Military Review

What is dangerous about B-52H and how to deal with it

133
Over the past few decades, the main long-range aircraft aviation The US Air Force remains the Boeing B-52H Stratofortress. Such machines entered service more than half a century ago and will remain in service, at least until the forties. Long-range bombers B-52H regularly undergo repairs and modernization, which allows them to maintain the required technical condition. In addition, updating equipment and its components allows you to provide the required combat qualities. Despite their considerable age, B-52H bombers remain a serious threat to the security of third countries.


B-52H and its characteristics

The observed combat potential of the B-52H aircraft is due to several factors. The capabilities and capabilities of the aircraft are determined by its own tactical and technical characteristics, the characteristics of the weapons used, as well as the characteristics of the troop control system. First, we consider the potential of the main component of the aviation strike complex - the B-52H aircraft itself.


B-52H Stratofortress in flight. Photo Boeing Company / boeing.com


B-52H Stratofortress is the largest and heaviest combat aircraft of the US Air Force, which gives him certain advantages in the context of the main tasks. The bomber has a wing span of 56,4 m and a length of 48,5 m. The mass of an empty aircraft is determined at the level of 83,25 t, the maximum take-off weight is 220 t. The fuel tanks contain more than 181,6 thousand liters of fuel. Maximum combat load reaches 31,5 t.

The aircraft at a height capable of speeds of 1050 km / h, cruising speed is lower - 845 km / h. Practical ceiling - 15 km. The combat radius is determined in 7200 km, the fermentation range is 16230 km. The bomber is equipped with an intake refueling system neck. Such equipment allows to increase the duration and range to the required values. Thus, in the past, experiments were conducted in which B-52 remained in the air for 40-45 hours.

The bomber is equipped with the means of protection against interceptors and anti-aircraft missiles. Until the early nineties, all B-52H were equipped with feed sets with 20-mm automatic guns M61. In the future, such equipment was abandoned in favor of other means of protection. Currently, self-defense is carried out only by means of electronic warfare. It is planned to upgrade this equipment, aimed at obtaining characteristics that meet the requirements of the time.

Thus, in terms of basic tactical and technical characteristics, the B-52H is a very successful aircraft, capable of solving a wide range of combat missions in different conditions. Thus, a large carrying capacity, provided a favorable design of the airframe and the power plant, allows you to carry and use various weapons of all main classes. Systems are provided to protect the bomber in flight.


View from a different angle. Photo Boeing Company / boeing.com


It should be noted that the main advantages of the B-52H as a platform for armaments are associated precisely with the flight-technical characteristics - first of all, with the “global” flight range. The combat radius without refueling, depending on the load, may exceed 7 thousand. Km. Participation in the operation of the aircraft tanker allows you to increase this parameter several times. In fact, B-52H, both independently and with the help of tankers, is able to work from any US air base and hit targets anywhere in the world. It is also possible to patrol in a given area in anticipation of an order to strike.

However, the high range is combined with subsonic speed. This in a known way slows down the transfer of aircraft to the advanced airbase, and also increases the time required for the attack. Accordingly, the speed of no more than 1000-1050 km / h in some situations may give advantages to the enemy, allowing him to respond to the threat in time.

Flying arsenal

B-52H Stratofortress is able to carry 31,5 t payload. For its placement is mainly used internal cargo compartment length 8,5 and width 1,8 m. The internal compartment is equipped with holders for weapons, and can also carry a turret launcher for missiles. Two pylons with three girder holders each are mounted under the center section. The configuration of the compartment and the pylons, as well as their equipment, are determined in accordance with the requirements of a specific combat departure.

All modifications of the B-52 bomber were able to use free-fall bombs of various types, including nuclear weapons. The maximum load then consists of a 51 bomb caliber to 500 pounds (227 kg). Larger and heavier items are shipped in smaller quantities. Until recently, the main special free-falling ammunition was the tactical fusion bombs B61 and B83 - the aircraft carried eight such items. However, several years ago, B-52H was excluded from the list of carriers of tactical nuclear weapons.


Aircraft B-52H and its range of weapons as of 2006. US Air Force Photo


B-52H is a carrier of high-precision bomb and missile weapons. Bomber equipment is compatible with the JDAM family of guided bombs. Amount of such weapons on board depends on its model and, accordingly, size and caliber. JDAM bombs can be dropped from a distance of several tens of kilometers from the target and are aimed at it using satellite navigation. There is a bomb AGM-154 JSOW. The planning product has a mass of 497 kg and carries a high-explosive fragmentation warhead. The maximum reset range for the latest modifications reaches 130 km.

In service there are several modifications of the AGM-86 ALCM / CALCM cruise missile. Such missiles are able to fly at a range of 1,2-2,4 thousand km and carry a conventional or thermonuclear warhead, depending on the modification. In the cargo compartment can be installed 12 missiles AGM-158A / B JASSM / JASSM-ER. With the help of satellite navigation and infrared homing head, such missiles deliver penetrating high-explosive warhead to a range of 360 (JASSM) or 980 (JASSM-ER) kilometers.

B-52H bomber can also be a carrier of naval mines. In the cargo compartment can be installed similar products of different types with different characteristics. Of particular interest is the Quickstrike-ER mine currently being tested. This product is a standard QuickStreak mine with a JDAM-ER kit borrowed from planning bombs. Such a naval mine can be transported and dropped by any aircraft capable of using JDAM. After resetting, Quickstrike-ER plans to the specified area, falls into the water and begins searching for a target. Due to the emergence of such weapons, B-52H and other aircraft of the United States and other countries can more effectively solve the tasks of setting minefields.

The B-52H strategic bomber is capable of carrying various types of US aircraft, both new and outdated models. Such an aircraft can attack ground or surface objects of the enemy, using the most effective weapon in this situation. This continues the process of creating new designs, with the result that the nomenclature of B-52H ammunition changes regularly.

Winged threat

Even half a century after the start of service, the Boeing B-52H Stratofortress bomber retains a fairly high combat potential and remains a serious threat. As part of the United States Air Force currently serves 70 such aircraft; A significant amount of equipment is in storage and can be returned to service after repair and modernization. Thus, the United States has a fairly large fleet of high-performance strategic bombers.


Stratofortress with AGM-86B missiles under the wing. Photo of US Air Force


Based on the available data, we can draw some conclusions about the possibilities fleet B-52H aircraft, as well as related risks for third countries. These conclusions, in turn, make it possible to determine the main methods of protection against American strategic aviation.

The danger of B-52H for a likely US adversary is made up of three main factors. The first two are the flight performance of the aircraft and the possibility of their basing on airfields around the world. The Pentagon can transfer bombers from one base to another, collecting large groups of vehicles in dangerous areas. In addition, similar actions can be carried out with aircraft tankers, designed to ensure the work of bombers.

The high range of the flight allows you to reach the remote frontiers of the use of weapons, be on duty in the air, waiting for the crew to fly to the designated target or build an optimal route that takes into account the characteristics of the enemy’s air defense, the assigned weapons and the existing risks. If necessary, the flight range and combat radius can be increased with the help of tanker aircraft. In fact, with proper organization of combat work, B-52H can use any weapon anywhere in the world.

The current nomenclature of weapons makes the B-52H bomber a versatile means of striking. Depending on the task, it is possible to use free-fall and adjustable bombs, as well as guided missiles of various types. Some munitions are equipped with conventional warheads, others carry thermonuclear ones. B-52H is able to work as a carrier of marine mines.


Underwing pylon with AGM-86B rockets. Photo of US Air Force


It should be noted that B-52H in a real war will not work independently. They can accomplish the tasks of the second strike - after their low-profile attack aircraft of the first line, designed to destroy the air defense, fulfill their mission. In addition, long-range bombers will not be left without a fighter cover. Thus, the enemy will have to fight not with planes of one particular type, but with a developed mixed aviation group.

How to deal with it

With all its advantages, the B-52H Stratofortress is not invulnerable. The fact that the enemy has a number of defense systems and their correct use dramatically reduces the actual effectiveness of the bombers or eliminates their work altogether. In this context, we can recall the war in Vietnam. In the course of this conflict, the US Air Force lost X-NUMX aircraft B-17 as a result of enemy actions. The bulk of the downed aircraft fell on Soviet-made anti-aircraft missile systems. However, during their work in Southeast Asia, strategic bombers managed to complete almost 52 thousand aircraft sorties.

B-52H is not without flaws, and this circumstance should be used to its advantage. First of all, it should be noted that this aircraft was developed before the emergence and spread of stealth technology, which affects its visibility. The effective dispersion area of ​​such an aircraft, according to various sources, reaches 100 sq.m. This means that any modern radar will notice such a bomber at its maximum range.

The aircraft can use the EW, but their effectiveness and impact on the situation depends on a number of factors. From the available data, it follows that the E-B-52H complex is capable of “muffling” old types of ground and airborne radars, but modern samples from leading manufacturers are protected from such effects. They are able to continue tracking the detected target.


The AGM-158 JASSM missile hits a target. Photo of Lockjeed Martin Corp. / lockheedmartin.com


Timely detection of a bomber gives plenty of time to react. Here it is necessary to use one of its minus - subsonic speed. The latter increases the flight time to the target or launch point and thereby simplifies the work of air defense. The anti-aircraft gunners have more time to attack the flying plane.

You can consider the situation with the hypothetical confrontation of the B-52H bomber and the C-400 SAM system. With the help of the 91H6E early warning radar, the SIRM is capable of detecting a very noticeable target at a distance of 570 km. Starting from the 400-380 km range, the anti-aircraft complex can use the 40H6E rocket to attack the identified target. The convergence of the aircraft and the rocket will continue for about 5 minutes. If the launch of the missile for any reason did not end with the defeat of the target, the SAMs will have enough time to re-attack, including with the use of other missiles.

The situation is the same with the interception of fighter bombers. Modern fighters, having received target designation from ground-based weapons, are able to reach the interception line and use their missiles in time. However, depending on the situation and methods of duty fighters may vary the time required to perform such tasks. For example, the duty of fighters on the intended route of the bomber dramatically reduces the reaction time, and also makes the interception line to a safe distance.

For obvious reasons, the B-52H Stratofortress bomber is most at risk when using free-fall bombs. In fact, such tasks can be solved only under conditions of complete suppression of enemy air defenses. If the anti-aircraft gunners continue to work, aviation will have to use other weapons that can be dropped from safe distances. These can be JDAM bombs or other tactical weapons with a range of at least several tens of kilometers. However, their use when operating a mid-range or long-range air defense train is associated with large risks.


B-52H with Quickstrike-ER marine mines. Photo Thedrive.com


B-52H aircraft with modern JASSM and CALCM cruise missiles pose a major threat. To launch such a weapon, an airplane does not even have to enter the enemy’s radar. Thus, air defense will have to detect and attack small complex missiles, while their carrier may go unnoticed.

B-52H can already master the "profession" of the director of sea minefields. Such threats can be fought in two ways. The first is the anti-aircraft defense of a possible mine installation area. The second is the development of mine-sweeping forces, including through the creation of new mine clearance systems. Working in these two directions will prevent the mines from being installed by creating a threat to their carriers or by intercepting an already dropped ammunition. Already placed at the position of mines can be neutralized by the relevant units of the fleet.

Tips for third countries

Since the B-52H bombers, despite their considerable age, are still a serious threat, third countries - the likely opponents of the United States - need to take a number of special measures. With their help, you can protect yourself from the main representative of the long-range aviation of the United States and its weapons.

First of all, it is necessary to develop its air defense system. Ground-based radars and long-range radar patrols are needed that can monitor the situation not only near the borders, but also in remote dangerous areas. All this will make it possible to find flying aircraft and ammunition dropped by them in a timely manner. Also necessary modern layered air defense system, including fighter-interceptors and anti-aircraft missile systems. It will be able to cover a wide range of ranges and intercept targets at distances of hundreds of kilometers. All air defense components must be resistant to enemy EW equipment and be able to detect stealth aircraft.


Bomber during landing. Photo Boeing Company / boeing.com


The latest steps for the development of the US Air Force in general and of the B-52H aircraft in particular place special demands on the naval forces of third countries. Stratofortress with Minas Quickstrike-ER can be a serious threat. As a result, new requirements for mine-sweeping forces appear. They need modern ships-minesweepers and other systems, carried, towed or autonomous. High potential in this context can have unmanned underwater or surface complexes capable of operating as a large group in a large area.

Thus, third countries are fully capable of resisting B-52H bombers or even completely eliminating their combat use by creating an excessive threat. To do this, it is necessary to take into account the current situation and determine the front of threats, and then appropriately supplement or rebuild the armed forces - first of all, ground-based air defense systems and fighter aircraft. In this case, we will talk not only about countering long-range bombers, but also about creating a full-fledged A2 / AD system that can deal with any other threats.

With all its advantages, B-52H is not invulnerable and does not guarantee unpunished striking. Effective combat with such bombers is very real and can be organized using modern methods and material parts. However, one should not forget that the USA is developing its combat aircraft, and therefore it is necessary to constantly improve means of protection against it.

Air defense and other components of the armed forces can reduce the combat potential of aviation of a potential enemy and become an effective means of strategic deterrence. As a result, the B-52H bombers are transformed from a real means of striking into a means of demonstrating power. For example, a few days ago, such planes flew to one of the bases in the UK and had already managed to perform patrols near the Russian borders. At the same time, it is obvious that we are talking exclusively about “diplomacy”. Attempting an air strike on objects of a country with Russia's military potential would be a real adventure with a predictable result for bombers.

Based on:
http://boeing.com/
https://lockheedmartin.com/
http://globalsecurity.org/
http://airwar.ru/
https://militaryfactory.com/
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/
https://janes.com/
https://thedrive.com/
https://tass.ru/
Ilyin V.E. Kudishin I.V. Strategic bombers and missile carriers of foreign countries. - M .: Astrel / AST, 2002.
IISS The Military Balance 2018.
Author:
133 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. YOUR
    YOUR 26 March 2019 06: 00 New
    +8
    Disappointing statistics of 17 downed planes for nearly 130 thousand sorties.
    And this despite the fact that the air defense of Vietnam was set by our specialists and not only set, they themselves participated in the reflection of the raids.
    I recall the results of the B-52 bombing. Depending on altitude and flight speed, bombs fall at a distance of 50 to 100 meters from each other with a strip of up to 1 km. In the city these are solid ruins.
    Under the conditions of the current air defense, will they be used in a series of bombing attacks, most likely they will be used as a platform for launching the KR.
    The image intensifier of the B-52 is too large up to 120 sq.m. Noticeable for radar target. But again, everything is limited by the radar detection range.
    1. tanit
      tanit 26 March 2019 06: 25 New
      +4
      That is, do you think that all these 130 thousand were precisely against the defense of North Vietnam?
      1. YOUR
        YOUR 26 March 2019 11: 18 New
        +2
        I don’t think anything, I quoted from an article
        1. tanit
          tanit 26 March 2019 18: 11 New
          -1
          Verbal nonsense. The article writes about flights to Southeast Asia, and not to Hanoi.
          1. YOUR
            YOUR 27 March 2019 06: 32 New
            +4
            So they bombed not only Hanoi.
      2. Nikolay Ivanov_4
        Nikolay Ivanov_4 27 March 2019 19: 59 New
        0
        I know that in Vietnam over 10 years more bombs were dropped than were used in the entire Second World War on all fronts
    2. KCA
      KCA 26 March 2019 07: 13 New
      +3
      Not all sorties ended with the bombing of Vietnam, the B-52 preferred to unload over Laos and fly to the base without entering the coverage area of ​​ground air defense and fighter jets, our sappers, who recently returned from Laos, mainly for the B-52 and tidied up
      1. YOUR
        YOUR 26 March 2019 11: 20 New
        -5
        Verbal nonsense. There is all the evidence that it was written in the article. Hanoi is almost destroyed. And it was after these wild bombardments that Vietnam agreed to the terms of the United States at the time of signing the peace treaties in Paris.
        1. NOTaFED
          NOTaFED 27 March 2019 09: 31 New
          +2
          Where did you get such porridge in your head ...
          Hanoi demanded an unconditional withdrawal of American troops, refusing to give security guarantees for the South Vietnamese government. By January 1973, the American side managed to achieve mutual understanding both official - with the DRV, South Vietnamese communists, and semi-official - with the USSR and China regarding the terms of a compromise. The United States agreed to begin the withdrawal of troops and complete it as soon as possible. The DRV pledged to refrain from armed intervention in South Vietnamese affairs, while the PRC and the USSR promised to reduce aid to the DRV in order to limit its ability to influence the situation in South Vietnam by force. With difficulty, the American administration managed to convince the Saigon government, which felt left to its own devices, would accept such a scheme without actually receiving guarantees in return from the DRV and South Vietnamese partisans. On January 27, 1973 in Paris, representatives of the USA, DRV, South Vietnam, and South Vietnamese Communists signed a quadripartite agreement to end the war.
          They didn’t bomb Hanoi, they bombed South Vietnam in order to persuade THEM to sign an agreement that would at least somehow save the face of the United States and get out of the war.
          1. YOUR
            YOUR 27 March 2019 09: 50 New
            +1
            Read more and not only Wikipedia
        2. meandr51
          meandr51 29 September 2019 16: 37 New
          0
          And, so it’s “on US conditions” that the American supermen fled in panic to their ships, throwing equipment, and did Saigon renamed Ho Chi Minh?
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 March 2019 16: 45 New
      +4
      Quote: YOUR
      Disappointing statistics of 17 downed planes for nearly 130 thousand sorties.
      And this despite the fact that the air defense of Vietnam was set by our specialists and not only set, they themselves participated in the reflection of the raids.

      Pomnitsa, in Soviet times, read the story of the first Vietnamese cosmonaut Pham Tuan. There, an episode with an attack on the B-52 was painted in great detail: he had to reach the target at night with the radar turned off. For the "half-closed" almost instantly detected exposure to someone else’s radar, and then began to interfere.
      1. Captain Pushkin
        Captain Pushkin 26 March 2019 19: 53 New
        +4
        Quote: Alexey RA
        The "half-closed" almost instantly detected the irradiation of a foreign radar itself, after which it began to interfere.

        In Vietnam, the B-52 was considered the most difficult target with the highest missile consumption per downed aircraft - about 7,5 missiles.
        1. AU Ivanov.
          AU Ivanov. 26 March 2019 21: 47 New
          +4
          My uncle received an order for him. Fell him down after all.
    4. Sasha_rulevoy
      Sasha_rulevoy 26 March 2019 17: 23 New
      +7
      Disappointing statistics of 17 downed planes for nearly 130 thousand sorties.


      Almost all the losses suffered during the four days of Linebaker operation. Due to the urgency of training, they were transferred from Europe and sent to the battle a bunch of planes without established REP stations. We thought it would do.

      November 22, 1972 - The first, Operation Linebaker 1, was shot down.
      the night of December 18/19 began LB2, shot down immediately 3
      night of December 19/20, the second day of raids, not a single one
      20/21 - 5 were shot down (including one crashed on the way back), the so-called "rainy day of strategic aviation", one B-52G unit was shot by a full force, each with several SAMs
      21/22 - shot down 3

      night 26/27 - "Easter raids" shot down 1 and one crashed on landing
      night 27/28 - shot down 1 and 1 damaged, crashed when landing

      In operation Arc Light
      January 3, 1973 one plane was shot down
      January 13, one is damaged, reached the airfield, was not restored

      There were no more casualties in the eight years of the war.

      All planes shot down by S-75 missiles (SA-2 they called them).
    5. Nikolay Ivanov_4
      Nikolay Ivanov_4 27 March 2019 20: 02 New
      +1
      You do not correctly understand the future of these aircraft — if you bomb any Somalia, it will bomb, and if you mean a war with us, then you don’t think that the Third World between the two superpowers will be fought with conventional weapons? -American strategists will do what they intended - they will release the KR with a thermonuclear warhead (maybe instead of Tomahawks, it will already be an analogue of our Dagger by then)
    6. meandr51
      meandr51 22 June 2019 20: 34 New
      0
      Perhaps this is American data on the DRV. Vietnam and the USSR gave the number 62 over all areas of Vietnam and surrounding countries. Against the background of downed 4500 other aircraft, this is a very real figure.
    7. meandr51
      meandr51 29 September 2019 16: 46 New
      -1
      North Vietnam aircraft flew in 10 minutes. What serious air defense can it be? All airfields were constantly bombed, MIGs often took off from fields and highways, being delivered there by MI-6 helicopters. However, in Vietnam in 1965-73. About 13 thousand planes and helicopters of all members of the American coalition were shot down.
  2. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher 26 March 2019 06: 00 New
    +2
    You can consider the situation with a hypothetical confrontation between the B-52H bomber and the S-400 air defense system.

    The author himself mentioned earlier
    They can solve the tasks of the second strike - after their mission is carried out by stealth first-line attack aircraft designed to destroy air defense.

    In this regard, the confrontation of the S-400 vs B-52H is impossible.
    1. bistrov.
      bistrov. 26 March 2019 07: 16 New
      -32
      Quote: Puncher
      confrontation with the S-400 vs B-52H is impossible.

      What are "invisible strike aircraft"? The so-called B-2 stealth bombers. Firstly, they can only carry bombs, and secondly, in Yugoslavia even S-200s shot them down.
      So, all this American "strategy" is written with a pitchfork on the water ...
      1. Hole puncher
        Hole puncher 26 March 2019 07: 19 New
        +18
        Quote: bistrov.
        The so-called B-2 stealth bombers. Firstly, they can only carry bombs, and secondly, in Yugoslavia even S-200s shot them down.

        Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooofy beahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh]
        1. The leader of the Redskins
          The leader of the Redskins 26 March 2019 07: 57 New
          +14
          And I, in general, am surprised at the logic of many VO participants))) A week ago there was an article here that ВХNUMX is approaching its centenary. As they just didn’t walk through it ... As soon as they didn’t call them ... And suddenly the article that it turns out to be dangerous)))
      2. Dimas84
        Dimas84 26 March 2019 08: 01 New
        +7
        I don’t know about V-2, but F-117 was shot down precisely, by means of the S-125 Neva, with a Philips imager installed. Well done Serbs!
        An anecdote, by the way: a group of Western scientists conducted a series of experiments and came to the conclusion that the lack of air defense inevitably leads to democracy ..
        1. Hole puncher
          Hole puncher 26 March 2019 08: 07 New
          +7
          Quote: Dimas84
          lack of air defense inevitably leads to democracy ..

          And did the presence of air defense protect anyone? Any examples?
          1. Dimas84
            Dimas84 26 March 2019 08: 43 New
            +2
            While the presence of air defense saves only us. That is, Russia.
            Alas, I can’t give more examples.
            1. Hole puncher
              Hole puncher 26 March 2019 08: 46 New
              -11
              Quote: Dimas84
              While the presence of air defense saves only us. That is, Russia.
              Alas, I can’t give more examples.

              What are they saving from? From inflation, from poverty, from corruption?
              1. Dimas84
                Dimas84 26 March 2019 08: 50 New
                +12
                . What are they saving from? From inflation, from poverty, from corruption?

                What about inflation, poverty and corruption on the subject of the B-52?
                1. Hole puncher
                  Hole puncher 26 March 2019 08: 51 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Dimas84
                  What about inflation, poverty and corruption on the subject of the B-52?

                  Like the B-52 for democracy.
                  1. Redfox3k
                    Redfox3k 26 March 2019 09: 53 New
                    +5
                    You shouldn’t be so. B-52s fly where there is no "democracy", but there is oil and states disloyal to Washington. Direct dependency.
                    1. Hole puncher
                      Hole puncher 26 March 2019 10: 19 New
                      0
                      Quote: Redfox3k
                      You shouldn’t be so. B-52s fly where there is no "democracy", but there is oil and states disloyal to Washington. Direct dependency.

                      Angola is in the lead in oil reserves; there has never been a loyal US regime there, not to mention air defense. So what? Algeria from the same series. Why is Algeria not bombed? That's where democracy does not smell like in Angola and Algeria.
                      1. kapitan92
                        kapitan92 26 March 2019 21: 35 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Puncher
                        Angola is the leader in oil reserves, there has never been a loyal US regime there,

                        Part of the Atlantic coast, where modern Angola is located, was captured by Portugal in 1482. For 400 years, the country becomes a Portuguese colony. Only in 1975, the state gained independence after the war of liberation, which lasted more than 15 years.

                        But then Angola again plunges into the abyss of civil war for 27 years. Since 2002, the country has been living a peaceful life and is building its future.

                        There was no time! laughing
                  2. Egor-dis
                    Egor-dis 26 March 2019 20: 02 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Puncher
                    Like the B-52 for democracy.

                    B-52 does not apply to democracy. More likely to democracy.
              2. 123454321
                123454321 26 March 2019 11: 16 New
                +4
                did not try to work, so as not to be a beggar?
                1. vindigo
                  vindigo 26 March 2019 15: 36 New
                  +6
                  I tried. More tired, with the same salary. You get even less money than when you work relaxed)
            2. 2 Level Advisor
              2 Level Advisor 26 March 2019 10: 48 New
              +1
              Nuclear weapons save us first, and then air defense
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 26 March 2019 18: 19 New
                -9
                Against B 52 - there will be Sushki 27, 30, 35, Migi 31, 29 on the ground C 300, C 400, and soon C 350 and C 500 - this machine already has no chance to fly into our territory - only launch missiles from maximum distance.
            3. Corn
              Corn 26 March 2019 13: 36 New
              -1
              While the presence of air defense saves only us.
              Russia is saved by the Strategic Missile Forces and the guarantee of the complete, comprehensive destruction of "Western civilization" in the event of a threat to the sovereignty of our country. In conventional armaments, Russia completely lost both in quantity and in quality, s400, s100500 and other "no_analogs_world" - cover no better than a fig leaf.
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 26 March 2019 23: 53 New
                0
                In terms of air defense, everything is fine - 125 divisions C 300, 56 divisions C 400, 123 Carapace, 250 Tungusok, about 500 Bukov, about 400 Torov, about 500 air defense systems Osa and thousands of air defense systems hundreds of fighters - and completely controlled airspace as a single system Air defense. At the moment, only the Chinese Air Force can pose a threat to us - since it has a common border with it, the United States is far away, NATO is a paper tiger - existing on the principle of one for all and each for itself.
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 26 March 2019 10: 34 New
          +12
          Quote: Dimas84
          Well done Serbs!

          They proved irrefutably that if the "invisible" travels on rails and on a schedule, like a tram, then it will fly to the invisibility for the second week. Thanks to the Serbian and American partners for this experiment.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 26 March 2019 17: 40 New
            0
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            They proved irrefutably that if the "invisible" travels on rails and on a schedule, like a tram, then it will fly to the invisibility for the second week.

            EMNIP, then it was proved that survey radars still see the invisibility. But CHP has big problems with this.
            The result is a classic picture: sees an eye, but the tooth is numb. There is a goal on VIKO, but on its air defense system indicators it is either empty or something incomprehensible, for which it is impossible to catch the strobe. And only when the target approaches 30-40% of the passport maximum firing range of air defense systems at least some mark appears on the indicators.
        3. Nikolay Ivanov_4
          Nikolay Ivanov_4 27 March 2019 20: 04 New
          -3
          Switzerland is not a member of either the EU or NATO and no one is bombing them (200 years of a single war! This is the type of state that it is striving for)
      3. YOUR
        YOUR 26 March 2019 11: 24 New
        -2
        And a lot of stuffing?
        Why does no one know about this?
    2. YOUR
      YOUR 26 March 2019 12: 36 New
      0
      There are several options for starting a global slaughter.
      First option
      simultaneous start of all media. In this case, the impact power will increase gradually. After 15-30 minutes at the launch post, ballistic missiles are launched, then on the approach of the Kyrgyz Republic launched from ships and planes and the ending is finished off after 5-7 hours by strategic aircraft. Then a day the other frontiers, additional reconnaissance of the remaining untouched targets and a second strike less massive. Here, mainly strategic and tactical aviation
      The second option.
      Gradual launch of carriers, coordinated in time, so that as many carriers as possible enter the airspace of the enemy at the same time, so that the strike is the most massive. Then some time for analysis, additional reconnaissance of not destroyed targets and a second strike.
      The first option is most likely because the element of surprise remains. But the simultaneous destruction of enemy weapons will not succeed. There will be a return. But there is hope that most of the enemy’s weapons will be destroyed, and some part of the retaliatory strike can be intercepted. 100% Aviation will be destroyed, ships standing in ports will be destroyed, command posts and control centers of the country and the armed forces will be destroyed. The country will be irreparably damaged, chemical plants, nuclear power plants, hydroelectric power stations, nuclear strikes will be delivered in most cities. After that, the B-52 with bombs on board will be used.
      Well, that’s how they count. But they do not forget that we have something to answer. The Americans even managed to calculate such an option. As they say throw on embrasure, i.e. undermining on its territory the most powerful nuclear weapons that will destroy the planet. Are there any such plans who really knows him, everything can be.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 26 March 2019 13: 24 New
        +4
        Quote: YOUR
        chemical plants, nuclear power plants, hydroelectric power stations, nuclear strikes will be delivered in most cities.

        Why do all this, sorry?

        In case of conflict, one of the tasks will be to keep the population within the borders of the former Russia. No one is interested in 100 million people rushing to Berlin. For benefits.
        1. YOUR
          YOUR 26 March 2019 13: 39 New
          +1
          You carefully read the comment. Global war with the use of nuclear weapons.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 26 March 2019 14: 01 New
            -2
            Quote: YOUR
            Global war with the use of nuclear weapons.

            So what? Ever heard of a counterstroke?
            1. YOUR
              YOUR 26 March 2019 14: 06 New
              +2
              I have not heard. And what is it?
              I heard about the retaliation. And what does this have to do with the enemy’s plans?
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 26 March 2019 14: 29 New
                -1
                Quote: YOUR
                I have not heard.

                Considered in one old thread, for example
                What does a counterstroke look like:
                At any given time on duty are usually 8-9 Ohio. Recently, it is customary to charge them with 20 Tridents, but they can be downloaded quite legally by 24. Unlike Dolphins, they don’t have to get rid of PLO, you can work from the Japanese, Norwegian, and Mediterranean Sea from the minimum distance for the Trident (about 2 thousand km , 5-6 minutes flight time).
                And minus
                Gadzhievo
                (there was a photo)
                Vilyuchinsk
                (there was a photo)
                Judging by these two photos, with two warheads, we zipped 8 SSBNs out of 11, please note. 416 + 144 warheads. The rest are very unlikely to be shot back - damage from minor clashes with moose in underwater during the Soviet era was recorded by dozens. In the photographs we do not see 2 Boreas (2x96 CU) and one Dolphin (80 CU). If they are alive, we will avenge the Russian woman. No - no.
                One more. Both Boreas work from the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. Missiles fly over Alaska. The number of GBI and SM-3 spent on them may turn out to be much larger than it seems now.
                Engels
                (there was a photo)
                Ukrainian
                (there was a photo)
                Strategic aviation is everything.
                Spent 4 Monoblock Trident.
                Further Voivode. Located in Uzhur and Dombarovsky. It’s more convenient to work on them from the SLO. The same 6 minutes of flight time. If two W88 blocks hit, the launch shaft is disabled with a probability of 95%. This means that at the price of 92 W88 out of 400 blocks, 43 Governors out of 46, 430 warheads are minus. 2 or 3 missiles, 20 or 30 warheads leave.
                Enemies are in a good plus.
                Poplars in Saratov, Yarsy near Kaluga (mine). Tentatively, 50 and 20, respectively. We believe that the mines are the same as those of the Governor. 140 W88, leaving 1 Yars (4 warheads), 2 Poplars (2x1 warheads).
                Spent 232 W88, 8 (we take 2 each) W76.
                Remained mobile complexes. There are about 100 of them, mainly Yars. Ivanovo, Novosib, NTagil. This does not even require YABCh, the main thing to find. But we will not regret 100 W76, for good people it is not a pity. To find - you need to correctly guess with the passage of satellites. If everything matches up, it's about the hat. 20 warheads (5% of carriers) will lose their strength.

                Total A preemptive strike can cover 80% of the media in 6 minutes. The remaining, almost all, are 3 SSBNs (this is a lot, KOH 0,3 is respected for Russia, to put it mildly, not always). If it is possible to infuse them too (and this is quite possible if the enemy is preparing) - the Russian girl disappeared for a snuff of tobacco. Fifty warheads are an adequate task for missile defense. They fly, I note, on random targets - it is not known in advance which ones will survive, but they cannot succeed in retargeting - there is no Moscow.
                Vrazhin: spent 108 W76 (actually less, mobile Yars / Poplars for the most part are at the base), 232 W88. There are 400 more minitacks, more than 100 Tridents, more than 1000 warheads, about half - 450 Kt each. Unlimited number of bombs (approx. 5 thousand) Damage to the USA, even in the most lousy situation with the SSBN, does not threaten the nation’s physical survival.
                1. YOUR
                  YOUR 26 March 2019 15: 09 New
                  +2
                  Cool. General Staff in sobs.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 26 March 2019 15: 56 New
                    +1
                    Quote: YOUR
                    General Staff in sobs.

                    From what? GS in the know.

                    No need to think that we will all go to heaven, and the rest will all die. Not everyone.
                    1. YOUR
                      YOUR 27 March 2019 06: 33 New
                      0
                      Let's hope that we remain.
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 27 March 2019 06: 41 New
                        +2
                        Quote: YOUR
                        Let's hope that we remain.

                        If Armageddon goes according to plans, almost everything will remain, albeit a little sad.
                      2. YOUR
                        YOUR 27 March 2019 06: 57 New
                        0
                        Let's hope that we will remain all and funny.
              2. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 26 March 2019 17: 48 New
                +2
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                The remaining, almost all, are 3 SSBNs (this is a lot, KOH 0,3 is respected for Russia, to put it mildly, not always).

                Pomnitsa, when discussing the photo essay from Gadzhievo 2015, attentive commentators found that 5 of the 6 SSBF CSFs were at the piers. And KOH for CSF was 0,14.
                It is easy to see in the pictures that there are five SSBNs in the Gadzhievo base at the same time - four 667BDRM projects (K-51 Verkhoturye, K-84 Yekaterinburg, K-18 Karelia and K-407 Novomoskovsk) and the new K- 535 "Yuri Dolgoruky" project 955 (so far not embarked on combat duty). Given the fact that the K-114 Tula RPKSN Project 667BDRM is undergoing average repairs at the headquarters of Zvezdochka Ship Repair Center JSC in Severodvinsk, we can conclude that there was only one boat at sea at the time of this photo shoot this division - K-117 "Bryansk" project 667BDRM.
                (...)
                Now about the sad. Being in the base of five SSBNs is simultaneously suggestive. Assuming that one of the seven strategists of the Northern Fleet is still on combat patrol (“Tula” is being repaired at Zvyozdochka), the KOH of our northern group of nuclear forces is only 0,14 (instead of the desired 0,33 or close to ideal 0,5, XNUMX).
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Nikolay Ivanov_4
        Nikolay Ivanov_4 27 March 2019 20: 08 New
        0
        on the way from starvation (all food is infected) from radiation sickness and ethnoviruses (for example, influenza that affects only the Slavs, but is close to the plague in mortality) everyone will die, freeing Siberia for American commodity corporations. (if by then it will not become Chinese, they, too, will not sit still when sharing such a “pie”)
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 27 March 2019 21: 38 New
          -2
          Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_4
          Siberia for American commodity corporations

          And what kind of commodity corporation is there to stir up such a mover? And what are they spread over there, in this your Siberia? Been there?
          1. Nikolay Ivanov_4
            Nikolay Ivanov_4 27 March 2019 21: 52 New
            0
            "Plastered" by what you ask? Yes, at least because there are so many oil shale under one huge swamp area (do you also know about shale gas and shale oil?) What if we consider these fields as oil (of course, the production benefits are far from the Saudi oil geysers close to the surface ) then Russia will have the largest oil reserves in the world (gas, and so the largest) by the way Venezuelan oil also produced in places from bitumen sands, as they began to think of ordinary deposits, then Venezuela instantly jumped out of 10 (in the 90s) to 1 place in reserves oil, even surpassing Saudi Arabia, and Canada rose due to the same fields to 3rd place. In the Russian Federation, they still don’t even conduct exploration of millions of square kilometers of these lands, because in the first place there is enough Tyumen oil, and in the second one does not want to tempt an ever stronger China with such surprises at hand (they will be very tempted to sacrifice hundreds of millions of male peasants (their they have a gender bias in the country of men for a hundred million more than women) for the sake of joining Siberia with the richest resources in the world (China will automatically become the largest country in the territory) and their losses are easily compensated by only one - 14 million canceled abortions in China they will increase the population by 140 million in ten years, but there will be new living spaces and enormous resources (there will be so much fresh water in Baikal that the entire population of the Earth would be enough to drink 2 liters a day from it) oil and gas (80% oil fields of the Russian Federation there) various ores, millions of square kilometers of timber and timber and city construction, China will become a mega empire that Genghis Khan would envy) for development.
            1. The comment was deleted.
    3. To be or not to be
      To be or not to be 26 March 2019 15: 13 New
      0
      YOUR (Vladimir) Today, 12:36 NEW
      0
      There are several options for starting a global slaughter.
      First option"...
      Composition on a free theme ...
      1. YOUR
        YOUR 26 March 2019 15: 16 New
        0
        May be. Only such lectures are conducted in military schools when studying the use of nuclear weapons. Such assumptions were made on the basis of American plans for an attack on the USSR.
        But you can think as you like
        In the future, try to give counterarguments.
        1. To be or not to be
          To be or not to be 26 March 2019 15: 27 New
          -1
          1. There are on-duty nuclear forces in the United States and there are all nuclear forces.
          2. Who is the first (for example, in the USA). these are again different options for the response of the US nuclear triad
          3. By the number of means used to defeat targets, both the duty forces and all others
          4. According to the options for limiting the objects of destruction (for example, cities are excluded.. .. ..)
          5. At what theater the war began and is going on and its development with the use of the tactical self and what will follow him
          Based on this and the scenarios of the use of nuclear forces. (Nuclear war)
          As one of the options - a sudden attack by nuclear forces on duty. with subsequent options ... its escalation or termination.
          1. YOUR
            YOUR 26 March 2019 15: 49 New
            +1
            Almost 100% of mine-based ballistic missiles and 70% of sea-based are on duty.
            Unfortunately, we have a little less for sea-based missiles and more for ground-based missiles. Colonel General Karakaev, the commander of the Strategic Missile Forces, said last December that about 400 missiles are in the Strategic Missile Forces on a b / d basis. How many missiles are on duty at SSBN there is no information. But there is a feeling that it is also no less, and even those boats that stand at the berths are capable of even launching with a reduced crew.
            You think the Americans are different.
            What are we arguing about?
            I told you and not only you two options for starting a nuclear war. How this will be achieved specifically is a completely different matter. For example, the United States will decide that they have achieved such excellence in missile defense and in nuclear weapons that they can attack without much damage to themselves. Hypersonic delivery vehicles that could not be intercepted, discovered and launched a tail behind all our SSBNs, were able to use EW to take control of all our satellites and blind the SPRN at the right time. And they decided once and for all to end the enemy.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 26 March 2019 17: 01 New
              +2
              Quote: YOUR
              For example, the United States will decide that they have achieved such excellence in missile defense and in nuclear weapons that they can attack without much damage to themselves.

              You describe the situation of 1945-62.

              Not attacked nonetheless.
              1. YOUR
                YOUR 27 March 2019 06: 29 New
                0
                There are big doubts that they will attack.
            2. meandr51
              meandr51 26 March 2019 19: 20 New
              -1
              So, as soon as our satellites begin to transmit nonsense, so immediately the team will start.
              There, it seems, 5 minutes need to be worked out ...
              And now you can mirror option? And then I'm tired: everything is on us, but they are climbing on us ...
              1. YOUR
                YOUR 27 March 2019 06: 29 New
                +1
                Do you know this for sure? And where?
  • AAK
    AAK 26 March 2019 08: 31 New
    -2
    The author needs to refresh his knowledge of arithmetic for grade 1 .. first he writes:
    - empty weight 83,25t
    -Max. take-off weight - 220t.
    however:
    fuel on board - 181,6 thousand liters. (that's about 178t)
    combat load - 31.5t
    by simple addition 83,25t + 178t + 31,5t (empty weight, fuel mass, payload mass) we get a maximum take-off weight of 292,75t
    Everything else has been written about the same thing for decades, but here is the reason to repeat ... five 52 arrived in Britain, one our Su-27 drove from the borders ...
    1. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 26 March 2019 08: 49 New
      +5
      Quote: AAK
      The author needs to brush up on arithmetic knowledge for grade 1 ..

      You just do not quite understand the term "maximum take-off weight." This is the maximum mass at which it is possible to make a safe take-off. This is not necessarily the sum of all the masses.
    2. Redfox3k
      Redfox3k 26 March 2019 09: 57 New
      +1
      The MAXIMUM take-off weight is clearly stated - 220 tons. At which it is not necessary to take the maximum amount of fuel and the maximum number of weapons at the same time.
    3. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 26 March 2019 10: 29 New
      +6
      Quote: AAK
      83,25t + 178t + 31,5t (empty weight, fuel mass, payload mass) we get a maximum take-off weight of 292,75t

      0. A liter of kerosene weighs 0,8 kg. 181,6 thousand liters = 145,28 145 + 31 + 84 = 260.
      1. Take off with full tanks and no load. Maximum fuel, distillation range.
      2. Take off with incomplete tanks and full load, the usual option.
      2a. Refuel to a full tank in the air. Weight in flight m. more than take-off.
    4. Vladimir Rodionov
      Vladimir Rodionov 26 March 2019 11: 52 New
      +5
      Quote: AAK
      The author needs to brush up on knowledge of arithmetic for grade 1.

      The author probably knows arithmetic. But he, unlike you, probably knows the theory of flight. First, find out what the maximum take-off weight is. At least in WIKI. However, the authors of accusations of ignorance of arithmetic, often at the level of knowledge only are arithmetic. This gives them self-confidence in their own eyes. But from the side you can clearly see whose cow would moo, and it would be better if they were silent.
      1. AAK
        AAK 26 March 2019 12: 27 New
        -8
        A colleague, in addition to arithmetic, I understand a little more in formal logic. It is strange to design an airplane that not only cannot, but supposedly does not have to take off with full refueling and full combat load ...?
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 26 March 2019 12: 38 New
          +5
          Quote: AAK
          It is strange to design an airplane that not only cannot, but supposedly does not have to take off with full refueling and full combat load ...?

          Every single aircraft, including airliners, cannot take off with a full refueling and full combat or commercial load, from a corn carrier to An-225 and A380.

          We live in a strange world, yes.
        2. Vladimir Rodionov
          Vladimir Rodionov 26 March 2019 12: 43 New
          +1
          Quote: AAK
          A colleague, in addition to arithmetic, I understand a little more in formal logic.

          Once you are too lazy, I’ll quote from WIKI: “The maximum take-off mass of an aircraft does not necessarily correspond to its full curb weight, full fueling and full load with payload. As a rule, the calculation of refueling and loading for each specific departure is always carried out and almost always donate either refueling (which limits the flight range) or limit the mass of payload in favor of fueling. " And there is nothing strange here. Because a flying airplane can carry a much larger load than a flying airplane. In the case of refueling in the air, the B-52H can carry both full refueling and full ammunition. To do this, you only need to correctly calculate the weight of the fuel at take-off. Do you understand such formal logic?
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 26 March 2019 13: 45 New
            +1
            Quote: Vladimir Rodionov
            Because a flying airplane can carry a much larger load than a flying airplane. In case of refueling in the air, the B-52H can carry both full refueling and full ammunition

            Not necessarily the scheme is designed for refueling. On ordinary liners - 777, 787, A350 and so on. - maximum range - range with normal load - range with maximum load - this always different numbers.
            The maximum take-off weight of the aircraft is limited by the strength of the glider, landing gear, load on the runway. The runways themselves are long now, they are enough for everyone. It would be strange, from the point of view of the manufacturer, to plan a rigidly fixed load / fuel ratio. It’s normal when the plane can take more fuel into the load and vice versa.
            1. Vladimir Rodionov
              Vladimir Rodionov 26 March 2019 14: 06 New
              0
              What did you mean? The fact that the Volga flows into the Caspian Sea? Can airplanes rely on refueling, or they may not rely on refueling? Or that the results of calculating the range depend on the load? Specifically, what do you mind or agree with? Demagogy.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 26 March 2019 14: 38 New
                +1
                Quote: Vladimir Rodionov
                Specifically, what do you mind or agree with? Demagogy.

                Why are you so nervous?

                You wrote that the mass of the B-52 in the air can be higher than the take-off. It may well be so and fly. For the SR-71, for example, this was the main working option.

                I added that the maximum take-off weight assumes the maximum amount cargo and fuel, and not immediately maximum load and maximum fuel simultaneously.
                Quote: Vladimir Rodionov
                The fact that the Volga flows into the Caspian Sea?

                Exactly. AAK, it seems to me, should have clarified this.
    5. YOUR
      YOUR 26 March 2019 14: 02 New
      0
      It’s interesting how our Su-27 drove the B-52 from our borders? Not any pitfalls in my question. I wonder how you imagine it
    6. mvg
      mvg 26 March 2019 14: 16 New
      +2
      At maximum combat load, the fuel supply is not full
    7. Vikxnumx
      Vikxnumx 26 March 2019 16: 45 New
      +2
      fuel on board - 181,6 thousand liters. (that's about 178t)

      Are you fueling it with fuel oil?
      181 600 liters approx. 141650 ... 147100 kg.
  • 2329 Carpenter
    2329 Carpenter 26 March 2019 09: 05 New
    0
    Fast, accurate and angry anti-aircraft missile = B-52's best friend in the Russian sky. And its immediate surroundings.
    laughing
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 26 March 2019 09: 09 New
    +2
    This aircraft is good in that it has many options for using conventional (large assortment) of weapons. What our Tupolevs do not have.
    1. Redfox3k
      Redfox3k 26 March 2019 09: 59 New
      -1
      Simply put, the versatility of the aircraft.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 26 March 2019 13: 30 New
        +1
        ... in peacetime. In a big war, this is not necessary. And in peacetime, it helps tactical aviation.
  • Forest
    Forest 26 March 2019 10: 04 New
    -5
    It is dangerous for its age, if it crashes near our borders, then the confrontation will reach a new level.
  • vvp2412
    vvp2412 26 March 2019 10: 11 New
    0
    The mass of an empty aircraft is determined at the level of 83,25 tons, the maximum take-off weight is 220 tons. More than 181,6 thousand liters of fuel is placed in the fuel tanks. Maximum combat load reaches 31,5 tons.

    Translate into Russian!
    220t-83,25t - 31,5t = 105.25 t of fuel.
    Aviation kerosene weighs 0,79-0,82kg per liter! Ie 105,25 * 0,8 = 84,2т - it can take fuel with a full load of BC
    In the fuel tanks more than 181,6 thousand liters are placed. Those. 181600 * 0,8 = 145280kg
    145280 + 83250 = 228530kg Those. even without BC, he cannot take the entire amount of fuel.
    Maybe I don’t understand what? Or is there a mistake in the text?
    1. Vladimir Rodionov
      Vladimir Rodionov 26 March 2019 11: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: vvp2412
      Those. even without BC, he cannot take the entire amount of fuel.

      Yes. Cannot take the entire volume on takeoff. But it can take the indicated volume when refueling in the air. Which determines the range.
  • Corn
    Corn 26 March 2019 13: 42 New
    -2
    It is hardly any danger to Russia, it is not capable of a “quick global strike” and is an extremely punitive weapon against a weakened enemy.
    Of course, the B52 is a landmark aircraft for its time, but with American spending on the army to continue to operate the museum exhibit for 100 years, this is already too much.
    If you really need a flying platform-bomb truck, nothing prevents you from even making a budget alteration from any transporter.
    1. Vladimir Rodionov
      Vladimir Rodionov 26 March 2019 14: 53 New
      +2
      Delirium of the amateur. What do you know about transporters? Suitable for the amount of cargo transported? What about the rest of the options?
      1. Corn
        Corn 26 March 2019 15: 25 New
        0
        Be so kind as to voice these very “other parameters”.
        Surely this is not difficult at all, you are an expert, not an amateur.
        1. Vladimir Rodionov
          Vladimir Rodionov 27 March 2019 12: 36 New
          0
          I believe this is not a place for educational program for amateurs. Have you tried to find out something yourself?
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 27 March 2019 13: 13 New
            +1
            Quote: Vladimir Rodionov
            I believe this is not a place for educational program for amateurs

            Why are you so sharp? Here non-amateurs - 5 people on the whole site.

            At the same time, Boeing saw another opportunity in their appearance. By the mid-70s, it became clear that the B-52 was gradually becoming obsolete, but not one of the military vehicles being designed was able to occupy its niche. The same unpretentious subsonic aircraft was needed, capable of carrying an even greater payload. He was no longer required either flight speed or the ability to perform complex maneuvers - his task was only to calmly deliver missiles to the launch point.
            The solution to this issue, in fact, has long been obvious - long-range civil aviation was perfectly suited for all of the above parameters. Due to market requirements, passenger and cargo aircraft have continuously evolved towards greater cost-effectiveness and efficiency. If the military more often looked in the direction of speed and power, then for civilians it was much more important to have low fuel consumption and ease of maintenance.
            It was civilian vehicles that became the basis for long-range radar detection aircraft or air tankers requiring long range and flight duration. Now the time has come for peaceful vehicles to take on the role of a full-fledged military aircraft from the nuclear triad. In 1974, the Boeing company initiated the CMCA (Cruise Missile Carrier Aircraft - Cruise Missile Carrier Aircraft) program to create a carrier for cruise missiles based on the Boeing-747 airliner.


            https://warspot.ru/12376-na-zamenu-stratosfernoy-kreposti
          2. Corn
            Corn 27 March 2019 13: 19 New
            -2
            I did not expect another answer from the Internet labor-ysperd, all the good and good mood to you.
  • Tektor
    Tektor 26 March 2019 14: 14 New
    -3
    How to deal with it
    We have a global missile launcher. It is called Vanguard - a hypersonic planning warhead. It can be screwed to Sarmat, Stiletto, Boundary (RS-26). In the latter case, it will be a mobile complex with a range of about 6 thousand km. For guidance, it is necessary to use the Unified Space System (CEN) as part of the Unified State System for Lighting of Surface and Underwater Conditions (EGSONPO), which, according to the State Space Test, should cover 2021% of the world's oceans by 50. Northern Hemisphere, as I understand it.
    1. Tektor
      Tektor 27 March 2019 13: 44 New
      0
      It’s strange that they mined, because the exchange of warheads is 1 to 20 in our favor, if only one B-52 is shot down. And if the squadron will fly them? 1 to 160. Indeed, the radius of destruction of a warhead of 10 kt is about 800 m. With a warhead of 2 mt, the radius will reach 3 km. In a sphere with a diameter of 6 km, all air targets will be destroyed with a 100% probability.
  • viktorish007
    viktorish007 26 March 2019 15: 42 New
    +1
    no way to protect yourself from launching a swarm of missiles from a long distance
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 26 March 2019 15: 48 New
    +3
    Strange as it may seem, the value of the B-52 can still rise dramatically. When such large platforms will begin to be equipped with their own defensive missiles in the version of missile defense. Against missiles and enemy explosives.
    Such short-range missiles are under development. With them, the B-52 dinosaur becomes almost invulnerable.
    1. viktorish007
      viktorish007 26 March 2019 15: 59 New
      0
      meaning, if the launch line is far beyond areas of possible interception?
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 26 March 2019 16: 52 New
        +3
        The B-52 arsenal also has heavy bombs. Concrete, deep penetration, for example. They cannot be replaced with cruise missiles. To reset them, you must go over the goal. And enemy fighters will actively interfere with this.
        1. viktorish007
          viktorish007 27 March 2019 20: 41 New
          0
          the gardens probably also made plans to fight the hundreds of b52 that were supposed to arrange carpet bombing of Baghdad
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 March 2019 18: 37 New
      -2
      This will have to put at least 60 air-to-air missiles on board.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • bmv04636
    bmv04636 26 March 2019 17: 19 New
    -3
    MiG 31 is not suitable
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 26 March 2019 17: 41 New
    +2
    The car is definitely good. This is confirmed by many, many years of operation. I would continue to admire her, but she’s a snake, she will consider it worthwhile to bomb me. And this is no longer buzzing. hi
  • Sasha_rulevoy
    Sasha_rulevoy 26 March 2019 17: 46 New
    +2
    With the help of the 91N6E early warning radar, an air defense system can detect a very noticeable target at a distance of 570 km.


    The Americans installed low-altitude flight equipment on them, specially for the 52nd they developed time-bombed bombs so that they could be dropped from ultra-low altitudes.



    Accordingly, a speed of not more than 1000-1050 km / h in some situations can give


    The speed is actually great. Fighters squeeze two wings with only empty wings. And with the suspended V-V rockets, only 1.5 and even then after a long overclock on the afterburner. As long as the pilot turns around where necessary, finds on the radar (and interferes with it), picks up altitude, accelerates, and the B-52nd is already a hundred kilometers away at the transonic one, i.e. will be outside the interception zone. In reality, for the MiG-21, the B-52 was not at all tough, but for modern ones it was a very difficult target, especially if it was at ultra-low altitude at high speed. Not a single 52nd was shot down by a fighter.
    1. meandr51
      meandr51 26 March 2019 19: 04 New
      +1
      The first Vietnamese cosmonaut Pham Tuan received his star of the DRV Hero just for B-52 ...
      1. Sasha_rulevoy
        Sasha_rulevoy 26 March 2019 22: 54 New
        -1
        Quote: meandr51
        The first Vietnamese cosmonaut Pham Tuan received his star of the DRV Hero just for B-52 ...


        Shamelessly fantasized.
    2. Lozovik
      Lozovik 26 March 2019 20: 19 New
      0
      Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
      Fighters squeeze two wings with only empty wings. And with suspended VV rockets, only 1.5

      Su-27, MiG-29 M = 2,2-2,3 without problems.

      Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
      and even after a long overclock on the afterburner.

      About 4 minutes with M = 0,8, with H = 11.

      Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
      While the pilot turns around where necessary, finds on the radar (and interferes with it), picks up altitude, accelerates, and the B-52nd all this time will be a hundred kilometers away at transonic

      This is not required; semi-automatic or director guidance provides the minimum time for reaching the intercept line.

      Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
      In reality, for the MiG-21 B-52 was generally too tough

      MiG-21MF shot down at least two B-52Ds in Vietnam.

      Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
      especially if it is at extremely low altitude at tremendous speed

      Glider B-52 has insufficient rigidity and at low altitudes it suffers greatly from short-period oscillations, hence the speed M = 0,53, only about 640 km / h.
      1. Sasha_rulevoy
        Sasha_rulevoy 26 March 2019 23: 46 New
        0
        Quote: Lozovik
        About 4 minutes with M = 0,8, with H = 11.


        As for the computer game, I remember it was difficult to catch up with the Tu-15th on the F-16. And above one and a half mach, i.e. 1000 mph F-15 almost did not accelerate. Apparently, the authors of the game imitated the presence of Air-to-air missiles. I don’t know if it’s real or not.
        1. Lozovik
          Lozovik 27 March 2019 04: 36 New
          0
          You should not judge by a computer game wink
      2. Sasha_rulevoy
        Sasha_rulevoy 27 March 2019 18: 37 New
        0
        Quote: Lozovik
        MiG-21MF shot down at least two B-52Ds in Vietnam.


        Not confirmed by the Americans. The one that the future Vietnamese astronaut had on the "combat account" and other downed planes, even in those days when the Americans did not lose planes.

        American tail arrows with a B-52 announced five downed Mig in LB2. As if two of them were confirmed by the Vietnamese, respectively, two tail arrows received a silver medal.
  • meandr51
    meandr51 26 March 2019 18: 54 New
    0
    Quote: YOUR
    Disappointing statistics of 17 downed planes for nearly 130 thousand sorties.
    And this despite the fact that the air defense of Vietnam was set by our specialists and not only set, they themselves participated in the reflection of the raids.

    Nothing depressing. The victory remained with Vietnam. The United States admitted defeat including in the air war. As for the ratio of departures and losses, firstly, the overwhelming majority of departures were carried out in areas where air defense was absent: South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and peripheral regions of the DRV. In the areas covered by missiles and fighter jets, only a couple of thousand sorties were made.
    Secondly, not 17 but 34 B-52s were shot down. Vietnamese data is much closer to the truth. American lies are widely known. One day, the United States recognized the loss of 6 "fortresses", and the DRV announced 4 shot down. Apparently 2 fell outside the republic.
    Thirdly, the DRV air defense system was built on the basis of outdated systems corresponding to the methods of warfare and theater of operations. It was considered inexpedient to expose the USSR air defense and declassify new systems. Practice has confirmed the correctness of the approach. It’s also necessary to dispose of old missiles. It was difficult for them to deal with staff megawatt EW transmitters ... At that time, the S-200, S-125, and Cube systems were already in service with the USSR. I remember reading then at the Defense Review information department, which entered there, so there the Americans gave the figure of 10 thousand USSR air defense fighters!
    So if the States then dared to send their flying barges to the Union, then no one would have left.
  • meandr51
    meandr51 26 March 2019 19: 07 New
    -2
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Such short-range missiles are under development. With them, the B-52 dinosaur becomes almost invulnerable.

    Then the special warheads will be used ...
  • meandr51
    meandr51 26 March 2019 19: 24 New
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: YOUR
    chemical plants, nuclear power plants, hydroelectric power stations, nuclear strikes will be delivered in most cities.

    Why do all this, sorry?

    In case of conflict, one of the tasks will be to keep the population within the borders of the former Russia. No one is interested in 100 million people rushing to Berlin. For benefits.


    And how will they give benefits, standing on radioactive ashes?
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 27 March 2019 06: 36 New
      0
      Quote: meandr51
      And how will they give benefits, standing on radioactive ashes?

      It’s, as it were, written above that if you count megatons, you don’t have a single extra warhead for herbivorous Europeans.
      This is still considered the "zero" option, without the INF Treaty near Vitebsk.
      Quote: meandr51
      who is there in Vietnam who defeated someone according to the latest training manual?

      None. The meaningless is ruinous, like most civil wars. Lost more or less all, especially Vietnam, of course.
      And the US lost the war was very useful. Only after Vietnam did they begin to make the army properly. The path began that led the US Army in the 91st year.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 27 March 2019 10: 00 New
        -1
        In connection with the withdrawal from the INF Treaty - Russia will soon have ground-based cruise missiles and multiple-war-launched infantry-launched infantry defense systems - these are already being created in the United States.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 27 March 2019 10: 54 New
          0
          Quote: Vadim237
          in the US, they are already creating such.

          In August, the United States experiences ground-based CR, and in the fall, the BRDS.
          Quote: Vadim237
          Russia will soon appear

          Where will they appear? From Moscow to NATO - 600 km, Sumy region - 500. In principle, they can deploy operational missiles if they want. And what will Russia do with its INF, threaten Germany?
  • meandr51
    meandr51 26 March 2019 19: 27 New
    +1
    Quote: YOUR
    Verbal nonsense. There is all the evidence that it was written in the article. Hanoi is almost destroyed. And it was after these wild bombardments that Vietnam agreed to the terms of the United States at the time of signing the peace treaties in Paris.


    Well, yes, the State Department will not lie ... So who in Vietnam defeated someone according to the latest training manual?
  • for
    for 26 March 2019 19: 45 New
    0
    Quote: Dimas84
    While the presence of air defense saves only us. That is, Russia.
    Alas, I can’t give more examples.

    We had enough airplane on Red Square.
  • Simferopol
    Simferopol 26 March 2019 20: 03 New
    -4
    Compared with the Tu-160, it’s rubbish, but it will do for the p. Endos, especially if it is painted with a fashionable silver, adding +1000000 to invisibility
  • Old26
    Old26 26 March 2019 21: 56 New
    +4
    Quote: meandr51
    As for the ratio of departures and losses, firstly, the overwhelming majority of departures were carried out in areas where there was no air defense:

    You may be right, but that does not change the essence. The number of losses on the total number of sorties ...

    Quote: Lozovik
    Glider B-52 has insufficient rigidity and at low altitudes it suffers greatly from short-period oscillations, hence the speed M = 0,53, only about 640 km / h.

    But the B-52, in principle, is not intended for flights at low altitudes. I think that our TU-95 at low altitudes would have the same or similar problems

    Quote: Simferopol
    Compared with the Tu-160, it’s rubbish, but it will do for the p. Endos, especially if it is painted with a fashionable silver, adding +1000000 to invisibility

    Yeah, of course. he's an American plane, which means a priori stuff. That's just this trash has been flying for almost 60 years (modification H). I would not mind if we had similar strategists would have lived such a long life. So that our boats and ships are not written off after 15-20 years of operation. So, for some people, trash can be, and for modern realities in local wars, he is quite a bomber at the level. It has undergone numerous modifications and can use the entire range of ASPs, and not just nuclear ones, like most of our bombers ...
  • Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 27 March 2019 09: 55 New
    0
    During this conflict, the U.S. Air Force lost 17 B-52 aircraft as a result of enemy action. The bulk of the downed aircraft fell on Soviet-made anti-aircraft missile systems. However, during their work in Southeast Asia, strategic bombers managed to complete almost 130 thousand sorties.

    I question the loss figures and the daily 32 flights for 11 years ...
    I DO NOT BELIEVE! How many everything and what was - no one will know. There is such a record:
    B-52 bombers were actively used in the war in Indochina. During the massive bombing during Operation Linebacker II in 1972, B-52 bombers completed 12 sorties in 729 days and dropped 15237 tons of bombs on Hanoi, Haiphong and other targets on the territory of North Vietnam. In this operation, 15 B-52 anti-aircraft missiles were shot down.

    That is, during a military operation, 60 sorties a day ... How much time did such operations take? But this is easy to verify:
    15: 237 = 31,5 bomb loads of 484 tons each and there are apparently the same sorties. Or during the operation part flew "empty"?
    After lunar flights, I stopped believing the Americans "by word". no
    And further. In 12 days 15 B-52s were shot down, and for the whole time 17 !!! fellow
    1. Sasha_rulevoy
      Sasha_rulevoy 27 March 2019 18: 26 New
      0
      Quote: ROSS 42
      484 bombloads of 31,5 each


      B-52D Big Belly: 84 pound bombs in bomb bay and 500 or 24 pound bombs
      B-52G: 51 pounds in the bomb bay

      Quote: ROSS 42
      That is, during a military operation, 60 sorties per day ...


      70 on the first night, 90 on the second and third.
  • Corsair0304
    Corsair0304 27 March 2019 13: 03 New
    0
    B-52 is certainly an old man, but I must admit - the old man is strong and in any case it is dangerous to ignore his appearance. It is equally dangerous to be condescending to the simultaneous take-off of a certain number of these car carriers in the direction of our borders. At the same time, the goal in its absolute form is by no means inconspicuous, and therefore destroyed by a wide range of weapons. And in general, there are 76 vehicles "on the wing" in the USA, the rest are being mothballed at the base in Arizona. Moreover, this conservation is very peculiar: since the production of the B-52 was stopped back in 1991, the machines in Arizona are slowly “cannibalizing” to maintain the aforementioned 76 B-52 in working condition.
    In fact, I consider the start of a nuclear war with the Americans unlikely. For all their recklessness and ambition, these are very smart and pragmatic people. They will never go to war if at least the hypothetical possibility of a retaliatory strike remains. For them, this is a collapse.
    And finally - a table of the US fleet and its readiness.
  • Forest
    Forest 27 March 2019 13: 09 New
    0
    Now it’s clear why the flags were removed, so that the school and grunts frolic here with might and main admiring the striped trash)
  • Old26
    Old26 27 March 2019 19: 02 New
    +2
    Quote: Tektor
    It’s strange that they mined, because the exchange of warheads is 1 to 20 in our favor, if only one B-52 is shot down. And if the squadron will fly them? 1 to 160. Indeed, the radius of destruction of a warhead of 10 kt is about 800 m. With a warhead of 2 mt, the radius will reach 3 km. In a sphere with a diameter of 6 km, all air targets will be destroyed with a 100% probability.

    And what do you want? If you really write nonsense comrade? Screw the "Vanguard" to the ICBM and get a global missile launcher? I have not heard such nonsense for a long time. But nothing, for example, that the active section of the trajectory of the same 15A71 ends at an altitude of 400 km. Yes, most likely, “Sarmat” is about the same (maybe a little lower). And after the separation of "Vanguard". doesn’t have a radar hit a single B-52 induced by a satellite? And the satellite will be there at that time. Therefore, they minus, although he himself has not yet minus. But worth it. Frankly, I'm tired of it when they begin to turn any new weapons system into a kind of “wunderwaffe”, giving it some mystical properties.

    Quote: Forest
    Now it’s clear why the flags were removed, so that the school and grunts frolic here with might and main admiring the striped trash)

    D. Fool you my friend, as I look. If for you a person who soberly assesses the situation with the US strategic forces is "grunting", then you are a moss-stricken patriot who cannot analyze anything himself. He was told (president, minister of defense) - he is like an ass and repeats. So show a white sheet of paper and say that it is green - so they will prove with foam at the mouth that yes, "green", as the president said. And the argument, which is the most “killer” from their currents of vision, is: Don’t you believe the president ????

    Quote: Corsair0304
    And in general, there are 76 vehicles "on the wing" in the USA, the rest are being mothballed at the base in Arizona. Moreover, this conservation is very peculiar: since the production of the B-52 was stopped back in 1991, the machines in Arizona are slowly “cannibalizing” to maintain the aforementioned 76 B-52 in working condition.

    In Arizona, at the Davis Montan base on March 27, 2019, there are 95 B-52G bombers and 12 B-52H bombers, as well as 18 B-1Bs. Cannibalized mainly by B-52G. But even so, during EMNIP 2-3 weeks 12 V-52N and up to 25 EMNIP B-52G can be put into operation. Like 18V-1V
  • panzerfaust
    panzerfaust 27 March 2019 20: 10 New
    0
    Notice, guys, 70 aircraft in their ranks, that is, they are modernized and can carry out a combat mission. And many more are in storage (Americans, unlike us, do not destroy equipment, but send it to the desert, to abandoned airfields) and in the case of hour X, these aircraft will be repaired and returned to service. And we only have in storage ... AN-2s :)))
  • Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 27 March 2019 20: 50 New
    0
    Quote: YOUR
    Disappointing statistics of 17 downed planes for nearly 130 thousand sorties.
    And this despite the fact that the air defense of Vietnam was set by our specialists and not only set, they themselves participated in the reflection of the raids.
    I recall the results of the B-52 bombing. Depending on altitude and flight speed, bombs fall at a distance of 50 to 100 meters from each other with a strip of up to 1 km. In the city these are solid ruins.
    Under the conditions of the current air defense, will they be used in a series of bombing attacks, most likely they will be used as a platform for launching the KR.
    The image intensifier of the B-52 is too large up to 120 sq.m. Noticeable for radar target. But again, everything is limited by the radar detection range.


    Surely depressing ...
    And these were knocked down from the ground:

    Anatoly Kornukov, an adviser to the general director of the Almaz NGO on military-technical policy, a former commander in chief of the Air Force, said that during the Vietnam war, the development complexes of the Almaz S-75 type aircraft were shot down by 43 strategic B-52 bombers. A total of 48 B-52 bombers were shot down in Vietnam.

    General Designer of NPO Almaz A. Lemansky: The S-75 and S-125 anti-aircraft missile systems are still in service with the Vietnamese army.

    48, Karl, 48 ...
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 27 March 2019 21: 28 New
      0
      Quote: Dzafdet
      Anatoly Kornukov, an adviser to the general director of the Almaz NGO on military-technical policy, a former commander in chief of the Air Force, said that during the Vietnam war, the development complexes of the Almaz S-75 type aircraft were shot down by 43 strategic B-52 bombers. A total of 48 B-52 bombers were shot down in Vietnam.

      And what relation can the words of this person have to reality? Does he work part-time in the American archives?
      1. meandr51
        meandr51 29 September 2019 16: 49 New
        0
        He is not a journalist, but a former Air Force commander. Has access to information sources. Previously, planes crashed outside the DRV were not taken into account. Subsequently, the information was supplemented.
  • iouris
    iouris 28 March 2019 02: 26 New
    -1
    It is necessary to fight with agents in their ranks. In the 1970s and 80s, there were no US nuclear carriers in / over the Baltic.
  • Diverter
    Diverter 29 March 2019 15: 24 New
    0
    for third countries I can also give advice. near each base where there are 52nd need to organize the presence of DRG. armed with rifle complexes with silencers and a maximum caliber. While they will understand why, during take-off, 1-2 sides fell ... DRG will change its position. Although I think that when a team receives a take-off, they will persistently try to take off. Hit of several bullets in a working turbine will be a good surprise. Nice Schaub when falling 1 side of the DRG did not start a ritual dance)))))))
  • Note 2
    Note 2 April 1 2019 08: 23 New
    0
    Four years ago, there was an article in Foreign Military Review that stated that the life of the B-52 was extended by another 30 years and the B-2 by 50.
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman April 4 2019 22: 35 New
    0
    this is probably the easiest target for air defense systems.
  • itarnmag
    itarnmag 1 May 2019 23: 08 New
    0
    If the speed of the B-52 is its drawback, then what can we say about the TU-95