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

101

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 that the B-52H has eight extremely successful Pratt & Whitney TF33-P / 103 turbojet engines for their time - the same ones that were installed in the 60s. They provide cruising speed and combat radius on par with newer vehicles of this type. On the other hand, the use of eight engines within one platform today can hardly be called a modern solution, and the engines themselves are morally 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 United States Air Force issued a request for proposals for a new competition. As it became known earlier, GE Aviation, Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce will take part in the tender for the supply of 608 engines. GE can choose between the CF34 engine or the Passport engine (or both). P&W offers the PW800 and Rolls-Royce 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.
Our news channels

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

101 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -16
    24 May 2020 05: 19
    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. +10
      24 May 2020 06: 29
      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. +16
      24 May 2020 08: 11
      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. -3
    24 May 2020 05: 20
    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. feel
    1. -2
      24 May 2020 05: 48
      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. +4
        24 May 2020 09: 20
        In a real war in Afghanistan, the 52ry showed themselves to be a good fellow. Under this war, the old people were modernized. They can now move to the area, once .... and the VZ rocket went into the target. Convenient, because. they are in the sky for a lot of time and then "thunder from heaven" flies in, as their gunsmiths call their pendant - I am silent, otherwise they will be banned
  3. -9
    24 May 2020 06: 29
    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. +1
    24 May 2020 06: 29
    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 "merits" does this bomber have? I would like to know. And at the expense of "the most deadly", as I would like to compare it, in 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 "cold war symbol"? Old and new
    1. -2
      24 May 2020 07: 01
      And what "merits" does this bomber have?

      Beautifully falls on a sharp turn .. what

    2. -1
      24 May 2020 08: 22
      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. +3
        24 May 2020 18: 19
        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. 0
          24 May 2020 19: 30
          ... 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.

          ... The B-52H has eight very successful Pratt & Whitney TF33-P / 10 turbojet engines for their time ....... hi
          1. +1
            24 May 2020 21: 02
            I admit, about the "probably better" - modest smile Cool stuff.
    3. +1
      24 May 2020 09: 35
      Quote: svp67
      And what "merits" does this bomber have? I would like to know

      The same as our Tu-ninety5 --- confrontation in a nuclear war. Ours flew around the corner, the Americans ... have the same route, there in time and step by step they met the aircraft. There was peace, and it is still peace. During the war, the logic and application of these bombers is radically changing. Everything is "Take off, maxload", although this leader knows how to throw a bomb and is generally sharpened to support the infantry.
    4. -11
      24 May 2020 09: 45
      His only for Vietnam must be sent to the scrap
    5. +4
      24 May 2020 17: 27
      And what "merits" does this bomber have? I would like to know. And at the expense of the "most deadly"

      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. 0
      24 May 2020 20: 57
      B-2, I think. He appeared already during the improvement of relations and the end of the Cold.
    7. 0
      25 May 2020 17: 28
      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. -2
    24 May 2020 06: 42
    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 "merits" does this bomber have? I would like to know. And at the expense of "the most deadly", as I would like to compare it, in 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. +3
      24 May 2020 07: 05
      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. +3
        24 May 2020 08: 09
        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. +1
          24 May 2020 12: 13
          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. 0
            24 May 2020 12: 27
            It was a separate Tu-95, separately Tu-142. Is it really incomprehensible?
            1. +1
              24 May 2020 14: 02
              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. +1
                24 May 2020 14: 47
                Read above: "To put it mildly, not at all. The youngest B-52, made in 1962. The oldest Tu-95 was made in the late eighties. Three generations. This is the same age as the MiG-17. Approximately the same technologies."
                1. +1
                  24 May 2020 15: 45
                  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. +1
                    25 May 2020 04: 50
                    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. +1
            25 May 2020 11: 32
            Quote: svp67
            Another strategic bomber, the second long-range anti-submarine aircraft

            One is a descendant, the other is an ancestor. For the "EMS" was made not as a modernization of the base line of Tu-95 bombers and missile carriers, but from the anti-submarine Tu-142.
          3. 0
            25 May 2020 17: 32
            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. 0
            29 May 2020 22: 19
            "Another strategic bomber, the second long-range anti-submarine aircraft."
            Just the Tu-95ms is actually the Tu-142ms.
        2. +1
          24 May 2020 22: 17
          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. +1
            29 May 2020 22: 21
            Just like the first.
      2. 0
        24 May 2020 08: 10
        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. 0
          24 May 2020 12: 30
          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. 0
        25 May 2020 11: 29
        Quote: svp67
        And what, our Tu-95 was built using other technologies?

        So Tu-95MS is not a direct heir to the original Tu-95. The EMS line of development made a zigzag - through the Tu-95RTs and Tu-142.
    2. 0
      24 May 2020 16: 17
      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. +2
        24 May 2020 23: 21
        Kuibyshev is Samara. Saratov has always been Saratov.
        1. +1
          25 May 2020 02: 44
          Sorry, here you are right. Instead of Samara I got it in Saratov. Thanks for the clarification.
      2. +1
        24 May 2020 23: 53
        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. 0
      24 May 2020 18: 23
      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. +2
        24 May 2020 19: 54
        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. 0
          24 May 2020 21: 00
          I agree Yes
          But the idea itself looks good.
          As an option, a replacement for a modern theater.
      2. 0
        25 May 2020 08: 27
        Judging by the publication of the Irkutsk aircraft plant, they have already "finished" and the first engines are beginning to be installed on the MS.
  6. -10
    24 May 2020 07: 51
    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
      +13
      24 May 2020 08: 33
      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. +2
    24 May 2020 08: 00
    And I remember how in childhood I looked at old crocodile magazines, which were kept in my grandmother's attic, and there they constantly, as a symbol of American aggression, painted cartoon airplanes carrying "bunches" of engines under their wings)))
    1. +2
      24 May 2020 09: 46
      Nazar, count it up, such and such were,
      1. +4
        24 May 2020 10: 16
        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. +2
          24 May 2020 10: 24
          drinks My ancestors also wrote out. There they pestered everything, "Israeli military" and "Uncle SAM" are classic international topics. laughing
          1. 0
            24 May 2020 10: 39
            Do you remember the U-turn, like "their morals"? There they reprinted articles from the foreign press with photos of women in minidresses, Guinness records, pictures painted by breasts, etc.?))) I, in general, were crazy about them!)))
  8. +1
    24 May 2020 08: 36
    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. +5
    24 May 2020 09: 36
    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. -1
    24 May 2020 10: 51
    The aircraft, in its combat capabilities, is just wonderful, and it will be even better.
    Unfortunately, we don’t have such a plane ...
    1. -3
      24 May 2020 13: 38
      Do you have in Ukraine?
      Right No and never will be.
      1. +3
        24 May 2020 14: 45
        Here in Russia.
        Stop "about politics", let's talk about airplanes.
        1. 5-9
          0
          25 May 2020 14: 42
          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. 0
            25 May 2020 17: 28
            The Tu-95MS is designed to work on predetermined targets, and the B-52 is a multifunctional aircraft that can also solve tactical problems. "Our Carcasses" are not intended for solving various tasks, and can only deliver missiles to the launch zone. I am not going to argue with you, I have my own opinion, based on some experience, I express it. And by the way, it is a pity that the Tu-95 and Tu-160 cannot work in Syria on newly emerging tasks.
            1. 5-9
              0
              25 May 2020 17: 31
              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. -2
                25 May 2020 17: 46
                I mean that the B-52 is a multifunctional aircraft, which makes it better than our "strategists", but what are you talking about? I am not interested in your doubts about the possibility of using the B-52, since this plane worked in some local conflicts.
                1. 5-9
                  0
                  25 May 2020 17: 53
                  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. 0
                    25 May 2020 19: 07
                    I think it's time to end this conversation "nothing", otherwise you have already dragged in "backfire". We do not have an aircraft similar to 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. 0
                    29 May 2020 22: 32
                    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. +4
    24 May 2020 11: 00
    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. 0
    24 May 2020 11: 25
    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. 0
      25 May 2020 08: 34
      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. 0
        25 May 2020 09: 47
        I don’t say anywhere that I don’t like something
  13. 0
    24 May 2020 13: 42
    Engines and equipment - 60 percent of the cost of the aircraft.
  14. +10
    24 May 2020 14: 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 "merits" does this bomber have? I would like to know. And at the expense of "the most deadly", as I would like to compare it, in 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 "cold war symbol"? Old and new

    Sergei! KMK author, giving the epithet "the most deadly" nevertheless meant that the B-52 participated 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 caricature with several "figures" representing NATO countries. And the text
    "NATO walks the tightrope
    NATO wants fear to catch up
    These tricks can NATO
    As a result, finish it off. "
    The Warsaw Pact is gone for 3 decades, and NATO has not yet "finished itself off"

    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 entirely right, Alexey. As well as the author. The author has inaccuracies with the numbers, you - with the definitions. For under the START-3 treaty there are combat-ready (deployed) vehicles and there are non-combat-ready (not deployed) vehicles. Not deployed are those that are currently being repaired and undergoing modernization. But they do exist (this is not junk, which is finally “not combat-ready.” According to the exchange data under the START-3 treaty for July last year, the Americans had the following number of bombers in service
    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 B-52H

    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. -2
      24 May 2020 21: 56
      The fourth world war has been going on since 1977 if that.
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. -1
    24 May 2020 15: 29
    If modernization continues to go so far, this veteran will not escape the fate of the world's first hypersonic bomber ...
    1. +2
      24 May 2020 21: 29
      Quote: Whirlwind
      the world's first hypersonic bomber ...

      What is this?
  17. +2
    24 May 2020 17: 13
    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. 0
      24 May 2020 21: 41
      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. +3
        24 May 2020 22: 48
        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. 0
          25 May 2020 10: 26
          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. It should be added that in addition to airplanes, the NK-12 version (NK-12ST, NK-14ST) was used in drives of gas pumping units in the gas industry, and NK-14E in drives of electric generators in modular power plants. I have no data on how many engines were used in these industries.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. +1
            25 May 2020 20: 07
            about 800 for Gazprom, plus CIS! But, the resource of the engine for pumping 100 tons of hours!
            1. 0
              25 May 2020 20: 16
              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. 0
                25 May 2020 21: 35
                no! 5000 hours on the wing!
                1. +1
                  25 May 2020 22: 27
                  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. 0
        25 May 2020 10: 16
        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. 0
          25 May 2020 11: 51
          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. 0
            25 May 2020 12: 29
            Quote: dgonni
            minus is clearly not from me
            I already understood that. Minus from a person who lacks enough arguments.
            Quote: dgonni
            after kapitalki

            Like, and on the "Eagles" were not put new, but it means that where it was removed, there is a new one.
            1. 0
              25 May 2020 15: 28
              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 turboprop engine NK-12 for the Tu-95MS strategic bomber-missile carrier. .......
              ...... The NK-12MPM engine developed by Samara PJSC Kuznetsov (part of UEC, Rostec) is a modification of the NK-12MPM, the world's most powerful (15 hp) serial turboprop engine. It allows to improve the takeoff characteristics of the aircraft, to increase the carrying capacity and flight range of the missile bomber. The new power plant uses more powerful propellers created by NPP Aerosila, while thanks to new design solutions, the vibration level from the engine has been reduced by almost half ... "
              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. 0
                29 May 2020 22: 44
                "That is, the engines are still being produced."
                \ Well this is unlikely.
  18. +4
    24 May 2020 18: 48
    Quote: dgonni
    Almost zero use in civilian life and the bulk in the army.

    Well, to say that almost zero in civilian life is also not entirely correct. It has been in operation for 17 years with a total of 30 boards. Of course, the bulk of the army, but in civilian life is not "almost zero"
    1. 0
      24 May 2020 22: 50
      A little higher gave the reason why I wrote that almost zero
  19. -2
    24 May 2020 22: 07
    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. +6
    25 May 2020 00: 12
    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 classify the AN-22 as a "civilian". It's still BTA. Even if several were by plane and were civilians. The engine on the "Eaglet" is still not the same. How many hours did the "Eagles" spend in total 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.

    Others, incl. and we are not upgrading our strategic bombers? And that the TU-95MS "stuffing" is an exact copy of the TU-95 model 1952? Don't write nonsense. Everybody is modernizing.

    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 enemy has "other" planes and helicopters, too, have more merit
    1. 0
      25 May 2020 14: 21
      Quote: Old26
      "other" planes and helicopters also have more merit

      In fact, the most warring helicopter in the world is our Mi-24.
  21. 5-9
    0
    25 May 2020 14: 36
    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. 0
      29 May 2020 22: 48
      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. +3
    25 May 2020 15: 26
    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. Has been flying since 1962. About 7000 of these helicopters took part in Vietnam alone. In total, more than 16 of them were produced. Virtually no conflict in the world was complete without the participation of these helicopters. Our MI-000 is probably the second on this list. About 24 units were produced by EMNIP

    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 "devoured" the B-1 program. In general, it was planned to release 1 hundred B-2,5 bombers, but stopped at 100 vehicles. And until the first B-2A entered service (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 under the START treaties.
    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 the START-3 treaty "orders a long life", the Americans in a very short period of time will be able to restore the B-1B as a carrier of long-range cruise missiles
  23. 0
    25 May 2020 15: 28
    Yes, an old man flies ... Unfortunately ...
  24. +2
    25 May 2020 16: 02
    Quote: Vlad Malkin
    Yes, an old man flies ... Unfortunately ...

    It turned out to be a tenacious machine with great potential. Almost outlived all of her "classmates" and newer ones who did not go into the series.
  25. +2
    25 May 2020 17: 55
    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. 0
    29 May 2020 13: 30
    Bomb Truck! Remember the movie "Dr. Strangelove or How I Loved the Atomic Bomb"? There the 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. 0
    29 May 2020 13: 35
    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. 0
      29 May 2020 22: 56
      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. 0
      12 June 2020 12: 36
      In Hanoi there is a lake where the chassis of one of the thugs stick out ...
  28. 0
    12 June 2020 12: 34
    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 ...
  29. 0
    15 September 2020 22: 46
    "Recall that the Americans often express dissatisfaction with the" problem "B-1B, pointing out a relatively low level of combat readiness (although plans to equip the B-1 with hypersonic weapons may affect the decommissioning of these machines)

    - B-1B is not a problem and its level of combat readiness comes from the extremely intensive operation of the fleet of these bombers in recent years.

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

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