Why the US Air Force will write off B-1 and B-2, and B-52 will remain

In the coming years, the US Air Force will write off two models of strategic bombers at once. The press service of the US military published a draft budget for the 2019 fiscal year, which outlines plans to write off the B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit aircraft.

To date, the US Air Force arsenal has three types of active strategic bombers: B-52 Stratofortress, B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit. In addition, in 2016, work began on creating a new strategic bomber, called the B-21 Raider.

Despite the fact that the B-52 Stratofortress aircraft first took to the air in the 1952 year, it was he who will continue to serve along with the promising B-21 Raider, while the more recent B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit will be decommissioned as production of new bombers. The USAF explains such a move by the high cost of servicing the above-mentioned aircraft.

The project to create a B-21 involves the assembly of one hundred bombers, which are planned to be adopted by the US Air Force in the middle of the 2020-s. The preliminary contract amount is $ 55 billion, which roughly corresponds to $ 550 million for each aircraft. It was originally planned that the new combat vehicle will work in tandem with the B-1 and B-2, replacing the outdated B-52 bombers built in the middle of the last century, reports "Warspot"

Comments

[ul_vitalii]

The master-master, the military-industrial complex of America is indulging in orders.

[Chertt]

There will be more than one hundred such articles of speculation about American bombers. A few dozen at VO

[tol100v]

Quote: ul_vitalii

The military-industrial complex of America is very good at orders.

The project to support the military-industrial complex, or rather the next Raspilotron! The amount (55 billion) is announced only for the creation, and given their experience, it will also take a lot to finalize!

[Lone gunman]

... and not only America, owns a machine tool, prints $ as much as you want, anyway, the world should pay ... They had a 1957 project, the Valkyrie XB-70, they didn’t pull up because their analogues weren’t even It was, both in price and in technology ...

... for me, it looks better than the super-duper Tu-160 M2 ~ 2019-2023.

[KVU-NSVD]

To the question of the "antiquity" of the 95th ... The old horse does not spoil the furrow and plows exactly

[Sochi]

The old horse doesn’t spoil much already ... And yes, the machine is noble.

[KVU-NSVD]

The old horse does not spoil much.

offset

[Geisenberg]

The sign of the hero of Russia and life-long visa-free waiting for the author of this decision)

[Herculesic]

Give Ukroine! Salomon’s decision — and it’s nice for myself, and the colony is “fun” from such a “gift”!

[kot28.ru]

They will sell, and not the fact that Russia, they don’t care who sell!

[vlad66]

Quote: Herkulesich

Give Ukroine! Salomon’s decision — and it’s nice for myself, and the colony is “fun” from such a “gift”!

At one time Ukraine gave TU 160, their fate is unenviable

In March 1993, V. Zakharchenko, the then adviser to the Ukrainian military attaché in Russia, said: “The Ukrainian armed forces are not faced with tasks that require such aircraft.” This opinion was confirmed by the Ukrainian Air Force commander V. Antonets, saying in his speech to reporters in Priluki on February 15, 1995 that the critical situation in the Ukrainian economy makes it impossible to maintain its Tu-160 in good condition, therefore it is interested in selling Russian aircraft. However, problems arose in evaluating the machines. Russia's proposal to sell 10 fully operational Tu-160s at a price of $ 25 million per aircraft seemed ridiculous to the Ukrainian side. The Ukrainian side offered to write off energy debts at the expense of airplanes (which surprised Gazprom a lot) or exchange them for an Il-76 at a rate of 1: 2 (but Il’s are produced in Uzbekistan ...). Gradually, the development of the resource and the lack of spare parts and units forced to remove the required equipment from the same type of aircraft. However, by the summer of 1994, this need also disappeared - in the 184th TBAP there were only a few pilots flying the Tu-160, and such an opportunity was provided only a few times a year. The lack of necessary material and technical resources for the operation of aircraft, as well as some political and economic reasons forced the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine to adopt in 1995 decision on the elimination of strategic aviation missile systems Tu-95MS and Tu-160. The sky of Ukraine was too crowded for the Tu-160.5. On December 1998, 44, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense and the United States Ministry of Defense signed an agreement to eliminate 1068 heavy bombers and 55 air-based X-19 cruise missiles (160 Tu-1 aircraft were supposed to be destroyed under the international START-XNUMX agreement). Under an additional agreement, 16 Tu-160 planes were planned to be disposed of, 3 after being finalized, to be used as the first step in launching space rockets. On November 16, 1998, Ukraine began to destroy strategic bombers with funds allocated by the United States under the Nunn-Lugar program. In the presence of American senators Richard Lugar and Karl Levin solemnly dissected the first Ukrainian Tu-160 with tail number "24", released in 1989 and having 466 hours of flight. The second was destroyed aircraft with tail number "14", which took part in the anniversary events held in Poltava at the end of September 1994, dedicated to the 50th anniversary of American "shuttle" flights during the Second World War. This Tu-160, released in 1991, did not fly even 100 hours. Its disposal was completed in November 1999, and each plane cost $ 1 million. The entire fleet of Ukrainian Tu-160 aircraft was supposed to be eliminated by 2001. In March 1999. The Ministry of Defense of Ukraine received permission from the Government of Ukraine to sell three Tu-160 bombers and spare parts for them for $ 20 million to the American company Platforms International Corporation for the conversion of aircraft into rocket carriers for launching satellites. The organization of the launch of satellites using launch vehicles such as Pegasus was entrusted to the American company Orbital Network Services Corporation. The Russian side pointed to the Ukrainian and American governments about the violation of the START-2 Treaty. The principled position of Russia found support in Washington, which also spoke out against any violation by Ukraine of the fundamental provisions of the Treaty. Kiev refused to sell airplanes. In April-May 1999, the issue of exchanging eight Tu-160 aircraft and three Tu-95MS Ukrainian Air Force bombers for An-22 and An-124 BTA aircraft of Russia was discussed. At the beginning of August 1999, an agreement was reached on the transfer by Ukraine of Russia of eight fully operational Tu-160 heavy bombers to partially repay the debt for natural gas supplies. In October 1999, a military-technical delegation of the Russian Air Force went to Ukraine to assess the technical condition of the aircraft. November 6, 1999 Tu-160 with tail number "10", taking off in Priluki, landed at the Russian air base in Engels. The aircraft overtook the Russian crew consisting of Lieutenant Colonel Alexei Serebryakov, Major Alexei Kalinin, Lieutenant Colonel Igor Sazonov and Major Yury Paltusov. By April 2000, all aircraft flew to the airfield near Engels. The last of the remaining strategic aviation systems of the Tu-160 Ukrainian Air Force was destroyed on February 2, 2001 of the year.
p? / topic / 5921-tu-160-under-guillotine-on-cutting
y-base-ukraine /

Photos can be found on the Internet. I will not post. The heart is bleeding.

[Iline]

Quote: vlad66

In October 1999, a military-technical delegation of the Russian Air Force went to Ukraine to assess the technical condition of the aircraft.

It is necessary to clarify the information, too many inaccuracies.
To assess the technical condition of the aircraft, we just flew in April - May 1999. And based on their condition, decisions were made on the number and numbers of required aircraft. But from August onwards, with very short breaks, we began the “reanimation” of these aircraft, as in fact, absolutely no maintenance work was carried out on them. Plus, all the necessary equipment was selected in warehouses.

[vlad66]

Quote: Iline

It is necessary to clarify the information, too many inaccuracies.
To assess the technical condition of the aircraft, we just flew in April - May 1999.

Thanks Colleague for the information. I downloaded the link. Sincerely Colleague!

[Kot_Kuzya]

The Sumerians have no money to even contain the Su-24, but such a “gift” will simply stand, rust and be pulled away in color as a sub-type of Zaporizhzhia.

[Herculesic]

By the way, is it time to start writing off F22? Since there is enough intelligence, or stupidity, to write off B1, and B2, so why not go even further?

[Kasym]

If B-1 and B-2 are expensive to maintain, will the B-21 be cheaper? I doubt it very much. F-22 was discontinued due to the high cost. They are likely to make a new bomber using stealth technology, and the military-industrial complex will try to “stuff” it no worse than the F-22 (35). One stealth cover of such a "monster" (in size) how much it will eat. Anyway, what they have turned out cheap in maintenance recently - the military-industrial complex is not profitable ?!

[Igor V]

And everyone ran like a chicken with an egg: "stealth, stealth!" It turned out to be expensive and not necessary.

[NEXUS]

What nonsense? Write off bombers under 2 lard each in the amount of 19 pieces, and even 61 Lancers, which are younger than the B-52 will be ... from which planet did the author of the article arrive?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: NEXUS

What nonsense? Write off bombers under 2 lard each in the amount of 19 pieces, and even 61 Lancers, which are younger than the B-52 will be ... from which planet did the author of the article arrive?

So half a hundred second - this is the carrier of the ALCM with SAT. And B-1B since 2011 is not a carrier of nuclear weapons. However, even before the conversion he mainly carried bombs - because the SRAM was rotten.
Irony of fate: the ancient B-52 turned out to be more advanced in terms of a portable arsenal of nuclear weapons than the new B-1B.

[Kot_Kuzya]

Just B-1 and B-2 are projects for cutting money. And the B-52 was ordered and designed in the second half of the 40s, when the war with the USSR seemed real, and therefore the plane was done in all seriousness. By the 70s, it became clear that there would be no war with the USSR, and they began to engage in projection, the main thing is to get more dough from the Congress for R&D and subsequent tests and production. I am sure that the B-21 is the same stillborn project for cutting dough.

[Lord of the Sith]

Correctly write, I like to read your comments.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Alexey RA

Irony of fate: the ancient B-52 turned out to be more advanced in terms of a portable arsenal of nuclear weapons than the new B-1B.

This is all understandable ... but to write off the same B-1s, despite the fact that the modernization resource has not been exhausted there yet, this is idiocy. Well, yes, it carries only bombs at the moment. But who said that tomorrow, under it, mattresses do not plan the Kyrgyz Republic? There are 61 boards, half of them in combat functional condition ... and even in this case, making a rocket carrier out of it is quite a sensible idea. In addition, in the B-1B variant, it seems there is a KR-AGM-158 under it.

[Igor V]

Who do you work for? They said she died, then she died!

[engineer74]

I will express an seditious thought: that which was done for the war (B-52) will last forever, and then on which the budget was cut (B-2), it is necessary, if possible, to quietly throw it away ....

[Bronevick]

They’ll put everything in the parking lot. Cutting as TU-160 obviously will not. Or maybe they want us to pay them for disposal?

[Норд]

Bronevick
What parking lot? B-2 can only be stored in specialized storage facilities ($ 46 million each) with climate control. In the open air for 3 days all stealth coverage is covered. In the year all this pleasure flies on one side in 32 - 34 million green. So these pepelats write off because of exorbitant expenses for their maintenance.

[voyaka uh]

They are canned, filling hermetically with a layer of plastic (white).
Aircraft are in the desert with almost zero humidity.

[Ivan Tarava]

Will they write off like that?

[MadCat]

No, of course, canned food in the desert in working condition and that’s all.

[Vlad.by]

And have you seen a lot of airplanes in working condition in Mojave?

[Des10]

Of course, both the B-52 and B-2 are a miracle of aviation.
Still, it is surprising that the new one will be a flying wing - like they would have already understood that this form does not give a qualitative leap in characteristics (except for stealth). It turns out that there is no other solution or idea yet.

[Rurikovich]

Quote: Des10

what this form of qualitative leap of characteristics does not give (except for "stealth").

So they think that they will calmly fly like that in the sky and no one will see them on the radar ...
Interestingly, but the “Voronezh” see them?
Although who will tell a military secret

[Lexus]

Grandma said in two (phraseological unit)

The Pentagon is already A-10 in this way for about 10 years, as it has been written off. And he flies from the heels, at least.

[Lord of the Sith]

Agree, the trend is good

[Lexus]

In my spirit, it’s closer to rely on our strengths, to be proud of our army, and not to wait until “the cow dies from the neighbor”. Moreover, the FSA has repeatedly used such statements as evidence of its "peacefulness", but in practice it turned out, alas, differently. Considering the advancedness of modern CDs, it is not so important which carrier they will be launched from. They can easily integrate into passenger aircraft if necessary.

[Lord of the Sith]

Well, yes, that's why we regularly monitor receipts in our army.

[Lexus]

Soviet people could not afford to be afraid of any external enemy, today, alas, we cannot brag about it. When there is “what to compare” with, feelings are depressing. I’m trying to learn how to enjoy the “drop in the ocean” that comes to the army.

[Lord of the Sith]

I do not agree here.
There is a shield and a sword in the form of a nuclear triad.
The shield in the form of air defense of the modernized Torahs, Bukov, S-300 (the last third modernization was completed in 2012), new S-400 (25 regiments), Shell-C1 - is.
The sword in the form of tactical complexes Iskander-M 12 brigades - is.
The sword in the form of cruise missiles Caliber - is.
Ground forces are also equipped with equipment, better than the last 10 years.

[Lexus]

I do not agree here.

Your right.

There is a shield and a sword in the form of a nuclear triad.

The “mace” still flies uncertainly. Soviet-built missiles are already beyond all reasonable operating periods, Sarmat, Rubezh are “shifted to the right.” “Barguzin” is “covered.” One should not rely heavily on “strategists” - in the event of a full-blown conflict they won’t even have time to fly up.

The shield in the form of air defense of the modernized Torahs, Bukov, S-300 (the last third modernization was completed in 2012), new S-400 (25 regiments), Shell-C1 - is.

Upgraded Torahs and Beeches (the so-called version M2) are single divisions. 25 regiments of S-400 on a Russian scale is enough only to provide a "focal" air defense, without mutual protection and security. In combat conditions, the system is not tested. The "shell" is structurally (the second stage does not have an engine) is poorly adapted to intercept highly maneuverable targets.

Ground forces are also equipped with equipment, better than the last 10 years.

Better than "no way" - little consolation.
Do not rush to “brand me a shame” and write me down as “all-crawlers”. I have a clear distinction between "said," "done," and "how to do it."

[Stiletto_711]

Quote: lexus

The “mace” still flies uncertainly.

Studio failure data!

Quote: lexus

The carapace is structurally (the second stage has no engine) is poorly adapted to intercept highly maneuverable targets.

To work on highly maneuverable targets, as a rule, more than one rocket is launched, which significantly reduces the options for anti-aircraft maneuvers. No, of course, if a UFO ... you know better

[Lexus]

Studio failure data!

Read at your leisure
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-864.html

[Igor V]

Quote: lexus

In my spirit, it’s closer to rely on our strengths, to be proud of our army, and not to wait until “the cow dies from the neighbor”. .

But still, when she dies, she’s somehow calmer.

[Lexus]

But still, when she dies, she’s somehow calmer.

If there is no way to speed up this process, then at least you need to stop “feeding”, as the Central Bank of the Russian Federation does - money has appeared — quickly sow it into American securities at 1%, so that later you can issue your own at 5%.

[Servisinzhener]

And where are the commentators who wrote about our modernized aircraft. About Tu-95MS, Tu-160, IL-76 that we were stuck in the last century. Technology a quarter century ago. Aviation and the whole country are hopelessly outdated. I wonder why they do not want to speak out about the write-off of the Americans B-1 and B-2? And the extension of the operation of the B-52, the last of which was made already in 1962. Half a century ago.

[Old26]

Quote: NEXUS

What nonsense? Write off bombers under 2 lard each in the amount of 19 pieces, and even 61 Lancers, which are younger than the B-52 will be ... from which planet did the author of the article arrive?

The article is somehow muddy. Nothing has been said about this recently, and suddenly, about two dozen strategists are writing off a bay-flounder? Not to mention B-2B. Either B-1B was planned to be used until 1, then it is suddenly written off in 2038. Some kind of nonsense