RF code =/= serial

Absolutely right, I think I’m to blame for mistakenly calling it a serial no.

Totally agree that the PAK-DA should take on the baggage of the Tu-22M3s, Tu-160s and Tu-95s… and must be able to better each of these airframes in their respective primary roles. Some of the Tu-22M3s mission will surely be covered by the Su-34s so it’s their maritime strike capability that needs covering most (i.e. carrier strike).

As payload, range and speed are likely to be comparable or lower, the only realistic way to exceed the capabilities of RuAF’s existing bombers is stealth. In combination, of course, with new munitions including long-range (stealthy, one would hope) cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, and a selection of precision munitions covering medium and short ranges.

French-Russian Mistral Ship Deal Continuing as Planned – Kremlin

Not exactly unexpected. Taking a moral stance is all very well and good but not if it impacts contracts worth billions of dollars. Cooperation between Rosneft, BP, Statoil, Eni and Exxon is also unaffected by the ‘sanctions’.

On the other hand, here in Serbia the government is under intense pressure from the EU to enact sanctions against Russia… even though we’re not in the EU and other EU countries are continuing to trade more or less unaffected.

I hope it is not B-2 like. I hope it is way faster, it needs a first strike capability against the US.

It rather depends on the doctrine. As far as I can see, the Russians are following the Soviet model – i.e. not aiming to achive first strike capability but rather shoring up their credible second strike potential. The logic there being that an ‘unstoppable’ second strike ensures Russian security by deterring a first strike by a potential foe (i.e. NATO*).

The logic of using a bomber to achieve second strike is that it can react more flexibly than traditional second strike delivery systems (SSBNs and land-based mobile ICBM launchers) to ‘mop up’ targets not taken out by missiles. It also has the rather handy capability of playing a role in sabre-rattling (something that would, I imagine, be used with far greater frequency than it’s ‘primary mission’). Either way, these roles do not, in and of themselves, require the bomber to be nippy if stealth is considered sufficient to achieve them.

Other roles the PAK-DA might be required for might include the following:

i) stealthy attacks against land-based or ship-based elements of a AMD system
ii) stealthy attacks against a carrier groups or similar difficult maritime targets
iii) stealthy pinpoint attacks aimed at the air defence system of a lesser foe (imagine, if you will, a scenario where Russia might intervene against a neighbouring country that had unexpectedly performed an about-turn and started courting the West)
iv) delivering large quantities of high-precision munitions in support of ground forces during a low-intensity conflict (a la B-1 and B-52 missions in Afghanistan) … i.e. bomb-truck

If you can think of other roles the PAK-DA might be required to fulfill, please add them to this list. However, the main attributes I can see it needing are stealth and range. Speed would be a welcome addition (especially if it is seen to be necessary in order to cut time-to-target or evade interception in performing it’s primary mission) but I don’t imagine it will be allowed to come at the expense of stealth and range.

* no other potential aggressor has the capability right now to strike all of Russia’s fixed ICBMs.

The AV-8B Harrier crashed.

Military plane crashes into homes

Good news is pilot ejected safely and nobody was hurt on the ground!

German researchers working on thought-control for planes

that’s a bit optimistic timetable. means they plan to achieve ioc around 2025. both b-2 and b-1 had much more protracted testing phases. Even if we use tu-160 as a proper example, back when money was relatively bountiful, it took 6 years from first flight to IOC, (same as 6 years from 2019 to 2025) but that was almost 40 years earlier. It has become pretty much standard for testing of all types of planes to last longer since then.

Agreed. Something’s not right with that timetable – 4-5 years to construct a flying prototype, then 4 years to IOC.