Centennial "bomber": how the States will upgrade the legendary B-52


Heavenly Gran Torino



It is difficult to find the epithets that could describe the strategic bomber B-52. “The most deserved”, “the most deadly”, “the oldest” - these are just words that cannot even convey a tenth of a percent the greatness of a combat vehicle. Perhaps the best definition for the B-52 is the symbol of the Cold War.

And it doesn’t matter that in the course of the Soviet-American confrontation, the role aviation as an element of nuclear deterrence, it was largely leveled by intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine ballistic missiles. This did not prompt the United States to abandon its "stratospheric fortresses": the plane was able to prove itself in Vietnam, in the Gulf Wars, in the operation against Yugoslavia. The “strategist” fought in Syria and Afghanistan. At the same time, combat aircraft of this type played an important role: it is known that in the first months of Operation Enduring Freedom, various strategic bombers completed only 20% of the total number of sorties, but dropped more than 70% of the total tonnage of aviation munitions.

But the passage of time cannot be stopped: we recall that the last of the B-52s was built back in 1962, which, of course, leaves its mark on the state of the fleet. Strictly speaking, the end of the Cold War could have turned out to be the end of American strategic aviation in the usual sense of the term. If in 1989 the United States had more than 400 bombers, then in the foreseeable future they may turn out to be no more than 100. Recall that Americans often complain about the “problematic” B-1B, indicating a relatively low level of combat readiness (although plans to equip the B-1 hypersonic weapons may affect the decommissioning of these machines). In recent years, they also spoke about the cancellation of the few B-2 “invisibles”: they are too expensive.


All this may mean that amid difficulties with the development of the new B-21, the B-52 veteran may become not just the main, but the only American strategic bomber: now, let us recall, the Americans have 76 such machines out of 744 built over the years . By the way, the United States is not alone in this, so to speak. The main Russian strategic bomber, Tu-95, like the B-52, made its first flight in 1952. The Tu-160 is newer, but there are only 16 of them in service, and it is far from the fact that this number will increase significantly in the next ten years.

No heart attack and paralysis


In general, the B-52 has already been upgraded to a level that allows it both tactically and strategically to meet the requirements of the 158st century, which can not be said about some other machines of this type. One of the most notable improvements is the ability to use the Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod, which makes the aircraft a true “hunter" for ground targets. The fuel-efficient satellite-guided JDAM bombs also contribute to this. Well, the role of the “long arm” (at least at the tactical level) is played by the new AGM-12 JASSM missile - their aircraft can take up to XNUMX pieces.

But even this is not enough, at least for the plane to be able to overcome the desired milestone of 100 years. Recall that this is how many Americans want to operate the machines: though not “yet”, but from the moment they were put into operation. The new version of the aircraft may be called the B-52J. “So far, this is just a sketch, potential future effort,” said Colonel Lance Reynolds, Program Manager for B-1 and B-52 Life Cycle Management, earlier.

Power point. The most important improvement is the engines. In fact, it is around them that the whole "round dance" takes place. Recall, the B-52H has eight extremely successful for its time, the Pratt & Whitney TF33-P / 103 turbojet engines - the very ones that were installed in the 60s. They provide cruising speed and combat radius at the level of newer vehicles of this type. On the other hand, the use of eight engines within one platform these days is hardly a modern solution, and the engines themselves are outdated.


Not surprisingly, back in 1996, a project was launched to re-equip the B-52 with four Rolls Royce RB211 534E-4 engines. This initiative was never implemented, but this is far from the end stories. On May 19, 2020, the US Air Force published a request for proposals for a new competition. As it became known earlier, participation in the tender for the supply of 608 engines will take GE Aviation, Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce. GE can choose between a CF34 or Passport engine (or offer both options). P & W offers the PW800, and Rolls-Royce offers the F130.

Some important steps have already been taken. In September last year, it became known that the American division of the British Rolls-Royce performed the first tests of the F130 turbofan engine for the B-52. This engine was developed based on the BR725, which, in turn, is a variant of the Rolls-Royce BR700. “The F130 family of engines that we offer for upgrading the power plant is already a product mainly manufactured in the USA, and we are going to take the last step in ensuring its assembly and testing in the United States if the program goes further,” Tom said earlier Hartmann, senior vice president of customer service at Rolls-Royce.

The F130 engine has a thrust comparable to TF33: it is noteworthy that, despite the initial plans to reduce the number of engines, the option of their direct replacement (at least until recently) remained more preferable. At the same time, the range of the aircraft should still increase by about 20-40%: now, recall, the combat radius of the aircraft is 7 kilometers, which is also quite enough to carry out the bulk of combat missions.

Armament and avionics. There is even less certainty if we talk about other aspects of modernization, but it is obvious that half-measures will not suit the US Air Force. Recall that the pilots of the B-52 perform tasks, guided by the scatter of dials on the dashboard: in front of them, like many years ago, there are only two small multifunction displays that do not meet the requirements of their time. Despite the fact that various pilots of the US Air Force have long and insistently demand modern "glass cockpits", which would include large displays on which basic information would be displayed.


They also criticize the outdated B-52 ejection system (two out of five pilots are thrown down in the event of an accident), and in addition, the placement of the aiming container under the right wing is not entirely successful, which reduces the visibility for the operator. Most likely, the new version of the “strategist” will be deprived of all these difficulties.

The updated version, of course, will be able to use new weapons. “The upgraded B-52 will receive a new cruise nuclear missile. The development contract is still valued at $ 250 million. At the Pentagon, the new missile is called a fundamentally new weapon system and argue that these new nuclear missiles will have an accuracy of 3–5 m and a flight range of at least 3–3,5 thousand km. “, - said in 2019 the head of the Bureau of military-political analysis, Alexander Mikhailov.

By the way, last year we also saw the potentially most dangerous weapon B-52 - a hypersonic missile ARRW or AGM-183A: then the model of this product was suspended under the wing of an aircraft. AGM-183A is a solid fuel aeroballistic missile with a warhead, the role of which is played by a detachable hypersonic warhead with a Tactical Boost Glide rocket engine. According to unofficial data, the speed of the block can reach 20 Machs.


There is almost no doubt that the missile will be brought to a combat ready state: too much time and effort has been invested in it. Only one important question remains: how many units can a single modernized Stratofortress carry? Of course, we will not be able to answer it now, but, as it became known recently, the B-1B will be able to take up to 31 ARRW. Probably, the B-52 will be able to carry the same number of missiles or slightly less.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Pessimist22 24 May 2020 05: 19 New
    • 5
    • 21
    -16
    In the USA, the F 35 crashed again, in less than a week, the second plane, I think I’ll go read what they say, came in last night, and then there’s silence no news.
    1. thinker 24 May 2020 06: 29 New
      • 10
      • 0
      +10
      Again, this is May 19th. The 20th was heatedly discussed. All. request
      https://topwar.ru/171392-avarii-f-22-i-f-35-chto-proishodit-s-istrebiteljami-5-go-pokolenija-ssha.html
    2. mmaxx 24 May 2020 08: 11 New
      • 17
      • 1
      +16
      Well, fell and fell. When airplanes fly, they always sometimes crash. They are heavier than air. wink Only those that stand at the airport do not fall.
  2. Mavrikiy 24 May 2020 05: 20 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    amid difficulties with the development of the new B-21, the B-52 veteran may become not just the main, but generally the only American strategic bomber:
    Yes, in the next war they will fight with stones and sticks. repeat
    1. Same lech 24 May 2020 05: 48 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Yes, in the next war they will fight with stones and sticks.

      Not true... smile
      We’ll fight with lasers, photon guns on gravitap ... on the Earth we will all make a mess move into space ... the Americans have already set their sights on the Moon.
      1. Thunderbolt 24 May 2020 09: 20 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        In the real war in Afghanistan 52nd showed themselves good. Under this war, the old men were modernized. They are now able to barazhirvke area, since .... and the VZ missile hit the target. Convenient, because. they’re in the sky for a long time and then “thunder from heaven” arrives, as their gunsmiths call out their pendants - I’m silent, otherwise they’ll ban
  3. demiurg 24 May 2020 06: 29 New
    • 17
    • 26
    -9
    A country is a gas station where oil fields do not work because of the crisis, what else can I say. Two fighters crashed in a week, planes built under Stalin are trying to modernize from despair. Cosmonauts carry on missiles a potential enemy. Neil Armstrong, we all fell in love. Roosevelt is not on them.
    Is this about the USA? Well, there the pilots just fly a lot, and the plane is still very much nothing. Oil is generally atavism in the fifth technological order.

    Well, really funny. KMK is easier to remake some kind of 777 as a strategist. It's time to bury the stewardess, it hurts.
  4. svp67 24 May 2020 06: 29 New
    • 6
    • 5
    +1
    It is difficult to find the epithets that could describe the strategic bomber B-52. “The most deserved”, “the most deadly”, “the oldest” - these are just words that cannot even convey a tenth of a percent the greatness of a combat vehicle. Perhaps the best definition for the B-52 is the symbol of the Cold War.

    And what kind of “merit” does this bomber have? I would like to know. And at the expense of the “most deadly,” as I would like to compare it, on this indicator with our Tu-160 ...
    "The oldest", but not much ... the same T-95 is a little bit "younger." And I wonder which of the modern strategic bombers is not a "symbol of the Cold War"? Old and new
    1. Same lech 24 May 2020 07: 01 New
      • 8
      • 10
      -2
      And what kind of “merit” does this bomber have?

      Beautifully falls on a sharp turn .. what

    2. mmaxx 24 May 2020 08: 22 New
      • 13
      • 14
      -1
      Great plane. Before America, he has many merits. The wars that the United States waged all this time, he was fully consistent. Much better than the Tu-160.
      1. 3danimal 24 May 2020 18: 19 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        It is incorrect to compare with the Tu-160. The Sniper sighting system is probably better.
        For a long time it was necessary to deliver modern turbofan engines based on civilian engines and reduce the number to 4x.
        1. san4es 24 May 2020 19: 30 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          ... Sniper sighting system is probably better.
          The Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP) is the most widely deployed guidance system for aircraft used by US forces, and is also the preferred guidance system for many international allies on multiple platforms. Sniper ATP provides pilots with high-resolution images for accurate target designation, observation and reconnaissance missions. It detects, identifies, automatically tracks and laser-marks small tactical targets at long ranges and supports the use of laser and GPS-guided weapons against several stationary and moving targets.

          ... B-52H has eight extremely successful for its time turbojet engines Pratt & Whitney TF33-P / 10 ....... hi
          1. 3danimal 24 May 2020 21: 02 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            I admit, about the "probably better" - modest smile Cool stuff.
    3. Thunderbolt 24 May 2020 09: 35 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: svp67
      And what kind of “merit” does this bomber have? I would like to know

      The same as our Tu-ninety5 --- confrontation in a nuclear war. Our flies around the corner, the Americans ... have the same route, they met the sides in time and step by step. The world was, and now is peace. During the war the logic and application of these bombers is fundamentally changing. Everything is “All take off, max load”, though this leader of the bomb knows how to throw and is generally geared towards supporting infantry.
    4. Ravil_Asnafovich 24 May 2020 09: 45 New
      • 1
      • 12
      -11
      His only for Vietnam must be sent to the scrap
    5. Peter is not the first 24 May 2020 17: 27 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      And what kind of “merit” does this bomber have? I would like to know. And at the expense of the "deadliest"

      If we understand by mortality not how much he can kill, but how much he has already killed, then our strategists before the B-52, like to the moon, because the victims of the bombing of this plane in Vietnam, in the conflicts of the Persian Gulf, were hundreds of thousands of people.
      So, according to this parameter, our planes definitely lose. But this is just a plus for them. May the lethality of our aircraft never be needed in reality.
    6. 3danimal 24 May 2020 20: 57 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      B-2, I think. He appeared already during the improvement of relations and the end of the Cold.
    7. Reserve buildbat 25 May 2020 17: 28 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Sergey, welcome. hi
      The B-52 is truly the deadliest bomber. It is enough to see how many people these "sheds" burned out in Vietnam.
  5. demiurg 24 May 2020 06: 42 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    Quote: svp67
    It is difficult to find the epithets that could describe the strategic bomber B-52. “The most deserved”, “the most deadly”, “the oldest” - these are just words that cannot even convey a tenth of a percent the greatness of a combat vehicle. Perhaps the best definition for the B-52 is the symbol of the Cold War.

    And what kind of “merit” does this bomber have? I would like to know. And at the expense of the “most deadly,” as I would like to compare it, on this indicator with our Tu-160 ...
    "The oldest", but not much ... the same T-95 is a little bit "younger."


    To put it mildly, not at all. Most young B-52, made in 1962. Most the old Tu-95 was made in the late eighties. Three generations. This is the same age as the MiG-17. Approximately the same technology.
    1. svp67 24 May 2020 07: 05 New
      • 6
      • 3
      +3
      Quote: demiurg
      The oldest Tu-95 was made in the late eighties. Three generations. This is the same age as the MiG-17. Approximately the same technology.

      And what, our Tu-95 was built using other technologies?
      1. mmaxx 24 May 2020 08: 09 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        In general, the pilot told me that these aircraft, Tu-95 and Tu-142 of different generations, felt that they were the same only from the outside. A lot of changes have passed over the years. This is the design. And technology, in general, yes, almost the same.
        1. svp67 24 May 2020 12: 13 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: mmaxx
          Tu-95 and Tu-142 of different generations, experienced that they are the same only on the outside.

          Another strategic bomber, the second long-range anti-submarine aircraft
          1. mmaxx 24 May 2020 12: 27 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            It was a separate Tu-95, separately Tu-142. Is it really incomprehensible?
            1. svp67 24 May 2020 14: 02 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              Quote: mmaxx
              It was a separate Tu-95, separately Tu-142. Is it really incomprehensible?

              Yeah ... but do you understand that the B-52 is now also very different from the B-52, which 60 years ago took off, although outwardly VERY similar?
              1. mmaxx 24 May 2020 14: 47 New
                • 3
                • 2
                +1
                Read above: “To put it mildly, not at all. The youngest B-52, made in 1962. The oldest Tu-95 was made at the end of the eighties. Three generations. This is the same age as the MiG-17. Approximately the same technology”
                1. svp67 24 May 2020 15: 45 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: mmaxx
                  The oldest Tu-95 was made in the late eighties.

                  And he was released on the technology of the aircraft 4 +++++ .... Do not tell. The main technical and technological solutions were laid in the distant 50s, and they remained so. Only some electronic filling and equipment changed. Yes, we produced very similar, but all different machines on the same base. Tu-95, Tu-114, Tu-142 and Tu-95MS
                  Over the years of operation, the B-52 went through the stages of modernization
                  Blue Band (1957), modernization of the fuel system of the engine J57-P-43W
                  Hard Shell (1958), modernization of the fuel system of the engine J57-P-43W
                  QuickClip (1958), J57-P-43W engine fuel system upgrade
                  Golly-Well (1964), modernization of avionics: installed a new bombing system AN / ASQ-38
                  ECP 1050 (1965), wing reinforcement
                  MADREC (Malfunction Detection and Recording) (1965), installation of a fault monitoring system
                  ECP 1185 (1966), replacement of the fuselage skin and side members
                  ECP 1195 (1967), modernization of flight control systems (Stability Augmentation and Flight Control program)
                  Rivet Rambler (1971), modernization of electronic warfare systems
                  Rivet Ace (1973), modernization of electronic warfare systems
                  Pacer Plank (1977), retrofitting 99 B-52G and 96 B-52H aircraft as carriers for AGM-86B cruise missiles. Modernization was carried out from 1984 to 1990.
                  1. Vladimir_2U 25 May 2020 04: 50 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    I apologize, but even I know about metal fatigue, so that airplanes even launched using the same technology, but with a difference of 30 years, differ greatly in the reliability of the airframe, despite all the upgrades.
          2. Alexey RA 25 May 2020 11: 32 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: svp67
            Another strategic bomber, the second long-range anti-submarine aircraft

            One is a descendant, the second is an ancestor. For the "EMES" was not made as a modernization of the base line of Tu-95 bombers and missile carriers, but from the anti-submarine Tu-142.
          3. Reserve buildbat 25 May 2020 17: 32 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I’ll add my 5 kopecks: Tu-95MS is made on the basis of the Tu-142, so that with the Tu-96 has not much in common.
          4. Sergey Sfiedu 29 May 2020 22: 19 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            "Another strategic bomber, the second long-range anti-submarine aircraft."
            Just the Tu-95ms is actually the Tu-142ms.
        2. Bad_gr 24 May 2020 22: 17 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: mmaxx
          A lot of changes have passed over the years. This is the design.

          Interestingly, in the current Tu-95 in emergency situations, how does the crew leave the plane? Just like on the first planes or did they have catapults?
          1. Sergey Sfiedu 29 May 2020 22: 21 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Just like the first.
      2. demiurg 24 May 2020 08: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, how would the MiG-17 and MiG-29 be no different? Are the technologies the same?
        For 30 years between development, progress has not stood still. We then have to be armed with the M-3.
        1. mmaxx 24 May 2020 12: 30 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          From the point of view of aircraft technology, almost the same thing. In terms of design - different cars. There was a development of technologies in engine building, in avionics, and weapons. But how the airplane itself is built, there are few changes. We have some real progress outlined only in the 90s. And that is not everywhere.
      3. Alexey RA 25 May 2020 11: 29 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: svp67
        And what, our Tu-95 was built using other technologies?

        So Tu-95MS is not the direct successor of the original Tu-95. At Emes, the development line made a zigzag - through the Tu-95RTs and Tu-142.
    2. Joker62 24 May 2020 16: 17 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      But on the Tu-95 do not lie! The first Tu-95 series without modification was launched in 1955. Only 30 cars were made (the last car was produced in 1957). Then went modifications to this car. The latest modification is the Tu-95MS. And to this day in the ranks. So someone who is older and older is still looking. And there are a number of nuances - this is the ability to modify cars, without capital expenditures for new buildings. And they produced cars at the Kuibyshev Aviation Plant (now Saratov), ​​and unfortunately, they killed the plant ....
      1. Sergej1972 24 May 2020 23: 21 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Kuibyshev is Samara. Saratov has always been Saratov.
        1. Joker62 25 May 2020 02: 44 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Sorry, here you are right. Instead of Samara I got it in Saratov. Thanks for the clarification.
      2. not main 24 May 2020 23: 53 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Joker62
        And they produced cars at the Kuibyshev Aviation Plant (now Saratov),

        And I always thought that it was Samara! Both before and after Kuibyshev. And Saratov as it was and remained Saratov!
    3. 3danimal 24 May 2020 18: 23 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Technologically, it’s still more perfect than the same Tu-16 (although about the same age).
      For the Tu-95, it would also not be superfluous to put a turbofan (the same PD-14, when "finish"). Less noise, vibration. Profitability is about the same.
      1. Revolver 24 May 2020 19: 54 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: 3danimal
        For the Tu-95, it would also be good to put turbofan

        Not sure if this is even possible. Motors suspended from the wing on pylons and integrated into the wing are quite another thing. Considering the fact that turbofan engines are much thicker than turboprops, all other things being equal, the nacelles will have to be seriously redone, so that in fact it will be a completely new wing, and the price such that the fuel economy will beat the costs off is not long.
        1. 3danimal 24 May 2020 21: 00 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I agree yes
          But the idea itself looks good.
          As an option, a replacement for a modern theater.
      2. Siberian54 25 May 2020 08: 27 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Judging by the publication of the Irkutsk aircraft plant, they’ve already “finished” it and the first engines are starting to be installed on the MS.
  6. TatarinSSSR 24 May 2020 07: 51 New
    • 6
    • 16
    -10
    What am I starting to read now ?! What epithets about the greatest, the most deadly, the most famous, etc. B-52 ?! I would understand if the Americans themselves painted this collapse like that. The author is an American patriot ?!
    1. AUL
      AUL 24 May 2020 08: 33 New
      • 13
      • 0
      +13
      And what, it was necessary to write that this is bullshit, a design miscarriage, drank the budget? And then you would be satisfied?
      Let's separate the ideology from engineering solutions. Really - a very successful car turned out. And many years of service have confirmed this. Yes, besides, its modernization potential is far from exhausted.
  7. And I remember how in my childhood I looked at old "crocodile" magazines, which were stored in my grandmother's attic, and there constantly, as a symbol of American aggression, they painted caricature aircraft carrying "bunches" of engines under the wings)))
    1. Thunderbolt 24 May 2020 09: 46 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Nazar, count it up, such and such were,
      1. I remember! Grandfathers and grandmothers had filings somewhere from 66th to 80th! I didn’t understand this policy then, but the pictures even clearly explained to me, the child, who is bad and who is for us)))
        1. Thunderbolt 24 May 2020 10: 24 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          drinks My ancestors also wrote out. They were all pissed off, "Israeli military" and "Uncle SAM" are classic international themes. laughing
          1. Do you remember the U-turn, like "their morals"? There they reprinted articles from the foreign press with photos of women in mini-dresses, Guinness records, paintings painted with breasts, etc.?))) In general, I’ve gotten sick of them!)))
  8. Scharnhorst 24 May 2020 08: 36 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Looking back at a potential enemy, you understand the correctness of the government’s decision to resume the production of the Tu-160 at a new technological level. And we’ll replenish strategic aviation and the marine missile carrier will not hurt to recreate, say, an air regiment on Sakhalin ... Only there would be a parallel bridge as in Crimea.
  9. sergo1914 24 May 2020 09: 36 New
    • 8
    • 3
    +5
    We at the military department at the institute taught a man who failed this monster. The remaining teachers were very envious of him. For fell either Amer or Israeli small things. They came to the famous Soviet holidays with awards. There were few of ours. But all kinds of exotic ... I remembered an old joke about a golden nose ring. Funny. For everyone except Major Okunev. He did not laugh at this joke. Sometimes lectures shared memories. Oh ...
  10. Bez 310 24 May 2020 10: 51 New
    • 7
    • 8
    -1
    The aircraft, in its combat capabilities, is just wonderful, and it will be even better.
    Unfortunately, we don’t have such a plane ...
    1. Thunderbringer 24 May 2020 13: 38 New
      • 4
      • 7
      -3
      Do you have in Ukraine?
      Right No and never will be.
      1. Bez 310 24 May 2020 14: 45 New
        • 7
        • 4
        +3
        Here in Russia.
        Stop "about politics", let's talk about airplanes.
        1. 5-9
          5-9 25 May 2020 14: 42 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Those. Do you think that the Tu-95MS with missiles with a range of 5000 km is worse than the B-52 with missiles with a range of 2500 km? And I’m not talking about the Tu-160 ....
          Or are you lamenting that our carcasses are less adapted to grinding Afghan mountains and villages with slippers into gravel and ground meat?
          Do you need strategists for a nuclear or anti-war war?
          1. Bez 310 25 May 2020 17: 28 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Tu-95MS - to work on predetermined goals, and the B-52 - a multifunctional aircraft, can also solve tactical problems. "Our Carcasses" are not designed to solve various problems, and can only deliver missiles to the launch zone. I’m not going to argue with you, I have my own opinion, based on some experience, I express it. And by the way, it is unfortunate that the Tu-95 and Tu-160 cannot work in Syria on newly arising tasks.
            1. 5-9
              5-9 25 May 2020 17: 31 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I am not a fan of hammering nails with a microscope ... and even more I doubt that those 37 of the V-52N that are carriers of nuclear AGM-86 can solve these tactical tasks or were involved in them, even if they can
              1. Bez 310 25 May 2020 17: 46 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                I’m saying that the B-52 is a multifunctional aircraft, and that’s why it is better than our “strategists”, and what are you talking about? Your doubts about the possibility of using the B-52 do not interest me, since this aircraft worked in some local conflicts.
                1. 5-9
                  5-9 25 May 2020 17: 53 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  I mean that the Americans have a bunch of old B-52s (and the stupid ones were originally B-1Bs, though these seem to have already gone down to 6 flying), which they use by old habit to produce gravel in backward countries .... because they already exists ... and I don’t think that those 37 of them that carry CRBB databases with NSC are used for the production of crushed stone. But we have fewer strategists and squandering their resources on all sorts of stupid things like bombing ISIS in Syria is stupid and irrational. Therefore, they don’t even need tactical capabilities ..... And with the Tu-22M we can do this for the media picture
                  1. Bez 310 25 May 2020 19: 07 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    I think it’s time to stop this conversation "no reason", otherwise you already dragged backfire. We do not have a plane like the B-52, and this, in my opinion, is very bad. This is my personal opinion, and I do not impose it on anyone.
                  2. Sergey Sfiedu 29 May 2020 22: 32 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    In connection with the disbandment of the Strategic Air Command, all B-52s were transferred to the Tactical Air Command, which uses them as tactical bombers. The AGM-86 ALCM missiles are a deep junk, for all these years their release has not been revived, they themselves have not been modernized, except that some of them have been converted into a non-nuclear version. In the nuclear confrontation, the Yankees do not particularly rely on them
  11. Cyril G ... 24 May 2020 11: 00 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    I read a month ago ZVO for 73 years, they were already groaning STRATOFORTRESS TIME URGENTLY CHANGE. 47 years have passed since then. However!
  12. Hermit21 24 May 2020 11: 25 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Now, recall, the Americans in the ranks of 76 such machines


    35-40. Plus 10-12 combat-ready V-2. Russia has approximately the same ratio of Tu-95MS and Tu-160.

    The main Russian strategic bomber, Tu-95, like the B-52, made its first flight in 1952


    The current combatant units were produced from 1981 to 1992, i.e. 20-30 years younger
    1. Siberian54 25 May 2020 08: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      What do you dislike about the fact that our aircraft have a resource, based on the year of issue, more than the B-52 and will spend taxpayer money on a new generation later?
      1. Hermit21 25 May 2020 09: 47 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I don’t say anywhere that I don’t like something
  13. Pavel57 24 May 2020 13: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Engines and equipment - 60 percent of the cost of the aircraft.
  14. Old26 24 May 2020 14: 10 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    The main Russian strategic bomber, Tu-95, like the B-52, made its first flight in 1952.

    Author! Readers should not be misled by the fact that the car with the TU-95 index made its first flight, like the B-52 in 1952. For the first TU-95 and the existing TU-95MS essentially have only an index in common. The Tu-95MS itself was built from 1983 to 1992.
    B-52 (last serial) was transferred to the customer (US Air Force) at the end of October 1962. It turns out that the oldest TU-95MS is younger than the oldest V-52P by THIRTY YEARS

    Quote: Mavrikiy
    Yes, in the next war they will fight with stones and sticks

    In fact, Einstein talked about this weapon (option - bow and arrow), as a weapon FOURTH WORLD War. laughing

    Quote: svp67
    It is difficult to find the epithets that could describe the strategic bomber B-52. “The most deserved”, “the most deadly”, “the oldest” - these are just words that cannot even convey a tenth of a percent the greatness of a combat vehicle. Perhaps the best definition for the B-52 is the symbol of the Cold War.

    And what kind of “merit” does this bomber have? I would like to know. And at the expense of the “most deadly,” as I would like to compare it, on this indicator with our Tu-160 ...
    "The oldest", but not much ... the same T-95 is a little bit "younger." And I wonder which of the modern strategic bombers is not a "symbol of the Cold War"? Old and new

    Sergei! KVM author, giving the epithet "the most deadly," still implied that the B-52 was involved in a large number of military conflicts. The same Vietnam War, the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and other conflicts ...

    Quote: TatarinSSSR
    What am I starting to read now ?! What epithets about the greatest, the most deadly, the most famous, etc. B-52 ?! I would understand if the Americans themselves painted this collapse like that. The author is an American patriot ?!

    No. It’s just that the author really describes what this airplane is like, which for almost 60 years has been involved in all the more or less serious conflicts. It’s really unique in its car ... I would like our cars to celebrate at least the 60th anniversary as the same B-52. It is not worth it if the author speaks well of a truly unique aircraft to consider him a patriot of America ...
    Otherwise, all the articles on all military-technical resources will be far from reality and will be the eulogy of our military equipment exclusively. Of course, if you want to look at the world through pink glasses (or like an ostrich burying its head in the sand) - then we can only talk about our weapons

    Quote: Leader of the Redskins
    I remember! Grandfathers and grandmothers had filings somewhere from 66th to 80th! I didn’t understand this policy then, but the pictures even clearly explained to me, the child, who is bad and who is for us)))

    Nothing yet. You would have looked at the filings of Technique-Youth and Spark in the 50s - there the authors painted a lot of things
    Offhand, a caricature with several "figures" that represented the NATO countries. And the text
    "NATO walks on a tightrope
    NATO wants fear to catch up
    These tricks can NATO
    As a result, finish it. "
    The Warsaw Pact has not been in place for three decades, and NATO has not yet "finished itself"

    Quote: Cyril G ...
    I read a month ago ZVO for 73 years, they were already groaning STRATOFORTRESS TIME URGENTLY CHANGE. 47 years have passed since then. However!

    Moans and groans on the other hand usually arise when additional financing is needed. Sometimes we become the trigger that triggers these moans and moans. good

    Quote: Hermit21
    Now, recall, the Americans in the ranks of 76 such machines

    35-40. Plus 10-12 combat-ready V-2. Russia has approximately the same ratio of Tu-95MS and Tu-160.


    You are not quite right, Alex. As well as the author. The author has inaccuracies with numbers, you have inaccuracies. For under the START-3 treaty there are combat ready (deployed) vehicles and there are non-combat ready (not deployed). Not deployed are those that are currently under repair and modernization. But they exist (this is not a junk that is finally “not combat-ready.” According to the data exchange under the START-3 treaty for July last year, the Americans were armed with the following number of bombers
    1. Deployed (combat ready) - 12 V-2A 12 and 37 V-52N
    2. Not deployed (not combat ready) - 8 V-2A 12 and 9 V-52N
    3. Bombers equipped for "non-nuclear" missions, that is, not carrying nuclear weapons - 41 V-52N

    We can also mention a certain amount of B-52H and B-52G, which are in long-term storage (but their commissioning is possible only after a few months. I don’t remember the exact number, but about 3-4 dozen.
    So at present, among the deployed and not deployed bombers are 87 B-52H and 20 B-2A bombers. Of the 87 V-52N, 46 are equipped with nuclear cruise missiles

    You can certainly mention more machines used for testing. This is 1 B-2A bomber and 3 B-52N
    1. Diverter 24 May 2020 21: 56 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      The fourth world war has been going on since 1977 if that.
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. Whirlwind 24 May 2020 15: 29 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    If modernization continues to go so far, this veteran will not escape the fate of the world's first hypersonic bomber ...
    1. Bad_gr 24 May 2020 21: 29 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Whirlwind
      the world's first hypersonic bomber ...

      What is this?
  17. dgonni 24 May 2020 17: 13 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    The basis of the longevity of this airplane is successful engines. Which to everything else was massively used in civil aviation. As a result, a large series. The result of a large series of licked engine parameters, both in terms of reliability and fuel consumption.
    The Tu-95 with the NK-12 is a completely different story. Almost zero use in civilian life and the bulk in the army. As a result, a small series of high price non-childish appetites for fuel on which the army turned a blind eye, unlike the same aeroflot shtafiki. Therefore, in fact, the 95x life cycle will be completed with the latest engines capable of undergoing capital.
    1. Bad_gr 24 May 2020 21: 41 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: dgonni
      The Tu-95 with the NK-12 is a completely different story. Almost zero use in civilian life and the bulk in the army.

      Citizen
      Tu-114 - 31 pieces (4 engines each), An-22 - 69 pieces (4 engines each), E-winged aircraft A-90 "Orlyonok" - 5 pieces (one dviglo) Total 405 pieces only installed + reserve


      1. dgonni 24 May 2020 22: 48 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Boeing 707 1000+ for 4 engines! Of all the engines analogous to those standing on the B-52, 8000+ units have been released! Extreme series in the early nineties! So, compared to the B-52 engine, NK is not a series, but a large industrial batch is no more.
        1. Bad_gr 25 May 2020 10: 26 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: dgonni
          So, compared to the B-52 engine, NK is not a series, but a large industrial batch is no more.

          But to say "almost zero application" is also out of place here. It is worth adding that in addition to aircraft, the NK-12 variety (NK-12ST, NK-14ST) was used in the drives of gas pumping units in the gas industry, and the NK-14E in drives of electric generators in modular power plants. How many engines were used in these industries, I have no data.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Local from the Volga 25 May 2020 20: 07 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            about 800 for Gazprom, plus CIS! But, the resource of the engine for pumping 100 tons of hours!
            1. Bad_gr 25 May 2020 20: 16 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Local from the Volga
              about 800 for Gazprom, plus CIS!

              Thanks for the information.
              Quote: Local from the Volga
              engine resource for pumping 100 tons of hours!
              Reply

              The fact that it costs on airplanes - 50 t.hours is also not weak.
              1. Local from the Volga 25 May 2020 21: 35 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                no! 5000 hours on the wing!
                1. Bad_gr 25 May 2020 22: 27 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Local from the Volga
                  5000 hours on the wing!

                  Yes, really 5000 hours. There were tables with 50000 hours, but this is a kind of NK-12 from the gas industry, not airplane. Like this:
      2. Bad_gr 25 May 2020 10: 16 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        For background information I get a minus. What disagree, disagreeable? What is all this civilian engineering? What is the NK-12 engine on it? The number of listed equipment?
        All this information is easily verified, it is no secret.
        1. dgonni 25 May 2020 11: 51 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Well, the minus is clearly not from me. And with regards to engines in compressors and power plants. It’s not new there, but after the capital. To send them on the flight is already dumb and on the ground in constant mode it is
          1. Bad_gr 25 May 2020 12: 29 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: dgonni
            minus is clearly not from me
            I already understood that. Minus from a person who lacks enough arguments.
            Quote: dgonni
            after kapitalki

            Wrodeba, and on the "Eaglet" put not new, but it means where it was removed, there is a new one.
            1. Bad_gr 25 May 2020 15: 28 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Got an article from 2018:
              "The United Engine Corporation, part of the Rostec State Corporation, is creating a new modification of the world's most powerful NK-12 turboprop engine for the Tu-95MS strategic bomber-missile carrier. .......
              ...... The NK-12MPM engine developed by the Samara PJSC Kuznetsov (part of the UEC, Rostec) is a modification of the NK-12MP, the most powerful serial turboprop engine in the world (15 hp). It allows you to improve the take-off characteristics of the aircraft, increase the carrying capacity and flight range of the bomber-missile carrier. The new power plant uses more powerful propellers created by NPP Aerosila, and thanks to new design solutions, the level of vibration from the engine has almost halved ...... "
              https://rostec.ru/news/rostekh-sozdaet-dvigatel-dlya-novogo-pokoleniya-raketonostsev-tu-95ms/

              That is, engines are still being produced. How many already released data have not found.
              1. Sergey Sfiedu 29 May 2020 22: 44 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                "That is, engines are still being produced."
                \ Well this is unlikely.
  18. Old26 24 May 2020 18: 48 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: dgonni
    Almost zero use in civilian life and the bulk in the army.

    Well, to say that almost zero on a citizen is also not quite right. It was operated for 17 years with a total number of sides of 30 pieces. Of course, the bulk of the army, but also in the civilian world is not "almost zero"
    1. dgonni 24 May 2020 22: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      A little higher gave the reason why I wrote that almost zero
  19. Diverter 24 May 2020 22: 07 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Tan is the most corrupt country in the world. The constant theft of money has led to the fact that the armament is equipped with a device akin to our corn. Everything (bombers) that was done after the 52nd was either a rare G. or a very expensive G. That is why they are forced to constantly upgrade this pepelats. He does not possess any super qualities. Flying like a parade in a clear sky of a city and a bomb does not make much of a merit. Our aircraft, albeit for a different purpose, Su 25, An 12, Mi 8 and 24th helicopters, I think have much more merit.
  20. Old26 25 May 2020 00: 12 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Quote: dgonni
    A little higher gave the reason why I wrote that almost zero

    I do not mind such an interpretation, although IMHO the wording is still not entirely accurate. But you are the author of this expression - you and cards in hand

    Quote: Saboteur
    The fourth world war has been going on since 1977 if that.

    In this reality or in parallel?

    Quote: Bad_gr
    Citizen
    Tu-114 - 31 pieces (4 engines each), An-22 - 69 pieces (4 engines each), E-winged aircraft A-90 "Orlyonok" - 5 pieces (one dviglo) Total 405 pieces only installed + reserve

    Namesake! I would still not attribute the AN-22 to a "citizen." This is still the BTA. Even if a few by plane and were civilian. The engine on the "Eaglet" is still not the same. How many hours did the "Eaglet" hoard while they were written off. I think that much less than one TU-114, not to mention the AN-22

    Quote: Saboteur
    Tan is the most corrupt country in the world. The constant theft of money has led to the fact that the armament is equipped with a device akin to our corn. Everything (bombers) that was done after the 52nd was either a rare G. or a very expensive G.

    Do you think that our PAK YES will be cheap? Or is the TU-160 cheap?

    Quote: Saboteur
    That is why they are forced to constantly upgrade this pepelats.

    And others, including and we are not upgrading our strategic bombers? And what is the TU-95MS "stuffing" an exact copy of the TU-95 model of 1952? Nonsense does not need to write. They are modernizing everything.

    Quote: Saboteur
    He does not possess any super qualities.

    And no one says that he will go round. The merit is that the machine is very durable with great modernization potential.

    Quote: Saboteur
    Flying like a parade in a clear sky of a city and a bomb does not make much of a merit.

    our strategists generally did not light up to Syria. Bombed only at landfills. And in Syria they flew like a parade, in the clear sky.

    Quote: Saboteur
    Our planes, albeit for a different purpose, Su 25, An 12, Mi 8 and 24th helicopters, I think have much more merit.

    Well, you have to be honest with yourself that our opponent has “other” planes and helicopters too
    1. Bad_gr 25 May 2020 14: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Old26
      "other" planes and helicopters have more merit too

      In fact, the most warring helicopter in the world is our Mi-24.
  21. 5-9
    5-9 25 May 2020 14: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Tu-95, like the B-52, made its first flight in 1952.

    That's just the oldest released in 1983 .... that somehow with the newest 1962 B-52, these are 2 big differences.
    Well, the main reasons for the torment of the old woman is that today it is the only Amer’s strategic bomber that can be useful in a nuclear war with us or the PRC .... B-2A carries only free-falling nuclear-bongs (super-duper-stealth AGM- 129 were rotten and decommissioned in 2012, and the ancient AGM-86 doesn’t climb into it), respectively, it’s about zero, even with a one-way attack option, the B-1B is not a carrier of nuclear weapons and even long-range missiles in the usual form .e. also does not carry AGM-86.
    1. Sergey Sfiedu 29 May 2020 22: 48 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Americans do not have strategic aviation. Since 1992, no. Forget it. Neither B-1 nor B-2 are, by and large, strategists (at least for now). Therefore, they drive B-52, B-1 and even B-2 for bombing all kinds of bearded Mujahideen. And the B-52 with the Kyrgyz Republic is a means to achieve what will survive from ICBMs. It was infa that the new American cruise missiles can be worn by fighters, so the role of the B-52 in general is not unique.
  22. Old26 25 May 2020 15: 26 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Bad_gr
    In fact, the most warring helicopter in the world is our Mi-24.

    In fact, the most belligerent helicopter in the world is the American Iroquois. Flies since 1962. In Vietnam alone, about 7000 of these helicopters took part. In total, more than 16 of them were released. Almost no conflict in the world could do without the participation of these helicopters. Our MI-000 is most likely second on this list. EMNIP was released about 24 pieces

    Quote: 5-9
    Well, the main reasons for the torment of the old woman is that today it is the only Amer’s strategic bomber that can be useful in a nuclear war with us or the PRC .... B-2A carries only free-falling nuclear-bongs (super-duper-stealth AGM- 129 were rotten and decommissioned in 2012, and the ancient AGM-86 doesn’t climb into it), respectively, it’s about zero, even with a one-way attack option, the B-1B is not a carrier of nuclear weapons and even long-range missiles in the usual form .e. also does not carry AGM-86.

    Not everything is as simple and straightforward as it seems. At one time, the B-2A program actually "gobbled up" the B-1 program. In general, V-1 bombers were planned to release 2,5 hundred, but settled on 100 aircraft. And until the first B-2As came into operation (the program turned out to be extremely insignificant due to its high cost), the B-1B was a full-fledged strategic bomber. As the B-2A entered service, it became clear that the Americans would exceed the limits for strategic offensive arms.
    they took it outside the scope of the contract and restored its original configuration (3 compartments). For some time there was friction between Russia and the United States due to the fact that Russia considered the measures taken (removed external pylons and installation of a bulkhead between 1 and 2 bomb compartments) insufficient.
    In fact, now, if START-3 "orders to live long" the Americans in a very short period of time will be able to restore the V-1B as a carrier of long-range cruise missiles
  23. Vlad Malkin 25 May 2020 15: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes, an old man flies ... Unfortunately ...
  24. Old26 25 May 2020 16: 02 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Vlad Malkin
    Yes, an old man flies ... Unfortunately ...

    A tenacious machine turned out to be with great potential. Almost outlived all of their "classmates" and newer ones that did not go into the series.
  25. Old26 25 May 2020 17: 55 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: 5-9
    I am not a fan of hammering nails with a microscope ... and even more I doubt that those 37 of the V-52N that are carriers of nuclear AGM-86 can solve these tactical tasks or were involved in them, even if they can

    Stas! Of course, these 37 B-52s (deployed (and another 9 not deployed) will not be involved in the solution of non-nuclear or tactical tasks. For this, the Americans have 41 B-52H, designed specifically to solve such issues. Plus, armed with B- 1B.
  26. KOLORADO73 29 May 2020 13: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Truck for bombs! Remember the movie "Dr. Strangelove or How I Loved the Atom Bomb"? There, a B52 aircraft led by Major Kong flew to the missile base where near Vologda!
    This bomber has a colossal story! For almost 65 years they have been flying all over the world: over Eurasia and North America, over the Arctic Ocean and the Indian Ocean, over the Pacific border! A plane that flies to infinity!
  27. KOLORADO73 29 May 2020 13: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    We recall Operation Linebacker2, the massive bombing of North Vietnam at the end of 1972! John McCain was still in Vietnamese captivity when the B52 smashed Hanoi!
    1. Sergey Sfiedu 29 May 2020 22: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well trashed and trashed. The plane created to kill, he killed. The Yankees set themselves the task of setting Hanoi at the negotiating table, and this task was accomplished, albeit in the most inhuman way. They are not the first, they are not the last. Look at the photos of the suburbs of Damascus - the same is impressive.
    2. Igor Bezbogov 12 June 2020 12: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In Hanoi there is a lake where the chassis of one of the thugs stick out ...
  28. Igor Bezbogov 12 June 2020 12: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The Tu-160 is already 17. And the B52 is not sixty-year-old junk for you, it is an exceptional machine of an exceptional nation, the service life of which is planned to be extended for centuries. He will fly into space ...