US Air Force intends to announce a tender for the supply of new engines for the B-52H


The US Air Force intends to select a supplier of new engines for the strategic bombers B-52H Stratofortress for their remotorization program. A tender for new engines will be announced shortly, Flightglobal reports.


The winner of the supply tender should be determined no later than May 2021, following which it is planned to purchase 608 new engines for installation on bombers and an unnamed number of spare ones. All engines must be delivered within 17 years after the conclusion of the contract.

The remotorization of the B-52N should extend the life of American strategists to at least 2050.

As previously reported, the US Air Force is considering two options for remotorization - the first, which provides for the replacement of standing engines with others (direct replacement) and the second, for the replacement of power plants with their reduction from 8 to 4. As stated, the TF52 engines currently installed on the B-33H are very expensive to maintain, and they also have high fuel consumption.

In September 2019, the USA tested the version of the F130 turbofan engine. According to the statement of the developers from the American division of the British company Rolls-Royce, the engine is intended for installation on B-52 Stratofortress strategic bombers.

The F130 engine, or rather its version, is developed on the basis of the BR725 powerplant used on the Gulfstream G650 business jets. With less fuel consumption, it is able to develop thrust up to 75,6 kilonewtons, which corresponds to the thrust of TF33 B-52 engines.

The B-52 Stratofortress is a multi-functional heavy ultra-long intercontinental strategic missile bomber that has been in service with the U.S. Air Force since 1955. It was developed in the 50s, but is still the main long-range bomber aircraft. aviation US Army. Currently, the United States has 76 aircraft of this type, the average age of which is 50-55 years.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. rocket757 April 28 2020 12: 41 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    A long story on the plane! It no longer smells like mothballs, but the dust of centuries!
    However, an airplane is flight-worthy or flight-unsuitable, it doesn’t happen otherwise.
    1. orionvitt April 28 2020 13: 03 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Especially if you take into account
      extend the life of American strategists until at least 2050.
      That creates a confident belief that the progress of mankind has stalled. Nothing but information technology has evolved over the past seventy years. Neither in aviation, nor in space technology, nor in the automotive industry, in anything. They invent only new materials and each time, gradually improve the old. But there is nothing fundamentally new, breakthrough, capable of radically changing the world.
      1. voyaka uh April 28 2020 13: 53 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        "there is no breakthrough capable of drastically changing the world." ///
        ----
        In what sense is "radically changing the world"?
        Explain what do you mean?
        1. orionvitt April 28 2020 14: 14 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Yes, very simple. For example, fire and iron, changed the ancient man, the invention of the sail, changed the history of human development in the corresponding period. Gunpowder radically changed the war. The steam engine has made the entire 19th century, the internal combustion engine, the entire 20th (which we still drive) Since the 50s, there is nothing radically new, except for computers. The technique stood up. It is being improved, there are no objections, but nothing new. You can call the 21st century, the century of information technology, I do not argue. But to increase the life of the aircraft, up to a hundred years (one hundred !!!!), in our time, when from every iron we hear about "unprecedented progress", literally in all areas of our life, it is somehow strange. Here, as they say, either a cross or pants. I repeat, nothing that would make our life more comfortable (except computers and the Internet), since the 50s of the last century, there is no
      2. rocket757 April 28 2020 13: 56 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: orionvitt
        But there is nothing fundamentally new, breakthrough, capable of radically changing the world.

        The world can be ruined by what is already there. This should not be forgotten.
        1. orionvitt April 28 2020 14: 17 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: rocket757
          The world can be ruined by what is already there

          It depends on who’s concept. Development does not imply the destruction of the world. But the idea of ​​dominance in all areas (to be the chief), very much.
          1. rocket757 April 28 2020 14: 58 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            And there is a gla / v / nyuk on the planet, with a pack of its gla / v / nuances.
            Because everyone is arming up to ... at the very most.
    2. dzvero April 28 2020 13: 05 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      And after all, no one expected that both the B-52 and Tu-95 would remain in service for so long. None of the "heirs" has managed to completely force them out "retire."
      1. Sky strike fighter April 28 2020 13: 33 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        The B-52 Stratofortress is a multi-functional heavy ultra-long intercontinental strategic missile bomber that has been in service with the U.S. Air Force since 1955.


        The remotorization of the B-52N should extend the life of American strategists to at least 2050.

        As they say 100 years at lunch. The release was completed in 1962, a year after the launch of the first man (Gagarin) into Space.
        1. dzvero April 28 2020 13: 48 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          About the fact that Yuri Gagarin was the first in space I know smile drinks
          I'm talking about something else. There were Hustler, Valkyrie ... it was assumed that they would replace the B-52 by the end of the 60s, but did not grow together. Even B-1B and B-2 could not; the first seems to intend to write off too. And now we get an interesting oil picture. Their Air Force fly to the development of the 50s - 70s. The newest rappers are somewhere around 150. The 35th is already over 500, but something does not replace the 15th, 16th and 18th. It turns out that with beautiful presentations, the Americans drove themselves into ..... (insert the word as desired). So you have to maintain the "old people" in flight condition. They say that there is already a grandson flying on his grandfather’s plane.
          1. Sky strike fighter April 28 2020 13: 55 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            It’s just that Americans are practical. They leave what they need to do. And all these numerous know-how projects for the most part have not passed the test of time. They turned out to be roads or narrowly specialized and left them armed with reason. Besides, what are really new ideas now in addition to stealth technology on the same B-21, F-35?
            1. dzvero April 28 2020 14: 13 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              In practicality, they can not refuse.
              As for new technologies, I don’t know. My personal feeling is that modern jet aircraft rested against a kind of "ceiling" like a piston at one time. But then there was a landmark, and now ... hypersound? space planes? If there is no breakthrough in fundamental science, leading to a qualitative leap in designs, then we will witness small improvements presented as a huge achievement smile
              1. Sky strike fighter April 28 2020 14: 18 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                The Americans are developing the SR-72. We, in theory, should take care of creating and putting into service the Mig-41. The ability to work in space, higher speeds are gradually coming to the fore. This is the future.
          2. voyaka uh April 28 2020 13: 59 New
            • 8
            • 1
            +7
            F-16s are constantly being written off. Their squadrons are disbanded
            and are replaced by F-35 squadrons.
            F-18 begin to write off gradually,
            but so far partially supplemented by new ones. F-35S only three squadrons.
            Harriers retired and replaced with the F-35V.
            All bombers plan to replace one type of B-21.
            1. dzvero April 28 2020 14: 17 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              This is generally understandable. The concept of light and heavy fighters. But the F-22 is no longer produced. The F-35 has a "novelty coefficient" that rolls over, which makes fine-tuning the machine very profitable for the manufacturer, but a nightmare for the Air Force, despite its huge potential. Is it why they are in no hurry to part with the F-15 and the last F-16?
              1. Sky strike fighter April 28 2020 14: 28 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Even the USA cannot afford to replace all aviation with 5th generation fighters, although they are striving for this. Besides, the F-35 pluses are only in long-range combat with strong rivals, but are there many such fights now? No. F- 15 and F-16.
              2. muham April 28 2020 21: 31 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: dzvero
                F-22 is no longer produced.
                And why, excuse me, is it still to be produced?
                1. dzvero April 28 2020 21: 40 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  So, in theory, the F-22 is a fighter, and the F-35 is multi-functional. If tomorrow the United States removes all 15, 16 and 18, then it will remain with the 180th “clean” fighters to gain superiority. Everything is strange to look.
                  1. muham April 28 2020 22: 27 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Quote: dzvero
                    Everything is strange to look.
                    IMHO, on the contrary. Count how many fighters in the world are able to withstand the US team. So they counted. Netuti. And therefore there is no point in producing.
                    What’s what, but you won’t refuse practicality.
              3. voyaka uh April 29 2020 01: 05 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                "Is it why they are in no hurry to part with the F-15 and the last F-16?" ///
                ------
                Hitch only with the replacement of the F-15. F-22 is not enough (125 in the ranks), and the new
                There is no high-speed interceptor fighter.
                1. Liam April 29 2020 01: 10 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  All the recent conflicts over 40 years stubbornly show that 90% of the work of aviation is on the ground. There is no particular interception.
                  1. voyaka uh April 29 2020 01: 23 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    If something is missing for a long time, it cannot be concluded that it will not.
                    Aerial fights are rare lately, but they are quite
                    can happen at any time. And high-speed stealth aircraft capable
                    fight in supersonic mode, will have an advantage in single battles
                    in front of a stealth aircraft, imprisoned for sonication, like the F-35
                    1. Liam April 29 2020 01: 49 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      What the Americans have now is enough with a margin for any potential adversary in the present and foreseeable future. High-speed stealth fighters do not suddenly appear out of thin air and the Amers have enough time to develop a new f-22 or release a modification of the f-35 tailored for interception. With what the opponents now have, the unmodified f-35 can easily cope with it, however. Your pilots (and that's all others flying on f-35) are rather unanimous in this
            2. Grigory_45 April 28 2020 22: 47 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: voyaka uh
              F-16s are constantly being written off.

              on a global scale, this is completely not noticeable. The machine lasted 40 years and another 20 years flies. If the variations on the MiG-21 are still in order.

              Quote: voyaka uh
              F-18 begin to write off gradually

              if only the F / A-18 Hornets. Supers produce and purchase (already Block 3), and so far he has not seen a real replacement. Although the aircraft is also not new - Super Hornet began to operate 20 years ago.

              Quote: voyaka uh
              All bombers plan to replace one type of B-21

              from this venture the same thing can happen as from attempts to replace the fleet of bombers, first with B-1, then with B-2. Just like in the USSR, they tried many times to replace the temporary version of the Tu-95 with something else, only now it is still flying, and almost all of the successors are in oblivion.
  2. Kunica April 28 2020 12: 52 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Freshen up. Prepared for hypersonic media, it seems.
    1. Gray brother April 28 2020 13: 10 New
      • 2
      • 6
      -4
      In the garbage dump, the parts ran out.
      1. neri73-r April 28 2020 13: 27 New
        • 0
        • 6
        -6
        Quote: Gray Brother
        In the garbage dump, the parts ran out.

        It's okay, Ukraine will help MotorSich and Yuzhmash offer their engines! wassat Yuzhmash from Voivode to immediately to the super sound. tongue
        1. Gray brother April 28 2020 13: 36 New
          • 1
          • 4
          -3
          Quote: neri73-r
          Ukraine will help MotorSich

          Everyone wants to give Ukraine money, yes.
          Quote: neri73-r
          Yuzhmash offer their engines!

          Yuzhmash only trust barrels to cook.
          1. neri73-r April 28 2020 15: 15 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -2
            Quote: Gray Brother
            Quote: neri73-r
            Ukraine will help MotorSich

            Everyone wants to give Ukraine money, yes.
            Quote: neri73-r
            Yuzhmash offer their engines!

            Yuzhmash only trust barrels to cook.

            You, I see, do not understand jokes. It’s just that some non-brothers still rave that someone needs their highly technological industry left over from the USSR.
            1. Gray brother April 28 2020 19: 27 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: neri73-r
              It’s just that some non-brothers still rave that someone needs their highly technological industry left over from the USSR.

              At Antares, the Ukrainian fuel tank, Boeing and Lockheed Martin are fighting among themselves for Motor Sich engines - it’s just not clear who won.
      2. Grigory_45 April 28 2020 23: 16 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Gray Brother
        In the garbage dump, the parts ran out

        there will be enough for another two wars on this “dump”, at the Davis Montan air base (Arizona), for storage of aircraft, and only spare parts ...
        We would have a couple of such "trash". And there were times when spare parts were removed from combat aircraft so that at least something could fly
        1. Gray brother April 28 2020 23: 41 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          Quote: Gregory_45
          there are enough planes for two more wars, and spare parts ...

          There is nothing eternal in this world, unless of course it is in a nitrogen atmosphere without oxygen.
  3. BREAKTHROUGH READY April 28 2020 12: 57 New
    • 3
    • 9
    -6
    The saga of cutting the budget with the help of the B-52 has reached a new level. The feeder is worse than "Admiral Kuznetsov", our still learn and learn on such a scale.
    1. Sky strike fighter April 28 2020 13: 40 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      I’m seriously looking at Kuzya. I hope to fix it in a couple of years.
      Four steam boilers for the repairable heavy aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov will be delivered from St. Petersburg to Murmansk.


      According to TASS with reference to the procurement materials of the Zvyozdochka central heating station, it is planned to deliver the boilers from mid-May to June.

      “To provide transportation of four sets of KVG-4 boilers between St. Petersburg and Murmansk on the route from the second decade of May 2020 to June 2020. The initial contract price is 35 million rubles,” the procurement materials said.

      https://www.korabel.ru/news/comments/chetyre_kotla_dostavyat_dlya_remontiruemogo_rossiyskogo_avianosca_admiral_kuznecov.html
      1. BREAKTHROUGH READY April 28 2020 13: 43 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        I’m seriously looking at Kuzya. I hope to fix it in a couple of years.
        It has long been taken seriously. Be sure to fix it so that immediately, without departing from the pier, put on modernization. And so on ad infinitum, until the financial flow runs dry.
        1. Sky strike fighter April 28 2020 13: 58 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          I think they’ll simply lead to a combat-ready state and calm down on this.
  4. Piramidon April 28 2020 13: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    We decided to exploit until the centennial.
  5. Stalllker April 28 2020 13: 03 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    I hope our posted an application wassat
    1. Mavrikiy April 28 2020 13: 21 New
      • 1
      • 8
      -7
      Quote: Stalllker
      I hope our posted an application wassat

      Of course, how is it without the Dill? request
      1. Stalllker April 28 2020 13: 33 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        And what about these ???? I'm talking about Russian companies, we supply taxiways, what prevents delivery for airplanes?! ?? And then, it was sarcasm, of course the USA will not allow Russia to enter this market
        1. Sky strike fighter April 28 2020 14: 14 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          The RD-180s are single-use and do not affect the combat effectiveness of the U.S. Air Force launched them and forgot about them. In addition, the Americans had no alternatives, only recently appeared Space X.
        2. Antokha April 28 2020 17: 08 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Unfortunately, the level of our engine building is still in the way. Till. Let's see what will happen after PD-14. If the PD-35 is done quickly and efficiently, then the PD-16 or 18 for Carcasses and Sludge 96-400, we can say that we are back. Even more than that, they got to where the USSR was not.
        3. Grigory_45 April 28 2020 22: 53 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Stalllker
          I'm talking about Russian companies, we supply taxiways, what prevents delivery for airplanes?! ??

          even if it is hypothetically assumed that Russia was invited to participate in a tender for the supply of engines for bombers, what can we offer? Incredible friends have better motors than ours.
          But for now, with aircraft engine building, it’s somehow not very good. There are programs, but there is no real motor
  6. Undecim April 28 2020 13: 17 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    As previously reported, the US Air Force is considering two options for remotorization - the first, which provides for the replacement of standing engines with others (direct replacement) and the second, which provides for the replacement of power plants with their reduction from 8 to 4.
    The second option was removed from the agenda two years ago due to the large number of necessary changes in the design of the airframe and equipment.
    Four options are currently under consideration, one from Rolls-Royce and Pratt & Whitney, and two from General Electric.
    1. Sky strike fighter April 28 2020 13: 44 New
      • 1
      • 6
      -5
      I think Rolls-Royce is in flight. In the United States, they will not want the B-52N to fly on British engines. Pratt & Whitney is likely to win the tender.
      1. Undecim April 28 2020 14: 04 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        You can think of anything. The American strategic reconnaissance UAV RQ-4 Global Hawk, E-11 BACN (Battlefield Airborne Communication Node) and Lockheed EC-130H Compass Call - EW aircraft fly on Rolls-Royce engines.
        1. Sky strike fighter April 28 2020 14: 09 New
          • 1
          • 6
          -5
          But what about the slogan America first of all? I do not believe that such a bold contract will be given to the British. It will be difficult for the British to fight with the American lobby of the US military-industrial complex.
          1. Undecim April 28 2020 14: 18 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            You own both the situation in the American military-industrial complex and the level of Motor Sich technology. The widest profile, take off my hat.
            1. Sky strike fighter April 28 2020 14: 31 New
              • 1
              • 6
              -5
              This is a stone in my garden, as I understand it? Just voicing well-known facts. No more.
      2. Grigory_45 April 28 2020 23: 09 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Sky Strike fighter
        I think Rolls-Royce is in flight. In the US, they will not want the B-52N to fly on British engines

        the United States and Britain have very great cooperation. In the same F-35 enough British developments. Rolls-Royces are located on the S-130 Hercules (how many are there in the world?), Osprey Bell V-22 convertiplanes and the OH-58 Kiova helicopters, Martin-Baker ejection seats on all combat aircraft, etc.
    2. Lontus April 29 2020 13: 53 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Undecim
      As previously reported, the US Air Force is considering two options for remotorization - the first, which provides for the replacement of standing engines with others (direct replacement) and the second, which provides for the replacement of power plants with their reduction from 8 to 4.
      The second option was removed from the agenda two years ago due to the large number of necessary changes in the design of the airframe and equipment.

      On the contrary - removed from the agenda since replacing 8 with 4 will be cheaper - you won’t get much done.
      Moreover, you will not save much in the future with further modernization.
      Smart people work - they think about the future of their families - not temporary workers, tea.
  7. Mavrikiy April 28 2020 13: 20 New
    • 0
    • 8
    -8
    US Air Force intends to announce a tender for the supply of new engines for the B-52H
    And where do the dill from Motor Sich look? repeat (there such grandmas will be sawing! And without them?)
    1. Sky strike fighter April 28 2020 13: 46 New
      • 1
      • 5
      -4
      laughing Are you laughing? Who will let Motor Sich go there, and even with their outdated technology?
  8. Vasily Ponomarev April 28 2020 13: 45 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Quote: Mavrikiy
    US Air Force intends to announce a tender for the supply of new engines for the B-52H
    And where do the dill from Motor Sich look? repeat (there such grandmas will be sawing! And without them?)

    where are the moderators looking? or do they care?
    1. Sky strike fighter April 28 2020 13: 47 New
      • 3
      • 6
      -3
      Where should they look?
  9. Pavel57 April 28 2020 13: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It makes sense to change the engines, if you still fly for 20 years.
  10. Old26 April 28 2020 14: 43 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Quote: dzvero
    And after all, no one expected that both the B-52 and Tu-95 would remain in service for so long. None of the "heirs" has managed to completely force them out "retire."

    Compared with the B-52, the TU-95 is a young man. Production of the B-52 was discontinued in the early 60s, and TU-95MS began to be produced in the 80s.

    Quote: dzvero
    About the fact that Yuri Gagarin was the first in space I know smile drinks
    I'm talking about something else. There were Hustler, Valkyrie ... it was assumed that they would replace the B-52 by the end of the 60s, but did not grow together.

    The B-58 Hastler was not a replacement for the B-52. It was an addition. T.N. medium strategic bomber. True, I only spent 10 years in operation, then it was replaced by FB-111. B-70 did not go, because possessed great resistance in the dense layers of the atmosphere and could not carry out a supersonic air defense breakthrough at low altitudes. In fact, a three-swing bomber could fly at low altitudes only at subsonic speed.

    Quote: dzvero
    Even B-1B and B-2 could not; the first seems to intend to write off too.

    These machines were also not a direct replacement for the B-52. Rather, the B-1B was an addition and an intermediate option until the prospective ATV bomber (V-2A) was delivered to the arsenal. But the first and second turned out to be quite expensive for direct replacement. B-1 was planned to be released in an amount of approximately 2,5 hundred. B-2 - in the amount of 132. As a result, B-1B was released in the amount of 100, and B-2A in the amount of 21 ...

    Quote: dzvero
    Their Air Force fly to the development of the 50s - 70s. The newest rappers are somewhere around 150. The 35th is already over 500, but something does not replace the 15th, 16th and 18th. It turns out that with beautiful presentations, the Americans drove themselves into ..... (insert the word as desired). So you have to maintain the "old people" in flight condition. They say that there is already a grandson flying on his grandfather’s plane.

    But ours are not going to write off all the aircraft, replacing them with the SU-57 ...

    Quote: voyaka uh
    F-16s are constantly being written off. Their squadrons are disbanded
    and are replaced by F-35 squadrons.
    F-18 begin to write off gradually,
    but so far partially supplemented by new ones. F-35S only three squadrons.
    Harriers retired and replaced with the F-35V.
    All bombers plan to replace one type of B-21.

    They still plan to have two types of cars by 2040. B-52 and B-21.

    Quote: Gray Brother
    In the garbage dump, the parts ran out.

    You should not consider the Mount Davidson storage base as a dump. A large number of cars are stored there. Some of them, if necessary, can be put into operation

    Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
    The saga of cutting the budget with the help of the B-52 has reached a new level. The feeder is worse than "Admiral Kuznetsov", our still learn and learn on such a scale.

    Of course. These are the Americans. So any modernization - probably drank. For example, I would be very happy if our TU-95MS, as a result of the same drink, survived to at least 2050, without saying that we would celebrate our centenary
    1. Vasily Ponomarev April 28 2020 15: 05 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      > B-1 was planned to be released in the amount of approximately 2,5 hundred
      you can link please, have not read about it anywhere
      1. Vasily Ponomarev April 28 2020 15: 22 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        PS: I understand everything, but it's about version A
    2. BREAKTHROUGH READY April 28 2020 17: 38 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      These are the Americans. So any modernization - probably drank.
      in your opinion, the remotorization of 60-year-old veterans scattering on the fly wasn’t drunk, but a sensible solution for raising combat readiness?)
      This “superfastness” was an outstanding achievement in its time, and now any private jet will shut up both in terms of performance and cost of operation.
      For example, I would be very happy if our TU-95MS, as a result of the same drink, survived until at least 2050,
      there is no alternative to them, which means they will certainly survive. But I would not consider the lack of choice an outstanding achievement.
  11. Old26 April 28 2020 17: 37 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
    > B-1 was planned to be released in the amount of approximately 2,5 hundred
    you can link please, have not read about it anywhere

    You are welcome. The translation is really machine, clumsy, but interesting, especially at the end, where the table is given. Another article, quite interesting from my point of view, for details are also described - http://aviation-gb7.ru/B-1.htm.

    Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
    PS: I understand everything, but it's about version A

    Yes, of course in version B-1A. The production plan was 240 cars. As a result, 4 were produced in variant B-1A and 100 in variant B-1B
  12. Old26 April 28 2020 18: 35 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
    in your opinion, the remotorization of 60-year-old veterans scattering on the fly wasn’t drunk, but a sensible solution for raising combat readiness?)

    Crumbling on the fly? Since 1961, there have been 11 accidents of this "crumbling bomber". And in two there is a fire on the ground, in one - the loss of the engine. Here is such a "crumbling" plane. And yes, in this case, this is an option to increase combat efficiency, and not drank. In the same way, we can say that we have any modernization - drank it. Although we perceive each modernization as an increase in the combat readiness of our forces. But the enemy is the Americans. they are initially not capable of anything. Here is a position like yours, called the "position of the ostrich." When it is easier not to believe that the enemy has any kind of modernization - an increase in combat readiness. It is easier to believe that he drank, and what we do is “has no analogues in the world”

    Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
    there is no alternative to them, which means they will certainly survive. But I would not consider the lack of choice an outstanding achievement.

    Do the Americans have an alternative to the B-52? They also have no choice. So they will certainly survive. And the 100th anniversary will be an outstanding event in the history of aviation. even if the 100th anniversary is a lack of choice
  13. 3danimal April 29 2020 11: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Avionics radar and sights on the latest versions set new.
    Finally, it is necessary to replace the engines with economical turbofan ones, the range will increase significantly.