US formed a squadron for testing a promising strategic bomber

102
The Pentagon resumed operations of the 420-th flight test squadron. The unit will plan, conduct testing, analysis and report on all flight and ground tests of the top-secret B-21 long-range bomber.





The United States Air Force continues to take steps to obtain a new generation of strategic bomber. For testing the B-21, the 420-I flight test squadron was re-commissioned.

The 420 Squadron is part of the 412 Squadron, which in turn is owned by the Air Force Test Center, with headquarters located at Edwards Base. It was this unit that at one time tested the B-2 Spirit, which became the most expensive aircraft in stories.

The B-21 is an American heavy bomber developed by Northrop Grumman. It is assumed that the next-generation bomber against the background of its predecessors will be more “tenacious”, sharpened to overcome modern air defense. The prototype of the aircraft will soon go into production. He made the first flight precisely as part of the 420 Squadron from Edwards Air Base.

It is expected that the aircraft will go into service by the 2030 year (this is the deadline, according to the US Air Force). Under the Long-Range Attack Bomber (LRS-B) program, the B-21 should complement the existing Rockwell B-1 Lancer, Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit and Boeing B-52 Stratofortress bombers and ultimately replace them.

The initial plans of the Air Force were to purchase from 80 to 100 aircraft of this type at a price of 550 million dollars per unit, with the prospect that as a result there will be about 175-200 aircraft in operation. The development contract was signed with Northrop Grumman in October 2015. According to media reports, this strategic bomber can also be used as a reconnaissance and interceptor.

The assembly of the B-21 is expected to be carried out at the US Air Force 42 plant in Palmdale, California, at the same facility used in the 1980 and 1990 years to manufacture the B-2.

The B-21 was originally designed with an open architecture. This will allow in the future to carry out the modernization of the aircraft and install new types of weapons on it without serious costs. In addition, the aircraft will use the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, which is the main engine of the F-35 JFS program. The unification of the engines of the two programs, according to the officials responsible for the project, should reduce their cost.
    Our news channels

    Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

    102 comments
    Information
    Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
    1. +2
      October 6 2019
      All Americans dream with impunity to bomb our cities with their promising bombers ...
      dreaming in vain ... we will find and administer them.
      1. 0
        October 6 2019
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        All Americans dream with impunity to bomb our cities with their promising bombers ...
        dreaming in vain ... we will find and administer them.

        And what can they do ..? In debt, as in silk .. hi
        That's a lot of money invested in all sorts of things these .. And Russia is smiling and they will not untwist us this time at the arms race wink
        We "dug" a trench in Syria next to Israel and are waiting for "shooting in the air" and warming up the tank engines .. sometimes .. and EVERYTHING! heh heh
        1. +4
          October 6 2019
          And what can they do ..? In debt, as in silk ..

          These are their problems.
          Here are a lot of money invested in all sorts of things these ..
          It’s not a fact that they invest their money in this. They do it for the money of other countries.
          .And Russia is smiling and they will not untwist us at the arms race this time wink
          Now this is not necessary, and no sense either.
      2. +12
        October 6 2019
        Everybody dreams of bombing our cities with impunity


        In fact, they are simply developing a replacement for obsolete strategists. You know, planes are becoming obsolete.
        1. -2
          October 6 2019
          You know, planes are becoming obsolete.

          Of course they are becoming obsolete ... but the question is also against whom it is planned to use such bombers to break through the enemy’s air defense ... only Russia and China come to mind ... there are no more high-tech countries in the world that can withstand US strike aircraft.
          Will the US withstand the new financial burden associated with the development and implementation of a new breakthrough bomber?
          F-35 pulled huge money from the US budget and now this bomber will cost a huge amount ... but there are still aircraft carriers, submarines each worth several billion dollars ... the load on the US budget is huge ... someday they the navel will tear.
          1. +3
            October 6 2019
            .
            but the question is also against whom it is planned to use such bombers of the enemy’s air defense breakthrough ..

            This is not quite a strategist, rather a modernized Tu-22m. Apparently, they returned to the concept of a "long-range" bomber. With an appropriate set of tasks. Against the fleet, against land targets beyond the "operational" depth. With refueling and decent rockets, from jump bases and for a strategist it will work. And a patrolling interceptor of cruise missiles (Tu-128 type) will turn out to be quite good if in Alaska or Canada ..
          2. +2
            October 6 2019
            but the question is also against whom such bombers of the enemy’s air defense breakthrough are planned to be used ... only Russia and China come to mind ... there are no more high-tech countries in the world that can withstand US strike aircraft.

            Regardless of whether anyone can confront the army (aviation) or not, all equipment, and only military equipment, wears out, becomes obsolete and decommissioned. I have to create a new one. Which has always been created and is being created using the latest technologies.
          3. +5
            October 6 2019
            hi
            Quote: The same LYOKHA
            Will the US withstand the new financial burden associated with the development and implementation of a new breakthrough bomber?

            Quote: The same LYOKHA
            Will the US withstand the new financial burden associated with the development and implementation of a new breakthrough bomber?

            To withstand something withstand. The question is different: what can? Yes
            1. -1
              October 6 2019
              Quote: bouncyhunter
              The question is different: what can?

              Yes, the same spirit, only with improved characteristics and an advanced walkie-talkie, they still did it when they calculated to bomb their entire strategy
          4. +3
            October 6 2019
            Quote: The same Lech

            Will the US withstand the new financial burden associated with the development and implementation of a new breakthrough bomber?
            F-35 pulled huge money from the US budget and now this bomber will cost a huge amount ... but there are still aircraft carriers, submarines each worth several billion dollars ... the load on the US budget is huge ... someday they the navel will tear.


            It seems that you are very worried about the US budget ....
            Well, 1,5 trillion dollars for the F-35 program.
            But they do not want to hear about that. that this is at least a 20 year production cycle for aircraft and engines, training pilots and technicians, airfields and their infrastructure, fuel for 20 years to come.
            Complete re-equipment of the production fleet of all thousands of related companies.
            And that its engines (which are also included in the F-35 program) will be put on other aircraft, the development cost of which will decrease proportionally.
            And the latest technologies of production sites (which are also taken into account in the F-35 program) will be used in the production of other aircraft, the production cost of which will decrease proportionally.

            And if these figures are shocking for you - know that the development cycle of a modern car is already creeping up to several billion dollars.
            The newest Fiat Stilo cost the concern 2 billion 100 million euros.
            The latest Mercedes A-class - at 2 billion euros.
            The latest Mercedes Smart - at 3 billion 350 million euros.
            The latest Peugeot 1007 - at 2 billion euros.
            The leader is Volvo with the all-new XC90 platform - 11 billion euros.
            It seems to be less than 3 orders of magnitude compared to the F-35 ...
            But ...
            The average life of a model is 8–9 years.
            Then you need a new one.
            And the planes are now being made with an eye on 30-40-50 years ...

            Huge competition, where there are three dozen competitors, about the same level of technology with you, who also spend billions on new models.
            And there are many new models.
            And this is a total of hundreds of billions per year.
            And after all nobody is ruined so that the country would collapse.

            But what cars are there ...
            The very first iPhone had development costs of $ 150 million. in 2005-2007.
            In the same years, each model of Nokia smartphones - had a development cost of $ 200 million.
            Impressive? Me yes!
            Gives an understanding that "do it yourself" and "create an innovation without billions of dollars in investment" is impossible.
            Without multibillion investments, you can’t do anything in principle.
            Investments must be beaten off.
            This is an axiom for both private traders and the state.

            A country with access to a large market (500 million people), with a high degree of automation of production, skillfully combining humanitarian and technical knowledge in production will be able to innovate.

            And we can never do something equal or better if we do not correspond to the above.
      3. -2
        October 6 2019
        All Americans dream with impunity to bomb our cities with their promising bombers ...
        But this will not happen, we have a worthy answer to this and weapons.
        dreaming in vain ... we will find and administer them.
        Syria has already been found, Venezuela is an example of this.
    2. 0
      October 6 2019
      So it’s not clear whether there will be two engines from the F-21 or four on the B-35?
      It seems like two are few and four are many. recourse
      1. +1
        October 6 2019
        The warrior hi maybe it depends on the version of the plane - the bomber has 4 engines, and the interceptor has two ??? what
        1. -1
          October 6 2019
          The fuselage is one.
          And he is a flying wing. The engines are not suspended from below, as in the B-52, but are built "tightly" into the fuselage.
          As for the interceptor - I think the translation is inaccurate. Meant fighter - fighter.
          That is, a fighter bomber with disabilities. I’m armed, I suspect, with all-perspective explosives of the explosives, as a defensive weapon.
          1. +3
            October 6 2019
            Quote: voyaka uh
            inaccuracy of translation. Meant fighter - fighter

            No, it’s that Interceptor
            https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/09/air-force-bomber-missions-bombs/120881/?oref=search_Long%20Range%20Strike-Bomber
            1. +6
              October 6 2019
              With the humanities become ...
              They have an entire blockbuster filmed under the name Interceptor (1993) with a subsonic F-117 in the title role.
            2. Campaign interceptor is crap somehow it does not fit these parameters at all)
              1. 0
                October 6 2019
                Samlet Arsenal with a large number of long-range missiles. Guidance from AWACS. The task is to hang in the air and launch rockets on command. A similar concept has been suggested since the late 80s. With implementation only medallions.
                1. Economically complete crap turns out to constantly keep in the air such a heavy engine stupid waste of fuel as the bomber-interceptor and the tanker fleet, plus the same stupid waste of precious motor resources of such a gold car
                2. How much is an hour flight on a strategist? For fuel and motor resources? And how justified is it to keep such a fleet in the air at the borders?
                3. For example, the price of an hour of flight at $ 2
                  1. 0
                    October 7 2019
                    And who will keep him in the air all the time? But milking to cover a group of strategists, it is quite possible to fly with nimths in a group.
                    1. If you do not keep in the air then there are no interceptors from them. Only as cover planes for strategists.
                      1. 0
                        October 7 2019
                        Exactly like strategic cover planes.
                        1. -1
                          October 7 2019
                          Then it’s quite for yourself) a kind of tactic
                          Not cheap), but it may justify itself as a means of breaking through B-2 long-range air defense as a carrier of B-21 anti-radar missiles as a carrier of air-long-range medium-range air missiles in large numbers so that if something fights off interceptors and fighters. Plus, an AWACS aircraft followed at a distance flying at high altitude for maximum coverage giving information about the situation and target designation for the B-21 in the event of an attack. In turn, V-2, V-21 go at the lowest possible height with the radars turned off, plus stealth technology provides the closest possible approach to the target unnoticed in order to strike at enemy radars and break through the gap in the defense, the next echelon is already striking at enemy territory. It can pass itself.
                        2. 0
                          October 7 2019
                          I will say more. Stealth can also be AWACS. More precisely RTR. In passive mode. Air defense in defense is not bad and passive means to combat it are quite enough. I hope the options have been taken into account by our leadership to develop countermeasures.
                        3. -1
                          October 7 2019
                          If such couch experts know about it, then they are definitely working on it))
                        4. 0
                          October 7 2019
                          As Syria has shown sometimes from the sofa more visible. The people are sir but wise.
                        5. -1
                          October 7 2019
                          You directly raised my self-esteem)))
                        6. -1
                          October 7 2019
                          By the way, what episode are you talking about in Syria?
                        7. 0
                          October 7 2019
                          Well, starting with Uranus and ending with a few more samples. Many said about Uranus that in the presented configuration it was not combat ready. Syria confirmed. Remade.
                        8. Well, yes, this war always says how to do it right Syria has generally become a good training ground for new weapons for some of the last time.) I think it will be a long time)
          2. 0
            October 6 2019
            As for the interceptor - I think the translation is inaccurate.

            For example, a uterus, a carrier of hypermaneuverable drones, fighters instead of bombs.
      2. +3
        October 6 2019
        It seems like two are few and four are many.


        If 2, then the car will be analogous to our Tu-22m. In terms of weight and thrust-to-weight ratio, of course (100 tons at 0, 4). How the load will be distributed between fuel and weapons, FIG knows. But due to the better weight recoil of the "wing" airframe, new materials and efficient engines, they can create something good between the strategist and our "distant" Tu-22m.
        Given the refueling in the air, you can get a car against the Chinese fleet. And not only against the fleet.
      3. -3
        October 6 2019
        Quote: voyaka uh
        So it’s not clear whether there will be two engines from the F-21 or four on the B-35?
        It seems like two are few and four are many. recourse

        put coupling haldeks
    3. +2
      October 6 2019
      Well done, you won’t say anything ... The Yankees are working, progress is moving ... I hope our "fly swatter" do not lag behind these "flies" ...
      1. -2
        October 6 2019
        The ghost of the USSR will haunt them for a long time☭
        1. +2
          October 6 2019
          Quote: Logall
          The ghost of the USSR will haunt them for a long time☭

          It seems to me that only we remember about the USSR. They (amerikosy) work and create weapons in order to earn money by selling and fighting in places ...
          1. -4
            October 6 2019
            The main thing is that we remember. And when there is enough strength, we will remind the rest.
    4. +7
      October 6 2019
      We’ll hit them with a drawing, which has already annoyed everyone and everything. laughing
      1. +5
        October 6 2019
        Quote: Observer2014
        Hit them with a pattern.

        Why is the background gray ?! Urgently paint on the ruins of the white house from below and go shy exceptional))))
      2. -7
        October 6 2019
        Quote: Observer2014
        pattern. which already tired of everyone and everything

        This... and you didn’t try to speak for yourself?

        Try it ... will let it go right away. And the drawing is beautiful, by the way, I know people who are engaged in this "drawing" in detail laughing
        1. 0
          October 6 2019
          ]
          And the drawing is beautiful, by the way, I know people who are engaged in this "drawing" in detail
          Are they still working on this primitive? (I'm talking about a drawing) Are they frozen in time? Will these graduations soon be graduated by human standards
        2. +3
          October 6 2019
          Quote: Cat Man Null
          I know people who are working on this "drawing" in detail

          In metal and polymer or gouache? You just don’t reveal the secret, I have only 3 access categories)))
          1. +1
            October 6 2019
            raw174 (Ravil) hi
            In metal and polymer or gouache? You just don’t reveal the secret, I have only 3 access categories)))
            And do not say laughing drinks About whom and to whom is there anything to say laughingHere the design of military equipment came across watered outcasts. And with them only in paint doodles to discuss laughing
          2. -6
            October 6 2019
            Quote: raw174
            I have only 3 tolerance category

            3 form? Young beginner? Or now everything has been redone again. and start right away with the first? wink laughing

            Quote: raw174
            You just do not reveal the secret

            Do not worry. We filter the market, not even a couple of observers here .. laughing
      3. -6
        October 6 2019
        Quote: Observer2014
        We’ll hit them with a drawing, which has already annoyed everyone and everything.

        We will draw them on the coffins, with a laser .. Or something else, if you rock the boat hi
        If the Russians are angry, they will be able to fight at all .. soldier
        And pray to God and all your .. Russian come!

        There are many of us in the world ..
      4. 0
        October 7 2019
        and why hit it? they even don’t have a drawing. one dream and squadron laughing
    5. +1
      October 6 2019
      And they say that "irons" do not fly ...
      1. +2
        October 6 2019
        Quote: knn54
        And they say that "irons" do not fly ...

        Why don't they fly? I just flew off an ironing board yesterday according to Newton’s law.
    6. +1
      October 6 2019
      For testing the B-21, the 420th flight test squadron was re-commissioned.

      The 420th Squadron is part of the 412th Test Wing, which in turn is owned by the Air Force Test Center, with headquarters at Edwards Base.
      Assembly of the B-21 will be held at the US Air Force 42 plant in Palmdale, California


      This is "super secrecy" laughing
      Still, the names of engineers and testers would be called))
      1. -2
        October 6 2019
        The names of enterprises and the location of production have never been a secret, neither for them, nor for us. We know the coordinates of their plants, they are ours.
    7. +1
      October 6 2019
      Patch of the 420th squadron.
    8. +2
      October 6 2019
      "Normal" work, only not for the prosperity of the world, but for its destruction.
      Nothing is foreseen for the breakthrough of a full-fledged air defense .... except for something very massive.
      It is unlikely that these will be "big irons" until they come up with something absolutely concealing.
    9. +4
      October 6 2019
      Quote: Lord of the Sith
      For testing the B-21, the 420th flight test squadron was re-commissioned.

      The 420th Squadron is part of the 412th Test Wing, which in turn is owned by the Air Force Test Center, with headquarters at Edwards Base.
      Assembly of the B-21 will be held at the US Air Force 42 plant in Palmdale, California


      This is "super secrecy" laughing
      Still, the names of engineers and testers would be called))

      Absolutely like ours. At our place, they can just as well say where it will be tested (name and number of military unit), in which scientific and experimental department. But the data is exactly PAK DA can wear a neck with two zeros. In principle, they can probably name the names of our testers. This is not a secret, as they have wing numbers, squadrons.
      1. +1
        October 6 2019
        Quote: Old26
        Absolutely like ours. At our place, they can just as well say where it will be tested (name and number of military unit), in which scientific and experimental department. But the data is exactly PAK DA can wear a neck with two zeros.

        So START has not yet sunk into oblivion. Like they must. But not all. For some is still unexpected. Like a fireworks in honor of the president's birthday or "cartoons" on the first channel. And why "cartoons". So who will show in real life the path of strategic weapons to the goal? This is not to show Hunter paired with the Su-57. This is practically pushing the enemy into creating an antidote.
    10. +5
      October 6 2019
      The initial plans of the Air Force were to purchase from 80 to 100 aircraft of this type at a price of 550 million dollars per unit, with the prospect that as a result, about 175-200 aircraft will be in operation

      What is this nonsense? When the Americans made cheap weapons, and especially strategic planes, the price of its predecessor was just going through the roof and they were also planning to buy in hundreds. We bought only 21 and the program was canceled.
      Unit cost Northrop B-2 Spirit
      1 billion (without equipment)
      2 billion 100 million 300 thousand (with equipment), according to NSIAD-97-181
      1. +1
        October 6 2019
        Its predecessor is 1.5 times larger. And he was the first horse.
        + do not forget that the program in the 90s
        cut down in connection with the collapse of the Union.


        Now all nodes are worked out, engines from F35.
        1. -1
          October 6 2019
          Right. This is the evolutionary development of B-2. Pure 5th generation without any +.
          A mixture of B-2 with F-35.
          Therefore, they hope for a relatively low price.
          Unless, in the process of development, the military starts to cheat: "give this and that ..."
          As happened with the F-35, when R&D dragged on.
          1. 0
            October 6 2019
            They would wish that desires coincide with opportunities smile With the F-22 they wanted to replace the entire F-15 fleet; produced 187 and all. They wanted at least 30 zamvolts; built 2 and barely, with arm twisting, released money for the third. Etc. I think the B-21 will be the same; they’ll build on the strength of 10-12 and close the topic. A B-52 will fly another forty years.
            1. -2
              October 6 2019
              The decision to cease production of the F-22 was made due to the collapse of the USSR. The only enemy disappeared. But no one could have thought that China would take the place of the USSR in 30 years.
              With Zumvolt - yes. Got excited. Too revolutionary concept without revolutionary weapons.
              But, for example, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and destroyers are being built for decades strictly according to a long-term plan.
              F-35 after slipping went to mass production.
              It turns out differently.
              1. +1
                October 6 2019
                Quote: voyaka uh
                But no one could have thought that China would take the place of the USSR in 30 years.

                But China took the place of the USSR?). I doubt that you can name at least 1 ally of China
                1. -2
                  October 6 2019
                  Average. In terms of economic power, China has surpassed the USSR, in terms of military power, it is still lagging behind.
                  But there is no doubt that most of the US military programs (all naval - for sure) are against China.
                  1. +1
                    October 6 2019
                    China, in the first place, does not have fundamental ideological contradictions between the USSR and the West. They build capitalism with a human face.) Regarding the US naval plans, yes. Focus on the Asia-Pacific region. There are no rivals in the Atlantic for a long time.
                    The truth is, do not forget that the weakest side of China is the Navy. They don’t become a sea power in 10 years. And even in 30 they don’t need a century. And it’s not only the economy. Germany has always been one of the largest economies in the world, but the maritime power did not
                    1. -2
                      October 6 2019
                      "They don't become a sea power in 10 years. And not even in 30 years. It takes centuries" ////
                      ----
                      Do not tell ... Japan has become over 50 years. We trained in the Japanese-Chinese war, flashed in the Russian-Japanese war, fought on equal terms with the Americans (economies were not in equal weight categories).
                      In the 20-21 centuries, time accelerated.
                      They become technological and military powers in 2 generations (50 years)
                      1. 0
                        October 6 2019
                        Let me remind you that China painfully completes the Soviet pre-aircraft carrier for 25 years already).
                        1. -2
                          October 6 2019
                          But they have already laid two new ones with catapults. To establish the functioning of an aircraft carrier with catapults and air finishers is not easy. But it is quite possible with the availability of funding and sensible engineers and officers.
                        2. 0
                          October 6 2019
                          I am wary of Chinese "successes" in military affairs. Parades and propaganda are one thing, the real situation is quite another. You can show on TV as many as you like planes of alleged 5 generations of as many as 2 models. But when after that you buy not the most advanced aircraft of 4 generations in to another country you nullify the reliability of your developments.
                          The West has invested a lot of money and technology in China. But the embargo on military technology and dual-use, as it was introduced in 89, has remained. And a country that is still unable to build a somewhat competitive civilian aircraft, a priori, cannot and cannot build a military. There are no miracles . This applies even more to the fleet because the fleet is even more difficult to build
                        3. -2
                          October 6 2019
                          "And a country that is still unable to build any kind of competitive civilian aircraft, a priori cannot even a military one" ////
                          ----
                          The Chinese Comac C919 has already started flying on their domestic lines.
                          There are 300 orders from Chinese air carriers. They lack international certifications.
                          They break through on all civilian "fronts": ships, cars, aircraft.
                        4. +1
                          October 6 2019
                          Quote: voyaka uh
                          on their internal lines
                          Quote: voyaka uh
                          They lack international certifications

                          You yourself have indicated their real competitiveness.
              2. 0
                October 6 2019
                In 2012, the USSR was a memory. It turned out to be too expensive F-22, plus a ban on export.
                1. -3
                  October 6 2019
                  And this is true.
                  But the Americans regard the balance of power in aerial combat between the F-22 and F-15 as 4: 1 (at least). So (in their opinion) 5 F-22 squadrons replace 20 F-15 squadrons.
                  The problem is that Raptors are aging. After 10-15 years, a replacement will be required.
          2. 0
            October 6 2019
            Quote: voyaka uh
            This is the evolutionary development of B-2. Pure 5th generation without any +.
            A mixture of B-2 with F-35.

            And what is evolutionary? The penguin does not reach the fifth generation. This is a fact. The spirit is the same. And he and the other AD / A2 can not break through. Alas This term is not Our Semi Military Organization coined. But you have to reckon. And who can be called the 5th generation? A dinosaur who has a limited speed of 2100 and maneuverability of 7 Jae or Penguin whose performance is worse.
            By the way, about the total joke:
            Cashier asks when paying salary
            - Your last name?
            - TOTAL
            1. 0
              October 6 2019
              Quote: Tusv

              And what is evolutionary?

              That 75% of the capabilities of a modern aircraft are determined by its electronic filling, and not by circus tricks or a hundred km / h more or less speed. Does the open architecture of the aircraft systems tell you anything?
              1. 0
                October 6 2019
                Quote: Town Hall
                rather than circus tricks or a hundred km / h more or less speed

                Well yes. Twenty-fifths and thirty-firsts were shot down a lot? Three Machs are not a khacher maher, but an active interceptor. How to be outdated hi
                1. +1
                  October 6 2019
                  And they fought somewhere to bring them down?
                  1. +1
                    October 6 2019
                    Quote: Town Hall
                    And they fought somewhere to bring them down?

                    In the Arabo Israeli wars. Twenty-fifth worked. The Israelis boast that they shot down. But tryndet as you know not tossing bags. And also Thrush installed on an eternal joke. This pepelats paramilitary really bothered
          3. 0
            October 6 2019
            At 21, is this the fifth generation? Do not scare the electorate. He is now nervous.
            1. 0
              October 6 2019
              Quote: garri-lin
              At 21, is this the fifth generation? Do not scare the electorate. He is now nervous.

              And which one?
              1. 0
                October 6 2019
                In fact, the 5th generation has one representative. Phi 22 Raptor. Phi 35 is with an interference of 4+. It is clear what B21 n5 will look like, but at the set price it will be a piece of "Spirit" with a network centric and a large-particle engine.
                1. 0
                  October 6 2019
                  I’m even afraid to imagine which generation the unforgettable Su-57 belongs to in your classification.
                  1. 0
                    October 6 2019
                    Will be mastered in the troops in the number of ten squadrons will be the fifth. Or even fivePlus due to the "hunter" and some nuances. So far, in fact, it is not. As well as the Chinese. Plus, the notorious succession of generations is essentially applicable to fighters. Bombers and missile carriers have their own hierarchy. Each has its own.
                    1. 0
                      October 6 2019
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      fivePlus at the expense of the "hunter"

                      And what kind of integration does he have with the Hunter?
                      1. 0
                        October 6 2019
                        And FIG knows him. A hunter can be both a scout and carried out radar and arsenal. Or maybe everyone takes turns, depending on the load. That's why I say that maybe 5+. Once they fly together and something is tried, tested, and worked out, then there are plans and ideas. It will turn out to implement will be 5+. It will not work will be just 5.
                        1. 0
                          October 6 2019
                          Can you recognize your personal classification of bombers by generations?
                        2. 0
                          October 6 2019
                          Can she give? According to my personal classification, Su 57 fighters are the seventh generation. Personal it is for personal use. Interpersonal communication requires generally accepted concepts. The generally accepted classification for bombers, to be honest, I do not know. And for the missile carriers too. I don’t even know if the strategists (tu 160) tactics (tu 22m) and front-line soldiers (su 24/34) need to be compared with each other or whether they each have their own branch. Everything is complicated with advertising slogans.
                        3. 0
                          October 6 2019
                          You just so confidently identified the F-35 in the 4+ category (and then with a stretch), a Bomber worth $ 500.000.000 in "stumps", and the "bundle" of Su-57 / Hunter in the 5+ generation that exists only in the photo, that I thought that you have your opinion on bombers who should be assigned to which category
                        4. 0
                          October 6 2019
                          F35 in terms of functionality and capabilities while 4+ will finish up to 4 ++ with time unequivocally. He has a long service life. Up to 5 can not reach because of the size. Small for a strong upgrade on a physical level. Only filling and software. A bomber for 500 lyam, while the previous one was 4 times more expensive, by definition, will not be breakthrough. If they do not plunder and are not wise, they can get a workhorse of type B52 for decades to come, but, again, it will not be a breakthrough. And the bunch seemed to clearly say. There will be a bunch of 5+. There won’t be a bunch. It’s just 5. By the way, I’ll say from the bottom of my heart if I can’t work out the bunch. There is nothing complicated in this. But this is my opinion, and I do not impose it on anyone.
                        5. 0
                          October 6 2019
                          Quote: garri-lin
                          F35 in terms of functionality and capabilities so far 4+

                          And the Su-30/35, F-15/16/18, Rafal, Typhoon is what generation then?
                          Quote: garri-lin
                          A bomber for 500 lyam, while the previous one was 4 times more expensive, by definition, will not be breakthrough.

                          Small-scale Spirit cost 790 million apiece. Since the first flight of the B-2, exactly 30 years have passed, there has been a giant leap in technologies of stealth, radar, guided weapons, composites, Informatics. The capabilities of Spirit's onboard computer, which then cost millions of dollars, is now covered by any smartphone for 300 Instead of specially designed engines for Spirit, the development and piece production of which cost billions, they will supply much more advanced engines produced in thousands from the F-35, which in comparison cost "a penny". Are you sure that this is "a stump?)
                        6. 0
                          October 6 2019
                          All of the above, depending on the configuration, is 4 or 4+. Some 4 ++. The question is different. What generation will Hornet or Eagle be if you insert a filling of 35 into its body? (joke!).
                          Small batch Spirit has become small batch due to price. And the lack of a clear understanding of how to apply it. After all, in 52, he coped no worse. Now B52 has exhausted itself. Old already, extend do not extend the end close. I have to replace. So they gather from the fact that there is a workhorse, without a sweep of the superweapon with which the Spirit was presented. On a computer using military equipment, everything is always terribly behind the civilian market in terms of functionality. At the forefront is reliability and performance in critical situations. So that the new products will be a terrible lag behind the smartphone.
        2. 0
          October 6 2019
          Quote: maden.usmanow
          Its predecessor is 1.5 times larger. And he was the first horse.
          + do not forget that the program in the 90s
          cut down in connection with the collapse of the Union.


          Now all nodes are worked out, engines from F35.

          What are you sculpting nonsense here, which nodes? That the United States did not build ships before the USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000) or the Northrop B-2 Spirit, Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning did not build planes. Can you explain the sky-high price of these programs? Why polymer Boeing 787 Dreamliner costs around 245-255 mil $, and a military model of a bomber under 2,5 billion, just relying on rumors of invisibility and super coverage
          Why is it that the plane will become 3-5 times cheaper.
          1. 0
            October 6 2019
            Quote: APASUS
            Why is it that the plane will become 3-5 times cheaper.

            Since the B-2 "cost" 2 yards apiece if you include in the price of the aircraft the cost of R&D. Those R&D that will be used in the production of one and a half hundred B-21.
          2. 0
            October 6 2019
            Quote: APASUS
            Why is it that the plane will become 3-5 times cheaper.

            Well, how to tell you. Compared to world inflation in dollar terms. 2,5 gigobaksa plus one nothing, in comparison, that there are no more orders for the modernization of the Spirit. But the B-21 is still real money. Agreed as nice hi
          3. -4
            October 6 2019
            "Why does a polymer Boeing 787 Dreamliner cost around $ 245-255 million, and a military model of a bomber under $ 2,5 billion," ///
            --- '
            It is just that simple. The Boeing airliners mass production and production is very profitable.
            And the bomber was absolutely unprofitable. Although technically the B-2 turned out fine.
            1. +1
              October 6 2019
              Quote: voyaka uh
              And the bomber was absolutely unprofitable. Although technically the B-2 turned out fine.

              So. Vojako Lech. Northrop does not belong to Boeing. like never. Or am I mistaken and missed something? hi
              1. -3
                October 6 2019
                The comparison was made by the user APASUS.
                I answered him with his example:
                comparison of mass civil and single military production.
                1. 0
                  October 6 2019
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  comparison of mass civil and single military production.

                  Yes stupid dough was not enough for all the Spirits of the States. You see. It is necessary to build cheaper, for voters only. We have no problems with the deployment of air defense. If VKSny miss, then the Troops will drop exactly unlike the Saudis. Where do we need to raise the mound, when other tracking stations are in the non-working station. I repeat the term A2 / AD did not come from Our air defense. But Our Semi-Military Organization likes it.
                  And why did the term Paramilitary stick to it? Damn, everything is very simple. Service in sneakers and underpants. Extra second and kerdyk am And you argue here. whether Adir S-400 radars will pass or not. We listen to a song from Zadorny. "Will the weight pierce the hatch or not" hi
            2. 0
              October 6 2019
              Quote: voyaka uh
              It is just that simple. The Boeing airliners mass production and production is very profitable.
              And the bomber was absolutely unprofitable

              Do not tell me please?
              The initial plans of the Air Force were to purchase from 80 to 100 aircraft of this type at a price of 550 million dollars per unit, with the prospect that as a result, about 175-200 aircraft would be in operation.

              This is how much should the Pentagon buy cars to get profit? Since such an initial order of up to 100 cars does not pay off.
          4. +1
            October 6 2019
            Most of the cost of B2 is R&D.
            The world's first and only strategist stealth with a flying wing scheme. No one has built and is not building except the Americans.
            Also, according to F 35, three versions of one aircraft of the 5th generation:
            • for the Air Force version F35A,
            • VTOL version F35B for ILC,
            • deck option F35C

            Who else does this?
            Of course, you can talk about how expensive these programs are, but there’s nothing to compare with.
    11. +4
      October 6 2019
      Quote: Tusv
      So START has not yet sunk into oblivion. Like they must. But not all. For some is still unexpected. Like a fireworks in honor of the president's birthday or "cartoons" on the first channel. And why "cartoons". So who will show in real life the path of strategic weapons to the goal? This is not to show Hunter paired with the Su-57. This is practically pushing the enemy into creating an antidote.

      Of course not all of them. I just reacted to the comrade’s phrase that he was “super secret” if it was known where and in what military unit it would be tested. We can also say this, but the fact that at first even the appearance will be closed information, not to mention the performance characteristics - this is no question.
      1. 0
        October 6 2019
        I just reacted to the comrade's phrase that he was "super secret"

        Nowadays, top-secret is very difficult to maintain, but it is just as easy to cheat. For what they see is believed. But what if all this is an illusion. Let's say I know for sure that my old P-12 sees more than IKO allows - 220 km
    12. 0
      October 6 2019
      I will not be surprised if in 2040 the program is closed due to high cost and a new one is launched smile

    "Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

    “Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"