Test drive bomber "Stealth": what will replace?

102
The Popular Mechanics correspondent received a rare opportunity to go on a flight on the stealth bomber B-2 and become a witness to a training operation. Moreover, he was allowed to the control levers, and now he will tell readers about his unusual experience.





A few years ago, the US administration allocated more than $ 6 billion to develop a new strategic bomber. According to experts, the entire project will require at least $ 120 billion. Since the development is still under a veil of secrecy, the editors of Popular Mechanics tried to imagine what the new aircraft would be like.

The airspace over the United States is streaked by invisible trajectories — these are highways with specified entry and exit points used by military aircraft for air refueling. Our highway has the number 16 and is oriented along the "west-east" line. We fly at an altitude of about 8000 m above the central regions of Missouri. Next to me in the cockpit of an invisible bomber B-2 is a pilot, captain Timothy Sullivan, named Scar.

We took the route on which the KC-135 Stratotanker tanker aircraft are flying. Ahead of us is waiting for a flight coupled with one of them at a speed of 720 km / h. During this time, we have to fill our fuel tanks to capacity. “Six more minutes, and tankers will be in our field of vision,” says Scar. I hear his voice from the speakers in my helmet. Without an intercom, his voice would have drowned in the roar of the engines of our bomber, named Spirit of Georgia.

The honor of flying in the cockpit of a B-2 bomber was awarded to about the same number of people as it had been in space. For all history cosmonautics out of our atmosphere escaped the whole 530 people. By the time of my flight, which took place at the end of 2012 of the year, only 543 people took off in the cockpit of the invisible plane Spirit. We will live to land, and I will become 544-m.

The stealth bomber cab is designed for two pilots sitting side by side. Probably, in 1980, when the aircraft was designed by Northrop Grumman, the design of the display devices looked like the last beep of fashion. There is an unassuming toilet in the cabin - it is a stainless steel toilet mounted behind the back of the right seat right next to the secret communication servers. Naturally, there is no partition here. There, behind the seats, fits a two-meter horizontal plane, where you can get a nap, although many prefer to just stretch out on the floor. This is useful, because the flight time of the B-2 is often measured in two-digit numbers. “I can doze off in any place and in any posture,” says Scar, “but for some reason I can't sleep in the B-2 booth.”


Thanks to refueling in the air
B-2 aircraft is able to reach targets anywhere in the world, taking off from the United States. The new bomber will get more payload and increased range.


Refueling in the air

From a distance of 15 km, the strategic tankers, which are as long as 40 m, look like small dots. However, as we approach, we already clearly see the outline of the aircraft belonging to the 128-th aircraft wing of the US National Guard tankers.

And then I watch a well-rehearsed dance in the air. The aircraft needing refueling is attached at the back and just below the tanker.

A telescopic filling boom extends from the KS-135. At its end - the fitting, which should exactly get into the tiny hatch in the plating of a bomber. The pump is turned on, and both aircraft continue to fly in the meantime, precisely coordinating their movements with each other.

When I listened to the story of these manipulations during the pre-flight briefing, everything was clear, logical and rational, however, as soon as we crept close to the tanker and its feed closed the entire view through the windshield, the refueling operation seemed to me pure madness. Rubbing at a distance of four meters to another plane and hold this position minute by minute - this thought alone seemed wild. The brain in the skull box was cold with horror.

The scar is attached at the tail of the aircraft tanker, and I see his every movement when he corrects the position of his bomber. And this is at a distance, when you can literally find out before the tanker. The operator controlling the filling boom is watching us through a small window in the tail of the KS-135, and we see the expression on his face. Fortunately, by reducing the distance between the aircraft to the limit, we move out of the zone of turbulence, that is, our bomber falls into a stable bubble of rarefied air formed behind the tailor's tail.

The B-2 aircraft filling hatch is located in the upper part of its fuselage, so Scar doesn’t see how far the tanker’s boarder is now separated from the receiving neck. He can only see the light signals that light up on the tanker fuselage, which tell him in which direction to shift. Another clue - framing the windshield. The pilot has long known what should fit into this frame when he brings his plane to the desired position. And now all the corrective maneuvers are completed, the docking signal lights up on the dashboard screen, and tons of fuel poured into the bomber along the boom.

On full tanks, the B-2 is able to fly around 10 000 km, but if you fly from Missouri to the Middle East and back, you will have to refuel several more times in the air. I asked the pilot what they were doing in case of strong atmospheric turbulence or other weather troubles. “And what are the options? Refuel, ”said Scar, and in his voice there was not so much bravado as humility. “After all, you cannot reach anywhere without fuel.”

Invisible aircraft B-2 is considered to be the most technically perfect of all the bombers of the world, however, much would be worth improving in it. I asked my neighbor in the cockpit what he wanted from the new bomber, and heard in my headphones: “Longer range. To refuel less often.



Confrontation with equal

The war in Afghanistan is gradually subsiding, and America is redistributing its strategic accents. Instead of preparing for direct clashes with a poorly armed enemy, leading guerrilla actions, the Pentagon thought about possible confrontations with strong national states that have quite modern weapons. Among military experts such potential adversaries are called "equal" (peer) or "almost equal" (near-peer) in military power.

In 2011, the Obama administration announced that the Pentagon will now pay more attention to the situation in Asia, which must be considered "the key to the entire Pacific region." Behind these words emerges a strategy directed specifically against China - the strongest in the world of "almost equal" opponents.

This reversal in strategic thinking has breathed new life into the development program of the new stealth bomber, which was then closed in 2009 by then Defense Secretary Robert Gates. A long-range strike bomber can fly far beyond the reach of Chinese cruise and ballistic missiles, and its anti-radar masking systems will overcome the air defense barrier that is maintained at a very high level in this country. (See the article “War of the Invisibles”, “PM” No. 11'2012.) In addition, a bomber can return to the base in a matter of hours in order to replenish its ammunition, which compares favorably with a submarine or surface ship.

This advantage can be very important in long military campaigns.

So far, the war between the Chinese (as well as some other) developers of new air defense systems and the US Air Force is fought only under the roofs of the hangars. At first glance, the surface of the fuselage and wings of the B-2 seems just black. But Senior Sergeant Jessie Phillips, a young aircraft technician who has never done anything other than servicing Whiteman-based B-2 aircraft, is able to see a complex pattern on this black skin. In some places, the coating material is chosen so as to absorb waves from the radar, in others the reflection of radio waves is directed across the fuselage to its back side.



In general, the task of such facing is that none of the waves sent back to the devices of the enemy. “We are constantly interacting with the engineers at the Tinker Air Force Base (where the main air logistics center of Oklahoma is located), receiving from them updated techniques and corrections to technical data,” says Phillips. “We need to always keep one step ahead in races with the enemy, because on the other side they always try our cloaking tools on their teeth.” And the longer the B-2 remains in service, the harder it will be like Philips to stay a step ahead of the potential adversary.

The idea of ​​developing a new bomber in the hope of confrontation with an equivalent adversary almost chokes on the stream of criticism - especially from the side of fighters for disarmament. William Hartung, head of the Arms and Security theme at the Center for International Politics, in his February speech expressed the opinion of all these opponents, calling for “to close or cut funding for projects such as developing a new bomber with nuclear missiles ... because such a technique is relevant only in the cold war. ”

The danger of an unexpected massive strike by nuclear missiles has now practically come to naught, so a bomber designed to deliver atomic bombs can hardly be considered as a priority. On the other hand, the presence of nuclear warheads, which are always maintained in full combat readiness, may be a factor preventing the escalation of traditional war into a nuclear conflict.

This is the opinion of Eli Jacobs, coordinator of a program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). "The losing side, in an effort to put an end to a military conflict, could dare and inflict limited nuclear strikes," he wrote on the CSIS website. Having the means of nuclear deterrence on hand, it is easier, in his opinion, not to bring the situation to such a catastrophic development.

However, the main purpose of the new American bomber will not be dropping nuclear bombs, but the use of weapons of other types. The US Air Force specified these priorities last year, when aviation management officially announced that the new aircraft will be primarily intended for the delivery of non-nuclear ammunition. True, this contradicts the position of the Pentagon itself, which initially prepared the B-2 for equipping with nuclear weapons several years before this aircraft was equipped with traditional weapons.

Brigadier General Thomas Bassier, the commander of the 509-m bomber, based on Whiteman, knows that twenty of his planes are a very effective tool for influencing (i.e., simply catching fear) on various criminal regimes. “I dare say that many of our B-2 people are not allowed to sleep at night,” he says.


For every hour of flight B-2, there are 55 hours of maintenance
Most of the time is spent on the restoration of the masking coating. Aerodrome mechanics, such as Sergeant Jesse Phillips, can easily recognize aircraft by sight. “Each of these aircraft has its own character,” says the sergeant.


Invasion mode

The B-2 pilots have not used traditional sights for bombing in their work for a long time and are not too tight on the trigger. At their disposal buttons and keyboard. The plane itself will calculate the correct time to drop the bomb, while taking into account the current speed. It will automatically open bomb bomb racks and release ammunition, either from a bomb rack or from a rotary starter.

From official reports it is known that B-2 is capable of dropping 80 uncontrollable bombs, and so that each of them will fall no further than 150 m from a given target, in addition, it can carry up to 16 ammunition such as Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) - 900 kilogram free-fall bombs that are turned into homing. For this it was enough to provide them with controlled stabilizers, correcting the course of the falling projectile. With the release of bombs such as JDAM pyrobolts explode. “You can feel your back right in the cockpit as the plane shoots its ammunition,” says Schram.

The capabilities of the B-2 aircraft were vividly demonstrated when, in March 2011, he participated in a night raid on Libya. “We hit 45 from 48's planned targets, using high-precision weapons for this,” Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, head of the “global” strike command for the Air Force, told us. - All of these goals were well-protected aircraft shelters. It was here that Gaddafi realized that his shelters were not so well protected, and indeed, by and large, they were not shelters at all. ”

On the panel B-2 there is a button - a little more than a laptop key. It says PEN, which means "penetration", that is, "invasion." When the pilot presses this button, the aircraft prepares to invade the protected airspace. In this case, telescopic antennas are drawn in, the signals used for communication are strictly limited, all other sources are turned off, which could detect the presence of an invisible bomber in the air.

An invisible aircraft is not just optimized fuselage lines and radar absorbing coating. It is also a specific strategy. Here is an example. The B-2 is easier to spot on the radar screen when it is directed sideways to the observation station, but it is much harder to detect when it is flying directly to the radar. Therefore, B-2 pilots plan their attacks in such a way as to take into account this specificity, and their flight path is a broken line. Scar calls this technique "peak control."

The moral is this: there are still no such aircraft that would be completely invisible on radar screens, so the less time the aircraft spends in the protected space, the better. On the other hand, the B-2 is not very capable of making sharp jerks, picking up speed steeply. Next-generation bombers will have engines operating in two modes — economical and allowing sharp accelerations. (See the “Future Engine: An Inside Look” section.)

Right here, in flight, Scar shows me how the B-2 can capture images of the landscapes lying below it, using a radar pulse reflected from the ground. When I said that thanks to such abilities, this bomber, in fact, becomes a reconnaissance aircraft, the pilot didn’t look at me too friendly. It seems I got him in a sore point.

As the Pentagon strategists argue, a bomber capable of fooling enemy radars can simply patrol in enemy airspace, collecting video images, intercepting enemy messages and performing the functions of a radio relay station for troops operating under it. True, this idea initially did not please the staff of the Whiteman base.

When I asked the pilot what he thought about using the future bomber as a reconnaissance aircraft, he replied to me with a polite skeptical pin addressed to theorists from the Air Force command: “What, they want to make a gag in all the barrels? So that we grasp at everything, but do everything mediocre? ”

The question is serious, and so far the Pentagon has not been able to answer it. “These topics are still classified,” says Kowalski, “and much of it here, frankly, is simply not thought through to the end.”


Captain Sullivan is two meters tall -
This is a bit too much for a close cockpit, but the bosses went to meet the pilot, allowing him to fly. However, if there is a bailout, he will inevitably hook his knees on the dashboard.


Spirit 544 in my hands

Suddenly, for no apparent reason Scar asks me on the intercom question: "Do you want to steer?" I did not immediately agree. Another B-2 flies with us in a pair, cutting clouds over six kilometers in front of us, it looks like a flying saucer. Suppose the situation turns out in the most unfavorable way, and I will put at risk ten percent of all the shock American long-range aviation forces and thus at least a little, but still break the delicate balance of weapons.

Scar sitting next to him did not express any doubt. The pilot of his level is absolutely confident in his ability to correct any situation in which I could start his plane. Especially at that height. In addition, Scar has a diploma instructor, that is, he is one of the few pilots of the Air Force who are trained to fly a B-2 aircraft alone, without any outside help.

“So the plane is in your hands,” he says, and shifts control. I put my left, suddenly sweaty hand on the throttle grip, and my right hand - on the control joystick. “Transfer our beauty to the other side,” says Scar, meaning that Spirit of Georgia should cross the trajectory of the presenter and settle down behind it on the left side.

I shyly move the joystick to the left and see the horizon tilting. “Go ahead,” says the pilot, “do not be afraid, do not break it.” I press more resolutely, and the bomber, as it were, takes to the left by itself. All maneuvers performed by the aircraft, which was built for long service and distant flights, occur slowly and smoothly. Spirit of Georgia obediently responds to the pilot's will, the maximum speed is almost 1000 km / h, but when you hold the reins in your hands, it does not seem to be a quick filly.

We smoothly change the position behind the tail of the lead B-2. The turnaround is complete, I level the course, so that the Spirit returns to horizontal flight, and I add speed to catch up with the lead. My blood is boiling with adrenaline. And in this rapid moment, I feel - indeed, the colossus obeys me.

How did the “flying wing” scheme evolve?



June 1946 year Test pilot Max Stanley makes a flight to XB-35, the distant ancestor of the current B-2. Decades of technical development are still waiting for this idea until such a device becomes sufficiently stable in flight to participate in hostilities.

November 1981 years

Northrop Grumman wins the tender for the development of a flying wing bomber.

February 1982 years

The flights of the Tacit Blue prototype begin. The data obtained from these tests will be used to design the contours of the B-2 bomber.

July 1989 years

B-2 flies in the sky over California for the first time.

April 1997 years

Air Force officials say that B-2 is now capable of dropping non-nuclear bombs.

March 1999 years

Two Spirit bombers strike at Yugoslavia. At the same time satellite bombs are used. This is the first use of the B-2 in real combat.

October 2001 years

B-2 aircraft bombed Afghanistan in response to the September 11 attacks on 2001.

March 2003 years

B-2 airplanes launch the Shock and Awe military campaign (Shock and Awe) in Iraq. 900-kg bombs hit the targets, but Saddam Hussein could not be killed.

February 2008 years

In Guam, the B-2 crashes due to the failure of airspeed sensors. No casualties. As the aircraft mechanic Thomas Anderson said, “for us this news sounded like a Kennedy murder report. ”

March 2011 years

Three B-2, arriving from Missouri, destroy all Libyan air forces on the ground in one evening.

February 2012 years

The Obama administration, when formulating a budget for 2013, requests $ 6,3 billion for the development of a new bomber, promising its release to 2025.

January 2013 years

The Pentagon confirms that the stealth aircraft B-2 is capable of carrying GBU-57 ammunition. This is a 14-ton bomb that explodes only after it has sewed tens of meters of concrete protection.

What it will be: experts on promising bomber



Avoid unique parts

Mechanics from Whiteman's air base complain that the suppliers of aircraft parts have gone somewhere: many of these firms are gone. “The system should be designed to meet the requirements for its maximum durability,” says one of the suppliers of the airbase, “for B-2, this problem has become a real curse.”

Dump the fuel tanks?

Fixed under the wings disposable fuel tanks - a dubious decision, because they will be perfectly visible on the radar screens. Nevertheless, the former head of the US Air Force Department, Michael Wynn, suggested returning to this idea, since, nevertheless, most of the flight usually runs over friendly territories. When the tanks are emptied, the plane will reset the unnecessary ballast, and all masking functions will be restored.

Not only bombs

On board the next generation aircraft will be installed the latest, very exotic weapons, such as cybernetic. "The flying platform, invisible invading enemy airspace, stuffed with the most advanced avionics, in the case of a cyber war is just a fantastic fighting machine," says aerospace analyst Richard Abulafia (Teal Group).

The engine of the future: an inside look



Flexible mode

Major engine manufacturers such as Pratt & Whitney and GE Aviation are now developing engines that can change operating modes. “The engine has to adapt to changing requirements in flight,” says Jimmy Reed, P&W Advanced Programs Manager. If the aircraft needs to accelerate sharply, air flows from the fan (in the diagram they are marked in green) are directed around the compressors and turbines. This mode will provide increased traction, but it is only effective at high speeds.

Turbine blades

GE has developed ceramic matrix composites for use in the hottest areas of the engine. This applies to dampers and blades in high and low pressure turbines. The higher the temperature that the engine can withstand (especially hot streams are marked orange), the more thrust it produces.

Digital control

A slight change to the thrust vector yields brilliant results. Turning the jet stream a few degrees, we provide sharper turns and generally improve the behavior of the aircraft in the air. Now all aircraft manufacturers supplying their products to the Air Force connect the engine with the aircraft’s on-board computer. Having received the command of the pilot to maneuver, he automatically turns the nozzle.

More air

In modern turbojet engines, two air streams are formed - along the inner and outer contours. In one of the Air Force programs, a design with an additional third airflow (marked with blue) is considered. If the flow from the fan is directed not along the "green", but along the "blue" direction, the engine loses its power, but wins in low noise and economy. The cold air of the third circuit can be added to the jet stream, cooling it and reducing its visibility for thermal guidance sensors.
102 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    6 November 2016 06: 56
    While this is a solid concept. As far as we know, the appearance of promising TB is not even approved yet, so what can I say?
    1. +4
      6 November 2016 08: 12
      A slight change in the thrust vector gives brilliant results. By turning the jet stream a few degrees, we provide steeper turns and generally improve the behavior of the aircraft in the air.

      This American pushed powerfully .... Straight, America discovered ... Progress, adnaka ....
      1. +2
        6 November 2016 11: 21
        So an article for a simple layman
        1. +4
          6 November 2016 12: 09
          Quote: BlackMokona
          So an article for a simple layman

          Well, actually an article from Popular Mechanics, Cap Evidence!
          This is just an ordinary layman.
          But personally, I scored at the PM many years ago when I realized that one of the functions of the magazine was propaganda.
          By the way, I can confuse that, but it’s not just these B2 that accidentally shot down obsolete air defense in Yugoslavia? They forgot to write about it here, but invisible opportunities were touted to their full height.
          1. +6
            6 November 2016 12: 54
            No one has shot down B-2s yet; in Yugoslavia one F-117 was shot down, which is very small, given that they made thousands of sorties. That is, thousands of times successfully bombed, and only once suffered for it
            1. +4
              6 November 2016 13: 27
              just after they shot down the F-117, they flew at altitudes outside the reach of the obsolete 75x systems.
              1. +3
                6 November 2016 15: 23
                Which F-117 is an amazing and powerful aircraft flying above 30 kilometers. But this is precisely such a height limit for the S-75
                And the United States clearly see that the ceiling for the F-117 is 13.7 kilometers. But in your opinion, he pulls in the tail and mane and Mig-31 and Blackbird. This is an incredible plane wassat
                1. +2
                  12 November 2016 11: 31
                  Quote: BlackMokona
                  Which F-117 is an amazing and powerful aircraft flying above 30 kilometers. But this is precisely such a height limit for the S-75
                  And the United States clearly see that the ceiling for the F-117 is 13.7 kilometers. But in your opinion, he pulls in the tail and mane and Mig-31 and Blackbird. This is an incredible plane wassat

                  I recommend that you watch "Heart of a Dog" and pay attention to the words
                  Professor Philip Filippovich Preobrazhensky about newspapers, they are still relevant now. 42 years ago, on old MiGs, I saw a "black" sky and a blue edging of the earth, at 12.00 (lunchtime), and this, my friend, is near space, without a high-altitude compensating suit. So we were hooligans, in front of each other, adrenaline went off scale. TO the performance characteristics, any Russian aircraft, YOU CAN BELIEVE TO ADD ANOTHER 25% and you will not be mistaken.
              2. +1
                6 November 2016 15: 37
                Quote: VDV1985
                just after they shot down the F-117, they flew at altitudes outside the reach of the obsolete 75x systems.


                At the very first S-75 air defense system, the upper boundary of the affected area was 22 km.
                F-117 practical ceiling 13.7 km.

                Sofa warrior, even though the signs would have looked.
                1. +1
                  6 November 2016 18: 44
                  hey, not a sofa, I was not there, but the 75th :))) And this is to identify such "warriors". who are frantically searching the Internet for data in order to "bring to clean water" others, without their opinion and without knowing any facts laughing
                  1. 0
                    6 November 2016 21: 31
                    just after they shot down the F-117, they flew at altitudes outside the reach of the obsolete 75x systems.

                    Can you read your comment? soldier
                    And in Yugoslavia there were both S-75 and S-125
                    1. +5
                      7 November 2016 00: 21
                      Both well done, but the essence does not change.
                      Ancient air defense failed one stealth and damaged the second.
                      Fresh air defense is not like B2, but F22 will spoil the mood. Fact.
                      In capable hands against third countries, they are strong, but with almost equal ones there will most likely be a problem.
                      Anecdote in the topic:
                      America is not afraid of war with China, because the latest uranium projectile and digital guidance penetrates any Chinese tank.
                      China, too, is not afraid of a war with America, because any Chinese tank is cheaper than the latest digitally guided U.S. uranium shell ...
                      This is moral.
                      1. 0
                        7 November 2016 07: 39
                        Only the joke doesn't work. Since with each explosion of a Chinese tank, Chinese working hands die, but when a shell is not launched, with a long exchange the USA will win such an anecdote.
            2. 0
              8 July 2017 17: 47
              well yes. and here's what in 99 from the eastern part of Croatia they were exported in parts. cordoned off forests on the border with Serbia. then the mattresses were taken out at night from a military airfield nearby a zagreb. in Serbia at that time, all having radio stations worked in a single network. they discovered everything in the sky without the use of radars and gave target designation to the crewmen. and the object, exactly as b-2 got in the belly over Belgrade and grief planned to the Croatian forests. I don’t remember the exact date - 18 years have passed, but that night the entire radio network was hot with emotions. almost like after Halebovi brought the Apaches to hell with dogs at the airport of Tirana.
    2. +1
      6 November 2016 11: 51
      The new one will be similar to the B-2, but smaller in size.
      Due to the dual-circuit engine, as on the F-35, you can achieve large refueling
      flights, but hardly more carrying capacity.
      Rather, the bombs and missiles themselves have decreased in size, and they can be taken as much.
      1. 0
        8 July 2017 17: 56
        horseradish will now help invisibility - by the way, the guys from Israel are not burdocks - on the basis of creating a single field with low-power radio stations they create a system for passive detection of air defense. I really liked the Serbian experience, then the creation of radio noise did not help the mattresses, they could not suppress us, the network worked on the basis of the Internet- thousands of small radio stations in a large space. EA-18 “Growler” were absolutely powerless, and also mocked them, including for a couple of seconds something more powerful mounted on trucks driving along forest roads. high rose to heaven laughing
    3. +1
      6 November 2016 12: 31
      This concept is developing. Here are proposed not only ways to reduce the EPR, but also a new avionics with engines.
    4. 0
      6 November 2016 18: 33
      About the concept. It all starts with her.
  2. +4
    6 November 2016 06: 59
    We shot down "Junkers", "Messerschmitts", "Focke-Wulfs" ... And "V-2" will not be a problem for us either ...
    1. +10
      6 November 2016 09: 04
      Quote: Brigadier
      We shot down "Junkers", "Messerschmitts", "Focke-Wulfs" ... And "V-2" will not be a problem for us either ...

      Yeah, hats. Hundreds at a time. First we take a picture on the phone, as suggested here, and then with an earflap on the pilot’s head.
      Does Russia have a solid radar field?
    2. +1
      6 November 2016 18: 35
      Who are "we? You?
  3. +7
    6 November 2016 08: 10
    In Serbia, these articles were not read. They simply took and shot down f 117. There was infa about the loss in the skies over Serbia and B2. By the way, what is the minimum distance to the Russian border when B2 flew up? In general, B2 is good for a war with weak countries, including keeping at gunpoint its vassals. Germany, for example, wants to arrange a booze. And air defense without America is zero. Israel is smarter. Israel has its own equipment. True, it does not see "invisibility" bully But if something happens, weak vassals are Poland, Spaniards, Italians, etc. will be beaten with impunity by their "godfather".
    Against Russia, this flying pancake is an ordinary target. Because our air defense is imprisoned for this purpose. For many decades. What is more dangerous than our TU 95 with X 101 on board or B2 and even with what on board, what can it carry? lol
    P / S Article Plus. It was interesting to read.
    1. +4
      6 November 2016 11: 16
      At the same time, thousands of times the F-117 flew away with impunity, and only one was shot down.
      Let’s imagine you are bullied thousands of times, and only once will the guards catch them. What do you say about such protection? laughing
      1. +2
        6 November 2016 12: 04
        Quote: BlackMokona
        At the same time, thousands of times the F-117 flew away with impunity, and only one was shot down.
        Let’s imagine you are bullied thousands of times, and only once will the guards catch them. What do you say about such protection? laughing

        That's only in Yugoslavia after the downing of the F-117 flew accompanied by EW fighters and aircraft.
        1. 0
          6 November 2016 12: 55
          So, stealth cancels the use of electronic warfare and protection from fighters that can visually detect targets?
        2. 0
          6 November 2016 18: 36
          No, they just stopped flying along the same route, where they ambushed.
    2. +3
      6 November 2016 12: 42
      "Because our air defense has been sharpened for this purpose. For many decades." ///

      Are you sure? But the manufacturers of missile launchers beech write in the technical specifications that the object with an EPR less than 2 m2
      they cannot hit. And here is 0,001 m2 ...
      And the manufacturers of the S-400 do not write at all about which objects with which EPR from what distance they see.
      To guide you: EPR Su27 - 15 m2.
      1. +5
        6 November 2016 13: 22
        voyaka uh hi Quote:
        Are you sure?
        I specially typed this in my commentary: "Israel has its own technique. True, it does not see" invisible ".
        You see, if B2 was the way Americans advertise it, then B2 flew when and wherever it wanted over the territory of Russia. And this device, like the retired F117, was a scarecrow for countries with weak air defense. And weak air defense for countries that do not see this device. By the way, B2 does not fly up to our borders. For one reason, they see it. And even with a conditional interception it will be a legitimate question. How much money has been ditched. I repeat B2 is designed to break through weak air defense.
        1. 0
          6 November 2016 16: 41
          "Israel has its own technique. True, it does not see" invisible "." ////

          It's true. And Israeli radars do not see, both American and Russian.
          Radars that confidently cope with current stealth will appear in about 10 years.
          But stealth technology does not stand still.
          .
          1. +1
            6 November 2016 17: 42
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Radars that confidently cope with current stealth will appear in about 10 years.


            Well yes, right after the lasers that destroy mortar mines in flight.
            And again and again, no ear, no snout, but a forecast!
            Forgive everyone, just tell me how the number was derived?
            1. +1
              6 November 2016 18: 31
              From the press, of course. Asked a representative
              Israeli Air Force for how many years the "stealth" of the F-35 is guaranteed.
              He said: "there are 10 years."
      2. +1
        6 November 2016 13: 55
        Quote: voyaka uh
        And here is 0,001 m2.

        The resonant RPM provides partial neutralization of the radiation reflected from the surface of the absorber, part of which passed through the thickness of the material. The neutralization effect is significant with an absorber thickness equal to one quarter of the radiation wavelength. In this case, the waves reflected by the surface of the absorber are in antiphase. Resonant materials are applied to the reflective surfaces of the masking object. The RPM thickness corresponds to a quarter of the radar radiation wavelength. The incident energy of high-frequency radiation is reflected from the external and internal surfaces of the RPM with the formation of an interference pattern of neutralization of the initial wave. As a result, the incident radiation is suppressed. Deviation of the expected radiation frequency from the calculated one leads to a deterioration of the absorption characteristics, which makes this material narrow-band. Therefore, this type of RPM is effective in masking from radar radiation operating at a standard, unchanged monofrequency.

        And how do you like it here ...
      3. +4
        6 November 2016 14: 03
        Quote: voyaka uh
        And here is 0,001 m2 ...

        Where does the data come from? And why not 0,00001 m2?
        Quote: voyaka uh
        And the manufacturers of the S-400 do not write at all about which objects with which EPR from what distance they see.

        Stealth technology became obsolete back in the 60s, and Ufimtsev himself wrote about it. I will say more that starting with the S-300 of the latest modifications, and further, the S-350 and S-400 and in the long term the S-500 will successfully intercept and will intercept stealth targets. Stealth, you know, is not invisibility.
        1. 0
          6 November 2016 15: 26
          Stealth reduces the detection range for enemy radars, coupled with electronic warfare, forcing the enemy to place orders of magnitude more radars to close the same zone, which makes the technology economically viable.
          1. +2
            6 November 2016 15: 31
            Quote: BlackMokona
            Stealth reduces the detection range for enemy radars, coupled with electronic warfare, forcing the enemy to place orders of magnitude more radars to close the same zone, which makes the technology economically viable.

            Do you know the stealth parameters of the V-2, Raptor, Lighting? And also, can you name the real capabilities of the S-400, S-300 (latest version), Pantsir, etc. radars? At the same time, we take into account avionics aircraft, as well as anti-Avax "Porubshchik", the same Krasuhi and Moscow-1.
            I repeat, the inventor of stealth technology Ufimtsev himself recognized in the 60s that the technology is not only not perfect, but already outdated.
            1. 0
              6 November 2016 15: 39
              There are approximate data on the EPR B-2, Raptor and Lightning. For example, according to Lightning, the Europeans burned the data during their internal squabbles between Rafale and Eurofighter. There are open data on the S-400 and S-300, on the range of target detection with the indication of EPR, and for any EPR is easily recounted. Avionics are on all modern aircraft, therefore, what kind of avionics? EW data in any case is checked only by practical work against specific radars, but their effectiveness is recognized by all.
              And where Ufimtsev claimed this, plus he is not the inventor of stealth technology, he only made it easier with his mathematical formulas to calculate forms for stealth aircraft. That is, stealth projects were developed in the USSR and the USA, even before his work, and his work only accelerated them.
              1. +2
                6 November 2016 16: 42
                Quote: BlackMokona
                There are approximate data on the EPR B-2, Raptor and Lightning.

                Sample data is data about nothing ... all numbers are given by mattresses and are not reliable by definition.
                Quote: BlackMokona
                For example, according to Lightning, the Europeans burned the data during their internal squabbles between Rafale and Eurofighter.

                That is, should we consider this data as true? Hmm ... probably you are right, the data of the probable opponent must be accepted as reliable.
                Quote: BlackMokona
                There are open data on the S-400 and S-300, on the range of target detection with the indication of EPR, and for any EPR is easily recounted.

                Open data, dear, this is data for general use, so to speak. But in fact, there are many BUT and IF, which are not voiced due to secrecy. I remind you that we are in a state of cold war with the Anglo-Saxons and one of the components of this war is the inform war, in which there is such an element as disinformation for example.
                Quote: BlackMokona
                Avionics are on all modern aircraft, therefore, what kind of avionics?

                Avax, A-50, A-50U, A-100 (God grant that their VKS will wait someday).
                Quote: BlackMokona
                EW data in any case is checked only by practical work against specific radars, but their effectiveness is recognized by all.

                They are checked in the same Syria, or for example the story of Donald Cook.
                And I’m not talking about the Khibiny, about which illiterate cranks squeal at every step, since the Khibiny complex is not capable of what they attribute to it in this story this time, and secondly, there are NO Khibiny at all on the SU-24. But the coastal Monolith-T complex is, for example.

                I repeat, stealth technology is not a panacea and a guarantee of the invulnerability of any aircraft today. And since we are developing new air defense systems, but understandably, the stealth of new targets is taken into account, which means that methods for intercepting them have long been developed. Otherwise, it makes no sense to put into service the same S-400 or Pantsyr-S systems that are obviously not capable of effectively shooting down such targets.
                1. +1
                  6 November 2016 17: 29
                  95% past what
                  EWs as well as stealth reduce the detection range of radars, the more the range is reduced, the more radars are needed to control the situation, the shorter the missiles are aimed at the target, etc.
                  The exact numbers are not important, the fact itself is important that the lower the EPR, the more difficult it is for the enemy to destroy the target. The stronger the electronic warfare, the more difficult it is for the enemy to destroy the target. And the more difficult the enemy, the easier it is to defeat him
                  1. +2
                    6 November 2016 17: 40
                    Quote: BlackMokona
                    EWs as well as stealth reduce the detection range of radars, the more the range is reduced, the more radars are needed to control the situation, the shorter the missiles are aimed at the target, etc.

                    In other words, if this is the country of Handuras with the absence of any air defense and missile defense, then this is all fair, but if it is Russia with layered air defense, then excuse me, stealth does not work here.
                    As for the EW systems of the adversary ... so I'm sorry, there are systems to counter such complexes.
                    Quote: BlackMokona
                    The exact numbers are not important, the fact itself is important that the lower the EPR, the more difficult it is for the enemy to destroy the target.

                    You are talking about laboratory conditions ... and a combat mission involves many factors, and one of them, for example, is not a constant favorable position of the aircraft in relation to the radar. As for Lightings and Raptors, are mattresses not going to carry anything on the external suspension?

                    Quote: BlackMokona
                    The stronger the electronic warfare, the more difficult it is for the enemy to destroy the target.

                    This is true in both directions.
                    1. +1
                      6 November 2016 20: 48
                      1. Stealth works against any country, no matter Russia or Ganduras, if Russia needs to put ten times more radars so as not to miss stealth aircraft, the benefit from this is obvious.
                      And the means of counteracting electronic warfare is understandable, a missile to the emitter and more noise-resistant radars. However, it creates problems.
                      2. Therefore, special tactics and trajectories are used to maximize the long-term preservation of an advantageous angle. And on the external sling it is possible to carry the launch vehicle for launching behind the air defense zone, and hanging tanks. Both this and that is reset before entering the air defense zone, and again a full-fledged stealth is restored. Plus, external suspensions can be used after air defense suppression.
                      And before that, confine ourselves to internal ones.
                      3. Naturally, but the stronger the electronic warfare interferes with both sides, the stronger the stealth becomes.
                      1. +3
                        6 November 2016 21: 01
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        1. Stealth works against any country, no matter Russia or Ganduras, if Russia needs to put ten times more radars so as not to miss stealth aircraft, the benefit from this is obvious.

                        If stealth technology would be so good, mattresses would have dealt a blow a long time ago. But this technology is outdated and not able to give decisive advantages to mattresses.
                        Even in the days of the USSR, work was carried out on cold plasma, which is much more promising than what mattresses do.
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        2. Therefore, special tactics and trajectories are used to maximize the long-term preservation of an advantageous angle. And on the external sling it is possible to carry the launch vehicle for launching behind the air defense zone, and hanging tanks. Both this and that is reset before entering the air defense zone, and a full-fledged stealth is restored again.

                        Do you think that carriers will wait until they reach the distance of using weapons that are on the external sling? That is, our interceptors, and in general the VKS, will languidly smoke and wait, looking at the radars?

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        3. Naturally, but the stronger the electronic warfare interferes with both sides, the stronger the stealth becomes.

                        An interesting conclusion. Only you apparently forgot that we were talking about a confrontation over a specific territory. If this is the territory of the Russian Federation, then forgive me, even the navels will oppose even our electronic warfare systems at the mattresses. In addition to EW systems in the aerospace complex, there are also ground-based EW systems, which the adversary will not have in this case.
                        I don’t even want to talk about the option over the United States.
                2. +2
                  6 November 2016 17: 45
                  "Otherwise, it makes no sense at all to put into service the same S-400 or Pantsyr-S complexes, which are obviously not capable of effectively shooting down such targets." ////

                  It makes sense to set.
                  Firstly, the majority of aircraft from potential adversaries -
                  not stealth yet. And the 4th generation, these complexes hit normally.
                  Secondly, the bluffing element. Either our radar sees, or does not see. Checking is dangerous. And stretch the time until a new generation of radars appears.
                  Thirdly, the element of commerce. Who will buy the S-400, if it turns out that the complex does not see the stealth?
                  1. +2
                    6 November 2016 17: 54
                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    It makes sense to set.
                    Firstly, the majority of aircraft from potential adversaries -
                    not stealth yet. And the 4th generation, these complexes hit normally.

                    So the air defense system is put not for one day. Already today, most countries are either purchasing aircraft with stealth technology, or they are developing it themselves. At the same time, the topic of stealth technology and the fight against it has long been studied and verified two hundred times.
                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    Secondly, the bluffing element.

                    Nothing that this bluffing element is placed on strategically important areas?
                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    Checking is dangerous. And stretch the time until a new generation of radars appears.

                    If the same S-400/300 were not able to shoot down stealth targets, they would not have been set at the Hami base, having the possibility of a collision with the NATO Air Force.
                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    Thirdly, the element of commerce. Who will buy the S-400, if it turns out that the complex does not see the stealth?

                    The buyers of such systems are not brainwashed like journalists by the average man, but they are called the real capabilities of the complexes, if the claimed does not correspond to reality, the customer’s reputation and subsequent work with him are called into question.
                    1. +1
                      6 November 2016 18: 33
                      "Is it okay that this element of bluff is put on strategically important directions?" ///

                      The USSR is a success! - did more than once.
                      And it is in strategic directions.
                      1. +2
                        6 November 2016 18: 57
                        Quote: voyaka uh
                        The USSR is a success! - did more than once.
                        And it is in strategic directions.

                        Can you give an example on air defense systems of the times of the USSR?
            2. 0
              6 November 2016 21: 08
              Since the technology is outdated, why is Russia developing its own stealth aircraft? Not otherwise than cutting dough comes out, judging by your logic. And you still something on the Americans with their F-35 will speak.)))
              1. +4
                6 November 2016 21: 25
                Quote: TARS
                Since the technology is outdated, why is Russia developing its own stealth aircraft?

                Dear, what do you know about the development of stealth aircraft in Russia, except for commercials with which YouTube is replete with?
                The stealth technology is used today in the creation of promising aircraft everywhere.
                But it is possible to "chop up" the lines of the aircraft so that the dispersion is greater, it is possible to apply an anti-radar coating, but stealth directly depends on the length of the radar waves in the first place.
                Even during the production of the TU-160, cold plasma technologies were tested on this bomber, which, when implemented successfully, allows you not to worry about wavelengths and radars in general. If we talk about this technology, then yes, in Russia there are such works that will really make the aircraft a very difficult goal.
                Quote: TARS
                And you still something on the Americans with their F-35 will speak.)))

                And what should I say about Lightning? The guys are developing a universal platform ... but the fact is that while the world has not matured technologically to create a platform that equally well did the work of several classes of combat aircraft.
                And what mattresses say about their miracle airplane ... well, nobody canceled the engine of progress and the struggle for the arms market. As for the performance characteristics of this product, the very fact that they continue to fight Lightning's diseases by pouring unthinkable amounts into this project speaks only in favor of my thesis. We haven’t grown technologically before that. Although we are already doing multi-purpose aircraft, but so far this is only the beginning of the path to a universal platform.
          2. +2
            6 November 2016 17: 55
            Quote: BlackMokona
            Stealth reduces the detection range for enemy radars, coupled with electronic warfare, forcing the enemy to place orders of magnitude more radars to close the same zone, which makes the technology economically viable.

            This is true for the KNOWN, FIXED frequency, if the frequencies change according to a chaotic law and the phase changes to the heap, then according to the new book of the Ufimtsev the object is visible, and very well, SDS and other systems can not strain, the object allocated itself creating a superposition, distinctly incompatible with noise smile
            1. +1
              6 November 2016 20: 51
              The problem is that this will require a large pile of radars than was required not against the stealth. You can’t put all of this on a rocket without making it the size of a Proton-M. And if it sees air defense, and its missiles fly over and over again into milk, then there will be no sense from this type.
      4. +4
        6 November 2016 15: 43
        Quote: voyaka uh
        But the manufacturers of missile launchers beech write in the technical specifications that the object with an EPR less than 2 m2
        they cannot hit. And here is 0,001 m2 ...
        And the manufacturers of the S-400 do not write at all about which objects with which EPR from what distance they see.
        To guide you: EPR Su27 - 15 m2.


        Again, blyam blyam blyam from illiterate.
        In what ranges is such an EPR?
        From what angle?

        Boltologists ...
        1. +1
          6 November 2016 16: 51
          Again grumbling displeased old people ...
          More fun peach! fellow
          Get involved in a discussion with energy with a twinkle angry .
          1. +2
            6 November 2016 17: 38
            "Grunting" is correct, not "grunting". Not enough literacy, look for other words.

            You don’t have to push your homosexual here, you’ll call your partner, um, partner.

            Quote: voyaka uh
            Get involved in a discussion with energy with a twinkle


            What other light do you want, you will not understand a tenth of the discussion on stealth.
            Well, you are not a reader, you are a writer, and you’re stupid.
            1. +1
              6 November 2016 18: 37
              I had no such direction in my thoughts.
              Just translated your nickname into Cyrillic.
              But if you are offended, I won’t. To blame hi .

              And don’t get personal, if you want
              talked to you.
              Write: "This is not true", "I do not agree with you."
      5. 0
        26 November 2016 15: 46
        So again the children of Sinai are right, and Blackmok who has labored like them! :))) Only what is done in Israel and the West fanned by "unearthly grace" and so can anything really good be done. After all, this is confirmed by the T60 tanks for the Turks, upgraded to complete non-penetration by children of the Sinai! :))) I was impressed with the result of the modernization !!! Keep it up !!! Super technologies - to the masses! :)))
        And I would like to ask the aforementioned comrades - and how are you on your side to technology, "grand-nephews of the famous Jew Einstein" ?! Or "Moishe whispered in your ear" l ???! laughing
  4. +1
    6 November 2016 09: 52
    And I like this bomber, it’s not from this world .. I remember when I first saw it in the year so 89 it felt like aliens invaded the earth. An armageddin however ..
    1. +2
      6 November 2016 11: 24
      Personally, as a science fiction lover, I am interested in 2 questions.
      1. What alien bastard prompted the Yankees form of aircraft? (like in 47. there was a crash of a UFO in Roswell).
      2. What technology did the aliens transmit to us? (Like, we also beat a plate.)
      1. 0
        6 November 2016 11: 51
        The United States, before the age of 40, made airplanes wings. Form prompted by nature and logic

        Here such flew in 1941 for example
        1. +1
          6 November 2016 11: 59
          Thank you, you reassured me, so aliens have nothing to do with it. My second question remained open.
        2. 0
          6 November 2016 12: 25
          Quote: BlackMokona
          The United States, before the age of 40, made airplanes wings. Form prompted by nature and logic

          Yes, it’s all like that .. but here in the photo it’s like the head, hands of the eye, and not a person with your photo just the opposite
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. +1
          6 November 2016 12: 25
          Friendship is friendship, but the tobacco is apart! By the way, Steam engine, why do you need to dump? You smoke like a steam locomotive!
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. 0
        6 November 2016 14: 25
        This concept came from the Reich
      5. Cat
        0
        6 November 2016 19: 05
        It’s interesting, but among the Germans, what was falling?

        Not 229.
      6. Cat
        0
        6 November 2016 19: 13
        And here, our gift from aliens!
        KS-12 (BC-2). And in 1937!
  5. 0
    6 November 2016 09: 54
    Development of air defense systems is proceeding at a fast pace (faster than aviation) and it is unlikely that one can hope for a calm bombing of protected objects .. And after suppressing air defense systems by tactical aircraft and the Kyrgyz Republic, the B-52 will be able to bomb (with new bombs with new sights
  6. 0
    6 November 2016 10: 55
    Another "wunderwaffe" under the flag of the hegemon. Let him. If they portrayed Fu-35 for WILD money, then a strategist ... This will be the cost of an aircraft carrier, not otherwise. laughing
    Well, of course, the public debt must be protected, and for this and its increase - it’s not a pity.
  7. +2
    6 November 2016 12: 31
    Eh, I should try it with "Triumph".
  8. +2
    6 November 2016 12: 32
    Quite interesting and objective. Not like a libel on the description of "Admiral Kuznetsov".
  9. +3
    6 November 2016 13: 20
    Quote: voyaka uh
    "Because our air defense has been sharpened for this purpose. For many decades." ///

    Are you sure? But the manufacturers of missile launchers beech write in the performance characteristics that they can not hit an object with an EPR less than 2 m2. And here is 0,001 m2 ...

    If the performance characteristics indicate the detection range of an object with an RCS of 2 m2, this does not mean at all that they cannot hit an object with an RCS <2 m2. The range will decrease with decreasing RCS. It is stupid to give the whole alignment in all areas in open sources. I hope you understand this.
    1. +2
      6 November 2016 17: 27
      This is clear. It is not possible to give a table for all distances and for
      all angles. Therefore, they give an average value from a certain standard
      distance. Closer than that, if you did not see the target attacking you, he died.
      Why do you think everyone rushed to do any kind of photo location?
      Because stealth technology has killed radar as a reliable indicator
      for tracking, aiming and shooting. Sheer uncertainty.
      And air defense needs clarity: to shoot / not to shoot. Missiles are incredibly expensive.
      And their supply is very limited.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. +1
          6 November 2016 22: 56
          "Shoot / do not shoot is determined from the moment the combat mission is received, and the decision for a specific target after determining nationality is a ground radar interrogator, visual target identification, the nature of the target's actions, their combination" ////

          If the target is not visible on the radar, what is the combat mission?
          There is no purpose, no combat alert.

          You, as I see it, cannot continue without insults and a transition to personality?
          I am responding to your post for the last time.
          Your posts are not interesting to me, I do not respond to them.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. +1
    6 November 2016 13: 23
    Smelly things that can only quietly bomb those who cannot answer - such as Libya.
    1. 0
      6 November 2016 21: 52
      Is it Libya that could not answer? Inflated by Russian air defense and weapons, and the millionth army ... on paper. angry
      1. +3
        10 November 2016 23: 19
        And the air defense was in the 70s, I am silent about the experts, but yes! A lot of weapons. In a similar situation, Yugoslavia surrendered. If one side keeps pace with progress and has total dominance in the means of reconnaissance and defeat, and the other remains in the years 70-80 and is limited in means, then this is beating babies!
      2. 0
        27 November 2016 14: 27
        Then Lebanon and Palestine are simply militarized empires :))) This, if, according to the logic of the Israelis, count all the spears and darts in museums and ancient burials :))) Although, hiding these facts, the Israelis justify themselves in case of failure :))) laughing
  12. +1
    6 November 2016 14: 09
    After the Russian Aerospace Forces put into service the decameter Podsolnukh and Container radars, the place of B-2 and other "unobtrusive" and non-maneuverable riffraff was only at the dump.
  13. 0
    6 November 2016 17: 59
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Why do you think everyone rushed to do any kind of photo location?

    New ideas are emerging in all areas, progress however. It is not known yet what this will result in. Well, the fact that stealth technology significantly reduces the detection range is beyond doubt. I just drew your attention to the fact that there is no need to simplify so much - as if if the target has an EPR <2m2, then the BUK will not be able to bring it down at all.
    For example, such information in open sources -
    "Low-altitude MRLS 9S36 are capable of detecting and" capturing "an air target of the AGM-158A" JASSM "type (flight altitude 20 m, EPR within 0,1 m2) at a distance of 17 - 18 km, which was previously not available for any modification of the air defense system "Beech"."
    1. +2
      6 November 2016 18: 27
      Of course, air defense manufacturers do not give up.
      But here's your example: AGM-158A - "semi" stealth-CR. Stealth
      it is provided only with a form, there is no radar absorbing coating on it.
      And she is 0,1 m2. Coat it with a coating and - hello - Buku sad .
      I mean, stealth is an air defense nightmare. From one angle, something flickered
      and ... "disappeared". What to do?
      Therefore, the Americans are so confident in continuing the B-2 line. Paint over time
      will be replaced by a coating of flexible microcircuits, which will smartly fool radars.
      In general, freestyle wrestling for a long time smile .
      1. +1
        6 November 2016 23: 19
        Quote: voyaka uh
        I mean, stealth is an air defense nightmare. From one angle, something flickered
        and ... "disappeared". What to do?

        Even with absolutely absorbing material, when the reflection coefficient = 0, the total dispersion of the field diverging from the plane in all directions is reduced by only half. This is quite enough to detect such aircraft.
        Professor Ufimtsev

        Books of Professor Ufimtsev to help you.
        1. +2
          7 November 2016 11: 16
          "This is quite enough to detect such aircraft" ////

          Ufimtsev’s theory is wonderful. And the Americans read his books. But...
          The fact of detection ("something is there") is not enough for air defense. You need to know for sure that
          it is a combat aircraft with low EPR, and not a small false target, for example, with high EPR (with a transponder).
          And detection is possible only with the deployment of a large number of locators on the network with instant processing of the aggregate data, which leads to huge air defense costs.
          In Russia, Professor Ufimtsev is surely loved, but stealth aircraft are made strenuously,
          despite the fact that, according to Ufimtsev, they are "visible" anyway.
          The project of the Russian PAK-DA is also a stealth.
  14. +2
    6 November 2016 18: 42
    Quote: NEXUS

    I repeat, the inventor of stealth technology Ufimtsev himself recognized in the 60s that the technology is not only not perfect, but already outdated.

    Those. Do the T-50, J-20 and TP use outdated technology?
    1. +3
      6 November 2016 21: 59
      Quote: Antifascist
      Those. Do the T-50, J-20 and TP use outdated technology?

      You’ll penetrate into the concept ... mattresses rely on stealth, or as they say on stealth technology, and here we have the Chinese on super maneuverability. Different concepts. Reducing the EPR has already become mandatory for all new combat aircraft. And what is wrong I do not understand. Another question is when other important characteristics of a combat aircraft are sacrificed to stealth.
  15. 0
    6 November 2016 19: 15
    NEXUS,
    It was with ICBMs. With the submarine.
    1. +2
      6 November 2016 22: 00
      Quote: voyaka uh
      It was with ICBMs. With the submarine.

      Excuse me generously ... with which?
  16. 0
    6 November 2016 19: 51
    Russia has got "scrap", but as they say "there is no reception against scrap." The border is locked, abroad you can still somehow jump.
  17. +1
    6 November 2016 21: 46
    If stealth technology would be so good, mattresses would have dealt a blow a long time ago. But this technology is outdated and not able to give decisive advantages to mattresses.
    Even in the days of the USSR, work was carried out on cold plasma, which is much more promising than what mattresses do.

    1. They have no sense in a decontamination strike, while Russia is concentrated by all means to sell raw materials for dollars, and then withdraw them back.
    2. Many projects are underway, we are talking all the same about the finished and tested technology
    Do you think that carriers will wait until they reach the distance of using weapons that are on the external sling? That is, our interceptors, and in general the VKS, will languidly smoke and wait, looking at the radars?

    AGM-158 in the farthest modification hits 1000 km, at this distance it is unrealistic to find the F-35
    An interesting conclusion. Only you apparently forgot that we were talking about a confrontation over a specific territory. If this is the territory of the Russian Federation, then forgive me, even the navels will oppose even our electronic warfare systems at the mattresses. In addition to EW systems in the aerospace complex, there are also ground-based EW systems, which the adversary will not have in this case.
    I don’t even want to talk about the option over the United States.

    Electronic warfare and counteraction to electronic warfare directly depends on the development of electronics, the United States in the development of electronics is very ahead of us. And the airborne electronic warfare is much better than the ground, despite the ability of the ground to provide orders of magnitude greater. energy and size, the inability to quickly land-based electronic warfare to get rid of attacks in comparison with air means. Puts them in a very unpleasant position.
    1. +3
      6 November 2016 22: 10
      Quote: BlackMokona
      1. They have no sense in a decontamination strike, while Russia is concentrated by all means to sell raw materials for dollars, and then withdraw them back.

      You read the doctrine of the United States.
      Quote: BlackMokona
      2. Many projects are underway, we are talking all the same about the finished and tested technology

      Which is already 50 years old.
      Quote: BlackMokona
      AGM-158 in the farthest modification hits 1000 km, at this distance it is unrealistic to find the F-35

      Well, we have an X-101 with a range of 5500 km and an X-55 with a range of 3500 km, so what? At the same time, only the F-158S (deck) can carry the AGM-35B JASSM-ER with such a range. And AUG tracking is carried out constantly, so all that you wrote about will not work out invisibly.
      Quote: BlackMokona
      And the airborne electronic warfare is much better than the ground, despite the ability of the ground to provide orders of magnitude greater. energy and dimensions,

      About how ... Tota Krasuha-4, for example, specializes specifically in AWACS aircraft for some reason.
      1. +1
        6 November 2016 22: 15
        1.Read. There is nothing about the stupid and unprofitable aggression against Russia.
        2.A knife was invented many thousands of years ago, why only use it everywhere?
        3. What is the difference at what distance our missiles hit, I just pointed out that they can be easily launched without entering the radar detection zone. And AUGs are not constantly monitored, for this the USSR created a special satellite constellation, but it was not completed, and it still does not exist.
        4.USA this is not cold not hot
        The range of the Krasukha-4 complex is estimated at 150-300 kilometers. [3]

        AWACS E-3
        The basis of the AWACS complex is a powerful all-round radar, the antenna of which is located in the fairing, in the upper part of the fuselage. A fairing of 9,1 m in diameter and 1,8 m in thickness is mounted on two supports at a height of 4,2 m above the fuselage. The fairing is tilted down by 6 degrees to improve streamlining, and in addition to its main function, it also serves to remove excess heat from the aircraft equipment, the antenna tilt from the horizon is electronically compensated. The antenna itself has a hydraulic drive. The data processing subsystem with the 4PiCC-1 digital computer (developed by IBM) provides stable tracking of up to 100 targets simultaneously. Bomber type aircraft are detected with distances of 520 km, low-flying small targets can be detected at ranges of up to 400 km, targets above the horizon - up to 650 km from the aircraft.

        Aircraft modifications E-3B have an advanced radar AN / APY-2 with a digital computer 4PiCC-2, the new digital coded communication system. The aircraft can operate on surface and sedentary air targets. The RSIP modernization program included the completion of the radar in order to effectively detect low-altitude cruise missiles. It is stated that after modernization of the receiving part of the locator, the latter will be able to detect objects with EPR (effective signal scattering area) 1 m² at a range of up to 425 km.

        The aircraft has 4 TF33-P-100 / 100A turbofan engines. The engines have 2 electric generators each, with a total power of about 1000 kW for powering the on-board equipment. Export aircraft modifications were powered by CFM56-2 engines.
        1. +3
          6 November 2016 22: 24
          Quote: BlackMokona
          Read. There is nothing about the stupid and unprofitable aggression against Russia.

          What does it have to do with it? THERE IS A DOCTRINE OF LIGHTNING DEWATERING SHOCK. I’m explaining it to you. And where does the dollar? China has invested more than $ 2 trillion in the US economy, but the US sees it as its number one threat to itself.
          Quote: BlackMokona
          And AUGs are not constantly monitored, for this the USSR created a special satellite constellation, but it was not completed, and it still does not exist.

          Since the days of the USSR, each aircraft carrier in the United States, when the latter went to sea, was assigned a submarine that tracked the movement and actions of the AUG. That's right, thoughts ...
          Quote: BlackMokona
          AWACS E-3

          So what? Do you know the performance characteristics of Krasukhi -4 or Moscow-1? It is stated that Krasukha was designed specifically to deal with Avax, strike UAVs and, to some extent, with the Kyrgyz Republic. At the same time, for some reason, they recently set up the Sailor's troops, which, according to your statement, will certainly not be able to suppress Avax, although it was developed for this.
          1. 0
            6 November 2016 22: 28
            What does it have to do with it? THERE IS A DOCTRINE OF LIGHTNING DEWATERING SHOCK. I’m explaining it to you. And where does the dollar? China has invested more than $ 2 trillion in the US economy, but the US sees it as its number one threat to itself.

            Well there and? There is no sense for the USA to attack. And let the US military see the PRC army as the second strongest in the world, while this does not prevent the US from actively friends with the PRC, conduct brisk trade and invest more and more money in the PRC economy.
            Because the PRC continues to liberalize, and the United States believes that at the moment, the PRC is moving where they need to. And they will do everything necessary to maintain the status of the CWO.
            Since the days of the USSR, each aircraft carrier in the United States, when the latter went to sea, was assigned a submarine that tracked the movement and actions of the AUG. That's right, thoughts ...

            When the USSR was, he had much more submarines and much more often they went camping. And they could not pursue AUG, since AUG moves faster than submarines.
            For example Varshavyanka 20 knots, nuclear submarine Shark 25, AUG 30 knots.
            And there was only one super-fast goldfish, it was experimental and made noise like seven seas.
            So what? Do you know the performance characteristics of Krasukhi -4 or Moscow-1? It is stated that Krasukha was designed specifically to deal with Avax, strike UAVs and, to some extent, with the Kyrgyz Republic. At the same time, for some reason, they recently set up the Sailor's troops, which, according to your statement, will certainly not be able to suppress Avax, although it was developed for this.

            Not only the USA has AWAX, and the rest are much worse.
            1. +2
              6 November 2016 22: 42
              Quote: BlackMokona
              There is no sense for the USA to attack.

              Of course not, maybe the answer will come, which will be much more painful than what the United States can do against China.
              Quote: BlackMokona
              Because the PRC continues to liberalize, and the United States believes that at the moment, the PRC is moving where they need to. And they will do everything necessary to maintain the status of the CWO.

              Excuse me, but do you yourself believe in what you write? China is already building islands in the Pacific Ocean with bases and is building up sea power by building aircraft carriers. Probably out of great love for the USA. The status of the CVO is different. For example, such when force can be applied the same force and spit that exceptional. And if there is no such force, then the fate of Syria, Libya and Iraq is an example of this.
              Quote: BlackMokona
              When the USSR was, he had much more submarines and much more often they went camping. And they could not pursue AUG, since AUG moves faster than submarines.

              Russia has fewer submarines in this you are right. All 11 AUGs do not hang out at sea, but a maximum of 2-3, and this does not require hundreds of submarines.
              Quote: BlackMokona
              For example Varshavyanka 20 knots, AUG 30 knots.

              The aircraft carrier itself is able to develop such a speed, but ... the problem is that if he does, then the support ships will not stupidly follow him, and therefore the speed of the AUG is much lower.
              And where did you get the idea that it’s Varshavyanka’s tracking AUG? And for example, Pike-B, what did not please you for an example?
              1. 0
                6 November 2016 22: 52
                Of course not, maybe the answer will come, which will be much more painful than what the United States can do against China.

                However, you yourself say that China has their number one threat.
                Excuse me, but do you yourself believe in what you write? China is already building islands in the Pacific Ocean with bases and is building up sea power by building aircraft carriers. Probably out of great love for the USA. The status of the CVO is different. For example, such when force can be applied the same force and spit that exceptional. And if there is no such force, then the fate of Syria, Libya and Iraq is an example of this.

                China wants to become like the United States, the United States does not mind merging with the PRC if its political development continues in the same vein. They are not in vain, indicate that China can enter the TTP
                Russia has fewer submarines in this you are right. All 11 AUGs do not hang out at sea, but a maximum of 2-3, and this does not require hundreds of submarines.

                Usually half at sea, only those at the base also need control. And this requires hundreds of submarines. Since they cannot pursue their goals. That is, they need to be placed in the ocean for its control of its open spaces.
                The aircraft carrier itself is able to develop such a speed, but ... the problem is that if he does, then the support ships will not stupidly follow him, and therefore the speed of the AUG is much lower.
                And where did you get the idea that it’s Varshavyanka’s tracking AUG? And for example, Pike-B, what did not please you for an example?

                Pike-B will be very sorry to lose in the first hours of the war. Since if they pursue the AUG in full swing, then they are guaranteed to be discovered by the forces of the AUG PLO, and destroyed. Varshavyanka is much cheaper and not so pathetic to lose. The presence of submarines is constantly in the zone of submarines, for a long time it also has a very bad effect on survival. And Pike-B is still required to attack the enemy's sea lanes and AUG.
                And about speed, all supply vessels and AUG ships also move at that speed. There is no problem creating ships at that speed.
                1. 0
                  11 November 2016 21: 10
                  And about speed, all supply vessels and AUG ships also move at that speed. There is no problem creating ships at that speed.

                  Something I doubt that ALL AUG ships are capable of maintaining a speed of 30-35 knots for a long time, if only because not all of them have a nuclear power plant, and at maximum speeds, unlike cruising ones, the fuel is burned out "at once" ...
                  And the nuclear submarine base and tankers, other supply vessels, what will they also be doing at a maximum speed of 30 knots? request fool
                  1. 0
                    12 November 2016 10: 48
                    1. The captain slowly goes to the bottom with ease on the soul. Main fuel saved wassat Yes, they spat on fuel consumption. Safety is more important.
                    2. Why chase a nuclear submarine for AUG? Tankers and supply vessels for the AUG, They also drive at a speed of 30 knots, and on the move they transfer supplies and fuel. Example

                    Saplay Universal Supply Vehicle (T-AOE-6)
                    Saplay Type (Supply)
                    Displacement: 19 tons empty, 700 tons full.
                    Dimensions: length 229,7 m, width 32,6 m, draft 11,6 m.
                    EU: two-shaft gas turbine (four General Electric LM2500 engines) with a capacity of 105 liters. with.
                    Speed: 30 knot
                    Navigation range: 6900 miles with 22 ties.
                    Armament: eight-shot launcher Mk 29 for missile launcher Sea Sparrow; two 20 mm ZAK Mk 15 "Falanko, two 25 mm ZAU.
                    REV: radar - 0VTs Mk 23, OVTS / ONTS SPS-67, navigation SPS-64 (V) 9, two fire control Mk 95; two weapon control systems MK 91; URN-25 receiver of the TAGAN navigation system; electronic warfare system SLQ-32 (V) 3; four launchers of the system for setting false targets Mk 36 SRB0C Aviation: three helicopters CH / UH-46D Sea Knight.
                    Crew: 531 people, the ability to accommodate 136 people.
  18. PCF
    +3
    6 November 2016 22: 46
    I began to read with an incomprehensible feeling, as if they were offering me a poop sprinkled with sugar lick.
    I got to this place: "On the B-2 panel there is a button - a little bigger than a laptop key. It says PEN, which means" penetration ", that is," invasion "" and everything became clear ...
    Poop sugar not sprinkled.
    Now in prose: an ancient (2013) article with a rude translation, written by a semi-literate magazine3dom commissioned by the Air Force 3,14ndostan.
    1. 0
      11 November 2016 21: 03
      Taki agrees on most counts good drinks hi
  19. 0
    7 November 2016 18: 45
    Hello. In my opinion, you with your EPR hammered the brains of both yourself and others. In our "bug", the detection and tracking ranges were taken according to a typical target - the mig-15. ALL.
  20. 0
    8 November 2016 17: 14
    again some kind of dolbaeb from the radio of freedom rubs the stupid bullshit .... he! formidable (author: Joe-Pappalardo-REMBOTi-tiko) ... DOESN’T KNOW! ... that in America they first make a flying machine ... and then they try to make a plane out of it ... he didn’t frighten us ... but somehow he pleased us. ..rot the worker! I feel ...
  21. 0
    10 November 2016 23: 23
    Stealth, together with a low-altitude flight profile, is a terrible affair. And our comrades with the X-101 .. went a similar way.
  22. +2
    11 November 2016 21: 00
    Quote: NEXUS
    Quote: voyaka uh
    And here is 0,001 m2 ...

    Where does the data come from? And why not 0,00001 m2?
    Quote: voyaka uh
    And the manufacturers of the S-400 do not write at all about which objects with which EPR from what distance they see.

    Stealth technology became obsolete back in the 60s, and Ufimtsev himself wrote about it. I will say more that starting with the S-300 of the latest modifications, and further, the S-350 and S-400 and in the long term the S-500 will successfully intercept and will intercept stealth targets. Stealth, you know, is not invisibility.

    Well, it was just a shame to write that the EPR of such an elephant is less than 10 square meters. see - anyway, they won’t believe it! Moreover, the long-range detection works in the meter and decimeter ranges, so the thickness of the absorbing layer should be under half a meter ... Yeah ... Well, yes ... And how much will this ceramic lining weigh? How's the open-hearth furnace?
    I believe that most of the stories "about the invisibles of such invisibles" are fairy tales for ... well ... not quite literate people who are not very friendly even with physics in the volume of high school ...
  23. 0
    12 November 2016 10: 15
    There is reasonable distribution within the framework of e-mail. magnetic potential aircraft shape with high flight speeds and effective maneuverability AND !!! We can say that general trends are approaching their ideal form. However, in the development of aircraft engines, the opposite is true. The concept on which modern aircraft engines are built is fundamentally wrong. Designers and scientists considering, or rather not seeing the essence of the process, do not work in the right direction. How can new aircraft engines be created without considering the reasons for their limited ability to increase both thrust and economy, the distribution of air flows, which can be directly used to dramatically improve maneuverability. and much more. It is necessary to work with the processes occurring in the natural environment of air and water, then the reasons for the limited capabilities of the engines in terms of centrifugal processes on the rotor and stator as an element of the interacting process will become clear. This will leave problems with the blades and sections of overload, which lead to destruction. The solution path expressed only in the search for the necessary quality materials is a dead end.
  24. 0
    12 November 2016 10: 44
    A completely obvious problem is working with information. In the design and development of modern aircraft, it is extremely important, as elsewhere, to coordinate all processes so that they ensure harmony. In conjunction with the tasks performed and the increase in speeds, this leads to processes of rapidly changing relationships. Therefore, work with large variable information processes in which each component of information in reality is embodied in the physical and subject execution of the process comes to the first place.
    Methods of mathematical processing and coordination of large information data is not only an opportunity to analyze processes that have already passed and are ongoing, but also the possibility of expanding the capabilities of accurate modeling of prospects. . So that mathematics is key and fundamental. But where are at least ideas? Where are the basics of where to look for new ideas. To what level of fundamentality can scientists go down so that having decided them it would be possible to get an impulse for a jerk up.
  25. 0
    9 January 2017 17: 56
    All modern aircraft engines operate in such physical process algorithms that, with increasing speed and air resistance, increase engine load and increase fuel consumption. Sooner or later, boundary limits will arise, after which destructive processes will begin. However, with such obviousness such an algorithm is possible. processes when, already from the moment of rotation of the rotor, a positive moment of rotation will appear on its shaft. It means . that an increase in speed and drag will only contribute to an increase in this positive torque. Nobody believes in this, but this is not a problem of the reality of a possible solution, but a problem of consciousness to perceive the world as such in its capabilities.