackjacks will still be good enough against the rest of the world, so why waste the money? Besides, Zhikharev's statement that the plane would be "not any worse than TU-160" doesn't make it sound like he's all excited about the whole thing. Any ideas? Is there another nation planing the development of a heavy bomber?
I thought the U.S. is exploring a new bomber as well. The logic here (whether in the U.S. or in Russia) has little to do with the military utility of the future aircraft.
There is a new US heavy bomber in development. Though not assured of surviving the budget crunch it is designed to replace the B-52 and B-1 and the penetrating capability of the B-2 (which will not be "stealthy enough" at that point. It should come online in the 2030s (or somewhere around there).
While I agree that a non-stealthy heavy bomber is mostly useless against a modern air defense network don't neglect the effect of standoff weapons. You do not have to be very stealthy to survive firing a supersonic (or hypersonic) missile 500+ miles off the coast of the US, Russia, or China.
It was originally posted when the PAK-DA was announced that the new bomber would be replacing the Tu-95s, the Tu-160s, AND the Tu-22Ms. I thought that was interesting. One aircraft design to fill both the strategic and, so called, tactical nuclear missions. Certainly, the new PAK-DA could fulfill conventional missions as well. If this is still the intent of the PAK-DA Project, the new bomber counting rules for New START would favor such a decision. While developing a new strategic bomber for deterrence with the United States might not be a priority, giving Russia a new modern bomber for regional security might well be very important. Russia is a large country, surrounded by adversaries, and possessing no real allies. Such a bomber, equipped with modern cruise missiles, could provide a versatile and powerful military weapon on Russia’s long borders.
Frank Shuler
USA
I wonder how long before the Air Force starts talking up chimerical BMD threats to justify this, too. Still, there's no question that it has more real-world utility than the SS-18 replacement.
@Frank: You're right that the Tu-22M line is interesting. Has anyone suggested that the PAK-DA might be used in a maritime strike role? Is the Navy interested in the project?
If it's replacing the Tu-22M, then it has to have a maritime strike role, because although the last two regiments of Tu-22Ms were handed over from AVMF to Long-Range Aviation, they still retain the maritime strike mission to this day.
Derek
Feanor
I suspect the new Russian bomber will indeed have a maritime strike role. I also suspect that the Russian Air Force will never let the role of maritime strike fall back to the Navy. It’s really all about inter-service rivalries and budgets. Now that the Russian Air Force has the mission, I don’t see them giving it up. That being said, I also think such a mission for the new bomber will be a low priority for the Air Force. That’s just how these situations usually work out.
Frank Shuler
USA
Have there been any sketches of this PAK-DA?
Have always been very interestd in Russian aviation, particularly bombers, if anything turns up please post a link to it here.
Many thanks
This is very unlikely that there would be single design at this stage. After design study would be completed, one specific design would be choosen.This is a standard practice in the development of something of this type.
I'm dont think that bombers now became obsolete.And as matter of fact in the general nuclear war a bomber strike would be second ,after first ICBM/SLBM strike .
Have you seen this video footage from RIA Novosti? Interesting.
http://www.en.rian.ru/video/20111226/170500746.html
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank, that footage is a CGI render of the old T-4MS prototype, Sukhoi's competitor to Tupolev's Tu-160 from the 70's. It's about as new as XB-70. 8)
artjomh
What I found interesting was the content was run at all; someone is campaigning for budget dollars. The essence of the article was that bombers are historically important to Russia and relevant today.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank, more likely than not that this is the work of some aircraft enthusiast at RIAN. Russian industry lobbyists are not sophisticated enough to do below-the-line marketing like that. Nor would it have been very efficient in loosening the money flows in that direction. 8)