i dont think it’s too much of a conspiracy theory to suggest the recent economic downturn resulted in some of the lobbyists at the kremlin losing out, as not all programmes have the same priority. there’s only so much money to go around so certain programmes were put on a pause, delaying their implementation and, more importantly, delaying the required investments.

Then, of course, to save face – we got the story of additional 2-3 years of development, to make it seem that is the real reason for the delay.

I am not saying that really happened, i’m just throwing ideas around…

if they want to trade range for speed, then i’d bet we’d see basically the same f135 as on f35. Possibly a bit modernized, possibly even a template for mid life engine replacement on f35.

But issue with speed is they lose range and this next bomber is going to be replacing b52 and b1b, all planes with A LOT of range. I don’t buy the idea that usaf will be happy with range of just 2-3 thousand km, a bomber to be based on various islands around pacific etc. Anything under 4000 km combat radius with decent payload would be unacceptable for usaf.

Then there’s loiter time. Range can be traded for loiter time. speed (on account of lost range) can’t be traded for loiter time.

The only way both range and speed (say mach 1.6 to 2.0) requirements could be achieved in the same airframe is if we’re talking about a mammoth plane, closer in size to tu-160 than b1, possibly being the biggest bomber US ever had. Which then means new engines as two f135 would not be enough and four f135 would be used. Putting brand new rcs measures on such a plane – i don’t see such product being 550 million apiece. Over a billion would sound more likely in that case.

There is also this: http://defense-update.com/newscast/0309/asraam_loal_test_130309.html

They mention asraam’s loal mode as something that i interpret as smart blind mode. No datalink present but missile tries to guesstimate target’s future wherebouts based on initial data supplied just before launch. Not sure if iris-t has datalink; news about iris-t SL shout about addition of datalink so one could guess original a2a missile doesn’t have it?

Why does Tupolev’s own website claim 1800 kmh (roughly mach 1.7) max speed for Tu-160? http://www.tupolev.ru/en/military_aviation/tu-160

I hope no one minds if i hijack this thread into something more meaningful. PLAAF’s air to ground strike ability. A few things i’m not certain about, but even if the situation is as good as can be for PLAAF, it still seems PLAAF is not really as geared towards a2g as most other “respectable” air forces around the world. Granted, situation is bound to change with j16 and j10b induction but let’s talk about the situation right now.

I shall disregard PLANAF for now as not only is it sort of natural that it lacks a2g ability since that’s not its primary mission but also including it would push the overall a2g plane ratio even further down.

Of course any plane can in theory do a2g, with dumb bombs and no real sights. But it’d be silly to count everything like that. So i’ll stick to planes known to use guided a2g weapons and planes that, while may not be able to carry them – were evidently made to serve in a2g role. The latter are, of course, the earlier q5 airframes. Up to D model, i think.

As far as i can count, some 4 regiments worth of D or later models are serving with PLAAF, as well as 3 regiments of newer E or L models. The latter are the newer models which can use LGBs. Numbers per unit do seem to run a wide range, from 20ish to 40ish planes. (please correct me if you have better figures).

Other planes that are meant for ground strikes are, of course, the jh7. 5 regiments in PLAAF, some 120ish planes, all capable of using guided weapons.

Then we have the peculiar case of j10a. While we have seen a few images of it carrying and even dropping LGBs, that was always without any targeting pod visible. Unlike the newer Q5, j10a doesn’t have a laser spot tracker. Unless i’m misinformed, that would mean that not only does the bomb from j10a need external laser targeting, but the j10a carrying the bomb can’t really see where it has to go and drop the bomb, as someone in the air needs to spot the laser reflection, pass on the data to the bomb and then drop it. I guess what is possible is that a close formation of planes could be used, where one uses a pod that does all the work, including spotting, and the plane next to it is carrying the bombs (or carrying extra bombs). But do LGBs work that way, with being locked on after launch, so to speak?

We have, granted, seen a single image of developmental j10a for testing at Chengdu with a targeting pod. Even that was fairly recent. And then, of course, there is just the ratio of images for a2a combat for j10a compared to a2g equipped j10. Doesn’t look like a2g is something that is really meant for j10a. Some images do feature bomb loads on j10a, but again they look like dumb bombs and are not really common. I wish there were more indications of j10a’s role but right now i’m forced to guess.

We can add 76 su30mkk as multirole planes with a2g ability and… that’s about it when it comes to tactical aviation.

So some 160ish j8, up to 700ish j7 (without trainers, but possibly up to half as many if not all are actively flying as it seems to be the case), 280-ish j10a/s, 270-ish su27/j11 which have no meaningful a2g capability – versus 120 jh7a, 76 su30mkk, 120-ish q5d and 90-ish q5e/l.

Ratio seems to be around 78% of a2a, 4% multirole and 18% of a2g if all 700ish j7 are active.
Or 72% of a2a, 5% multirole and 23% of a2g if only 350ish j7 are in actual active service.

Or if we decide to say that older q5, with their poor bomb loads, poor range and no guided weapons ability are really no better then most of the fighters PLAAF has and remove them from the equation altogether:

83% of a2a, 4% multirole and 13% of a2g (with 700 j7)
or 78% of a2a, 6% multirole and 16% of a2g (with 350 j7 active)

These ratios are considerably worse that US (probably over 70% of multirole airframes capable of both a2a and a2g for USAF or probably over 80% if we include usn/usmc) or european air forces – either similar to US or around 50-50 %. (i may be off by a few percent here or there, of course). There are air forces like japanese one which are similar or even worse than PLAAF in that regard. Russians seem to be close to 48% a2a, 13% multirole and 39% a2g.

Then there’s the issue of j10a. If we DO decide PLAAF units equipped with it have worthwhile air to ground capability (though i do doubt the evidence for that is really there yet) the ratio changes quite a bit. Suddenly the ratios are:

1130 (780)
356
330 (210)

62% of a2a, 20% multirole and 18% a2g (if 700 j7 are present in active fleet)
or 53% a2g, 24% multirole and 23% a2g (if only 350 j7 are active)

Even so, PLAAF is clearly not geared towards ground strikes as most bigger air forces are, though ratios are now closer to what Russia has or some european countries have. Also, like i said, i was trying to do an overview of current situation. j16 is going to change the ratios, and j10b could do the same. even the existing j10a fleet may get a mid life update package featuring more robust a2g abilities.

i would much rather know the organisation by physical airfield/airbase and by type. This and this regiment having this and this type of plane is present at this airfield.

For example – mig29. At previous organisation with airgroups 2-3 years ago – mig29 were seen at following combat bases:
Khalino/kursk
Millerovo
Chita/Domna

Plus semipermanantly (?) deployed unit (of smaller strength?) at Erevan/Yerebuni

In addition to those, mig29s were of course seen at fyling schools and development/tactics centers:
Armavir
Lipetsk
Astrakhan
Kubinka

Possibly in other bases too like Akhtubinsk and Kuschevskaya in small numbers.

I’ve checked GE images, mig29 seem to be moving around airfields in all these airbases, so they might be active in all of them.

Issue is numbers. How many mig29 in regiment (as per new regimental orbat)?
How many mig29 devoted to testing?
How many mig29 for flying schools?
How many for tactics development?

Correction: in my previous posts i wrote 40 su25utg. I was really thinking of su25ub there and i omitted su25utg completely. So su25ub and su25utg combined perhaps 50-ish airframes active?

Okay, i’ll do a list by myself. Probably a bit wrong but people are free to provide additional sources to correct the numbers.

It is based on Zinchuk’s and Mladenov’s work from two years ago, published in air forces monthly, where they guesstimated then-applicable in service numbers of older planes. I used those figures then subtracted the number equal to newly produced planes to go into service since then. I used su30m2 to replace su27ub, su35s to replace su27s and su30sm to replace mig29 (a big if -i know. Maybe i’m completely wrong there). and of course su34 to replace su24.

So current (january 2015) figures of in-service tactical combat planes might look something like this:

70-120 su27s
30-ish su27ub
20-ish su30m/m2
60-ish su27sm/sm3
34 su35s
65-115 mig29-9.13
50-ish mig29ub (**diminished combat performance since it has no radar)
28 mig29smt
6 mig29ubt (**diminished combat performance since it has no radar)
35-ish su30sm
25-ish su24m
24-ish su24m (gefest upgrade)
30-ish su24m2
64 su34
60-ish mig31bm
40-60 mig31b
120-ish su25
60-ish su25sm
40-ish su25utg (**trainer variant)
60-80 su24mr (**diminished combat perfomance since it’s meant for support role)
10-20 mig25 (various recce variants. **diminished combat perfomance since it’s meant for support role)
60-ish yak130 trainers (**diminished combat performance)
100-200 L39 trainers (this figure is my guesstimate, i’ve no sources on this one whatsoever. **also diminished combat performance)
10-15 su-33
14 mig29k

And first 055 may not be commissioned before 2019, being first in class of a whole new project of whole new scope and tech level.