Military Review

The Nationnal Interest: Why Russia, China and North Korea Should Be Afraid of the American B-21 Bomber

106
Two years ago american aviation The industry has begun to create the promising strategic bomber Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider. The first car of this type will have to go to tests only after a few years, however, certain evaluations of a promising project are already being expressed, and attempts are also being made to predict further events.


October 27 The National Interest published an article by Kyle Mizokami titled “Why Russia, China and North Korea Bomber Bomber” (“Why Russia, China and North Korea should be afraid of the American B-21 bomber”). As the title shows, the publication is devoted to the latest B-21 project and the consequences of the emergence of such equipment in the context of the international military-political situation.



At the beginning of his article K. Mizokami recalls the events of the recent and distant past. October 27 2015, the company Northrop Grumman received a contract to develop a promising low-profile bomber B-21 Raider. However, he notes that approximately 35 years before the signing of the contract for B-21, a previous agreement of this kind was concluded, the result of which was the B-2 Spirit aircraft.

The author is forced to note that at the moment many details of the new project are shrouded in mystery. At the same time, part of the information has already been published. Having some information about the future of B-21, one can draw certain conclusions, which the American journalist suggests.

The official designation of the bomber - B-21 Raider - has a curious origin. The numbers point to the 21st century, and the additional name is reminiscent of the legendary 1942 operation of the year. During World War II, a B-25 Mitchell bomber detachment commanded by General James "Jimmy" Doolittle attacked a number of targets on the territory of the Japanese islands. Among other things, the bombs were dropped on Tokyo. Recalling Reid Doolittle, the US Air Force points to the boldness of this attack, the strategic and tactical surprise, as well as the unique length of the route overcome by the “raiders”.

As the image of the B-21 aircraft, officially published by the US Air Force, shows, the new project involves the construction of a bat-like type of flying vehicle. At the same time, the new B-21 should have a certain similarity to the existing B-2. However, the two aircraft are significantly different from each other.

K. Mizokami draws attention to the layout of the power plant. On the new bomber, the engines will be placed closer to the rudimentary fuselage, while the General Electric F118-GE-100 engines of the B-2 aircraft are located at a certain distance from the central section of the airframe. The new project involves the use of oblique air intakes instead of "serrated", used in serial equipment. In addition, the promising B-21 will receive means of cooling the jet gases of engines, designed to reduce visibility in the infrared range. Curiously, such devices were present in the early images of the future B-2, but they were not included in the final draft.

A prospective bomber looks like an existing B-2 car, and, apparently, will also be four-engine. In 2016, Pratt & Whitney was selected as a subcontractor and will have to make engines for the new B-21. Modified versions of the F-100 and F-135 turbojet engines are considered as the power plant for this aircraft. The relatively old F-100 used on the F-15 Eagle fighter jets looks like the right choice. However, instead, the customer can choose a modification of the F-135, installed on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter fighter jets. This will allow both to obtain the required characteristics and reduce the cost of production of engines for two aircraft.

Like its predecessor, the new Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider will be a heavy strategic bomber capable of carrying nuclear and conventional weapons. If it does not differ from B-2 in size, then there is reason to believe that the payload will remain at the same level. In addition, the B-21 can store two load units. K. Mizokami believes that the aircraft can be equipped with Advanced Applications Rotary Launcher drum launchers already used on B-2 machines. Each such product carries eight rockets of one type or another.

To solve special problems, the B-21 can carry nuclear weapon. In this case, his ammunition will include cruise missiles Long-Range Stand-Off (LRSO), characterized by low visibility for the means of detecting the enemy. In addition, compatibility with B61 tactical bombs, including their latest version B61-12, will be ensured. It is possible to combine weapons of different types. In this case, LRSO missiles will be used to destroy air defense facilities and break through to the main objectives. The latter, respectively, will be destroyed by guided bombs.

In "normal" combat missions, the B-21 will be able to use a wide range of conventional ammunition. He will be able to carry a JASSM-ER cruise missile, as well as a GBU-31 Joint Directed Attack Munition guided bombs in 2 caliber thousand pounds. The author believes that in the case of non-nuclear weapons, the strategy of consistent use of missiles and bombs can be used: the first will help make the “passage” in the enemy's air defense system, and the second will fly directly to the specified targets. As an alternative, we can consider the possibility of using only bombs or only rockets in one sortie.

Also, the GBU-57A / B Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb should enter the Raider’s nomenclature of weapons. This item weighs 30 thousand pounds (14 t), and currently it can only be carried by a B-2 bomber. Thus, in a promising project, it should be possible to use the most severe American aviation weapons that do not have a large number of carriers.

K. Mizokami points out that the air force commissioned Northrop Grumman to develop and build a bomber that uses the principles of an open software and hardware architecture. Thus, unlike previous cars in its class, the new B-21 can be more than just a bomber. The specifics and features of the required architecture should ensure the possibility of simple and quick hardware updates, as well as facilitate the integration of new tools. Thanks to this, the aircraft can be quickly and easily adapted to new missions of one kind or another.

For example, in the cargo hold, in addition to weapons, it will be possible to place surveillance devices, target designation, etc. In addition, B-21 can become a carrier of special communications equipment, unmanned aircraft complex, electronic intelligence systems or electronic warfare systems. All this will allow to solve various combat missions in a variety of conditions, including with active opposition from the enemy. In general, according to the author, the current implementation of plans in the context of an open-air equipment architecture in the future may make the B-21 the world's first multi-purpose bomber.

According to open data, the first flight of the promising strategic bomber-missile carrier Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider will take place in the middle of the next decade. In the future, the United States Air Force intends to buy at least hundreds of such aircraft. This technique will replace the existing B-52H Stratofortress and B-1B Lancer models. The possibility of building and buying two hundred new bombers is not excluded. However, the fate of the second hundred aircraft is directly related to the size of the military budget and the financial capabilities of the customer.

The author of The National Interest, making a number of assumptions about the future of B-21, recalls that there is currently no detailed information on this subject. How exactly this car will look like - experts and the public do not yet know. Now the Air Force and the developer seek to maintain secrecy and carefully protect information about it. This situation may persist over the next few years, up to the publication of official data or the first display of the finished car.

Thus - sums up Kyle Mizokami - the new B-21 Raider is temporarily dissolved in the darkness of secret military technologies, and will be released "again into the light" only when it is ready.

***

It should be noted that the project of the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider strategic bomber is indeed one of the most interesting American programs of the present. The US Air Force is planning a cardinal renewal of its strategic aviation, which is supposed to be carried out with the help of technology of the most original appearance with special capabilities. For this reason, it is to be expected that interesting ideas of one kind or another will be implemented in the B-21 project.

For obvious reasons, the customer and the contractor are in no hurry to disclose all their plans and publish the technical details of the new project. Nevertheless, some fragmentary information has already become known from official and unofficial sources. In addition, an official image of the future aircraft was published, reflecting the current status of the project. However, the actual results of the project may differ markedly from those previously planned.

The lack of detailed technical and tactical information turns out to be a good basis for the emergence of various assessments. So, in his article “Why Russia, China and North Korea Should Fear America’s B-21 Bomber,” the author of The National Interest is trying to predict what kind of power plant a promising machine will receive. In addition, he presented an exemplary range of weapons suitable for use by Raider aircraft. Did K. Mizoki manage to make correct predictions - it will be known later, after the appearance of official information.

A curious feature of an article in The National Interest appears when comparing the title with the material itself. The name of the publication states that Russia, China and the DPRK should be afraid of the new aircraft, and besides, it promises to explain why. At the same time, the article itself does not mention any third countries, and it only considers the tactical and technical features of the prospective project. Apparently, the reader is invited to consider the possible appearance and expected capabilities of the B-21 bomber, and then independently draw conclusions in the context of its role in the context of containing Russia, China or North Korea. The author, however, does not express his opinion on this matter.

Obviously, the promising B-21 bomber, entering serial production and starting service in combat units, will in a certain way affect the balance of power in the world - as always happens when new types of weapons and equipment for strategic nuclear forces appear. However, these events still relate to a rather distant future, and the available information does not allow making accurate predictions. Perhaps the future B-21 Raider can really disturb Moscow, Beijing and Pyongyang. But the reasons for this fear at the moment are not completely clear, and full-fledged conclusions on this issue can only be made in the future.


The article “Why Russia, China and North Korea B-21 Bomber”:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/why-russia-china-north-korea-should-fear-americas-b-21-22925
Author:
106 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. viktorch
    viktorch 31 October 2017 15: 09 New
    +3
    I read the article that they’ll not be able to develop a beaver,
    in fact, the useful meaning of the article is that amers are designing a new beaver that will probably have the B-21 index

    what kind of tasks spiritists and lancers cannot accomplish is not clear what the focus of the new beaver will be - fog, the usa already has three strategists, is it about replacement? or a conceptually new car? no information.
    1. Soran
      Soran 31 October 2017 15: 12 New
      +2
      Spiritists cannot complete the task of saving the budget. Here they will make a new cheaper one in the production of bomber, rivet 200 pieces then and heal.
      1. viktorch
        viktorch 31 October 2017 15: 16 New
        +2
        Spirits - it’s an extravaganza rozpil in American that does not change the fact of the only in the world stealth strategist, which the horseradish to intercept before launch cr.
    2. NIKNN
      NIKNN 31 October 2017 18: 06 New
      +5
      Quote: viktorch
      it is not clear what the emphasis of the new beaver will be

      Well said clearly.
      in project B-21 interesting ideas of one kind or another will be realized.
      request
    3. papas-57
      papas-57 31 October 2017 20: 22 New
      +6
      As I understand it, the V-21 will be given a deep modernization of the V-2 with payment as for a new plane. The dough will be sawn unmeasured. Beauties !!!
  2. Firework
    Firework 31 October 2017 15: 11 New
    +2
    I wonder if the United States will agree to sell its B-2 to anyone of its allies?
    1. viktorch
      viktorch 31 October 2017 15: 14 New
      +4
      Who needs him so beautiful? all the more for those grandmothers who go to him, he should be able to bomb attacks on Mars.
  3. Livonetc
    Livonetc 31 October 2017 15: 17 New
    +2
    Of course everyone is afraid.
    When shot down, the fall of such a crocodile to the ground guarantees multiple destruction.
    1. Looking for
      Looking for 31 October 2017 17: 02 New
      -1
      is it in honor of what?
  4. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 31 October 2017 15: 40 New
    +4
    "If it does not differ from the B-2 in size,
    that is, reason to believe that the payload will remain at the same level "////

    Like, they wrote that it will be smaller in size. And even more "stealth".
    4 motors from the F-35 will give more traction.
    In general, the smaller one is B-2, but more frisky.
    1. ImPerts
      ImPerts 31 October 2017 16: 36 New
      +5
      Quote: voyaka uh
      It seems they wrote that it will be smaller in size

      They themselves have not decided. It can be much more, and maybe less.
      Quote: voyaka uh
      And even more stealth

      Superman flies, sees a beautiful naked girl lying on the roof, well, she thinks, now I am her ... He flew up, he did things and washed off. An invisible man rises from the beauty, she asks: - What was it. The Invisible Man: - Yes, I don’t know, but ... Pa still hurts.
    2. Soho
      Soho 1 November 2017 05: 12 New
      +3
      voyaka uh Yesterday, 15:40
      4 motors from the F-35 will give more traction.
      In general, the smaller one is B-2, but more frisky.

      but why is playfulness a spiritual? everything is fine and normal with cruising. A more gluttonous 135th will require an increase in fuel tanks to maintain the radius of a combat turn. For supersonic flights like the Tu160 Spirit did not come out with a snout (or rather, aerodynamic quality).
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 1 November 2017 11: 19 New
        0
        "More gluttonous 135y will require an increase in fuel tanks" ////

        On the contrary. The 135th has a special economy mode. This allows,
        in particular, F-35 to overcome greater distances at cruising mode
        0.8-09 MAX
        1. Soho
          Soho 1 November 2017 12: 48 New
          +1
          On the contrary. The 135th has a special economy mode. This allows

          This special mode is called dual-circuit. The "hundred" also has it.
  5. NEXUS
    NEXUS 31 October 2017 15: 46 New
    +5
    "Why Russia, China and North Korea Should Fear America's B-21 Bomber" ("Why Russia, China and North Korea Should Be Afraid of the American B-21 Bomber"

    It will be interesting to listen to this author when the first TU-160M2 takes off de facto. Then we’ll see who will be afraid of whom.
    1. raw174
      raw174 1 November 2017 06: 32 New
      +4
      Quote: NEXUS
      when the first TU-160M2 takes off

      I’m afraid that when it takes off, the United States will have a swarm of new aircraft ... Won the T-50 still can’t take off (in terms of supply to the troops), the T-14 is the coolest and there are no analogues, but there’s no tank in no troops, until 20 ... they’ll put in one unit and will be chasing parades ...
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 1 November 2017 10: 58 New
        +2
        Quote: raw174
        I’m afraid that when it takes off, the United States will have a swarm of new aircraft ...

        Yeah ... at a price of 2 lard apiece? Well, well ...
        Quote: raw174
        The T-50 won still can’t take off (in terms of supply to the troops),

        Before writing such nonsense, you would have looked at how much the Raptor was mocking, and how many the F-35 mumbled. And then they wrote for the SU-57.
        Quote: raw174
        the T-14 tank is the coolest and there are no analogues, but there is no tank in the troops, until 20 ...

        Is it nothing that the T-14 was first shown in 15? Or do you think that the creation of a new combat platform is a trifle? In terms of everything is going as it should and even faster.
        Quote: raw174
        years put in one piece and will be chasing parades ...

        100 vehicles will be sent to the troops for military trials in 18, after which a series will be launched. By the year 25, maybe 500 can be riveted. The main tank for the next 10 years will be the T-90, and the T-14 will be purchased in small batches, bringing the number to 2300 .
        1. raw174
          raw174 1 November 2017 12: 28 New
          +2
          Quote: NEXUS
          Yeah ... at a price of 2 lard apiece? Well, well ...

          Yes, they do not care! Well, printing greens will take a little more time ...
          Quote: NEXUS
          Before writing such nonsense, you would have looked at how much the Raptor was mocking, and how many the F-35 mumbled. And then they wrote for the SU-57.

          Why bullshit? Today, their 5th generation has successfully gone into series and is quite capable of fighting in a considerable quantity, and the SU-57 are ten experienced ones, if I am not mistaken? As they say chickens in the fall consider, well, the autumn has come, the count is not in our favor ... request sad
          Quote: NEXUS
          Is it nothing that the T-14 was first shown in 15? Or do you think that the creation of a new combat platform is a trifle?

          They simply presented it so that the machine had already passed all the tests and was ready for the series and the troops, two and a half years passed, but it was not in the troops. Let's hope that in reality they will get into operation in sufficient numbers not by 3017, but a little earlier.
          Quote: NEXUS
          100 vehicles will be sent to the troops in the year 18 for military trials. After them a series will go. By the year 25, maybe 500 can rivet.

          Fine, if that be so ...
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 1 November 2017 14: 36 New
            +3
            Quote: raw174
            Yes, they do not care! Well, printing greens will take a little more time ...

            A big mistake ... they would not care, they would not rivet Spirit 20 pieces.
            Quote: raw174
            Why bullshit? Today, their 5th generation has successfully gone into series and is quite capable of fighting in a considerable quantity, and the SU-57 are ten experienced ones, if I am not mistaken?

            Well, you’re in a hurry like in case of diarrhea ... well, take a look at how many Lizards were planed and how many F-35s, and see how many SU-57s ... and do not write this frank nonsense anymore. Regarding the F-35 ... it’s not necessary to take a “raw” unfinished car into service and put into production, but only after 300 cars, “finalizing with a file” is probably much easier than at the 10 prototype stage.
            Quote: raw174
            They just presented it so that the machine has already passed all the tests and is ready for the series and the troops, two and a half years have passed, but it is not in the troops

            You wrote this, apparently very far from the production and construction of new weapons systems.
            In the USSR, with its industrial power, the creation of a NEW (not modernization of the old platform) tank took 4-5 years. For deep modernization 2 years.
            1. raw174
              raw174 1 November 2017 14: 53 New
              +2
              Quote: NEXUS
              A big mistake ... they would not care, they would not rivet Spirit 20 pieces.

              Well, I don’t know ... aircraft carriers rivet, nuclear submarines ... With their budget, as well as the budgets of the allies who will purchase these products ...
              Quote: NEXUS
              Well, you are in a hurry like in case of diarrhea ...

              so we lag behind! I repeat, we are LAGING behind in the aviation and navy (the navy will not even catch up with the USA in a bright future) and we should hurry ...
              Quote: NEXUS
              You wrote this, apparently very far from the production and construction of new weapons systems.

              Generally not a production worker ... But why so much bragging and a pump? So while we put it in operation, the partners also rivet something ... They somehow boast less and do more, I won’t be surprised that by 2015 they will present the finished sample, and by 2030 they will deliver them one and a half ...
              We will live, we will see ...
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 2 November 2017 23: 48 New
                0
                Quote: raw174
                So while we put m into operation, the partners also rivet something ...

                To start riveting something tomorrow, it is necessary to develop something today.
                1. raw174
                  raw174 3 November 2017 06: 26 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Setrac
                  To start riveting something tomorrow, it is necessary to develop something today.

                  Do you think they are sitting exactly? Surely not today, tomorrow, they will announce the start of testing something new. Our media and more and more often here, in VO, already win everyone with the help of PAK YES, we love to boast about what is not and when it will be, we do not even remotely represent it ...
        2. parma
          parma 3 November 2017 11: 47 New
          +1
          In order for the T-90 to become the BASIC tank in the Russian Federation, you need to either write off a lot of T-72 or assemble even more T-90 .... The first is always possible, but the second is not and never will be! The MO-T-90’s decision not to collect new ones! The main tank (and most likely not for 10 years, but more) will be the T-72!
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 3 November 2017 12: 57 New
            +3
            Quote: parma
            For the T-90 to become the BASIC tank in the Russian Federation, you need to write off a lot of T-72

            Seriously? And how many T-72s are not in service with us in storage?
            In 2017, 2700 tanks were in service with the Russian Armed Forces, 17500 tanks are in storage

            Moreover, out of these 2700 pieces, there are about 400 T-90 (various modifications) and T-80 (various modifications). And now the question is, will the T-90 MBT become operational in the existing armored formations if the MO continues to purchase them further? At the same time, the production of T-72 is discontinued.
            As for the MO’s decision to not collect new T-90s ...
            Five contracts with Uralvagonzavod worth 24 billion rubles. provide for the purchase of “Terminator” tank support combat vehicles (BMPT), new T-90 tanks, modernization of existing T-90 tanks, T-72 and T-80. Judging by the amount we can talk about the purchase of a battalion set (31 tanks) of T-90M tanks, and previously it was announced that BMPT would be purchased 10 units, recalls the editor of Moscow Defense Brief Mikhail Barabanov. T-90 tanks of new production have not been purchased by the Armed Forces since 2011. The purchase of new T-90M tanks occurred after the completion of the creation of this modification

            Questions?
      2. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov 2 November 2017 22: 58 New
        +1
        What’s the problem? If it’s about tanks, then there’s a set of state and military tests, who really worked on the test issue, they said that tank deliveries would begin by 2020, and then there’s a series. The same T-72b3 deliver 22 pieces a month , so if there is an order, then the required number of tanks will be riveted in a few years. For the Tu-160m2 there’s a small moment: the middle of the 20th will only have the first flight of the so-called B-21, so taking into account the tests, if the project burns out, then the production will start the best case in the 30th year, if it burns out, and the Tu-160m2 is already producing the first car, and from the 20th year they will be sent to the troops in series, so you really got excited about the swarm
        1. raw174
          raw174 3 November 2017 06: 50 New
          +3
          Quote: Boris Chernikov
          the same t-72b3 deliver 22 pieces per month

          So they are old, it’s not production, but modernization. Yes, to acceptable parameters (in any case they say so), but not from 0.
          Quote: Boris Chernikov
          so if there is an order, then rivet the right number of tanks in a few years.

          Expensive ... Given the planned reduction in the military budget, there will be small parties, 10 per year ...
          Quote: Boris Chernikov
          and the Tu-160m2 is already producing the first car,

          It’s also an airplane created not from 0, it probably meets the requirements, but this is a modernization from the base ... I have a Priora car, it was also positioned, at one time, as a new one, but in essence a deep modernization of 2110, it’s about the same here .. .
          Quote: Boris Chernikov
          and the Tu-160m2 is already producing the first car,

          the main thing is that she does not become the last.
          Quote: Boris Chernikov
          so about swarm you really got excited

          something, but the right toys 3,14ndos rive quickly! If they consider what is needed, they will do it quickly and a lot ...
          1. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 27 November 2017 17: 23 New
            0
            you don’t have to write about 10 tanks a year ... look raw174 stupid
  6. BAI
    BAI 31 October 2017 15: 48 New
    +6
    ("Why Russia, China and North Korea Should Be Afraid of the American B-21 Bomber"

    1. Russia owes nothing to anyone.
    2. And can we not be afraid?
    The anecdote has long been there: "If you are reading this inscription on board B-2, then the American taxpayers have wasted 1 billion dollars in vain."
    Is special coating, like B-2, afraid of water or will it be more stable?
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Soho
        Soho 1 November 2017 05: 23 New
        +5
        Well, yes, and you probably firmly believe that the radio-absorbing coverage of American stealth objects is as stable as the faith of the Americans themselves in their exceptional mission to bring the light of democracy to the dark world of tyranny. Which by a strange coincidence reigns in the oil-bearing regions of the planet laughing
        1. The comment was deleted.
      2. kirgiz58
        kirgiz58 1 November 2017 08: 28 New
        +3
        Quote: Sharansky
        they cannot fight without cola and air conditioners

        You missed the toilet paper. laughing And without them, they really will be smeared in hom, but they are smelly even without hom. tongue
        1. The comment was deleted.
  7. family
    family tree 31 October 2017 16: 49 New
    +3
    In the right way! We haven’t done it yet, but we’re ready to order 200 pieces, wassat
  8. Sands Careers General
    Sands Careers General 31 October 2017 17: 07 New
    +5
    The LRS-B program, along with the projects of the fifth generation fighter Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) and the promising refueling aircraft KC-X, is considered one of the three most important priorities for the future development of the US Air Force.

    Same as F-35 and B-2. Expensive and completely meaningless. I drank money in reality, and that's good)))
  9. inkass_98
    inkass_98 31 October 2017 17: 23 New
    +1
    During World War II, a detachment of B-25 Mitchell bombers under the command of General James "Jimmy" Doolittle attacked a number of targets on the territory of the Japanese Islands. Among other things, bombs were dropped on Tokyo.

    It is advisable that the Americans remember the fate of the pilots participating in this raid. Everything was far from rosy, they worked at the B-25 range, and not everyone reached China.
  10. Sverdlov
    Sverdlov 31 October 2017 17: 41 New
    +1
    Shoigu once said - if someone thinks that there are invisible planes, then he is mistaken ...
    For any money ...
    If only in another time continuum dives as in the "Philadelphia Experiment 2"
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 31 October 2017 20: 32 New
      0
      There are no invisible ones - there are hardly noticeable ones.
      1. Soho
        Soho 1 November 2017 05: 39 New
        +1
        Vadim237 Yesterday, 20:32 ↑
        There are no invisible ones - there are hardly noticeable ones.

        then it’s more correct: there are neither invisible nor subtle. There are objects with reduced visibility in certain ranges of electromagnetic radiation (radio, IR)
        wink hi
        1. Sharansky
          Sharansky 1 November 2017 13: 04 New
          0
          Quote: Soho
          There are objects with reduced visibility in certain ranges of electromagnetic radiation (radio, IR)

          In Russian, this is briefly called "subtle." And now you are typing your messages while sitting at a computer or at a personal electronic computer?
          1. Soho
            Soho 2 November 2017 05: 06 New
            +1
            Sharansky Yesterday, 13:04
            In Russian, this is briefly called "subtle." And now you are typing your messages while sitting at a computer or at a personal electronic computer?

            if you go by assumptions and simplifications, then argue with the opponent above that the definition of "invisible" has the right to life. So, under certain conditions, the stealth object may indeed not be visible to enemy detection tools.
          2. Setrac
            Setrac 2 November 2017 23: 51 New
            +1
            Quote: Sharansky
            And now you are typing your messages while sitting at a computer or at a personal electronic computer?

            Any computer is an electronic computer, but not any electronic computer is a computer.
    2. milling machine
      milling machine 31 October 2017 20: 42 New
      +7
      Quote: Sverdlov
      Shoigu once said - if someone thinks that there are invisible planes, then he is mistaken ...
      For any money ...
      If only in another time continuum dives as in the "Philadelphia Experiment 2"

      So, if you believe Shoigu, then our VKS three Syria instead of one freed from terrorists.
      1. kirgiz58
        kirgiz58 1 November 2017 08: 35 New
        +2
        Quote: frezer
        three Syria instead of one freed from terrorists.

        And in what lies Shoigu. If you cannot correctly interpret the words of OUR Minister of Defense, then, in the place of the leadership of the Frankfurt information sabotage center on Mine, I would cut your salary. And the essence of Shoigu's words is that three times the territory was liberated, but then again ... sold again by the Syrian units. You have a service mismatch.
  11. WapentakeLokki
    WapentakeLokki 31 October 2017 18: 14 New
    +1
    The next Grand Cut of the dough is coming. The F-35 has almost exhausted itself in this regard, we need a new 'Dark Horse' and oats are now expensive aha. Generally mattress covers are real Grands in this matter (by the way, I did not understand why B '' point '' cooler than B-2?) Well, for fear of our enemies, we’ll roll out a new child prodigy (and immediately roll into a special hangar because it’s bad for him to fly atas and fly your kilo-mega raccoons). Like you used to say in ' 'Man from Kapucin Boulevard' Boyarsky 'Corruption will destroy this country'
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 31 October 2017 20: 38 New
      +3
      But they will do it and put it into series - in five years it will fly, it’s difficult to call a cut, since most of the money earned by the company is spent on re-equipment and R&D. We cut it with us - in all areas, money was allocated, all terms were torn off, nothing was done, money was lost.
  12. chidoryan
    chidoryan 31 October 2017 19: 19 New
    19
    Why in the Russian mind the word "cut" is present permanently, so that whoever does not do it over the hill, cut everything. Pampers, unlike ours, at least say and do. Aircraft in the ranks, aircraft carriers are launched and so on and so forth. So who sawed, I do not understand? Maybe it’s just bribes and cuts in all spheres of life that we can’t think in any other way?
    1. AUL
      AUL 31 October 2017 21: 01 New
      +8
      So, after all, “cut the dough” is another brand for VO! It is quite universal, you can slap it into comments on almost any article. And it sounds solid, smart. And before, everything was written about pampes, and the nonsense was immediately visible, but now - as if thinking something. Progress is evident!
    2. rpek32
      rpek32 1 November 2017 01: 11 New
      +2
      in the "Russian consciousness"? need to be reminded that the "cuts" originated in the liberal nook to show the "inferiority of the rash"?
      once the swabbling liberals crowed "but cut it in a rash", to which they naturally answered: "they’re sawing everywhere, even in the swobbiest country of the world."
      1. chidoryan
        chidoryan 1 November 2017 08: 10 New
        +5
        Yes, it is in the Russian mind. Your words only confirm my truth. Your logic is that since liberals crow about cuts, so I will crow 3 times stronger, any news about Western developments will be accompanied by a sharp taste.
        1. rpek32
          rpek32 1 November 2017 15: 11 New
          +1
          Quote: chidoryan
          Your words only confirm my truth.

          in maniamir, black can be white, and white can be black.
          there is nothing surprising here.

          > any news about Western developments
          there are millions of Western developments, and they still fly on f-22 and stratofortres.
          still resist, so far low.
          1. chidoryan
            chidoryan 1 November 2017 18: 46 New
            +4
            Well, of course, everything is peculiar in the mania world, you and the su-57 fly in packs and the Americans jump on trampolines, and the Armats are printed in millions. I’ll specifically go through the facts - in the states, warships large and small print like pies, the fifth generation is already in operation, 22 and 35, the latter being massively printed and pushed around the world, laser railguns are in active development, and not just in words, like in us, but in practice. And what does it mean "still on f-22" lol? We still have no analogue, and apparently there will not be at least a ratio of 1 to 10, if at all, because there are still no engines, as I understand it. Even the Indians nose up. They have a Atlas robot, we have a Fedor robot, feel the difference, as they say. And the fifth generation is a question of advanced high technology; this, alas, is not for you. What do we have with microprocessors and generally with microelectronics? Ahead of the rest of the planet? From Elbrus I suppose write, yeah. As for the standings, you are not a teacher, and I am not a student. And apparently you are just a local idiot, of whom there are thousands, coco-cut and all the things that are no longer able to write anything.
            1. rpek32
              rpek32 1 November 2017 19: 23 New
              +3
              Quote: chidoryan
              Well, of course, everything is peculiar in the mania world, you and the su-57 fly in packs and the Americans jump on trampolines, and the Armats are printed in millions.

              у YOU. in my moneybox this is not.
              what I spoke about actually
            2. Serzh
              Serzh 2 November 2017 15: 47 New
              +1
              Well laugh, cho !!!
              Regarding trampolines, they buy engines in Russia so as not to jump on trampolines, eh ?!
              About ships - It’s real, because exactly the same thing happened in the states as in Russia in the 90s. Oh you ... You are not guilty, are you? Well then, there’s no need to breed a "lost" policy here. Not all is well, but they got out of a hole from which the echo returned for years. We got out and present something of our own, but the fact that there are not enough resources - maybe the question is not for the current leadership? Or do you want to live by paying tribute to the country under the strict guidance of the NKVD and other structures? No - then you should not insist that "there are fewer, fewer ships, it does not fly." All of the above applies to your point of view. Not a fool, but success is encouraging and I soberly assess the capabilities of our defense industry destroyed in the 90s. And what they write about successes and exaggerate - well done, let THERE puzzle over where it is true, where is fiction, how efficient and believable, than who, having believed that we have a shish and oil, will climb into our head with a saber.
              Boiling up. On the feelings. I apologize if hooked. Just mutually.
              1. chidoryan
                chidoryan 4 November 2017 13: 40 New
                +3
                The course of your thoughts is clear. I can agree with some things, but there is one “but” - if you constantly write about successes and constantly exaggerate, brag about the "Potemkin villages" and so on, well, this is the same information for the most part for domestic consumption, all this noodles, they eat it, here what's the trouble. All these “Vasi”, from whom Khibina Donald Cook sank and so on, for the most part I feel sorry for them, is it self-deception, do you like living in a constant stream of lies, boasting and misinformation? I don’t, I don’t eat that, I'm sorry. On the other hand, I am proud that we are still at the forefront of tank-worthy thought, it is, yes, we are the first to launch a tank with an uninhabited tower, even if it is small. Here I have reasons for pride. Somewhere I can not understand something because of the lack of special education on the topic, but in general I try to keep my nose in the wind. I’m not foolish and ubiquitous. I try to adequately assess the situation. As for the military-industrial complex destroyed in the 90s, it was, we know, well, so the transition period is never soft. For some reason we always think for some reason that it should be right immediately, immediately communism or immediately flourishing capitalism, this does not happen, comrades. The transition from one system to another is always very cruel and ruinous, but what did you want?
            3. Setrac
              Setrac 2 November 2017 23: 58 New
              +1
              Quote: chidoryan
              From Elbrus I suppose write, yeah.

              The meaning of this passage is not clear? Who cares who writes what? You are breathing the air that the Russian forests produce - and do not buzz.
              1. chidoryan
                chidoryan 4 November 2017 13: 42 New
                +1
                The meaning of your passage is approximately equal to zero, I tell you the facts, and you fart in a puddle. To leave!
                As for the air, I don’t ignore you, now I’ll tell you something - 80% of the oxygen is produced by phytoplankton in the oceans. Shame and disgrace do not know. You’re still smart here. You have connected the Internet, read, develop. and not "uryayaya".
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 4 November 2017 20: 52 New
                  +1
                  Quote: chidoryan
                  As for the air, I don’t ignore you, now I’ll tell you something - 80% of the oxygen is produced by phytoplankton in the oceans.

                  I’ll ignorantly tell you that the so-called “American” processors are the work of Russian scientists. From here your idiotic passage about elbrus is not clear, explain your thought.
                  Quote: chidoryan
                  You’re still smart here. You have connected the Internet, read, develop. and not "uryayaya".

                  You say so, as if it was your personal achievement, the network technologies were invented by the Russians for the army, the Americans successfully introduced them into the civilian sector. They have more dough, they (USA) concentrate resources from all over the world, including Russia.
                  Quote: chidoryan
                  The meaning of your passage is approximately equal to zero, I tell you the facts, and you fart in a puddle. To leave!

                  Nevertheless, fart your thought in a puddle, so as not to be zero.
    3. Soho
      Soho 1 November 2017 05: 27 New
      +1
      One does not cancel the other. Just the American budget allows you to cut and do. Our skinny budget does not pull two loads. What is difficult to understand here?
    4. viktorch
      viktorch 1 November 2017 10: 49 New
      +4
      the word cut in the context of amers can be replaced by "normal civilized state defense purchases in the conditions of democratic market pricing."
      or a $ 100000 screwdriver
      in our context - it’s rather “stealing at the end of a fucker without having done, in addition to a couple of scraps of paper, urgently organize 37years for the entire MO and the entire vertical of power”
      or "for 100000 rubles one piece of paper about write-off, utruska and shrinkage with an illegible signature"
    5. Setrac
      Setrac 2 November 2017 23: 53 New
      +1
      Quote: chidoryan
      Why in the Russian mind the word "cut" is present permanently, so that whoever does not do it over the hill, cut everything.

      Probably because they are in the West BIG FATHERS in matters of cutting budget funds.
    6. parma
      parma 3 November 2017 11: 37 New
      +2
      And at VO, I noticed 3 stages of attitude towards the technology of "partners":
      1) When the project was announced - Fu Fu Fu, they came up with a new cut, this is not a necessary device, there is already a similar one, etc.
      2) When tests and small-scale production are in progress - fu fu fu, it does not fly / floats / rides, riveted a bunch of scrap metal, cut it, etc.
      3) When someone is ordered to be bombed - it’s illegal, they again kill peaceful, fu fu fu, and in general, when our wunder tank / ship / plane appears (and as always, it’s not like metal, even drawings) it’s better to 100500 times, but for now, the T-90 (the made-up Soviet T-72, made up during the USSR) is enough for us, there are Su-35 and Su-30 (and this is the Soviet Su-27, with Soviet developments), Su-34 ( and this is the Soviet processing of the Su-27), there is the Mi-28 (Soviet still), there is ....... Only the Soviet Union has not been there for 3 decades .... So it can be recognized that Armata, Boomerang, PAK FA and other will be a big cut?
  13. Prisoner
    Prisoner 31 October 2017 20: 54 New
    0
    The question is not why they should be afraid. The question is why aren't you afraid? what
  14. traktir64
    traktir64 31 October 2017 21: 41 New
    0
    The American corn-flyer flew to the war, thought and said: "I won’t fight without chewing gum and sosa soles."
    And he flew out of the chicken coop B-21
    And above in the clouds the White Swans flew so beautiful and dignified and they said: “look at another cockerel appeared”
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 1 November 2017 00: 59 New
      +1
      And we will have an analogue of B 21 -PAK YES with a flying wing - subsonic scheme, consider flying at the same time as an American.
      1. raw174
        raw174 1 November 2017 06: 42 New
        +2
        Quote: Vadim237
        count in the air at the same time as an American.

        Yeah, one ... and a series of 10 pieces will be launched in fifteen or forty years, forty, how it goes ...
        In aviation and navy we are catching up and lagging behind for a couple of laps ...
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 1 November 2017 09: 36 New
          0
          For UAVs, we are 20 years behind the United States.
          1. raw174
            raw174 1 November 2017 10: 04 New
            +3
            Quote: Vadim237
            For UAVs, we are 20 years behind the United States.

            Yes, of course, we are proud of our Armed Forces, our army is probably really in the top three, but the 10-fold superiority of the US defense budget does its job. They are certainly not 10 times stronger and not even 5, but in many ways ahead.
            We also have something to brag about, yet our ground forces are better, the Strategic Missile Forces again ...
            While we can guarantee to incinerate a large part of the planet, they will not turn up to us, but as soon as they consider that they are 100% safe from our nuclear weapons, they will pile on with all their weight.
  15. Signalman17
    Signalman17 1 November 2017 05: 27 New
    0
    They can’t teach them how to fly their bucket of F-35 nails, but they are already tinkering about some B-21, even if they tell their fat-ass taxpayers how everything flies beautifully with them, we know the realities !!!
    1. raw174
      raw174 1 November 2017 06: 53 New
      +5
      Quote: Signalman17
      we know the realities !!!

      It's sarcasm? I think yes)))
      Quote: Signalman17
      They can’t teach them how to fly their bucket with F-35 nails.

      Whatever we say, but the F-35 is the fifth generation and today it’s really in service ... They do not care how much it costs, the important thing is that there are already about 200 of them, and this is a small series for running-in, and since 19 they will overwhelm the troops of 8-10 countries with these flyers; by 2025 we will build 10-15 units. T-50 (or what is it called there now?) ... T-14 when presented with fanfare? Where are they? What is the matter with them? how many are really ready to fight tomorrow?
      1. ermolenkomb
        ermolenkomb 1 November 2017 07: 16 New
        +2
        1. No money is enough to fill up the F-35 with your army and the allied armies, a very expensive, complex and piece product, while there are not enough stars for basic characteristics (speed, maneuverability, flight range, ceiling). Plus, the more complex the product, the more unreliable it is (it was very clear with the German panther and the tiger, the main losses were non-combat). A B-2 was worth a lard of dollars, a B-21 would not be surprised if it would cost 2 in a series, and a couple of three trillion development
        2. The T-14 does not have any worthy opponents at the moment, the existing tanks are more than enough to withstand the Abrams and leopards, so they are slowly introducing them into the troops, again, the opponents have not even announced the development of something like this equal class
        3. about invisibility or inconspicuousness, modern radars see birds if desired, in which there is not a gram of metal, there are no jet engines, there is no inversion trace, therefore, there is no reason to talk about any invisibility of such a carcass, in which the cruiser is even lower than sound. In my opinion, the only way you can actively combat air defense is speed (and the B-2, B-21 form clearly does not contribute to this), well, active missile control systems, anti-missiles, jamming systems, and electronic warfare systems.
        1. raw174
          raw174 1 November 2017 07: 53 New
          +2
          Quote: ermolenkomb
          No money enough

          They will print ... They are aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines stamping like pies, what to say about planes ...
          Quote: ermolenkomb
          Plus, the more complex the product, the more unreliable it is.

          I agree, but the tendency to complicate to improve performance is the world practice of our time. Even if they lose 10% non-combat, there will still be no parity in aviation, the United States is ahead of us.
          Quote: ermolenkomb
          B-21 will not be surprised if it costs 2 in a series, and a couple of three trillion development

          This will not stop the Yankees and they will stamp them.
          Quote: ermolenkomb
          T-14 has no worthy opponents at the moment

          Of course, because the T-14 is not ... not in the troops, not on the battlefield.
          Quote: ermolenkomb
          existing tanks are more than enough to withstand abrams and leopards

          As far as I know, the concept of the battle of the Westerners is such that their Abrams should not fight with the T-14, T-14 is a victim for aircraft and missiles, Abrams supports the infantry and fights with T-62, 54 and other great-grandfathers, not even T -72 ...
          Quote: ermolenkomb
          therefore, they slowly introduce him to the troops,

          If there was money, maybe they would speed it up.
          Quote: ermolenkomb
          jamming systems, electronic warfare systems.

          All the same, in my opinion, it’s more promising means of defense than missile defense, in any case against guided missiles.
        2. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 1 November 2017 11: 25 New
          +1
          "complex and piece product" ///

          Difficult, yes. Piece - no. There is almost conveyor production.
          The plant is now doing 12-14 per month, and from 2019 it will be released at 18-20 per month.
          Plus, one or two per month do factories in Italy and Japan.
      2. Dimy4
        Dimy4 1 November 2017 09: 16 New
        +1
        T-14 when presented with fanfare? Where are they? What is the matter with them? how many are really ready to fight tomorrow?

        Shh ... secret.
        1. raw174
          raw174 1 November 2017 09: 18 New
          +3
          Quote: Dimy4
          Shh ... secret.

          And even for our aircraft)))) On the day "D" will arrive in the unit, and there instead of the T-72 is T-14!
      3. Soho
        Soho 1 November 2017 17: 49 New
        0
        He is the fifth generation in LM brochures and fantasies of admirers of Great Matrassia
        1. raw174
          raw174 2 November 2017 06: 17 New
          +2
          Quote: Soho
          He is the fifth generation in LM brochures and fantasies of admirers of Great Matrassia

          And in the official version of our Moscow Region, as well as in the eyes of the Indians, and everyone else ... I’m not a defeatist and I don’t admire the USA, just hatred, it’s worse than defeatism ... When our 5th generation takes to the wing and will be in little a significant amount, they will drive at the 6th generation, without pilots and operators, to AI ...
          1. Soho
            Soho 2 November 2017 06: 38 New
            +2
            just hatred; it is worse than defeatism

            explain pzhl., dear man, how did you manage to combine capriciousness with non-compliance of the aircraft with the criteria defined for the 5th generation aircraft, to which Lockheed Martin had a hand? By the way, his leadership does not consider the Su-57 a 5th generation aircraft for the same reasons.
            So you’ve already decided what is more important for you: not bias or following patterns hackneyed to holes
            1. raw174
              raw174 2 November 2017 07: 39 New
              +2
              Quote: Soho
              explain pzhl., dear man, how did you manage to combine capriciousness with non-compliance of the aircraft with the criteria defined for the 5th generation aircraft, to which Lockheed Martin had a hand?

              In my opinion, all these criteria - a piece of paper, pah and grind! Here are the real combat characteristics and the presence of weapons in principle - an indicator. I think so, an airplane that took to the wing in the 21st century, they are better than those that appeared in the 70s - 80s, plus their potential for modernization has not yet been realized. The SU-57 will be at least three times better, but in battle three for one will not take out. Here everyone shouts that the American is expensive, worse, but for today, the ratio of new planes is 1 to 20-30. We are very behind and all business ...
              1. Soho
                Soho 2 November 2017 08: 19 New
                +4
                raw174 Today, 07:39
                In my opinion, all these criteria - a piece of paper, pah and grind!

                these are common truths. But from all the above tirades I did not understand the arguments in defense of the statement:
                raw174 Yesterday, 06:53
                Whatever we say, but the F-35 is the fifth generation

                and if a piece of paper "pah and grind!", then why refer to its content? Well, write that F35 is a modern, effective MFI. Well, you also want something different - they say the Americans are stamping the "five" with might and main, and we, the lapotniki, as always picking our nose ....
                1. raw174
                  raw174 2 November 2017 08: 34 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Soho
                  Well, write that F35 is a modern, effective MFI.

                  Yes, that’s what I mean.
                  Quote: Soho
                  Well, you also want something different - they say the Americans are stamping the "five" with might and main, and we, the lapotniki, as always picking our nose ....

                  Not so, we are not picking lapotniks, we are too much and zealously proud of unrealized projects. There is no airplane yet, but he already got ahead of everyone and won, has no analogues, etc. Only the lazy did not sing the ode to PAK-FA / T-50 / SU-57 and did not throw a slipper into the mattress corncracker. And the "partners" at this time are riveting both themselves and for sale. Even the Indians thought ...
                  I fear that on D-Day, our advanced and unmatched systems will only be on paper and at the parade, in the amount of 5-10 pcs., That's all ...
                  1. Soho
                    Soho 2 November 2017 09: 21 New
                    +2
                    raw174 Today, 08:34 ↑
                    Quote: Soho
                    Well, write that F35 is a modern, effective MFI.
                    Yes, that’s what I mean.

                    Well, if it’s about modern, effective, then what did the Su-35 not please you. It is a modern, efficient machine for its tasks.
                    Only the lazy did not sing the ode to PAK-FA / T-50 / SU-57 and did not throw a slipper into the mattress corncracker.

                    What do you want our media to promote or advertise a penguin? You have strange desires. The task of the media is propaganda. And to be indignant about this is like resenting that it snows in winter.
                    Even the Indians thought ...

                    Every year, Indians “think” in order to bargain for themselves the next preferences. And the Indians are not fools. They are quite soberly aware that no fifth-generation aircraft other than the FGFA will shine on them in the near future.
                    I fear that on day D, our advanced and unmatched systems will only be on paper and at the parade, in the amount of 5-10 pieces

                    if day “D” comes, then your +100500 riveted “highly effective” ones will be in demand as well as playing the button accordion in the treatment of hemorrhoids. Since nuclear weapons will put an end to the “carriers of democracy” and “bloodthirsty imperials” lol
                    will only be on paper

                    The PAK FA program, which resulted in the creation of the MFI Su-57, has its own time frame. The Americans spent over 15 years creating the JSF program. And another 12 years have passed since the creation of the F-35 to its delivery to the troops. And since the take-off of the first prototype T-50, only 7 years have passed. And today the program is close to completion. And the likes of you are already all ̶u̶g̶l̶y̶ ̶o̶b̶o подобныеs̶ .... all the publics were filled with shouts of “Ahtung! PakFaSu-57 was leaked!”.
                    There are certainly problems, but quite often they are not where you see them
                    1. raw174
                      raw174 2 November 2017 10: 08 New
                      +3
                      Quote: Soho
                      Su-35. It is a modern, efficient machine for its tasks.

                      Well, I hope he’s fighting against the Mayerkos ... But they are 4 times less than the amers of their new planes!
                      Quote: Soho
                      The task of the media is propaganda.

                      Okay, the media, we have representatives of the Moscow Region often shout "gop" before the take-off.
                      Quote: Soho
                      Since nuclear weapons will put an end to the “carriers of democracy” and “bloodthirsty imperials”

                      I agree the shield is working for today. But we need to prepare for a situation where the "partners" will be able to neutralize the threat of the Strategic Missile Forces and other nuclear weapons carriers. Is this time bound to come when? I don’t think that soon, but it will be, and then we will need our hypernanone lacking analogs.
                      Quote: Soho
                      "Ahtung! PakFaSu-57 leaked!"

                      I’m not saying that they leaked, I’m talking about lagging behind the mattresses, both in terms and in quantity (we are not destined to know the whole truth about quality), that's all and your words confirm this too hi
                      1. Soho
                        Soho 2 November 2017 10: 44 New
                        +4
                        The reason for the lag is understandable. I am even surprised that, despite and despite all the efforts of the “reformer” with a stain on his forehead and his not always sober successor, we were able to return to such serious topics as the creation of conceptual technology (the Armata platform and the PakFa program). Looks like the shovel was so strong that they could not ruin it and crap even with all the efforts of our liberal elite. hi
      4. Al Bychkov
        Al Bychkov 2 November 2017 14: 49 New
        0
        The question here is for what purposes, if for defense, then all hope is for air defense, which is being actively developed in our country. If, however, for an attack to capture, then yes, you need stealth and all that. This only once again shows who is who.
        1. raw174
          raw174 2 November 2017 15: 00 New
          +2
          Quote: Al Bychkov
          If, however, for an attack to capture, then yes, you need stealth and all that. This only once again shows who is who.

          I completely agree, but there are fighters in the air defense too and they must be better than the attackers ... And they probably are also needed to accompany the strategists.
          In my opinion, PAK FA is universal, as an attack aircraft for defense is also needed.
          1. Al Bychkov
            Al Bychkov 2 November 2017 15: 07 New
            0
            Probably in the future I’m sure it will be so, but for now it’s enough to take into account the fact that airplanes are brought into air defense not so much with their own eyes as by the eyes of assistants, at the expense of bombers, emphasis is here on long-sightedness. According to our basic strategy, there is no intention whatsoever of acquiring someone else's; Russia is, by and large, self-sufficient, not for nothing that the territory allows. And if there will be a large kneading, then kirdyk will come to all. This is exactly what we can provide calmly.
          2. Al Bychkov
            Al Bychkov 6 November 2017 10: 40 New
            0
            Naturally, only this is not a close process, the more significant difference between the vaunted fifth generation precisely in aggressive parameters, working almost without support, at the moment it seems to me the fourth with third-party support can still compete with the fifth. the future generally belongs to the sixth generation, that is, unmanned fighter jets, loads suggest this. therefore they are working on the fifth as an intermediate, and therefore they are developing it simply as a research site.
  16. Nikolay Fedorov
    Nikolay Fedorov 1 November 2017 06: 53 New
    +1
    Come on, in fact, they should strive to ensure that we are not afraid of them at all, relax, and live in feelings of friendship with them. In this case, we really have no chance to survive. Well, if we get scared and scare from fright, then they will have no chance.
  17. qwests
    qwests 1 November 2017 07: 52 New
    0
    where do people get so much money from?
  18. chidoryan
    chidoryan 1 November 2017 08: 16 New
    +2
    Quote: Vadim237
    And we will have an analogue of B 21 -PAK YES with a flying wing - subsonic scheme, consider flying at the same time as an American.

    yes, yes, it will rise, at the same time, yes. Have a snack.
    1. Soho
      Soho 1 November 2017 08: 41 New
      +1
      yes, yes, it will rise, at the same time, yes. Have a snack.

      ek you have strong faith in American exceptionalism lol But what is so skeptical archie?)))
    2. viktorch
      viktorch 1 November 2017 10: 58 New
      0
      oil prices will rise to $ 200 then the pack and rise to the wing
      1. Soho
        Soho 1 November 2017 17: 43 New
        +1
        Well, something PakFa sold without having a 200 dollar oil price. And even $ 100.
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 1 November 2017 20: 24 New
      0
      And what can he not get up to, the subsonic plane, the engines of the first stage already exist - NK 54, avionics and avionics, as well as the chassis there will most likely be from Tu 160M2, the small business is to create a glider.
  19. Gloomy
    Gloomy 1 November 2017 10: 37 New
    +1
    A lot of comments regarding the cut of the military budget, etc., etc. Let's look at things soberly.
    1) now it smelled of fried, and as they say not to fat, that is, not to cut, because if the mattresses are not opposed to something serious, then their swan song will be sung, and they will not be able to continue the policy of tonal terror, which is in their death is similar.
    2) as a rule, information appears in the media that is a very conditional secret, they are afraid that no one knows what the military-industrial complex of different countries are engaged in in truly secret bunkers, it remains only to guess, and I strongly doubt that the Americans allowed the leak of really important information, it’s for me recalls a story with status 6.
    Hence the conclusion is just a message to potential opponents, they say, you know, we have a surprise for you.
  20. gregor6549
    gregor6549 1 November 2017 15: 08 New
    0
    I have been following this publication for a long time and long ago came to the conclusion that its main task is to scare the American taxpayers and the people in charge of the US defense budget with all kinds of horror stories about the Russian military threat in the hope that they will fork out and give out a couple of three hundred billion to develop and produce new super duper toys.
    Well, the guys from the US military-industrial complex will then unfasten what the amount of the National Interest guys allocated to feed. There is nothing new in this.
    The only sad thing is that such domestic articles are conducted by some Russian “experts”, who either indulge in unbridled euphoria about the unsurpassed qualities of the now Russian armaments “which have no analogues in the world,” or that they panic like “everything is lost, boss,” while forgetting that all previous experience shows that not one of the leading countries in the world has ever succeeded in creating wunderwaffe and that the basic weapons systems are developing on the whole in the same way in all these countries. Someone realizes the given tasks due to microminiatureization of the component base, and someone realizes the same tasks in large dimensions and equipment volumes.
    In general, parity is observed with insignificant fluctuations in one direction or another.
    The laws of physics, they are laws in Africa.
    Now about the budget. Some of us have a bad habit of counting other people's money and blaming a potential adversary for cutting the state budget. At the same time, it is somehow overlooked that the price of labor varies considerably between us and ours, and in terms of sawing we do not concede to the enemy at all and even overtake.
    At the same time, if they cut, it is mainly in the interests of corporate interests, although personal interests are not forgotten, then we cut mainly in personal interests. And if they have a system that has been worked out over the years and which does not allow too much abuse of cuts, then in Russia there is, alas, no and no one knows when it will appear.
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 1 November 2017 16: 28 New
      0
      Quote: gregor6549
      none of the leading countries in the world have ever succeeded in creating wunderwaffe

      The humor of the situation is that, not just creating, but convincing the opponent that they created!
      The same nuclear weapons USA, in the USSR then "kept abreast"
  21. Cynic
    Cynic 1 November 2017 16: 19 New
    0
    I understand, were convinced: "Not a point usually destroys, but to eleven aces"? If anything, talk about the 22nd? Immediately immediately appointed 21-but! Type of hope: As you call an airplane, it will fly ...
    Did you ask permission?
  22. Yeti
    Yeti 2 November 2017 00: 26 New
    0
    ))))) F-35 to help him. And the Soviet Union in 1991 they are provided.
  23. Abel
    Abel 2 November 2017 22: 50 New
    0
    Vague doubts torment me. There was a lot of noise about the F-35. And he really can't fly. We talked about the procurement of hundreds of B-2. They talked a lot ...
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 3 November 2017 10: 02 New
      0
      The most interesting thing is that the first with negative comments about the F-35. not Russian, but American experts spoke when this car was still in the project. Their main arguments were:
      1. The presence of one engine, while all previous experience has shown that a combat aircraft with one engine does not provide the required reliability or combat stability
      2 The hopes that low visibility in combination with clever avionics and long-range air-launched combat missiles will ensure the superiority of this aircraft over similar aircraft of a potential enemy has not been proved by anyone
      3. An attempt to combine two aircraft for different purposes "in one bottle" will lead to excessive complexity and cost of the aircraft, and ultimately the aircraft will be worse and more expensive than the F22, the replacement of which was the land version of the F-35.
      All this was confirmed more than once, but such amounts were spent on the project that it was no longer possible to reverse gear. Therefore, feverish attempts are being made to bring the letak to a more or less acceptable state and reduce the cost of serial samples. By the way, the Israelis from the very beginning refused to buy this cat in a poke and obtained permission to equip the F-35 with their electronics (American electronics is still one of the F-35 Achilles heels). In addition, the F-35 may be suitable for the Israeli Air Force. they are not yet in sight for them of a worthy adversary either in the air or on the bench, and the possibility of attacking targets from long distances, this aircraft, in principle, can provide and at the same time reduce the risk of destruction by air defense systems. All the same, more modern than the same single-engine F-16. But this is all so far in principle. As will be in real life, we will see
  24. Mukhin
    Mukhin 3 November 2017 15: 23 New
    0
    General Doolittle's raid ended very sadly. Only one Mitchell made it to the seaside airfield. The rest, due to lack of fuel, fell into the sea, those who reached China, came to the Japanese. The Japanese executed three pilots by beheading ... Not a very good comparison with B 21
  25. Alexander Prikhodko
    Alexander Prikhodko 3 November 2017 20: 43 New
    0
    I think pigeons and rooks will bring down these aircraft
  26. vik669
    vik669 4 November 2017 01: 54 New
    0
    North Korea must be afraid and she is not afraid! "It's a shame, I swear! It's a shame, well! I did nothing, yes. Only ..."!
  27. ostrom
    ostrom 4 November 2017 17: 19 New
    0
    I still did not understand from what place and why should I be afraid of B21? Those. Of course, in the 21st, its middle and especially in the 22nd century, of course, something cool will be invented .... Only now, at this point, the current "producer" may not be alive. And for completely non-military reasons, for example, financial collapse, Yellowstone ..., but a lot of things can happen, air defense also does not stand still ...
  28. Adequate
    Adequate 5 November 2017 16: 27 New
    0
    I want to spend at least 1 trillion. $ and then close the program
  29. The comment was deleted.
  30. Maks1m4ik
    Maks1m4ik 6 November 2017 13: 02 New
    0
    Mda, handsome
  31. andrey kakayaraznytsa
    andrey kakayaraznytsa 5 February 2018 06: 11 New
    0
    In Hollywood, the filmets are bungled, the picture is beautiful, in fact, they’ll just cut huge money. Since 2000, they haven’t riveted anything good in the US Air Force. They will remain f-16-18 and B-52 until the 50s. Not only is the development of these cuttlefish expensive prohibitive and they fly like a stool, astronomical service and no one needs it at all, even Canada refused from f- 35. I think there will be smart drones, from reconnaissance to carriers of nuclear weapons and missiles. Israel is actively using this topic.
  32. GibSoN
    GibSoN 31 July 2018 22: 12 New
    0
    Let me dream too .. Do you know why everyone is so afraid of the B-2? Because if you succeed in knocking it down, then you get to pay for it then!