I haven’t been following this story, did anyone ever explain why it’s called a “strike bomber”? To my knowledge this terms has never been used to describe any system before. The only thing I can think of that fits the term would be the cancelled B-1R. If that’s the case I’m calling it now the Northrop proposal is going to look like a super sized YF-23. It’s probably capable of carrying dozens of a2a missiles and have the mother of all DAS, acting like a passive sensing AWACS for the F-35s.

What’s going on with that spine? Looks like it got the MiG-29SMT treatment.

Seems like a silly question.
While B-1s do what could broadly be called CAS, it’s not the SAME CAS that the A-10 does.
The B-1 drops mission specific ordnance from higher altitudes, while the A-10 gets down low to hit (for example) a specific tank.

Rather like saying Lancasters or B-17s were doing the same job at Normandy as the Typhoons and Thunderbolts.

Yes, I’ve been assigned to both A-10 and B-1 units….including the wing staff for the aforementioned 9th BS…so I do know of which I speak.

It’s irrelevant to bring WWII into the discussion. Both B-1s and A-10s does CAS by dropping GPS guided bombs on target. The B-1 doesn’t need to fly low to see a target with modern electro-optics. At the end of the day it makes no difference except the B-1 cost more to fly per hour and you’re using up a strategic asset.

Once more.

From initial 47 variants studied in 2009, Tupolev dropped all but four, then two left – supersonic and subsonic. Subsonic won.

Current subsonic BWB PAK DA finalist is boring, that caused DoD acquisition tzsar Rogozin to twit that he “doesn’t want to PAK DA be a copy of B-2” – apparently this did happen after he saw final iteration shown by Tupolev early summer.
Supersonic variant (that didn’t go) was a very radical machine, aesthetically appealing bird. If you ever see her drawings in open media, you will understand where it roots came from.

Did it look like Moskalyov’s DSB-LK?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]228845[/ATTACH]

Russian, Chinese Companies Agree to Build Joint Long-Range Airliner

20/05/2014

MOSCOW, May 20 (RIA Novosti) – The leaders of Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation and the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China have signed an agreement to cooperate on the development of a new wide-body long-range passenger airliner, the Russian company said in a statement Tuesday.

“The combined efforts of COMAC and UNAC on the joint creation of a new series of long-range planes will bring cooperation between the two countries in the aircraft industry to a completely different level,” UNAC CEO Mikhail Pogosyan said, according to the statement.

The memorandum on cooperation was the result of two years of consultations between Russian and Chinese experts.

The new project will be one of the largest international collaborations in the aircraft industry, as well as in the hi-tech fields of both countries. The new plane is expected to eventually occupy a significant share of the international market.

A Russian delegation led by President Vladimir Putin arrived in China on Tuesday for an official visit that was expected to result in the signing of a large number of documents, including bilateral, intergovernmental, inter-departmental and corporate agreements.

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140520/189969386/Russian-Chinese-Companies-Agree-to-Build-Joint-Long-Range.html

Let’s face it, if you flew MiG-23’s the only type you wanted was equipped with R35 and not either AL21 or R29.

R-35 was an impressive engine, but what was wrong with R-29 and AL-21? Both are better than other turbojets in service elsewhere.