Time-tested ideas: new images of the B-21 bomber


First published image of B-21: airplane in the sky


In early 2016, the U.S. Air Force published the first image of a promising long-range bomber Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider. Since then, such materials have not appeared. The situation changed only the other day, when the Air Force posted new images of the aircraft, made by the artist. They show the appearance of the aircraft, corresponding to the current status of the project, and are able to reveal some details.

Graphic materials


The first official image, published almost four years ago, showed the B-21 in flight against a cloudy background. The artist portrayed a bomber from a characteristic angle, allowing you to understand the main contours of the airframe and notice some other design features.

The latest images show the future plane on earth. Three photo collages showcase the B-21 in the hangars of the Dyce, Whiteman and Ellsworth airbases - this is where it is planned to deploy new equipment. Published images differ only in background, while the three-dimensional model of the bomber is the same in all cases and is shown from one angle.

With all this, new collages show some features of the aircraft and reveal the details of the project. In addition, there are some opportunities for evaluating the size and other parameters of promising technology. However, one cannot count on special accuracy yet.

Visible appearance


Available materials allow us to understand and evaluate the general features of the B-21 airframe, as well as determine its potential in terms of stealth. Obviously, the design of the Raider goes back to the older B-2 Spirit, but there are noticeable differences, apparently giving certain advantages.


B-21 based on Ellsworth. There will begin the deployment of new technology

Like its predecessor, the B-21 is designed according to the “flying wing” pattern with an arrow-shaped leading edge and a rudimentary protruding fuselage. The trailing edge of the wing has the shape of an inverted letter W; on a B-2, this part of the airframe has a more complex shape and design.

Unlike the B-2, the new B-21 does not have protruding air intakes on the sides of the fuselage. These devices are recessed into the wing and do not extend beyond its profile. On the sides of the fuselage there are medium-sized protrusions-fairings of the power plant, and the nozzles of the engines are maximally “hidden” in the glider.

In the front of the fuselage there is a cockpit glazing similar to that used in the B-2 project. Its dimensions may indicate the internal dimensions of the cabin and, accordingly, the number of crew.

Pay attention to the design of the chassis. The three-point scheme with the nose support is preserved. All racks have two wheels; the main ones use larger wheels. The chassis niches are covered with complex-shaped wings that open to the side. B-2 had a more developed chassis with a different design of the wings.


"Raider" in the hangar of the Dyce base

Unfortunately, along with the new images, the US Air Force did not publish any technical data. Earlier, the most general features and approximate tactical and technical characteristics were mentioned, and so far they have not been specified. Perhaps this will happen in the near future.

Some conclusions


Dimensions "Raider" has not yet been specified. There is reason to believe that this aircraft is no larger than its predecessor. A different, simpler chassis design indicates a possible reduction in dead weight and flight weight. Despite this, the aircraft should not be inferior in terms of performance characteristics to the older Spirit. This indicates the use of more efficient engines and the availability of sufficient volumes of fuel.

Progress in the field of electronic systems allows us to reduce the volumes required for deploying avionics and to optimize the layout of the airframe as a whole. It is also possible to allocate sufficient volumes for the cockpit and reduce the burden on people. A significant change in layout can be indicated by the fact that the niche of the nose landing gear is shifted back: on the B-2 it was located almost at the nose fairing.

Even when the program for developing a promising bomber was launched, it was announced that this aircraft would be inconspicuous. As can be seen in the available images, this requirement became the main one and had the most serious impact on the formation of the appearance of the machine.

It can be seen that the B-21 differs from the B-2 in more complex contours of some elements. This may indicate the use of modern design tools, which made it possible to calculate all the parameters and obtain the optimal ratio of aerodynamic characteristics and stealth.


Whiteman Air Base

In the context of stealth, first of all, it is necessary to consider the general shape of the aircraft in plan. Probably, the rejection of a more complicated broken trailing edge is due precisely to a reduction in the EPR and, possibly, optimization of the nozzle units of the power plant. Another important innovation is the use of recessed air intakes in the wing. In the same vein, a change in the chassis flaps should be considered.

Recently it was said that the B-21 will be able to carry a wide range of ammunition of all main classes, from free-falling bombs with conventional equipment to guided missiles with special warheads. However, the exact list of compatible ammunition is unknown. Not reported and combat load. It is only known that all weapons will be transported in the internal compartment. External suspension is not provided.

Thus, in essence, the promising B-21 Raider bomber can be considered an option for the development of the concepts laid down in the previous B-2 project. Already tried and tested by time ideas are processed and implemented at the modern scientific and technological level, which should lead to noticeable positive consequences.

Some of these effects are noticeable even on published images. Others will become clear after the disclosure of other information, incl. TTX of the aircraft. At the same time, the economic advantages of the B-21 are already known. The Air Force has limited the cost of a production aircraft to 550 million dollars in 2012 prices (about 650 million dollars at the current rate). This is several times less than the price of the serial B-2, which is expected to allow the construction of a large fleet of aircraft at affordable costs.

Awaiting prototype


So far, the B-21 Raider bomber exists only in the form of a few images and design documentation. However, Northrop Grumman has already begun the necessary work and is taking the project to the next stage. In December last year, it became known that at one of its plants the assembly of the first units for the future experienced "Raider" was begun.

Construction will continue for about a year. Tests and the first flight of the prototype are scheduled for the next 2021. At the end of the year, they promise to show the car to the public. After this refinement will continue, which will prepare the project for mass production. The Air Force will begin to receive new equipment in the second half of the decade, and by 2030 it is planned to achieve initial operational readiness.

According to current data, the US Air Force will order at least 100 new bombers. At the level of wishes, a twice as many figure appears - in this case, it will be possible to increase the potential of the far aviation to the desired level.

Using the “mandatory” hundreds of B-21s will replace the outdated fleet of B-1B and B-52 aircraft. In addition, a partial replacement of the newer B-2s is possible. The deployment of new equipment will begin at Ellsworth Air Base. Then the "Raiders" will go to the bases Dyce and Whiteman. The Air Force has already shown how the new B-21s will look at these airfields.

However, so far only three-dimensional models of equipment have hit the airbases. The deployment of aircraft is still a long way off, and Northrop Grumman's main task now is to build a prototype. As it continues, and during testing, new information of one kind or another will have to appear. All of them will supplement and correct the existing picture.
Author:
Photos used:
U.S. Air Force
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

132 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vladimir_2U 5 February 2020 05: 42 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    Dimensions "Raider" has not yet been specified. There is reason to believe that this aircraft is no larger than its predecessor
    Judging by the glazing of the cockpit and the size of the wheels of the front strut, the plane will be smaller than Spirit, but this is just a render.
    1. dauria 5 February 2020 11: 19 New
      • 2
      • 5
      -3
      Judging by the glazing of the cockpit and the size of the wheels of the front pillar, a plane smaller than Spirit will


      Yes, this is not a strategist - a classic long-range bomber. And somewhere between the Tu-22m and Tu-160. The Americans had to return to this class of cars. Their adversary was drawn too, and even with a strong fleet.
      So they fussed.
  2. viktor_ui 5 February 2020 06: 08 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Judging by the posted images, it looks more like an autonomous robotic platform ... it is one and a half to two times less visually than Spirit. And indeed the overlay on the giblets of the hangars.
    1. g1washntwn 5 February 2020 08: 52 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Something between the B-2 and the UAV X-47B.
  3. Glory1974 5 February 2020 09: 19 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    futuristic view. Not otherwise reptilians had a hand in the design. laughing
    See how it flies. It looks good.
  4. rocket757 5 February 2020 09: 25 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Visible, invisible .... did they really create something new or all the same with the same end?
  5. Ros 56 5 February 2020 09: 34 New
    • 7
    • 24
    -17
    I will say so briefly. Our fighters and anti-aircraft defense (S-400, S-500) have absolutely nothing to beat down on the drum, that V-2, that V-21, if only they would throw nothing at our heads. Now the liberals will sing in the red.
    1. Hog
      Hog 5 February 2020 10: 07 New
      • 6
      • 3
      +3
      Quote: Ros 56
      Our fighters and air defense (S-400, S-500) absolutely have nothing to shoot down on the drum, that V-2, that V-21

      This is certainly good, only it is not known at what distance this can be done and whether it will be too late.
    2. Kalmar 5 February 2020 10: 17 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Quote: Ros 56
      Our fighters and air defense (S-400, S-500) absolutely have nothing to shoot down on the drum, that V-2, that V-21

      Yes, but no. There are no completely invisible airplanes, but nevertheless this "stealth" quite noticeably reduces the range at which the radar can detect and recognize the bomber. And this means that in the air defense system, let’s say, corridors will appear through which these comrades can climb into our airspace beyond the bounds of decency.
      1. voyaka uh 5 February 2020 11: 09 New
        • 13
        • 5
        +8
        B-21 is a problem not only for air defense systems, but even for long-range meter radars. Such radars cut the F-22 and F-35, but find it difficult to detect the B-2, which has no tail.
        1. Ka-52 5 February 2020 11: 26 New
          • 2
          • 5
          -3
          B-21 is a problem not only for air defense systems, but even for long-range meter radars. Such radars cut the F-22 and F-35, but find it difficult to detect the B-2, which has no tail.

          oh well, Alexei, fence a garden) if this gadget carries an adjustable munition, such as GBU, then with a range of its flight (100-130km) the carrier will be guaranteed to enter the medium-range air defense detection zone. If he will carry the RC, then there is generally no point in talking about the detection range of the carrier by air defense systems, since it will be about distances> 1000km
          but find it difficult to detect B-2, which has no tail

          the absence of a tail unit only reduces S of the reflected radio signal of the surface. But don't rule it out
          1. voyaka uh 5 February 2020 11: 29 New
            • 6
            • 2
            +4
            I meant stealth with ammunition in the internal compartments, of course. With outboard weapons, stealth is broken.
            1. Gregory2 11 February 2020 22: 30 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: voyaka uh
              B-21 is a problem not only for air defense systems, but even for long-range meter radars. Such radars cut the F-22 and F-35, but find it difficult to detect the B-2, which has no tail.

              voyaka uh (Alexey), you write nonsense from time to time, propagandist from Israel! I wrote to you many times - invisible aircraft do not exist in nature, and leave these tales about the small EPR of Lockheed Martin. , as well as tales about the meter range of the radar.
          2. Kalmar 5 February 2020 12: 18 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Ka-52
            if this gadget carries an adjustable munition, such as GBU, then with a range of its flight (100-130km) the carrier will be guaranteed to enter the medium-range air defense detection zone

            Here the nuances begin. What exactly will the target be covered at the time of the attack? How deeply will the carrier enter the air defense coverage area and will it stay there long enough to defeat it? Will the air defense systems have time to bring down the carrier before dropping bombs? Well, etc.

            Quote: Ka-52
            If he will carry the RC, then there is generally no point in talking about the detection range of the carrier by air defense systems, since it will be about distances> 1000km

            Why? The target may be located in the interior of the country, i.e. the carrier somehow still needs to get around some air defense lines before launching the Kyrgyz Republic.
        2. Alexey LK 6 February 2020 03: 33 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          B-21 is a problem not only for air defense systems, but even for long-range meter radars.

          Well it was said: "Our guys will come up with something!". Or maybe they’ve already come up with it. wink In any case, indeed, the approach is not entirely clear - some kind of conceptual trampling in place. What was advanced and effective in the late 1980s is now not so advanced, and most importantly - all these years, the design idea has worked precisely on how to better detect these stealth. In addition, for the exclusive 20 pieces of B-2 high-class crews and technical staff, you can still somehow get a little trouble, but for 100 or even 200 B-21s it is already much more complicated and expensive. It seems that Americans like the free-falling TSA very much. But, in my opinion, this balance is unreasonable - super-expensive bombers for cheap bombs. And if for long-range missiles - why is it so difficult? ...
          1. voyaka uh 6 February 2020 10: 55 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            "But, in my opinion, this balance is unreasonable - super-expensive bombers for cheap bombs" ////
            ----
            Not for cheap bombs. And for wound concrete-shattering and tactical nuclear, exploding on the surface.
            1. Alexey LK 6 February 2020 17: 39 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: voyaka uh
              e for cheap bombs. And for wound concrete-shattering and tactical nuclear, exploding on the surface.

              And against whom is it to fight? Against a weak adversary - such a bomber is redundant, concrete strikes can at least be thrown off from the Warthog by the "Papuans". A strong one will not allow you to simply fly up to yourself, even a stealth. For nuclear war, in general, all this high-precision and super-electronic weapons may not work - the electromagnetic environment, I am afraid, will not allow ...
        3. Ros 56 6 February 2020 09: 41 New
          • 0
          • 4
          -4
          Since the Serbs at one time managed to get these invisibles, then our today's capabilities quite allow this shusher to be destroyed. That's why your pilots are afraid to enter Syrian airspace, all are stealthily acting from Lebanon.
          1. 3danimal 6 February 2020 13: 46 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            1 downed plane for 800+ sorties in that campaign? Excellent performance, IMHO. And then, shot down due to the pilot’s oversight, using the visual channel.
        4. The comment was deleted.
    3. SovAr238A 5 February 2020 21: 17 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: Ros 56
      I will say so briefly. Our fighters and anti-aircraft defense (S-400, S-500) have absolutely nothing to beat down on the drum, that V-2, that V-21, if only they would throw nothing at our heads. Now the liberals will sing in the red.

      no, not liberals ...
      And those who wear a hat on their heads ...
      And it does not throw at everyone.
      And those. who knows how to think with his head. rather than just eating into it ...
      These yes - throw cons ...
      1. Ros 56 6 February 2020 14: 22 New
        • 0
        • 5
        -5
        This you will tell in the transfer of the obvious incredible, it is the liberals and the Banderlog trolls that have already been verified.
        1. SovAr238A 6 February 2020 18: 41 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Ros 56
          This you will tell in the transfer of the obvious incredible, it is the liberals and the Banderlog trolls that have already been verified.


          At an age like people get smarter ...
          They begin to realize that life is very diverse.
          Youthful maximalism leaves them and they begin to see the whole palette of colors, and not just black and white ...

          judging by that. Since you don’t see half-tones at all, the level of your development either remained at a youthful level .. or returned to it again.
  6. voyaka uh 5 February 2020 11: 06 New
    • 9
    • 4
    +5
    The difference with the B-2 in size. The raider is about 1/3 smaller and 1/3 lighter than the B-2.
    No moving flaps or slats.
    Maneuvers - with the help of dynamic, turning air flows passing through the wings.
    1. Vol4ara 5 February 2020 11: 15 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: voyaka uh
      The difference with the B-2 in size. The raider is about 1/3 smaller and 1/3 lighter than the B-2.
      No moving flaps or slats.
      Maneuvers - with the help of dynamic, turning air flows passing through the wings.

      Fig, they got confused, a very serious bird comes out.
    2. Sanichsan 5 February 2020 17: 14 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      Quote: voyaka uh
      The raider is about 1/3 smaller and 1/3 lighter than the B-2.

      30% less than B2, unable to carry cruise missiles ... hmm .. good news bully
      1. Oleg83 5 February 2020 18: 05 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        Quote: SanichSan
        Quote: voyaka uh
        The raider is about 1/3 smaller and 1/3 lighter than the B-2.

        30% less than B2, unable to carry cruise missiles ... hmm .. good news bully


        After modernization, the B-2 carries 16 AGM-158 JASSM
        1. Sanichsan 6 February 2020 14: 14 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          I meant tomahawks. wink
          AGM-158 JASSM with a range of 370km is the same "achievement" as German destroyers with guns of a cruising caliber. yes
      2. 3danimal 6 February 2020 13: 47 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        B2 wasn’t capable of a missile, not because of the size of the bomb bay, as far as I know.
        1. Sanichsan 6 February 2020 14: 16 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          B2 wasn’t capable of a missile, not because of the size of the bomb bay, as far as I know.

          precisely because of this. rather, because of the configuration of the bomb bay. therefore, the maximum that they could cram into it was castrated AGM-158 JASSM.
          1. 3danimal 6 February 2020 14: 18 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The configuration can be changed, especially on a new aircraft.
            Ultra-long-range missiles are not particularly relevant for such a bomber.
            Tu-95, Tu-160, B-1b are too noticeable, hence the range of weapons.
            1. Sanichsan 6 February 2020 14: 47 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: 3danimal
              The configuration can be changed, especially on a new aircraft.

              quite true, but given that it is much smaller, it is most likely not a strategist, moreover, subsonic, and not even B1. it's a cross between F-35 and B2. will it make any sense? Recently, the United States first produced equipment and only then begin to figure out how to use it. there is every reason to believe that at the exit we will see something like a useless LCS or an incomprehensible Zumwalt which is either an artillery ship, or a missile ship, or a barge for transporting soybeans to China. laughing
              1. 3danimal 6 February 2020 16: 26 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                Subsonic is rather a virtue for this type of aircraft.
                And the concept is correct, PAK YES (draft) witness
                1. Sanichsan 6 February 2020 16: 47 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Subsonic is rather a virtue for this type of aircraft.

                  which one? PAK YES strategist, this one is very dubious.
                  1. 3danimal 6 February 2020 17: 53 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Exactly. And for stealth, it’s better not to shine on radars with air seals at supersonic speeds. More and profitability is growing at times.
                    1. Sanichsan 7 February 2020 13: 34 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: 3danimal
                      More and profitability is growing at times.

                      profitability is growing, and thrust is falling, which is equal to "bomb load is falling." Let me remind you that B2 has the most flawed bomb load among strategists in the world, and this one will have even shorter and even shorter range, as it is 30% smaller. it’s more like a front-line bomber overgrowth. something like our “Hunter” is only our unmanned one, and this one with the crew.
                      about low visibility have already been discussed a million times. it is not invisibility. It works only at a specific wavelength and depends on the direction of exposure. in short, "the couple there gives" ... for example, superprofits to American companies developing the US military budget wink
                      1. 3danimal 7 February 2020 17: 45 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        How do you like the bomb load of the B-52 or Tu-95?
                        B-2 has limitations on the shape of the airframe - hence, not the biggest load. For the aforementioned bombers, the most convenient design was chosen: a fuselage round in cross section (not bearing, maximally noticeable) and a simple wing.
                        So B2 was copied from our Hunter? (Is the drone already in production or is it still a prototype?) :)
                        I met a lot of representatives of the “stealth does not work” movement, but among the Su-57 and PAK YES developers, for some reason, they are not.
                        Stealth is provided at wavelengths of 1-10 cm. Those that allow you to accurately direct the rocket. It is possible with a meter radar - but it is large (bulky), it is inaccurate, do you propose massively exploiting anti-aircraft missiles with nuclear warheads? :) The maximum that can be used with it is to send fighters to the area of ​​a suspicious signal.
                      2. Sanichsan 7 February 2020 18: 26 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        So B2 was copied from our Hunter? (Is the drone already in production or is it still a prototype?) :)

                        Well, the fact that you yourself cannot create anything, does not mean that no one can and only copies wink The hunter is already flying, and B21 in the pictures yes
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        I met a lot of representatives of the “stealth does not work” movement, but among the Su-57 and PAK YES developers, for some reason, they are not.

                        you do not distort wink I clearly wrote that the technology provides some advantages, but not at all ultimatum. apart from the Su-57 and the development of the PAK DA, we are primarily launching the Su-35 and Su-30, and modernizing the Tu-160 and Tu-22. By the way, as in the US with B1 and F-18, which are removed from conservation.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Stealth is provided at wavelengths of 1-10 cm. Those that allow you to accurately direct the rocket.

                        OU. Another citizen who does not know that there are GOS on missiles? or will you risk declaring that at a distance of 10 km the GOS will not see a modern rocket, for example, the F-35?
                        I’ll tell you another terrible thing! in addition to radars, there are optoelectronic guidance systems. both with us and the USA. not? did not hear? and in the USA they are very proud wink By the way, and here they are a little behind us yes
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        The maximum that can be used with it is to send fighters to the area of ​​a suspicious signal.

                        or rocket laughing and minus the suspicious signal.
                      3. 3danimal 7 February 2020 19: 54 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        or a laughing rocket and minus the "suspicious signal."

                        Of course, a missile with a JabCh. Hello nuclear future laughing
                      4. 3danimal 7 February 2020 19: 55 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        OU. Another citizen who does not know that there are GOS on missiles?

                        already wrote: “stealth means (correctly) precisely a reduction in the detection range for ground-based radar / radar aircraft / radar seeker missiles."
                      5. 3danimal 7 February 2020 20: 03 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        or will you risk declaring that at a distance of 10 km the GOS will not see a modern rocket, for example, the F-35?

                        From 10 km, from the front - GOS detecting a target with an EPR of 1 m2 per 18 km - no, obviously. (EPR F-35 from the front of 0,01 m2, according to the manufacturer). Kilometers from 6 - yes.
                        When attacking from a different angle, the capture range can be 10 km, which is still significantly less than the base 18 km.
                      6. Sanichsan 10 February 2020 14: 01 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        From 10 km, from the front - GOS detecting a target with an EPR of 1 m2 per 18 km - no, obviously.

                        Are you talking about MANPADS? laughing on long-range missiles, usually GOS with a range of 60 -70km. and export.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        (EPR F-35 from the front of 0,01 m2, according to the manufacturer).

                        of journalists wink the manufacturer is silent.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        When attacking from a different angle, the capture range can be 10 km, which is still significantly less than the base 18 km.

                        and? within a radius of 10 km, you can send a missile without adjustment, with an adjustment of 1 km lead. guaranteed target capture.
                      7. 3danimal 11 February 2020 11: 15 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        on long-range missiles, usually GOS with a range of 60 -70km. and export.

                        No offense, but this statement shows that you poorly understand the design and principles of guidance of modern explosive missiles. Explore the topic.
                      8. Sanichsan 11 February 2020 14: 34 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        No offense, but this statement shows that you poorly understand the design and principles of guidance of modern explosive missiles.

                        I can say the same thing about you. open your eyes, the world did not end at P77. besides them there is still 40N6 wink or do you intentionally ignore them?
                      9. 3danimal 11 February 2020 22: 10 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        Let me explain: there is no ARS GOS with an aircraft radar range — the dimensions of an anti-aircraft missile are limited. 40n6 “Active / semi-active homing”, i.e. it is guided into the target area by a reflected signal from a powerful ground-based illumination radar. Centimeter range. And from 20km - the ARL GOS is activated, of the same range. In which guidance on modern stealth aircraft is limited and difficult.
                      10. Sanichsan 12 February 2020 14: 37 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Let me explain: there is no ARS GOS with an aircraft radar range — the dimensions of an anti-aircraft missile are limited.

                        hmm .. but for some reason the 3M14 fits perfectly with the seeker with a range of 70km. and this is in the export, castrated, version. its dimensions are comparable to 40n6.

                        probably it's time to tie yes
                        in principle, you could end up with this ...
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        EPR F-35 from the front of 0,01 m2

                        not the worst case of course. your colleague from Israel did not bathe at all wrote 0.001 laughing Are you really ready to believe that the fly with a wingspan of 13 meters and a height of 4 meters has a reflecting surface of 1 cm2? belay
                      11. 3danimal 12 February 2020 16: 01 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        This is not a matter of faith, the statement of the manufacturer. Are you ready to believe that the huge Su-57 has an EPR of 0,3 m2 (according to the UAC)?
                        Details are important ... Compare the dimensions of a ship with a displacement of 500-10000 tons and a 20-ton aircraft. (Compare?). We are all sofas here, of course, but we must weigh the arguments.
                      12. Sanichsan 12 February 2020 16: 15 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        This is not a matter of faith, the statement of the manufacturer. Are you ready to believe that the huge Su-57 has an EPR of 0,3 m2 (according to the UAC)?

                        from the same opera ... in which projection and at what wavelength. but here at least 0.3 which, at least in theory, is achievable, but seriously talk about 0.01! belay and all the more to build on this argument ...
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        We are all sofas here, of course, but we must weigh the arguments.

                        in in. I agree. yes
                      13. 3danimal 12 February 2020 16: 28 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        There are general principles for the construction of a stealth aircraft. Obviously, when creating the Su-57 they looked back less. (Cabin, air intakes, direct flaps of the bomb bay). From here and inevitably a large EPR. I can’t say how much. There are only container manufacturers. But Lockheed has decades of experience creating such aircraft in its archives.
                      14. Sanichsan 13 February 2020 14: 57 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        From here and inevitably a large EPR.

                        30 times!?! belay I beg of you! let's think at least a little head, and not just eat it.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        But Lockheed has decades of experience creating such aircraft in its archives.

                        or PR nonsense wink F-35 is primarily for sale. mind you, for sale to both the Pentagon and the NATO countries. yes Nothing personal just business.
                      15. 3danimal 14 February 2020 12: 25 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        . or PR nonsense

                        It is a matter of faith in anything. Very naive approach. In fact: the greatest experience in production and combat use.
                        30 times!?! I beg of you!

                        You are not surprised at the difference between 0,3 M2 Su-57 and 3 M2 Su-30.
                      16. Sanichsan 14 February 2020 13: 33 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        You are not surprised at the difference between 0,3 M2 Su-57 and 3 M2 Su-30.

                        You absolutely do not see the difference between the numbers 10 and 300 (!)? belay
                        Yes, a decrease of 10 times almost does not surprise. this is a big step, but quite achievable. but 300 times! 20 years ago!!! belay this is pure nonsense at 100%. it is especially amusing when experts seriously talk about reducing the reflecting surface on a combat aircraft by 300, and sometimes by 3000 times, and begin to build on this basis of their nonsense their authoritative arguments about seeping through air defense laughing
                      17. 3danimal 14 February 2020 19: 42 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Look for data on the EPR of Apache and the Comanche developed to a high degree of readiness - there is a difference of almost 300 times.
                        The fact of the matter is that when applying new requirements to stealth, the EPR decreases by orders of magnitude.
            2. Sanichsan 17 February 2020 15: 23 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: 3danimal
              This is not a matter of faith, the statement of the manufacturer.

              LM sells this junk and will say what is needed to improve sales wink besides, it’s not even LM, but journalists who wrote articles about the F-35. these generally can fantasize anything. yes
              Quote: 3danimal
              Are you ready to believe that the huge Su-57 has an EPR of 0,3 m2 (according to the UAC)?

              I am ready to admit that this is quite achievable, unlike 0.01 yes
              Quote: 3danimal
              We are all sofas here, of course, but we must weigh the arguments.

              right. I urge you to think with your head and not relay deliberate delirium (I'm talking about EPR 0.01). agree that there is a difference between the argument and the obvious delirium.
            3. 3danimal 18 February 2020 06: 26 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              That is, you say that the UAC is not interested in export sales? Which increase the series, reduce the cost of each aircraft and make it possible to purchase more of them for their (Air Force) VKS?
            4. Sanichsan 18 February 2020 13: 57 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: 3danimal
              That is, you say that the UAC is not interested in export sales?

              just AOK cannot afford such a blatant lie wink Russia does not have such subordinate colonies as Japan and such a powerful lobbyist organization as NATO.
            5. 3danimal 18 February 2020 14: 50 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Everything is clear, we are more spiritual, honest ... Do you yourself believe in this?
              Everyone is trying to embellish and this is quite normal. In the adult world, the market and all that.
              To talk about “such a frank lie,” you need to have something more than “I can’t believe such a big difference in the EPR”.
              I refer to the data mentioned by the manufacturer. For his part, he made the judgment that the 35th ESR MUST be less than that of the Su-57. Smaller sizes, a-shaped air ducts, one-piece flashlight - at least in light of Lightning. Plus, Lockheed has more experience in this area.
            6. Sanichsan 18 February 2020 17: 33 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: 3danimal
              Everything is clear, we are more spiritual, honest ... Do you yourself believe in this?

              what belay I kind of clearly wrote that we don’t have such levers of pressure to do anything at all yes
              Quote: 3danimal
              To talk about “such a frank lie,” you need to have something more than “I can’t believe such a big difference in the EPR”.
              lack of supporting evidence is not enough? statements refuting the effectiveness of stealth also can not be taken into account? don't trust anyone, not even yourself! Lockheed Martin can be trusted. wassat
              Quote: 3danimal
              Smaller sizes, a-shaped air ducts, one-piece flashlight - at least in light of Lightning.
              so the quality of buns with poppy seeds affects the number of accidents wink
  7. 3danimal 14 February 2020 23: 02 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I’ll clarify: 0,01 m2 is 10 cm2. Why not: from a certain angle, when the radio waves (in the range of 1-10cm) are reflected, not towards the receiver / absorbed by the coating.
    An important point: a significant flare is the engine compressor blades, hidden in our case by s-shaped duct ducts.
  8. 3danimal 12 February 2020 16: 02 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Distort: ​​we are talking about which of the systems "conducts" the rocket and in which section. ARL GSN - always at the final, because has limited capabilities.
  9. Sanichsan 14 February 2020 13: 24 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: 3danimal
    Distort: ​​we are talking about which of the systems "conducts" the rocket and in which section.

    when you wrote “distort”, you decided to give a clear example of how to do this?
    Quote: 3danimal
    ARL GSN - always at the final, because has limited capabilities.

    not at the final, but after capturing the goal. it will happen at 18 km or 2 km, this F-35 will not help. yes
  10. 3danimal 14 February 2020 19: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Countermeasures and electronic warfare will not work in any way? All this reduces the likelihood of defeat. In addition, with the AIM-9X, it is possible with a certain probability of success to intercept an attacking missile.
    Here is another important point: ARL GOS works in the range against which the solutions used on the 35th are most effective. And it will be necessary to bring it closer 18 km. As well as launching from a distance of 2 times less than stated for 1 m2. What does counter attack action mean.
    In summary: these technologies and design solutions give a tactical advantage. And with times of large numbers and production capabilities, this ... is not encouraging. Let me remind you that war with a strong adversary is always the death of their people in large numbers. Better to strengthen the world.
  11. Sanichsan 17 February 2020 16: 05 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: 3danimal
    Countermeasures and electronic warfare will not work in any way? All this reduces the likelihood of defeat.

    very interesting remark! But why then an expensive stealth, if there are EW containers that will significantly more effectively suppress missile guidance?
    and! Well, in principle, it is clear. this is a Soviet concept, and that means for you absolutely not working. it’s not the mythical American stealth laughing I apologize, but I can not help but fuss laughing
    Quote: 3danimal
    In addition, with the AIM-9X, you can with a certain probability of success intercept an attacking rocket.

    very true noticed. it is "with a certain probability of success." as well as anti-aircraft missiles and any other explosive missiles.
    Quote: 3danimal
    Here is another important point: ARL GSN works in the range ...

    I have already detailed to you that there are no obstacles in order to conduct a missile at a distance of up to 1 km from the target without an ARS GOS, and at such distances the stealth efficiency is already leveled by a short distance.
    Quote: 3danimal
    And it will be necessary to bring it closer 18 km.

    Yes, but there’s no problem. in any case for Soviet and Russian radars.
    Quote: 3danimal
    As well as launching from a distance of 2 times less than stated for 1 m2.

    with a "2 times smaller" distance of what? the actions of the Su-30 radar, if I do not confuse 400+ km. How many explosive missiles with a range of 200 km + are known to you? I remind you once again that guidance is carried out not only by the ARL GOS.
    Quote: 3danimal
    In summary: these technologies and design solutions give a tactical advantage.

    I still very much doubt the significance of this advantage. take at least your theory of seepage through air defense. as??? Radar coverage areas overlap and the aircraft will be irradiated from at least several directions, plus beyond the horizon that sees it for thousands of kilometers, that is, it will glow exactly like the F-18 or B-52. this technology makes sense if the plane is not visible at all, but if it is visible, even if it is a small object, then for air defense it is absolutely the same as F-35 or B-52. it is visible, then you can shoot it down.
    By the way, didn’t you think that this technology is most effective against the American radars that the United States supplies to its NATO friends? the Turks already sensed something wink
    it looks like a club for our lackeys ... but we live in a time of democracy and we are happy to sell C400 to everyone soldier
    Quote: 3danimal
    And with times of large numbers and production capabilities, this ... is not encouraging.
    no need for inappropriate panic! soldier where are they "many times more"? in Finland? not at all. in Germany too. in France? the Poles have a lot ... but in dreams laughing
    Quote: 3danimal
    Let me remind you that war with a strong adversary is always the death of their people in large numbers. Better to strengthen the world.

    specify. if it’s about local conflicts, then along the borders of Russia there is someone who will last longer than Georgia in 2008.
    if you are talking about a global conflict with the United States, then their F-35s fly much slower than ICBMs. do not have time to fly to the EU ...
    but you are right, the world is better than war, and, as you know, Si vis pacem, para bellum. request
  12. 3danimal 18 February 2020 06: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    There is no Soviet or bourgeois physics, I recall :)
    Stealth reduces the distance of detection / guidance missiles, which gives a tactical advantage. The later you have to use active remedies, the better. (Is that so hard to understand?)
  13. Sanichsan 18 February 2020 13: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    Stealth reduces the distance of detection / guidance missiles, which gives a tactical advantage. The later you have to use active remedies, the better. (Is that so hard to understand?)

    it’s about as difficult as understanding that electronic warfare suppresses and distorts the signal much reduces the detection distance, and in some cases generally makes radar detection worthless, that is, it gives the very invisibility that stealth does not. wink
  14. 3danimal 18 February 2020 14: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Turning on the EW, you loudly said "I'm here." Against a strong opponent, you may have too little time. A group of fighters located in the air will be banal to you. With missiles with infrared seeker which you can fight with the help of electronic warfare :)
    (As one example)
  15. Sanichsan 18 February 2020 17: 43 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: 3danimal
    Turning on the EW, you loudly said "I'm here."

    Sorry, but if there is a war, then the enemy is not aware that "you are here"?
    Quote: 3danimal
    Against a strong opponent, you may have too little time.

    which one? Syria for example? and. not. there F16 Israeli shoot from the ocean then from Lebanon ... so where?
    Quote: 3danimal
    A group of fighters located in the air will be banal to you.

    and to the F-35, which is quite visible on the C400 radars (or are they all-in-one? wassat ) why not send?
    Quote: 3danimal
    With missiles with infrared seeker which you can fight with the help of electronic warfare :)
    (As one example)

    well maybe enough? what are you how small Modern explosive rocket has several guidance systems that ensure successful target destruction. if thermal traps can cope with infrared seekers, then there are very few chances to get away from the combined one. yes that is, in general, she doesn’t care whether the F-35 or Su-35, but the Su-35 with maneuverability is better for that which gives a chance to dodge wink
  16. 3danimal 18 February 2020 18: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    With 60g rocket maneuverability, you can dodge, not for long, though.
    About S400: so the 35th will not fly dangerously close. Stealth is not invisibility, but stealth when the standard detection range is reduced. Say 4-10 times. But you can increase the number of complexes by a factor of ten, densifying the defense. A budget would only allow ...
  17. Sanichsan 19 February 2020 17: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    With 60g rocket maneuverability, you can dodge, not for long, though.

    60g? on the terminal trajectory of a long-range missile? gee gee laughing Oh well bully
    and short-range missiles and so with the F-35 does not wake up problems like with the Su-35.
    that’s the question, why is an airplane twice as expensive and much more expensive to maintain if there’s no difference? The advantages are very situational and not where necessary.
    here it’s a purely economic aspect, why they are doing it and to whom and why they are sucking in .. yes
    Quote: 3danimal
    But you can increase the number of complexes by a factor of ten, densifying the defense. A budget would only allow ...

    not necessary. Now in Russia and in China and even in the USA, active work is underway on photon radars for which stealth does not work at all. F-35 replacement is not expected until ... awkward situation ... again, the reason why the EW container is better. it can be adapted to new detection tools, and so you change the whole plane. it is all, maybe. you can’t stick a container to it wink
  18. 3danimal 19 February 2020 20: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    A favorite topic of many here .. To contrast with a really existing (in the amount of about 500 units at the moment) machine is something just under development. negative
    Look at the chronicle: with us people were waiting for 1000+ T-14 tanks by 2015 and 100+ Su-57 by the 19th year. laughing
  19. Sanichsan 20 February 2020 13: 35 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: 3danimal
    Look at the chronicle: with us people were waiting for 1000+ T-14 tanks by 2015 and 100+ Su-57 by the 19th year.

    Are you definitely not a fan of Ilona Mask? oto very reminiscent of their agitation wink
    Quote: 3danimal
    Contrast with a really existing (in the amount of about 500 units at the moment) car is still under development.

    judging by this thesis on history you have 2 laughing
    I remind you of such an incident with armadillos and dreadnoughts, when entire fleets became obsolete in a year. a similar story with aircraft carriers and battleships. oh yes, we're talking about aviation ... here is a suitable example of jet and piston aircraft.
    but history seems to teach you nothing wink
  20. 3danimal 18 February 2020 06: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    About ICBMs. The United States and its allies also have them. Do you and your loved ones live in a bunker in a remote area?
  21. Sanichsan 18 February 2020 13: 54 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: 3danimal
    About ICBMs.

    about what? belay here it’s like about the F-35, to the extremes about the B-21, how did your logic turn the planes into ICBMs?
  22. 3danimal 18 February 2020 14: 44 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Sorry, wrong branch request
  23. 3danimal 7 February 2020 20: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    in addition to radars, there are optoelectronic guidance systems.

    Fine, but the range of the OLS is much less than that of the radar.
    And on the R-77 is the ARL GSN.
  24. Sanichsan 10 February 2020 14: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    And on the R-77 is the ARL GSN.

    type of guidance ANN + RK + ARL GSN. your argument is invalid wink
  25. 3danimal 11 February 2020 11: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    What is ANN, in your opinion? RK is used to adjust the course with changes in the direction of movement of the target. They are on all medium / long range missiles.
    Do you understand the meaning of these abbreviations ?? lol
    In the final section (in fact, homing), the ARL GSN works with a detection range of 18 km (for an EPR of 1 m2)
  26. Sanichsan 11 February 2020 14: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    Do you understand the meaning of these abbreviations ??

    I understand that, but for some reason you are trying to tear one thing out of context. what for?
    Do you want to say that strictly at 18 km to the target the ARL GSN is turned on and all other guidance systems are turned off? Do you think that designers? or readers? or is it in you? request
  27. 3danimal 11 February 2020 22: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I am sure of that. Up to this distance, the missile travels along the ANN / RK or using semi-active guidance. And leads it (makes adjustments to the calculated trajectory) in the target area of ​​the fighter radar or ground radar.
  28. Sanichsan 12 February 2020 14: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    I am sure of that.

    mdya .. a bad case ...
    I reveal to you a terrible military secret! bully all systems work until the target is hit, the ARS of the seeker will provide accurate guidance in the final section, that is, the missile will fly towards the target at any time until the radar of the seeker captures the target, and at a distance of 1-2 km this is guaranteed. so it is with us and the United States.
    oh yes .. we still forgot about optoelectronic systems that have a range of up to 120km and they generally do not care about "stealth" wink
  29. 3danimal 7 February 2020 20: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    First of all, Su-35 and Su-30 are actively producing and Tu-160 with Tu-22 are being modernized.

    They save, and they will never be able to produce a comparable number of 5-generation fighter in comparable terms - we will be objective (how many 35 have been produced?).
  30. Sanichsan 10 February 2020 14: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    they will never be able to produce a comparable number of 5th generation fighter in comparable terms - we will be objective (how many 35s have already been produced?).

    Well, as it were, obviously. 35 (eight!) countries are participating in the F-8 project. Su-57 makes one Russia.
    but comparable to what? with 5 planes that Poland really dreams of? wassat they did a lot of them, only they are scattered around the world. Yes, and providing them is not very fun ...
    if we make at least a third of the number F-35, then we will already have an overwhelming advantage wink
  31. 3danimal 11 February 2020 11: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Poland will purchase 35 aircraft. USA - over 1000. Developed by Lockheed. The participation of other countries allows us to increase the series and reduce the cost of the car.
    By 22-24, they will start producing 140+ aircraft per year (!). It is realistic, given that under these tasks they build entire plants from scratch.
    India participated in the PAK FA project, but left. This affected the cost (increase) and purchase plans downward.
  32. Sanichsan 11 February 2020 14: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    Poland will purchase 35 aircraft.

    or will not buy laughing you don’t need to be very knowledgeable in politics to know that this is not a military contract, but an attempt to lick the United States. if they buy, they will quarrel with France because of the failure of the contract for Rafale. the French, by the way, were the first of the United States.
    if they quarrel with France, the EU is worse laughing
    Quote: 3danimal
    By 22-24, they will start producing 140+ aircraft per year (!). It is realistic, given that under these tasks they build entire plants from scratch.

    not very, given the instability in the world. I remind you that in the USA there is no complete production cycle for F35, and if any of the suppliers of components has problems, the USA will not get what they want.
    PS
    I recall that Germany and several other countries abandoned the F-35. why's that?
  33. 3danimal 11 February 2020 22: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Instability in Italy? Revolution there? laughing
  34. 3danimal 7 February 2020 20: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I clearly wrote that the technology provides some advantages, but not at all ultimatum.

    It gives a significantly greater operational scope: a continuous (for 3-4 generation) radar field becomes fragmented for the 5th. As well as increasing the complexity of his defeat.
  35. Sanichsan 10 February 2020 14: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    Gives noticeably greater operational space

    very optimistic statement. yes, under certain conditions this will give an advantage, but not always and not everywhere.
  36. 3danimal 11 February 2020 11: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Decrypted: I have no arguments, but I remain in my opinion good
  37. Sanichsan 11 February 2020 14: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    as i understand you yes I have been telling you all day that your maxims of secrecy are written with a pitchfork, but you continue to assure that these are facts laughing
    that lack of arguments does not stop you. wink
  38. 3danimal 7 February 2020 20: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The hunter is already flying, and B21 in the pictures

    B2 has been flying and applying for a long time, x-57s are also not new.
    B-21 - he is like PAK YES, in development. But I’m ready to argue for money that it will be completed and will reach operational readiness “21st” earlier. (Extrapolating the experience of recent years)
  39. Sanichsan 10 February 2020 14: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    But I’m ready to argue for money that it will be completed and will reach operational readiness “21st” earlier.

    I will not argue. Americans are not stupid, and in principle they can, but then the question is what will they get on the way out? the same B2 but twice as expensive? I remind you that this is not an F-35, this is a purely American project.
  40. 3danimal 11 February 2020 11: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It will be smaller, a larger series - everything speaks for cost reduction.
  41. Sanichsan 11 February 2020 14: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    everything speaks for cost reduction.

    what says Is it smaller? belay did the USA manage to create at least something new that would be cheaper than its predecessor ??? what as far as I know NO bully
  42. 3danimal 7 February 2020 18: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Moreover, stealth is understood (correctly) as a reduction in the detection range for ground-based radar / radar aircraft / radar seeker missiles.
  • Operator 5 February 2020 11: 10 New
    • 6
    • 7
    -1
    It doesn’t take off - bombers cannot compete with the SLCK from the word at all.
    1. Kalmar 5 February 2020 12: 22 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      bombers cannot compete with the SLCK from the word at all

      Compete in what? They seem to have slightly different tasks. And in especially neglected cases, the bomber can carry the GKKR itself (well, as soon as someone learns to do them).
      1. Operator 5 February 2020 12: 27 New
        • 8
        • 8
        0
        I’m afraid to ask - what are the tasks of bombers other than the state defense missile defense system: bombing barmalei (without air defense systems) with freely falling bombs?

        Can't Su-35S be bombed by iron? laughing
        1. Kalmar 5 February 2020 12: 41 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Quote: Operator
          I’m afraid to ask - what are the tasks of bombers other than the state defense order?

          To begin with, the existing bombers are significantly superior even to the hypothetical GKKR in combat radius. Then, a bomber in one departure can handle several targets. Further, it can be withdrawn directly on the go or sent to another target (s). Further, it can be used for various types of targets (one to cover with a bomb carpet, another to stick something high-precision under the tail). Well and so on.

          In general, we have already played with the idea of ​​replacing artillery, aviation and navy with missiles of all stripes. It didn’t.


          Quote: Operator
          Can't Su-35S be bombed by iron?

          Equally far and wide - no.
          1. Operator 5 February 2020 13: 05 New
            • 7
            • 9
            -2
            The bomber can’t do anything in the air defense zone, so even having a greater range, it will only be used against barmales, and the latter will be much more economical to bomb tactical aircraft from field airfields at a distance of +100 km.

            The scale is just a matter of piece of aircrafts, since the bomb load of the same Su-35S is already equal to the bomb load of bombers.

            No one talks about replacing aviation - on the contrary, it needs to be developed both in the multifunctional direction (Su-35S with diverse weapons) and in the strategic (KR "Petrel").
            1. Kalmar 5 February 2020 13: 12 New
              • 3
              • 3
              0
              Quote: Operator
              Bomber can not do anything in the air defense zone

              Firstly, air defense is not always continuous (our current is not continuous, for example). And then it will be possible to find corridors through which an inconspicuous bomber can seep out.

              Secondly, the mentioned corridors can be created artificially using anti-radar missiles.

              Quote: Operator
              Scale is just a matter of piecework

              I do not argue. It all depends on what is at hand and in what quantities, well, who is doing what. If it is possible to distract the same Su-35s from the tasks of gaining / maintaining air superiority - let them bomb. If the range is enough.
            2. Morzh Redkovich Borschitsky 5 February 2020 15: 07 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              A bomb truck may pretend to be a civilian transport plane (or even be one). But a rocket cannot pretend to be that way.
        2. 3danimal 6 February 2020 13: 52 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          If Barmalei has a higher level, they can shoot down a plane of 4 generations.
          And against the air defense of developed countries - the attack will come out unjustifiably bloody.
          The 21st will have to deal with this problem.
  • Valdaev 5 February 2020 12: 46 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Now we are waiting for a new wave of fairy tales about the pack
  • Operator 5 February 2020 13: 19 New
    • 7
    • 10
    -3
    Quote: Kalmar
    it will be possible to find corridors through which an inconspicuous bomber can seep

    In the case of Yugoslavia or Iraq, air defense will simply be extinguished without a search for corridors, and in the case of Russia, the reserve capabilities of an air defense radar and short-range missile defense such as "Nails" of the Pantsir air defense system will not allow such corridors to be formed.

    And again, with the hypothetical presence of such corridors in air defense zones, which prevents them from using tactical aviation forces (F-15, F-18, F-35, Su-35), based on field airfields / aircraft carriers and armed with cruise missiles with a range of + 1000 km?
    1. Kalmar 5 February 2020 14: 22 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      In the case of Russia, the reserve capabilities of the air defense radar and the short-range missile defense such as "Nails" of the Pantsir air defense system will not allow such corridors to be formed

      Provided that:
      1. The indicated complexes are available in sufficient quantities to cover all significant objects.
      2. There are reserves of air defense equipment near the designated facilities, with which you can quickly make up for the loss of air defense.

      Quote: Operator
      And again, with the hypothetical presence of such corridors in air defense zones, which prevents them from using tactical aviation forces (F-15, F-18, F-35, Su-35), based on field airfields / aircraft carriers and armed with cruise missiles with a range of + 1000 km?

      Question from the series "why do you need a destroyer if there is a missile boat."

      First of all, tactical aviation, even with long-range missiles, may tritely lack range. Recall, for example, the Falkland batch, when the British had to drive their bombers through half a globus, because no airfields were found.

      Secondly, if you take the F-15 / F-18 / Su-35 against the subject of article (B-21), the stealth factor disappears: to carry the Su-35 with a hefty missile under its belly past the enemy radar will be the same attraction.

      Thirdly, a quantitative factor: instead of one bomber, it will be necessary to drive an entire squadron of attack aircraft: it is more difficult to assemble, easier to detect, and so on.
      1. Operator 5 February 2020 14: 53 New
        • 6
        • 8
        -2
        You really don’t put the VKS of the Russian Federation at all laughing

        For countries that do not have enough aircraft carriers, there really is the problem of fighting for the islands. But why fight for the islands when you can occupy the metropolis - Argentina, for example?

        You first said about the mandatory presence of corridors in the air defense zones, then why in this case stealth?

        The number of aircraft flying along the corridors does not matter.
        1. Kalmar 5 February 2020 15: 42 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          Quote: Operator
          You really don’t put the VKS of the Russian Federation at all

          I bet, but their possibilities are not unlimited, the number is not infinite. War can be different.

          Quote: Operator
          But why fight for the islands when you can occupy the metropolis - Argentina, for example?

          It depends on what tasks. For some reason, the Britons did not dare to occupy Argentina. Strange ...

          Quote: Operator
          You first said about the mandatory presence of corridors in the air defense zones, then why in this case stealth?

          By corridor, in this case, I mean some part of the airspace in which this particular type of aircraft cannot be (reliably) hit by air defense systems. Let's say there are two radars 200 km apart; each sees a regular plane at a distance of 120 km, and the "stealth" - only 90 km. As a result, there is no corridor for an ordinary fighter, but 20 km for a stealth.

          Quote: Operator
          The number of aircraft flying along the corridors does not matter.

          Well, the enemy also has air patrols. It’s still easier to spot a group of planes trying to crawl into a hole in the fence than to make out one bomber (and even a "stealth").
          1. Operator 5 February 2020 16: 02 New
            • 6
            • 7
            -1
            The war for us will take place in strict accordance with our Military Doctrine - if there is a threat to territorial integrity (for example, breaking corridors in air defense zones), we will fire at the adversary (with the exception of the national territories of nuclear powers) with a tactical vigorous baton, after which questions of the use of aviation in our territory act by themselves.

            Well, you give - compared the fried eggs (Britain) with God's gift (Russia).

            As for visibility / invisibility, the Decametric ZAGLS “Container” already right now controls the airspace of the European part of the Russian Federation and hell knows how many hundred / thousand kilometers of approaches to the borders of this part of the country. Moreover, from a height of 0 meters to 60 km and regardless of stealth technologies, designed for a maximum of decimeter radio waves.

            So this is the trick of attack aircraft (at least our Su-35S), that in their super-maneuverable qualities they are a cut above any air opponent (except for the F-22, which has been discontinued) plus are equipped with an unmatched RVV-BD with a range of Applications on AWACS aircraft in 300 km.
            1. Kalmar 5 February 2020 16: 46 New
              • 3
              • 3
              0
              Quote: Operator
              Well, you give - compared the fried eggs (Britain) with God's gift (Russia).

              And why is this oligarchy from God's gift to the fried eggs all the time running .... What am I talking about? Well, yes: Russia, for example, has, in principle, no experience in conducting military operations at such a great distance from its own borders. So do not underestimate the shaving.

              Quote: Operator
              decameter ZGRLS "Container" already now completely controls the airspace of the European part of the Russian Federation and hell knows how many hundreds / thousand kilometers of approaches to the borders of this part of the country

              She looks west and south. No north. I remember that on the topic of air defense of the Russian Federation in the north there were many sad articles. The survival rate of such large stationary objects in a full-scale war is a separate issue.

              Quote: Operator
              this is the trick of attack aircraft (at least our Su-35S), that in their super-maneuverable qualities they are a cut above any air enemy

              And what does super-maneuverability have to do with it? For a machine-gun duel with a nimble enemy - yes, it’s important, in other cases it’s not so special.
              1. Operator 5 February 2020 19: 38 New
                • 6
                • 9
                -3
                Today’s shaving aren’t worth evaluating at all, and 1980 shaving should be compared with the USSR of the same year — our Navy would land a landing right in the center of Buenos Aires under the threat of using tactical nuclear weapons and close the issue with the islands.

                What problems - now the container sector of the review is 240 degrees, it will be 360. And what does the survival rate of ZGRLS mean: the enemy demolished part of its antenna field - “receive, fascist grenade”, that is, a tactical vigorous loaf.

                Super-maneuverability in a conventional conflict is needed for an aircraft to evade enemy missiles at the last 3/4 of their flight distance, as well as for “dog dumps” in a nuclear conflict (when air ionization blocks radar and fire burns reduce optical visibility to 1 km).

                At the same time, in the latter case, all aircraft without any technical tricks will instantly become stealth in the entire range of radio waves - then why pay more for any B-21 and F-35 laughing
                1. 3danimal 6 February 2020 14: 14 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  I see that you have a universal solution - terror with the help of nuclear weapons. What will you do if the loaves fly back? The Britons have about 300 of them (strategists), all on the SSBN (are invulnerable). An indefinite number of millions of deaths of their own citizens - nothing, for the sake of the military glory of an abstract empire (after all, such, in one way or another, you see the Russian Federation)?
                  1. Operator 6 February 2020 15: 46 New
                    • 6
                    • 5
                    +1
                    You stopped understanding something in the Russian-language text - it was a hypothetical case of the capture by Argentina (a non-nuclear country) of the Soviet islands in the Atlantic Ocean in the early 1980s (for comparison with the capture of the British Foklands).
                    1. 3danimal 6 February 2020 16: 29 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      I see you. But the Union was more responsible in order to resort to nuclear blackmail. Like the USA (Vietnam, Iraq)
                      1. Operator 6 February 2020 16: 33 New
                        • 6
                        • 2
                        +4
                        But nuclear blackmail the USSR until the early 1960s for the United States, then not shield? laughing
                      2. 3danimal 6 February 2020 16: 37 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Explain the purpose and essence of blackmail. Fear of being in the dustbin of history? :)
                      3. Operator 6 February 2020 17: 21 New
                        • 6
                        • 3
                        +3
                        I have on the drum the targets of US nuclear blackmail - ask them yourself.

                        The essence of blackmail - the Internet is full of texts of plans for a US nuclear attack on the USSR such as "Dropshot". Or do you think that these plans were a secret for the leadership of the USSR? laughing
                      4. 3danimal 6 February 2020 17: 58 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        There are no plans in the network, but even more of their interpretations.
                        In 1949, the United States had ~ 200 nuclear warheads, the Union - 1, test. Ideally, be at the head of the first adventurer-frostbitten dictator. But he was not there. I see no reason for the attack.
                        But in the variant of repelling the attack, the Bolshevik’s attempts to “throw the bourgeois into the Atlantic” are already more realistic. Let me remind you that these were by no means figures of speech, these utterances uttered from life were the program documents of that state.
                      5. Operator 6 February 2020 18: 09 New
                        • 7
                        • 4
                        +3
                        Come on, pick up newspaper cliches of the Soviet period - be guided by information on the Internet about the legends of the exercises of the ATS countries (the Oriental always dealt a counterattack, not a preemptive strike).

                        The possibility of delivering a preemptive strike (superiority in the total number of nuclear charges and their carriers) in the USSR appeared only in the second half of the 1980s, but, as you know, it did not come to military plans.
                      6. 3danimal 6 February 2020 18: 22 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Why didn’t they take advantage of the absolute advantage in nuclear charges? I answered in general terms to this question, as I myself see.
                    2. bk0010 6 February 2020 20: 14 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      As for 200 YaBCh in 1949, a reference would be what. Very interesting.
  • 3danimal 6 February 2020 14: 07 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    The adversary, having weighed all the pros and cons, will not be ready to strike back-and-forth on the nuclear weapons carriers and depots? Just to rule out the possibility of repeated attacks.
    1. Operator 6 February 2020 15: 50 New
      • 6
      • 4
      +2
      It is proposed to use the strategy of escalating the military conflict: in response to a NATO attack on the Russian Federation using conventional weapons, strike nuclear weapons at NATO military facilities in Europe (with the exception of the territory of Britain and France) - see the legend of the Soviet West-77 exercises.
      1. 3danimal 6 February 2020 16: 33 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        This is an extremely dangerous "game", the price of which are the people whom it is supposed to protect.
        A logical solution to coached and having a “military” mentality of commanders would be a blow to the charges and carriers.
        And then what? Go further, burning your fellow citizens, or make peace by abandoning the first scenario? Why then start at all? IMHO, here we see the elements of criminal thinking: "take a show off, maybe they dare not answer."
      2. 3danimal 6 February 2020 16: 40 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        An important point: what do you understand as a NATO attack on the Russian Federation? What could be its goals and reasons?
        1. Operator 6 February 2020 17: 16 New
          • 6
          • 3
          +3
          Counter-force strike by cruise missiles at military airfields (with the exception of strategic bomber bases), the air defense system, naval bases (with the exception of nuclear submarine bases), command centers and communications centers of the Russian Federation (with the exception of Moscow) - in response to "aggression" Russia (on the outskirts, in Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Syria, Libya, etc.).

          NATO’s goal-setting can be different - containing Russian aggression, consolidating NATO countries, intimidating China, undermining Russia's economy, etc.
          1. 3danimal 6 February 2020 17: 52 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            You have missed a realistic version of such actions: countering the attack and attempted occupation of the Baltic countries. I met information that questions in the style of "Are you ready to die for Narva" have already been asked half-officially by NATO representatives. Obviously, a number of figures have a powerful set of defeats in the Cold War. But they think little about the reasons, in particular, the collapse of the economy.
  • Sanichsan 5 February 2020 17: 23 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: Kalmar
    to hold the Su-35 with a hefty missile under the belly past the enemy radar will be that still attraction.

    Sorry, but why Su-35 with hefty rocket under the belly will enter the zone of enemy air defense ??? Hefty missiles are usually made in order not to fly into the air defense zone. not?
  • WapentakeLokki 5 February 2020 18: 54 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Replica .... Construction will continue for about a year. Tests and the first flight of the prototype are scheduled for the next 2021 .... and you know what hurts me in it ??? And the fact that he REALLY will fly in 2021 and after passing the tests will be launched in a series (albeit not a big one .. and apparently the price he will have oh-hoo) .. unlike our LONG-TERM ... and even more so ours because of the difficulties, the puffs of the serial production of such pathosly announced new products .. sad however .. (especially that we don’t want to learn from amers HOW TO NEED TO RELEASE .. remember the most striking example; WW II, their Liberty series ...) in general, our defense industry smokes on the side seeing the work of the military-industrial complex of the Great American ..
  • eklmn 5 February 2020 18: 58 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    Thanks to Kirill Ryabov for an interesting article.
    I add that the engine for the Pratt & Whitney bomber has similarities in structural details to the F-135 engine for the F-35. Therefore, in the manufacture of 100 pieces of bombers, the price of an engine for two platforms will fall.

    For the curious:
    “Popular Mechanics”
    https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a30754024/b-21-bomber-images/
    “... The B-21 is designed to overcome modern air defense threats, including systems such as the Russian S-400. an air-missile system and a Chinese J-20 fighter for penetrating enemy airspace. The B-21 will be capable of carrying high-precision and nuclear weapons.

    “The Aviationist”
    https://theaviationist.com/2020/01/31/lets-have-a-look-at-the-new-b-21-raider-stealth-bomber-renderings-the-air-force-has-just-released/
    “In particular, nozzles and air intakes are known to be complex and difficult to implement, since they can cause various problems with the air flow for aircraft engines buried inside the fuselage. One of the few details of the B-21 program is the difficulty in developing air intakes, which is not surprising, they caused some fright among Northrop Grumman engineers during the development of the aircraft. They managed, and their development offers huge advantages in terms of further reducing the radar characteristics of the aircraft.
    “What is not shown in this new perspective is the diamond-like trailing edge of the B-21, which is different from the trailing edge of the B-2, a feature that was redefined as part of an extremely expensive upgrade in the mid-1980s that aims to to give B-2 low penetration capabilities. The new trailing edge is likely to allow the new bomber to fly at much higher altitudes than its predecessor.
    “The fact that the shape of the B-21 is very similar to the concept of a high-altitude Senior Ice tells us that the B-21 will be a high-altitude and extremely aerodynamically effective weapon with a touch platform, and this is very important. If the original design of the ATrop Northrop had a target working altitude of 20km, it is highly likely that the B-21 will achieve the same high flight target. This makes a lot of sense, because the aircraft will be able to achieve its goals in terms of flight range with less fuel and thrust than otherwise, and, most importantly, the ability to take off with the RQ-4 Global Hawk within the flight zone means that B- 21 may supply its long distance sensor kit, taking advantage of its extreme line of sight. ”
    (I apologize for the clumsy text, I have to blame Igor with his Google translator).
  • evgen1221 6 February 2020 06: 51 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    So their PAK-DA drove up, and in addition to talking and allocating money, it looks like only these conversations, and nothing is said.
  • Operator 6 February 2020 17: 56 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +2
    Quote: 3danimal
    We missed a realistic version of such actions: countering the attack and attempted occupation of the Baltic countries

    Nothing of the kind - this option is indicated to me as "etc." laughing
  • Operator 6 February 2020 20: 20 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Quote: 3danimal
    Why didn’t they take advantage of the absolute advantage in nuclear charges?

    While the United States had the advantage, America used it very much - blackmailing the USSR in the framework of the Cold War (another thing is that blackmail did not work, but the latter depended not on the United States).