Russia Could Deploy Unmanned Bomber After 2040 - Air Force

Russia could deploy a "sixth-generation" pilotless strategic bomber aircraft after 2040, Long-Range Aviation Commander Lt . Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev said on Thursday.

LINK
I am not sure what the PAKDA should look like (atleast the official version) although there are several images.
However latest buzz and news also indicates that they might not go ahead with this particular plane due to changing missile defense and offense technologies.

2040? They'll have one a hell of a lot sooner than 2040, since it appears the US already have a couple in operation. That's not counting the unmanned shuttle they have in orbit, doing God only knows what.

Now why would anybody want an unmanned bomber?

Let's see: As a world power you got missiles that carry similar payloads to bombers. You got satellities to tell the missile the exact place to drop the load, and you want a bomber that must fly through the atmosphere and spend tens of minutes if not a hour or two getting to target when the missile was sitting in your back yard before you touched it off to target? Makes no sense to me.

Planes (bombers and fighters) for the next war, like battleships of the first and second war, are yesterday's weapons when missiles (and drones) and killer satellites are the major weapons these days.

I don't understand why the Russians aren't building an unmanned bomber that stays in orbit. It wouldn't need missiles, as it could simply drop a metal rod onto its target from orbit. Imagine the amount of damage that would do...

So basically the Russians already have this, just letting the public know they won't actually announce it until 2040 ...... We have the technology today, I don't see why they wouldn't have them already.....

reply to post by Aliensun


Its all about cost vs effect. Missile can deliver its payload only once, wasting pretty expensive parts. Long range missiles - even more so.
Bomber can deliver its payload multiple times. Thus money wasted per payload delivered is much lower.
Plus, bomber is always more versatile platform.Can be present more time above the target, can attack several targets in one run. Easier to change type of bomb then type of warhead. And ctr and ctr.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


Hi Zero, I guess that would depend on the ordinance that is in the warhead... but this is just unrealistic time line set fourth by the Russians making me think it s just BS!

Originally posted by Aliensun
Now why would anybody want an unmanned bomber?

More flexible than missiles - can do multiple missions, with different payloads, be recalled if required. Use existing infrastructure, probably cheaper to build, can be based in various locations and shifted around as necessary.

Originally posted by XeroOne
I don't understand why the Russians aren't building an unmanned bomber that stays in orbit. It wouldn't need missiles, as it could simply drop a metal rod onto its target from orbit. Imagine the amount of damage that would do...

Any nukes or weapons of mass destruction in orbit would be in breach of the Outer Space Treaty - and of course the USSR DID havde an orbital nuclear capability until 1983 - the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System

I'm not sure if a kinetic energy weapon would qualify.

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns


I think it has more to do with part of 2013 (and later) Russian military budget that will go to the airforce then with the specific date.
2040 is far enough.

reply to post by XeroOne


No, neither the US nor anyone else has yet flown an unmanned strategic bomber, the UCAV's you see testing these days are strictly tactical types, What the Russians are talking about is basically an unmanned stealthy B-52 class aircraft, quite a scary prospect.

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by XeroOne

 

No, neither the US nor anyone else has yet flown an unmanned strategic bomber, ......

Well...not quite......QB-17G's were used to collect data from US nuclear weapon tests in the Pacific for a few years.....

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


See, if that was done years ago, it does beg the question why it will be 2040 (almost a century later) that it is done again..

Surely it is a simple feat to make a remote controlled aircraft, or even an autonomous one... Pretty much every country on earth with a half decent military industrial base has drones these days.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by XeroOne

 

No, neither the US nor anyone else has yet flown an unmanned strategic bomber, ......

Well...not quite......QB-17G's were used to collect data from US nuclear weapon tests in the Pacific for a few years.....

edit on 6-8-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

Ah, but they were not strategic bombers, they were EX strategic Bombers, like monty pythons parrot, yah boo sucks

reply to post by stumason


Pure speculation here, but I think the barrier is more psychological than technical. In truth they are little different from an ICBM, except with a recall option

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by XeroOne

 

No, neither the US nor anyone else has yet flown an unmanned strategic bomber, the UCAV's you see testing these days are strictly tactical types, What the Russians are talking about is basically an unmanned stealthy B-52 class aircraft, quite a scary prospect.

I'm not so sure. Nick Cook (author of The Hunt for Zero Point and journalist with Janes Defence) uncovered a satellite image showing a pulsed contrail that suggests a huge hypersonic aircraft is (or has been) in operation on the edge of the atmosphere.

As for the space weapons treaty, sticking a load of inert metal rods in orbit would be a smart way around that. They just wouldn't be weapons until one was 'accidentally' dropped on a target.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

See, if that was done years ago, it does beg the question why it will be 2040 (almost a century later) that it is done again..

Surely it is a simple feat to make a remote controlled aircraft, or even an autonomous one... Pretty much every country on earth with a half decent military industrial base has drones these days.

Yep - the questions are probably more to do with the reliability of data & control links & general lack of trust than anything else.

After all - the US had intercontinental cruise missiles in the 1950's -Snark, Navaho (not all that successful!!), and the "tactical" Matador

the Soviets also tried simlar developments - with the Tu-121 ending up as theTu-123 long range high altitude supersonic recce drone.

Personally i think these early missiles were amazing marvels of pencil-and-slide-rule design - using stellar guidance, etc back in those days - absolutely fantastic!

Originally posted by waynos
[
Ah, but they were not strategic bombers, they were EX strategic Bombers, like monty pythons parrot, yah boo sucks

I see your literary dismissal with a semantic sophistry - they WERE strategic bombers - even then they WERE strategic bombers - past tense!

Originally posted by XeroOne

I'm not so sure. Nick Cook (author of The Hunt for Zero Point and journalist with Janes Defence) uncovered a satellite image showing a pulsed contrail that suggests a huge hypersonic aircraft is (or has been) in operation on the edge of the atmosphere.

I'm always wary of contrails ever being held up as evidence of anything - because they are both the biggest give-away of an aircraft's operation and simultaneously very easy to prevent formation of.

If its a top secret, hypersonic aircraft, then it shouldn't be generating a contrail at all...

If a contrail is being generated, I'd look elsewhere (weather patterns, commercial aviation) before I would even suspect a top secret aircraft project.

Originally posted by Aliensun
Now why would anybody want an unmanned bomber?

Let's see: As a world power you got missiles that carry similar payloads to bombers. You got satellities to tell the missile the exact place to drop the load, and you want a bomber that must fly through the atmosphere and spend tens of minutes if not a hour or two getting to target when the missile was sitting in your back yard before you touched it off to target? Makes no sense to me.

Planes (bombers and fighters) for the next war, like battleships of the first and second war, are yesterday's weapons when missiles (and drones) and killer satellites are the major weapons these days.

An unmanned bomber is a large cruise missile whose expensive parts come back for re-use, and has surveillance & targeting instruments.

Ballistic missiles are an entirely different thing. They are expensive, one-use, rocket powered, and with insufficient accuracy and payload to be substantially useful militarily (besides small/cheap/short-range) without nuclear warheads. Hence they look like a nuclear attack.

Also they aren't really retargetable after launch and don't work well against moving targets.