Military Review

Falling questions of US strategic aviation

94



New Year's holidays brought the original news from the states. January 4 B-52 strategic bomber lost its engine during a flight. The engine fell off and fell to the ground, scattering fragments no worse than a high-explosive air bomb from the bomber’s arsenal. It is good that no one (according to press statements) was hurt, and the crew was able to bring the plane to the base and land. Fortunately, the presence of seven more engines allowed it.

As they say in Russia, “a neighbor’s summer house burned out - a trifle, but nice. If soberly approach the problems of the American strategic aviation, then there are aspects that are pleasant for us, as for potential "customers",.

The problem of replacing В-52 is not the first day, or even the first year. Bomber so many times have extended the life, it is really surprising. Well, is it really the greatest country with the most presamous army and industry unable to develop a new aircraft?

Apparently, can not. Meanwhile, the end of operation of the B-52 is scheduled for 2040 year. The US Department of Defense believes that by this time the bomber of the new generation B-21, created by Northrop Grumman, will arrive.

In the meantime, the court case, In-52 continue their difficult (in the truest sense of the word) service. Pending.

Moreover, after this accident, in contrast to the practice used in our aviation, no one even talks about a ban on B-52 flights. U.S. Aviation Minister Deborah James stated that “this is just an ordinary engine failure.” Investigations and flight stoppages will not ...

Wow, "the usual failure," can say understand the essence of the problem. When an airplane engine begins to pretend to be an aerial bomb, it is still not entirely normal.

But as they say, these are not our problems.

Yes, we have enough problems too. And, by the way, when discussing the problems of B-52 depreciation, very often, some “experts” draw parallels and analogies with our Tu-95.



But alas, “it’s not all that simple.” The Tu-95MS standing on duty today is not the aircraft that can be compared with the B-52. Still, it was developed at the end of the 70 of the last century, and production began with the 1985 year.

And those "carcass", which were the same age B-52, for a long time or museum exhibits, or written off and dismantled. Fact. All 66 Bears standing on armament are one of the hundreds of Tu-95MS that were issued. And in no way can you equate them with B-52, since they are younger than Boeing at least at 20 years.

It is worth recalling that the last of the 744 B-52, the “freshest”, B-52H with the serial number 61-0040, left the shops of the 26 plant in October 1962 of the year. And such goreyms left only 65 pieces.

Americans know how to conceal their defeats in ways that we never dreamed of. It is impossible to say exactly how much B-52 was lost for reasons of accidents and failures, there is information that more than a hundred, that is, every seventh. This is not counting the downed ones, on which our fighter pilots also worked very fruitfully at one time.

Meanwhile, it turns out that the youngest “strategist” of US aviation this year will be 55. The term, however, is comparable to a ship. And even then, not every ship or vessel can boast such longevity. Nevertheless, creak, but serve.

But purely fatigue phenomena is an indisputable fact today. System failures, fires, short circuits in wiring are the norm for veteran aircraft. True, the destruction of either the attachment system, or the engine nacelle itself is something new. And indicative.

Yes, two words about engines. Engines for the B-52 are also a problem. Pratt & Whitney has long ceased production. And when the need arose, it turned out that today the company was not able to start production again. The drawings, it turns out, were destroyed by a fire in the archive back in 1996.

An attempt was even made to adapt the engines from Boeing-52 to B-747. It did not work, the plane took off, it took off, but there was no one who wanted to accomplish such a feat for the second time.

Of course, there is some stock of motors in warehouses, in conservation. And on flightless aircraft. It is clear that they serve as donors. The question of whether they are enough for the 2040 year is open.

The future of US strategic aviation today looks somewhat hazy. Considering that its combat readiness is based on 66 B-52, you can be happy, because there is nothing good in this. For the USA.

If the “old men” start to pour in (and they start, nobody will cancel physics even for the US Department of Defense) due to the design fatigue, then they will be removed from service. And what will remain?

Falling questions of US strategic aviation


And there will be two dozen B-2 "Spirit". Everything. Some might argue that the United States has a B-63B "Lancer" 1 aircraft. Sorry, I do not agree. Still, the B-1B is more of a tactical bomber, not adapted today for the use of nuclear ammunition. And it is appropriate to compare it with the Tu-22M3, as it seems to me.


B-1B


Tu-22M3

The prospect of creating a B-21 is also not entirely clear. Its development is at the initial stage. Only in 2016, the developer was finally approved - Northrop Grumman. And immediately the scandals went, the initiator of many of them became all of us beloved Senator John McCain.

The hawk senator attacked the company with a mountain of accusations of greed and non-patriotism. After that, the budget seriously cut.

It is hard to say whether the B-21 creation program is expected to create an “inexpensive and beautiful aircraft in every respect”. Passions do not cease today.

“Independent experts” (strangely, but for some reason the US Air Force Command agrees with them) believe that the concept of a bomber was incorrectly chosen. And what to get 180 aircraft, and it is so much planned, on the cheap will not work. By the way, the question of cheapness is also important. Now its estimated price for one B-21 is 560 million dollars. But, as practice shows, it will subsequently rise again. 146%.

So the question of whether the hypothetical B-21 is really really cheap and beautiful is also open.

In general, it seems that the Americans intend to once again step on the same rake. I'm talking about the “cheap” F-35 fighter project, which is not so cheap, and not a very fighter. So far, it looks more like a budget fighter and a suitcase without a handle. But about the fighters, the conversation is special.

And yourself? And what about yourself? By the way, everything is not so sad here. You can even enjoy it.

Such a dead zone, as in the United States, is not noticed. Yes, our 66 Tu-95MS will serve another fifteen decades. And, I note, only come close to the threshold of the record B-52. But here, thanks to something there, the archives were not burning and the engines were regularly released.



And we really have what the States don't have.



TU-160. Yes, total 37. But 10 of them is planned to be upgraded to the level of Tu-160М by 2020 year. And with 2023, the production of 50 machines Tu-160М2 will begin.

Any doubts? Someone may be. But there is exactly the highlight that can spoil the American pie. Both Tu-95MS and Tu-160, firstly, have not been in operation for 55 years, and, secondly, we have everything we need for these tasks. A matter of time and money.

Yes, we have questions in the field of strategic long-range aviation. But they stand, not fall. And the prospect, I think, is more real.

And please note, I did not say a word about the development of PAK DA. Considering that Grumman is only starting to work on the creation of B-21, our work in this direction seems to be comparable.

But we, I repeat, have a Tu-160 ...
Author:
94 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Orel
    Orel 11 January 2017 06: 47
    +13
    Still, the B-1B is more of a tactical bomber, not adapted today for the use of nuclear weapons.


    In terms of the use of nuclear weapons, strategic aviation in the USA has not been a priority for 40 years. The bet was made on nuclear submarines - 60 percent of the warheads deployed in submarines on Trident II missiles. And tactical nuclear weapons have long been transferred to the jurisdiction of conventional Air Force aircraft, which are adapted to use almost everything. The remaining warheads in mine missiles. The United States needs strategists for the classic use of conventional weapons. Nuclear weapons are not their priority.
    1. Titsen
      Titsen 11 January 2017 07: 07
      +2
      Quote: Orel
      In terms of the use of nuclear weapons, strategic aviation in the USA has not been a priority for 40 years. The bet was made on nuclear submarines - 60 percent of the warheads deployed in submarines on Trident II missiles.


      You are absolutely right!

      And besides the Tridents, also TomoHavki!
    2. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 11 January 2017 09: 37
      +1
      I wonder what they are going to do with the Minuten heir? I did not understand if there was a program for them, although I heard a lot of announcements like a la B-21.
      1. Gray brother
        Gray brother 11 January 2017 19: 26
        0
        Quote: kugelblitz
        I did not understand if there was a program for them, although I heard a lot of announcements like a la B-21.

        There was, once upon a time, Peacekeeper but it turned out to be worse than the Minuteman in range. The last missile was removed from duty in 2005.
    3. 73bor
      73bor 11 January 2017 13: 55
      0
      Only the range of these conventional aircraft is in no way comparable to full-fledged strategists, and there is no survivability from the effects of air defense! And priorities have the ability to change with the arrival of the new administration, so they "combed" after seeing how our Tu "barmaleevs" were bombed, only as they say - "I wanted to get up and kick my teeth, but it turned out to fart and lie down!"
    4. drunkram
      drunkram 30 January 2017 12: 57
      0
      And tactical nuclear weapons have long been transferred to the conduct of conventional Air Force aircraft, which are adapted to use it almost all

      carry on passenger boards?
  2. Sars
    Sars 11 January 2017 06: 52
    +1
    The USA is real now - a viper without teeth.
    Their entire nuclear triad is rubbish and scrap. Many thanks to the American mafia dragging the military budget!
    1. Orel
      Orel 11 January 2017 07: 54
      +17
      Quote: SarS
      The USA is real now - a viper without teeth.


      Do not underestimate. This is mistake. The fleet and air force are still the best in the world. They have vast combat experience in local conflicts of varying intensity. They opposed the armies of entire states (Yugoslavia, Iraq - twice) and irregular partisan formations (Iraq after the occupation, Syria and Afghanistan). Land forces and marines of course over the past 15 years of wars, they suffered and abated, but do not discount them.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 11 January 2017 08: 25
        +7
        They opposed the armies of entire states

        Armies whose capabilities were at least an order of magnitude less than the capabilities of the US Army. What kind of confrontation are you talking about? About the execution of cities by hundreds of tomahawks? How many are they in Afghanistan already? And what have you achieved? Any going beyond the bases is fraught with losses. They dug in and sit like moles. That’s all the confrontation.
        1. Orel
          Orel 11 January 2017 08: 28
          +8
          Quote: Wedmak
          Armies whose capabilities were at least an order of magnitude less than the capabilities of the US Army. What kind of confrontation are you talking about? About the execution of cities by hundreds of tomahawks?


          Do you think it is smart to fight a very strong opponent and get on the head at the same time ???))) It's normal that they use force where they have a chance of victory and do not do it where the damage can be serious. For all the armies of the world this is customary. We, too, do not go particularly where we have no chance. At one time they fought against Georgia. I think it’s a valuable experience, and if you follow your logic, this is not a war at all, and so - Georgia and the army don’t have an easy walk))) So it doesn’t count.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 11 January 2017 08: 43
            +3
            Do you think it’s smart to fight a very strong enemy and get on the head at the same time ???)))

            Of course not. But talking about some kind of confrontation between the US Army and someone there is stupid. US forces can confront two countries - Russia and China. And then, due to the presence of nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles. The rest is just an annoying hindrance.
            But this is for now. Over the past 70 years, the US Army has not won a single conflict. True, this does not mean that the Americans did not achieve their goal. Their ground-based nuclear forces are rapidly aging. The "weapons of the future" programs are sucking up huge bucks, in fact, without giving anything significant. The ground forces are supported by the old, albeit modernized Abrams, Bradleys and others. The creation of a new tank seems to have begun, but only on paper. As well as a new strategist. We've all heard of fighters. New nuclear submarines are being developed, but the weapons there will be all the same - Trident 2. Avics and destroyers are still under construction, but they are effective again against countries without a fleet and anti-ship missiles. However, here too the byaka came out - the newest aircraft carrier is not ready for operation, and the newest iron destroyer generally gets stuck out of the blue.
            There is a clear failure - like there is technology, and there is money, and there seem to be not bad ideas. But there is no progress.
            1. Orel
              Orel 11 January 2017 09: 02
              +10
              Quote: Wedmak
              But talking about some kind of confrontation between the US Army and someone there is stupid.


              I disagree. Even in terms of logistics and planning, it is difficult to ensure successful military action against large countries such as Yugoslavia and Iraq. Therefore, it is necessary to take this into account and recognize it, and not discount it under the pretext: "So they were weaker than the United States."

              Quote: Wedmak
              US forces can confront two countries - Russia and China.


              Of course. I agree.

              But due to the weakness of the US Armed Forces, I will not support it. Yes, the air defense and ground forces in the modernized plan and in quality are behind us, but you do not take into account the difference in concepts and purpose. If we assume that we are preparing for a war with NATO, then the performance characteristics of our new weapons are understandable and logical, and the United States over the past 20 years has adjusted its forces to confront local wars with irregular formations, and in this regard, the performance characteristics of their weapons are also understandable and logical. If the United States begins to prepare for a confrontation with the Russian Federation, then believe me, the quality and composition of the armed forces will change greatly. Such a goal has not been for many years and I hope it does not appear. Despite our allegations in the media about the American threat in recent years. But the echoes of global superiority in the US Army remained. The same Sivulf - at least to our new boats is not inferior, or even superior. AUG is still okay (but that's traditional for the US). The same Trident II is the only ICBM capable of hitting missile launchers of ICBMs. No one in the world has this. In terms of range and weight of the payload, it is also beyond competition, and what reliability. For more than 20 years with more than a hundred launches - not a single failure. Therefore, we must look at what tasks the army is facing and to whom it should confront. Today there is no way to create an army against everything and everything, too different threats and ways to counter them. They created an army to counter irregular formations, we under a global war. Today is obvious. We are forming constant readiness divisions, and we are holding the largest military exercises in the world regularly. Neither the United States, nor Europe, nor China - such a dream. Not because they can’t, but because it was not necessary and I hope it will not be necessary. Although now they are turning towards the reorganization of their armed forces.
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 11 January 2017 09: 48
                +3
                Perhaps I did not put it clearly enough. I did not say that the United States has a weak army. It was about that strange modernization that they started - the concept of a quick global strike. Programs are aimed at creating some kind of super waffle, capable of gouging everything and everything in the radius of destruction - hypersound, EM gun, lasers, universal aircraft and ships.
                The truth is so far nifiga does not come out. But they continue to persist, spending incredible resources. Unclear.
                Same Trident II

                A new submarine is being developed for him. There was an article yesterday. But the question is - why develop a new medium for old weapons? And it will be old for the commissioning of the first boat. 2 Trident approximately corresponds to our P-29РМУ2 Sineva or its modifications - Liner. But Sineva is living out her term on the BDM and that's it. The solid fuel Mace - a new generation, is already on the Boreas. So why do US new submarines for old weapons? So far, only rumors are circulating about the new ICBM. And then, it seems about the land version.
                1. Orel
                  Orel 11 January 2017 10: 23
                  +3
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  The truth is so far nifiga does not come out. But they continue to persist, spending incredible resources. Unclear.


                  Here you are right, but money is "sawing" there too))) Everywhere there are lobbyists, but if a real threat arises, they will quickly put things in order there. While this apparently suits everyone.

                  Quote: Wedmak
                  The solid fuel Mace - a new generation, is already on the Boreas. So why do US new submarines for old weapons? So far, only rumors are circulating about the new ICBM. And then, it seems about the land version.


                  I think that everything will be limited to rumors. They do not seek from goodness. There is a Trident II rocket. She is good. The army is fine. It will be modernized, some systems will be replaced, but in fact there is no need for a new one. It makes no sense to compare "Bulava" and "Trident". Destination mace for overcoming missile defense. Hence the shorter range, throw weight, power and accuracy are not so, but we do not need it. This is a missile for overcoming missile defense. The situation in the United States is different. They do not need to overcome missile defense, but they still have a missile. Very reliable, mastered and tested. Until others have missile defense, they will not cut a new ICBM, although only God knows that. And the nuclear submarine must be built purely physically. They are not as durable as rockets.
                  1. Wedmak
                    Wedmak 11 January 2017 10: 32
                    +1
                    But it’s necessary to build nuclear submarines physically. They are not as durable as rockets.

                    Maybe. But they would build Ohio. Proven submarine. After all, any strategic nuclear submarines are not just submarines and missiles. This is a single complex. Well, they’ll build new boats, put Trident there. And then the team will come to make a new rocket, because ... well, they will find the reason. So what? create a new project or saw through half of the drawings from the boats under construction in order to cram a new, developing rocket?
                    Well, okay - fortunately this is not our headache.
                    1. Orel
                      Orel 11 January 2017 10: 54
                      +1
                      Quote: Wedmak
                      Maybe. But they would build Ohio. Proven submarine.


                      I agree, but I think that they have groundwork on nuclear submarines that they would like to test and for this it is better to make a new nuclear submarine, and for ICBMs they worked for many years mainly in the context of modernization of the existing one and there is no need to refuse it. Missile defense is not necessary, and the existing missiles will fly if necessary.
                      1. Wedmak
                        Wedmak 11 January 2017 11: 18
                        +1
                        and the existing missiles will fly if necessary.

                        Judging by our developments (Nudol + KA reconnaissance group + C-500), it is not a fact. Yelling from that side of the Atlantic is already heard.
              2. 73bor
                73bor 11 January 2017 14: 09
                +1
                That is, if something happens, the United States will show everyone! And in my opinion, the United States will not be able to show anything significant, the system of "effective management" in the United States is not capable of showing anything (managers cannot build ships and aircraft), name at least one tank plant in the United States, more than half of the components for Boeing are being made not on the territory of the United States, about Trident, you can not stutter; we have our own analogues, but to consume the budget, they are out of competition!
            2. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 11 January 2017 16: 02
              +2
              "Over the past 70 years, the US Army has not won a single conflict" ///

              Why, Saddam Hussein, is he alive? Milosevic - in power? Is the Taliban in power?
              What they need is achieved by military pressure. And there’s nothing to occupy the territory,
              - not the 19th century - just put the convenient leaders.
            3. Indifferent
              Indifferent 10 March 2017 13: 19
              0
              That's just the technology in the US and lost. Now they have completely disappeared mid-level engineers, on which any complex production is based. But they cannot invite Indians or Chinese to military production. Hence all the failures with the development of new and modernization of old equipment.
          2. Kirill750
            Kirill750 11 January 2017 09: 28
            0
            let me disagree with you. Ameronosos climb to where they don’t get on the head. Here’s their rule. Remember where we were in the 90s, but they didn’t climb something, they knew that they would receive although we had the army as if it weren’t. And now when we met with us The Black and Baltic Sea, they only let snot and dissolve complaints around the world Yes, they have good equipment but warriors (if you can call them that) are not to hell with the concept of duty and there is no oath only money and why do they go to the dead man and the conclusion is will receive or will receive at a minimum
            1. Orel
              Orel 11 January 2017 10: 31
              +7
              Quote: Cyril750
              Remember where we were in the 90s, but they didn’t climb something, they knew what they would receive, although we had an army as if it weren’t


              I honestly admit to you that both then and now I’m 200 percent sure that nobody needs us and nobody wants to capture us, bomb or enslave us. This simply cannot be explained by any logic or even its absence. Enough banal numbers of the same Iraq. It cost the United States trillions of dollars. A nightmare. It was so unprofitable that it threatened to undermine the combat effectiveness of all the ground forces, as there were cases of suicide, problems with alcohol and problems with recruiting for the army. Imagine that you need to occupy Russia. Yes it is impossible. You say that they can just bomb us and not occupy us, but this is also not. We have nuclear weapons, if there is a walk-field here, then nuclear weapons will reach anyone and voila - nuclear terrorism. Those. also no. They will fight with us only in one case - if we attack ourselves.
              1. mamuka
                mamuka 11 January 2017 16: 24
                +1
                IMHO. "Imagine that it is necessary to occupy Russia. But this is impossible" - in theory, it is not necessary for the states to occupy themselves - there may be a bunch of willing neighbors - Poland, Balts, Turks + mercenaries to drive in.
                although, break our army - China will come to Siberia, how it gets used to it and rises on resources - the Yankees can no longer cope with it.
                about the bad warriors - the losses they have in the Iraq-Yugoslavia are tiny, which means - not so bad + high-quality equipment also means a lot.
                the military spirit is of decisive importance when face to face with the enemy (you can die there): infantry, basically. Now all armies are moving away from this, even aviation and armored vehicles are developing systems for long-range destruction of targets - without entering the enemy's return fire zone, and here the Yankees with their computers, electronics, software, detection and analysis tools are "ahead of the rest", unfortunately
                1. Ace Tambourine
                  Ace Tambourine 21 June 2017 18: 31
                  0
                  The problem is not to conquer and occupy, but to restrain and control ...
                  We have not a single monarch, secretary general or president can still not fulfill the last point ...
                  Lord, may you go to the Southern Urals, I will give specific addresses, d. Avzyan Beloretsky r.na, d. Kiryabinka Uchalinsky r.na.
                  In these villages, cops and in Soviet times came to the wet business only to record what happened ... It was and is useless to look for the extreme ...
                  There is the law of the village, and if you do not fit into it, and even your fingers are bending ...
                  And around the mountains and forests for tens and hundreds of kilometers. Well, wild animals ....
                  Well, if you take Siberia and the Far East, then there is an order of magnitude more problematic ...
                  Therefore, I sincerely pity the naive Buanapartis, Aloisevich and others like them ...
                  Well trump with them ...

                  Sorry ...
            2. Orel
              Orel 11 January 2017 10: 39
              +3
              Quote: Cyril750
              Yes, they have good equipment, but warriors (if you can call them that) are not to hell with the concept of duty and oath, there is only money, but why are they for the dead


              I do not agree. They have bad warriors of course. I think that there are even a lot of them, but we have the same thing. And they have good fighters, and we have. Here you need to look objectively. I see it like that. In comparison with the USA, we look as follows:

              - air defense - stronger;
              - Ground forces - stronger or parity, but rather stronger;
              - Air Force - weaker;
              - The surface fleet is weaker;
              - The submarine fleet is weaker, in strategic nuclear submarines - parity as a whole;
              - EW - stronger;
              - Information technology - a little weaker, but so far;
              - High precision weapons - parity;
              - Stealth technology - weaker;
              - The possibilities for the global use of force are weaker;
              - Logistics is weaker;
              - Mobilization opportunities - weaker;
              - Economic potential is weaker;
              - The military potential is weaker;
              - nuclear weapons - parity;
              - Strategic aviation - weaker;
              - drones - weaker;
              - ABM is weaker.

              Think so. I invite everyone to offer my options. I see it that way.
              1. 73bor
                73bor 11 January 2017 14: 22
                0
                By what criteria was strategic aviation evaluated? If only by the number of carriers, then yes, and then not a fact (there are as many flying machines), but by the method of delivering charges we have a clear advantage, missile defense is also not a fact (no one saw this in action), the submarine fleet is also in question in the US only atomic ones are built!
              2. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 11 January 2017 15: 53
                +2
                "Precision weapons - parity;" ///

                Here you, in my opinion, flattered Russia. Americans got rid of NUR
                and free-falling bombs. All converted to accurate, or decommissioned.
                And in the arsenals of Russia uncontrollable weapons are so far the vast majority.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 11 January 2017 16: 45
                  +2
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  And in the arsenals of Russia uncontrollable weapons are so far the vast majority.

                  Difference of concepts. Their guidance system is a consumable part and is placed on the ammunition. Our emphasis is on improving the "non-consumable" PRNK carrier, in order to work with iron stocks for those purposes for which UAB is used over the hill. At the same time, high-precision power supplies are also used - but only where they cannot be done without them.
                  Taking into account the number of babays and the "average cost" of a target in Syria and Iran, our approach is still cheaper: it is better to throw "iron" with the help of "hefest" than to spend a missile for 110 evergreens on a target worth several thousand dollars.
                  In addition, we can recall the problems of the coalition in Libya, when a not very intense air campaign led to the fact that the arsenals of European guided weapons began to show the bottom.
                  1. voyaka uh
                    voyaka uh 11 January 2017 18: 58
                    +1
                    "Taking into account the number of babays and the" average cost "of the target in the same Syria and Iran, our approach is still cheaper: it is better to throw" iron "with the help of" hefest "////

                    Uh ... recourse Calculating correctly is not as easy as it seems. If we summarize the number of sorties for delivery, for example, 100 bombs, kerosene, maintenance, the number of workers, their salary during manufacture, their delivery from warehouses, etc.,
                    it may suddenly turn out that the only accurate bomb dropped
                    to a point from a single plane will be cheaper than those hundred ... But this is not so obvious ...

                    While there is a lot of finished "pig iron" in warehouses - everything is clear, it is cheaper.
                    But imagine: the warehouses are empty. What to produce: 100 cast iron or one accurate?
                    1. Shadowcat
                      Shadowcat 13 January 2017 05: 16
                      0
                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      Uh ... recourse is not as easy to calculate as it seems. If we summarize the number of sorties for delivery, for example, 100 bombs, kerosene, maintenance, the number of workers, their salary during manufacture, their delivery from warehouses, etc.,
                      it may suddenly turn out that the only accurate bomb dropped
                      to a point from a single plane will be cheaper than those hundred ... But this is not so obvious ...

                      And why not calculate the same smart bomb by the same concept?
                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      But imagine: the warehouses are empty. What to produce: 100 cast iron or one accurate?

                      But so far they are not empty ... + no one has canceled the shelf life + it is worth considering the possibility of mass production / availability of components / the number of explosives and the striking element.
                      And the cherry on top - which is more profitable against conditionally independent barmalei. Not exploding smart or not exploding cast-iron?
                  2. Gato
                    Gato 12 January 2017 00: 19
                    0
                    Speaking of stocks - the hamsters' mobility reserve in the USA during the Gulf War also began to experience some difficulties (even despite the presence of the National Guard, gee-gee)
              3. Gato
                Gato 12 January 2017 00: 03
                0
                And I see it (given that a direct confrontation is unlikely):
                - Air defense - stronger, but against what? Nuclear weapons air defense, and the rest will not reach
                - NE - RF on the continent, and the US Army is still sailing and sailing. Several EU divisions and Americans at the bases - not funny
                - The Air Force is weaker, yes. See air defense
                - The surface fleet is absolutely weaker
                - EW - controversial
                - Inform. technology - again controversial. They are made up of software and hardware. On the first point it is very, very controversial, on the second - yes
                - High-precision weapons - definitely weakens, and they are more accumulated
                - Stealth - it's not serious at all, see EW
                - The global use of force is an outdated term; the Russian Federation does not pretend to Australia or South Africa
                - Logistics - yes, potentially weaker, but again, depending on where.
                - Mob. potential is just ridiculous.
                - Military potential is a too general term, which can be considered only in a specific context. For example, Vietnam.
                - Strategic aviation - and to whom it tries. do you need? Bomb after the ICBMs arrive?
                - The UAV is still in its infancy, like combat aircraft in 1913. Everyone realizes that they have a future, but ... as always, we lag behind
                - PRO - it can’t. With an efficiency of even about 90%, an ICBM or a missile launcher with a nuclear weapon that has penetrated would be enough.
            3. INTA_VEGA
              INTA_VEGA 11 January 2017 13: 27
              +5
              Quote: Cyril750
              Yes, they have good equipment, but warriors (if you can call them that) are not to hell with the concept of duty and oath, there’s no money, but why do they want the dead man to reach you where they don’t get or get the minimum

              You have a very narrow-minded view of the Americans and their military. Both duty and oath mean a lot for them. Otherwise, an ordinary American simply will not go to "work" in his army, given the relatively small incomes of the US Armed Forces compared to a "citizen".
              Quote: Cyril750
              they climb out where they don’t get it or get it at a minimum

              And you propose to climb where they will get "in full", so it will be idiocy. The position of "running into and getting people" is unacceptable for our armed forces. Remember how Grozny 94 ended.
              Quote: Cyril750
              they only let snot and complaints around the world dissolve

              Tov. Orel poses a perfectly sound idea that we
              Quote: Orel
              nobody needs us and nobody wants to capture us, bomb or enslave us.

              All the hype around the "meetings" exists because of our suggestion and is not very much connected with the low combat capability of the US armed forces. In the "cold", such fun was a routine, now we are simply offended that they are afraid of North Korea with 1,5 bombs, but not smile
            4. Arikkhab
              Arikkhab 11 January 2017 14: 16
              +2
              "warriors (if you can call them that) do not go to hell with the concept of duty and there is no oath, only money"
              stupidity and total underestimation of the probable opponent. you can see right away that you have never crossed closely with real American soldiers in your life
          3. Rus2012
            Rus2012 11 January 2017 13: 06
            +1
            Quote: Orel
            Do you think it is smart to fight a very strong opponent and get on the head at the same time ???))) It's normal that they use force where they have a chance of victory and do not do it where the damage can be serious.
            For all the armies of the world this is customary. We, too, do not go particularly where we have no chance.


            ... I find this your statement as an ACT of defeatism and weakness!
            Especially with regard to the SA, the Red Army, the DNR-LNR Defense Forces ... and a number of armies and armed people of other countries, for example, Vietnam.
            If you come from your t.z. - then, Inna needs an army that is not able to withstand the aggressor and defend the country!
            For example, did the Red Army of the USSR fight the Wehrmacht - after all, the forces were clearly unequal, didn’t they surrender Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad from horseradish ?! Did Podolsky cadets and the 6 airborne company die?!?!
            ... etc., - everywhere the forces were unequal.
            1. Arikkhab
              Arikkhab 11 January 2017 14: 22
              +3
              "DPR-LPR Defense Forces" ...? with all due respect to the militia ...

              "did the USSR Red Army fight the Wehrmacht, because the forces were clearly unequal" ... it is clear that the advantage was on the side of the Red Army
            2. mav1971
              mav1971 11 January 2017 15: 09
              +1
              Quote: Rus2012
              Quote: Orel
              Do you think it is smart to fight a very strong opponent and get on the head at the same time ???))) It's normal that they use force where they have a chance of victory and do not do it where the damage can be serious.
              For all the armies of the world this is customary. We, too, do not go particularly where we have no chance.

              ... I find this your statement as an ACT of defeatism and weakness!
              Especially with regard to the SA, the Red Army, the DNR-LNR Defense Forces ... and a number of armies and armed people of other countries, for example, Vietnam.
              If you come from your t.z. - then, Inna needs an army that is not able to withstand the aggressor and defend the country!
              For example, did the Red Army of the USSR fight the Wehrmacht - after all, the forces were clearly unequal, didn’t they surrender Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad from horseradish ?! Did Podolsky cadets and the 6 airborne company die?!?!
              ... etc., - everywhere the forces were unequal.


              I perceive your words as a sign of misunderstanding of what people write.
              For your perception, the same thing:
              Beat a neighbor and fuck his wife and children
              Protect your children, your wife, yourself.
              In both cases, you see only one thing - a fight.
              And these are different things.
              And you give protective examples, interpreting them in attacking keys.
              Orel writes about the meaning of attacking someone stronger than you.
              You are talking about defense.
              Read carefully.
              1. Rus2012
                Rus2012 11 January 2017 17: 43
                0
                Quote: mav1971
                And you give protective examples, interpreting them in attacking keys. Orel writes about the meaning of attacking someone stronger than you.


                ... excuse me generously, but are we going to attack someone or are we making plans for the invasion ?! We have the whole Doctrine - defensive.
                And the stump of ash, that AGGRESSOR, and then the aggressor (thief, robber ...) that strong, or able to withstand death - will never climb (for example, SevKorea).
                If he suddenly climbs without calculating, he will expect a long wait (Vietnam, please).
                T.ch. all your and your opponent’s calculations - to the ass!
      2. Sars
        Sars 11 January 2017 10: 56
        0
        I’m talking about the nuclear triad:
        The Ohio class submarine fires one trident - for repair. Themselves "trident" in the last periods of operation.
        "Minutemans" are old.
        B-52, B-1B - decrepit (B-1B really look like peers B-52) .;
        Nuclear charges are older than 25.
        KR sea-based - the same.
        Fighter aircraft - of the same years (except for the miracle of the F-22, which does not fly above 7500).
        There remains a fleet with a missile defense system, which was used only "in greenhouse" conditions, like the Abrams before Syria.
        1. Orel
          Orel 11 January 2017 11: 00
          +3
          Trump promised to modernize everything. There is such an item in his program. So let's see.

          Quote: SarS
          Miracle F-22, which does not fly above 7500 meters


          This seems to me a misconception)))
        2. mav1971
          mav1971 11 January 2017 15: 10
          +2
          Quote: SarS
          I’m talking about the nuclear triad:
          The Ohio class submarine fires one trident - for repair. Themselves "trident" in the last periods of operation.
          "Minutemans" are old.
          B-52, B-1B - decrepit (B-1B really look like peers B-52) .;
          Nuclear charges are older than 25.
          KR sea-based - the same.
          Fighter aircraft - of the same years (except for the miracle of the F-22, which does not fly above 7500).
          There remains a fleet with a missile defense system, which was used only "in greenhouse" conditions, like the Abrams before Syria.


          What is your parallel universe ...
        3. Bayonet
          Bayonet 11 January 2017 18: 54
          +1
          Quote: SarS
          miracle F-22, which does not fly above 7500 meters

          Practical ceiling, m - 19812 smile
    2. Arikkhab
      Arikkhab 11 January 2017 14: 09
      +1
      you, in my opinion, somewhat underestimate the US Navy
    3. Bayonet
      Bayonet 11 January 2017 18: 48
      +3
      Quote: SarS
      Their entire nuclear triad is rubbish and scrap.

      Lord Thank you that normal people are sitting in our General Staff! winked
      1. Gato
        Gato 12 January 2017 00: 23
        +1
        Are you sure about that? laughing
  3. ares1988
    ares1988 11 January 2017 07: 08
    +10
    Error on error. The author, for starters: where did you find 37 TU-160 as part of the Russian Aerospace Forces?
    1. andj61
      andj61 11 January 2017 10: 33
      +3
      Quote: ares1988
      Error on error. The author, for starters: where did you find 37 TU-160 as part of the Russian Aerospace Forces?

      good Indeed, so much has not even been produced ... hi
  4. Filxnumx
    Filxnumx 11 January 2017 07: 22
    +9
    The article does not consider the fact that many (if not all) of the 65 B-52s in service were now in mothballing at that time. And although the conservation period is included in the service life, in this case it can be safely deleted from 55-three years. The storage conditions for aircraft in the Mojave Desert are almost ideal for putting an aircraft into operation, as the saying goes, "just brush off the dust." So the engine separation is rather a question of the correctness of the concept of technical operation and flight safety and the completeness of the implementation of this concept in ex activities.
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 11 January 2017 18: 04
      0
      Quote: Fil743
      And although the preservation period is counted into the service life, in this case it can be safely deleted from 55 for three years.

      ... interesting deffs dance!;)
      In your opinion - the device was rolled out and immediately for conservation ?;)))

      To begin with, they send for conservation on the basis of certain considerations, somehow -
      an excess of boards, insufficient funds for operation, narrowing the range of tasks to perform ... etc. etc.
      From conservation also derive from other considerations -
      lack of boards, the need for modernization to solve other problems ...

      By the way, our aviation technical services do exactly the same. Even sometimes based on old gliders - bringing them almost to new cars.
      1. Filxnumx
        Filxnumx 11 January 2017 21: 26
        0
        You may have been embarrassed by the grammatical mistake I made: instead of "deleting from 55рand years "I meant that from fifty five years the total service life of the aircraft being mothballed can actually be eliminated. I was in a hurry to go to work in the morning, there was no time to delete the "p". Naturally, immediately after release (and some of them after modernization from the B-52G), the B-52H was not put on storage, they flew for at least 20 years. The relatively massive storage began with the collapse of the USSR.
  5. svp67
    svp67 11 January 2017 07: 24
    +12
    HOORAY!!!!!!!!! Their engine fell off. We defeated them .... And it’s nothing that the plane did not crash, but landed and is to be restored, the main thing is MORAL SATISFACTION. And forget about the series of disasters with our Tu-95 only during the summer of 2015 during take-off and during a flight with human casualties, the main thing is that EVERYTHING FALLS OUT OF THEM ...
    1. FID
      FID 11 January 2017 09: 21
      +6
      Quote: svp67
      !! Their engine fell off.

      I apologize - the MOTOR fell off .... Otherwise, you are absolutely right.
      1. 1Markus
        1Markus 12 January 2017 02: 47
        0
        Quote: SSI
        I apologize - MOTOR fell off ....

        The tractor has a motor, and there is a turbine laughing
  6. Free wind
    Free wind 11 January 2017 07: 52
    +3
    In America, the B-52 is viewed as support, a bomber of this class will not be able to overcome air defense systems, therefore there will be no replacement, they do not need it. In America, several educational films for pilots are released every year, with a good video of take-offs and landings, with a debriefing and an explanation of the cause of the disasters, perhaps this case will be described.
    1. Sars
      Sars 11 January 2017 10: 59
      +1
      B-52 is the only American "strategist" that can use CD.
      B-2 and B-1Б are equipped only with freely falling bombs.
      1. Meliodous
        Meliodous 11 January 2017 12: 15
        +3
        No, B2 can even apply cr
        1. 73bor
          73bor 11 January 2017 14: 25
          0
          Maybe they just don’t have a CD for him, they didn’t develop it!
      2. mav1971
        mav1971 11 January 2017 15: 20
        +3
        Quote: SarS
        B-52 is the only American "strategist" that can use CD.
        B-2 and B-1Б are equipped only with freely falling bombs.


        Where do you get your text from?
        Do you repeat what you wrote on the fences?

        2010 year.
        B-1B Lancer - takes on board 24pcs KR AGM-158 JASSM-ER with a range of 1000km.
        DYESS AIR FORCE BASE, Texas: A Dyess Air Force Base B-1B Lancer carried a full load of 24 AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missiles on a flight over the Gulf of Mexico, Sept. 7 - a first for the B-1 and AGM-158.
        The B-2 Spirit takes on board 16 such CDs.
        The second most capable aircraft is the B-2 Spirit, carrying 16 JASMMs, followed by the B-52 Stratofortress with 12.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 11 January 2017 16: 57
          +1
          Quote: mav1971
          Where do you get your text from?
          Do you repeat what you wrote on the fences?

          In fact, everything is true. As a strategist (that is, during the operation of the UBC) the B-52 is indeed the only bomber capable of using the ALCM.
          For only he has the opportunity to use the ancient, but still living strategic AGM-86 ALCM with SBN (surviving even his successor - AGM-129). All other US strategic aviation bombers carry non-nuclear ALCMs.
          1. mav1971
            mav1971 12 January 2017 07: 25
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            All other US strategic aviation bombers carry non-nuclear ALCMs.

            The same B-1B can be transferred to CD carriers with a special warhead operation, the reverse transfer to non-nuclear.
            Those. the same notorious transfer of the partition in the weapons compartment to increase its volume and the installation of suspension units ..
            Suspension nodes - not destroyed.
            They are somewhere in warehouses.
            I do not think that this is an extremely complicated and impossible process.

            Do not forget. about hanging pylons for B-1B for hanging KR with special warheads - they also exist.
  7. Aquarius
    Aquarius 11 January 2017 08: 06
    +4
    It is a pity that we have only 16 TU-160 of 25 serial and 8 prototypes. Where did the author count 37?
  8. Wedmak
    Wedmak 11 January 2017 08: 20
    +3
    Tu-160. Yes, all 37.

    Excuse me, which 37 pieces are Tu-160 ???
    A total of 35 units were produced, including the 2 prototype. In service is 16 pieces. Two of which have been updated to the Tu-160M version. All aircraft underwent modernization and repair in the 2015 year.
    But we, I repeat, have a Tu-160 ...

    I would like to see a series of new-built cars already. Then you can sleep calmer.
    1. FID
      FID 11 January 2017 11: 10
      +1
      Quote: Wedmak
      including 2 prototypes.

      Sorry, THREE prototypes ...
    2. FID
      FID 11 January 2017 11: 11
      +4
      Quote: Wedmak
      Two of which have been updated to the Tu-160M ​​version.

      Are you sure??? Already updated? And up to ... 160M ???
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 11 January 2017 11: 20
        0
        Are you sure???

        For what I bought, for that I sell. So it’s written on the wiki. And I recall the rolling out of two modernized ones.
        1. FID
          FID 11 January 2017 11: 45
          +4
          It wasn’t, it was just after the CWR (overhaul repair) ...
  9. Ham
    Ham 11 January 2017 08: 54
    +1
    Americans scattered too many billions in 80-90-2000s on all sorts of wunderwales ... as a result, they were left without "workhorses" with expensive toys, each flight of which turns into a real rush for all services ...
    there it already reached some - what it threatens ...
  10. mav1971
    mav1971 11 January 2017 08: 56
    +6
    But with us, thanks to something there, the archives did not burn and the engines were regularly released.


    Are you sure of that?
    Something our Samara "Kuznetsov" (NK engines) has been trying for 20 years to restore the documentation and has not made more than 50% progress ...
  11. FID
    FID 11 January 2017 09: 16
    +6
    Novel, total (Tu-160) 37 - is this a joke? Or just, well, an order, or something else ????
    1. Ruslan67
      Ruslan67 11 January 2017 17: 22
      +6
      Quote: SSI
      37 is a joke?

      It seems no No. This is the current level of the site. First, knowledgeable people left. Then professional trolls spat and went to other resources. And for the rest, enough of this .....
      Hi drinks
      1. Gato
        Gato 12 January 2017 00: 51
        0
        And yet yes .. I declare as a knowledgeable troll drinks
    2. KKND
      KKND 11 January 2017 17: 57
      +2
      This is the propaganda made by our clumsy Pinocchio bark beetles. A novel is thinner. You need to work thinner ...
  12. Alex_59
    Alex_59 11 January 2017 09: 33
    +6
    Strange article.
    If the "old people" begin to crumble (and they begin, no one will cancel physics even for the US Department of Defense)
    Physics will not be canceled, and the extension of the resource will be carried out and will fly. A dead engine, if it was, is not an indicator.
    But with us, thanks to something there, the archives did not burn and the engines were regularly released.
    Do not release. Overhauls.
    And from 2023 of the year, the production of 50 Tu-160М2 machines will begin.
    And they will assemble 2 cars a year at best, and they will finish this series in 50 cars by the 2050 year. Because even in Soviet times, airplanes of such complexity with established cooperation, with the best personnel and unlimited funding were not made faster. And for the 2050 year, the time for the complete decommissioning of all Tu-95MS, all Tu-22М3 and all Tu-160 Soviet-built will just come. And in some 2070 year, our long-range aviation will all be shrunk in these 50 Tu-160M. And the adversary will have 20 B-2 and 60 B-1B, and there may be some new B-21.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 11 January 2017 09: 51
      0
      And in some 2070 year, our long-range aviation will all be shrunk in these 50 Tu-160M

      Do not forget PAK YES. The program is not closed, and it looks like this project will be in addition to the Tu-160. Having replaced both Tu-95MS and Tu-22М3.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 11 January 2017 10: 05
        +4
        Quote: Wedmak
        Do not forget PAK YES. The program is not closed, and it looks like this project will be in addition to the Tu-160.

        Well, yes, we are rich, give both PAK YES and Tu-160M. Even the USA cannot afford this.
        Ideally, you had to forget about the Tu-160 - well, who will need it in 2050 and after? This is how today the Tu-4 begin to operate. Tu-160 production and Soviet cooperation are dead. But we decided to rape the corpse, instead of creating a new technology for PAK DA from scratch as soon as possible. And we are also spraying forces on the Tu-160M. Honestly, it’s hard to believe in PAK YES, because if you draw an analogy with the clearly utopian plans for the Tu-160M, everything in conditional quantities will turn into metal after 2070 year. In air-conditioned - this means that at least a regiment in full force will achieve combat readiness.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 11 January 2017 10: 15
          0
          Well, who will need it in 2050 and after?

          There would have survived until 30. And from the Tu-160 there will be only a glider, the entire filling will be replaced. What is logical, why change a good and thoughtful glider? Well, maybe something will be added there, optimized. Let’s say they will make a single weapons compartment for suspending hypersonic missiles.
          Honestly, in PAK YES it is hard to believe

          In fact, starting the production of Tu-160М2, the plants will be preparing for the release of PAK YES. Run in technologies, materials, assembly methods, etc.
          instead of starting from scratch to create a new technology for PAK YES as soon as possible.

          From scratch, no one has been creating anything for a long time. Old developments and forward are taken as a basis. But with PAK YES there is one caveat - this is a subsonic strategist such as a wing. Previously, we did not have such developments. So while they will cut PAK YES, the Tu-160М2 will serve as the basis for the long-range combat capability.
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 11 January 2017 10: 33
            +2
            Quote: Wedmak
            So while they will cut PAK YES, the Tu-160М2 will serve as the basis for the long-range combat capability.

            While they will cut PAK YES, the resources of the already existing TU-95MS and Tu-160 will suffice for the eyes.
            Quote: Wedmak
            In fact, starting the production of Tu-160М2, the plants will be preparing for the release of PAK YES. Run in technologies, materials, assembly methods, etc.

            Yes, this is all garbage, what kind of "prepare"? Two completely different aircraft. After the Tu-160, it will be necessary to rebuild the entire production for several years, to change all the equipment, technological maps, part of the machines and tools, to retrain people. Rivets are one thing, honeycomb bulk composites are another - you can't knock with a mallet.
            It’s just that our people realized that the donut hole, and not PAK YES, is coming out in the near future, and we decided to do something to sweeten the pill. But our great leaders, apparently when they made this decision, did not know that re-issuing Tu-160 documentation in numbers and restoring production would be at a price close to that from scratch for PAK YES. As a result, it has two strategists, almost equally expensive, but one, clearly more promising, is postponed to the 2 half of the 21 century. What for? Unclear.
        2. arkadiyssk
          arkadiyssk 11 January 2017 14: 13
          0
          Well, in the renewal of the TU-160, the idea is actually not bad or even forced. Prior to the approach of the project, PAK_DA will allow resuming cooperation between suppliers, training personnel, setting up equipment, working out materials, and then a new project can be produced immediately. This is a type of restart ArlyBerkov - they resume the production of a series of ships from version IIA in anticipation of the project of the III series. One of course, the problem as you noted is the problem of money, which is not a fact that there is.
          1. Bayonet
            Bayonet 11 January 2017 19: 07
            0
            Quote: arkadiyssk
            Well, in the renewal of the TU-160, the idea is actually not bad or even forced.

            Because the adoption of the PAK DA in the foreseeable future is not expected.
  13. Old26
    Old26 11 January 2017 09: 45
    +8
    I apologize, Roman, but you are in many places, sorry, shit rubbish.
    Why did you get that
    TU-160. Yes, total 37. But 10 of them is planned to be upgraded to the level of Tu-160М by 2020 year. And with 2023, the production of 50 machines Tu-160М2 will begin.

    If the total number of vehicles, including prototypes, was made less than you indicate, as standing in service. How much is planned (or rather how many will be upgraded) to the level of 160M, we will find out in 2020. Further

    You write that
    Still, the B-1B is more of a tactical bomber, not adapted today for the use of nuclear weapons.

    Can you find out what gave you the opportunity to think so? In terms of its flight technical parameters, it is an analogue of the TU-160. The fact that it was created to replace the B-52 suggests that it is a strategic bomber. Yes, since 1993, he has undergone a number of upgrades under the CMUP program, which allowed him to use not only nuclear, but also conventional weapons, including precision ones. But this did not make his possibilities of using nuclear weapons disappear anywhere. He can use nuclear bombs even now. Cruise missiles are a separate song and we are talking about the so-called. "modernization" of the B-1B, which, according to the Americans, "will not allow the use of ALCM" we have been butting with them for 20 years, no less. What was this upgrade, I hope you know ...

    The prospect of creating a B-21 is also not entirely clear. Its development is at the initial stage. Only in 2016, the developer was finally approved - Northrop Grumman. And immediately the scandals went, the initiator of many of them became all of us beloved Senator John McCain.

    The prospect of creating the B-21 is as clear as the prospect of creating our counterpart PAK DA. And in that, and in another case there is only a concept and a hypothetical appearance. And in fact, and in another case, work at the very initial stage.

    So the question of whether the hypothetical B-21 is really really cheap and beautiful is also open.

    I can't say anything about "beauty", but about "cheapness" I can express my opinion. Such a cheap plane WILL NOT BE. And no matter what it is called: B-21 or PAK YES. In any case, it will be more expensive than standing in service. How much? This is another question. But even here, comparing prices it is nevertheless worth being more correct and accurate with numbers. And then you read any material on the network and the enemy gives the cost of the program, without indicating the cost per unit, for us - the cost per unit. The figures certainly vary many times, if not tens ..
  14. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 11 January 2017 11: 38
    +1
    Where do 37 Tu-160s come from? There were so many of them at the time of the collapse of the USSR. And 10 of them managed to be put under the guillotine in Priluki. And one catastrophe suffered :(

    Now in the composition of the DA Russia (taking into account the completion of the reserve) - less than 20 "White Swans"
  15. Disorder
    Disorder 11 January 2017 13: 36
    0
    Yes, two words about engines. Engines for the B-52 are also a problem. Pratt & Whitney has long ceased production. And when the need arose, it turned out that today the company was not able to start production again. The drawings, it turns out, were destroyed by a fire in the archive back in 1996.

    Did the Abrams have their engine blueprints also burned out?
    An interesting trend. "Saturn-5" is also impossible to revive, since the documentation has not survived either, in general.
  16. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 11 January 2017 13: 56
    +3
    "It is impossible to say exactly how much B-52 was lost due to accidents and failures,
    there is information that more than a hundred "///

    Very possible. Each issued B-52 has a number and a name.
    About each issue, you can find information what is wrong with it.

    Dial:
    List of B-52 Units of the United States Air Force ... and enjoy fellow
  17. Arikkhab
    Arikkhab 11 January 2017 14: 07
    0
    that's what I don't understand, why do Americans need "strategists" at all ... creation, maintenance and operation cost a lot of money ... drove an aircraft carrier to the right place and how many bombs would fit ... bombing strategic targets in the rear of Russia or China? so air defense) will not even let you get close
  18. Region39
    Region39 11 January 2017 15: 45
    +3
    I don’t understand the author ... why is it so worried ... ??? What did the author of this article want to show .. ??? Well, the engine fell off from them, and to hell with it, let them fall off a hundred more, and let the bombers themselves fall apart, why the author is so worried about the problems of American aviation, in his native or not ... ??? Or maybe the author is trying to convince society that the Americans are so bad that Russia can relax and spit on the ceiling ... ???
  19. evgenii67
    evgenii67 11 January 2017 16: 40
    0
    Tu-160 only 35 pieces were launched, armed with -16 units. not 37 as the author claims.
  20. pogis
    pogis 11 January 2017 17: 10
    0
    In general, have there been such cases in the history of aviation?
  21. KKND
    KKND 11 January 2017 17: 55
    +4
    The article is a mixture of half-truths and outright lies. Everything is according to the precepts of the "Ministry of Truth". There is nothing more to discuss
  22. Status
    Status 11 January 2017 21: 23
    0
    The author actually believes that we have 37 pieces of TU 60? request I haven’t been so surprised for a long time ..... if, unfortunately, they are 20 (21) fewer ...
  23. Gato
    Gato 12 January 2017 00: 46
    0
    Quote: Orel
    This seems to me a misconception)))

    Not really. He can fly, but it is very expensive. After 2 hours of flight at a speed of about 1M, you have to completely replace the anti-radar coating - and this is VERY expensive.
  24. EvilLion
    EvilLion 12 January 2017 16: 18
    0
    37 Tu-160 was released in total. Some of them, thanks to Ukraine, were cut.
  25. Kovlad
    Kovlad 12 January 2017 17: 52
    0
    The article is neither a plus nor a minus, from me. Not a designer of aircraft, a simple fitter-assembler of aircraft. Yes. You can chuckle, throw insulting comments. This will be fine. In love with aviation. Nevertheless, it is purely my opinion that the era of aviation in its current forms is coming to an end. And it is not for nothing that we and the United States forcedly stopped on the development of aviation at this stage when the operation of enough ancient aircraft is considered the norm. Further development is a slightly improved form, and often due to the electronic component.
    Well, I just don’t know if aerodynamics have already reached the top?
  26. AllXVahhaB
    AllXVahhaB 16 January 2017 13: 53
    0
    And from 2023 of the year, the production of 50 Tu-160М2 machines will begin.

    At what production base?
  27. lance
    lance 16 June 2017 20: 15
    0
    it took only six months to read the article and was surprised how much everything has changed, with a minimum of costs of the Russian Federation. pvo-stably higher. our mobilization and redeployment simply frighten the United States and from there, the answer is more than databases, but there are 5-10 thousand of them. person? strategists allow us to solve problems with the movement of nuclear weapons from Brest to Vladivostok (we are not going to attack first). our suns are developing more dynamically and in fact it is they that make it clear to any aggressor (including bl. east) that you can get it fully even in Africa, thanks to the submarine fleet, it all depends on the gdp. high-precision weapons are simpler and more stable. The United States recognized supremacy. The United States itself realized that it was starting to miss the initiative, and it was impossible to deny one of their huge military-industrial potential.