American stealth bomber B-2 Spirit will not be upgraded

American stealth bomber B-2 Spirit will not be upgraded

American heavy strategic bomber Northrop Grumman B-2 Spiri was left without a comprehensive modernization. As transmits "Warspot" referring to the portal defensenews.com, the US Air Force command decided to change the program for the modernization of stealth bombers.


According to the publication, a decision was made instead of a comprehensive program of modernization Defensive Management System Modernization (DMS-M), which provides for the replacement of sensors, airborne systems and the introduction of new technologies that allow the aircraft to "confront Russia and China," to carry out a small modernization. Details of the entire improvement are not given, but it is known that only cosmetic changes to the cockpit will be made at B-2: a new graphics processor and displays will be installed.

In October last year, it was reported that the first B-2 bomber was modernized. Details of the upgrade were not provided, but it is known that the B-2 received EW systems, new antennas, as well as advanced computing systems. In the cockpit, developers mounted new information screens. All these improvements should provide the bomber pilots with more information about the detected threats, as well as detect the enemy radar and interfere.

The modernization was carried out due to the obsolescence of the aircraft, which was no longer able to conduct military operations in closed areas with the same efficiency. According to the military, after installing new systems, the aircraft will be able to operate in areas under the control of enemy air defense.

Apparently the first modernized V-2 will remain the only one that has undergone a complete modernization.

The B-2 strategic bomber was developed in the late 1980s with the widespread use of stealth technologies to overcome enemy air defense zones. Flight range - up to 11,1 thousand km, speed - up to 1 thousand km / h. In two internal compartments, the V-2 can carry up to 18 tons of bombs, the maximum load is 23 tons. In 1988-1999, 21 such aircraft were produced, 20 of which today are in service with the US 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. Po-tzan 14 February 2020 15: 10 New
    • 13
    • 35
    -22
    American stealth bomber B-2 Spirit will not upgrade

    Why upgrade it? He, and as having come down from the pages of books about the distant future. In our country, a similar PAK-DA is shown only in the pictures so far, and judging by the SU-57, they will bring the prototype to another 20 years.
    1. KCA
      KCA 14 February 2020 15: 26 New
      • 24
      • 7
      +17
      For the development cost of 22 billion and the cost of 20 B-2 44,65 billion, Tupolev will not make PAK-DA, but a space bomb to patrol the solar system from Mercury to Neptune
      1. Vol4ara 14 February 2020 15: 51 New
        • 15
        • 25
        -10
        Quote: KCA
        For the development cost of 22 billion and the cost of 20 B-2 44,65 billion, Tupolev will not make PAK-DA, but a space bomb to patrol the solar system from Mercury to Neptune

        Rather, Tupolev will be made not by the pack, but by the pieces of 400 luxurious yachts and luxury mansions from Switzerland to Spain, and they’ll modernize some kind of Soviet aircraft saying that
    2. neri73-r 14 February 2020 15: 41 New
      • 9
      • 5
      +4
      You have neither PAK YES nor Su-57, and what is our flag attached to the avatar?
    3. Grigory_45 14 February 2020 15: 49 New
      • 5
      • 5
      0
      Quote: PO-tzan
      Why upgrade it? He, and as he came down from the pages of books about the distant future

      Spirit is already an old man - the first flight in 1989, in operation since the 97th. Bombers were regularly modernized - design flaws were eliminated, a new avionics was installed, software was updated. In light of the numerous military programs, as well as hoping that soon the Raider will be on the wing of the V-21, the Spirits, apparently, decided to leave "as is" - the plane, and so at a cost exceeded all reasonable limits.
      The Americans regularly upgrade their B-52, and so far they are not going to abandon them.
      1. Observer2014 14 February 2020 21: 04 New
        • 3
        • 6
        -3
        Quote: Gregory_45
        Spirit is already an old man - the first flight in 1989, in operation since the 97th.
        laughing Ha ha ha.! and B-52, Tu-95, Tu -160, B-1-B, Tu-22 are all the young boys in your opinion?
        The Americans took into account the experience of operating this machine. That's all. And in the service too. That's what makes the B-21 Raider. Moreover, it seems successful. Which will replace the very expensive Spirit to operate.
        1. Grigory_45 14 February 2020 21: 15 New
          • 3
          • 3
          0
          Quote: Observer2014
          Ha ha ha.!

          invented himself, laughed himself? Well done))

          The Americans are focusing on the promising (in their opinion) B-21. Deciding not to spend money on an already old, expensive and very small airplane.

          PS It’s like a plane that is over three decades old is not the first freshness. And, if you are trained to read, you should have noticed that I did not compare it with the devices you indicated. So work hard next time to the point.
          1. krops777 15 February 2020 03: 44 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Americans focus on the promising (in their opinion) B-21


            There is an opinion that it will be significantly more expensive than gold in the literal sense of B-2.
            1. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 08: 35 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Quote: krops777
              It is believed that it is significantly more expensive

              there can be any number of opinions, the Americans themselves believe that the Raider will be cheaper than Spirit - in fact, this is one of the reasons why they opened the program for creating a new bomber.
              1. krops777 15 February 2020 08: 42 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Americans themselves believe that the Raider will be cheaper than Spirit - in fact, this is one of the reasons why they opened a program to create a new bomber.


                I don’t remember what the next generation of aircraft would be cheaper than the previous one.
                1. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 09: 50 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  read carefully:
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  themselves Americans believe that Raider will be cheaper than Spirit - in fact, this is one of the reasons why they opened a program to create a new bomber
                  1. Kasym 15 February 2020 20: 19 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    The Pentagon immediately indicated that it would not take the Raider if the price exceeds $ 0,5 billion. per unit - so the price is known.
                    Spirit is worth more than 2 billion .. hi
    4. TermNachTer 14 February 2020 18: 59 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Yes, the price is fantastic, but efficiency is a big question. It’s a pity, of course, if the mattress covers “swelled” another 20-30 lards into modernization, it would be fun.
  2. Lord of the Sith 14 February 2020 15: 13 New
    • 9
    • 4
    +5
    And why upgrade the most expensive jet in the world, it is already more expensive than gold by weight, it must terrify the enemy with its value, they say, God forbid, we will not pay laughing
    1. TermNachTer 14 February 2020 19: 00 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Reminds an old joke, about Merc - 600 and the Cossack.
  3. Sema0 14 February 2020 15: 21 New
    • 5
    • 5
    0
    American stealth bomber B-2 Spirit will not be upgraded

    "No money, but you hold on!"
  4. Sergey39 14 February 2020 15: 24 New
    • 1
    • 7
    -6
    The perfect airplane and no need to upgrade. As useless.
    1. KCA
      KCA 14 February 2020 16: 11 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Tell me, where can I see the perfect combat use?
      1. Pavel57 14 February 2020 16: 16 New
        • 4
        • 4
        0
        It seems to be in Yugoslavia, although it is rumored that one was decommissioned after receiving a hole from a rocket.
        1. KCA
          KCA 14 February 2020 16: 26 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          The ideal use of an airplane for 2.1 billion dollars is to drop a couple of bombs like on a training ground? But what about stealth, how about a breakthrough in powerful air defense? How to hide from enemy fighters, pretending to be a small paper airplane, instead of a huge pelvis? Our TU-95MSM, which is all in service, does not stand as one B-2, and how the strategists showed themselves, they shot off with 1000 km on ISIS
          1. Grigory_45 14 February 2020 21: 00 New
            • 2
            • 4
            -2
            Quote: KCA
            Our TU-95MSM ... and how the strategists showed themselves, they shot back from 1000km on ISIS
            - here in Syria - it’s real as at a training ground, nothing is threatening - neither fighters (which the barmalei simply do not have), nor air defense systems (those other than MANPADS - nothing).

            Iraq and Yugoslavia were not an easy walk. The country possessed, although not modern, but quite numerous medium-range complexes, radar, as well as fighter aircraft. And the Spiritists did not suffer a single loss, although they acted completely autonomously - without covering EW fighters and aircraft
        2. Volder 14 February 2020 19: 16 New
          • 5
          • 7
          -2
          In Yugoslavia, this bomber was shot down by an old Soviet S-125 anti-aircraft gun and the wreckage was shown to the whole world. And the locals on earth deceived the bomb guidance system with conventional microwave ovens in the bushes. It was after the shame in Yugoslavia that the B-52 was discontinued, realizing that it was not invisible to anyone.
          1. Grigory_45 14 February 2020 21: 05 New
            • 2
            • 4
            -2
            Quote: Volder
            In Yugoslavia, this bomber was shot down by an old Soviet anti-aircraft gun S-125

            in Yugoslavia shot down the F-117 Nighthawk. This is a completely different plane.

            Quote: Volder
            It was after the shame in Yugoslavia that the B-52 was discontinued

            nonsense. F-117 fought in the second Iraqi, and only retired at the end of 2006, with the appearance of the F-22 in the Air Force

            Quote: Volder
            he is not invisible to anyone

            no one, except journalists and illiterate, considered stealth as invisible. Americans themselves say to the whole world that stealth is only subtle aircraft
          2. Grigory_45 14 February 2020 21: 07 New
            • 1
            • 4
            -3
            Quote: Volder
            And the locals on earth deceived the bomb guidance system with conventional microwave ovens in the bushes

            enlighten, please, how can a bomb with GPS or laser guidance be fooled with a microwave ??? belay
            1. svp67 15 February 2020 04: 25 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: Gregory_45
              enlighten, please, how can a bomb with GPS or laser guidance be fooled with a microwave ???

              Silently ... give her the wrong target coordinates ...
              1. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 08: 26 New
                • 0
                • 3
                -3
                Quote: svp67
                Silently

                Indeed, it would be better if you were silent. Or is the desire to hurt so great that it turns off the mind and allows publicly to be dishonored?
                How to use a microwave to fool a laser-guided bomb or GPS-guided? I will answer: NO. Other physical principles. Not only that, with the help of this kitchen appliance you will not fool and PRR. Learn materiel and do not disgrace.
                1. Volder 17 February 2020 14: 17 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  1. The last B-2 was made in 1999.
                  2. Modern Russian radars perfectly see inconspicuous objects, including this B-2.
                  3. Dear Gregory_45, it is worth exploring the principle of using microwave ovens, which in Yugoslavia have diverted the lion's share of the Tomahawk and Harm missiles. Type in a search engine: "Anti-Weapon" engineer Kashinov.
                  1. Volder 17 February 2020 14: 57 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    4. I am already silent about IRIS and corner reflectors, which also deceived rockets in Yugoslavia.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. Grigory_45 17 February 2020 16: 13 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2
                    Quote: Volder
                    The last B-2 was made in 1999.

                    what are you doing? I know this very well, and the reason for curtailing production was the sky-high cost of V-2

                    Quote: Volder
                    Modern Russian radars perfectly see inconspicuous objects, including this B-2.

                    not enough to see, you need to direct missiles. And this is the centimeter-millimeter range, under which all stealth planes are sharpened (and sharpened). He sees the eye, but the tooth is numb

                    Quote: Volder
                    the use of microwave ovens, which in Yugoslavia took away the lion's share of Tomahawk missiles

                    firstly, neither the Tomahawks, nor the bombs with GPS or laser-guided using a microwave can be taken anywhere. They have completely different guidance systems that do not respond to some other emerging source. The coordinates of the target are embedded in the memory of the rocket, or the target is highlighted by a laser beam (from the ground, from UAVs, etc.). Do not bullshit if you do not understand the principles of building guidance systems for high-precision munitions

                    Quote: Volder
                    I am already silent about IRIS and corner reflectors, which also deceived rockets in Yugoslavia.

                    you are not technically literate at all. How does PRR (anti-radar missile) work ??? About which, by the way, you initially did not even stutter.

                    Most modern PRRs have an inertial guidance system (ANN) and GPS to heap. The plane was irradiated once - the pilot pressed a button - the rocket went off. First, according to the ANN, and then focusing on radar radiation, the GOS PRR distinguishes the handwriting of the radar target against the background of other radiations and interference. All. Rebuild the radar in frequency, turn it off completely - PRR does not care, it already has coordinates, the rocket flies. And neither a microwave, nor even more so corner reflectors (which a priori do not radiate anything, will help you here. Enlighten what it is and what reflectors are for)
                    The rocket exploded, destroyed the radar antenna.

                    And then - the most interesting. According to the notched coordinates, a pair — the three links of attack aircraft — enter the position of an already-blown SAM system, and they bombard it with a sea of ​​fragmentation bombs or flood it with napalm.

                    Everything, write a funeral.
                    1. Volder 17 February 2020 18: 47 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      not enough to see, you need to direct missiles. And this is the centimeter-millimeter range, under which all stealth planes are sharpened (and sharpened). He sees the eye, but the tooth is numb

                      You're not right. Russia's arsenal is equipped with the Resonance-N radar system, which implements the new physical principle of resonant reflection of radio waves. Detection range and target designation for aerodynamic air targets - 600 km. Stealth technology is ineffective in the range of this radar. Russia also has an over-the-horizon Container radar capable of detecting stealth aircraft at a range of 3 km. There will be enough reaction time to raise an alert interceptor to an alarm stealth bomber and destroy it to the point of bomb drop or missile launch.
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      Neither Tomahawks, nor GPS bombs or microwave-guided bombs can be taken anywhere.
                      I strongly recommend that you familiarize yourself with the story of how Russian professor V.V.Kashinov helped the Yugoslavs repel rocket attacks. Type in a search engine: "Anti-Weapon" engineer Kashinov.
                      Quote: Volder
                      I am already silent about IRIS and corner reflectors, which also deceived rockets in Yugoslavia.
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      you are not technically literate at all. How does PRR (anti-radar missile) work ??? Most modern PRRs have an inertial guidance system (ANN) and GPS to heap.
                      Learn the experience of defense in Yugoslavia, what means were used there. IRIS and angular reflectors increased the survivability of radar and air defense systems, because They deceived the guidance of enemy missiles. Type in a search engine: NATO Air Force vs. Yugoslav Air Defense 1999 - stumble upon an article by Anatoly Kulikov (Colonel, officer of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces).
                      1. Grigory_45 17 February 2020 19: 10 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Volder
                        Russia also has an over-the-horizon Container radar capable of detecting stealth aircraft at a range of 3 km.

                        you overestimate the capabilities of the stations. More precisely, out of ignorance you attribute to them miraculous abilities.
                        3 thousand km (or rather, from 900 to 3 000 km) - this is generally the range of the station. It is not said that on stealth. According to them - should be much lower. And again I repeat - stealth is not an invisible plane, it can be detected, but depending on what distance?
                        In addition, the Container is a two-coordinate system. Enlighten yourself what does this mean? The radar is not able a priori to give even the slightest approximate coordinates of the target, it only warns "from such a direction a massive attack is carried out." All.

                        Resonance is a three-coordinate, but ... It is meter, and you even looked at the characteristics briefly? The error in elevation and azimuth is one and a half degrees. Now recall the trigonometry, and consider what the length of the base of the triangle will be (in fact, this is the distance along the front and the height at which stealth will have to look for interceptors on their own) with an angle between its sides of 1,5 degrees and a triangle height of 600 Km

                        And again, these are all ground-based radars. What about airplanes and rockets?
                      2. Volder 17 February 2020 20: 53 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        3 thousand km (or rather, from 900 to 3 000 km) - this is generally the range of the station. It is not said that on stealth. According to them - should be much lower.
                        Well, let 2 thousand km - still far away.
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        A container is a two-coordinate system. The radar is not able a priori to give even the slightest approximate coordinates of the target, it only warns "from such a direction a massive attack is carried out." All.
                        No, not all! The Container station is capable of observing air targets far beyond the borders of Russia and in time to open the take-off of planes or the launch of enemy missiles in the direction of Russia. That is, the station finds and takes flying objects for escort, indicating the exact coordinates. As a result, the European countries of NATO will not be able to quietly take off bombers. The height of these objects is not so important to know, because two coordinates are enough to send our interceptor aircraft in that direction. And in terms of height, they will orient themselves thanks to their own radars. There will also be time to put our air defense and electronic warfare system on high alert.
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        Resonance is a three-coordinate, but ... The error in elevation and azimuth is one and a half degrees. Now recall the trigonometry, and consider what the length of the base of the triangle will be (in fact, this is the distance along the front and the height at which stealth will have to look for interceptors on their own) with an angle between its sides of 1,5 degrees and a triangle height of 600 km What about airplanes and rockets?
                        According to the developers of "Resonance" (the scientific leaders of ZAO "Research Center" Resonance "), the RLC provides the issuance of high-precision target designation with an accuracy of units of meters.
                      3. Grigory_45 18 February 2020 19: 35 New
                        • 0
                        • 3
                        -3
                        Quote: Volder
                        According to the developers of "Resonance" ... RLC provides the issuance of high-precision target designation with an accuracy of units of meters.

                        So you solved the simplest problem on trigonometry? What is the length of the base of the triangle with the above parameters? (I didn’t take angles and range from the ceiling either, but from the officially published station data) What is the length of the front and the vertical take-off (ceiling?) Give accurate data (in meters, kilometers, millimeters - as you please) This will resolve the dispute, with what accuracy the station determines the coordinates - and there will be no need for allegations. Still so simple)
                      4. Geniuses 19 February 2020 01: 42 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        Most modern PRRs have an inertial guidance system (ANN) and GPS to heap. The plane was irradiated once - the pilot pressed a button - the rocket went off. First by ANN, and then - focusing on radar radiation

                        Grigory_45 (Grigory), but what is impossible to bring down the PRR? Carapace-C2 Easily knock down PRR.
                        And the carrier of the PRR can be easily destroyed at distant frontiers without even using the PRR, in view of its maximum range. AGM-88 HARM - launch range (maximum): 106 km.
                        The rocket exploded, destroyed the radar antenna.
                        And then - the most interesting. According to the notched coordinates, a pair — the three links of attack aircraft — enter the position of an already-blown SAM system, and they bombard it with a sea of ​​fragmentation bombs or flood it with napalm.
                        Everything, write a funeral.

                        Grigory_45 (Grigory), this is only your erroneous assumption and no more!
                      5. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 06: 45 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        Quote: Geni
                        this is only your erroneous assumption

                        Yeah, I have assumptions, and erroneous, but you have statements, and, of course, true))

                        I, unlike you, have arguments to prove my opinion. As for the last paragraph of my comment, I gave you the standard tactics of NATO aviation to destroy the position of air defense systems. True, there is still a nuance - most likely the PRR will start up "caresses" under the guise of EW aircraft.
                    2. Volder 19 February 2020 11: 28 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      So you solved the simplest problem on trigonometry?
                      The developers of Resonance decided it for me.
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      I also did not take angles and range from the ceiling, but from officially published station data
                      In Russia, the technical characteristics of weapons are traditionally underestimated when they are declassified. Where did you get the "officially published data"? Perhaps the disadvantages of the station parameters are compensated by something else ...
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      This will resolve the dispute with what accuracy the station determines the coordinates - and there will be no need for unfounded allegations.
                      Are you a learned physicist? Who are you suggesting me to argue with? I am sure that the station would not be made if it was ineffective. No need to keep our military and scientists as idiots!
                    3. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 11: 51 New
                      • 0
                      • 2
                      -2
                      Quote: Volder
                      They decided for me

                      and you do not have enough knowledge to solve the simplest problem ?? Then what are you arguing about?)
                      The answer is 31 km. Meter stations, due to their inherent limitations (these are already the laws of physics) have mediocre accuracy.

                      Quote: Volder
                      We in Russia traditionally underestimate the technical characteristics of weapons when they are declassified

                      perhaps in the USSR it was. Russia is now actively engaged in arms exports. Moreover, in conditions of fierce competition. So it is unlikely that the characteristics are underestimated. The advertisement is engine of the trade. If you don’t praise the products, nobody will take it. It used to be that the USSR supplied equipment “by friendship”, now - all the same, for money. So I won’t be surprised if the data is real, or even overpriced.
                      And, a backfill question: why don't our “incredible friends” also underestimate the characteristics of their weapons? Think logically - such a probability cannot be ruled out either.

                      Quote: Volder
                      Are you a learned physicist?

                      no, not a scientist, just an engineer. He studied physics, trigonometry, and the basics of radar. It’s quite possible to solve the simple task given to you, unlike you)

                      Quote: Volder
                      I am sure that the station would not be made if it was ineffective.

                      and who told you that it is ineffective? He copes with his tasks. Just do not need to ascribe to her fabulous superpowers, to create the image of a miracle weapon. Any technique has its limitations, and this should be treated calmly. You cannot jump above the laws of physics. Meter stations, as already mentioned, cannot be compared with accuracy with the UHF, and even more so with the SM and MM radar. Or are you, like our recent "brothers", going to rewrite everything that is not convenient for you ??
                    4. Volder 19 February 2020 13: 39 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      and you do not have enough knowledge to solve the simplest problem ??
                      I do not consider it necessary to decide something, since I do not own the entirety of the information. I just focus on the statements of official, professional and authoritative persons.
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      And, a backfill question: why don't our “incredible friends” also underestimate the characteristics of their weapons?
                      Our Western "friends" always overestimate the capabilities of their weapons in order to appear cooler, better than anyone, so that vassals tremble before them, because they consider themselves to be "exceptional". This is their feature. There is a lot of ambition, but in fact - zilch.
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      no, not a scientist, just an engineer. He studied physics, trigonometry, and the basics of radar. It’s quite possible to solve the simple task given to you, unlike you)
                      "Just an engineer," I would not recommend considering yourself smarter than all other people, including physicists. You are trying to assert themselves at the expense of the ability to solve puzzles and neglect of forum users, military achievements of Russia. You should marry ...
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      Meter stations, as already mentioned, cannot be compared with accuracy with the UHF, and even more so with the SM and MM radar.
                      Specifically, Resonance is a three-coordinate radar for detecting, recognizing and issuing target designation to anti-aircraft defense systems and interceptor aircraft. Obviously, the accuracy of target determination, whatever it may be, is sufficient for the effective operation of the radar.
                    5. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 14: 39 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Quote: Volder
                      I just focus on the statements of official, professional and authoritative persons.

                      these your "officials" sometimes a bolt from a screw does not distinguish. But you believe, since there is no mind. A convenient position for those whose brain has atrophied.

                      Quote: Volder
                      "Just an engineer," I would not recommend considering yourself smarter than all other people, including physicists.

                      I don’t think so. Just trying to explain the truths to you. But only he who wants to listen can hear. You are clearly not among them. You hunch from the TV (which the plane did not see) or iksperd in the newspaper and (which the resistor from the transistor does not distinguish) authority))

                      Quote: Volder
                      Are you trying to assert yourself

                      the psychologist of you as a ballerina from a cow))

                      Quote: Volder
                      due to the ability to solve puzzles

                      school course, Karl !!! Have you ever studied at school ???

                      Quote: Volder
                      Specifically, Resonance is a three-coordinate radar for detecting, recognizing and issuing target designation

                      issuing target designation! But not guidance. Did you finally understand that?
                    6. Volder 19 February 2020 15: 53 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Why understand if I already know this? And here, judging by your previous comments, you did not know about identification and target designation. Oops, huh? :)
                      What are you trying to prove or disprove here is not clear. What are you driving at and what do you need? Apparently, in real life no one listens to you and makes fun of you, so you climbed onto the Internet to talk :)
                    7. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 16: 04 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Volder
                      What are you trying to prove or disprove here is not clear.

                      to understand this, you must at least carefully read the opponent’s comments)

                      Quote: Volder
                      you, judging by your previous comments, did not know about identification and target designation.

                      blessed is he who believes)) Again - inattention and distortion of the vis-a-vis utterances, and arrogant attempts to ascribe what was not said. This is already a loss on your part, because the arguments are over. Will you give quotes so as not to pass for the empty breach?
                    8. Volder 19 February 2020 18: 50 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Well, what was the argument about the accuracy of the radar? Neither I nor anyone else claimed that meter-high radars can direct missiles. Each radar has its own task. Missiles are inflicted by other radars. Do you think this is bad? Why spew out your "deep, high-wise" knowledge? Do you not hint that the Russian radars are so unsuccessful that they simply are not worthy to be in service? If you aren’t hinting, then you should probably be glad that we can see, identify and give target designations for stealth aircraft. You are happy?
                      According to the purpose of the radar are classified:
                      Radar detection;
                      Radar control and tracking;
                      panoramic radars;
                      Radar side view;
                      Radar target designation;
                      Radar counter-battery;
                      navigation radar, radar;
                      Radar Survey, etc.
                      If something doesn’t suit you, you can just as well spit on the fact that our radars are not able to see the opposite side of the globe, that our cruise missiles do not fly at a distance of 10 thousand km, that Russia cannot shoot down stealth aircraft over US territory, and so on.
                    9. Volder 19 February 2020 20: 01 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Bring your own quotes? Is memory short? :)
                    10. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 20: 21 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Volder
                      Is memory short? :)

                      no, it's your problem ...)
                      What place did you conclude from my comment that I am not familiar with the concepts of identification and target designation ???
                    11. Volder 19 February 2020 22: 52 New
                      • 0
                      • 2
                      -2
                      They may be familiar with the concepts, but with the capabilities of Russian radars ... you should definitely tighten up your knowledge at school! :))
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Volder 19 February 2020 12: 05 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Gregory_45
    Most modern PRRs have an inertial guidance system (ANN) and GPS to heap. The plane was irradiated once - the pilot pressed a button - the rocket went off.
    Speaking about PPR, you forget about carrier aircraft and AWACS. To launch missiles, these aircraft will have to enter the zone of radar detection and S-400 destruction. As they say, no arguing against Russia. However, AWACS feel frivolous when they fly to commit aggression to other countries. Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq never had perfect air defense systems.
  • Sergey39 14 February 2020 16: 50 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    As you know, the ideal is unattainable.
    1. KCA
      KCA 14 February 2020 16: 58 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Those. the ideal plane was used as a fifty-year-old B-52, the price / efficiency rolls over, the Americans know how to squander taxpayer money, oh, I wanted to say make the perfect weapon
      1. Sergey39 14 February 2020 17: 16 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Yes, this is the American master.
      2. abrakadabre 14 February 2020 22: 20 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Americans can squander taxpayer money, oh, I wanted to say make perfect weapons
        Of course perfect. It's just that everyone has different ideals. Here from the point of view of the US military-industrial complex for making money on the state. The military budget is perfect. And all ... The truth is out of date. Therefore, there is a new ideal topic - F-35. Well, and subsequent
  • Reserve buildbat 14 February 2020 19: 34 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Right! Perfectly useless plane! laughing
  • pavelty 14 February 2020 15: 37 New
    • 2
    • 7
    -5
    It began to be created in the late 70s, for that time it was a super plane, flights ceased in the 90s ... why do they need it now with outdated fionics, control systems, etc.?
    1. Grigory_45 14 February 2020 15: 51 New
      • 5
      • 4
      +1
      Quote: pavlentiy
      flights stopped in the 90s

      finally V-2 still fly regularly. Who told you that their flights were stopped ???
  • Timon2155 14 February 2020 15: 39 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    B-2 time is up. Although it looks futuristic, it did not live up to its expectations. The bomb bay is short, the radars see it. Efficiency as a weapon is close to zero. Flies and sawed.
    1. Vol4ara 14 February 2020 15: 52 New
      • 2
      • 6
      -4
      Quote: Timon2155
      B-2 time is up. Although it looks futuristic, it did not live up to its expectations. The bomb bay is short, the radars see it. Efficiency as a weapon is close to zero. Flies and sawed.

      Radars see everything, the question is in the distance
  • Grigory_45 14 February 2020 15: 43 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    American stealth bomber B-2 Spirit will not be upgraded
    - Americans are betting on a new bomber, B-2. We decided not to spray money, leaving Raider in priority
    1. ximkim 14 February 2020 19: 43 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Yes, a plane is good. Flies, delivers bombs to their destination. They have money. They are waiting for new developments for modernization.
  • seregin-s1 14 February 2020 15: 48 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +2
    He carries only bombs. Great subsonic target for air defense!
    1. Po-tzan 14 February 2020 15: 54 New
      • 5
      • 9
      -4
      Quote: seregin-s1
      He carries only bombs. Great subsonic target for air defense!


      And how many B-2 shot down Iraqi / Serbian / Libyan air defense?
      1. wayden 14 February 2020 16: 06 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        And what's the point of raising such an airplane in Iraq / Serbia / Libya, if usual, much cheaper to operate, enough?
        Therefore, it is useless, it cannot fulfill the main task of hidden penetration, but for the mills it is clearly superfluous and insanely expensive. Easier to store in mothballs.
        1. Grigory_45 14 February 2020 16: 09 New
          • 0
          • 8
          -8
          Quote: wayden
          And what's the point of raising such a plane in Iraq / Serbia / Libya

          to suppress air defense, destruction of the Communist Party and important military and administrative facilities. Will arrange an answer?
          1. wayden 14 February 2020 16: 11 New
            • 5
            • 1
            +4
            Nope. There are cruise missiles for this. Cheap and risk-free, by American standards. And most importantly, everywhere is in abundance, no need to drag the plane through half the world.
            1. Grigory_45 14 February 2020 16: 19 New
              • 2
              • 8
              -6
              Quote: wayden
              There are cruise missiles for this

              KR go in the first wave. Then (or jointly) the work of stealth aircraft with high-precision weapons begins, after the suppression of air defense - by conventional aircraft, and free-falling "iron". Compare the cost of KR Tomahawk and the cost of departure of Spirit - the second will be cheaper. Plus, the ability to quickly change the target of the strike, which the KR cannot.
              If the KR were so omnipotent, then attack planes would have long been abandoned.
              1. Alex777 14 February 2020 23: 54 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Each Spirit is stored in the United States, in a special hangar, with humidity and temperature control. Otherwise, the expensive coating falls off. And he becomes visible. bully
      2. Volder 14 February 2020 19: 33 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        These countries had a very backward air defense system. This is not Russia for you! In addition, bombing attacks were carried out only on those objects and settlements where it is reliably (100%) known that in these areas there are no Iraqi anti-aircraft missile defense systems (for example, Basra).
        1. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 09: 22 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Quote: Volder
          These countries had a very backward air defense system

          is it Iraq and Yugoslavia that backward air defense systems were?

          Quote: Volder
          In addition, bombing attacks were carried out only on those objects and settlements where it is reliably (100%) known that in these areas there are no anti-aircraft missile defense systems
          B-2 bombed Belgrade. Do you seriously think that the capital of the country was not covered by air defense systems ???
          In Iraq, the B-2s were used to strike at command, communications and command centers. And again the question: do you seriously think that such important facilities were not covered by air defense systems ???
          1. Volder 17 February 2020 14: 30 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Bombers fly too high (B-2 at an altitude of up to 15 thousand km), for obsolete air defense of Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia, the height for shooting down a carrier is unattainable.
    2. Grigory_45 14 February 2020 16: 06 New
      • 2
      • 7
      -5
      Quote: seregin-s1
      Great subsonic target for air defense!

      what is this for all their fighting career Spirit did not have a single combat loss, since they are such a wonderful target ???
      1. KCA
        KCA 15 February 2020 02: 17 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        As well as a superantistels aircraft, the TU-95, which fired bombs in Syria and was not shot down, a plane that any air defense systems can see and hear at all, but if they are not there initially, or if they have been destroyed for about three weeks, which problems - flew in, threw off bombs, flew away, he just was not in danger, so the B-2, you still ask why not a single B-2 was shot down when carrying out bombing at the Nevada training ground.
        1. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 09: 14 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Quote: KCA
          TU-95, which carried out a bombing in Syria and was not shot down

          I repeat: in Syria, the Barmalei side is not threatened by aviation if it operates outside the MANPADS and MZA fire zones. Tu-95 didn’t attack the targets from a shaver or from a dive? EW at barmaley
          also no. Well, do not write nonsense in this case. For strategic aviation, operations in Syria were akin to operations at the training ground.

          Quote: KCA
          air defense means, but if they weren’t initially, or they’ve been destroyed for about three weeks, what problems did it fly in, drop bombs, fly away, it’s just not threatened

          In Yugoslavia, B-2 operated from the first days of the war (for the first time, the Spiritists attacked targets on the territory of Yugoslavia on March 24, 1999 - on the very first day of the war). During the 78-day air campaign, six B-2s made 49 sorties, dropped 656 adjustable JDAM bombs and hit 33% of the targets in Serbia destroyed during the first eight weeks of the war. Yes, this is a completely ineffective aircraft))))

          Although FRY air defense was suppressed relatively quickly, individual anti-aircraft batteries operated until the end of the war. So the risk of running into an anti-aircraft missile was not so small. However, the Spiritists did not suffer losses. Learn the story)
          1. KCA
            KCA 15 February 2020 09: 23 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Did the individual S-75 and S-125 batteries work? Their location was known to a centimeter, especially the S-75, did the B-2 flight route run right above them? Do not tell my slippers, besides, the latest S-125 was in 1978, but in general the S-125 has been in service since 1961, the S-75 in general since the 57th, and they need B-52 to shoot down 4-5 launch rockets simultaneously
            1. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 09: 44 New
              • 1
              • 3
              -2
              Quote: KCA
              did the B-2 flight route run right above them? Do not tell my slippers

              route F-117 ran right above the battery. This is a counterargument to you.
              Second: as already mentioned, the Spiritists acted from the first day of the war, when the air defense of the FRY was not yet suppressed
              Third: B-2 raided Belgrade, automatically falling into the air defense defeat zone, which covered the capital.

              Are you trying to prove that there was no risk of getting an anti-aircraft missile? So this is a priori losing statement.

              Or are you stupidly arguing for the sake of arguing? Already recommended to you - learn the story)
              1. KCA
                KCA 15 February 2020 09: 55 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                And he was shot down, the S-125 was silent, for several days at all, they thought it was destroyed, the rolls were relaxed, and they were inserted between them. JDAM range of 28 km, S-125 range of 40 km, nonsingularly entered the B-2 destruction zone, so they bombed from the edge
                1. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 10: 13 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Quote: KCA
                  nonsingularly entered the affected area of ​​the B-2

                  our missile carriers generally did not enter the airspace of the ATS. However, here you are praising combat use, and the fact that the B-2 was practically hanging over the target in the enemy’s air defense coverage area is ground conditions. Yeah)) Is everything all right with logic?
      2. Volder 17 February 2020 15: 14 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Spirituals have always been used against underdeveloped and technologically advanced countries militarily (and in other respects too). For Russian weapons, the Spirit’s air targets are really not a difficult prey.
        1. Grigory_45 17 February 2020 15: 58 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Volder
          For Russian weapons, the Spirit’s air targets are really not a difficult prey.

          Do Russian radars work on other physical principles? In Russia, are their own, special, different from the whole world, laws of physics ???
          1. Volder 17 February 2020 17: 19 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Campaign, you do not know about our latest achievements in the field of radar. On the Internet you can find information (if you try) on how to detect stealth targets. Our military is not just building radar stations around the perimeter of the border. Most of them can detect stealth because work in different frequency ranges and wavelengths. Also, our S-400 air defense systems see "invisibility" ...
            1. Grigory_45 17 February 2020 18: 31 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: Volder
              Campaign you

              It seems you did not understand the essence of stealth technology.
              Firstly, the detection range is greatly reduced.
              Secondly, the range of taking an object for tracking is significantly reduced. All current radars that are being guided are either centimeter or millimeter, because the DMV or MV radar is much more bulky, and you can’t stick it into a fighter, and even more so into a rocket. The dimensions of the antenna are not for such devices. Well, you will see the stealth using a ground-based MV or DMV radar, but what's the point? You cannot shoot. And MV radars, in addition, give very, very mediocre accuracy of target coordinates. Use them for guidance does not work.

              Learn materiel, and distinguish between concepts to detect и be able to destroy
              1. Geniuses 17 February 2020 19: 33 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Quote: Gregory_45
                Firstly, the detection range is greatly reduced.

                Gregory_45. SAM radar with a detection range of 600 km of an aircraft with EPR = 4 m2, at what distance will the F-35 be detected? If line of sight allows. This is the question for your incorrect answer. Can you refute?
                1. Grigory_45 18 February 2020 19: 51 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: Geni
                  SAM radar with a detection range of 600 km aircraft with EPR = 4 m2

                  Do we have these? Six hundred is a bomber type target (with an EPR of a hundred square meters) at high altitude.
                  But okay, let's assume that the radar is purely hypothetical.

                  Quote: Geni
                  at what distance will the F-35 be detected? If line of sight allows.

                  Do you know the radar equation? All things being equal, and if very rude, then detection range is proportional to the fourth root of the object’s EPR value.

                  If we assume that a target with an EPR of 4 sq. M is detected over 600 km, then a target with an EPR of 0,1 sq m will be theoretically detected over 238 km from the radar. That is, the distance was reduced by more than 2,5 times.

                  And if we consider that a fighter target is detected by a real, existing radar no further than 300-350 km, then a stealth plane can use its weapon before it is detected or can provide guidance on missiles and interceptors.
                  1. Geniuses 19 February 2020 00: 41 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    Quote: Gregory_45 (Gregory)
                    Quote: Geni (Gene)
                    Gregory_45. SAM radar with a detection range of 600 km of an aircraft with EPR = 4 m2, at what distance will the F-35 be detected? If line of sight allows.

                    and we have such? Six hundred is a bomber type target (with EPR under a hundred square meters) at high altitude.

                    Grigory_45, radar 91N6E S-400 has a detection range of D = 600 km for targets with EPR = 4 m2. I have indicated above if direct visibility allows. For some reason you do not know such a radar. What is strange?
                    Do you know the radar equation? All other things being equal, and if very rough, then the detection range is proportional to the fourth root of the ESR value of the object.
                    If we assume that a target with an EPR of 4 sq. M is detected over 600 km, then a target with an EPR of 0,1 sq m will be theoretically detected over 238 km from the radar. That is, the distance was reduced by more than 2,5 times.

                    Grigory_45 (Grigory), I know not only the equations of radar, but also radar. The average ESR of F-35 is 0,3 m2, not 0,1 m2. Therefore, the detection range of the F-35 radar 91N6E will be equal to D = 314 km in direct line of sight. When using anti-aircraft missiles 40H6E, F-35 will be destroyed. Moreover, the 40H6E missile target indication is necessary only at the beginning of the launch, and then the F-35 simply does not have chances in our example beyond the radio horizon.
                    And given that a fighter target is detected by a real, existing radar no further than 300-350 km, then the stealth plane can use its weapon before it is detected or can provide guidance on missiles and interceptors.

                    Radar "Irbis" N035 Su-35 will detect the F-35 at a distance of D = 225 km in direct visibility and destroy it with the R-37M missile. F-35 will not even be able to use its RVV-DB.
                    1. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 07: 04 New
                      • 0
                      • 2
                      -2
                      Quote: Geni
                      The radar 91N6E S-400 has a detection range of D = 600 km for targets with an ESR = 4 m2.

                      once again: a detection range of up to 600 km is a B-52 type bomber targeting a class at high altitude. Learn the materiel, the characteristics of 91H6E are known, the detector was used as part of the S-300 complex

                      Quote: Geni
                      For some reason you don’t know

                      I don’t know why you don’t know. These are your shortcomings, and you will be responsible for them.
              2. Volder 19 February 2020 13: 54 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Quote: Gregory_45
                Well, you will see the stealth using a ground-based MV or DMV radar, but what's the point? You cannot shoot. And MV radars, in addition, give very, very mediocre accuracy of target coordinates. Use them for guidance does not work.
                Learn materiel, and distinguish between concepts to detect и be able to destroy
                You have to learn the materiel and not be arrogant, Grigory. The Resonance-N radar of the meter range provides such accuracy in detecting objects (including stealth aircraft and small drones) that it can identify them and provide target designation for air defense systems or interceptor aircraft. The range of this radar is up to 600 km. This is not enough!
                1. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 14: 30 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: Volder
                  The Resonance-N radar of the meter range provides such accuracy in detecting objects (including stealth aircraft and small drones) that it can identify them and provide target designation for air defense systems or interceptor aircraft.

                  fairy tales) But, of course, it is more convenient for you to read brochures without thinking about the essence of what is written. For the lack of knowledge does not allow ...

                  Are you pushing a meter radar into the plane and the rocket too? Oh well..))

                  Quote: Volder
                  The range of this radar is up to 600 km

                  for a target such as a strategic B-52 class bomber with an EPR of 100 square meters. m. In stealth EPR orders of magnitude less.

                  However, this can not be explained to amateurs. You can walk in pink glasses and believe in miracle weapons))
                  1. Volder 19 February 2020 15: 37 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    fairy tales) But, of course, it is more convenient for you to read brochures without thinking about the essence of what is written. For the lack of knowledge does not allow ...
                    Do not believe in the capabilities of Russian radars and weapons - this is your right. There Ukrainians also did not believe in the construction of the Kerch Bridge, proving with foam at the mouth that this was a fairy tale. Therefore, it is better to trust officials and scientists who publicly open the veil of secrecy than such talkers like you, Gregory.
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    Are you pushing a meter radar into the plane and the rocket too? Oh well..))
                    No, another radar is shoved there.
                    1. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 15: 50 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Quote: Volder
                      Do not believe in the capabilities of Russian radars and weapons

                      Are you sane at all or not? I recommend that you carefully re-read my comments, then maybe you will understand what I wanted to say. Although, unlikely. And they alter the words of the interlocutor, as a rule, from a near mind.

                      You can talk about American radars, and I will write about the same. But you, it seems to me, will miraculously change your point of view, change your shoes right in the air, screaming at American radars and extolling Russian stealth.
                      It’s so fashionable now - scolding the adversary, praising his own, and tossing bonnets into the air. Absolutely "objective")))
            2. Grigory_45 17 February 2020 18: 32 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Quote: Volder
              our S-400 air defense systems see "invisibility

              see. The whole question - with what range? Well, I already wrote about missile guidance
              1. Volder 19 February 2020 22: 58 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                From what distance they see - let it be a surprise for our adversaries!
  • Operator 14 February 2020 15: 51 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    I do not understand - but what about the famous printing press? laughing
  • knn54 14 February 2020 15: 51 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    All the forces, apparently, will be thrown on the B-21.
  • Victor March 47 14 February 2020 16: 16 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: PO-tzan
    American stealth bomber B-2 Spirit will not upgrade

    Why upgrade it? He, and as having come down from the pages of books about the distant future. In our country, a similar PAK-DA is shown only in the pictures so far, and judging by the SU-57, they will bring the prototype to another 20 years.

    If a genus evaluates iron from science fiction films, then this means that iron is ugly.
  • Victor March 47 14 February 2020 16: 18 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Quote: Gregory_45
    Quote: seregin-s1
    Great subsonic target for air defense!

    what is this for all their fighting career Spirit did not have a single combat loss, since they are such a wonderful target ???

    Did they encounter a REAL enemy with adequate weapons, or fly over camel herds in deserts?
    1. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 21: 16 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Quote: Victor March 47
      They did not encounter a REAL enemy with adequate weapons

      which country do you think has adequate weapons? Russia?

      Whatever it was, but the companies against the FRY and the first Iraqi for NATO aviation were not an easy walk. Both countries had quite numerous radars, quite combat-ready aircraft and air defense systems, capable of getting any NATO aircraft. Nevertheless, the Spirites - perhaps the only ones from the aircraft - did not suffer combat losses. As far as we know, they did not even have anti-aircraft missile launches. Those. the aircraft completed the task. He fought in the FRY from the first days of the war, when the Communist Party and the air defense of Yugoslavia were not suppressed. Use the Yankees instead of them tactical aircraft, even under the guise of "weasels", the losses would be much higher.
  • Victor March 47 14 February 2020 16: 25 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Quote: PO-tzan
    Quote: seregin-s1
    He carries only bombs. Great subsonic target for air defense!


    And how many B-2 shot down Iraqi / Serbian / Libyan air defense?

    These countries have nothing against even the Douglas of World War II. So, to make iron at the price of gold can only be like that.
    1. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 21: 17 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Victor March 47
      These countries have nothing against even the Douglas of World War II.

      yeah, and Nighthawk and F-16, as well as Thunderbolt, Tomahawks and UAVs, Serbs fell from slingshots
      I’ll tactfully keep silent about the losses of NATO aviation in Iraq.
  • Sancho_SP 14 February 2020 16: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well, so they are filming the B-21. This is essentially the modernization of the B-2, because the critical shortcomings of the latter are eliminated only by a complete replacement.
    1. dauria 14 February 2020 16: 55 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Well, so they are filming the B-21. This is essentially the modernization of the B-2,


      These are cars of different classes. B-2 strategist B-21 long-range bomber. Radius 3800 without refueling (from load). Between Tu-22m and Tu-160. And it is primarily necessary for the fleet against the future Chinese Navy, which now does not look weak.
      Previously, they did not need cars of this class, there was no enemy. Now we’ve got it. I am sure that the improved analogue of our X-22 or “dagger” -pkr has already been muddied.
      1. voyaka uh 15 February 2020 00: 03 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Both are strategists. The B-21 has the same radius as the B-2, but less than half
        bomb load.
        1. dauria 15 February 2020 00: 21 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          For Tu-22m3
          Combat radius with a load of 12 kg:
          on subsonic mixed profile: 2410 km
          For B-21 without refueling up to 3600 (load not specified)

          This is the same strategist as I am a ballerina. The usual long-range bomber. The range is greater than that of the “carcass” because it is optimized only for subsonic, the “flying wing” scheme has nevertheless passed 30 years - and the engines have been shamanized in terms of gluttony. There are no miracles; it is not enough for a strategist.
          However, you can call it what you want - a couple of men on a fly swatter revolved around the ball, probably also a “strategist”.
          1. voyaka uh 15 February 2020 00: 23 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            "it is not enough for a strategist" ////
            ----
            Is it too small for bomb loading?
            1. dauria 15 February 2020 00: 51 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Is it too small for bomb loading?

              He's just a little small. Until the most amazing miraculous engines were invented, the glider – fuel – load – thrust – wing area ratio will remain classic. However, the F-35 ferry range with three refueling - I congratulate you, Israel has a “strategist”. Call what you want.
              The B-21 is not just a plane, it is the class of bombers on which the Americans "bolted" in the 60s. Now it turned out - really needed. Both at sea and in air defense as a barrage, and the Pacific theater became restless because of China.
    2. Tusv 14 February 2020 19: 14 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      Well, so they are filming the B-21. This is essentially the modernization of the B-2, because the critical shortcomings of the latter are eliminated only by a complete replacement.

      And just for the pitot, and on the way Migi -31 will be destroyed, according to the terms of reference
  • Ros 56 14 February 2020 16: 47 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Only this week in my opinion for the third time they write about the refusal to modernize striped military equipment and the question arose. And where are they doing such a huge military budget? Is it really affordable, because their budget is equal to the sum of the budgets of all other countries?
    1. Alexey Sommer 14 February 2020 17: 38 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: Ros 56
      And where are they doing such a huge military budget?

      I think in new developments. Just do not advertise.
    2. Mathafaka 14 February 2020 17: 52 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Military personnel are paid, that's where.
    3. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 20: 36 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Quote: Ros 56
      And where are they doing such a huge military budget?

      they already have many military programs - from promising fighters and bombers to the creation of a new ICBM, hypersonic and laser weapons and the renewal of the fleet (nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, destroyers). And also the sea of ​​various R&D
      As well as several war games, which also eat a lot of money. One day of war costs hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
  • Free wind 14 February 2020 16: 48 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    it seems that one B-2 "smell from Kansas" or "the spirit of Kansas" crashed, the pilots fortunately survived. One burned, was restored. Maximum load 27 tons, normal 25 tons. Beautiful infection, in my opinion. In Serbia, a B-117 was shot down, they have long been transferred to storage, but still many people dance with tambourines, we shot down, we shot down, shot down, shot down.
  • Tusv 14 February 2020 18: 25 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    The modernization was carried out due to the obsolescence of the aircraft, which was no longer able to conduct military operations in closed areas with the same efficiency.

    Has it ever been so effective? In addition to being called state spirits. 2 lard per staff plus lard for the first upgrade.
    Well, for the third modernization, it was necessary to demand three more. And then they tried to hang some ruffles for a penny. Yes, probably Chinese. Well, West
  • Lexus 15 February 2020 02: 53 New
    • 9
    • 4
    +5
    Alone, I did not understand which aircraft was upgraded? request
    The cabin of the “modernized” Tu-160M ​​inside
    Cabin "deprived of modernization" B-2 Spirit, for comparison
  • Victor March 47 15 February 2020 22: 43 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: Gregory_45
    Quote: Victor March 47
    These countries have nothing against even the Douglas of World War II.

    yeah, and Nighthawk and F-16, as well as Thunderbolt, Tomahawks and UAVs, Serbs fell from slingshots
    I’ll tactfully keep silent about the losses of NATO aviation in Iraq.

    And how many? The list of losses here. And 90% of losses are from rudeness, and not from opposition. Feelings of superiority and gouging.
    Similarly, in Vietnam. After they got a snot, they began to respect the enemy. True, it was ours. But in Yugoslavia there were none of ours. Just like in Iraq at the time. Does the fact of refusal from deep modernization tell you anything? Have you regretted the money? Is that they? Because for such machines and their real strategy there is no opponent for them. Decent, in the sense.
    1. Grigory_45 16 February 2020 13: 55 New
      • 0
      • 4
      -4
      Quote: Victor March 47
      90% of losses are from rudeness, not from opposition

      from how it turns out)) New terminology in military affairs. All over the world they believe that combat losses are losses from enemy actions.

      Quote: Victor March 47
      Have you regretted the money?

      in a way, yes. The Pentagon wants to have not 20 planes, but at least a hundred. And for this, the plane should be cheaper than gold in the literal sense of Spirit. The military is not satisfied with its small number due to the sky-high cost. And modernization will only boost the cost.

      Quote: Victor March 47
      Does the fact of refusal from deep modernization tell you anything?

      and you the fact of creating a new (but cheaper) aircraft, which has incorporated all the best from the B-2 and new technologies, does not mean anything?

      Quote: Victor March 47
      And how many? The list of losses here.

      you will command your wife. If the pan does not fly into the head. Google to help you, the loss of NATO aircraft is in the public domain.
  • Victor March 47 16 February 2020 09: 52 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: Ros 56
    Only this week in my opinion for the third time they write about the refusal to modernize striped military equipment and the question arose. And where are they doing such a huge military budget? Is it really affordable, because their budget is equal to the sum of the budgets of all other countries?

    Does the maintenance of the databases not cost the budget at all? How many are there everywhere? How many different loafers hang out there, receiving a military salary and not having the slightest idea about the war? Including from the local indigenous population? A dozen aircraft carrier groups. Keep in the water area almost the size of the globe? Keep in check the fleeing NATO allies, pounding with loot and coercion, committing insanely expensive acts of intimidation of OWN? The economic maintenance of the prestige of the army through all sorts of benefits to volunteers and former employees there, for example, free or preferential training at universities? Insurance payments crippled. New hardware design, buying it many times more expensive than real value.
  • Victor March 47 16 February 2020 10: 00 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: lexus
    Alone, I did not understand which aircraft was upgraded? request
    The cabin of the “modernized” Tu-160M ​​inside
    Cabin "deprived of modernization" B-2 Spirit, for comparison

    What are these two pictures for? To amaze the reader’s imagination, but not with the content, quantity and complexity of this whole garden (all the same, nothing is clear to the specialist), but with its suddenly taken awareness from somewhere?
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • Volder 17 February 2020 15: 48 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Gregory_45

    Whatever it was, but the companies against the FRY and the first Iraqi for NATO aviation were not an easy walk. Both countries had quite numerous radars, quite combat-ready aircraft and air defense systems, capable of getting any NATO aircraft.

    The air defense systems of Yugoslavia hit a maximum of 10 km, and the altitude of Spirit - 15 km. In addition, the Spirits flew where enemy aircraft were not guaranteed to be. No one in their right mind would send a bomber towards a fighter with an air-to-air missile on board. How many such missiles did Yugoslavia have? In short - they are worth its weight in gold.
  • Volder 17 February 2020 18: 54 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Gregory_45
    distinguish between concepts to detect и be able to destroy
    When circling Russian radar systems, do not forget to give examples of foreign radars that can give target designation for the destruction of stealth, and always with a long range.
    1. Grigory_45 18 February 2020 20: 22 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Quote: Volder
      Loafing

      in Russian it will cry, you at least learn the Russian language, since technical sciences are not given ..

      Now essentially. I do not bother anyone. You, as a little child, see only black and white, all who disagree with you are enemies and are worthy of lynching? Some immature reasoning, dear.

      I am talking about radar in general, regardless of their nationality. The laws of physics are that in Russia, in the USA, in Germany they act the same. Any radar station of the corresponding range, an object made using stealth technologies will detect at a shorter distance than an object made without using it. So understandable ???
      1. Volder 19 February 2020 14: 13 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: Gregory_45
        Any radar station of the corresponding range, an object made using stealth technologies will detect at a shorter distance than an object made without using it. So understandable ???
        Nobody argues with this. But what of this? As soon as the stealth plane turns on its radar in flight, it immediately becomes detected and shot down in a few minutes. Therefore, stealth aircraft usually accompany AWACS, giving stealth target designation. But AWACS operate within 400 km, i.e. they will have to enter the coverage of our radar and air defense. So understand ??
        1. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 14: 22 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Volder
          Nobody argues with this.

          no longer arguing? It is gratifying. And so many extra bukoFF

          Quote: Volder
          Therefore, stealth aircraft usually accompany AWACS, giving stealth target designation.

          Why should AWAX accompany the bombers? In Yugoslavia and Iraq, the V-2 operated completely autonomously
          1. Volder 19 February 2020 15: 23 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: Gregory_45
            Why should AWAX accompany the bombers? In Yugoslavia and Iraq, the V-2 operated completely autonomously
            Are you pretending to be or are you really thinking tight? In my previous posts there is an answer to your ridiculous question. Ponder yourself ... Good luck!
            1. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 16: 06 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Well, why the AWACS bomber, if it works with high-precision ammunition for a target with known coordinates in advance ??? Interesting opinion of a cool "specialist"))
              1. Volder 19 February 2020 19: 18 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                How does the stealth bomber know the coordinates of the mobile air defense systems in advance? Birdie sang in a dream? :) As soon as he turns on his radar in flight, he will be immediately attacked by air defense missiles. It is clear that in Yugoslavia and Iraq obsolete air defense systems with a short range, unable to reach at a height of B-2. But if we talk about Russia, the B-2 will not dare to turn on its on-board radar, and even closer than 500 km closer to the borders of Russia will not risk because of the S-400 and our interceptor aircraft. Purely theoretically, in order to drop bombs and not reveal oneself, the "invisibility" resorts to the help of AWACS. This AWACS may not approach the air defense coverage area.
                1. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 19: 50 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Volder
                  How does the stealth bomber know the coordinates of the mobile air defense systems in advance?

                  in fact, this is not the primary task of stealth bombers, chasing mobile air defense systems (all kinds of Bukami and Carapace there), there are other means for this. You will not quickly turn off S-400 or Patriot air defense systems. You can find an air defense system’s position, in particular, using satellites (in the optical, infrared and radar bands).

                  The goals of B-2 type aircraft are stationary objects, important administrative and military ones: control centers, warehouses, factories, stationary radars, power plants, dams, etc.

                  AWACS is needed by fighters. The bomber will work without his help. In extreme cases, he can use the services of RTR aircraft such as RC-135V / W Rivet Joint
                  1. Volder 19 February 2020 20: 38 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    in fact, this is not a priority for stealth bombers to chase mobile air defense systems
                    We open Wikipedia and read: Northrop B-2 Spirit is designed to break through dense air defense (air defense) and deliver conventional or nuclear weapons ... If bombers can pass through air defense systems of Yugoslavia, Iraq and other "small" countries (I already explained why) , then they will never pass through Russian air defense.
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    To find the position of air defense systems, in particular, it is possible using satellites (in the optical, infrared and radar ranges).
                    Find is half the battle. Something else needs to be destroyed. What is usually destroyed? Either bombs or guided missiles. Our electronic warfare systems can deceive guided high-precision missiles. And when using the Divnomorye complex, satellite radar systems also become blind.
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    The goals of B-2 type aircraft are stationary objects, important administrative and military ones: control centers, warehouses, factories, stationary radars, power plants, dams, etc.
                    While the bombers will bomb anything, but not air defense systems, these air defense systems will bring them down. I emphasize that we are again talking about Russian air defense systems.
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    AWACS is needed by fighters.
                    I will tell you a secret: AWAX is needed by everyone! :)
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    The bomber will work without his help.
                    It will not work in Russia.
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    As a last resort, it can use the services of RTR type RC-135V / W Rivet Joint aircraft
                    For your information, the RC-135V / W reconnaissance unit works in conjunction with the E-3 AWACS.
                    1. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 21: 05 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Volder
                      and read: Northrop B-2 Spirit is designed to break through dense air defense (air defense

                      only carefully read: for a breakthrough, not for destruction Air defense (although it may be involved in the last task, but it is not the main one) You confuse concepts again (apparently, out of ignorance)

                      Quote: Volder
                      Our electronic warfare systems can deceive guided high-precision missiles.

                      and the Sun can extinguish EW complexes?))) EW is a necessary thing, but not omnipotent. You again begin to attribute miraculous abilities to technology.
                      The second point - and the enemy has no electronic warfare means ???

                      Quote: Volder
                      While the bombers will bomb anything, but not air defense systems, these air defense systems will bring them down.

                      there are other means to suppress air defense. It’s quite effective.

                      Quote: Volder
                      I will tell you a secret: AWAX is needed by everyone! :)

                      I repeat (for the hundredth time - such a stubborn opponent was caught) - in Yugoslavia the B-2s acted absolutely autonomously. Hit 33% of the goals and did not suffer losses

                      In general, the strategist and tactician from you, as from the "corn" strategic bomber. Finish writing baby talk already, read serious, not urry-patriotic literature.
                      1. Volder 19 February 2020 23: 45 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        although he may be involved in the latter task, but it is not the main one)
                        It is very good that you recognized the possibility of bombing anti-aircraft systems. Of course, this is not the main task, because such a task can be performed ONLY in backward countries (Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia ..), but this will not work with Russia, China, India!
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        EW is a necessary thing, but not omnipotent. You again begin to attribute miraculous abilities to technology.
                        This is not I attribute, this is the developers attribute. I recommend watching the program on YouTube: "Military Acceptance. Electronic Warfare."
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        there are other means to suppress air defense. It’s quite effective.
                        But you say that in Yugoslavia and somewhere else B-2s acted autonomously, ignoring air defense systems. Of course, there are other means. But you rested and praised the stealth bomber. I think you would, on the contrary, berate him for inefficiency if he acted against Russia and against Russia :)
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        I repeat - in Yugoslavia, the V-2 acted absolutely autonomously. They hit 33% of the goals and did not suffer losses.
                        This does not mean at all that the V-2 is an ideal and perfect aircraft without any flaws, invulnerable to any air defense. He flew there in "greenhouse" conditions:
                        - local air defense did not reach him in height,
                        - Yugoslav fighters had outdated radars, and there were few aircraft (about 15 pcs.),
                        - NATO fighter aircraft dominated the air, clearing the space for bombers,
                        - Departures of all strategic bombers were carried out under the guise of EW Northrop Grumman EA-ZV Proler airplanes.
                      2. Grigory_45 20 February 2020 18: 30 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Volder
                        This is not me ascribing

                        it is you, repeating the ravings of journalists from the yellow press. Serious sources are not destiny to read?

                        Quote: Volder
                        and extol the stealth bomber.

                        I do not praise anything, but write facts

                        Quote: Volder
                        This does not mean at all that the V-2 is an ideal and perfect aircraft without any flaws, invulnerable to any air defense

                        did these statements sound somewhere ??? The Americans themselves do not consider him invulnerable, invincible and ideal.
                        When simulating military operations against the USSR, they laid down a certain percentage of losses even for such a sophisticated stealth as B-2
                        And in this there is one of the reasons why they do not want to modernize Spirit, and threw money and energy to create a cheaper Raider V-21
                        It can be riveted in the number of 100-200 units, and the loss of several cars will not become a national tragedy, as would be the case with the loss of one or two 2 billionth Spirit
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. Volder 20 February 2020 21: 21 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        it is you, repeating the ravings of journalists from the yellow press. Serious sources are not destiny to read?
                        1. Did I refer to the yellow press? I did not say that I read the yellow press. Again I let inattention :) 2. "Serious sources" - which ones?
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        I do not praise anything, but write facts
                        It’s not enough to write facts. It is also necessary to understand why these facts turned out, and why they do not work out in other cases and under different conditions. Without analyzing this, your scribbles lose value.
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        did these statements sound somewhere ???
                        Proud of the fact that the V-2 allegedly acted autonomously, "practically hung over the target in the enemy’s air defense zone" in Yugoslavia and did not suffer any losses during the bombing, is this not a hint of the invulnerability of the aircraft and its ideal qualities?
                      5. Grigory_45 20 February 2020 21: 30 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Volder
                        Proud of

                        not proud and stating a fact:
                        Quote: Volder
                        B-2 ... acted autonomously, "practically hung over the target in the enemy’s air defense zone" in Yugoslavia and did not suffer any losses during the bombing
                      6. Volder 20 February 2020 23: 50 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        So you state the fact that the V-2 is an invulnerable and perfect aircraft, suitable for bombing any country in the world, or not?
                        In my opinion, the only fact here is the absence of losses. Other "facts" are drawn with a stretch, because there were greenhouse conditions for combat use. But for you this is not important, only the facts that are convenient for you are important to you.
                      7. Grigory_45 21 February 2020 16: 34 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Volder
                        there were greenhouse conditions for combat use

                        greenhouse conditions are in Syria. Or in today's Afghanistan (for the USA). Where there is nothing worse than MANPADS and MZA simply do not. And then the Air Force suffers losses, that Russian, that American.
                        In Yugoslavia there were fighters and air defense systems. So do not compare.
                      8. Volder 24 February 2020 23: 01 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        1. In Syria, the United States does not wage war against the Assad government forces. Therefore, American bombers there will never bring down.
                        2. About Yugoslavia, I explained above why there were "greenhouse" conditions (Yugoslav small aircraft with outdated aircraft did NOT dominate the air, and the air defense system was low-powered and also outdated).
                        3. According to the performance characteristics of the V-2 worse than our Tu-160. Stealth - not counted, because it does not play any role if Russia has radars capable of detecting stealth. You can continue to praise Western aviation if it warms your soul. That's just pointless ...
  • The comment was deleted.