What opinions about Russian aviation can not be found on the Internet! Most often there are two points of view, and they are polar. Either "Russia is ahead of the rest of the world," or the military-industrial complex "is generally incapable of producing combat-ready aircraft." But there are also original estimates.
In a recent article “The PAK DA program is more important for Russia than the Su-57 program”, Evgeny Kamenetsky touched upon a very delicate topic 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 lack of money for organizing production, now the author called the reason for the uselessness of the Su-57 … PAK YES.
Let's make a reservation right away that there is no desire to denigrate other material. It does not have specific technical errors, except, perhaps, the free interpretation of the characteristics of the PAK DA, which, as you know, is still kept secret, inherent in the media. That is, the flight range, the number of engines, and the arsenal remain unknown now. More or less confidently we can only talk about the sight for stealth and the choice of a subsonic aerodynamic scheme "flying wing".
Also note that the article cannot be called empty in content. Questions specifically to the conclusions of the author.
Strategists and tacticians
Let's leave the first part, where we are talking about creating an airplane, and go straight to the point. Evgeny Kamenetsky's thesis is simple: the PAK DA is more important than the Su-57, since 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 the enemy arises, new methods and means of delivery are able to create the necessary parity. That is why, for example, Poseidon appeared in Russia. And that is why the PAK DA is more important than the Su-57 , - the author concludes.
Let's start with the fact that in the 40s and 50s heavy bombers, such as the B-29 or the Tu-4 copied from the "American", 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 ever intercontinental ballistic missile R-7, and already in 1960 adopted it. The missile had a range of eight thousand kilometers, but also had many disadvantages. A start was made.
Today, Russia has a full-fledged nuclear triad: intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and air-launched cruise missiles. However, those who consider the "nuclear triad" a "dyad" are partly right. And the point is not in the shortcomings of the strategic bombers Tu-95MS or Tu-160 themselves, which are carriers of cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. It's just that the destructive potential of air-launched cruise missiles in our time cannot be compared with either ICBMs or SLBMs. Here the low speed of the flight of the CD plays a role, and its relatively short range (on a strategic scale, of course), and the mass of the warhead.
Let's consider the issue in more detail. The Kh-55 air-launched cruise missile has a maximum flight range of 2500 kilometers and a charge capacity of 200-500 kilotons. For comparison, one ICBM of the R-36M2 complex is capable of throwing ten warheads with a capacity of 800 kilotons at a distance of more than 11 thousand kilometers. In turn, the newer complex RT-2PM2 "Topol-M" has a monoblock warhead with a charge capacity of one megaton. And the range is up to 12 thousand kilometers.
Finally, the cruising speed of the Kh-55 and more modern cruise missiles is subsonic. That is, when (if) they reach the territory of a potential enemy, this very enemy will no longer be "alive". 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 launch of the missiles themselves. I wonder if at least one of the B-52s or Tu-160s on the ground will 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.
Terrorist killers
Does this mean that the PAK YES is a potentially bad plane? Not at all. It's just that the tasks for him are likely to be different, different from those that were relevant in the 50s or 60s.
Let's see how things are overseas. For a very long time, the Americans could not figure out how to attach their strategic bombers. Finally, they found a worthy role: a kind of bomb carriers capable of dramatically increasing the tactical potential of the US Army through the massive use of cheap high-precision ammunition. One example: From October 2014 to January 2016, US Air Force B-1Bs took an active part in air strikes against Islamist militants in Syria in the city of Kobani. Despite the fact that the share of sorties of this type of aircraft was only three percent of the total number of sorties, the share of dropped ammunition amounted to almost half of all used by aviation.
And what role does the military-political leadership of Russia see for the PAK DA? In short, roughly the way 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 too lazy, and wrote everything they think. This is a strategic bomber, and an operational-tactical missile-carrier-bomber, even a long-range interceptor and a possible platform for launching spacecraft ", - said in 2017 the scientific director of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise "GosNIIAS", Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Evgeny Fedosov.
If we follow the reports of the PAK DA even more closely, then we can understand that its role in the structure of the military aviation of the Aerospace Forces has not yet been determined. So the tasks for a promising bomber will overlap with the tasks of the Tu-160M2, Tu-22M3, Su-34. And even, according to the military, the MiG-31BM!
At the same time, the main task of the Su-57 is very simple and straightforward - to gain air superiority. And if Russia does not receive a full-fledged fifth-generation fighter in the future, then it (superiority), figuratively speaking, will lose. Therefore, to say that the PAK DA is more needed than the Su-57 is completely wrong. The fifth generation fighter is the most significant combat aviation program for modern Russia. And the most significant convention program in general.
As for the Perspective Aviation Complex of Long-Range Aviation, then, to the great regret of air amateurs, there is a possibility that this aircraft will never be put into service at all. First, for purely economic reasons. This is the most complex and most expensive aviation complex in all of Russian history. And the money for the Russian Ministry of Defense in recent years has to be counted.
Secondly, the Tu-160M2 of a new construction may well act as a carrier of guided bombs / tactical cruise missiles. For a "bomb carrier" fighting terrorists, stealth is not a key parameter. He can cope well with his tasks and without it, which shows the example of the use of the Americans B-52 and B-1.
But the project of "invisible" B-2, as we know, did not suffer the best fate. At the exit, the Americans received a fantastically expensive and almost unnecessary aircraft, which, by the way, they are planning to abandon soon, leaving in service … B-52, which made its first flight in 1952. 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.
