Military Review

On the chances of the Russian PAK YES to "catch up and overtake" the American B-21 bomber

148

In the United States, flight tests of the onboard systems of the promising bomber B-21 Raider began. At the same time, the assembly of the first prototype of the new aircraft continues.


The US Air Force is waiting for a new bomber


Northrop Grumman Corporation is developing a new strategic bomber for the US Air Force. Officially, as the first bomber of the 21st century, the promising B-2016 aircraft was designated in 21: the then US Air Force Secretary, Deborah Lee James, described it as a fifth generation global attack platform. The B-2030 aircraft are expected to enter service in 21. But the American military department, apparently, plans to accelerate somewhat with the development and release of the bomber. In particular, it is planned to assemble the first sample of the B-2021 at the end of 2022, and to make the first flight of the new aircraft already in XNUMX.

According to the US Air Force, the assembly of the first prototype of the new bomber is being carried out at an aircraft factory in California. There, at the airfield of the 42nd aircraft plant of the US Air Force in Palmdale, the first flight is to be made. The plane will have to fly from the plant to aviation Edwards Air Force Base, also in California, 35 kilometers from the aircraft factory.

The advantages of the new aerial vehicle include the ability to use large-scale weapons long-range, which will improve its shock capabilities. However, for example, the Chinese edition Sohu calls the B-21 rather an improved version of the "good old" B-2 than a completely new bomber. For example, the aerodynamic shape of the B-21 is practically the same as that of the B-2, and the stealth technologies in general are not very different from those used in the production of the B-2 or F-22. As for the engine, the B-21 will use the Pratt & Whitney F119 or General Electric F136 engine.


The use of existing technologies will significantly reduce the production and commissioning costs of a new bomber. For example, Northrop Grumman has repeatedly stated that the cost of the B-21 will be about $ 500 million, which is only a quarter of the cost of the current B-2 bomber. In addition, the Air Force's expenses for maintenance and flights of the new bomber will be significantly lower. The cost reduction, in turn, will allow the US Air Force to deploy a large number of new aircraft.

PAK DA as a competitor to B-21


Russia, meanwhile, is also working on the creation of the PAK DA stealth bomber (Advanced Long-Range Aviation Complex). Work on the PAK DA began even earlier than the development of the B-21 in the United States. Eight years ago, in August 2012, information was announced about the completion of the preliminary design of the bomber and the beginning of development work. The first prototype, according to the Ministry of Defense, should be presented by the end of 2020.

Thus, Moscow is trying to catch up with the United States in terms of creating the latest bomber. The latter, for obvious reasons, do not like it very much: after an article appeared in Fox News that the Russians were preparing their own new generation bomber, a flurry of comments from American readers began pouring in, accusing Russia of stealing technology. However, unlike the V-21 PAK DA, according to the assurances of the designers, it is not an improvement of the previous machines, but is a completely new project.

The PAK DA can perform its first flight in 2025-2026. Considering that the B-21 is planned to be lifted into the air in 2022, while the Americans are still ahead of our country. And the reason for this is not the worst preparedness of domestic designers, but the perennial financial problem: as you know, the military budgets of the United States and Russia are incomparable. Nevertheless, it is possible that work on the creation of an American bomber will be delayed, and this will allow Russia to slightly reduce the gap from a potential enemy.

In any case, both the B-21 and the PAK DA will go into operation in the serial version at about the same time - around 2030. The question is which of the aircraft will turn out to be more effective in terms of the hopes placed on it, but this can be judged after the implementation of both projects into reality. Also, do not forget about another potential competitor for both the B-21 and the PAK DA - the Chinese project for the newest N-20 bomber, which has been under development since the early 2000s. And in the situation when the question of who will catch up and overtake whom - in relation to the PAK DA and B-21 - it may well happen that the Chinese will launch their aircraft into series faster. Although in the Chinese case, a separate issue, as usual, is the quality of technology.
Author:
148 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 18 August 2020 09: 16 New
    17
    However, unlike the V-21 PAK DA, according to the assurances of the designers, it is not an improvement of the previous machines, but is a completely new project.

    Because there is nothing to further develop and improve .... there were no such machines in the USSR. And in the United States, this is the second generation after the B-2. One thing I cannot understand, why B-2 is super expensive, and B-21 should be massive and cheap?
    1. Cowbra
      Cowbra 18 August 2020 09: 22 New
      +5
      Quote: Zaurbek
      and the B-21 should be massive and cheap?

      Because it doesn't have to be cheap. Here it is massive - maybe. This is the United States, when something was cheap there? On the contrary. the manufacturer deliberately increases the cost - it is necessary to cut. Yes, and with "it should work" - I was asking people, what has taken off from the Pentagon projects over the past 30 years? Named 1 submarine - that's all. The rest is marriage and sawing.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 18 August 2020 09: 28 New
        +9
        They originally voiced B-21 as a more economical option and more versatile in application ... and as for projects ... there is such a rule 6 out of 100% fires 20% of projects. (+ or - some percentage), because of the size of their budget, they work. In the Russian Federation, it is also not about samples and projects that are "unique" and "breakthrough" and also "shoots" about the same% of programs. And there is also a marriage and a cut. But on the scale of the RF Ministry of Defense budget,
        1. boss
          boss 18 August 2020 12: 14 New
          +8
          There is a cut, there is a kanesh, but "marriage" is in your opinion, but in my opinion these are design developments, of varying degrees of readiness, prototypes, single copies, etc.
          It is this "marriage" that allows the national design school not to perish, to create and invent, sometimes to create fundamentally new industries and directions.
          And yes, often armchair people, far from development, implementation and pilot production, looking at the figures of costs and the cost of prototypes, varying degrees of readiness, even timeliness and success, begin to scream heart-rendingly "RASPIIIL" without understanding the essence.
          They are poisoning production workers with a bunch of inspection commissions, bodies, etc.
          As for me, it will be much more economical and profitable if 80% of these "commissioners, inspectors and" bodies "are dispersed to the devil's grandmother, together with their bureaucratic apparatus, or sent to combat service in the army.
          How many interesting projects have been frozen, abandoned, ruined by blunt attacks ???
          Why not count how much these controlling, verifying, permitting and restraining bodies are worth? Moreover, they are all used to living well.
          I am sure that the numbers will be comparable, and maybe even more, than many project estimates.
          This is the crux of the problem
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 18 August 2020 12: 25 New
            -6
            It all ends then with 3 4 tanks in service or simultaneously with two or three helicopters.
            1. boss
              boss 18 August 2020 12: 34 New
              +3
              This is how you look, whether it ends or begins.
              I repeat, for the dull ones, when creating prototypes, 10 and 15 failures ultimately give rise to one or two successful models going into series.
              And it is IMPOSSIBLE to immediately create a "successful" or hassle-free finished product for the series.
              This is the point.
              I no longer delve into the introduction, small-scale and production of special samples, in principle, not intended for mass production, the numbers there, for non-specialists, are generally sky-high.
              And if there is no groundwork in a certain direction, then in general "space".
              AND THIS IS NORMAL
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 18 August 2020 14: 24 New
                0
                T72, T80, T64 created three final tanks .... and adopted them. This is without concepts and searches
        2. bayard
          bayard 19 August 2020 03: 28 New
          0
          Quote: Zaurbek
          One thing I cannot understand, why B-2 is super expensive, and B-21 should be massive and cheap?

          Work on the V-2 was carried out in the distant 80s, many technologies, software were developed from scratch. Moreover, they were conducted in the USA. Yes, and they released them only, nothing, that's in unit terms and prices jumped out ... unimaginably cosmic. And after the collapse of the USSR, the United States had no opponents left, the series was stopped.
          Now, on the contrary, work is being carried out along the beaten path - all technologies (stealth, software, engines, flying wing scheme) are there and have been tested for a long time. And there will be only two engines.
          So they will save quite a lot on OCD.
          But it will never be cheap - this is America!
          But what will happen with us, the question is serious - at the Kazan AZ, the center section for the Tu-160 will not learn to cook ... there is no engine, and our flying wing did not fly. All over again or all over again.
      2. Runoway
        Runoway 18 August 2020 10: 37 New
        +9
        This is the United States, when something was cheap there?

        The current price of the F-35 is lower than the French rafal generation 4+
        1. Rostislav
          Rostislav 18 August 2020 10: 49 New
          +6
          This is only if we take the price for the Indians under a separate contract. In general, it is more expensive.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 18 August 2020 11: 41 New
            +3
            Not only ... Rafal is the most expensive ... F15EX can only be more expensive.
            1. Cowbra
              Cowbra 18 August 2020 12: 42 New
              +1
              Not. It's just that F-35 supplies usually indicate the price WITHOUT ENGINE. F-35 is more expensive. And even that is not the point, the status is "limited combat capability." State acceptance was last filled up last fall. More expensive than Raphael and not a combat aircraft. Layout. This is what I call - ras-saw
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 18 August 2020 14: 34 New
                -2
                There pricing is murky .... but F35 is a breakthrough.
                1. Cowbra
                  Cowbra 18 August 2020 16: 11 New
                  -2
                  In the cut. The German radar sees him even in passive mode, the invisibility is fake, the cannon did not work, in the last military tests, which lasted from February to October last year, on average 11% of fighters were fully combat-ready - the rest could not fly! Where is he a breakthrough? That it cannot fly on the afterburner, and that it cannot go to supersonic without afterburner - that is, it is also NOT the 5th generation ?! Reference divorce suckers
                  1. Zaurbek
                    Zaurbek 18 August 2020 20: 19 New
                    -1
                    This is a strike aircraft .... a lot of things who do not have .... But the electronics and radar are very perfect, as are the ammunition.
                    1. Cowbra
                      Cowbra 18 August 2020 20: 21 New
                      0
                      This is an unstressed plane laughing There is no such thing as "strike aircraft". But what he doesn't have is adoption. And the characteristics of the 5th generation. That is, it is a clean cut, like the Zamwolts and LCS.
                      1. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 18 August 2020 20: 28 New
                        0
                        500 aircraft were produced. Rejoice further.
                      2. Cowbra
                        Cowbra 18 August 2020 22: 04 New
                        +1
                        I am glad. 500 models of a fighter - cool pentagonal ones lit like suckers. The Jews, too, shovel noodles from sideways. Should I cry from the decrease in their combat capability for a lot of money?
                        PiSi: Three Zamvolts were produced. The only problem is that they are not armed with ANYTHING - there has never been any missile firing either - they cannot. 21 lard in the trash. I won't cry too
                      3. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 18 August 2020 22: 26 New
                        0
                        This understanding brings the Crimean War or the 41st year closer
                      4. Cowbra
                        Cowbra 19 August 2020 12: 52 New
                        -1
                        Don't be afraid, you'll get yours
                      5. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 19 August 2020 13: 57 New
                        0
                        The main thing is that you don't get it.
                    2. Cowbra
                      Cowbra 19 August 2020 13: 03 New
                      -1
                      Minus, but what about the case?
                      Fact one - F-35 was not adopted for service
                      Fact two - it is not a 5th generation fighter.
                      W-well? In addition to cons - can you tell?
                    3. Zaurbek
                      Zaurbek 19 August 2020 13: 59 New
                      -2
                      What did you say about the case? Stream of consciousness, and in return you want an extract from the encyclopedia.
                    4. Cowbra
                      Cowbra 20 August 2020 01: 20 New
                      -1
                      Total - you could not say about the case. And if you find it so difficult to read - there is such a saying "repetition teaches a donkey":
                      Fact one - F-35 was not adopted for service
                      Fact two - it is not a 5th generation fighter.
                    5. Zaurbek
                      Zaurbek 20 August 2020 08: 53 New
                      +2
                      Fact 1 - it is on the assembly line ... Su35S was also not immediately adopted for service.
                      Fact 2 generation 5 is a conventional concept ... China has 4e .... F35 is a completely new aircraft. In any case, this is the next generation.
  2. The comment was deleted.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 19 August 2020 14: 00 New
      -2
      If through yours, then yes.
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra 20 August 2020 01: 21 New
        -1
        Through Israeli. And in a half loop - for tracing)
  • Outsider
    Outsider 19 August 2020 00: 38 New
    +1
    - B-1B, B-2, F-22, F-35 - "cut and cut"? And where did you get so many imbeciles for the survey ?!
  • Shopping
    Shopping Mall 18 August 2020 09: 35 New
    10
    Quote: Zaurbek
    However, unlike the V-21 PAK DA, according to the assurances of the designers, it is not an improvement of the previous machines, but is a completely new project.

    Because there is nothing to further develop and improve .... there were no such machines in the USSR. And in the United States, this is the second generation after the B-2. One thing I cannot understand, why B-2 is super expensive, and B-21 should be massive and cheap?


    An analogy can be drawn with submarines - the super-cool and expensive nuclear submarine Seawulf ($ 4,3 billion) and the Virginia nuclear submarine ($ 1,8-2,7 billion) that came to her for size. At the same time, Virginia is not much worse, at least not twice.

    The B-21 will have engines that are being built in large series. It is possible that they are borrowing something else from the F-35. The B-21 is smaller.

    B-2 costs 2,1 billion, B-21 will, for example, 0,8-1,2 billion.
  • Alex_You
    Alex_You 18 August 2020 09: 35 New
    +6
    One thing I cannot understand, why B-2 is super expensive, and B-21 should be massive and cheap?

    Technologies are honed. The B-2 was, so to speak, a technology demonstrator, just like the F-22 had a space price tag in comparison with the F-35, although the second had more capabilities.
  • The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 18 August 2020 09: 35 New
    -9
    How, in general, can you compare devices of different classes ?! UAV and plane? Heavy bomb and strike drone?
    They are united only by the "flying wing" scheme.
    1. Insurgent
      Insurgent 18 August 2020 09: 45 New
      -1
      On the chances of the Russian PAK YES to "catch up and overtake" the American B-21 bomber

      А race such, what for?

      We need a good plane for many years, if not decades, and not "one-day moths" such as the F-117, "flashed" and quickly left the scene ...

      Let the Americans, in a hurry, put into service frankly creepy samples like the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, "and we will slowly descend and ..." yes
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 18 August 2020 11: 42 New
        +4
        No race needed. We need a plane with a high resource and a bomb bay for all occasions.
        1. Insurgent
          Insurgent 18 August 2020 11: 49 New
          +4
          Quote: Zaurbek
          No race needed. We need a plane with a high resource and a bomb bay for all occasions.

          All this is clear yes I speak from the same position.
          It is not clear only the abundance of "minuses" without defining a position "what"...

          That-whether:

          a) the race is needed
          b) F-117 was not a "one-day moth"
          c) Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is not a weird sample request
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 18 August 2020 12: 01 New
            +7
            I'm not worried about cons anymore. People are different, with different opinions. Everyone cannot be in favor ...
            My opinion -
            1. Ф35 breakthrough pattern ....
            2. F117 was a concert and it cannot be said that it was unsuccessful. But as a serial car did not fit.
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 18 August 2020 16: 53 New
              0
              Quote: Zaurbek
              1. Ф35 breakthrough pattern ....

              What is its breakthrough?
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 18 August 2020 17: 17 New
                +1
                An attack aircraft that searches, recognizes and destroys targets and has good AA defenses ... and is also stealthy for detection.
                Enough for you?
                1. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 18 August 2020 18: 11 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Zaurbek
                  Enough for you?


                  Well, no matter how he does everything not very well.
                  1. Zaurbek
                    Zaurbek 18 August 2020 20: 19 New
                    +2
                    What is he doing wrong?
          2. bar
            bar 18 August 2020 12: 05 New
            0
            All this is understandable yes I speak from the same position.
            It is not clear only the abundance of "minuses" without defining the position "for what" ...

            They are out of habit ...
          3. Aag
            Aag 18 August 2020 17: 11 New
            +2
            Quote: Insurgent
            Quote: Zaurbek
            No race needed. We need a plane with a high resource and a bomb bay for all occasions.

            All this is clear yes I speak from the same position.
            It is not clear only the abundance of "minuses" without defining a position "what"...

            That-whether:

            a) the race is needed
            b) F-117 was not a "one-day moth"
            c) Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is not a weird sample request

            Sometimes a disposable spoon is more needed than a silver fork ... repeat
    2. mvg
      mvg 18 August 2020 11: 22 New
      +2
      devices of different classes ?! UAV and plane?

      Well, if only because the Hunter is more expensive than the Su-57. At least in the RF Aerospace Forces.
      In general, the Raider is manned. The same class, but with proven airframe technologies, ready-made avionics and production engines. Therefore, the price tag of 500 million is quite real.
      PS: Once upon a time, the F-16 cost 25 million, when its series was close to 3000 units
      1. Voyager
        Voyager 18 August 2020 11: 50 New
        0
        Quote: mvg
        Well, if only because the Hunter is more expensive than the Su-57.

        Argument.
        1. mvg
          mvg 18 August 2020 13: 37 New
          -3
          Argument.

          Of course, there is no exact data, but "on hearing" the figure is 1,3 times more expensive. This was confirmed by one of the VO authors, just a week or two ago. The article still hangs nearby on VO. It's not hard to find.
          1. mvg
            mvg 18 August 2020 13: 42 New
            0
            // RQ-4A Global Hawk, which has a takeoff weight of 15 tons and a wingspan of about 40 meters, can patrol for 30 hours at an altitude of 18 thousand meters. The cost of the drone is estimated at $ 140 million. An hour of flight costs $ 31. 19 Feb. 2020 //
            And the cost of the F-35 is $ 83 million. Quite proof
          2. Voyager
            Voyager 18 August 2020 14: 06 New
            +2
            I just see other numbers (roughly the opposite). The non-serial prototype of the S-70 is estimated at about 1,3 billion and the serial Su-57 is estimated at about 2,2 billion (based on the announced contract value of 170 billion for 76 aircraft). And this is logical, due to the fact that the S-70 currently uses many ready-made assemblies, including those from the Su-57 +, the costs are always sharply reduced when there is no need to install life support systems. There is no costly training for pilots, and so on.
            1. mvg
              mvg 18 August 2020 14: 38 New
              +1
              in the installation of life support systems. There is no expensive training for pilots and so on.

              But there are operators and the Control Center, there are satellites, there are repeater planes. There are more advanced avionics and reconnaissance systems (for a strategic scout), there is minimal AI that will bring the UAV back, or allow it to complete the task.
              PS: And talking about the cost of the SU-57 is not interesting. He's gone. No radar, no engine. It is not clear what he will go to the Air Force with. Maybe it will be modernized every six months. More often than the F-35. Or maybe it won't fly at all like that.
              1. Voyager
                Voyager 18 August 2020 15: 41 New
                0
                But there are operators and the Control Center, there are satellites, there are repeater planes. There are more advanced avionics and reconnaissance systems (for a strategic scout), there is a minimal AI

                All this mostly applies to manned aircraft of the 5th generation.

                PS: And talking about the cost of the SU-57 is not interesting. He's gone. No radar, no engine. It's not clear what he will go to the Air Force with.

                Everything is clear with you. No more questions.
              2. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 18 August 2020 16: 58 New
                +1
                Quote: mvg
                No radar, no engine.

                Why talk about what you don't know? The squirrel is already a reality. The Su-57 was put into production only because Belka was finally brought to mind. And with regards to motors, he is not inferior to the Raptor with them. And then the product 30 will be brought to mind.
                1. mvg
                  mvg 18 August 2020 17: 15 New
                  +2
                  The squirrel is already a reality

                  Squirrel Н036 will be a reality, when it gets into production, it will be installed on the Su-35S. Upgrade Indian Su-30MKI. In the meantime, this is a piece product, a screwdriver assembly. I don't see serial 57s.
                  All right about the engines, AL-41F is also nothing, it would only fit into the airframe and make an absorbing coating. Still flat nozzles.
                  PS: Still, a supersonic anti-ship missile system, shove it into the plane. And learn to work on the ground normally. Secentric. Many things
                  1. Cyril G ...
                    Cyril G ... 18 August 2020 18: 10 New
                    +2
                    Quote: mvg
                    Still flat nozzles.
                    PS:

                    Find flat nozzles on the F-35 tell me okay?
                    Quote: mvg
                    it will be installed on the Su-35S.

                    And sorry why? What has the Belka and the Su-35S to do with it? So far Irbis is more than an adequate solution in opposition to the enemy. If now you need to do something, so only Bars
                    Quote: mvg
                    I don't see serial 57s.

                    Saw. Collect.
                    1. Voyager
                      Voyager 18 August 2020 18: 28 New
                      +1
                      Don't try to throw beads. All the same, they will arrogantly and with a professorial air indicate that something is not there, what else should the Su-57 learn, what should be written there, and so on.
                    2. Zaurbek
                      Zaurbek 18 August 2020 20: 25 New
                      0
                      Something is better, something worse in the F-35. But there is data exchange with all devices ... and it works well and there are a lot of devices (there are more AWACS, Scouts, UAVs, Refuellers, Stationary radars, ships with radars), weapons at the next level, The plane is the same in all missions - fighter, drummer, reconnaissance officer, jammer, not Su34 / 35/30/57. And corny there are more of them in pieces than Su34 / 30/35 \ 57
                    3. Outsider
                      Outsider 20 August 2020 23: 52 New
                      -1
                      - You can add it to the aviation museum. And start making a new, normal one, using American developments, instead of driving your own crap - in the form of input devices, where, looking into the air intake, you can count all the blades of the VNA and the low-pressure compressor of the engine, the weapon compartments "one after another" - completely cutting power circuit ...
                      You don't have to be a professor to see this ...
                    4. Voyager
                      Voyager 21 August 2020 07: 26 New
                      -1
                      Try to heal. All the best.
            2. FRoman1984
              FRoman1984 18 August 2020 20: 43 New
              0
              Quote: Cyril G ...
              Quote: mvg
              No radar, no engine.

              Why talk about what you don't know? The squirrel is already a reality. The Su-57 was put into production only because Belka was finally brought to mind. And with regards to motors, he is not inferior to the Raptor with them. And then the product 30 will be brought to mind.

              You at least look at the characteristics on Wikipedia before saying that the AL-41F-1 is not inferior to the PW
              1. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 18 August 2020 20: 46 New
                0
                Quote: FRoman1984
                You at least look at the characteristics on Wikipedia before saying that the AL-41F-1 is not inferior to the PW

                Show me with your finger where I said that the AL-41 is not inferior.
                I said literally
                And with regards to engines, he (Su-57) is not inferior to the Raptor with them.
                , there is a difference from my point of view
        2. Aag
          Aag 18 August 2020 17: 18 New
          0
          Quote: Voyager
          I just see other numbers (roughly the opposite). The non-serial prototype of the S-70 is estimated at about 1,3 billion and the serial Su-57 is estimated at about 2,2 billion (based on the announced contract value of 170 billion for 76 aircraft). And this is logical, due to the fact that the S-70 currently uses many ready-made assemblies, including those from the Su-57 +, the costs are always sharply reduced when there is no need to install life support systems. There is no costly training for pilots, and so on.

          The cost of the S-70 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM is estimated at 1,6 billion ...
          1. Voyager
            Voyager 18 August 2020 18: 18 New
            -1
            And the board itself is insured for 1,3
  • nPuBaTuP
    nPuBaTuP 18 August 2020 14: 51 New
    +1
    How, in general, can you compare devices of different classes ?!

    And who compared the UAV and the plane?
  • Outsider
    Outsider 18 August 2020 09: 38 New
    -1
    - It should be four times cheaper than the B-2 - although everyone there will be happy if it is even three times cheaper.
    Cheaper because there are a lot of small-scale developments with the F-22 and especially with the F-35. There are ready-made F135 engines. There are a lot of ready-made developments on avionics - you just need to put it all together properly.
  • APASUS
    APASUS 18 August 2020 09: 40 New
    +5
    Quote: Zaurbek
    One thing I cannot understand, why B-2 is super expensive, and B-21 should be massive and cheap?

    Because these are just words. Look at the history of the F-35, it is also promised there, but only under pressure from buyers the price was more or less reduced
  • aleks26
    aleks26 18 August 2020 09: 43 New
    +3
    Quote: Zaurbek
    One thing I cannot understand, why B-2 is super expensive, and B-21 should be massive and cheap?

    Well, it's obvious.
    The use of existing technologies will significantly reduce the costs of manufacturing and commissioning a new bomber.

    R&D costs money, and not small, though it is then "smeared" over the series.
    In fact, the B-21 is a deep modernization of the B-2.
  • Avior
    Avior 18 August 2020 10: 45 New
    +4
    For the construction of the B-2, most likely a large amount of expensive development work was carried out, it was invested in the cost, plus they were reinsured in something, life does not stand still, new electronics appeared, etc.
  • Ka-52
    Ka-52 18 August 2020 11: 20 New
    +5
    Why is the B-2 super expensive, and the B-21 should be massive and cheap?

    there are several reasons and most of them lie on the surface. 25% of the cost of a new aircraft is R&D. The new car no longer has that many revolutionary developments and new technologies. Everything has already been worked out. Therefore, the costs are reduced. Also, the price has been reduced due to the fact that production has already been debugged.
  • Boratsagdiev
    Boratsagdiev 18 August 2020 11: 39 New
    0
    Quote: Zaurbek
    Because there is nothing to further develop and improve ... there were no such machines in the USSR

    could have been, T-4MS (T-200) is one of them.
  • smart ass
    smart ass 18 August 2020 11: 40 New
    -1
    I think we will catch up and overtake))) I bought myself a cross at maximum speed duck there are so many heaped up amerikosov do not have) so I think we will overtake
    1. boss
      boss 18 August 2020 12: 22 New
      0
      Uh, and how much run already?
      And what are the bells and whistles, which are straight "ah"?
      And you are in the opening of the driver's door, on the rounding from the floor to the vertical surface, press your finger and think 100 times before accelerating.
      And yes, after a couple of winters, unsubscribe about the condition of the body.
      1. smart ass
        smart ass 18 August 2020 12: 47 New
        +3
        Rain sensor, light, climate control, 3 levels of popagreyki plus lobash with a steering wheel))) cruise, multifunction with a phone, multimedia with plasma on the panel .. and you get tired of writing
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 18 August 2020 20: 09 New
    0
    Quote: Zaurbek
    One thing I cannot understand, why B-2 is super expensive, and B-21 should be massive and cheap?

    The B-2 cost about 2 lard American raccoons and they were built in a small series of 20 units. If the B21 is half the price, the mattresses will be produced in a series of cars in 30-40. Plus B-2 in the form of at least 10-15 combat-ready and that, not frail such a fleet of strategists turns out. In comparison with us, who still have 16 Tu-160s, this is just an armada.
    A priori, strategic bombers cannot be massive. And they are not required as fighters of a thousand. The USSR planned to create a series of TU-160 (if my sclerosis does not change me) in the amount of 30 units. These platforms, even in the economy version, are very expensive to churn out in hundreds and thousands.
  • Victor_B
    Victor_B 18 August 2020 09: 19 New
    0
    The question is which of the aircraft will turn out to be more effective in terms of the hopes placed on it, but this can be judged after the implementation of both projects into reality.
    Fllometry!
    Couch.
    I hope you won't have to compare in battle.
    Until then, both the B-52 and the Tu-95 are quite good.
    And which one is better, history is silent.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 18 August 2020 09: 31 New
      +1
      The B-52 is better .... it is older as a project ... no worse than a bomber and a carrier .... But its range of weapons is much wider. Our T-95 and Tu160 are highly specialized carriers of CD (with nuclear warheads and, now, with conventional warheads, and this is a breakthrough), and the T-22M3 is a highly specialized carrier of anti-ship missiles and sometimes bombs with cast iron.
      1. Victor_B
        Victor_B 18 August 2020 09: 34 New
        +9
        Quote: Zaurbek
        T-22M3 - highly specialized launch vehicle

        We do not have naval missile-carrying aviation.
        At all!
        And the videoconferencing is poorly tailored to the task of combating AUG.
        There was a VERY big specificity.
        There are no regiments specially sharpened for this task in the VKS.
        And it was the rocket-carrying regiment that was exchanged for one AUG!
        1. Outsider
          Outsider 18 August 2020 12: 02 New
          0
          And it was the rocket-carrying regiment that was exchanged for one AUG!

          - THREE. And they fail (this is when in fact) ... lol
      2. Victor_B
        Victor_B 18 August 2020 09: 41 New
        +4
        Quote: Zaurbek
        Our T-95

        Our Tu-95MS have been missile carriers since birth!
        But the usual Tu-95s (which are bomb carriers) are gone.
        Tu-142 (which is also 95th) are anti-submarine warriors.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 18 August 2020 11: 33 New
          0
          I wrote- A highly specialized aircraft ... compare with the weapons of the B52
      3. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 18 August 2020 19: 02 New
        0
        Quote: Zaurbek
        B-52 is better ...


        Worse already because the youngest B-52 was released in 1962, and the oldest Tu-95MS was released in 1985
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 18 August 2020 20: 26 New
          0
          Let's count chickens in the fall ... B-52 are now starting to remotorize to modern turbojet engines
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 18 August 2020 20: 27 New
            0
            So what? The glider is at least 58 years old ...
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 18 August 2020 20: 29 New
              0
              It is either a year old or not suitable ... and as for structural materials, the Americans did not save on them even during the war.
    2. Outsider
      Outsider 18 August 2020 09: 39 New
      +4
      - Yes, a dogfight between two strategic missile carriers is an epic spectacle worthy of Homer's pen! lol
      1. Victor_B
        Victor_B 18 August 2020 09: 42 New
        -1
        Quote: Outsider
        - Yes, a dogfight between two strategic missile carriers is an epic spectacle worthy of Homer's pen!

        You are speaking the truth!
        Only after all everywhere quite often everything is constantly compared.
        The sofas were rubbed!
      2. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 18 August 2020 12: 42 New
        +1
        Ha-ha, but somewhere there was information that they want to place explosive missiles on the pack for self-defense. What if the Americans also want to. Two bomb carriers are flying towards themselves somewhere in the region of the North Pole, and are banging at each other.
        1. g1washntwn
          g1washntwn 18 August 2020 14: 07 New
          +3
          Why rockets? Immediately "weapons based on new physical principles" ... pew-pew! Vzhzhzhzh-vzhzhzhzh ... - Luke, ... you are my son! - Aaaaaaa ...... lol
  • Pereira
    Pereira 18 August 2020 09: 26 New
    +5
    The chances of building an experimental model are extremely high.
    Chances to launch into the series - only if after the second thousand Su-57.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 18 August 2020 09: 39 New
      +1
      Who are you talking about?
      If about our PAK YES, then I don't see any point in the light of the restoration of the Tu-160 series ...
      1. Pereira
        Pereira 18 August 2020 09: 43 New
        +7
        Tu-160 is being restored from despair. No other way. At least there is a chance to get new cars.
        And I completely agree with your post below.
      2. VO3A
        VO3A 18 August 2020 10: 53 New
        +3
        And there will be no series. Production of the Tu-160 was restored to prepare the base for the PAK-DA. Still, it was ruined and forgotten ... And the technologies will revive and work out .... They will make 5 pieces, no more ... And they will change all the avionics, and it is easier and cheaper to work on new ones ... And then they will change it to old ones , where everything was deceased and the planes were conditional for counting ... At the same time, they would shove the same complex onto the killed Tu-22M3M and Tu-95, so that they flew for at least another 10 years, until PAK YES ... That's the point ... And there is no other way ...
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 18 August 2020 09: 38 New
    0
    And who else will explain to me, in principle, why the hell is stealth for a strategic bomber hitting a CD at a distance of 2000-5000 km?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 August 2020 09: 43 New
      +7
      Quote: Cyril G ...
      And who else will explain to me, in principle, why the hell is stealth for a strategic bomber hitting a CD at a distance of 2000-5000 km?

      So this is elementary :)))) To complete the CD to any territories of the Russian Federation from the borders in the first strike. This rubbish is expensive and reusable, and he will have to enter the areas covered by at least ZGRLS, so ... it will not hurt
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 18 August 2020 10: 04 New
        +4
        Not for that.
        CD cannot hit deep underground objects.
        We need a concrete bomb. And you need to go to the target directly above the object.
        At Raider, such a bomb can be dropped from the inner compartment.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 August 2020 10: 27 New
          +8
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Not for that.

          For this
          Quote: voyaka uh
          CD cannot hit deep underground objects.
          We need a concrete bomb. And you need to go to the target directly above the object.

          This is completely out of the question for a strategist.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 18 August 2020 10: 36 New
            -1
            This is the only purpose for which strategic bombers are needed. Bombers for bombs. smile
            For long-range attacks, ground / ship
            CR like Tomahawk / Caliber,
            or MRBM.
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 18 August 2020 10: 38 New
              +4
              In my opinion, you confused everything ...
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 August 2020 10: 45 New
              +6
              Quote: voyaka uh
              This is the only purpose for which strategic bombers are needed. Bombers for bombs.

              Forgive me, but your views on strategic bomber aviation became outdated about 40 years ago ... Modern air defense systems completely exclude a strategist's breakthrough - no stealth will help in principle. That is why modern strategists are ubiquitously equipped with long-range missiles.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 18 August 2020 10: 51 New
                0
                Someone is mistaken here. I don’t know who. Or Russians are exaggerating
                air defense capabilities, or the Americans downplay its importance. Underestimated.
                But the Ryders, according to the plan of the Americans, should pass the air defense unnoticed.
                And drop bombs on difficult targets.
                1. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 18 August 2020 11: 02 New
                  +2
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  But the Ryders, according to the plan of the Americans, should pass the air defense unnoticed.


                  From Over-the-horizon radars, Stealth is basically useless. And so along the way, the founders stupidly rewrote 1 to 1 the rationale for B-2, not giving a damn that the world has changed. The main profit is to cut a little dough on this ...
                2. VO3A
                  VO3A 18 August 2020 11: 15 New
                  +4
                  These are not Russians, it is like that all over the world ... air defense shoots down planes with a probability of 80-95%, and planes destroy targets with the same probability ... and if we consider this together, nothing happens ...
                3. Ka-52
                  Ka-52 18 August 2020 11: 28 New
                  +4
                  But the Ryders, according to the plan of the Americans, should pass the air defense unnoticed.
                  And drop bombs on difficult targets.

                  he should not break through air defense. it is assumed (and this is known 20 years ago) that by the time the air defense strategists approach, it will either be completely knocked out or will acquire a focal character. Air defense aviation will also be in full control and, in fact, there will be simply nothing to threaten the strategists with. This is what the Americans are planning.
                  1. voyaka uh
                    voyaka uh 18 August 2020 11: 43 New
                    +3
                    Approximately ... But the air defense does not need to be completely knocked out.
                    It is enough to make corridors for the passage of bombers, damaging part
                    radars and forcing some batteries to shoot all the ammunition
                    by decoy targets. The missile defense is static and the bombers are dynamic.
                    And interceptors can be linked with fighters in battles, distracting attention from
                    stealth bombers.
                    All this is not easy to implement, of course, but the methods are being worked out
                    at large exercises "air force against air defense", where air defense has all types of radars:
                    far, middle, near ...
              2. mvg
                mvg 18 August 2020 11: 58 New
                +2
                Modern air defense systems completely exclude the strategist's breakthrough - there, no stealth will help in principle

                Voyaka is partially right here. A concrete-piercing bomb is 5-10 tons, which must be dropped exactly on the target. It is unrealistic to cram such a thing instead of a warhead KR, which is an order of magnitude smaller. Therefore, it is the Raiders who will have to bomb the underground factories of Iran or the DPRK. Long-range air defense will be suppressed with Axes, and Stealth will save from BUKs.
                PS: Well, CDs with a range of 2000-5000 km fly for hours, they are only for stationary purposes. And they mainly carry themselves. Warhead 500 kg. They cost $ 1-4 million, and are knocked out by Thor or Buk. Spotted from afar. For one target you need a dozen, or, as the Russian Aerospace Forces shoot X-101 at tents in Syria. Where from the radar only beards with binoculars.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 August 2020 12: 05 New
                  +3
                  Quote: mvg
                  Therefore, it is the Raiders who will have to bomb the underground factories of Iran or the DPRK.

                  But this can only be done after the DPRK air defense is suppressed - even with the B-52
                  1. mvg
                    mvg 18 August 2020 13: 18 New
                    -1
                    how the DPRK air defense will be suppressed - even with the B-52

                    You can't suppress everything. Long-range air defense, Yes. All the locations of the S-300/400 are known. At least suppress the stationary radar with Harmami. But the average AA defense will partially survive. The beech can easily shoot down the B-52, even the C-75 did it. but with Raider it will be more difficult. Will not deceive 9M317 EW Raider.
                    And constantly modernizing the half-century B-52 is a waste. And the Air Force is there. So I think Raider has a right to live. Increases the chance to hit a difficult target while retaining the pilot.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 August 2020 14: 06 New
                      +1
                      Quote: mvg
                      You can't suppress everything.

                      For these cases, the B-52 sorties in Iraq were provided by tactical aviation in order to ensure the safety of the latter. Roughly speaking, the duty group was ready to cover the electronic warfare and suppress the surviving air defense
                      Quote: mvg
                      So I think Raider has a right to live.

                      Of course it does! And stealth has too. In any case, this is a significant increase in the combat stability of the aircraft. I objected not to stealth as such, but to the ideas of hacking air defense with stealthy stratobombers
                      1. mvg
                        mvg 18 August 2020 14: 28 New
                        0
                        but against ideas for hacking air defense with stealthy stratobombers

                        Here I agree, expensive hack. First kill the air defense. Swarm of small UAVs. Hundreds, then Axes. And then with bare hands, like in Iraq. And neither aviation nor air defense will help against this.
                      2. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 18 August 2020 20: 31 New
                        -1
                        Quote: mvg
                        And neither aviation nor air defense will help against this.

                        The process will be completely interspersed with strikes by OTRB and MRBM, including tactical nuclear weapons, at air bases and control centers, so it’s not at all a fact that the turn will reach bare hands. Yes, and our air defense systems all quite mobile.
                      3. mvg
                        mvg 18 August 2020 20: 45 New
                        0
                        And our air defense systems are all quite mobile.

                        There were also mobile complexes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon. The complexes around the most important objects are stationary. But the deployment positions are known. Well, the Harmas fly to the radar, the main thing is to bring them out. Loitering UAVs, having received a signal, are killed.
                        Only the presence of strategic nuclear forces does not provoke this situation. No navy or tanks.
                        But, for example, in Syria, no one will use nuclear weapons for Khmeimim. Wipe up.
                      4. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 18 August 2020 20: 55 New
                        -1
                        Quote: mvg
                        no one will apply for Khmeimim nuclear weapons. Wipe up.


                        No, there will be a completely different algorithm of actions. Escalation for De-escalation. This means that the US facility will be defeated.

                        Loitering UAVs, having received a signal, are killed.

                        Are you talking about RIPERS now? It's funny ... They'll kill you with a guarantee. You misunderstand the layouts on this issue.

                        The complexes around the most important objects are stationary.

                        So on a new one, again. Russia has no stationary air defense systems, from the word in general.

                        Harms fly to the radar, the main thing is to bring them out.

                        Harm must be launched from a great height, being already in the affected area of ​​the same S-400. Not. Air defense will pierce with massive launches of KR and MALD
          2. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 18 August 2020 12: 24 New
            0
            Quote: mvg
            and Stealth will save from BUK'ov.

            From the all-altitude SAM / R-27T, which together PU and SU can be transported in packs and will not save on camels. Watch in short how the Houthis are having fun ...
            For one target you need a dozen, or, as the Russian Aerospace Forces shoot X-101 at tents in Syria.

            It is clear that there is a military-political demonstration by 95 percent, but nevertheless who told you that they were shooting at the tent?
            1. mvg
              mvg 18 August 2020 13: 29 New
              0
              R-27 is not "all-altitude", it will not reach 10 km from the ground. She is radio command, she needs to be brought to the target. Then the simplest GOS will capture it. And the electronic warfare Raider will rest. This is from the ground, from 3-5 km, it can be fired at the Arabs when she already sees the target.
              PS: Did the bearded men have goals for which they needed to drive a strategist from the X-101? Any OTR with a range of 300 km would do it. To use up the Tochka-U supply, which has been cut for a long time. She is able to get into the building. And the warhead is twice as large.
              PS: And so the chance to lose because of the accident Tu-160 and a new missile over, say, Iran. Ichiots, in my understanding. Even not poor Yankees do not allow this
              1. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 18 August 2020 13: 39 New
                +3
                R-27 is not "all-altitude", it will not reach 10 km from the ground.

                It will fly quite well ..

                She is radio command, she needs to be brought to the target. Then the simplest GOS will capture it.

                R-27T, it is with TGSN, and here it is just without options, the probability of defeat is high. Interference helps a little. Is that a laser missile defense system is used to defeat the seeker.
                And if they see you sitting in the mountains, they will put you down.
                https://yandex.ru/video/preview?wiz_type=vital&filmId=15419607025227863891&text=в%20йемене%20сбит%20ф-15&path=wizard&parent-reqid=1597747110104166-12328453306396997100280-production-app-host-sas-web-yp-88&redircnt=1597747116.1
                There is radio correction on the R-27R, it allows you to reach the RVV at a distance of 40 km, then you need to highlight.

                Quote: mvg
                Did the bearded men have goals for which they needed to drive a strategist from the X-101?

                And who told you that there were none?

                PS: And so the chance to lose because of the accident Tu-160 and a new missile over, say, Iran.

                KR bombers Tu-95 and Tu-160 were firing over the Caspian Sea. Bombed with conventional Tu-22M3 bombs
                1. mvg
                  mvg 18 August 2020 13: 56 New
                  0
                  KR bombers Tu-95 and Tu-160 fired over the Caspian Sea

                  To lose not a bomber, but a missile, to the delight of the Chinese. But the bomber is just over the sea.
                  Thermal just won't take it. Engines on top, heat dissipates. The heat trap fills more.
                  How to launch a rocket at 10 km, can you tell me? So that the GOS captures the target? The plane is not visible, not audible. Came out on target at night, bombed and left.
                  PS: The Yankees used the B-2 that way. Came out, dropped 20 tons of bombs and left.
                2. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 18 August 2020 14: 01 New
                  +1
                  Quote: mvg
                  Thermal just won't take it. Engines on top, heat dissipates. The heat trap fills more.

                  TGSN lacks not only the engine. Well watch the video. Is it really too lazy to even follow the link? Everything is clear there.

                  Amolet is not visible, not audible. Came out on target at night, bombed and left.
                  Those days are gone ...

                  The heat trap fills more.

                  This worked exclusively on the first generation of TGSN missiles.
                3. mvg
                  mvg 18 August 2020 14: 49 New
                  0
                  This worked exclusively on the first generation of TGSN missiles.

                  I looked. The pilot must receive a missile attack alert and perform the maneuver. He flew as he flew.
                  This is not the case. IK GOS captured the device from the ground, here both the pilot and the Houthis were lucky. Otherwise, Jews would not have flown to Syria. Intelligent IR seeker, it is expensive and difficult, not in R-27. Such a scenario will not work with a bomber. Obviously, there will be anti-missiles, and traps with the same spectrum, and something else.
                  Do not equate the Araps with Jews and Yankees.
                4. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 18 August 2020 16: 47 New
                  0
                  Quote: mvg
                  Such a scenario will not work with a bomber.

                  Easy .... And it will be worse than a fighter ..

                  Quote: mvg

                  and anti-missiles, and traps with the same spectrum, and something else.

                  Yeah, more turbolasers, huh?

                  This is not the case. IK GOS captured the device from the ground, here both the pilot and the Houthis were lucky.

                  And here you were lucky?

                  The pilot must receive a missile attack alert and perform the maneuver. He flew as he flew.


                  Nobody irradiated the aircraft with the radar. Not all planes can detect the launch of the rocket / its approach to the aircraft. Capturing the target of a TGSN before launch is practiced by almost all missiles with a TGSN, except for the most recent ones. When the RVV is launched from a range of 5-10 km, the rocket has more than enough energy to hit the target in the entire range of altitudes and to parry its maneuver. So I personally believe that air defense systems that can be easily transported on a pair of large minibuses will still have their say in the confrontation with aviation.

                  Otherwise, Jews would not have flown to Syria.

                  There is no de facto air defense system in Syria. It has a purely focal character and even in the zone of high altitudes, 10 percent of the territory is viewed. So for the Israeli Air Force, subject to a thorough study of the routes, there are no problems with organizing strikes by the KR and KAB at all ...

                  Do not equate the Araps with Jews and Yankees.

                  Yawning, so in fact fly on the same. The question of the quality of training.
  • Piramidon
    Piramidon 18 August 2020 11: 03 New
    -3
    Quote: voyaka uh
    CD cannot hit deep underground objects.
    We need a concrete bomb. And you need to go to the target directly above the object.

    This is the tactics of the last century. It is not at all necessary to drag the carrier directly to the target, in the midst of air defense systems. Now this is solved by the missile's flight program, when it gains altitude in front of the target and attacks vertically. At least many RCCs operate on this principle
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 18 August 2020 11: 09 New
      +4
      No CD can hit a bunker or plant at depth.
      In the Kyrgyz Republic, almost the entire body is occupied with fuel. And a little bit remains
      on electronics and a little on warheads.
      At the concrete-piercing bomb, the ENTIRE body is occupied with explosives and special boosters,
      to screw into the ground before detonating explosives.
      Therefore, the effect is hundreds of times higher than that of the CD.
      1. Piramidon
        Piramidon 18 August 2020 12: 29 New
        +3
        Quote: voyaka uh
        No CD can hit a bunker or plant at depth

        There are also concrete-piercing missiles, such as the Russian S-13T aircraft missile.
      2. Piramidon
        Piramidon 18 August 2020 14: 34 New
        -3
        Quote: voyaka uh
        No CD can hit a bunker or plant at depth.

        And to hell with them. Bring them all the exits to the surface and let them sit in their bunker-factory until they die there. laughing
  • Outsider
    Outsider 18 August 2020 12: 04 New
    -1
    - To make it a) harder to spot it on the way; b) to make it harder to fill up.
  • Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 18 August 2020 12: 56 New
    0
    Probably in the event that the route to the target runs through areas where fighters or air defense systems can get it.
  • tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 18 August 2020 09: 49 New
    0
    Americans with B 21 have it easier 2. The second time they will not step on a rake. They know all the jambs of B 2, they will eliminate them on a new car. I agree with many, the initial price will rise. The PK B 21 pro lobbied at all levels (gave bribes), but now at least the grass does not grow. You can have fun with budget money and the further in the project, the more impudent it will be. And the lobby in the Congress and Senate will sing songs of praise. Always pinned: At 52 hammer $ 5 toilet bowl 000 $ 25. Nothing has changed in the American kingdom.
  • aleks26
    aleks26 18 August 2020 09: 51 New
    +1
    The advantages of the new air machine include the ability to use large-scale long-range weapons, which will improve its shock capabilities.

    Large-scale is how?
    1. Outsider
      Outsider 18 August 2020 12: 06 New
      0
      - These are 12-18 CDs with their own range of 2000-3000 km.
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 18 August 2020 10: 03 New
    +9
    Given the lack of information about our bomber and the habits of officials, our bomber may be in the stage, the horse was not lying around and there is no money, but you are holding on.
  • CBR600
    CBR600 18 August 2020 10: 04 New
    +2
    Yes, the scope. At least the accepted sketch to see this PAK YES. What's on the job ... What a beast, only imagination would be enough. Something tells us that ours are in no hurry, because if it’s better to do that, you need to know what your opponent has. You can't overtake here. And mind you, the complex ...
    1. depressant
      depressant 18 August 2020 11: 38 New
      +1
      It seems that already this year there was an article on VO about PAK YES, a model of incredibly beautiful futuristic car was shown.
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 18 August 2020 12: 14 New
      -2
      What a beast, only imagination would be enough.
      I will tell you a secret what it has: fenders, a cabin, wheels, a bomb bay, engines, skin, fuel tanks. It seems enough. Infa 200%. Think the rest yourself. "Only imagination would be enough."
      bully
  • Dedok
    Dedok 18 August 2020 10: 09 New
    +4
    What is the article about?
    over the past 20-30 years nothing NEW - have not done ... in anything!
    which means that nothing will fly by 2028.
    If something has been done, then only using the reserves of the USSR.
    Or is it necessary to return to the tailless period of the Second World War?
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 18 August 2020 12: 59 New
      +2
      Quote: Dedok
      over the past 20-30 years nothing NEW - have not done ... in anything!

      Superjet, Su-34, Su-35, Su-30MKI / SM, Su-57 and Yak-130 apparently you are unnoticed yes? And indeed your eyesight is probably selective! I see there, but I don't see there ...
  • Free wind
    Free wind 18 August 2020 10: 14 New
    -4
    PAK-YES, PAK-NO AND PAK -FIG KNOWS IT. He discovered the enemy even a split second earlier, he himself went unnoticed, struck, escaped the retaliatory strike, destroyed the infrastructure, probably the victory in this is, U And not that the Serbs shot down the F-117 with a microwave and stones.
  • dobrik10
    dobrik10 18 August 2020 10: 41 New
    0
    What it is? First of all, this is just a carrying part for the strike kit and such gliders are tracked by the enemy from the moment of preparation for the launch. They both have eyes, so this component will remain just a deterrent ...
  • Crabong
    Crabong 18 August 2020 10: 58 New
    -5
    What's the point in such machines now? It is useless to break through the air defense. You can hang 8 cruise missiles on any liner.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 18 August 2020 11: 04 New
    0
    A stealth bomber is needed if you throw ordinary bombs, and if a platform for missiles, then a reasonable decrease in visibility.
  • K-50
    K-50 18 August 2020 11: 18 New
    -1
    The use of existing technologies will significantly reduce the costs of manufacturing and commissioning a new bomber. For example, Northrop Grumman has repeatedly stated that the cost of the B-21 will be about $ 500 million, which is only a quarter of the cost of the current B-2 bomber.

    To promise does not mean to marry! request
    So the price will creep "to the right" very, very much. yes lol
  • iouris
    iouris 18 August 2020 11: 44 New
    -2
    "We caught up with America (milk yield), but we didn't catch up with meat (and everyone knows why) ..."
  • bar
    bar 18 August 2020 11: 54 New
    +1
    Work on the PAK DA began even earlier than the development of the B-21 in the United States.

    Incorrect statement. Since the B-21 is a further development of the B-2, work on it began in the late 70s.

    Thus, Moscow is trying to catch up with the United States in terms of creating the latest bomber.

    Which is quite logical.
  • senima56
    senima56 18 August 2020 13: 30 New
    -1
    No need to "catch up and overtake" anyone! fool Already passed! hi You just need to make a modern, reliable strike UAV! And make them bigger! good
  • Old26
    Old26 18 August 2020 13: 35 New
    +3
    Quote: Krabong
    What's the point in such machines now? It is useless to break through the air defense. You can hang 8 cruise missiles on any liner.

    Can. But it is forbidden. But even if this prohibition is violated, how many of these liners do we have and how many do the USA have ??? Who will be worse from this ??

    Quote: Piramidon
    There are also concrete-piercing missiles, such as the Russian S-13T aircraft missile.

    and at what depth and what object can such a missile hit? Efficiency - penetrates 6 m of soil or 1 m of reinforced concrete covered with 2-3 m of soil. It is unlikely that Iran's underground rocket plant will be located at a depth of 3 meters and a 1-meter ceiling of reinforced concrete
  • g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 18 August 2020 14: 30 New
    0
    Something slipped before my eyes that the flying wing scheme for the SB was not optimal, it was sharpened for stealth, and everything else was simply stretched for this task. But the technology is also not worth it, even a cigarette case in a pilot's pocket can give out an extra EPR. Where, then, should this PAK-DA, together with its stealth, be put? Next to the "Caspian monster"?
  • Ax Matt
    Ax Matt 18 August 2020 16: 28 New
    -4
    The trend is clearly seen in the three wisdoms: do not run ahead of the locomotive; Russians harness for a long time, but drive fast; a monkey by the river waiting for the passing corpse of the enemy. Ours are looking for funds for a very long time. Then, they make the product with concentration, bringing it to perfection in every possible way. It turns out for a long time, but efficiently, for many decades. Americans briskly PR, roll in, mastering billions, yelling about readiness, blurt out in hundreds, and then drearily try to bring, hold on to mastering the budget for modernization and forcing partners to buy their underdeveloped. Well, or even sent to the scrap ... The Chinese have their own way: they sit on the shore and wait for something to float past in order to catch it and copy it. As they say, to each his own. And competition is the engine of progress!
  • lvov_aleksey
    lvov_aleksey 18 August 2020 22: 29 New
    0
    Quote: Ax Matt
    The trend is clearly seen in the three wisdoms: do not run ahead of the locomotive; Russians harness for a long time, but drive fast; a monkey by the river waiting for the passing corpse of the enemy. Ours are looking for funds for a very long time. Then, they make the product with concentration, bringing it to perfection in every possible way. It turns out for a long time, but efficiently, for many decades. Americans briskly PR, roll in, mastering billions, yelling about readiness, blurt out in hundreds, and then drearily try to bring, hold on to mastering the budget for modernization and forcing partners to buy their underdeveloped. Well, or even sent to the scrap ... The Chinese have their own way: they sit on the shore and wait for something to float past in order to catch it and copy it. As they say, to each his own. And competition is the engine of progress!

    You are wrong, not competition, but laziness is the engine of progress !!!
    ps Laziness is the engine of all mankind to develop
  • Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 18 August 2020 22: 45 New
    0
    Ha.
    Again provocation and a soap bubble out of the blue.

    To catch up and overtake on what?
    Speed? Stealth? Quantity? efficiency? Development speed?

    Judging by the article, amers need a hard worker. Inexpensive (so far) and modern.
    And what the RF needs, FIG knows. A hard worker? PR? Download constructors? Peremoga? Small series of super-planes?
  • Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 19 August 2020 02: 40 New
    0
    The Americans have a lot of experience in such bomb carriers, but we went the other way - speed. There, and "flying wing" is not needed, and "stealth". So there are not many chances to catch up, let alone overtake.
  • Ivan Tixiy
    Ivan Tixiy 19 August 2020 08: 52 New
    0
    Sheer idiocy, a comparison of what is not. Some "assurances of the designers" will fly then yes
  • pafegosoff
    pafegosoff 19 August 2020 13: 42 New
    0
    Yes, all this garbage!
    There will be a different world in 2030
  • Butchcassidy
    Butchcassidy 20 August 2020 07: 12 New
    0
    As if someone is competing. Well the title
  • fider
    fider 22 August 2020 09: 51 New
    -1
    No chance. hi