Military Review

Nuclear triad. Strategic bombers

97

Source: defence.ru


Speaking about the components of the nuclear triad of the two countries, today we will somewhat move away from the already boring comparisons like "who is better, B-52 or Tu-95" and talk about a slightly different thing. Namely, how relevant strategic bombers are today as a means of delivering nuclear weapons to the enemy.

The plane is the oldest carrier of atomic and nuclear weapons... But that doesn't make him the best carrier today. Rather, on the contrary, the plane is rapidly losing ground, since 75 years ago it was much easier to deliver free-fall bombs to the enemy than it is today.

Let's consider, using the example of a hypothetical conflict, a combat mission of striking by the forces of a strategic aviation on the administrative centers of the enemy. Washington and Moscow.

Let it be Tu-160 and B-1V. About classmates, the American is weaker in speed. But he doesn't really need it. According to the passport, the combat load of the V-2B is greater, but with full it does not fly at all, both in terms of speed and in terms of range. With an equal load, the Tu-160 has a combat radius of 1500 km more. Well, the speed is almost 1000 km / h more.

So, these aircraft will have to strike at targets in enemy territory. It doesn't matter what it will be, the principle is more important here.

Let's start with the American.


And here, I am sure, the most important thing will be with what the strategists will fly to the enemy. With nuclear weapons, of course. Alas, the Americans have only bombs! Yes, among them there are nuclear, adjustable ones, but all the same, these are free-fall bombs B61 or B63.


The Americans have air-launched cruise missiles. This is quite decent in terms of performance characteristics AGM-86 ALCM, or as it is also called, "Air Tomahawk".


Yes, this is a relative of that very "Ax". But alas, the AGM-86 ALCM can only carry the B-52, and seriously considering the use of this aircraft in the conflict with Russia is overkill. And the B-52 has more than enough problems in terms of flights today. In general, it is not serious.

It turns out very interesting: there are cruise missiles, but the carriers of these missiles leave much to be desired and in reality are unlikely to be ready to work in a combat mode of conflict with a country with decent air defense.

As for the V-1 and V-2 - alas, they do not carry missiles, but to approach and pour thermonuclear bombs on Moscow should be very lucky.


Lancer and Spirit are pretty good aircraft, but a problem with our air defense will be a problem. Even working from the airfields of the tame Baltic states, it will be impossible to reach the target under the cover of their own F-15s. Yes, F-15 fighters may be able to neutralize our fighters, but I'm sure that the range of our air defense systems will become an insurmountable obstacle.

We can say with a high degree of confidence that our air defense systems are a very serious enemy.

And we can say that in our situation it is not worth counting on the use of American strategic bombers as means of delivering nuclear weapons. Here it must be admitted that the Americans do not yet have the best combination - "plane + cruise missile".

Perhaps from the understanding that strategic aviation in the form in which it takes place is simply not able to carry out its duties. An interesting aspect.

Total: American strategic bombers will not be able to strike an enemy with a powerful air defense system, such as Russia as a whole, with nuclear weapons.

Now let's turn to the Tu-160.


The task for our aircraft is no simpler. If it is very easy for the Americans to be at our borders, then it will be very difficult for our aircraft in this regard.

America, alas, is separated from all by oceans. And in order to approach the launch distance (and we do not have satellites in the world ready to lend their airfields for use), we will have to travel a very considerable distance of several thousand kilometers. This, of course, complicates the task.


It is clear that flights over Europe will be impossible for us, so the only route is through the North, with access to the launch distance somewhere in the Greenland region.

What are the advantages?

The first plus is the excellent Kh-102 rocket with a thermonuclear warhead of 250 kt or 1 Mt. With a huge flight range of 5500 km and a very good CEP, 7-10 meters.


That is, it will be very easy to launch from the Greenland region.

The difficulty is that we may not be allowed to do this. The fact that the Tu-160 can easily be detected by the radars and observation stations of the US allies in the north is understandable.

And the United States has such an important toy as floating airfields. This is where these half-ships can come in handy. 2-3 aircraft carriers can completely cover the entire northern direction with their air groups and not count losses.


Three Nimitz-class aircraft carriers - 120 F / A-18s, more than enough to intercept and destroy the Tu-160. In any quantity, especially since it is small in our country. A total of 16 pieces.

Plus, there are a lot of NORAD tracking stations in Canada, the main task of which is to detect and intercept enemy missiles. The old radars have been replaced by radars with AFAR, now the system is experiencing a certain revival compared to the years when the Cold War ended.

In general, it must be admitted that the difficulties of approaching the missile launch area will be no less extensive for our pilots than for their American colleagues.

In addition, we should not forget that the Americans are “their own” everywhere, and in any case we will act surrounded from all sides.

Bottom line. The main question is: will our strategic bombers be able to carry out a nuclear strike on targets in the United States?

Perhaps ours have more chances than the Americans. The fact that the B-52 will crawl to the launch point of their AGM-86 ALCM missiles, and the B-1 and B-2 will be able to pour nuclear bombs on targets - of course, it cannot be denied that this can happen. In theory, everything is possible, and the suppression of our air defense system, and the destruction of aircraft at airfields, such situations cannot be discounted.

But the percentage is quite small. Still, it is more likely that our air defense systems will turn out to be an effective weapon.

With regards to our bombers.

The shield that the United States and Canada (where will it go to?) Are able to put up against our aircraft in the form of air defense and naval aircraft deployed in the areas of possible operation of our aircraft is also very serious.

But there is still a chance for a successful missile launch, and it is rather big. Still, the Kh-102 has a range of 5 km, which makes it possible to use this weapon BEFORE intercepting our strategists by enemy aircraft.

I will sum up.

17 Tu-160s will be able to take on board 12 X-102 missiles. A total of 204 missiles.
60 Tu-95s will be able to carry 8 missiles each. A total of 480 missiles.
A total of 684 missiles with nuclear warheads are obtained.

In theory, if we have so many missiles, the figure is quite good. Even if it reaches 10% of the total, it already turns out pretty well.

60 American B-52s can take 20 AGM-86 ALCM missiles. The total is 1200 missiles. The Americans have such a number of AGM-86 ALCMs, and this is not very pleasant information.

However, the B-52 simply cannot be viewed as a serious strike method. Still, an important aspect is that the youngest bomber was manufactured in 1962. That is, it will soon celebrate its 60th anniversary. The rest are even older. This is a fact worth considering.

The B-1 and B-2 may be armed with a new generation cruise missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, but in any case, this will not happen tomorrow.

In general, aviation, which was the first in delivering strategic ammunition to the enemy, has clearly lost its influence today.

The technical means of tracking and observation are developing too dynamically, and the means of air defense and missile defense are becoming too effective. The plane has become too vulnerable.

This is probably why the countries possessing nuclear weapons do not pay as much attention to the development of strategic aviation as they did in the 60s and 70s. A strategic bomber is a very expensive and at the same time very vulnerable thing. That is why everyone prefers to "finish off" the existing aircraft.

And some countries, like Great Britain, have abandoned aviation altogether as a means of delivering nuclear weapons. In fact, today only Russia, the United States and China have strategic bomber aircraft. It is difficult and expensive.

So we can state the fact that aviation in the triad of any country (who has it) occupies the last place, letting ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles ahead of itself.

This is natural. The aircraft today does not play the same role as in the Second World War, and there are more means of fighting aircraft.


Summing up the comparison of the strategic aviation of Russia and the United States in the conditions of one combat mission, we can conclude that Russian aviation looks more profitable. Mainly due to the availability of modern long-range cruise missiles.

But it will be no easier for our strategists to carry out the task of delivering a nuclear strike than for their American colleagues.
Author:
97 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. kpd
    kpd 28 May 2021 05: 46
    +15
    Strategic aviation has one property that is completely absent from the other two components of the nuclear triad - demonstrativeness.
    1. Anachoret
      Anachoret 28 May 2021 09: 46
      +1
      Quote: kpd
      Strategic aviation has one property that is completely absent from the other two components of the nuclear triad - demonstrativeness.

      yes, demonstrativeness as an important psychological factor)
      but the purpose of the American strategic aviation is to bomb what was not destroyed by the first disarming salvo, our strategists themselves can inflict the first disarming salvo)
      but on aircraft carriers and detection systems everything is correctly noticed there, you need to think in this direction too) either develop, "in case of something", a breakthrough plan through the conditional North) or stretch the enemy forces and think about promising bases in Latin America and South Africa) and economic interests there are already enough to think about "ensuring their security"))
    2. Lontus
      Lontus 28 May 2021 11: 13
      +2
      Quote: kpd
      Strategic aviation has one property that is completely absent from the other two components of the nuclear triad - demonstrativeness.

      I agree.
      But this is its only positive property.
    3. aspirin02
      aspirin02 20 June 2021 03: 58
      0
  3. andrewkor
    andrewkor 28 May 2021 05: 58
    +6
    At the beginning of a hypothetical nuclear conflict between the nuclear powers, a disarming strike will be delivered against "peacefully sleeping airfields," including. A certain, very small, number of strategists will be on air combat duty at this time. What will be left of hundreds of cruise missiles in this case? Or does the respected author suggest a counter battle of air armadas, like tank ones near Prokhorovka?
    And so, nicho, the pictures are interesting.
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 28 May 2021 09: 35
      +3
      Quote: andrewkor
      At the beginning of a hypothetical nuclear conflict between the nuclear powers, a disarming strike will be delivered against "peacefully sleeping airfields," including.

      It is assumed that in the pre-war period, the strategists will be scattered over many airfields - just to avoid their one-time "covering" with one or two warheads. Considering how many charges the enemy needs for more or less guaranteed destruction of silos, there may not be enough for strategists.
      1. NIKN
        NIKN 28 May 2021 12: 03
        +5
        Quote: Kalmar
        It is assumed that in the pre-war period, strategists will be scattered across many airfields.

        One of the tasks (main) of the Strategic Aviation (what we have, what the Americans) is to remove forces and means from under attack, so that they can be used in the second strike, and it will be lucky for the third and further strikes. Here it is necessary to take into account the situation after the first (disarming) strike. What will be left of the air defense, what goals will remain for finishing. Judging that the B-2, B-52 will not be able to pass the remaining air defense is a moot point. And given that these aircraft themselves have anti-air defense means (not bad), it is not correct to argue that they are ineffective. It is not correct to proceed from the effectiveness of the air triad without defining its tasks and means and methods of achieving the tasks assigned to them. It makes no sense to consider them along with submarines and ICBMs, everyone has their own task. In general, when considering such an issue as a collision at the level of nuclear confrontation between major powers, a lot must be taken into account, including the state of the space group and the stability of the means of warning about an attack, and even the psychological state of the leaderships of the countries. So it makes no sense to consider who is stronger than an elephant or a whale in this context.
        1. Rushnairfors
          Rushnairfors 31 May 2021 14: 12
          +1
          NIKNN hello, well done!
    2. ccsr
      ccsr 28 May 2021 13: 15
      +5
      Quote: andrewkor
      At the beginning of a hypothetical nuclear conflict between the nuclear powers, a disarming strike will be delivered against "peacefully sleeping airfields," including.

      This is really so, and in thirty minutes not a single strategic bomber will suspend cruise missiles with nuclear weapons and take off, so all hope is only for those who are already on duty. And there will be only a few of them on both sides. Therefore, all other arguments of the author of the article can be safely thrown into the trash - he has no idea at all how the real scenario of an exchange of nuclear strikes will take place, and what place is given to strategic aviation in it.
      Quote: andrewkor
      What will be left of hundreds of cruise missiles in this case?

      They simply will not have time to hang them, and even more so to inflict a preemptive strike on the territory of the United States.
      Quote: andrewkor
      Or does the respected author suggest a counter battle of air armadas, like tank ones near Prokhorovka?

      Many local "theorists" suffer from this, only some slip their fantasies in the field of the fleet, others in relation to aviation, and still others are still confident that without the Ground Forces we will be covered.
      In general, you read such "revelations" and imagine how laughing those who are engaged in a real assessment of our opponents and the development of plans for its destruction, with minimal losses for us.
      Of course, we need strategic aviation as patrol aircraft, but do not forget that a massive takeoff of such aircraft with ammunition will definitely lead to the start of a nuclear war - no one will wait until they reach the line of attack and release their missile launchers, which, by the way, can also be intercepted can.
      In general, strategic aviation is the weakest and most unreliable link in our nuclear triad, but this does not mean that it should be abandoned. On the contrary, we must have such aircraft in service, and the number of them should be determined from our budgetary possibilities and not create the illusion that we need to have a hundred or two, we will cost a few dozen.
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 28 May 2021 19: 42
        +2
        Quote: ccsr
        This is indeed so, and in thirty minutes not a single strategic bomber will suspend cruise missiles with nuclear weapons and take off.
        Therefore, after the deployment of the Pershing in Europe, the Soviet strategic aviation responded with a constant air watch. The states did the same after Gagarin's flight. Recently Timokhin published material about how half of the B-52 airfield in half an hour manage to escape fully armed from the attack.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 28 May 2021 20: 20
          -1
          Quote: bk0010
          Recently Timokhin published material about how half of the B-52 airfield in half an hour manage to escape fully armed from the attack.

          Do not listen to this verbiage, because nuclear charges are not constantly suspended on carrier aircraft, but are in storage, and only those on duty can have them on board. Due to the danger of losing them or crashing planes, flights with nuclear weapons are limited - this was the case back in the days of the USSR.
          Now imagine how long it will take to raise the entire personnel of the air unit on alarm, deliver the charges, hang them up and go to taxi - there is no smell in 30 minutes.
    3. Alexey V.P.
      Alexey V.P. 28 May 2021 13: 32
      -8
      At the beginning of a hypothetical nuclear conflict between the nuclear powers, a disarming strike will be inflicted on "peacefully sleeping airfields," including

      At the beginning of a hypothetical nuclear conflict, the entire satellite constellation will be shot down and disabled. Without GPS, US pilots will not rise into the sky at all. Yes, and tomahawks will not fly because their carriers will stand up.
      1. Osipov9391
        Osipov9391 28 May 2021 18: 44
        +3
        Are you serious ? It is full of other navigation systems, including terrain and INS. There is no way you can fool them.
        1. Korax71
          Korax71 28 May 2021 23: 59
          +2
          but what about: "while the enemy is making plans, we are changing the terrain, and manually" wassat
        2. Maikcg
          Maikcg 2 June 2021 02: 11
          0
          And they are taught and trained to fly and launch rockets without gps? Or conventionally, as f22 conventionally knocked down a hundred dryers at one of the exercises)
  4. anjey
    anjey 28 May 2021 06: 06
    +1
    But it will be no easier for our strategists to carry out the task of delivering a nuclear strike than for their American colleagues.
    There will be no winners in such a nuclear war, even according to the theory of the first strike, everyone will lose and it is quite possible that the living will envy the dead. These postulates must be constantly instilled into many hot heads of the West, armed to the teeth, belligerent and greedy for foreign resources.
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey 28 May 2021 08: 33
      +2
      These postulates are deeply mistaken and contribute to complacency, and as a result to defeat and destruction.
      1. anjey
        anjey 28 May 2021 13: 10
        +2
        The question is very controversial .....
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 28 May 2021 08: 56
      +1
      it should be noted that the article by the respected Raman Skomrokhov is generally interesting, only about the aircraft carriers, they do not walk in the ice, Russia must ensure control of the Barents Sea not only for the exit of the return of SSBNs, but also for the departure of the TU 160 TU95 and return, and our ships were smeared on warm the seas where they are not needed and bared the north
      Quote: anjey
      These postulates must be constantly instilled into many hotheads of the West, armed to the teeth, belligerent and greedy for foreign resources.
      this is exactly what it is, if it were not for the Strategic Missile Forces, we would have been bombed long ago as Serbs
      1. bayard
        bayard 28 May 2021 16: 21
        +1
        Quote: vladimir1155
        and we smeared the ships on the warm seas where they are not needed and bare the north

        Quite the opposite is true - the Northern Fleet, the most combat-ready, numerous and most equipped with ships of the main classes. And the new frigates 22350, both are on the Northern Fleet. The only nuclear-powered cruiser "Peter the Great" (the "Nakhimov" is being replaced), the only off-powered and partially modernized Atlantean - "Marshal Ustinov", is also there, BOD 1155 ... the only aircraft-carrying cruiser (albeit under repair for now) - also on the Northern Fleet. And the aviation group there is not bad, including a few Tu-22M3s.
        And what do we have in the "warm seas"?
        Black Sea Fleet is weak and not numerous.
        Pacific Fleet? ... The most neglected of all fleets, the last battle pennants of which are frankly "breathing in a dull state."
        It's just that we are in trouble with the Fleet as such - due to the practical disruption of all shipbuilding programs.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 29 May 2021 00: 53
          +1
          Quote: bayard
          The Northern Fleet, the most combat-ready, the most numerous and the most equipped with ships of the main classes.

          not quite so, SF = has the task of controlling the sea to the ice, and this is the most important task in the Navy, almost the only task of the Navy, so what? two BODs two FRs two RCs and ships of 3 r ... a total of 6 ships 1-2 r .... there are no BF tasks at all three crv pair of fr thiog 5 pennants of 1-2 ranks, ... a couple of CRVs that are very necessary in other places, ..... Black Sea Fleet = the task of controlling the Bosphorus and supporting the submarine, there is a task, but why is there a cruiser? and 5 frigates? a little too much? Sea of ​​Japan, there are no tasks, but, cr, 4 bpk a couple of krv, uh ... only 8 (more than on the Northern Fleet) ..... Kamchatka = there are tasks, there are no ships at all ... well, not marasmus? well, not smearing ships on the seas?
          1. bayard
            bayard 29 May 2021 02: 23
            0
            Quote: vladimir1155
            SF = has the task of controlling the sea to the ice, and this is the most important task in the Navy, almost the only task of the Navy, so what? two BOD

            BOD - three, although the third went into modernization.
            Quote: vladimir1155
            ... Black Sea Fleet = the task of controlling the Bosphorus and supporting the submarine, there is a task, but why is there a cruiser?

            the cruiser is there for the Mediterranean. He knocked out his resource just near Syria, now he is going there again. Yes, and in the Black Sea, it will not be superfluous to strengthen in case of guests - large guests welcome there.
            Quote: vladimir1155
            and 5 frigates? a little too much?

            And what are these frigates? Three new export frigates - under-armed and with a weak PLO ?, and two old patrol boats for which only escort functions?
            And if we consider that the Black Sea Fleet is also responsible for the Mediterranean Sea, then this is definitely not enough for him and he needs to be reinforced with both new corvettes and frigates 22350.
            Quote: vladimir1155
            Sea of ​​Japan, no tasks, but cr

            How is it not ?! And what about the Kuril Islands? And what to protect Primorye? Is the Sea of ​​Okhotsk an SSBN combat alert area?
            Quote: vladimir1155
            , 4 bpc

            There are only 3 in service, one in modernization.
            Quote: vladimir1155
            pair of krv

            There will be more, this year one corvette and two diesel-electric submarines will be overtaken from the Baltic.
            Quote: vladimir1155
            only 8 (more than on the Northern Fleet) ..

            Well, you would have counted boats and RTOs ... equalize corvettes with cruisers ...
            Quote: vladimir1155
            ... Kamchatka = there are tasks, there are no ships at all.

            That's where it is - exactly to Kamchatka all corvettes of pr. 20385 and will go - from 6 to 8 pieces. The first is already this year.
            And new diesel-electric submarines, in the same place - to Kamchatka, with the organization of watch and basing of some of them on about. Matua.
            Quote: vladimir1155
            well, not insanity? well, not smearing ships on the seas?

            What is, and then smeared. It's like "Trishkin's caftan" - in order to strengthen it, you have to take it from somewhere and weaken it ... The failure of the Navy's shipbuilding program in all its glory - you won't see a spoon by lunchtime. And it is on the Pacific Fleet that the second (reinforced) subseries of pr. 22350.1 will go. And all 20385 - also at the Pacific Fleet - to Kamchatka, to protect the base and ensure the safe withdrawal of the submarine to sea.
            In the meantime, in anticipation of reinforcement at the Pacific Fleet, the entire fleet of old MRKs is being modernized - into carriers of 16 pieces. X-35, they are already modernizing the second BOD and began the same repair and partial modernization of MAPLs and SSGNs.
            And to wait for new ships for a long time.
            The only way to quickly build up the strength of the fleets is the development of naval aviation. Both fighter and shock. On the Su-30 and Su-34M - MFI and attack aircraft.
            And now there are no special obstacles to strengthen the aviation component of the fleets (on these types of aircraft). The industry will supply as much as they order.
            There is no particular hope for the Tu-22M3 due to the small number (you can count their combat-ready on the fingers of one person's limbs). Yes, and with anti-ship missiles for them so far problems ...
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 29 May 2021 07: 39
              0
              thanks for the answer, and clarifications .... however, it is obvious that the BF has no tasks, corvettes are also combat units and in the north they would be useful, and a couple of old fr., like a couple from the Caspian ... in the bloated Japanese fleet sea, there are no tasks or opportunities for use either in the Kuril Islands, or in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, nowhere. to protect Vladiostok, it is too big and locked by the Strait of La Perouse and Tsushima, ..... The Mediterranean Sea is far away and it is stupid to inflate the Black Sea Fleet for it, the Bosphorus is painfully narrow, so the cruiser is there for the sake of cutting the dough into ration, and the frigates 11356 are not so bad that there to cool off in a closed water area, the ships escorting NATO visitors and their pushers can be old men 1135, and 11356 can be replaced with a pair of KRVs from the Caspian Sea, and also transferred from the north to the Black Sea Fleet of the MPK, we will get three fr and 1 cr to strengthen the Northern Fleet now! and not sometime, when new frigates are built, but when the new ones completely saturate the SF, it will be possible to slightly enhance the Black Sea Fleet with corvettes, especially since 1135 is not eternal ... in other words, so far the situation is like this = ships are not needed on all closed seas 1- 2 ranks, except for the Black Sea Fleet, where there are not many of them, and nuclear submarine bases are now very badly guarded .... I agree about coastal aviation on all seas and oceans, it is needed in large quantities.
        2. Aag
          Aag 30 May 2021 19: 48
          0
          Quote: bayard
          Quote: vladimir1155
          and we smeared the ships on the warm seas where they are not needed and bare the north

          Quite the opposite is true - the Northern Fleet, the most combat-ready, numerous and most equipped with ships of the main classes. And the new frigates 22350, both are on the Northern Fleet. The only nuclear-powered cruiser "Peter the Great" (the "Nakhimov" is being replaced), the only off-powered and partially modernized Atlantean - "Marshal Ustinov", is also there, BOD 1155 ... the only aircraft-carrying cruiser (albeit under repair for now) - also on the Northern Fleet. And the aviation group there is not bad, including a few Tu-22M3s.
          And what do we have in the "warm seas"?
          Black Sea Fleet is weak and not numerous.
          Pacific Fleet? ... The most neglected of all fleets, the last battle pennants of which are frankly "breathing in a dull state."
          It's just that we are in trouble with the Fleet as such - due to the practical disruption of all shipbuilding programs.

          All of the above has only an indirect relationship to the full-scale planned nuclear conflict (strike).
          1. bayard
            bayard 30 May 2021 22: 51
            0
            This is indirect (ships of the main classes) precisely ensure the safe withdrawal of NSNF assets into the sea, which in your designation:
            Quote: AAG
            full-scale planned nuclear conflict (strike).

            to play one of the main roles.
            Yes, and enemy ships with attack missile weapons to keep out their shores is also their task ... But for the forces of the Navy available today, such a task is difficult. For the admirals are firmly convinced that "there will be no war."
            1. Aag
              Aag 31 May 2021 03: 20
              0
              Quote: bayard
              This is indirect (ships of the main classes) precisely ensure the safe withdrawal of NSNF assets into the sea, which in your designation:
              Quote: AAG
              full-scale planned nuclear conflict (strike).

              to play one of the main roles.
              Yes, and enemy ships with attack missile weapons to keep out their shores is also their task ... But for the forces of the Navy available today, such a task is difficult. For the admirals are firmly convinced that "there will be no war."

              "... But for the current forces of the Navy, such a task is difficult ..."
              That is what I had in mind ..
          2. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 31 May 2021 09: 23
            +1
            Quote: AAG
            is only indirectly related to a full-scale planned nuclear conflict (strike).

            I agree, everyone is “rooting” for the fleet and lamenting its “smallness”, and they don’t want to solve the tasks of ensuring the launch of the missile forces on combat duty with the available fleet, which is not at all small ... .. and they died until Stalin personally intervened and gave a thrashing to the proud hawks
    3. bayard
      bayard 28 May 2021 16: 10
      +4
      Quote: anjey
      There will be no winners in such a nuclear war, even according to the theory of the first strike,

      If the war between Russia and the West does take place, then the victory will be celebrated by China, which has stood aside.
  5. Prjanik
    Prjanik 28 May 2021 06: 21
    +3
    As for the B-1 and B-2 - alas, they do not carry missiles
    And I'm not even sorry at all
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 28 May 2021 08: 29
      +1
      As for the B-1, there was some kind of agreement on this topic with the USSR ... Tu22 was also mentioned there.
    2. bayard
      bayard 28 May 2021 16: 25
      +1
      Quote: Prjanik
      As for the B-1 and B-2 - alas, they do not carry missiles
      And I'm not even sorry at all

      B-1B are currently actively re-equipping the carriers of the new CD. And they will be able to carry them - 24 only in the inner compartments. And together with the external suspension - not less than 32 pcs.
      And this rearmament has been going on for several years. Two of these B-1Bs took part in the attack on Syria, along with two American destroyers and a French frigate.
      1. Osipov9391
        Osipov9391 28 May 2021 18: 39
        +3
        And it should be noted that Tu-160s do not have such an opportunity, nor do they have external suspensions. That is, the B-1B turns out to be, as it were, a more multifunctional aircraft.
        Well, and more massive. Even female crews now fly on them in the states. And not bad.
        Its range is less than that of the Tu-160. But this is offset by a huge fleet of flying tankers and bases around the world.
        1. bayard
          bayard 28 May 2021 18: 56
          +1
          The external suspension can be organized for the Tu-160, but there are so few of them, and they are all carriers of the X-101 \ 102, that it is hardly worth re-equipping them somehow. If the X-50s appear, the Tu-160's ammunition load can be significantly increased, but the range of such missiles is expected to be in the order of 1500-2500 km.
          And you need to remember that the new CD with a range of up to 1000 km. the United States can also carry tactical aircraft based near Russia.
          But how much more versatility the B-1B can have if it can carry one type of missile launcher and bombs, and the Tu-160, in the same way, carries missile launchers and bombs. They are for a different flight profile and method of overcoming air defense. If serial production of the Tu-160 does start, and up to 50 of them are built. , it will be possible to talk about the greater versatility of the new Tu-160M2.
      2. bk0010
        bk0010 28 May 2021 19: 44
        0
        Quote: bayard
        B-1B are currently actively rearming themselves into carriers of new CD
        The B-1B has long been withdrawn from the US strategic forces, and is now being prepared for decommissioning (unlike the B-52).
  6. TerraSandera
    TerraSandera 28 May 2021 07: 06
    +7
    The whole north cannot be covered by any aug. It is quite possible to strike by lengthening the route a little, rather than flying directly to the nearest launch mark. Getting rid of strategists? The United States, perhaps, is developing something new, getting rid of the maximum number of oldies that are simply not needed after the end of the Cold War 1.0. Russia? Surely I would have built, if not for "there is no money, but you hold on" and so, too, while developing a new one, modernizing the old one. China? Builds all over. Who gets rid of that?) Yes, and in this article, the author's comic mocking style somehow did not fit. In articles about planes, WW2 is much sharper.
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey 28 May 2021 08: 34
      -7
      Get off the couch first))
      1. Lontus
        Lontus 28 May 2021 11: 18
        +7
        Quote: Ryusey
        Get off the couch first))

        Are you writing while lying on the floor?
  7. 2 Level Advisor
    2 Level Advisor 28 May 2021 07: 21
    +11
    why did the author of the b-52 write it off so easily? they are still in service and fly regularly ..
    "Yes, and the B-52 has more than enough problems in terms of flights today. In general, it is not serious."
    What is not serious? How many problems they have. but in case of a possible conflict, the missiles will hang and they will fly completely. let at least every 3 fall apart on the road, you cannot ignore them when it comes to an objective comparison ..
    1. parma
      parma 28 May 2021 08: 45
      +2
      Quote: 2 level advisor
      why did the author of the b-52 write it off so easily? they are still in service and fly regularly ..
      "Yes, and the B-52 has more than enough problems in terms of flights today. In general, it is not serious."
      What is not serious? How many problems they have. but in case of a possible conflict, the missiles will hang and they will fly completely. let at least every 3 fall apart on the road, you cannot ignore them when it comes to an objective comparison ..

      Strategists will go in a 2-3 wave, when the command and air defense are not in their best shape ... in the confusion that even the B-52s will break through, but the Tupolev "bears" are a question (ground air defense and aviation on both sides are suppressed and disorganized The first wave, but the United States has a strong aircraft carrier fleet, and a bunch of tankers will allow strategists to wait long enough in the wings) ...
      The main thing here is that even though mutual strikes will not completely destroy the belligerents, they will cause political, military and economic collapses ... therefore this will not happen, the Americans will not want to lose their positions of world leader so much ...
      1. Grits
        Grits 29 May 2021 15: 30
        +1
        Quote: parma
        but the US has a strong carrier fleet,

        So why would strategists fly through territories where a "strong aircraft carrier fleet" operates? Personally, I would not even try to break through a bunch of Hornets, but would fly where they simply cannot reach - that is, over the ice of the Arctic. In the hope that the "strong aircraft carrier fleet" has not yet learned to crawl through hummocks
  8. Bez 310
    Bez 310 28 May 2021 07: 27
    +11
    "However, the B-52 simply cannot be viewed as a serious strike method."

    This is "impossible" for the author, but the Americans consider it normally. As well as we "consider" our Tu-95MS.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 28 May 2021 08: 29
      +8
      The author bent with the B-52 ..... they are carriers of Tomogavks with nuclear submarines .... The B-1B and B-2 will arrive after the first missile strike, when the air defense and the airfield network will be disrupted and will hit the remaining targets at depth.
  9. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 28 May 2021 08: 26
    +1
    It should also be noted that during the threatened period, bombers will constantly, changing, hang somewhere in the launch area. (and here the Tu95 has an advantage) ... and those who are ready to discharge their revolvers ... AUG in northern latitudes is not particularly suitable. Ice and submarines - hunters and planes with anti-ship missiles. We don't have a lot of strategists ...
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 28 May 2021 10: 41
      +3
      Quote: Zaurbek
      bombers will be constantly changing and hanging somewhere in the launch area. (and here Tu95 has an advantage

      What is the advantage and over whom?
      If in front of the B-52, then no, tanker aircraft are attached to them, but not to our carcasses.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 28 May 2021 11: 48
        +1
        TK Il78 is attached to our Carcasses ..... and an advantage over Tu160 .... You can hang in economical modes in a given area. But in Tu95 new missiles do not fit into the bomb bay. On the other hand, the old X-55s are enough.
  10. Ryusey
    Ryusey 28 May 2021 08: 31
    +10
    On the face of the author's complete lack of understanding of what he is writing about.
    1. Aag
      Aag 30 May 2021 20: 00
      0
      Quote: Ryusey
      On the face of the author's complete lack of understanding of what he is writing about.

      Roman has a talent to raise the wave!
      Not an aviator, but the roles of the triad were laid out on the shelves. It seems that Roman here, in this article, as in the previous one devoted to the Strategic Missile Forces, crumbled ... to put it mildly ...
  11. smaug78
    smaug78 28 May 2021 08: 35
    +4
    The novel goes on to compare comparing soft to warm ...
  12. Kalmar
    Kalmar 28 May 2021 09: 42
    +6
    As for the V-1 and V-2 - alas, they do not carry missiles, but to approach and pour thermonuclear bombs on Moscow should be very lucky.

    "... but there is a nuance" (old joke)

    Strategic aviation is clearly not a first strike weapon. By the time the bombers arrive at their target areas, the surrounding landscape will already be abundantly fertilized with plutonium delivered by ICBMs. As a result, the air defense will be clearly not so vigorous, which, in theory, makes it possible to finish off with bombs everything that is still moving.
    1. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 28 May 2021 12: 25
      0
      Yes, everything is easier - on the territory of third countries.
  13. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 28 May 2021 10: 58
    +4
    But alas, the AGM-86 ALCM can only carry the B-52, and seriously considering the use of this aircraft in the conflict with Russia is overkill.

    Why's that? The B-52 has the same task as the Tu-95MS: to deliver an ALCM to the launch area. And taking into account the fact that the "fifteen hundred" will go in the second echelon and, most likely, through the Arctic, then the few "points" of air defense on their way will already be suppressed.
  14. faterdom
    faterdom 28 May 2021 10: 58
    -1
    Nevertheless, it was decided to resume production of the TU-160 (God forbid, that it works!), And also to equip the modernized TU-22 with "Daggers", as well as to re-supply them with refueling rods. Which will completely bring them to the level of near-strategic issues, for example, the elimination of AUG completely, or the treatment of Alaska or Greenland from harmful species of life.
    So there is a sense. At least this is available to us, and not as ruinous as building and maintaining then aircraft carriers.
    1. Osipov9391
      Osipov9391 28 May 2021 18: 48
      +1
      Tu-22M3 is already history. The aircraft is not resourceful, a maximum of 7-10 years will last 15-20 units in case of modernization. For a territory like ours, this is not serious.
      An attempt is underway to create a replacement based on the Su-34.
  15. Avior
    Avior 28 May 2021 12: 03
    -2
    With regard to free-fall bombs, the scope of their application suggests itself - for large mobile targets, such as a division in a concentration area, mobile launchers of nuclear missiles, large ships, and so on.
    No wonder they modernized their bombs with the ability to use from extremely low altitudes, Lancer is also optimized for this.
    1. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 28 May 2021 12: 24
      +1
      Even smaller ones. The division is likely to be covered with something like the c300. But the vanguard is no longer on the offensive.
      1. Avior
        Avior 28 May 2021 12: 40
        -2
        I think that something against the air defense simultaneously with the attack will also use some means at the same time, and they will rely on the breakthrough and the strike itself at extremely low altitudes. Bombs after modernization, either from 30 or 60 meters, can be used, Lancer also knows how for a long time at an ultra-low altitude is with automatic relief
        1. Sancho_SP
          Sancho_SP 28 May 2021 12: 42
          0
          What's the point?
          Ballistic missiles are enough to inflict critical damage inside the enemy's territory, what to us, what to them. In general, air defense can not even be pressed, it still will not protect the target, and then it will become useless.
          1. Avior
            Avior 30 May 2021 21: 24
            0
            I understand that the Americans are considering options for a limited war with the use of nuclear weapons on the advancing troops, and not on the enemy's territory.
            They have bombs for the fighters too.
    2. Aag
      Aag 30 May 2021 20: 06
      0
      Quote: Avior
      With regard to free-fall bombs, the scope of their application suggests itself - for large mobile targets, such as a division in a concentration area, mobile launchers of nuclear missiles, large ships, and so on.
      No wonder they modernized their bombs with the ability to use from extremely low altitudes, Lancer is also optimized for this.

      According to all plans, BU (Combat Regulations), the Strategic Missile Forces, by the time the enemy bombers arrive, should already be arming themselves (silos), and the PGRK should change positions, and also prepare to replace the BC!
      ... Naturally, those who survive after the 1st strike.
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 31 May 2021 02: 23
        0
        It was always curious, but how much more missiles for the same anti-tank missile systems do we have than the complexes themselves? What to rearm for then?
        1. Aag
          Aag 31 May 2021 05: 17
          0
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          It was always curious, but how much more missiles for the same anti-tank missile systems do we have than the complexes themselves? What to rearm for then?

          There seems to be little ... (see the START-3 Treaty). Apparently, very few will need them.
  16. demiurg
    demiurg 28 May 2021 12: 04
    0
    But Timokhin / Klimov actually know what they write. And you can agree with them or not, but they write what they know about.
    And here the age of the aircraft is a very important criterion. And the Tu-95 has only eight missiles. The author was banned on Google. For example, I found it with eight missiles. And this is only on the external sling.
    1. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 28 May 2021 14: 03
      +2
      Quote: demiurg
      But Timokhin / Klimov actually know what they write. And you can agree with them or not, but they write what they know about.
      And here the age of the aircraft is a very important criterion. And the Tu-95 has only eight missiles. The author was banned on Google. For example, I found it with eight missiles. And this is only on the external sling.


      Accordingly, the flight range will not exceed 2500-3000 kilometers ...
      1. Lozovik
        Lozovik 28 May 2021 14: 20
        -1
        Quote: SovAr238A
        Accordingly, the flight range will not exceed 2500-3000 kilometers ...

        Lies again. Tu-95MS-16 with 16 Kh-55 missiles Dprakt = 6500 km.
        1. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A 30 May 2021 22: 43
          +1
          Quote: Lozovik
          Quote: SovAr238A
          Accordingly, the flight range will not exceed 2500-3000 kilometers ...

          Lies again. Tu-95MS-16 with 16 Kh-55 missiles Dprakt = 6500 km.

          That is, you are deliberately substituting the type of missiles?

          And here are the small-sized X-55, if the photo shows much larger and heavier X-101/102 ????
          Are you lying and accusing the other of lying?

          And explain what Dprakt is?
          Is this a combat tactical radius?
          Or is it a simple flight range?
          That there are two big differences ...

          Or do planes fly one way, do you?

          So don't juggle your cards accusing others of fraud.
          1. Lozovik
            Lozovik 31 May 2021 07: 17
            0
            Quote: SovAr238A
            And here the small-sized X-55

            Is the X-101 not small?

            Quote: SovAr238A
            if the photo shows much larger and heavier X-101/102 ????

            For the suspension of the X-101, the same transition beams and ejection devices are used, the weight of the cargo is the same in both cases (approximately 19500 kg). Taking into account the smaller number of missiles (and, accordingly, AKU), comparable sizes and aerodynamic characteristics, the additional Cx will be approximately equal.

            Quote: SovAr238A
            And explain what Dprakt is?

            Practical flight range.

            Quote: SovAr238A
            Is this a combat tactical radius?

            There is no such thing, there is just a tactical radius.

            Quote: SovAr238A
            That there are two big differences ...

            But men don’t know!

            Quote: SovAr238A

            Or do planes fly one way, do you?

            Re-read your previous message, the answer was to it.

            Quote: SovAr238A
            So don't juggle your cards accusing others of fraud.

            This is not the first time I have noticed deliberately false information about you.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 28 May 2021 14: 05
      +1
      Quote: demiurg
      And the Tu-95 has only eight missiles. The author was banned on Google. For example, I found it with eight missiles. And this is only on the external sling.

      EMNIP, there is one caveat: a part of the Tu-95MS ALCM can only be carried on an external sling. For example, Kh-101/102, which do not fit in length into the compartment with the drum.
    3. bk0010
      bk0010 28 May 2021 19: 46
      0
      The external suspension on strategists is prohibited by some treaty, and it is also pointless: it is scary to tie so many nuclear charges on one aircraft, it is better to distribute them more evenly.
  17. bk0010
    bk0010 28 May 2021 12: 06
    -1
    It is clear that flights over Europe will be impossible for us
    Do you think that smoke from fires or ascending air currents from epicenters can interfere?
    1. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 28 May 2021 12: 23
      +2
      Air defense and enemy aircraft will interfere. And if you walk through air defense and airfields with atomic weapons, then there will be no special sense in flying over Europe.
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 28 May 2021 19: 39
        0
        Quote: Sancho_SP
        there won't be much sense in flying over Europe.
        And to the states?
        1. Sancho_SP
          Sancho_SP 28 May 2021 23: 08
          0
          So you are quoting about Europe.
          1. bk0010
            bk0010 28 May 2021 23: 40
            0
            I'm talking about this phrase of the author:
            It is clear that flights over Europe will be impossible for us, so the only route is through the North, with access to the launch distance somewhere in the Greenland region.
            , I hint that there may be options with Europe.
            1. Sancho_SP
              Sancho_SP 29 May 2021 00: 20
              0
              Well, the rockets themselves will fly overseas, again. Why fly planes there?
  18. Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 28 May 2021 12: 21
    +1
    Sphero-horse in a vacuum?

    Ballistic missiles will work on protected targets. And for all stationary in general. Suppressing both air defense and targets.

    B-2, if they survived, will bomb rather unprotected advancing units on the march and close rear areas.
    1. Aag
      Aag 30 May 2021 20: 11
      0
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      Sphero-horse in a vacuum?

      Ballistic missiles will work on protected targets. And for all stationary in general. Suppressing both air defense and targets.

      B-2, if they survived, will bomb rather unprotected advancing units on the march and close rear areas.

      It seems like we did not leave START-3 ...
      Count the number of nuclear warheads, carriers, ... Will the air defense remain? Well, if only to a heap, in general panic ...
  19. AC130 Ganship
    AC130 Ganship 28 May 2021 15: 40
    +4
    The author, I do not know how it is now, but during my service in the army in the 80s, 80% of targets were assigned in the strategy of a nuclear strike on ICBMs. The task B1c, B52, etc. was “to finish off the remaining 20% ​​after the main components of the USSR air defense system were destroyed. In those years, the US Air Force had several hundred B52s and almost 100 B1Vs.
    As they say, teach materiel. Everything is written there
  20. Sergey Obraztsov
    Sergey Obraztsov 28 May 2021 16: 11
    +1
    In general, it must be admitted that the difficulties of approaching the missile launch area will be no less extensive for our pilots than for their American colleagues.


    And thank God. It is the stalemate on both sides that guarantees both countries a peaceful sky over their heads.
    Tu160 is not only a doomsday weapon, but also a very long arm of Moscow, capable of projecting the power of conventional weapons.
  21. Usher
    Usher 28 May 2021 16: 22
    0
    Beavers can strike back. That is, after the alarm, they fly out and strike with a delay after the suppression of the air defense by the first nuclear strike with ballistic missiles.
  22. Andy J.
    Andy J. 28 May 2021 17: 59
    +1
    The author is not at all embarrassed by the fact that the B-1B has not been a carrier of nuclear weapons since 1995. At all. From the word at all. It has neither rockets nor nuclear bombs.
    To write off the B-52 from the CD is about the same as to write off the Tu-160 and Tu-95. In addition, not all lines of the same are well guarded. If they do, it will go through holes in the air defense.
  23. Dzenn
    Dzenn 28 May 2021 18: 18
    0
    You need to have great courage to assume the presence of 2-3 US aircraft carriers in the Greenland region.
    First and foremost, in recent years, they do not have more than 2-3 AUG on alert in general, all the rest of those available are in long-term repair, and they still need to cover the Persian Gulf and the Pacific Ocean and the Asian region.
    The second aircraft carriers are not designed for the climate of the Northern region, they cannot be on duty there.
    Our strategists may well fly through the North Pole and Alaska, the Aleutian Islands.
    1. Andy J.
      Andy J. 28 May 2021 18: 38
      +2
      During a period of threat, they can raise about 2/3 of the total number of aircraft carriers at the expense of those who are in the planned incremental availability. And they are quite capable of working in the north. Not in ice, but at subzero temperatures they are quite capable. And they even train it periodically.
      1. RaDeVl
        RaDeVl 30 June 2021 11: 59
        0
        If you look at the aircraft mooring system on the deck of American aircraft carriers, their problems in the northern latitudes become obvious. Not stable, to put it mildly, and the takeoff system using steam catapults at negative temperatures. A fat minus will also be the fact that the air wing of the "adversaries" is located mainly on the deck, hangars, as a rule, do not accommodate all aircraft.
  24. ivpe211
    ivpe211 28 May 2021 19: 37
    0
    when all these "toys" were invented, SRAM and x15 were included in the kit. In which case they were supposed to "extinguish" the air defense. Then the s300 and the patriot appeared with a radius of destruction of 300 km, and the meaning of them disappeared.
    Moreover, judging by the armament, only sram - B-2 was intended exclusively for suppressing air defense.
  25. CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 28 May 2021 19: 51
    0
    The article is controversial and in some places the revelation of nothing was added.
  26. faterdom
    faterdom 28 May 2021 20: 15
    +1
    Quote: Osipov9391
    Tu-22M3 is already history. The aircraft is not resourceful, a maximum of 7-10 years will last 15-20 units in case of modernization. For a territory like ours, this is not serious.
    An attempt is underway to create a replacement based on the Su-34.

    Only now they are available, and an attempt is not torture (right, Comrade Beria?), All our attempts "shift to the right" from year to year, and no one is responsible for this. Consequently, the trend will continue.
  27. faterdom
    faterdom 28 May 2021 20: 20
    -1
    Quote: Andy J.
    During a period of threat, they can raise about 2/3 of the total number of aircraft carriers at the expense of those who are in the planned incremental availability. And they are quite capable of working in the north. Not in ice, but at subzero temperatures they are quite capable. And they even train it periodically.

    They barely scraped the air wing for three aircraft carriers from all the others when Kim went to scare. And they didn't frighten me, by the way.
    So even 3/3 of the total number of aircraft carriers without aviation and pilots, and even in conditions of strong air defense - so, distracting forces intended for slaughter. This is even if you do not add here how many of the total number of aircraft carriers are simultaneously serviceable and capable of performing combat missions.
    1. Andy J.
      Andy J. 28 May 2021 21: 18
      0
      Aviation, like an aircraft carrier, is also prepared for overtime during limited readiness. The fact that they were not used to scare Kim only means that there was no urgent need for it.
  28. faterdom
    faterdom 28 May 2021 22: 38
    -1
    Quote: Andy J.
    Aviation, like an aircraft carrier, is also prepared for overtime during limited readiness. The fact that they were not used to scare Kim only means that there was no urgent need for it.

    An aircraft carrier under repair or not commissioned for years can hardly be considered fit for overtime work, much like our Kuznetsov is now.
    And they used to scare Kim, you inattentively read. The result is only negative - don't scare me! And this trip cost money, and serious. Have you not applied? So Kim did not use a lot of things.
  29. FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 31 May 2021 05: 14
    0
    The author, why do you write off the B-52? Can't he reach the missile launch line?
  30. Diverter
    Diverter 1 June 2021 19: 40
    0
    The author tends to the point that YES is not needed in practice. I am sure that this is a wrong opinion. I think that all Tu 95s should be handed over to the Navy as bombers. Those. remove this aircraft from the "strategists". Replacing them with new Tu 160m2. (as far as possible). Continue development of electronic warfare equipment for Tu 160m2, which will increase their survivability. And actively use them further.
    1. RaDeVl
      RaDeVl 30 June 2021 12: 05
      0
      The Navy has a Tu-142MK. The tasks of the MA of the Navy are not for the Tu-95M. Anti-submarine and anti -arable tasks. Previously, the Tu-22M3 in the Navy was to fight with the AUG. Now he is in the VKS and is responsible for this.
      1. Diverter
        Diverter 3 July 2021 11: 50
        0
        my idea is to transfer these aircraft to the subordination of the new branch of the Russian Federation Navy MP (Expeditionary Forces). This will allow you to provide support to the landing troops far from home.
  31. Serge-667
    Serge-667 11 July 2021 14: 07
    0
    In general, a rather strange fashion nowadays has gone, comparing an airplane against an airplane, a boat against a boat, etc.

    It is exactly the same great folly to compare the elements of the triad separately. It doesn't make any sense at all.
    Of course, for the guaranteed use of this or that type of weapon, it is necessary to create conditions. In this case, suppress the missile defense and air defense systems.
    And such a task will be carried out in the same comprehensive manner, using a wide range of military-technical means in the process of solving tactical and strategic tasks.
    Thus, under certain conditions, even the hardened B-52 can become a powerful, highly effective weapon and, on the contrary, the possession of superior cruise missiles will not give any advantages.
  32. Oleg Zorin
    Oleg Zorin 7 August 2021 23: 26
    0
    "With regards to our bombers" - I could not bear such a mockery of the Russian language! am am
  33. Outsider
    Outsider 26 September 2021 12: 19
    -1
    -
    According to the passport, the combat load of the B-2B is greater, but with full it does not fly at all, both in terms of speed and in terms of range.
    - Roman Skomorokhov, the Military Review champion in writing the most incredible and most stupid nonsense! laughing lol
  34. Outsider
    Outsider 26 September 2021 13: 37
    -1
    The plane is the oldest carrier of atomic and nuclear weapons.

    - Atomic and nuclear are synonyms.
    And here, I am sure, the most important thing will be with what the strategists will fly to the enemy. With nuclear weapons, of course. Alas, the Americans have only bombs!

    - Putting on ALL US nuclear warheads is a matter of several hours.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer#Specifications_(B-1B)
    AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW)
    AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)
    AGM-158 Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#Specifications_(B-2A_Block_30)
    Standoff weapon: AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) and AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM)
    ... I'm sure that the range of our air defense systems will become an insurmountable obstacle.

    - Especially when flying over the North Pole ... lol