Does America's God Love Trinity?

98

While we were talking about promising defense systems that will 100% protect our promising PAK DA bombers, which will appear in the future by 2030, the United States assembled the first two copies of the newest strategic bomber B-21 aka B-3, aka “ Raider".

Index "21" - this is right at Yakovlev with his MS-21 ripped off, means the 21st century. The name is more interesting, the name with such a thick hint. Twofold.



In general, we all know perfectly well what the term "raider" means. Previously, it was a ship with enormous autonomy, capable of destroying enemy communications at a great distance from either their bases or from others. But there is also a second interpretation.

The Raider was an operation carried out in 1942. This is a semi-suicidal raid on Japan by land-based B-25s, which took off from the deck of an aircraft carrier, bombed Japan and then fell in who where. The so-called "Doolittle Raid".


Material damage was not great, but moral ... This operation is quite comparable to the bombing of the Red Army Air Force on Berlin in 1941. The same impudent and courageous at the same time.

Here is a new aircraft and was named after this operation. The hint is clear: there are no inaccessible places, B-3 can guaranteed to reach any target, in any country in the world.

The aircraft's official "baptism" ceremony was attended by retired Lieutenant Colonel Richard Y. Cole (1915-2019), the only living veteran of the Doolittle raid at the time.


In general, it is worth paying tribute to the Americans, the plane was built very quickly. The competition was announced in 2014, and the first two were built in 2021. For comparison: the PAK DA program in Russia was launched in 2009 and so far the first aircraft is under construction.

For the right to develop a new bomber for the US Air Force, three leading (well, first, second and fourth) companies of the world clashed in battle: Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman. The Grumman project was recognized as the most promising.

Earlier this year, there was a message from Grumman saying that "everything is going according to plan." The creation of the B-21 is proceeding according to the schedule and even without the rise in prices. The second is especially surprising because budget overruns are normal in the United States. Here "Grumman" surprised.

It is planned that the finalization of the first copies of the B-21 / B-3 will take the entire 2021, and the flight tests will begin in 2022.

In case of successful tests and acceptance into service (something suggests that they will accept) a very interesting event will occur: B-3 will have to replace ... B-1 and B-2. Newer aircraft than the B-52, which will remain in service!

In general, we must admit that the first two "pancakes" (although B-1 is not quite a pancake), "Lancer" and "Spirit" still came out lumpy. B-1s are constantly breaking down, the reliability of this aircraft leaves much to be desired. B-2, which became the most expensive aircraft in stories humanity, too, does not shine with indicators. But the main thing is the price for a billion dollars, which made it impractical to build the aircraft on a large scale. Therefore, only 20 units were built instead of a hundred.

The B-21 promises to be much cheaper and easier to manufacture.

Here the point is to change the concept of application. The fact is that both "Lancer" and "Spirit" were focused on their use at low and ultra-low altitudes to break through the enemy's air defense system. The enemy, of course, was understood to be the USSR and, as a successor, Russia.

However, modern air defense systems do quite well with low-flying targets. And with such a goal as a huge strategic bomber, there will be no problems even more. The breakthrough of the layered air defense system at low altitude is a thing of the past. And given that 90% of the weapons of American strategic bombers are bombs (albeit adjustable ones), then successful actions in a country like Russia look doubtful.

In May 2020, the US Department of Defense announced the final figure: in case of successful tests, the agency will order "Northrop-Grumman" 145 V-3 units

Does America's God Love Trinity?

This will be a very impressive strike force, especially if the US Air Force is armed with a decent air-launched cruise missile. At least a decent one. The "newest" AGM-158B JASSM-ER (modernization of the AGM-158A JASSM, which comes from the 80s of the last century) is still very much inferior to the Russian X-55SM in the range of use. Three times. It is not worth talking about how useful a missile launch is due to the range of the enemy's air defense. A cruise missile, even a subsonic one, is still more difficult to shoot down than a strategic bomber. And 3,5 thousand km of range for the Kh-55SM give a much better chance of survival for the carrier's crew than 1 km for the AGM-158A JASSM.

B-3 is a direct continuation of work on B-2. It is logical how much money was spent on the creation of the B-2 Spirit, how many developments were carried out - it is a sin not to use it.

With images and data, everything is very bad when necessary, the Americans are very good at keeping their military secrets. Basically, everyone uses the B-2 photo, since the aircraft are similar in design. "Flying wing", or as it is also called, mono-wing. No tail unit.

But there are also differences. Since the B-3 is not planned to be used at low and ultra-low altitudes, its configuration will be simpler and cheaper. There will be no "jaggedness" in the rear of the wing, most likely the wing will be more relaxed in shape. The B-3 will simply have to take off, gain altitude and calmly fly to the line of ammunition drop. No rounding maneuvers, no low-altitude flights. Everything is calm and thoughtful, well, like a normal "strategist".

Engines that will not be subject to the maneuver load will be placed closer to the fuselage. The air intakes are of a more classic, beveled geometry, rather than the serrated ones of the B-2. Exhaust gas pre-cooling system to reduce the aircraft's IR visibility.

And, most importantly, the B-3 will be smaller than its predecessor. The fuselage length is 15 meters (for the V-2 - 21 meters), the wingspan is 42 meters (for the V-2 - 52 meters). Accordingly, the "Raider" will be easier. Perhaps - faster, or it will be able to take on the same level of combat load.


Northrop-Grumman believes that such a development will actually make the B-3 an aircraft that can be mass-produced and for less money. The second is especially important, the budget of the US Department of Defense, as it turned out, still has a bottom. True, they do not knock on him yet, but anything can happen.
It is clear that in terms of armament from the B-3 they will try to equip everything that was available to its predecessors and all possible new developments. "Bunker" bombs GBU-57, nuclear bombs (free-fall B83, corrected B61-12), nuclear missiles (remnants of AGM-86 of all modifications and something will definitely be created under the "Raider").

Interesting information, which has received official confirmation, the B-3 will be "toothy", that is, there will be air-to-air missiles in the weapons segment. This is not typical for "strategists", but the aircraft will have the ability to fight off enemy fighters in the event of an interception attempt.

There is no doubt that this will be a very heavily armed aircraft.


What can really be questioned is absolute invisibility. Yes, the Americans were and are the first in this direction, and they worked on the mistakes of their F-117 more than fruitfully. All other countries of the world cannot even come close in terms of the level of developments to the Americans. They understand stealth very well, and even with their experience ...

Since 1983, as the F-117 Nighthawk entered service, work on aircraft with reduced visibility did not stop. Naturally, all the developments on this topic for almost 40 years will not be lost and will be used in the design of the B-3.

Naturally, the newest strategic bomber will be equipped with the latest developments in the field of electronic warfare. Everything will be aimed at making it as difficult as possible for aircraft to detect and engage air defense systems.

By the way, the United States does not at all hide the fact that the "deeply echeloned enemy air defense system" should be understood as the air defense of Russia and China.

It is obvious that the main combat mission of the "Raider" will be precisely the raider passage, possibly alone, to the launch zone for key targets on the enemy's territory.

And, by the way, an inconspicuous aircraft can do it. Bye swarms drones and fighter-bombers at different altitudes (UAVs at altitudes up to 5 km, aircraft at altitudes of 8-10 km) will distract the enemy’s air defense system, V-3s at altitudes from 15 to 20 km can break through the defense shield and strike, including including nuclear bombs.

Ammunition type B61-12 is able to independently go to the target, steering and hitting with great accuracy.

So one mistake in the air defense system - and the blow will be delivered. B61 is 80 kilotons. And if we talk about cruise missiles, then we can already talk about 150 kilotons. At one time, Hiroshima got "only" 16 kilotons.

Our beloved The National Interest wrote that the B-3 would be invulnerable to the promising Russian S-500 Prometheus anti-aircraft missile systems. The plane does not actually give a signature, in any ranges, and miracles do not happen. The point is not even that it is difficult to shoot it down, the point is that it is difficult to notice it, the radars will show nothing but ordinary noises. He will show large birds, gulls, cormorants, migratory geese, kites, but B-21 will not.

Let us doubt a little about such an optimistic scenario. In a dispute between V-3 "Ryder" and, for example, our radar "Sky-M", I would put on "Sky". And it's not about some kind of patriotism, no. The station uses three bands, meter, decimeter and centimeter. I admit that in one of the ranges the "raider" will be invisible. But in others it is unlikely. At least in one, but it will "light up".

But in the United States, they believe that everything will be so. An aircraft completely invisible to the enemy's radar station, which will ensure the destruction of targets with impunity on the territory of any country.

The fact that the military department is seriously counting on the B-3 indicates that the United States plans to significantly increase the number of air bases where nuclear ammunition for the Air Force will be stored.

Today the United States operates two bases, Minot in North Dakota and Whiteman in Missouri. But by 2030, there will be five bases: it is planned to commission and retrofit for storing nuclear weapons at Barksdale in Louisiana, Dyess in Texas and Ellsworth in South Dakota.

At each of the bases, special storage facilities will be created for nuclear warheads for bombs and air-launched cruise missiles.

This indicates, first of all, that the American military department is seriously planning to increase its fleet of strategic aviation... And since such expenditures have already been planned, it means that the results of the Northrop-Grumman work are encouraging for the US military.

Of course, statements on the topic of "absolute invisibility" are somewhat akin to statements on our part that the new protection complex will 100% protect PAK DA from any means of optical and electronic detection.

However, it should be noted that after only 7 years from the beginning of work, the first two aircraft are being completed. And test flights are planned in 2022. We, too, seem to be building the first prototype of the PAK DA, but 12 years later. And the first flight is planned only in 2025.


The lag is obvious. True, this does not mean that the B-3 will be a cut above the plane being built in Russia. Trials will show everything, everything will become clear over time.

Perhaps the aviation god will have mercy on the Americans and the third strategic bomber of the new generation will nevertheless become a worthy replacement for the same B-52. They say God loves trinity.
98 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +38
    21 June 2021 04: 19
    our PAK YES, still "invisible", for 12 years nothing is visible.
    1. -1
      27 June 2021 13: 06
      our PAK YES, still "invisible", for 12 years nothing is visible.
      Such nonsense could be written only by a narrow-minded, completely incomprehensible chick, a pecking bird or a provocateur. PAK YES is a very expensive toy, both in manufacture and in service. This is an attack plane, not a defense plane, Russia, unlike the United States, is not going to attack someone, and there is simply nowhere to use it. The aircraft that exists in Russia fully satisfies all needs. Therefore, if we start producing PAK YES, they will simply be idle, we cannot afford it. And technologies are being developed, science is developing.
      1. +1
        28 June 2021 16: 44
        And such nonsense could only be written by a person with an extra chromosome. "The plane is attacking, not defending!"
        Tu-160, Tu-95, Tu-22 - these are all "protection" aircraft?
        Your thoughts are so brilliant that the orderlies have already left.
        1. 0
          10 July 2021 10: 41
          Tu-160, Tu-95, Tu-22 - these are all "protection" aircraft?
          Yes, you have a clinical case, you are not even able to understand what they write to you. Especially for you, with your exceptional mental abilities, I will repeat once again: "PAK YES this is a VERY EXPENSIVE toy, both in production and in service." And the airplanes listed by you are much cheaper and they are already there.
          1. 0
            26 July 2021 16: 42
            Semyon Semyonov,
            And Tu160 is "not a very expensive toy"? For 36 years in the ranks - not a single combat use at all, and it is not planned ... Well, maybe they flew a couple of times to launch / test a new missile at the Taliban armed with machine guns of 12.7 caliber. Everything.
      2. 0
        26 July 2021 16: 38
        If you follow your version, then Tu160, 95 and 22M3 are also not needed, because they are designed with the concept of "flew far to the enemy and bombed" ...
  2. +5
    21 June 2021 04: 57
    And how can one fail to recall the same phrase of I. V. Stalin:
    "... We will envy! ..."
    The aircraft has been built and hopes are placed on its design characteristics.
    And we can only hope that "something goes wrong" ....
    1. -5
      21 June 2021 10: 14
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      And we can only hope that "something goes wrong" ....

      The hint is clear: there are no inaccessible places, B-3 can guaranteed to reach any target, in any country in the world.
      And then "get who where"?
      1. -1
        21 June 2021 15: 03
        Where did CNN show ...
        1. 0
          22 June 2021 20: 56
          Rather Hollywood, they are jack of all trades.
  3. +5
    21 June 2021 05: 20
    With the "councils," they went "head to head" - they had the B-52, we had the Tu-95, they had the B-1, and we had the Tu-160. Then the Americans had the B-2, and now the B-3 was ready. And ours are all digging. hi
    1. +26
      21 June 2021 05: 46
      The Soviets, despite the poverty of the population and the gulags, were attractive for the scale of the idea of ​​equality. The cult of a man-creator, scientist, inventor. Not the late USSR, but the one in which the creators of the TU-160 studied.

      The current scale of the idea in the form of a mine country, from which the grabbed must be taken out to the west and bought a hundred villas, while pouring slops on this west, directly contradicts technical progress.
    2. +1
      22 June 2021 20: 57
      But our billionaires are growing at a frantic pace, who fuck it.
    3. -1
      11 August 2021 13: 25
      Not certainly in that way. B-1 occupies an intermediate position between TU-160 and TU-22M3.
  4. +9
    21 June 2021 05: 29
    However, it should be noted that after only 7 years from the beginning of work, the first two aircraft are being completed. And test flights are planned in 2022. We, too, seem to be building the first prototype of the PAK DA, but 12 years later. And the first flight is planned only in 2025.


    It is more logical to compare PAK DA with V-2. Both were the first mass flying wing bombers. The first flight of the B-2 in 1983.

    Let us doubt a little about such an optimistic scenario. In a dispute between V-3 "Ryder" and, for example, our radar "Sky-M", I would put on "Sky". And it's not about some kind of patriotism, no. The station uses three bands, meter, decimeter and centimeter. I admit that in one of the ranges the "raider" will be invisible. But in others it is unlikely. At least in one, but it will "light up".

    Yes, it’s a matter of patriotism. There is no technical justification for the conclusions. The assumption is taken from blind faith. Ground-based radars have too many dead zones, too much error, too many constraints. Now it is impossible to do without air and space radars. And there should be hundreds of them, not just a few.
    1. +3
      21 June 2021 07: 36
      I agree with the "Fiery Cat" and I repeat, the plane is electrified in flight. The latter causes radio (e / m) radiation, which makes it possible to detect the "invisibility" at any height.
      It's up to the designers. A big plus is that this radar is PASSIVE.
      1. +4
        21 June 2021 15: 07
        Finding a target is the first, and the second, the most IMPORTANT thing is to aim air defense missiles at the target. But here there are many BUTs. The devil, as you know, is in the details!
    2. -6
      21 June 2021 11: 34
      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
      Yes, it’s a matter of patriotism. There is no technical justification for the conclusions. The assumption is taken from blind faith. Ground-based radars have too many dead zones, too much error, too many constraints.

      The statements are just like those of a typical expert coming out. You certainly trust the advertising words of representatives of private American military companies (whose main goal is to sell more) about the "super stealth" of these aircraft, and this is without bringing at least one physical parameter (characteristics) of this "stealth". And when someone objectively doubts this, you say that this is blind patriotism. Why do they objectively doubt it, because the previous two "inconspicuous" bombers were just the same and were noticeable in the low-frequency range.
    3. +6
      21 June 2021 13: 03
      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
      There is no technical justification for the conclusions.

      The thickness of the coating must be at least half the wavelength. Those. in the meter range, at least half a meter. That's all the rationale
    4. +3
      21 June 2021 17: 25
      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
      ... The assumption is taken from blind faith. Ground-based radars have too many dead zones, too much error, too many constraints.

      If we talk about the altitude profile of the B-21 \ 3 flight, then what kind of "closed zones" can we talk about? If he has a line-of-sight range of 500 kilometers (for an altitude of 15 - 20 km.)?
      And in the meter range, an airplane-type target is visible regardless of coatings and configuration - because its hull elements are commensurate with the wavelength. So he will see it 55Ж6, he will see it in the meter range.
      And ZGRLS will see, guaranteed.
      But it just won't be able to direct it.
      55Zh6 can try to direct the interceptor fighters into the zone of the mark from the target, and then they themselves, with their OLS, rummage around, detect, intercept.
      The radar of the meter and decameter range (ZGRLS) is a detection and warning station. But forewarned is forearmed.
      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
      Now it is impossible to do without air and space radars. And there should be hundreds of them, not just a few.

      If an AWACS aircraft has a radar in a range of up to 70 cm, then it will not be very useful, it is so effective for low-altitude targets, and B-21 \ 3, as we understand it, will break through at high altitudes and attack CD with a range of up to 1000 km. In this case, the CDs themselves will have to be intercepted. But if they try to use gliding and free-fall bombs, then interceptors with powerful OLS and with guidance from 55Zh6 will have good chances.
      Quote: OgnennyiKotik

      It is more logical to compare PAK DA with V-2. Both were the first mass flying wing bombers. The first flight of the B-2 in 1983.

      V-2 was created for low-altitude breakthrough of air defense with free-falling and gliding AB.
      PAK DA - heavy long-range bomber - long-range missile carrier ...
      So you can only compare it with the B-2 in terms of size and configuration. But in terms of tasks and combat capabilities, only with the B-21. But ours is noticeably larger and will carry a large payload.
      1. +2
        21 June 2021 18: 43
        Not certainly in that way. B-2 can theoretically carry up to 16 long-range cruise missiles. B-1, for example, can carry up to 24 cruise missiles with a range of up to 1000 km.
        1. +3
          21 June 2021 20: 00
          Quote: Osipov9391
          B-2 can theoretically carry up to 16 long-range cruise missiles. B-1, for example, can carry up to 24 cruise missiles with a range of up to 1000 km.

          Now yes . Moreover, the B-2 is theoretically, and the B-1B is already being modernized for the carriers of these missiles.
          But there is nothing to compare yet. Our PAK YES does not exist in nature and metal, it promises to take off only in 2025 ... and how much it will LEARN to fly, getting rid of childhood diseases, only Ahura-Mazda knows.
          But if you look at the future combat missions and armament of the PAK DA, then this is in the first (and main) place - a missile carrier.
          And B-2 is a classic bomber. His weapon is bombs.
          1. -1
            22 June 2021 00: 13
            B-1 (now female crews easily and often fly on them) will be massively deployed in Europe. Norway, Scandinavian countries, Southern Europe and in the future Ukraine. For this, the bases are equipped. Now they fly with might and main throughout Europe. They are practicing interaction with fighters of NATO countries and mastering local airfields.
      2. 0
        22 June 2021 22: 50
        And ZGRLS will see, guaranteed.
        But it just won't be able to direct it.

        Well, if such an infection is found, it is not a sin to throw something in a couple of kilotons across the detection area. If it doesn’t get it, it’s blown away.
        1. 0
          22 June 2021 23: 21
          Quote: paul3390
          Well - if such an infection is found, it is not a sin to shy away with something

          Have you seen the mark from the target on the VIKO meter radar? There is such a bast ... especially at long range ... Guidance and targeting stations are only "SM" or in early versions of the extremely "DM" range, they form a narrow beam and the mark from the target of such a radar is small and you can aim interceptors and missiles ...
          And the nuclear submarine on the SAM, of course, is a good thing and earlier on all Soviet air defense systems, in each division special warheads were provided, starting from the S-75, and such should be used for group targets in war conditions. But you won't let the rocket on the target designation of the meter radar, and if someone manages to do it (for this, you also need to find out the height of the target (55Zh6 could, they also had a meter altimeter - not very accurate, but they saw STEALTH), then the error will be very big , and a low-power nuclear warhead at a distance of several kilometers \ tens of kilometers, but at a high altitude ... it can only interfere with an electromagnetic pulse ... on military airplanes from EMP protection is provided. So it is more reliable to send interceptors with a good OLS. The OLS sees at 35 km, while the Su-50 is promised up to 57 km.
          By the way, if in the slats of the Su-57 are still installed meter radar modules (as promised), then it may well detect these B-21 \ 3 and its own radar ... and detect it covertly.
          1. +1
            22 June 2021 23: 59
            Was the B-2 designed only for free-fall and KAB bombs? After all, such a stealth technology was made exactly for this it turns out. To open up saturated air defense zones through the "eye of a needle" (using the perfect SPO / RTR) and hit strategically important targets is guaranteed.
            Then they introduced tactical cruise missiles with a range of up to 1000 km in the usual equipment -16 pieces.
            But the nuclear option, according to the data, consists only of free-fall bombs B61 and B83.
            The load is up to 30 tons, which is very impressive for such a design.
            But the B-1 was originally designed as a missile carrier. He was given all types of cruise missiles and the crew for this was expanded to 4 people. Now it can carry all high-precision cruise missiles.
            It turns out that these are different machines functionally? And B-1 is a very good plane, as even our people who are familiar with it and who flew on it say. The handling is very good and the equipment.
  5. +2
    21 June 2021 05: 36
    A seriously protected and advanced way to covertly deliver democracy around the planet. Human rights will fly straight from the bomb bays.
    1. +1
      21 June 2021 15: 11
      And from the PAK YES bomb bays, as well as the TU-160 and TU-95, will toys and gifts fly to the enemy's head to send him to hell?
  6. +11
    21 June 2021 05: 39
    3,5 thousand km of range for the Kh-55SM give a much better chance of survival for the carrier's crew than 1 km for the AGM-158A JASSM.

    I wonder why?
    Do we have anti-aircraft missiles of this range? - not.
    Do we have a radar that can see a stealthy target at that range? -not.
    Do we have fighter bases 1000 km from our borders? - not.
    So why should they be afraid?
    1. +4
      21 June 2021 09: 23
      So why should they be afraid?

      Your calculations laughing The goals are not on "our border", but deeper. But a fighter with AWACS and a tanker will be met just "on our border", or even earlier. You can replace "ours" with "enemy", the Chinese are also fine with aviation.
      Here and there, so it turned out on the verge of a foul. If in 1980 the combat radius of a front-line aircraft of 400 km suited everyone, now 800 km is not enough for everyone ..
      I did not understand one thing, by what miracle does our rocket fly 3 times farther than the American one? This means that rockets are of different sizes and it is incorrect to compare them.
      1. +3
        21 June 2021 09: 50
        Quote: dauria
        ... But a fighter with AWACS and a tanker will be met just "on our border", or even earlier. M

        Do we have AWACS? Are you talking about a dozen half-dead A50s? Not funny. It's not funnier about tankers.
        And the pro will be met earlier, how's that? Their planes are flying over their territory, and we are like that, and flew to meet? And then the whole world is in dust, and they just decided to please the aborigines with their presence.
        1. +1
          21 June 2021 10: 05
          Their planes are flying over their territory, and we are like that, and flew to meet?


          You mentioned "ours". B-21 will fight the enemy. Who they will be - a question to diplomats. And yes, that's how long-range bombers meet. Graze in dangerous directions, build either a network of airfields, or groups of a pair of fighters, a tactical AWACS aircraft plus a tanker. By the way, the defense of the aircraft carrier was also built at the 800 km line. And there is no need to make something breathtaking out of B-21. In fact, it is a long-range subsonic bomber of the class between the Tu-160 and Tu-22 with the possibility of refueling. Take away the small EPR - the Chinese Tu-16 will remain.
          It's just great that the Chinese pressed the Americans, since they remembered about this class of bombers.
      2. +2
        21 June 2021 16: 44
        Quote: dauria
        So why should they be afraid?

        ...
        I did not understand one thing, by what miracle does our rocket fly 3 times farther than the American one? This means that rockets are of different sizes and it is incorrect to compare them.


        And there is. Our KR Kh-101 Tu-160 can carry only 12 pieces, and the B-1 can carry 24 JASSM-ER in the internal compartments, with an external suspension all 36 pieces.
    2. 0
      30 June 2021 21: 55
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      3,5 thousand km of range for the Kh-55SM give a much better chance of survival for the carrier's crew than 1 km for the AGM-158A JASSM.

      I wonder why?
      Do we have anti-aircraft missiles of this range? - not.
      Do we have a radar that can see a stealthy target at that range? -not.
      Do we have fighter bases 1000 km from our borders? - not.
      So why should they be afraid?

      In your deep opinion, the bomber will launch a missile 1 thousand kilometers before the border and destroy .. but what will he destroy there? To destroy something deep into the territory, you need to come close. Therefore, your attack does not count.
  7. -5
    21 June 2021 05: 50
    We, too, seem to be building the first prototype of the PAK DA, but 12 years later. And the first flight is planned only in 2025.
    For some reason, in parallel with PAKDA, we are renewing the Tu160, in fact, they are redesigning the aircraft and building a new plant.
    A bunch of people who could work on promising plane, and a lot of resources are spent on preparing the production of the old plane.
    1. +6
      21 June 2021 07: 26
      In order for these people to be able to build something new, they must be able to build something old ... so, while waiting for the PAK, they are doing business, all the more so 90% of their work is the modernization of the old Tu160 and Tu22 ...
      1. 0
        21 June 2021 10: 05
        Quote: Zaurbek
        In order for these people to be able to build something new, they must be able to build something old.

        If you are talking about locksmiths at a factory - maybe, but if you are talking about designers and technologists at research institutes and design bureaus, then it is far from a fact.
        Quote: Zaurbek
        waiting for the PAK, they are doing business, all the more so more than 90% of their work is the modernization of the old Tu160 and Tu22 ...

        If you are talking about locksmiths at a factory, then yes, but not really. In parallel with the repair and modernization of combat aircraft, they are preparing equipment and tooling for the resumption of production of Tu160, these are areas, these are machines, these are technological processes and so on, so on, etc. ... not all of this can then be useful for PAKDA,
        And if you are talking about engineers and designers in research institutes and design bureaus, then they are stupidly redesigning the old plane, instead of designing a new one.
        Adjacent factories are also mastering the manufacture of units, obviously not suitable for PAKDA, instead of mastering promising components.
        This is a waste of resources.
        1. +3
          21 June 2021 10: 16
          Well, I think so, in terms of stuffing and basic systems and weapons, it will be something like Su35S and Su57 ..... NK32 turbojet engine, most likely in a non-afterburner version too. These are all subcontractors ...... And the Fuselage and the covering, yes, the new one ... it will be built in Kazan in the future. But these are people not from the street, but with work experience. Plus, there will be a withdrawal of the old Tu95s from the Air Force, which will replace them for 10-15 years until the production of PAK DA begins. in the Russian Federation, and so the YES fleet is not so large, the Tu22 is not just being upgraded in the same way as the Tu160.
          1. -1
            21 June 2021 10: 36
            Quote: Zaurbek
            with which to replace them for 10-15 years, until the production of PAK DA begins.

            So that's the problem
            if all the forces were thrown at the PAKDA, they would have made it much faster.
            1. +2
              21 June 2021 12: 16
              Quote: Jacket in stock
              For some reason, in parallel with PAKDA, we are renewing the Tu160, in fact, they are redesigning the aircraft and building a new plant.
              A bunch of people who could work on a promising aircraft

              And if you are talking about engineers and designers in research institutes and design bureaus, then they are stupidly redesigning the old plane, instead of designing a new one.
              Adjacent factories are also mastering the manufacture of units, obviously not suitable for PAKDA, instead of mastering promising components.
              This is a waste of resources.

              The Tu-160 is a well-known aircraft and this is really what we can afford now, to resume the series, to build a new main YES fleet in the next 10-20 years. And also, to increase capacity, retain people, introduce new specialists. If we only developed one PAK YES. This is while the layout is being built. Then the first prototype will be built. They will experience it for many many years. Then another prototype. It will take 20-50 years before the series, and as a result, we will get a super expensive one aircraft and 0 opportunities to launch into a series. In this case, it will remain without YES. And so, we will have YES, albeit with outdated aircraft, there will be people, factories, steamers, and capacities. It's cheaper and easier to reorient to PAK DA than to create from scratch decades later. I would say it would be impossible. Without the production of the TU-160 series, YES in Russia would have died completely.
              1. +1
                21 June 2021 13: 29
                Quote: V1er
                Tu-160 is a famous aircraft and this is really what we can afford now,

                Airplane yes, famous, but really we are now can not to produce it.
                Technology has been lost, equipment has been destroyed.
                Now we have to do everything again in full.
                Design new equipment (well, that's okay, almost a start for PAKDA), design airframe parts, produce the entire complete package of design documentation in a form suitable for modern equipment, prepare this very equipment, including specific equipment needed only for Tu160,
                Instead, the same people could design parts for a new aircraft. Prepare equipment, machine tools, tooling for the production of a new aircraft ...
            2. +3
              21 June 2021 13: 17
              Even 9 women will not be able to give birth to a child in 1 month ........ here is the same. There is a specific development and construction cycle.
              1. +3
                21 June 2021 13: 28
                Quote: Zaurbek
                Even 9 women will not be able to give birth to a baby in 1 month

                This is yes.
                But now we are giving birth to 2 children at once.
                With a full cycle of development and preparation for production.
                1. 0
                  21 June 2021 14: 24
                  I do not agree ... we give birth to a senior ... and then, on the same partial solutions with the same staff and subcontractors of the next ...
                  1. +4
                    21 June 2021 14: 42
                    Quote: Zaurbek
                    we give birth to a senior ... and then

                    No, nifiga.
                    If you look at the planned dates, then we give birth at the same time.
                    Instead of a fist, we hit with outstretched fingers.
                    The result is logical, there is still no “senior”, and the “junior” is far behind.
                    1. +2
                      21 June 2021 14: 46
                      In fact, the new Tu160XXX is a "mule" stuffed for PAK YES .... where to roll this stuffing in and produce before the appearance of PAK YES?
                      1. 0
                        21 June 2021 14: 58
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        In fact, the new Tu160XXX is a "mule" stuffed for PAK YES .... where to roll this stuffing in

                        They are usually tested on a laboratory plane.
                        I understand your idea, but you proceed from the fact that there is Tu160m2,
                        And I'm trying to explain to you that he is not there either. There is nothing to run in, and nothing to produce. And this "senior" will appear no sooner than the "junior" could appear, if we do not distract our forces and means.
                      2. +2
                        21 June 2021 15: 38
                        The first Tu160 in the required configuration is ... The first Tu22 (unified) too ..... The fuselage is completely new in operation ... NK32 of fresh series have been released .... now all this should become serial. Along the way, who will replace the outgoing Tu95 resources?
                      3. 0
                        21 June 2021 16: 53
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        The first Tu160 in the required configuration is ...

                        Are you talking about a modernized combatant or assembled from the old reserve?
                        So this is good, so on modernization and you can work out a new filling.
                        .Fuselage is completely new in work

                        Here I am talking about the same.
                        The work on the new-old fuselage required no less effort than on the PAKDA.
                        who will replace the outgoing Tu95 by resource?

                        Well, I’m talking about it again.
                        If the plant, design bureaus and subcontractors were not engaged in the renewal of Tu160, then PAKDA would already be ready.
                2. +2
                  22 June 2021 11: 00
                  Quote: Jacket in stock
                  Quote: Zaurbek
                  Even 9 women will not be able to give birth to a baby in 1 month

                  This is yes.
                  But now we are giving birth to 2 children at once.
                  With a full cycle of development and preparation for production.

                  And even without women ...
  8. +6
    21 June 2021 07: 22
    The novel needs to prepare the material more thoroughly. Judging by the picture, that the elevons, that the spoilers = everything is in place and once reduced in size, it is also ready to fly at ultra-low altitudes = breaking through the stratosphere is contraindicated for all aircraft. The scalloped edge reduces reflection on MANEUVERING fighters, the bomber does not maneuver by definition and there is no sense in the edges, which was "optimized" We were congratulated the year before last = like something we were involved in hitting a target in the "hole in hole" style, and so like CT tryndilo about Nudol all week = I made a conclusion, like Aha !! And on the Central Television, a plot flashed with a frame of the rocket itself - which is generally prohibitive. I myself am a former air defense soldier, it is not difficult to build an analogy.
    Our systems of ESCHELONED DEFENSE = the only in the world and inimitable, like an American pie, the rider has no chances, they make an analogue of our bombers = cheap and universal. Our engineer Ufimtsev did the topic and the calculations for the amers, he taught them this topic, he then returned to Russia already made an anti-calculation of invisibility and PUBLISHED, after its publication the Americans and removed from service 117.
    In general, for a reminder = a breakthrough of air defense systems is possible at supersonic, with an ultra-low flight profile of -50-60 m and no more, this is and will be the pop of all air defense personnel, but every year it decreases due to the adoption of new "antibiotics"
    1. -1
      21 June 2021 07: 44
      In general, I think that the Yankees are casting a shadow on the fence. Stels of this type can only really be used only as missile platforms of constant readiness. Like our Tu-95 strategists (in the future PAK DA) constantly dangling along our borders. Even taking into account the flight time of the RSD from Europe (5-12min), they manage to launch everything that they have slaughter.
    2. +1
      21 June 2021 15: 37
      More than 50 years have passed since the publication of Ufimtsev's theory! Are the Americans "so stupid" (C) M. Zadornov that they could not understand / calculate the stealth theory on their own, after Ufimtsev left the USA?
  9. -6
    21 June 2021 07: 22
    Your mother! How the Yankees got bored with their boasting and confidence that everyone around is fools. In the decimeter range absolutely all materials reflect, I am silent about the meter and longer. All these tricks with invisibility aim to hide from the seeker of anti-aircraft (and aviation) missiles operating in millimeter range of old models. Modern seeker has an optical guidance module along the silhouette. There is an attempt at outright deception. All modern radars can see them perfectly, since they have a built-in resolution on a reflective surface the size of a table tennis ball. Even aviation radars can see them in the zone Actually, if you read carefully, the calculation is made on the fact that a potential enemy has no air defense at all or it is greatly weakened. With regard to Russia and China, this is possible only after a nuclear strike. And in this case, the answer will always be and it becomes unclear what and what where they are going to break through, if from the USA itself (and the rest of the world), remains ashes.
    PS: Disguise as birds. This was a lot of fun. This would have worked somewhere in the 60s, up to a maximum of the mid-70s. Modern radars with AFAR have three-dimensional resolution. Most of them can even determine the 3D layout of the detected side by the received signal. everything is much simpler even. The fastest bird flies more slowly than the slowest military aircraft. Another scam is shorter, like with the F-35.
    1. +11
      21 June 2021 10: 41
      Quote: shinobi
      .Modern seeker has an optical guidance module along the silhouette

      And do you know a lot of Russian missiles with such a seeker? Chinese?
      I've never heard of it. Even among the bourgeoisie this is a novelty.
      modern radars can see them perfectly, since they have a built-in resolution on a reflective surface the size of a table tennis ball
      you confused resolution with sensitivity. Yes, there are those who see the "ball" at a reasonable distance, only they are the size of a football field.
      Modern radars with AFAR have three-dimensional resolution, and most of them can even determine the 3D layout of the detected side by the received signal.
      Did you see it in some fantastic action movie?
      The resolution of a radar depends on its beam width and distance to the target. What you are writing about is achieved by a very large antenna at a very small wavelength (those millimeters) at a very limited distance. At a thousand kilometers distance, even with an angle width of a fraction of a degree, the resolution will be tens of meters (geometry of the 5th grade of high school).
      1. 0
        21 June 2021 15: 16
        What the shinobi writes about is possible, but theoretically! In the short term, no one will bother with this, especially at private stations. The current capabilities for determining the type of aircraft are quite sufficient.
      2. 0
        22 June 2021 01: 56
        You have such a module in your smartphone in your pocket. Aren't you surprised by the recognition of faces, smiles, numbers? No? So the optical module in the GOS is a fantastic action movie? Yes?
        1. +1
          22 June 2021 06: 36
          Quote: shinobi
          You have such a module in your smartphone in your pocket.

          How much can you burn?
          Already here, more than once or not twice, they figured out.
          Put your smart in a puddle, in a fire, or put it against the wall with all the dope ... and see what it recognizes for you after that.
          Domestic "brains" for such a GOS were created only this spring.
          When the GOS itself will be one can only guess.
          For example, NIEP made the brains for a new torpedo homing system 10 years ago, tests of this system have just been completed (there was news the other day). About a torpedo with this system has not yet been heard not to be seen.
      3. 0
        22 June 2021 04: 38
        I will not even prove anything to you about the resolution of the radar. Go to the wiki and enlighten yourself. For example, take the radar of counter-battery and artillery reconnaissance. So it will be clearer in size and reflective surfaces of detecting objects.
        1. +1
          22 June 2021 06: 41
          Quote: shinobi
          I will not even prove anything to you about the resolution of the radar. Go to the wiki and educate yourself. For example, take the radar of counter-battery and artillery reconnaissance. So it will be clearer in size and reflective surfaces

          Again.
          Do not confuse the size of the reflective surface and (RCS) and the physical size of the target.
          Sensitivity and Resolution.
          And for this I don't have to read Wikipedia, I was taught this for 6 years at the university, and then another 6 at the research institute.
          In addition to your Wishlist, there is stupid geometry, and it can only be bypassed in science fiction films.
  10. +4
    21 June 2021 07: 24
    It seems to me that the traditional B-52 type bomber (in modern design) has a right to life. And the operation is cheap and the load is th and any non-standard can be suspended ..... and the X-101 missiles allow you not to enter the air defense zone. And it turns out that it is no longer necessary to bend around the relief.
    1. +5
      21 June 2021 07: 40
      On the one hand, it makes sense. Take a civilian plane as a base, following the example of Poseidon and convert it into a bomber jacket. For example Boeing 787.
      On the other hand, the alteration and all "combat" systems will not come out much cheaper than the B-3. And the possibilities are much less.
      1. +2
        21 June 2021 08: 58
        B737 will not pull ..... you need an analogue of 767, 777 ..... 787


        It will be several times cheaper. A civil liner with a resource and serial service and spare parts .... unification with TZ and Cargo and civil liners and their pilots ...
  11. +6
    21 June 2021 07: 41
    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
    Yes, it’s a matter of patriotism. There is no technical justification for the conclusions. The assumption is taken from blind faith. Ground-based radars have too many dead zones, too much error, too many constraints. Now it is impossible to do without air and space radars. And there should be hundreds of them, not just a few.

    I agree. Moreover, it has never been and is not about the complete non-piloting of aircraft made with the use of stealth technologies. It is a number of technologies, and not just one.
    These are wide-range absorbing coatings, and forms that provide such a reflection of the radar sounding signals in which only a small part of these signals falls on the radar receiving devices, and the use of special radio electronic devices that are able to analyze the radar sounding signals and form "opposite" signals that distort "to the point of indecency" useful information to be carried by the reflected radar signals.
    Those. claims that meter or decimeter radars can solve their tasks of detecting stealth aircraft more efficiently than centimeter ones are nothing more than another myth.
    In addition, it is useful to remember that the process of detecting and tracking air targets is a multi-stage process and stealth technologies have a very harmful effect on this process. Those. The radar, its radar data processing equipment and the operators (where they are) need to work hard to not just "detect" something that flashed on the radar indicator screen, but also to make the right decision about detecting an air target (true target or false), but also provide stable tracking of a true target for the required time and filtering / filtering false targets.
  12. +2
    21 June 2021 10: 03
    Yes. the commentators are right.
    hurray-patriotic article, trying to somehow distract from the fact: they have, we do not.
  13. +1
    21 June 2021 10: 04
    In a dispute between V-3 "Ryder" and, for example, our radar "Sky-M", I would put on "Sky". ... The station uses three bands, meter, decimeter and centimeter. I admit that in one of the ranges the "raider" will be invisible. But in others it is unlikely. At least in one, but it will "light up". But in the United States, they believe that everything will be so. An aircraft completely invisible to the enemy's radar station, which will ensure the destruction of targets with impunity on the territory of any country.

    It is unlikely that the B-3 developers do not take into account this fact. Certainly the mayors are undertaken by secrecy in a wide radio frequency range.
  14. -6
    21 June 2021 11: 27
    While prototypes are being built, while they are being tested, we will shake and strike ... It will take about 10 years. Will he be invisible by that time? Radar and air defense missiles do not stand still. And even now the radars will see him completely. Closer than a regular bomber (for example, B-52), but they will see. If on the same F-35 stealth technologies give an effect due to its small size, but here we have a huge bomber. Let the radar experts roughly estimate the distance at which the S-400, for example, will see the B-3. I think there will be 100-150 kilometers. Meter radars will even see further and the approximate direction with a range will prompt - you can send interceptors to meet. And so this is an ordinary bomb carrier unremarkable with an emphasis on inexpensive production and operation. The Americans always boast: the F-35 super-supermega camera was made, but the concept turned out to be inoperative - they are returning to the classics, to the F-15EX. And the same B-2 did not go. I think that there is not only a problem in cost, the very concept of such devices with an air defense breakthrough is questionable, there is a great risk of being shot down. Long-range missiles are needed to provide not only the launch range without entering the air defense zone, but also have a range margin to reach deep into the enemy's territory - here you need 5 thousand kilometers, no less. Apparently, this is exactly what the X-101 did. For such long-range missiles, rather large compartments are needed - they will not fit on the B-2. In the future, it will be good to increase speed while remaining within the dimensions of the Tu-160 compartments.
    1. +3
      21 June 2021 14: 35
      Quote: Timon2155
      the distance at which the S-400, for example, will see the B-3. I think there will be 100-150 kilometers. Meter radars will even see further and the approximate direction with a range will prompt - you can send interceptors to meet ...

      Long-range missiles are needed to provide not only a launch range without entering the air defense zone, but also have a range margin to reach deep into the enemy's territory - here you need 5 thousand kilometers, no less

      And why 5 thousand, if the air defense radar sees it from 150 km?
      For a ponto heroic?
      Yes, even if we send interceptors to meet them, I don’t remember those with a range of 5 thousand km.
      maximum 3000 km, and this is if the MiG31 flies one way, like a kamikmdze.
      Again, where are we going to send these interceptors? Through Ukraine? Turkey? Japan? The Baltics?
      Hardly.
      But they will easily and naturally fly up to these very 150 km to St. Petersburg, and there they will not need rockets, just bombs will fly.
      1. -3
        22 June 2021 00: 48
        You are just bursting with heat, and the heat is bursting! Read my post carefully, and then be smart! Airfields, air defense systems and radars may well be located at the front line off the coast, on Novaya Zemlya, for example. And the targets for missiles are in the area of ​​the same Tyumen or Ekb, for example! If there is no long arm, you need to break through the air defense, if there is one, you launch missiles in the Arctic without entering the air defense zone. Don't you really get it? Long-wave radars along the coast will see the B-3 long before reaching the launch lines - just the interceptors will have time to take off and meet the carriers before the missiles are launched. Or do you think the USSR military were fools, since they built a radar network along the northern borders thousands of kilometers from the intended targets of enemy missiles? The air defense of the Warsaw Pact worked in exactly the same way - this is the front line, eyes and ears. And the goals are far in the depths of the USSR. So they bought time to intercept the media! After detecting targets in the Novaya Zemlya area, for example, in the same Yugorsk-2, the MiG-25/31 were supposed to take off and meet guests in the northern coastal area. B-52s cannot attack targets in the depths of the Russian Federation without entering the air defense zone, the missile range is not enough. Therefore, we developed the V-1 and V-2, for low-altitude breakthrough of air defense, otherwise it is impossible to break through: the B-52 glows on the screens like a Christmas tree, you can see it very well and far away. It cannot fly low for a long time, maneuverability for flying around obstacles is limited, and so on, in general, not a cake for such a regime. Or is there another way - to develop a missile with a range of 5000+ km - ours and developed the Kh-101. Then, in general, do not care for air defense, they will not get it, the fighters stupidly do not have enough range to intercept the Tu-95/160 at the launch lines. You launch rockets 1000 km away from the American coast, the fighters are not scary, they will not reach (until the carrier is already far away) the carcasses are safe. And there is still 4500 km from the coastline to the targets in the very depths of America! Safe and risk-free.
        1. 0
          22 June 2021 09: 54
          Quote: Timon2155
          Airfields, air defense systems and radars may well be at the forefront

          So I'm talking about the same thing.
          If they are at the forefront, then no one needs to fly deep into our territory.
          The range of our aircraft is not more than 1000 km, which means that it is unnecessary to destroy airfields and air defense posts of missiles with a longer range.
          And then you can fly closer and move the fire further into the depths.
          Standard artillery attack tactics.
          the same way the air defense of the Warsaw Pact worked - this is the front line, eyes and ears. And the goals are far in the depths of the USSR. So they bought time to intercept media!

          And I mean the same to you.
          We do not have any front lines now.
          Our lines end 150 km from St. Petersburg, and the bourgeois do not even need rockets as such to strike, the bombs will just fly easily.
          1. 0
            22 June 2021 10: 59
            You are looking locally, only the western part of a huge country. And the doctrine of our enemy, the United States, is different - a lightning strike! A cruise missile strike against our Strategic Missile Forces positions in the depths of the country! Beyond the Urals, etc. There is only one way - fly from the north! I described to you in detail the actions of the air defense in the event of an attack, the required missile ranges, and so on. on the example of Yugorsk-2. Do you propose to destroy the air defense first, and then the main targets? What kind of outfit of strength is needed for this !? I am generally silent about lightning speed! During this time, our ballistic missiles will fly in response - count, everyone realized that the batch has begun. The whole point of US tactics is to do it on the sly, so that the attack is known from exploding targets! Namely for this, invisibility and low flight altitude are needed. But, judging by the B-3, the Americans realized that this would not work out either - they make the B-3 greatly simplified, partially losing stealth and maneuverability at the ground. Conclusion: they will make long-range cruise missiles with a range of 5000+ km and shove them into B-3 - they will follow our own path. Ours have also cut through and restore the radar and air defense network along the northern coast and on the islands. They say to the layman about the Northern Sea Route: here, they say, we will defend it))) What should we defend? Battles for the NSR are expected, will he be beaten)))? Not. In fact, we will use new radars to move the detection lines of these very B-3s as far as possible, ideally beyond 5000+ km, so that the lines of their missile launches are under our control. Well, we will definitely make a new interceptor - with a long flight range, loitering a kind of Tu-128 at the modern level: with supersonic cruising speed, moderate speed (not a la MiG-25/31), internal missile compartments, powerful radar, a common network with ground-based radars and other goodies.
            1. 0
              22 June 2021 11: 07
              Quote: Timon2155
              the doctrine of our enemy the United States is different - a lightning strike! A cruise missile strike against our Strategic Missile Forces positions in the depths of the country!

              You mixed everything up.
              Yes, a surprise strike on targets in the depths,
              But not with cruise missiles, because it's too long to fly.
              For this they have ballistic missiles, incl. on submarines, which now can quite calmly pass even to the mouth of the Ob and Yenisei and strike at close range along a flat trajectory.
              And the Bombers will go to iron just the cutting edge. Well, what remains after the first blow.
              1. 0
                22 June 2021 11: 35
                No, you got it mixed up. More precisely, they simply do not know. Ballistic missiles are good for everyone, but not for surprise. While it flies, it is clearly visible, there is no stealth. Cruise missiles are all right with stealth, but they fly slowly. So, speed in this case is sacrificed for stealth. Plus, the flight paths of ballistic missiles unambiguously characterize the US aggressor, you can fire back without hesitation. But the explosion of the missiles of our Strategic Missile Forces is not clear from what happened: either sabotage, or some kind of malfunction, or something else. In this case, no one will fire without parsing, and parsing takes time, at least several tens of minutes. This is exactly what the enemy needs. If bombers are destined to iron out after missiles, why do they need invisibility (for B-2) and the ability to fly low (B-1 / B-2)? Quite to be the first to strike. About the trident, another question is whether he can technically hit point-blank on a flat trajectory.
    2. +2
      21 June 2021 23: 26
      "F-35 stealth technology is effective due to its small size" ///
      ----
      The huge B-2 looks the same on the centimeter radar screens as the small F-35.
      And on meter B-2 radars many times less F-35.
      Radar dimensions are secondary.
      Form (reflection of waves to the sides) and absorption of waves by the airframe material and coating are primary.
      1. 0
        22 June 2021 01: 11
        And what is the (presumably) range of the same Sky radar when working on B-2? It seems to me that if the B-2 were so invisible, the Americans would not worsen the parameters of invisibility by simplifying the B-3. So they are not so sure about the invisibility of B-2.
        1. +3
          22 June 2021 01: 47
          "The Americans would not worsen the invisibility parameters by simplifying the B-3." ///
          ---
          The B-21 Raider (I don't know where the B-3 was invented from?) Does not simplify the stealth characteristics at all, but, on the contrary, improve.
          In B-21 there are no mechanical moving parts - slats and flaps, the movements of which can be given by stealth. The flight is controlled by angled air currents through the wings.
          The shape of the airframe is extremely simplified for greater stealth in the meter range.
          1. 0
            22 June 2021 11: 17
            A dubious innovation in the form of air flow control through the wings. The effectiveness of this method is in doubt, it is quite energy-intensive, and does not imply low-altitude flight with large and rather energetic rudders. If this is really so, a big technical risk of the project. It is technically difficult to make the plane invisible in the meter range. You can declare anything you want, at the end there is still a question of what will come of it. As I understand it, the prototype has not yet been seen much, assumptions.
  15. +5
    21 June 2021 11: 55
    It is permissible for our strategist to lag somewhat behind the American. All the same, it is impossible for one completely new project to take and create a product similar in functionality to the third model of a high-tech foreign and secret product. Where are we in supercomputers and where is America. Where are we on the budget and where is America. But the fact that we need such an aircraft or even need a checkpoint, technological aircraft of this type to go further or to replace the Tu-1 is a fact.
  16. +2
    21 June 2021 12: 49
    It is many times more difficult for the Russian Federation to develop and launch any high-tech device than the United States.
    1. The US has had no production downtime in nearly thirty years. RF needs to stupidly restore the competencies and generations of designers, engineers, technologists, etc. The fact that today's samples are not always ahead of the rest of the planet and take a long time to reach the assembly line is the problem of a shortage of personnel as well.
    2. There are 140 million people in the Russian Federation, 350 in the USA. Even if the per capita GDP were the same, it is more difficult for us to allocate funds for development.
    3. TNCs around the world are developing a lot for the US Department of Defense. We have almost 100% autarchy.
    4. We are on the verge of a big nix, and the Russian Federation is frantically trying to stretch the Trishkin caftan of possibilities for all at once, ground forces, aviation, navy, space.
    But please do not mention corruption. In the US Senate and Congress, 30 percent of seats are inherited from father to son. And they are sawing there much more fervently, hiding behind a fig leaf of lobbying.
    Bushey, father and son 41 and 43 US presidents. I would have watched the reaction of some if Putin's son became the president of the Russian Federation.
    1. +3
      22 June 2021 01: 51
      "Bushes, father and son 41 and 43 US presidents" ///
      ---
      But between the two Bush was Clinton's eight years, if you remember? laughing
      And Clinton ditched all the success of the elder Bush.
      And after the second Bush, black Obama jumped out.
      And after Obama - the violent red-haired billionaire Trump ...
      Doesn't it work out monarchy, somehow?
      1. -1
        22 June 2021 12: 41
        So the President of the United States is a talking doll, unlike. It is necessary to see whose hand fisting the American president performs from the Rockefellers or from the Rothschilds laughing
    2. 0
      4 September 2021 13: 36
      demiurge,
      By pov. ## 3 and 4 I disagree with you.
      In the United States, private companies win military contracts in a highly competitive environment. Even if there is a certain lobby (and it is from all sides).
      As far as kickbacks are concerned, they certainly exist in the United States. But this is a penny in comparison with the level of kickbacks in Russia. About 15 years ago (I think, summer 2006) there was a big scandal when it surfaced that some senator received a yacht and $ 2M cash for pushing a military order for a large amount. In Russia, that kind of money was paid in those years just to just talk with the right official or minister.
  17. +4
    21 June 2021 16: 11
    Quote: Zaurbek
    In fact, the new Tu160XXX is a "mule" stuffed for PAK YES .... where to roll this stuffing in and produce before the appearance of PAK YES?


    Actually, these are different airplanes. You can install it on a transport aircraft (that is also subsonic). If you really want to turn one into a flying laboratory on 160, turn one into a flying laboratory. And in general, it's better to build an airplane in 5 years (like the Americans) and run it in. And you don't need to re-establish the entire production technology "for running-in"
  18. +2
    21 June 2021 18: 46
    If ours even develop something in terms of PAK YES, it is not a fact that it will go into mass production or will become very small in number. And this is taking into account the same situation with the production of the Su-57 and passenger aircraft.
    It will be necessary to change all Tu-22M3 and all Tu-95MS. In 10 years nothing will be left of them, even taking into account modernization.
  19. +2
    21 June 2021 23: 05
    "The fact is that both" Lancer "and" Spirit "were focused on using them at low and ultra-low altitudes to break through the enemy's air defense system" ///
    ---
    About B-2 - this is wrong. This is pure stealth, passing air defense at subsonic speed at high altitude.

    And B-21 - its slightly reduced and improved almost-copy
  20. 0
    22 June 2021 12: 37
    However, it should be noted that after only 7 years from the beginning of work, the first two aircraft are being completed.

    If normal people modernize equipment to increase the performance characteristics, then the Americans modernize the B-2 down - smaller, lighter (and less weapons), cheaper.
  21. 0
    23 June 2021 15: 17
    Author, in order

    1. Not the Red Army Air Force flew to bomb Berlin in 41st, but the naval DB-3
    2. Lt.Colonel is translated as lieutenant colonel, not lieutenant colonel.
    3. The raider must act against the air defense system on which the massive nuclear missile strike was carried out, with "lying" communications and in an appropriate jamming environment. As they say, come on, show me your meter range.
    4. S-300-400-500 is just an air defense system, they are subject to the same laws of physics as any other. For example, a radar has a limited direct line of sight to a low-altitude target.
    5. Stealth must be considered not only from the point of view of whether the ground radar sees it, but also from the point of view of whether the missile seeker will see it. All curious to read about the impact of the F-117 complex in Osirak in 1991. Everything is clearly visible.
    6. Meter radars are part of the system. If the whole system is divided into segments that do not interact with each other, then they will give nothing.
  22. 0
    24 June 2021 06: 40
    And an immodest question. With all due respect to the authors of such articles and to the commentators, it is not entirely clear what is the use of them?
    Indeed, for those vested with the power and authority to make decisions, all these publications are nothing more than information noise, especially when billions are at stake, which can be cut. And this noise does not affect the cutting in any way, but only makes these people cut more sophisticated and careful.
    By the way, similar things happened before, when the USSR was still alive and well. Suffice it to recall the epic with the development and construction of the nuclear cruiser "Kirov", when a criminal case was instituted against the "lumbermen", including those with big stars on their shoulder straps, and only the intervention of the unforgettable Micah. Sergeevich saved them from slamming.
    We can also mention the exercises Zapad 81, when the air defense system, which was collected for exercises from different military districts and was debugged for three months, "lay down" at the most interesting moment and instead of information about real aircraft, the high authorities headed by D.F. Ustinov was shown information from the simulator. Those. a mess was and is not only in the Navy, but also in other branches of the USSR / Russian Armed Forces. There were, however, some differences. For example, the "backbreaking work" of those responsible for the mess was paid for with government awards, state awards, apartments and other benefits available at that time.
  23. 0
    24 June 2021 14: 31
    Only 2 countries can make a strategist, we and our beloved striped ones.
    Neither China nor France, well, nothing. It's just that the striped ones have almost 80 years of experience, starting with the B-29, then the B-50 and B-36 (the 36th was an epic car), B-47, B-52, etc. And a lot of money. It is more difficult for us, especially since almost 10 years were lost at the corn-maker. But the resumption of the TU-160M2, the modernization of the TU-22M3M, TU-95MSM, PAK DA are on the way in a few years ... Well, you can't say that we are sitting and just meditating. Can it open to China the opportunity to purchase 12-15 160s, will it be easier with production and money, and striped ones will be worn out?
  24. 0
    26 June 2021 23: 41
    Our beloved The National Interest wrote that the B-3 would be invulnerable to the promising Russian S-500 Prometheus anti-aircraft missile systems. The plane does not actually give a signature, in any ranges, and miracles do not happen. The point is not even that it is difficult to shoot it down, the point is that it is difficult to notice it, the radars will show nothing but ordinary noises. He will show large birds, gulls, cormorants, migratory geese, kites, but B-21 will not.


    All the same they said about the Goblin, and about Spirit, and about the Raptor, and about the Penguin. They don't seem to be able to say anything else about their planes. US planes are not faster than others, not more maneuverable, do not fly further or higher. Stealth only. Everything is included in this single argument. With the die-hard tenacity of a drunken state, the Shtatovites are trying time after time to make a machine capable of bombing highly defended targets deep in Russia, overcoming the country's air defenses. Time after time their efforts end with another "technology demonstrator" at an astronomical price. And the Russians bypass them on the "crooked mare" making the colossal expenses on the next "invisible" completely meaningless. And over and over again the only way to apply these miraculous stealth is to "democratize" Iraq or Serbia.
    Can someone explain to me why the new US strategist suddenly has a price lower than Spirit? Is the plane supposed to be geometrically smaller than Spiri? BUT sorry, and the Penguin is also geometrically smaller than the F-15. Did it make it cheaper? Not. It is 4 times more expensive.
    There will be no terrain tracking mode? But not all Spiritualists have this regime. This mode appeared during the modernization. But the price did not fall below a billion "without equipment".

    I have no doubt that the staff members will show some new aircraft. I have no doubt that all sorts of filmmakers will rattle about his invisibility from the word "absolutely" and will be hammered in the ecstasy of Kholui admiration. But in the same way, I doubt that this plane will not be cheaper than Spirit.
  25. 0
    25 July 2021 23: 28
    Quote: Semjon Semjonov
    Tu-160, Tu-95, Tu-22 - these are all "protection" aircraft?
    Yes, you have a clinical case, you are not even able to understand what they write to you. Especially for you, with your exceptional mental abilities, I will repeat once again: "PAK YES this is a VERY EXPENSIVE toy, both in production and in service." And the airplanes listed by you are much cheaper and they are already there.

    And he does not understand that stealthy planes are for war in the style: - "Hit Billy first!"
  26. 0
    25 July 2021 23: 47
    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
    On the one hand, it makes sense. Take a civilian plane as a base, following the example of Poseidon and convert it into a bomber jacket. For example Boeing 787.
    On the other hand, the alteration and all "combat" systems will not come out much cheaper than the B-3. And the possibilities are much less.

    Have already tried before.
  27. 0
    4 September 2021 13: 26
    The author, Yakovlev never named his aircraft MC21. Yakovlev's project had a conditional code consisting of three digits. 242. Learn the mat part as they say.
    As for MC21, the debate as to what to call it at the exit lasted for almost 10 years.