Military Review

"Degradation" of American long-range bombers

262

Until the second half of the 1960s, strategic bombers constituted the core of US nuclear power.


However, the massive deployment in the USSR of medium and long-range anti-aircraft missile systems, as well as the rearmament of fighter aviation on supersonic interceptors made the breakthrough of American bombers to targets located deep in Soviet territory an extremely difficult task.

In this regard, the top military-political leadership of the United States was forced to revise the concept of nuclear planning.

The rapid progress of Soviet air defense systems and the large-scale production of intercontinental ballistic missiles in the Soviet Union led to the bet being placed on submarine nuclear strategic missile carriers and silo-based ballistic missiles.

Although the role and capabilities of strategic bombers as a first strike weapon have declined sharply, they are still part of the American nuclear triad.

The structure of the long-range bomber aviation of the United States Air Force


Almost all flying American long-range bombers B-52H Stratofortress, B-1B Lancer and B-2A Spirit are operated as part of the 8th Air Force, which is subordinate to the US Air Force Global Strikes Command and the US Strategic Command.

The 8th Air Force headquarters is stationed at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

Satellite image of Google Earth: B-52H bombers at Barksdale AFB

The association includes five active and two reserve bomber aviation wings. The reserve air wings provide training for the flight and technical personnel of the Air National Guard.

- Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana: 2nd Bomber Wing (B-52H) and 307th Reserve Bomber Wing.

Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota: 5th Bomber Wing (B-52H).

- Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri: 509th Bomber Wing (B-2A) and 131st Reserve Bomber Wing.

– Daeiss AFB, Texas: 7th Bombardment Wing (B-1B).

- Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota: 28th Bomber Wing (B-1B).

Long-range bomber Boeing B-52H Stratofortress



For nearly 60 years, the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress has been the workhorse of American long-range bomber aviation.

The production of aircraft of the V-52N modification that remained in service ended in October 1962. But, despite their venerable age and participation in a number of conflicts, they are planned to be used at least until the end of the 2030s.

This became possible thanks to a large margin of safety and a number of successively implemented repair, restoration and modernization programs.

Long-range bomber Boeing B-52H Stratofortress

Currently, the "stratospheric fortress" is the largest and heaviest active US Air Force combat aircraft.

The wingspan of the V-52N is 56,39 m, the length of the aircraft is 49,5 m. The empty bomber weighs about 83 tons, the maximum take-off weight is 221 tons. Fuel tanks can take more than 181 liters of aviation kerosene. The maximum combat load reaches 000 tons. The crew is 27,2 people.

At high altitudes, the B-52N is capable of flying at a speed of 1 km / h. Cruising speed - 050 km / h. Service ceiling - 845 km. Combat radius without refueling - 15 km, ferry flight range - over 7 km.

The in-flight refueling system makes it possible to significantly increase the flight range and the time spent on combat duty.


The United States Air Force, the Air National Guard, and reserves have nearly four hundred KC-135R / T Stratotanker, KC-10A Extender, and KC-46A Pegasus air tankers.

If necessary, some of these tanker aircraft can be used in the interests of long-range aviation.

Satellite image of Google Earth: KS-135 tanker aircraft at Tinker airbase

During the Cold War, American bombers patrolled along the USSR's nuclear weapons on board, which, in the event of receiving an order to strike, made it possible to repeatedly reduce the flight time.

However, after a series of accidents and catastrophes that led to the loss of thermonuclear bombs, combat duty in the air was stopped.

Despite the very advanced age, the "stratospheric fortresses", operated by combat units, are quite capable of coping with the tasks set.

The Air Force command pays great attention to maintaining these long-range bombers in working condition and improving the on-board radio-electronic equipment. The need for spare parts is covered by the "cannibalism" of aircraft stored in Davis-Monthan.

On all aircraft intended for combat missions, aft 1990-mm defensive artillery installations were removed in the second half of the 20s.

Instead of cannons, the bombers were equipped with very powerful and advanced systems for staging electronic and optical jamming, which to some extent should compensate for the high radar signature, the relatively low speed and maneuverability of the aircraft, designed in the mid-1950s.

B-52N bombers are capable of carrying a wide variety of aviation weapons, including free-fall and corrected bombs, cruise missiles with conventional warheads, and naval mines.


But since we are considering the B-52N as an element of the American nuclear triad, we will dwell on nuclear weapons in more detail.

The greatest danger is posed by bombers armed with AGM-86В ALCM cruise missiles with a W80-1 thermonuclear warhead with a yield of 5 to 150 kt.

From 1982 to 1986, the Boeing Corporation produced over 1 AGM-700B missiles.

Cruise missile AGM-86 in flight

The mass of the equipped rocket is 1 kg. The range, depending on the altitude and flight profile, is 450-2 km. The cruising flight speed is about 200 km / h. The AGM-2В missiles are equipped with TERCOM equipment, coupled with receivers of the GPS satellite navigation system.

"Degradation" of American long-range bombers
Suspension KR AGM-86В

Although, according to the treaty on the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive weapons, the long-range bomber B-52H is considered a carrier of one nuclear charge, it can take up to 20 AGM-86B missiles in overload. However, to maintain an acceptable flight range, even with air refueling, more than 12 missiles are not suspended.

Pylon with CR AGM-86B

Most of the KR AGM-86B has been in operation for almost 40 years. However, air-launched cruise missiles with thermonuclear warheads are still a serious threat and should not be discounted.

A very decent range allows you to launch missiles without entering the air defense zone, and the ability to fly at extremely low altitude makes it difficult to detect ground-based radars.


In 2012, the US Department of Defense announced the extension of the service life of the KR AGM-86B until 2030. To do this, 550 existing air-launched cruise missiles have gone through a life extension program.

The new cruise missile is expected to enter service in 2027.

Satellite image of Google Earth: B-52H bombers at Minot airbase

All capable B-52H bombers (about 20 aircraft), adapted for the AGM-86B KR, are deployed at the Minot airbase in North Dakota.

An underground storage facility for warheads and missiles is located 300 meters north of the air stations, and buildings for pre-flight missile preparation have also been erected on this territory.

Satellite image of Google Earth: nuclear weapons storage at Minot airbase

The rest of the B-52Ns, which are not formally carriers of air-launched cruise missiles, are permanently assigned to Barksdale airbase, in Louisiana.

Satellite image of Google Earth: B-52H bombers at Barksdale airbase

These bombers are capable of carrying thermonuclear bombs with a yield of 10 to 340 kt: B61-7 and B61-11. Theoretically, the arsenal of the American B-52H strategic bombers may also have B83-1 thermonuclear bombs, but the US Air Force command announced that they are no longer used on aircraft of this type.

Satellite image of Google Earth: nuclear weapons storage at Barksdale AFB

In the future, on the B-52N strategic bombers, the B61-7 free-fall bombs are planned to be replaced by the adjustable B61-12 bombs with an adjustable explosion power: 0,3, 1,5, 10 and 50 kt.

However, the B61-11 bombs, designed to deal with well-protected underground objects, will remain in service.

Of course, a large subsonic bomber with a large RCS currently has no chance of breaking through the developed air defense system of Russia or China.

However, during a nuclear war, when the control of the air defense forces will be disrupted, and many radar posts will fail, the B-52H bombers can be effectively used in the second wave to destroy the surviving critical targets. Such as silo launchers that did not launch ICBMs, SSBN bases, airfields, command centers, large bases for storing weapons and military equipment.

Subtle long-range bomber B-2A Spirit



By the mid-1970s, the main territory of the USSR at medium and high altitudes was controlled by a radar field, and most of the administrative and industrial centers and all strategically important objects were covered by fighter-interceptors and anti-aircraft missile systems.

Under these conditions, the US Air Force command initiated a program to create a long-range bomber, which is inconspicuous for radars and in the thermal spectrum, built according to the "flying wing" scheme, with no vertical tail.

In July 1989, the two-seat long-range bomber B-2A Spirit, created by Northrop Grumman, made its first flight.

B-2A bomber over Edwards Air Force Base

It was originally planned to build 132 bombers.

But due to the end of the Cold War and the excessively high cost (more than $ 2 billion per unit), the American Congress blocked the program, and, taking into account the lead aircraft, it was possible to release 21 aircraft.

The maximum take-off weight of the bomber is 170 kg. Length - 600 m. Wingspan - 21 m. Maximum speed at an altitude of 52,4 - 12 km / h. Cruising speed - 000 km / h. Combat radius without refueling - up to 1 km. At the first stage, a combat load weighing 010 kg could be placed in two internal bomb compartments, after modernization it was increased to 900 kg.


B-2A bombers are capable of carrying a wide range of aircraft weapons designed to destroy ground and surface targets.

In addition to free-fall bombs used for area strikes, AGM-154 JSOW and JDAM corrected bombs, as well as AGM-158 JASSM cruise missiles, can be used against well-protected point targets.

Satellite image of Google Earth: storage of nuclear bombs at Whiteman AFB

In strategic missions, the B-2A can be loaded with 16 B61-11 bombs or the same number of B83-1 bombs.

It is noteworthy that stealth bombers are carriers of free-fall thermonuclear bombs, mainly designed to combat targets buried and reinforced with reinforced concrete. The B-2A is currently the only carrier of the B83-1 thermonuclear bombs with a capacity of 1,2 Mt in the US Air Force.

Nineteen B-2A bombers are assigned to Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, and are part of the 509th Bomber Wing, 8th Air Force, Global Strike Command.

This wing is the only permanent unit in the United States to carry B-2A aircraft.

One B-2A crashed in February 2008.

Another stealth bomber is assigned to the 412th Test Wing at Edwards AFB and is used in various test programs.

According to the latest data, 16 B-2A aircraft are currently in combat readiness.


Although the number of stealth bombers is small, they still pose a real danger.

Open sources give various values ​​of the RCS of the V-2A (0,02–0,1 m²), however, the real characteristics of the aircraft's signature are one of the most well-guarded secrets, and during training flights, "invisibles" usually fly with transponders and lenses turned on. Luneberg.

It should also be understood that for radars operating in different frequency bands and using different signal processing methods, the range will also be different.

V-2A radars have the greatest potential for early detection of V-18A. Now in our air defense troops the most common are new stations of the "Sky" family and the modernized P-5 radar. Also, the 84NXNUMXA radar is still on duty.

A big disadvantage of the listed standby stations is the significant geometric dimensions of the rotating antennas, which increases their visual visibility and greatly complicates relocation. In addition, the P-18 and 5N84A are two-coordinate radars, and a radio altimeter must work in tandem with them to accurately determine the coordinates of the target.

Some sources claim that the detection range of B-2A, flying at an average altitude, drops by about 25-30% at V-XNUMXA stations as well. With a low-altitude flight profile, the detection range deteriorates significantly.

Best of all, the "invisibility" of the B-2A works against the radars of the centimeter and decimeter frequency bands most common in the air defense forces.

The B-2A bomber has the dubious reputation of the most expensive combat aircraft for a reason.

In addition to the "stealth" coating and a special shape of the airframe, its capabilities in terms of breaking through the enemy's air defense are provided by advanced avionics and the ability to fly at low altitude in the dark.

The avionics include an AN / APQ-181 multi-mode radar capable of viewing the earth's surface in a sector up to 240 km. The aircraft is equipped with numerous passive sensors to detect various threats, as well as jamming systems.

Satellite image of Google Earth: B-2A bomber at Whiteman airbase

Due to the fact that in relation to the B-2A there is a special secrecy regime, and the "stealth coating" is sensitive to prolonged exposure to the sun, stealthy bombers spend most of their time in hangars at Whiteman airbase.

To maintain the required skill level of flight personnel, B-2A aircraft regularly perform training flights at night and during the day, both over the territory of the United States and abroad.

In 2016, one B-2A was photographed by satellite in mid-air over Missouri.

Satellite image of Google Earth: B-2A bomber in flight

Occasionally, satellite imagery captures moments that the US Air Force is trying to avoid.

So, in the database of the public resource Google Earth there is a photograph of a B-2A bomber that rolled out of the runway in mid-September 2021. According to information published by the Fox News channel, the plane made an emergency landing, was damaged, but suitable for recovery.

Satellite image of Google Earth: B-2A bomber that made an emergency landing at Whiteman airbase

The picture shows that there are emergency vehicles next to the plane, and the air intakes and nozzles of the engines are filled with fire-fighting foam.

Supersonic long-range bomber B-1B Lancer



In the summer of 1985, the US Air Force began mastering the B-1B Lancer bomber.

This aircraft with a variable sweep wing was considered as a temporary replacement for the B-2A bomber, the creation of which was greatly delayed.

Until mid-1988, 100 bombers were delivered to the customer.

The B-1B bomber proved to be problematic in operation. In total, 10 aircraft were lost in flight accidents.

B-1B bomber

The supersonic B-1B was designed on the basis of the B-1A bomber, which was abandoned in 1977.

Compared to the first modification that was not adopted for service, the maximum flight speed of the B-1B at high altitude decreased from 2 km/h to 300 km/h. On the contrary, when performing low-altitude throws, the speed increased from 1 to 335 km/h.

The decrease in speed characteristics during high-altitude flight is associated with the restrictions imposed by structural elements designed to reduce the radar signature of the aircraft. An increase in maximum speed at low altitude was supposed to help with a breakthrough of air defense.

The maximum take-off weight of the B-1B in comparison with the B-1A increased by 35,5 tons, and reaches 216 365 kg. At the same time, the thrust-to-weight ratio fell from 0,174 to 0,122. The maximum wingspan of the B-1B is 41,67 m. The length is 44,81 m. The crew is 4 people.


The maximum combat load of the B-1B bomber, which can fit in bomb compartments, is 34 kg, another 000 kg of bombs and cruise missiles can be suspended from external nodes.

Combat radius without refueling - 5 km.


At their peak in the mid-1990s, B-1B bombers assigned to the Combat Aviation Command were stationed at 4 air bases located in the United States.

Satellite image of Google Earth: B-1B bombers at Ellsworth airbase

Now, if you do not take into account several bombers available at the flight test centers at Nellis and Edwards AFBs, all B-1Bs are assigned to Ellsworth and Daiss AFBs.

Satellite image of Google Earth: B-1B bombers at Deiss airbase

As part of the USAF reorganization announced in April 2015, the B-1Bs of the combatant air wings were moved from Air Combat Command (tactical) to Global Strikes Command (strategic). At the same time, the Americans declare the "non-nuclear" status of the B-1B long-range bombers.

As part of the treaty on the reduction of strategic offensive arms by 2011, all B-1Bs were deprived of the ability to carry cruise missiles with nuclear warheads.

However, there are no particular technical obstacles in order to adapt the bombers in service to deliver B61 thermonuclear bombs.

In February 2021, the United States Air Force announced the decommissioning of 17 B-1Bs, leaving 45 aircraft in service. The four aircraft will be stored in a condition that allows them to be quickly returned to service if necessary.

The US military plans to completely abandon the use of these bombers by 2036.

American long-range bomber bases outside the continental United States



During the Cold War, American long-range bombers often used overseas bases for refueling, servicing and resting crews. This made it possible not to drive planes across the ocean every time and to reduce the flight time to the target.

After the collapse of the USSR and the decrease in the degree of international tension, American bombers were rare guests in Europe. However, in the past few years, their visits have resumed, which is undoubtedly a destabilizing factor.

Satellite image of Google Earth: aircraft KS-135T, KC-46A and B-52H at the British airbase Leuhars

Most often, long-range bombers B-52H, B-1B and B-2A land on British soil.

They have been spotted at Leuhars (East Coast of Scotland), Fairford (Gloucestershire) and Mildenhall (Suffolk).

Satellite image of Google Earth: KS-135R tanker aircraft at Mildenhall airbase

At Mildenhall airbase, KS-135R tankers of the 100th air wing are permanently deployed, which are supposed to support the operations of American long-range bombers in Europe.

Satellite image of Google Earth: B-1B and KS-135R at Fairford airbase

At the British forward deployment airbase Fairford for the B-52H, B-1B and B-2A, there is all the necessary infrastructure. In particular, for the "invisible" B-2A, special hangars with a controlled microclimate have recently been built here, necessary to maintain the integrity of their radar-absorbing coating.

Satellite image of Google Earth: B-2A at Fairford airbase

In addition to British airbases, US Air Force bombers have recently landed at airbases in Keflavik (Iceland), Lajes (about 1,6 thousand km west of Lisbon, Azores, Portugal), Erland (50 km north-west of Trondheim , Norway).

In the Middle East, the main deployment site for long-range bombers is the American airbase El Udeid in Qatar.

Satellite image of Google Earth: B-1B bombers and KS-135R tankers at El Udeid airbase in Qatar

Pacific Rim Global Strike Command controls from Andersen Air Force Base on the island of Guam.

Satellite image of Google Earth: B-1B bombers at Andersen airbase

This is a very large air base, with two concrete runways, 3 m and 413 m long, where air tankers are permanently stationed and B-3H, B-208B and B-52A bombers are regularly deployed as part of a "force projection" strategy.

Satellite image of Google Earth: B-2A bomber at Andersen airbase

An aviation ammunition storage facility is located about 1,5 km southwest of the runway. According to official data, nuclear weapons are not stored here, but at the same time there are all the conditions for this.

Satellite image of Google Earth: storage of aviation ammunition at Andersen airbase

In the interests of American bomber aviation in the Far East, if necessary, numerous tanker aircraft stationed in Singapore, Okinawa and Alaska can be used. This provides strategic bombers with an almost unlimited flight range.

The state and prospects for the development of US long-range bomber aviation



According to the reference data, as of 2021, there were 57 B-52Ns, 19 “invisible” B-2A and 45 B-1B supersonic bombers with variable wing geometry in service.

For comparison: according to open sources, Russia has 55 strategic turboprop missile carriers T-95MS6 / 16 / MSM and 13 supersonic Tu-160 / M.

Judging by the information published in foreign media, the US Air Force is experiencing certain difficulties with the operation of long-range aircraft. No more than 70% of the entire fleet of heavy bombers is in combat readiness.

Satellite image of Google Earth: B-52H and B-1B bombers at the Life Cycle Extension Center at Tinker Air Base

Part of the B-1B and B-52H aircraft are being repaired and upgraded at the Life Cycle Extension Center at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma, and one B-2A is being restored after an accident at Whiteman Air Force Base.

Satellite image of Google Earth: long-range bombers in the parking lot of the Edwards Flight Research Center

Several heavy bombers are involved in various research and testing programs and are not counted as carriers of nuclear weapons. In particular, one "stratospheric fortress" is used for air launch of hypersonic missiles.

Apparently, in the next decade, the number of American long-range bombers will match the current level.

At the same time, it can be stated that the US Air Force is not able to significantly increase its fleet by putting into operation aircraft in reserve.

The decommissioned supersonic B-1Vs will be used as a source of spare parts, and in the best case scenario, only a few machines can be returned to service, and there are no more B-52Ns suitable for restoration in storage.

Satellite image of Google Earth: B-52H and B-1B bombers in Davis Montan

Satellite images show that the B-52H and B-1B long-range bombers in the Davis-Montan aircraft storage center are mostly in the process of being dismantled.

After 2036, all American heavy bombers in service are to be replaced by the stealth B-21 Raider subsonic bomber currently being built by Northrop Grumman. In total, it is planned to build at least 149 aircraft.

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
"Powerlessness" of the US nuclear industry
"Rotten" US nuclear warheads
262 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. Slap
    Slap 13 January 2022 04: 55
    +6
    A couple of times I had to see B1B in action. 2000 pound JDAMs can spoil the appetite of any foe. And the optics on them is just a fairy tale.
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 13 January 2022 05: 21
      +7
      Quote: Shlepa
      A couple of times I had to see B1B in action. 2000 pound JDAMs can spoil the appetite of any foe. And the optics on them is just a fairy tale.

      Do you need optics to use JDAM Climb Bombs?
      1. Slap
        Slap 13 January 2022 05: 50
        +13
        No, by VHF on the monitor you can see what the plane is seeing. From a height of 5000 meters, the optics allows you to recognize a person's face and allows you to direct the ammunition along a laser beam, if there is one on itself or on other sides. Including aiming at the target HIMARS and Excalibur giving ten-digit GPS coordinates.
        1. KKND
          KKND 13 January 2022 07: 18
          +6
          Quote: Shlepa
          No, on the VHF monitor you can see what the plane sees.

          What is it like? What is VHF? Radio frequencies? Where did you see images from B1b optics?
          1. Slap
            Slap 13 January 2022 08: 17
            +14
            Through a special channel, ground forces can guide the aircraft to the target. VHF - very high frequency. For this, there are specialized JTAC-joint tactical air controller soldiers who aim at the target and have the necessary equipment for radio and video contact from drones to B-52. See what's on TV.
    2. Wise Serpent
      Wise Serpent 16 January 2022 12: 05
      -8
      how will this old rubbish work when working with s400 -s500?
      1. Slap
        Slap 16 January 2022 23: 06
        +3
        Missiles JASSM ER, LRASM-ER without entering the affected area. And the S-400 and 500 are not on duty everywhere, and he alone is unlikely to trample against layered air defense.
  2. Toucan
    Toucan 13 January 2022 04: 56
    +13
    Very interesting, beautifully illustrated publication! And satellite images of B-2 bombers are generally masterpiece! good
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 13 January 2022 05: 27
      +13
      "Degradation" of American long-range bombers
      which is not ...
      PS Therefore, the author's word degradation is in quotation marks! hi
      1. Toucan
        Toucan 13 January 2022 05: 30
        +4
        Why such a conclusion? The Americans have even more long-range bombers than we do. But the Russian Air Force has more aircraft capable of carrying cruise missiles.
        1. Romario_Argo
          Romario_Argo 13 January 2022 10: 07
          0
          ""I understand"",
          but on the V-52N engines of 7500 kgf each - 8 pieces
          I don’t understand why it’s impossible to put 4 at 20000 kgf (without afterburner) as on the Tu-160
          or 4 NK-12s of 11000 kgf each as on the Tu-95MS
          why are they not developing turbojet engines for the B-52N in the USA with a thrust of at least 15000 kgf (?)
          they have engines (!) - even with a thrust of 55000 kgf
          Apparently, this is definitely a degradation (?)
          1. Sergey Valov
            Sergey Valov 13 January 2022 10: 45
            +14
            “Why not deliver” - because the entire aircraft will have to be altered - change the suspension assemblies, change the fuel pumps, the centering will change, the aerodynamics will change, the static power load on the wing will change. We will have to carry out numerous and lengthy tests. The Americans figured it all out a long time ago and decided not to touch the aircraft's control system.
            1. Wise Serpent
              Wise Serpent 16 January 2022 12: 07
              -2
              this is degradation .. “decided not to touch it” flies while it flies. .
          2. dzvero
            dzvero 13 January 2022 10: 52
            +10
            There were two or three remotorization programs, but apparently not destiny.
          3. Tomcat_Tomcat
            Tomcat_Tomcat 13 January 2022 10: 53
            +15
            Quote: Romario_Argo
            on B-52N engines of 7500 kgf - 8 pieces
            I don't understand why you can't put 4

            This option was considered, but the proposal was accepted for implementation simply to change the engines to newer ones. Rolls-Royce with F130 engines (a variant of the commercial BR725 used on the Gulfstream G650 business jet) won the tender for the Commercial Engine Replacement Program (CERP). It is planned to remotorize all 76 existing B-52H bombers, replacing eight old TF33-P-103 engines on each one with eight new ones with maximum preservation of the engine nacelle design.
          4. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 13 January 2022 15: 00
            +5
            Quote: Romario_Argo
            ""I understand"",
            but on the V-52N engines of 7500 kgf each - 8 pieces
            I don’t understand why it’s impossible to put 4 at 20000 kgf (without afterburner) as on the Tu-160
            or 4 NK-12s of 11000 kgf each as on the Tu-95MS
            why are they not developing turbojet engines for the B-52N in the USA with a thrust of at least 15000 kgf (?)
            they have engines (!) - even with a thrust of 55000 kgf
            Apparently, this is definitely a degradation (?)


            Because it is convenient and profitable for them.
            They are now installing civilian Rolls-Royces.
            They will fly more economically, further, and train their pilots more often.

            Faster, higher, stronger - not always better!
          5. EMMM
            EMMM 16 January 2022 22: 32
            +1
            NK-12 at 11000 kgf as on Tu-95MS

            turboprops, and there are no low-speed twin counter-rotating propellers with such characteristics
          6. EMMM
            EMMM 16 January 2022 22: 35
            +1
            why are they not developing turbojet engines for the B-52N in the USA with a thrust of at least 15000 kgf (?)

            the development of new engines will take 20 years, while the service life of the I-52N has so far been extended only until 2030. True, in reality, some quantity will remain in service until the 50-60th year.
            1. Momento
              Momento 17 January 2022 17: 45
              0
              already developed. there will be slightly modified engines from the golf stream. all electronics will be replaced plus an afar radar will be installed. 74 sets should extend the life of the b-52 to 2050x. rolls should roll out the first set 9 months after the contract i.e. in June 2021. they plan to increase the resource (3 times less than idle time) and range (by 50%).
          7. EMMM
            EMMM 16 January 2022 22: 40
            +1
            they have engines (!) - even with a thrust of 55000 kgf

            What happens if you put an engine from Carrera 911 of the year 47-48 on the Zaporozhets?
            "Zaporozhets" will fall apart!
          8. Momento
            Momento 17 January 2022 17: 38
            +1
            tried. the main problem is the space under the wings. the B-52 has wheels on the wings - used when the B-52 is fueled to the maximum. don't get through.
            but in September 2021 they signed a contract with rolls for the supply of new engines (they will use from the goldstream). contract for 74 kits plus spares. so the B-52s will fly until the 2050s.
        2. Filxnumx
          Filxnumx 13 January 2022 20: 40
          -2
          The Americans have even more long-range bombers than we do.

          why did you draw such a conclusion? Is it really because the author of the article "forgot" to mention about 70 Tu-22M3 / M3M aircraft in service with the YES?
          1. Wildcat
            Wildcat 13 January 2022 21: 01
            +5
            Hmm, where does 70 come from? And M3M?
            The main problem for the Tu-22M3 / M3M is the lack of a refueling system in the air, with a non-strategic range (and a fleet of tankers).
            But here it would be nice Without commenting ...
          2. Toucan
            Toucan 14 January 2022 01: 44
            +6
            Quote: Fil743s
            why did you come to that conclusion? Is it really because the author of the article "forgot" to mention about 70 Tu-22M3 / M3M aircraft in service with the YES?

            Cut the sturgeon, only a few cars have been brought to the Tu-22M3M variant. In total, about 30 bombers are in a capable state. In addition, the Tu-22M3 does not have an intercontinental range.
      2. Kuroneko
        Kuroneko 13 January 2022 06: 52
        .
        In terms of quantity, yes. I doubt it in terms of quality. A very large proportion of the Yankee's air nuclear arsenal is still in bombs. And even their cruise missiles, which can carry nuclear weapons, are seriously inferior to the Kh-102.
        1. KKND
          KKND 13 January 2022 07: 31
          +4
          Quote: Kuroneko
          And even their cruise missiles, which can carry nuclei, are seriously inferior to the X-102.

          It remains only to find out the real and not the "murzil" data of the X-102 from the Internet.
          In order for the X-102 to fly 2 times further than the AGM-86, it must have more than 2 times the fuel in it. Is the hint clear?
          1. Kuroneko
            Kuroneko 13 January 2022 07: 38
            +7
            Quote: KKND
            In order for the X-102 to fly 2 times further than the AGM-86, it must have more than 2 times the fuel in it. Is the hint clear?

            To the fact that in AGM-86 and in X-102 the same type of fuel and in the same amount? And that they have the same aerodynamics, the same engine in operation at all altitude conditions and the same total mass?
            No, I'm afraid I don't understand your strange allusions.
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 13 January 2022 15: 53
              +5
              plus or minus ... all the same. Electronics weigh differently ... maybe even the dimensions of the YAZ ..... both X-101 and X102 are longer than X55 and do not fit into the Tu95 compartment, for example .... only from the outside.
          2. Barberry25
            Barberry25 13 January 2022 16: 02
            -4
            Well, if you open the "murzilo" data, then it turns out that AGM-86 weighs about a ton, and the x-102 weighs 2,2 tons, well, the cruise engine is better on the x-102
        2. Kalmar
          Kalmar 13 January 2022 09: 33
          +10
          Quote: Kuroneko
          A very large proportion of the Yankee's air nuclear arsenal is still in bombs.

          This topic has already been discussed at VO. Bombs have their advantages: they can be dropped anywhere; the rocket flies only to where the previously prepared flight mission leads it. This gives great tactical flexibility: the bomb carrier can switch to other targets "on the fly" as needed. This makes bombs a fairly convenient weapon of the second wave, when the enemy's air defense system has already been partially destroyed and the remaining objects are being finished off.

          Quote: Kuroneko
          And even their cruise missiles, which can carry nuclei, are seriously inferior to the X-102.

          So what? If the worst happens, AGM-86 will not compete with the X-102, but with our air defense.
      3. EvilLion
        EvilLion 13 January 2022 09: 36
        .
        If you do not commission new aircraft, you will degrade. Have the United States introduced many new bombers since 1991?
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 13 January 2022 15: 54
          +4
          B-2 ..... and they store well because of the climate and money.
        2. Secutor
          Secutor 14 January 2022 00: 30
          +2
          Counterquestion? We don't have a lot of new planes either. The main thing is the modernized old ones.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 14 January 2022 14: 21
            -4
            At least 4 Tu 160s were made.
    2. EMMM
      EMMM 16 January 2022 22: 44
      +1
      Thanks to the author,
      Indeed, only the Great Confrontation could have spawned such machines on both sides! I will not go into details, you already know everything perfectly ...
  3. Pavel57
    Pavel57 13 January 2022 05: 27
    +7
    Detailed article.
    1. mitroha
      mitroha 13 January 2022 06: 50
      +13
      I completely agree. The article is detailed, beautifully illustrated and without "water", which many authors often suffer from.
      to Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri

      Why, by the way, hasn't the airbase been renamed yet? Negroes are not good. laughing
  4. Slap
    Slap 13 January 2022 05: 53
    +11
    Notice the spots on the B1B parking lots. Their hydraulics are flowing, mum don’t worry. It is more difficult to repair them than to sweep a parade ground with a sledgehammer.
  5. yuriy55
    yuriy55 13 January 2022 06: 47
    +5
    Not sickly such "degradation" ...
    One thing is clear: these "strategists" are dangerous by the possibility of carrying nuclear weapons.
    One can talk about an echeloned air defense system and S-550 complexes, but the fact that this armada is capable of shooting back without entering the air defense engagement zone should be stressful. Especially those who, already in the twenty-first century, continued to sell enriched weapons-grade uranium and plutonium in the United States ...
    As the recent history of the Russian state has shown, destroyed on command and for the sake of pleasure, it is being restored with a loud creak ...
    And to allow your potential adversary to pump oil from the territory of a sovereign state (in order to get free aviation kerosene) is absurd ...
    1. this
      this 14 January 2022 07: 36
      -4
      Whoever sold weapons-grade uranium and plutonium to the United States, I know that only they transferred it to us to convert it into fuel for nuclear power plants.
      1. yuriy55
        yuriy55 14 January 2022 07: 42
        +5
        Materials - darkness. This one, at least:
        SECRETS OF THE "URANIUM" DEAL
        https://biography.wikireading.ru/142280
        1. this
          this 14 January 2022 20: 18
          -2
          The article already starts with emotions and continues to click on them. Why do the Americans need our weapons-grade uranium and plutonium, do they have their own in bulk?
    2. Wise Serpent
      Wise Serpent 16 January 2022 12: 11
      -1
      The United States sold nuclear fuel made from weapons-grade uranium converted into fuel for nuclear power plants. in return, receiving a lot of ore. because the United States has lost enrichment technologies and does not have recycling technology .. study the mat part
      1. yuriy55
        yuriy55 16 January 2022 12: 25
        +3
        Quote: Wise Serpent
        study mat part

        And I, naive, assumed that the idea of ​​HEU-LEU was approved in the USA only because this HEU could not (GUARANTEE) be used again ...
  6. FoBoss_V
    FoBoss_V 13 January 2022 07: 12
    -5
    In the meantime, ours today raised a new Tu-160 in Kazan on the wing. The flight so far lasted half an hour in total, but it pleases the backlog. It would be nice to have at least five new pieces a year to replace obsolete ones
    1. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 13 January 2022 09: 50
      +15
      Quote: FoBoss_V
      In the meantime, ours today raised a new Tu-160 in Kazan on the wing. The flight so far lasted half an hour in total, but it pleases the backlog. It would be nice to have at least five new pieces a year to replace obsolete ones

      What is the groundwork?
      The glider stood at the factory completely ready for many years.
      It was not collected.
      The equipment was just installed for him.
      Which was also in stock.
      And they did it for more than 2 years.
      What 5 pieces a year do you dream about?
      1. FoBoss_V
        FoBoss_V 13 January 2022 13: 57
        +2
        They wrote in the news that it was built from scratch. Those. glider, avionics, REV, engines are all new. Are they lying?
        1. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A 13 January 2022 14: 57
          +5
          Quote: FoBoss_V
          They wrote in the news that it was built from scratch. Those. glider, avionics, REV, engines are all new. Are they lying?


          Yes. Lies, they always lie.
          This is the 36 Tu-160 glider, built back in the 90s.
          The first flight was to take place in 2018.
          But they failed again.

          For there is another "victorious news" on the Internet from 2015: "The Commander of the Air Force, Colonel-General Vladimir Bondarev, ordered: in 2020, the first ten Tu-160M ​​vehicles should leave the shops."
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 13 January 2022 16: 40
            0
            No, this is a completely new Tu 160, the last of those gliders that touched what remained on the KAPO was the Tu 160 Pyotr Deinekin - it was taken into the air in 2018.
            1. SovAr238A
              SovAr238A 13 January 2022 16: 46
              +6
              Quote: Vadim237
              No, this is a completely new Tu 160, the last of those gliders that touched what remained on the KAPO was the Tu 160 Pyotr Deinekin - it was taken into the air in 2018.


              No.
              You're wrong.
              "Petr Deinekin" (serial number 08-04).
              the last glider was 08-05.
              There is information about this on the Internet.
              1. SovAr238A
                SovAr238A 13 January 2022 16: 54
                +5
                by the way.
                there is another glider in the so-called state of aggregation. But for an assembly kit, it is also enough.
                .
                1. Osipov9391
                  Osipov9391 15 January 2022 01: 42
                  +1
                  And equipment like SOS-5 (made by the closed Voronezh "Electropribor") and ABSU-200, for example, who will make it now? Or are the feeders still rich in these components? Provided that the semiconductors there have not gone out over decades of storage.
              2. Vadim237
                Vadim237 13 January 2022 17: 42
                -5
                Maybe this photo May 2016 -
                so this is a clean fuselage, the only thing that is laborious in it is the center section of titanium alloy to which the swivel wings are attached.
              3. AML
                AML 14 January 2022 19: 24
                +3
                No, you are wrong. The one you're talking about took off a couple of months ago.
          2. Wise Serpent
            Wise Serpent 16 January 2022 12: 14
            -2
            nothing is lying. the new one is built from scratch. examine the materiel .. no old knots were used. the project itself is different from the old one. .
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 17 January 2022 20: 27
              -1
              Actually, the photo of this that took off was taken from the above photograph, this is the last skeleton inherited from the USSR - subsequent Tu 160s will indeed be made from scratch.
    2. vch62388
      vch62388 13 January 2022 09: 59
      +12
      Kazan, with its aircraft factories (aircraft and helicopter) and other significant enterprises, is not protected from the air from the word "absolutely". The 318th SRP, which existed in Soviet times, was disbanded in the 90s, as well as Yoshkar-Ola and Samara Iap. Having broken through the air defense system along the perimeter of the country, violated by the first strikes, what prevents even an aircraft armed with free-falling bombs from destroying this industrial center? There is no object air defense in the center of the country. We do not take Moscow. There are many objects inside the country that were previously covered. Now there is no.
      It is clear that you cannot put air defense systems to each boiler house, but it is necessary to cover large industrial centers.
      1. Sergey Valov
        Sergey Valov 13 January 2022 10: 57
        0
        Air defense system of the mid-60s and early 21st century. these are two big differences. Many things have become meaningless, new methods of dealing with an adversary have appeared. Covering Kazan air defense missile system is pointless because it is not. The enemy will be intercepted far to the north. It is much cheaper to keep 2 - 3 regiments of interceptors in the High North than 50 regiments in the interior of the country. In addition, there are much more significant objects that need to be protected than aircraft factories, which, in the event of a conflict with the United States, will not bring any benefit.
        1. vch62388
          vch62388 13 January 2022 11: 25
          +5
          On the whole, I agree with you. However, in the current reality, a blow can be expected not only from the north, but, for example, in the southwest. And it is not so much the question of the defense of factories as the defense of a large administrative and logistics hub. Kazan is taken solely as an example in the context of this article.
          1. Sergey Valov
            Sergey Valov 13 January 2022 11: 32
            +3
            It is necessary to cover, first of all, power plants, bridges over large rivers, control and communication centers of the country and large regions. Transport hubs (railway stations) are being restored rather quickly.
            1. vch62388
              vch62388 13 January 2022 11: 43
              0
              Is the Volga a large river? The nearest bridge to the south of Kazan, 200 km (in Ulyanovsk).
              1. Sergey Valov
                Sergey Valov 13 January 2022 12: 46
                +4
                Count how many railway bridges across the Volga, if they are destroyed, an economic collapse in the country will begin. And yet, yes, the Volga is a large river.
                1. vch62388
                  vch62388 13 January 2022 13: 17
                  +3
                  That's right, there are only 4 of them on the Middle Volga (Kazan, Ulyanovsk, Syzran, Saratov), ​​50% of which (the first 2) are not covered from the air.
                  Ulyanovsk - no air defense.
                  Samara - zrp s-300 two-division composition. This is for a city with a population of one million + the headquarters of the army, a city with almost a million (Togliatti) + hydroelectric power station, Syzran + the Imperial Bridge + other objects.
                  Saratov - zrp for the city - the regional center, hydroelectric power station, nuclear power plant, strategic aviation base, etc.
                  1. Sergey Valov
                    Sergey Valov 13 January 2022 14: 59
                    +2
                    There are three directions from which you can launch an air strike on the Volga bridges - southern (Turkey, Iran), southwestern (NATO) and northern (USA). From the south, an impact is the least likely. From the southwest there is a powerful RA grouping with serious air defense systems. From the north, missile launchers from strategic bombers and submarines can fly in, and air defense intelligence agencies are now being deployed there to prevent the very possibility of launching missile launchers from aircraft. As for the threat of launching a cruise missile with nuclear submarines, I am not competent here. So the deployment of air defense systems in the depths of the country, in my opinion, is unreasonable.
                    "Ulyanovsk - no air defense" - air defense is not only air defense systems, as many people think, but also fighter aircraft.
                  2. Osipov9391
                    Osipov9391 15 January 2022 01: 49
                    +2
                    Yes, no air defense will save the situation. IRBMs made from anti-missiles in Poland and Romania will be able to hit targets up to the Urals in 6-10 minutes.
                    That's why ours and NATO raised such a howl that they left Eastern Europe.
                    Well, the "Tomahawk" in the same launchers has not been canceled in the ground version.
                    1. Sergey Valov
                      Sergey Valov 16 January 2022 16: 15
                      +1
                      “in Poland and Romania they will be able to hit targets to the Urals in 6-10 minutes” - this is the danger of the situation that, due to their close location, the conflict may begin with a preventive strike against them, moreover, due to the mistake of politicians or the military .
                    2. Momento
                      Momento 17 January 2022 17: 53
                      +1
                      they have already tested the tomahawk on a wheeled chassis. why make it so complicated?
        2. rtv
          rtv 13 January 2022 17: 29
          +5
          > It is much cheaper to keep 2 - 3 regiments of interceptors in the High North than 50 regiments in the interior of the country.

          Well, a very big mistake. By the way, it's cheaper to keep nothing at all. Yes, that's just the point from this? In the 90s, they also shouted that the MiG-31 with their outstanding performance characteristics would completely replace the valiant 10 separate air defense army. The army was cut, or rather, everything was abandoned in positions and left. And the north was completely bare. In the 90s, the Americans on the strategists in reality worked out the route of the "Giant Spear" to strike at industrial and administrative centers in the interior of the country through the North Pole, according to radio intercepts, they trained to strike at Novosibirsk.
          2-3 interceptor regiments are useless without ground infrastructure and will in no way replace an entire air defense army. Well, comparing 2-3 IAP and 50 ZRP is a bit strange.
          1. Sergey Valov
            Sergey Valov 13 January 2022 17: 56
            +1
            “2-3 iap and 50 zrp is a little strange” - where did I write about 50 zrp?
            In the 10th Air Defense Army there were both air defense missile systems and aviation regiments, and it covered the Kola Peninsula and Arkhangelsk. What is this direction related to the defense of Kazan?
            1. rtv
              rtv 14 January 2022 11: 48
              -2
              Those. did you mean 50 iap? Well, then it's completely enchantingly wrong.
      2. Bongo
        13 January 2022 15: 28
        +8
        Quote: vch62388
        Kazan, with its aircraft factories (aircraft and helicopter) and other significant enterprises, is not protected from the air from the word "absolutely". The 318th SRP, which existed in Soviet times, was disbanded in the 90s, as well as Yoshkar-Ola and Samara Iap. Having broken through the air defense system along the perimeter of the country, violated by the first strikes, what prevents even an aircraft armed with free-falling bombs from destroying this industrial center? There is no object air defense in the center of the country. We do not take Moscow. There are many objects inside the country that were previously covered. Now there is no.


        Kazan is still not in the worst position in terms of protection from air strikes. From the west you are covered by the Moscow air defense belt, from the south by the S-300P and S-400 deployed near Samara and Engels, from the west by the S-300PS regiment near Yekaterinburg. There are places where everything is much sadder.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 13 January 2022 15: 57
          +6
          First, ICBMs will fly to and fro ... ... bombers in a second wave ...
      3. Vadim237
        Vadim237 13 January 2022 17: 49
        -7
        In which case, they can transfer part of the military air defense for cover.
        1. Toucan
          Toucan 14 January 2022 01: 49
          +4
          Quote: Vadim237
          In which case, they can transfer part of the military air defense for cover.

          Arrows, Wasps and Torahs? S-300V is not even available in every district. Buki one brigade set.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 14 January 2022 14: 29
            -7
            Yes, all that is available is Shilki Osa Buki Torah Tunguska shells and C 300V4 - the main thing is that the country has a comprehensive and unified air defense system and hundreds of radars that will see all objects from ground level to near space - bombers with bombs will fly unnoticed across the border, all the more so . And where does the information come from that C 300V4 is not available in all military districts?
            1. Toucan
              Toucan 14 January 2022 15: 26
              +5
              And let's do this, if in all, then I do not appear on the IN a year, and if not in all, then you do not appear for a year?
              And please, study the question, how many "Pantsirey" are in the air defense system. wink
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 17 January 2022 20: 29
                -3
                Let's bring the information - but I already know the answer.
            2. Bongo
              15 January 2022 06: 00
              +5
              Quote: Vadim237
              Yes, all that is available is Shilki Osa Buki Torah Tunguska shells and C 300V4 - the main thing is that the country has a comprehensive and unified air defense system and hundreds of radars that will see all objects from ground level to near space - bombers with bombs will fly unnoticed across the border, all the more so . And where does the information come from that C 300V4 is not available in all military districts?

              How will MANPADS, ZRPK and short-range air defense systems fight strategic bombers?
              All "Shells" are concentrated in the ZRV of the Russian Aerospace Forces.
              Tell me, at what distance, in the most optimal conditions, the SNR medium / long-range air defense system or the standby radar takes on escort / detects the KR or a fighter flying on WWI?
              Regarding the number of deployed S-300V4 air defense systems, there is information in the public domain.
              This is all to the fact that it would not hurt you to be less categorical, more knowledge and common sense.
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 17 January 2022 20: 51
                -3
                How will MANPADS, ZRPK and short-range air defense systems fight strategic bombers? Here the question follows, why the hell should bombers fly into our airspace if there are the same strategic AGM 86 AGM 158 and AGM 154 on board?
                All "Shells" are concentrated in the ZRV VKS RF - Yes, all 617 that were released from 2008 to 2021 for the Moscow Region.
                Tell me at what distance, under the most optimal conditions, the SNR medium / long-range air defense system or the standby radar takes on escort / detects a missile defense or a fighter flying on WWI. One air defense system and a radar station do not work; they all work in a complex manner, including with fighter aircraft and flying radars - and launching a cruise missile and flying up to our border will not work on any bomber.
                “Regarding the number of deployed S-300V4 air defense systems, there is information in the public domain” Well, you obviously have a shortage with it, since you don’t communicate with the manufacturers of this equipment, but I, as an allied company, communicate with Almaz Antey and with KTRV and with Rosatom.
                This is all to the fact that it would not hurt you to be less categorical, more knowledge and common sense. Categoricalness in the norm of knowledge decently common sense is present.
      4. Wise Serpent
        Wise Serpent 16 January 2022 12: 15
        -4
        how do you know this? there are air defense divisions in each division ..
        1. Bongo
          16 January 2022 12: 23
          +4
          Quote: Wise Serpent
          how do you know this? there are air defense divisions in each division ..

          Buk divisions? fool
          Please take an interest in the structure of the air defense of our motorized rifle and tank divisions, and do not smack nonsense. wassat
    3. ramzay21
      ramzay21 13 January 2022 10: 17
      +3
      How can the release of a Soviet aircraft, created almost 50 years ago, be presented as an achievement?
    4. Tomcat_Tomcat
      Tomcat_Tomcat 13 January 2022 11: 03
      +9
      Quote: FoBoss_V
      In the meantime, ours today flew a new Tu-160 in Kazan. The flight so far lasted half an hour in total, but pleases

      new, it's new, but
      The first prototype of the modernized Tu-160M ​​bomber of a new construction, with the serial number 8-05, made its first flight. The aircraft was completed from the stock of a glider, laid down in the Soviet period as the 36th Tu-160 flight bomber.

      Recall that on January 25, 2018, the Russian Ministry of Defense, in the presence of Russian President V.V. Putin signed a contract with Tupolev PJSC in Kazan worth 160 billion rubles for the construction of ten new Tu-2027M160 bombers by 2.

      Quote: FoBoss_V
      It would be nice to have at least five new ones a year to replace obsolete ones.

      Why not 10 ??? Five planes each - so many were made in the USSR in the best times for the Tu-160.
    5. onstar9
      onstar9 19 January 2022 22: 12
      0
      Quote: FoBoss_V
      In the meantime, ours today raised a new Tu-160 in Kazan on the wing. The flight so far lasted half an hour in total, but it pleases the backlog. It would be nice to have at least five new pieces a year to replace obsolete ones

      Yes, it's high time to start a good "war" with the Americans ... Otherwise, we wait, we wait, but we are only fed with promises from the screen.
  7. KKND
    KKND 13 January 2022 07: 27
    +5
    Quote: Sergey Linnik
    During the Cold War, American bombers patrolled along the borders of the USSR with nuclear weapons on board, which, if ordered to strike, made it possible to significantly reduce flight time.

    The main task of patrolling strategic bombers along the borders is not at all to reduce the strike time, but to influence the enemy leadership politically. This is a warning to the enemy against rash decisions, since you can’t return the BR, but the bomber with nuclear weapons will fly, fly and possibly “sober up” the enemy.
    It is not possible to strike from a patrol, since immediately after a strategic aircraft is detected by ZGRLS means, it is accompanied by interceptors along the entire patrol route along the borders.
    Interceptor pilots are required to monitor the opening of bomb bays and other attempts to launch missiles and prevent them.
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 13 January 2022 08: 29
      +12
      Quote: KKND
      It is not possible to strike from a patrol, since immediately after a strategic aircraft is detected by ZGRLS means, it is accompanied by interceptors along the entire patrol route along the borders.
      Interceptor pilots are required to monitor the opening of bomb bays and other attempts to launch missiles and prevent them.

      This is a tricky question about intercepting strategists.
      You can also patrol in the launch zones of the KR, at some distance from the borders. The suspension of the KR on external holders allows the launch of the KR without opening the bomb bay.
      In general, there is a big difference between demonstration flights ("psychic" attack) and watch in the launch area.
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 13 January 2022 09: 37
      +9
      Quote: KKND
      The main task of patrolling strategic bombers along the borders is not at all to reduce the strike time, but to influence the enemy leadership politically

      So one does not interfere with the other. Moreover, it helps.

      Quote: KKND
      immediately after the strategic aircraft is detected by means of the ZGRLS, it is accompanied by interceptors along the entire patrol route along the borders

      The interceptor has significantly less time in the air. Those. to escort one bomber, several fighters must be sent in succession.
      However, the voiced tactics were used in the 60-70s, when there were a lot of B-52s in the US Air Force; there will not be enough interceptors to constantly keep them at gunpoint.
    3. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov 13 January 2022 11: 21
      +2
      "He is accompanied by interceptors along the entire patrol route along the borders" is not the case. Suck patrols do not have to be close to borders. The impact time is just reduced significantly, it is enough to look at the globe, another question is that there were a very limited number of cars on patrol. It is simply stupid to raise interceptors to intercept loitering bombardments, for a variety of reasons - from the short flight time of a fighter, to not knowing where it will eventually fly to bomb.
  8. Pavel57
    Pavel57 13 January 2022 08: 20
    +9
    In the 80s, authoritative experts believed that the Soviet air defense would not be able to repel a massive attack by the KR from aircraft and ships.
    1. KKND
      KKND 13 January 2022 10: 14
      +7
      Quote: Pavel57
      In the 80s, authoritative experts believed that the Soviet air defense would not be able to repel a massive attack by the KR from aircraft and ships.

      She (air defense system) and then and now single launches of the CD can hardly reflect. Watch the flight of Rust, the return flight of our Mig after the pilot's ejection and the American attack on the Syrian airfield. The radio horizon is a very unpleasant thing for air defense systems of any country.
      1. Sergey Valov
        Sergey Valov 13 January 2022 11: 05
        +6
        "See the flight of Rust" - the flight of Rust is the carelessness of the leadership and not the ineffectiveness of the technique. Your humble servant served five years earlier in the ZRV exactly along the route of Rust, we would have shot him down one-two-three. During the exercises in Ashuluk, a much more difficult target was shot down both than Rust and than Tomahawk.
        1. Hiroo Onoda
          Hiroo Onoda 13 January 2022 12: 19
          +5
          Quote: Sergey Valov
          we would have brought him down

          On the teachings

          The key words are "BY" and "in the exercises", but in reality it is always like with Rust it turns out recourse
          1. Sergey Valov
            Sergey Valov 13 January 2022 12: 42
            +5
            “In reality, it’s always like with Rust” - So Powers fell himself? In Egypt (by the way, my division fought there) and in Vietnam, did the adversaries dig themselves into the ground?
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 13 January 2022 16: 52
            -7
            Syrian calculations and our same drones and missiles shoot down - and there real combat conditions Israel is pushing every week on the skills of operators of our and Syrian air defense systems.
            1. Hiroo Onoda
              Hiroo Onoda 13 January 2022 16: 56
              +5
              Quote: Vadim237
              Syrian calculations and our same drones and missiles shoot down - and there real combat conditions Israel is pushing every week on the skills of operators of our and Syrian air defense systems.

              It seems to me that success for an air defense system is if a missile carrier is shot down, and not some kind of hulking drone for three rubles, or a couple of missiles, while the rest of the missiles successfully perform the assigned task request
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 13 January 2022 17: 58
                -2
                The missile carrier will not enter the air defense zone of action; it has the filling for this, there are the same missiles and gliding bombs, and as for drones, they shot down Bayraktar in Syria and they cost more than three rubles.
                1. Hiroo Onoda
                  Hiroo Onoda 13 January 2022 18: 03
                  +1
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  The missile carrier will not enter the air defense zone

                  What? That is, you are claiming that the aircraft (let's take a hypothetical F-35), and by default, has a longer range than the air defense system opposing it (let's take a hypothetical S-400)?
                  That is, you can forget about the parity of aircraft-versus-air defense? Is there no parity? Aircraft will always win because from afar, without entering the affected area of ​​the air defense, they can shoot these same air defense?
                  Am I still following your logic or have I deviated somewhere?
                  1. Vadim237
                    Vadim237 14 January 2022 14: 33
                    -5
                    Aircraft have missiles and glide bombs with launch ranges of 600 and 1000 km - therefore, they do not need to enter the air defense zone, why risk the aircraft and the pilot.
                    1. Hiroo Onoda
                      Hiroo Onoda 14 January 2022 16: 15
                      +2
                      Quote: Vadim237
                      they do not need to enter the air defense zone

                      That is, without reference to specific types of weapons - globally, aircraft can calmly shoot air defense systems from afar, as in a shooting range? And why then are these air defenses being developed at all? So clean, just like a firefighter?
                      1. Momento
                        Momento 17 January 2022 18: 05
                        +1
                        air defense has one big advantage over aircraft: constant combat readiness. well, plus maybe great energy opportunities. it's important for pro.

                        against aircraft in an open conflict, air defense is like partisans on a tank - and you can see it from afar and hear it. won't live long.
                      2. Vadim237
                        Vadim237 17 January 2022 20: 55
                        -1
                        To resist aircraft, UAV helicopters and their filling - missiles and bombs. Is this answer understandable?
                      3. Hiroo Onoda
                        Hiroo Onoda 17 January 2022 20: 57
                        0
                        Quote: Vadim237
                        To counter the planes

                        And how can you resist aircraft if they can destroy you without entering the affected area? Shoot, as in a shooting range, in your own words.
      2. Avior
        Avior 13 January 2022 12: 11
        +11
        the return flight of our Mig after the pilot's ejection

        it can hardly be considered an example. He was discovered before he crossed the border. I remember this incident well, he flew at a high altitude.
        At 09:42 CET [6] (according to another version, at 09:44 CET [1]), board 29, being over the territory of the German Democratic Republic, was taken to be escorted by NATO radars. The aircraft's flight altitude was 12 meters, the speed was 000 km / h [740]. After crossing the border between the GDR and the Federal Republic of Germany, two F-6 Eagle fighters of the 15nd US Air Force Tactical Fighter Squadron piloted by Captains J.D. Martin and Bill Murphy were raised to intercept it from the Susterberg airbase (Netherlands). English Bill Murphy) [32]. At 7:10, both F-05 Eagles intercepted the intruder. Having convinced (not on the first try) the dispatcher that they were observing a Soviet fighter without a pilot and with a missing cockpit canopy, the pilots were ordered to shoot down the MiG-15M only as a last resort. At that moment, the fighter was flying over densely populated areas [23] and it was impossible to predict where it might fall from such a great height. Accompanied by both F-1 Eagles, board 15 flew over the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and was already approaching France and the city of Lille. The American pilots decided to shoot down the plane if it became clear that it would be able to reach Lille, but this was not required: just at that moment it ran out of all aviation fuel and began to gradually lose altitude. At 29:10 CET, a fighter jet crashed onto a farm in the Belgian village of Bellegem near Kortrijk. Both F-37 Eagles spent another 15-10 minutes over the crash site, after which they returned to base.
      3. rtv
        rtv 13 January 2022 17: 46
        +10
        Don't write nonsense. Rust's landing occurred due to a combination of a number of factors that have nothing to do with the combat readiness of the air defense forces. This combination of factors later allowed the experts to assert that this was a deliberate action on the part of our "partners". There is a whole chain of events over several years. In the beginning, the Americans increased tensions on our borders in the Far East. For example, they completely imitated a missile and bomb attack (without real launches only) on our island, like Zeleny Island, but I don’t remember exactly, in the Kamchatka region. With violation of the state border of the USSR, of course. They also drove two aircraft carriers from the border, lifted all aviation from them, from memory like 72 aircraft. They stood in a circle and periodically one of the sides left the circle in violation of our border - this is how the Americans checked the reaction of the Soviet air defense. The Soviet air defense was represented by the P-18 radar under the command of either the starley, or even a lieutenant and several fighters. According to the memoirs of G.K. Dubrov. (I don’t remember who he was at that time, but after Rust, like him, they made him the head of the USSR air defense RTV, a very interesting and devoted person), the head of the P-18 could not even count the number of targets. 72 board is already according to the memoirs of the Americans later it became known. After the Americans were convinced of the toothlessness of the Soviet air defense in the Far East, they launched that very KAL, the Boeing that ours shot down after several hours of being in our space. There were many other episodes. However, instead of praise, the air defense command received such a huge stick from the country's top political leadership that everyone was afraid to give the order to fire it. Rust was found even before crossing the state border, also on P-18. And they led him for a very long time, and the interceptors flew around him twice, in his memoirs Rust writes that he was very frightened the first time. So the USSR air defense worked 100%. If it had been a massive raid of aerospace attack weapons towards the state border of the USSR, no one would have doubts there, they would have worked on the machine simply. From the point of view of the country's air defense, one light aircraft was simply an insignificant target, and after being stuck for the Korean Boeing, the "wise" generals decided to play it safe and not take responsibility.
        1. Serge-667
          Serge-667 16 January 2022 15: 41
          -3
          Rust could well rattle anything on Red Square. Starting from chemical / bacteriological weapons, ending with a 5kt warhead. And it wouldn't seem like much. So he was frankly screwed over.
          1. rtv
            rtv 16 January 2022 17: 24
            0
            A light-engine aircraft at that time was considered an insignificant target. The country's air defense simply did not consider it necessary to shoot him down. And this is a big difference - they did not shoot down because of insignificance and could not shoot down at all.
            1. Serge-667
              Serge-667 16 January 2022 17: 51
              0
              There are no significant and not very significant targets for air defense.
              It's all about politics.
              A year later, the Americans quite calmly shot down an Iranian passenger plane over Iranian territory. Only because they saw something there.
              And three hundred people hooted as if from a bush. And no one particularly moaned as for the 747th in the Far East.
              It was necessary to shoot down Rust no matter what.
              1. rtv
                rtv 16 January 2022 18: 15
                -1
                Well, why write nonsense? Goals are very much divided according to the degree of danger. Or are you a fan of shooting sparrows from a cannon? Or maybe you think that military money does not count and spend expensive ammunition left and right?

                Light aircraft at the time of Rust's landing were considered insignificant targets. Dot. The only danger that Rust posed to the Soviet air defense of the country was the possibility of punishment for shooting down another aircraft, like a Korean Boeing. But there was already a stalemate, and as a result, the generals were still punished, but already for missing the target. But this had nothing to do with the combat readiness of the air defense forces of the country of the USSR. Thanks to our "partners" represented by the United States, the USSR air defense was very good, despite its shortcomings.
                1. Serge-667
                  Serge-667 16 January 2022 18: 56
                  0
                  Light aircraft at the time of Rust's landing were considered insignificant targets
                  .

                  Can the document be seen?
                  1. rtv
                    rtv 17 January 2022 12: 09
                    +2
                    Well, why this demagoguery? Do you have access to orders governing combat duty? I deeply doubt it. And if there is a permit, then you will find everything without me.

                    A light-engine aircraft does not cease to be a violator of the state border, but its danger is much less - this is not a B-52, right? However, if you shoot him down and the pilot dies, and God forbid it turns out that this is a respectable user of the airspace who just got lost, then it will be very difficult for the one who gave the order. So the generals pulled, waiting for it to turn out that this was some kind of air ambulance. Therefore, no one gave the decision to defeat.

                    According to the documents, you will not find that light aircraft can land on Red Square, but small aircraft in Soviet times were quite common, the level of discipline and order there was less than in large ones, and even now. And the probability of shooting down Soviet citizens was high. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the interceptor, due to its high speed, could not really establish visual contact with such a target. In the ZGSV, for example, army aviation helicopters were used for these purposes - there work on small aircraft was at a very high level due to the presence of the FRG nearby, where there were many private light-engine aircraft and if they violated the state border of the GDR. There, as a result, they closed this shop in full. In the USSR, there was no such problem, they were preparing to repel much more dangerous targets than Rust.

                    Give an order to defeat a Boeing that was in the airspace of the USSR for several hours, which had all the necessary navigation equipment so as not to get lost, did not respond to signals, was not out of order, did not give distress signals and was clearly following its route and give an order to defeat a light-engine aircraft that could simply get lost - these are two radically big differences. It’s you sitting in a comfortable chair in front of your computer and ranting on the topic “Yes, I would”, and there is a man at the command post, with great powers and great responsibility, who is a soldier, not a killer, and he will not shoot down everything that moves, but only after receiving all the data that the target is dangerous and other measures of influence have exhausted themselves. After all, it was peacetime, not war.

                    Read the story of how one colonel saved the world from the third world war when he did not believe the data on the launch of missiles on the territory of the USSR. Thank him and pray to God that a person like you was not sitting in his place, ready to shoot down / shoot / destroy at the first opportunity.
                    1. Serge-667
                      Serge-667 17 January 2022 12: 41
                      0
                      So the generals pulled, waiting for it to turn out that this was some kind of air ambulance. Therefore, no one gave the decision to defeat.

                      You don’t confuse air defense with kindergarten?
                      This is the first time I hear about some "insignificant" goals. Therefore, I ask you to refer to the official document of the USSR Ministry of Defense, the regulations or the air defense RD of those years, according to which it is not necessary and not important to shoot down violators of the state border, even if they fly in a chair with a fan.
                      He speared in the direction of Moscow for at least 3 hours. At quite a normal and accessible height for air defense. Maybe you don’t know, but even a stool with a propeller has radio communication and does not move in the airspace by itself, wherever it pleases, but along a route agreed with ground services. Otherwise, it is not only a violator of the border, but also of air traffic.
                      Air Traffic Control. Ever heard of him?
                      Here, below, a person brought a screen of a document explaining the procedure for dealing with an airspace violator.
                      You are making your own conjectures.
                      Probably because the target was of little importance for air defense, they immediately removed 300 people from their posts?
                      Or maybe not a single anti-aircraft installation was found along the route? Or, all the same, screwed up with the decision?
                      Provide a link to the document.
                      1. rtv
                        rtv 17 January 2022 19: 53
                        0
                        Well, as long as you arrange a kindergarten here. Not a single document contains the concept of "insignificant" goals, there are criteria of importance - if the goal falls under them, then they work on it in the first place. Accordingly, if it does not hit, they work according to the residual principle. In this case, the Rust was not an important target in the sense that it must be shot down immediately - this is not a B-52. But this does not mean that he has ceased to be a violator. Formally, there were grounds for fire exposure. But this is for you in a cozy house, you can calmly argue "what would I do." And there, once again I draw your attention to this, people think completely differently and it’s not so easy to give a command to defeat a completely unidentified target - in some ways it’s a pity for the people on board, because it’s not known who is there, in some way themselves it’s a pity - the prosecutor will then be up to the light of whom and for what to plant. Especially in light of the Korean Boeing. So, yes, shooting down a violator of the state border is optional and not essential. It is important and fundamentally - to stop the violation, and not to bring down. Because air defense is just not a kindergarten.

                        Regarding small aircraft, it is obvious that you are not aware of the rules there and how they relate / relate to compliance with the rules and declared routes and would not write nonsense - small aircraft, unlike large aircraft, just has the ability to fly wherever it pleases , because it is not controlled as tightly as a big one and they can deviate from the route up to its complete change - the main thing is to get in touch at the right time and confirm the official route. And no one knows where you are anyway. It is for this reason that the work of air defense bodies on small aircraft is more complicated than on large aircraft - there could be our board, which consciously deviated from the route and does not get in touch so as not to "sleep". And do not think that this was a rarity.

                        So, not knowing the "kitchen", you should not make categorical statements that Rust should have been shot down - it was enough to force him to land, but not on Red Square. It is also not necessary to cite English terms that have nothing to do with the topic under discussion. In those days it was called air traffic control, and now air traffic management and they are here on the side of the fire - because, as I wrote above, the air traffic controller has no idea where the small aircraft are located, especially at that time. All that the civilian sector of the ATC could answer to the military one was which route someone flew, the actual location was unknown to them. So you are speculating here along with the breeding of a kindergarten.

                        Well, if the generals / colonels who were removed after Rust's landing knew what awaits them, Rust would have been imprisoned much earlier than he flew to Moscow. But at that time, the colonels/generals only knew about their comrades/colleagues, who were removed from their posts for downing a Korean Boeing.

                        There were also anti-aircraft missile regiments along the Rust route, and fighter aircraft could work calmly along it. Yes, completely screwed up with the decision. Purely an administrative issue. People with eggs were kicked out of the air defense after the Korean Boeing. After Rust, they kicked out those who simply had balls. Yes, an inglorious story that caused serious damage to our air defense. But to say that the air defense of the USSR was full of holes is stupidity and misunderstanding of the processes taking place there.
                      2. Serge-667
                        Serge-667 17 January 2022 20: 54
                        0
                        But to say that the air defense of the USSR was full of holes is stupidity and misunderstanding

                        So they screwed up. Moreover, in all paragraphs, starting with identification. How does is called? If it wasn't even properly classified? Of course, you can confuse the Cessna with the Yak-12. But how many were there then? And in Rustov it was written in SUCH LETTERS that he was German.
                        Failure to comply with the state document, what is it, people with balls?
                        Okay, one part, but there, I remember, there were at least four of them, which pointed at each other with their fingers.
                        There is information, and no one denies that it was conducted by means of surveillance even BEFORE crossing the state border (in fact, it is written in the regulatory documents for the protection of airspace, even from what direction and at what distance the target is taken for escort), and the Moscow air defense officers in general they marked "their own".
                        Is this not the case of the military prosecutor already?
                        the KDP dispatcher has no idea where the small aircraft are located

                        I doubt that it was not tracked by civilians, and, in fact, it doesn’t matter, since, although outwardly it is not a military apparatus, it was already accompanied by air defense forces. And violators are THEIR patrimony.
                        I can list to you point by point what the air defense workers did NOT do.
                        1. Did not recognize the target.
                        2. Didn't make radio or eye contact
                        3. They did not make it clear to the violator that he is an intruder and did not force him to board or be expelled from the state border.
                        4. Did not destroy the intruder.
                        And don't care about processes. Moreover, as far as I remember, it was the Day of the Border Guard.
                        Whatever option - alcoholic processes took place, so there was no one to deal with the service.
                        Of course, not for everyone, but if at least one link does not work and there is no result, you yourself understand that the efforts of all those who tore their navels are worthless.
                        By the way, just the civil sector Rust missed while he safely pulled the generals and colonels on the Cessna propeller on the way to Moscow for THREE whole hours. Only, alas, for some reason, not our sector.
                      3. rtv
                        rtv 17 January 2022 21: 24
                        0
                        Well, stop talking about the processes in which you understand like a pig in oranges. Your reasoning is far from reality.

                        Rust was not missed, he was led from the moment he entered our radar field and full-fledged work was carried out on him. He was not shot down because he was a light aircraft. If it had been a B-52 or an F-15, let's say, it would have been intercepted before it even approached our border. Dot. The organization of air defense is a very complex and developed process in which many components are involved. For example, radio intelligence knows about the upcoming flight of a flight of fighters even before they take off due to radio interception and analysis of changes in the intensity of communications, even if they are encrypted. Up to the point that interceptors can rise to intercept a scout before the scout takes off. Intelligence units, I mean technical, know a lot about each other, and the military often play games with each other that are incomprehensible to the layman. Intelligence knows which aircraft are located where and what task they have, there, in the philistine language, "everything is under control." All potentially dangerous targets to stick to the pencil 24 hours 7 days a week. Any suspicious activity is immediately noted and all interested parties are informed about it. Rust was not such a target, he did not pose any danger, his flight was a secret even for the ATC of the country of departure (there is no concept of the civilian sector, by the way, do not use terms whose meaning you do not know). If Rust planned to carry a nuclear warhead, then the special services would have known about this even before his departure. Even if there were simply suspicions that someone was planning to deliver a nuclear weapon to the territory of the USSR on a light-engine aircraft, all air defense agencies would receive a corresponding instruction. But thank God, no one planned this.

                        So once again I draw your attention to the fact that from the point of view of combat readiness, the air defense of the USSR worked for 99% - and was detected in a timely manner, and flew around twice. But since the target did not pose a danger, as it is now fashionable to say, to national security, there was no person who would give the order for its destruction. This does not characterize Soviet air defense in any way in terms of combat readiness. This whole operation was carried out with a focus on ordinary people like you who are far from real air defense, who will shout at every corner what bad air defense was in the USSR. A professional will simply shrug his shoulders, yes, there is something to work on, but this is more of a setup and a negative PR campaign, and not a real problem.

                        Well, in addition, about your "significant" stuffing about the day of the border guard and alcohol processes. Don't make yourself look like a clown, you have absolutely no control over the situation. The protection of the state border of the USSR was carried out by the air defense forces of the country, and not by border guards. These are not just different types or types of troops, these are different departments - the KGB and the Ministry of Defense. Therefore, the air defense authorities, for obvious reasons, could not celebrate the Day of the Border Guard from the word at all, and there were no alcohol processes there.

                        Yes, you are a clear example of how you can distort the truth and sow doubts in the ranks of the enemy with the help of such PR actions that are useless from a military point of view. I am sure that you do not receive money from our sworn "partners", but you are doing everything for this to pour dirt on your own and distort the truth. Better money, or something take for it.
                      4. rtv
                        rtv 17 January 2022 22: 25
                        0
                        Quote: rtv
                        The protection of the state border of the USSR was carried out by the air defense forces of the country, and not by border guards.


                        I confess I forgot to add "in the airspace". Those. the text should read as:

                        The protection of the state border of the USSR in the airspace was carried out by the air defense forces of the country, and not by border guards.
                      5. Serge-667
                        Serge-667 17 January 2022 22: 36
                        0
                        talk about processes in which you understand like a pig in oranges.

                        Are you talking about yourself now?
                        I never saw a link to a single regulatory document in which nonsense was drawn about "insignificance", "insignificance" or some other rubbish.
                      6. rtv
                        rtv 17 January 2022 22: 59
                        -1
                        You are a typical "internet military". What can be a link to the documents regulating combat duty? I went too far with the pig and oranges, I did not want to offend anyone and I apologize for the overly emotional assessment. However, I still rate your knowledge on the merits of the issue under discussion at zero.
                      7. Serge-667
                        Serge-667 17 January 2022 23: 09
                        -2
                        I’m somehow up to the lamp with your assessments, and you will study the materiel:

                        http://pravo.gov.ru/proxy/ips/?docbody=&prevDoc=102368841&backlink=1&&nd=102063185
                        As if, if you are in the subject, then the document is quite sufficient to understand the essence of the issue.
                        In 1987, he looked different, but there are not many fundamental differences.
                        I don't think it's the same DECISION
                        "on the procedure for the use of weapons and military equipment in the protection of the state border of the Russian Federation in the airspace" of 2020
                        It was also very different in general essence from the documents of that time.
                        Job descriptions, instructions for use and a list of guidelines I do not need.
                        I'm a little out of the air opera, here you are right, but the PRINCIPLES were the same.
                      8. rtv
                        rtv 17 January 2022 23: 55
                        0
                        Excuse me, what is the meaning of your link? What you mean by that is completely incomprehensible to me. You are not something that is not from the air opera, you are clearly a person far from the army in any of its forms and having no idea what it means to use weapons to kill.

                        The military are not killers and using weapons to kill in peacetime is not something you can score a couple of lines here while drinking juice in your own quarter. Behind every such decision is hard work and it is not an easy decision. And if it is possible not to use weapons to kill, then no one will do this. Weapons are used in extreme cases. Rust's light-engine aircraft at that time was not such a case, since it did not pose any danger, and even if it did, it was not necessary to shoot it down, you are our bloodthirsty.

                        Yes, there was no person in the air defense command who could make the Decision, yes, Rust landed on Red Square, yes, this was a huge blow to the reputation of the USSR. But the air defense of the USSR worked as expected and in the event of real aggression it would have worked by 200%.
                      9. Serge-667
                        Serge-667 18 January 2022 00: 48
                        0
                        blah blah blah...
                        Soldiers are not killers

                        Then who?
                        Semantic load - study the procedure for using weapons.
                        And yes, since I used this very weapon, it’s not for me to type a couple of lines.
                        May not be defeated.
                        And so yes .. well, nothing to do with the army at all. Exclusively for the Fleet. There are fewer companions.
                      10. rtv
                        rtv 18 January 2022 01: 08
                        -1
                        By calling military killers, you once again confirm the idea that you are either far from military affairs, or simply an inadequate person.
              2. onstar9
                onstar9 19 January 2022 22: 27
                0
                Quote: Serge-667
                There are no significant and not very significant targets for air defense.
                It's all about politics.
                A year later, the Americans quite calmly shot down an Iranian passenger plane over Iranian territory. Only because they saw something there.
                And three hundred people hooted as if from a bush. And no one particularly moaned as for the 747th in the Far East.
                It was necessary to shoot down Rust no matter what.

                No need to compose fairy tales about the Iranian Boeing. The Boeing was flying directly at a grouping of US warships, and this was just during the tense Iran-US conflict. From a US warship eleven times (!!!!) they requested the call sign of the aircraft. But, the Iranian pilots did not even pay attention. They thought that "and so it is clear that they are a civilian aircraft." They just didn’t answer, that’s all ... And then there weren’t such perfect radars to distinguish the type of aircraft so accurately. The Boeing looked like an Iranian military aircraft. Therefore, the Americans struck... But the South Korean Boeing was shot down by Soviet fighters, knowing full well that it was a passenger plane. The pilots flew side by side, and even waved their hands to the South Korean pilot.
                1. Serge-667
                  Serge-667 19 January 2022 22: 59
                  +1
                  Well, of course. Mahali.
                  You talk so beautifully, you should write poetry.
                  And they wave their hands joyfully
                  Soviet friends to me through the plex,
                  And I smile back at them
                  And I get fat cupcake .. "
                  I'm straight..
        2. Momento
          Momento 17 January 2022 18: 16
          0
          there is a report of defense mines on rust and you don’t need to invent anything. in short, they noticed the caesna even when crossing the border, but the resolution was such that visual confirmation from the aircraft was needed because the flock of birds has the same signature as the caesna. the report gives the number of checks - there were a lot of them. the plane took off for confirmation, but could not see the cessna - it was cloudy. well, and then after XNUMX checks earlier, the pilot does not expect to find a caesna. the result is obvious to the pilot in advance.
          as a result, it is clear that an improvement in air defense was needed - the radar should exclude birds or, as the report says, "atmospheric phenomena."
          1. rtv
            rtv 17 January 2022 19: 25
            -1
            "Excuse" about weather events is a classic way to shirk responsibility. I’ll tell you a secret that not a single company or battalion will launch a target if it is not sure that this is precisely the target, and not a meteorological formation - just so as not to get stuck later from a higher command post. It is already following the results of the showdown that they begin to draw "cartoons" - retroactively draw up objective control materials in order to confirm the version that is safe for their own ass. And also do not refer to nonsense about birds and resolution. Once again, the radar operator is the first link in the chain of events, at the end of which there is a very expensive rise of the duty aircraft to intercept the target. Therefore, the radar operators are (were at least) real professionals and will not give out a meteorological formation or a flock of birds - because otherwise they will quickly beat the crap out of them if there was no target according to the results. As for resolution, it only plays a role in the event of a massive raid. And then, the maximum that poor resolution will lead to is an incorrect assessment of the quantitative composition of the group target in the direction of decrease - i.e. instead of 10 targets, only 3 will be detected, for example. In the case of Rust, the target was single and the arguments about resolution were sucked from the finger. Well, I’ll dispel nonsense about birds - the speed of the cessna is noticeably different from the speed of a flock of birds, and speed selection solves the problem of target selection in this case without any problems. The problem is also solved in the case of meteorological formations, but in general I will inform you that specialized meteorological radars are used for weather reconnaissance - precisely because all-round radars do not detect meteorological formations well.

            Rust was discovered before crossing the state border, while there was no goal to shoot down everything in a row immediately upon detection at the USSR air defense. Its first task was to repel a mass flight of aerospace attack weapons towards the state border of the USSR. From this point of view, Rust did not pose any danger as a means of attack. At the same time, after the events with the Korean Boeing, the order to defeat Rust posed a serious danger to his giving official, and the responsible people were afraid to give the command. That's the whole reason for landing Rust. This does not paint the leadership of the USSR in any way and does not relieve him of responsibility. But to say that the USSR air defense was not combat ready because Rust landed on Red Square is a complete lie and is simply stupid, although it is acceptable for an average person who is far from air defense. The air defense of the USSR was, if not the best, then one of the best in the world, but I'm leaning towards the "best" rating - and I'm not saying perfect, mind you.
            1. Egg
              Egg 17 January 2022 19: 45
              0
              Quote: rtv
              Its first task was to repel a mass flight of aerospace attack weapons towards the state border of the USSR

              it’s a pity you can’t put 100500 pluses, we were also told that our brigade lives 15-20 minutes before the start of the war, they shot back and we bring it down quickly ... to spare positions until it arrived laughing
              1. rtv
                rtv 17 January 2022 20: 06
                -2
                Quote: Telur
                we were also told that our brigade lives 15-20 minutes before the start of the war

                One radio engineering team in a dangerous direction had a lifetime of 10 minutes. After that, the brigade was expected to be completely defeated during the first MRAU, the remnants of the units who survived were to move to the rear to form new units based on the cropped ones.

                A whole brigade, 20-25 battalions and companies, more than 1000 personnel (I don’t remember exactly how many staff) have the main task of detecting the beginning of the adversary’s attack, warning the rest and, in fact, dying in the first minutes of the war, simply ceasing to exist. And the flight of a light aircraft. Two big differences, as they say. In the light of such a combat mission, Rust's flight looks simply ridiculous. Although they promoted it, of course, yes.
                1. Serge-667
                  Serge-667 17 January 2022 22: 32
                  -2
                  flight of a light aircraft. Two big differences, as they say. In the light of such a combat mission, Rust's flight looks simply ridiculous.


                  Would it be funny to you if Rust brought a nuclear charge to Red Square? Or did he have a bacteriological weapon stuffed in the cockpit instead of additional fuel?
                  1. rtv
                    rtv 17 January 2022 23: 06
                    -1
                    Your attempts to pull an owl on a globe are ridiculous to me. If Rust had brought weapons of mass destruction to Red Square and used them, it would have had catastrophic consequences. But the probability of this was equal to zero. I already answered why above. Don't create drama here.
                    1. Serge-667
                      Serge-667 17 January 2022 23: 26
                      0
                      But the probability of this was equal to zero. Don't create drama here.

                      Well, yes. It is easy to wave a saber aposl. Here you are right.
                      Someone thought about Nord-Ost - good guys go to a concert or for sausage. And no one gave the order.
                      1. rtv
                        rtv 18 January 2022 00: 01
                        -2
                        Well, then you wave your saber here, you all reproach the air defense of the USSR that Rust's blood was not shed.

                        Imagine that you are Rust 2. Now try to deliver a nuclear charge to Red Square. Or at least give us a rough plan of action so that we can visually assess how realistic this is. I'm off to get popcorn.

                        Z.Y. you can choose, for example, sarin instead of a nuclear charge, stuff your car with it and come to the central square of your city.
                      2. Serge-667
                        Serge-667 18 January 2022 00: 52
                        0
                        I don't even want to think about it. For world peace and against aggression.
                        But Rust had to be shot down. He did everything for this, we did not. They lowered it on the brakes, but buoy it with it, let it fly. Here it has arrived. From a military-political point of view, it is very significant. And we can't fix it, alas.
                        You can justify the actions of air defense a thousand times, all sorts of marshals with generals, but this is a demonstration battle that we just (crossed out) lost outright.

                        ps one Rust less, the world would not have evaporated. but the Army of the USSR and the Union itself in a few years, yes .. It’s not comparable somehow.
                      3. rtv
                        rtv 18 January 2022 01: 15
                        -1
                        Yes, you can't think of anything. Rust could not bring with him either a nuclear bomb or chemical / bacteriological weapons. Dot. The drama failed. Rust's calculation that he would slip through being a small fry while the big uncles would sort it out was fully justified, he was allowed into Red Square. But exactly because he did not pose any danger from the point of view of air defense. And even now it doesn’t, only huge reputational costs. But air defense is not to gain reputation, but to repel aggression against the country.

                        If you think that the downed Rust would have prevented the collapse of the Union, then no. Rather, on the contrary, the processes that took place in the Union were the reason for Rust's landing on Red Square. If the top leadership had not punished the air defense for the downed Korean Boeing, but, on the contrary, had praised it, then Rust would have been imprisoned or even shot down like all of you are bloodthirsty.
                      4. Serge-667
                        Serge-667 18 January 2022 05: 08
                        -3
                        Why did you not like the Boeing? Killed and done right. You still arrange general lamentation on this topic.
                      5. rtv
                        rtv 18 January 2022 18: 36
                        -2
                        You talk about such complicated things with such frivolity that I have no doubt that you have nothing to do with the army or the navy.
                      6. Serge-667
                        Serge-667 18 January 2022 19: 51
                        0
                        those. orders and instructions should be discussed, not followed? Or cry about the bearded women killed by the RF Armed Forces, and not only, over the past 30 years?
                        Or sit, lament in the ICBM mine that at any conditional moment you can become the killer of the whole world?
                      7. rtv
                        rtv 18 January 2022 20: 21
                        -1
                        The full impression is that I communicate with a youthfully categorical teenager of the pubertal period.

                        Front-line soldiers never liked to tell their grandchildren about the war, because there is nothing good in death and destruction. And you, as a "granddaughter", cannot play enough war games, then you knock down the rusts, but wet the terrorists. Calm down already.
                      8. Serge-667
                        Serge-667 18 January 2022 21: 20
                        0
                        Where am I and whom do I "piss"? Stop humanizing death. A professional military man, this is a state/government licensed killer. His direct duty is to kill or be ready at any moment to kill on order.
                        And there is nothing here to breed demagoguery with philosophy and try to hang the moral component on my ears.
                        I absolutely do not care about your impressions and the point (angle / prism / understanding of the issue) and other muddy shadows.
                      9. rtv
                        rtv 18 January 2022 22: 47
                        0
                        Yes, you, my friend, have reviewed cheap films about Rimbaud, and read second-rate books. A professional military man is primarily a defender of his homeland, and not a killer. You do not confuse a soldier and a mercenary. And it was the defenders of the Motherland who were on combat duty during the flight of Rust, and not the unscrupulous killers from your ideas. I suppose you still imagine that military men are sitting on the command post, one is pumped over the other, all in camouflage and, flexing their muscles, smoking cigars? Watch less Hollywood, then you will not look like a teenager. A licensed killer... If you were in the army, all this nonsense would fly out of you right away and you would not be so funny and funny. I'm just dying of laughter, imagining how you foreman in all seriousness declare that you are now a licensed killer. The whole unit would have laughed to your demobilization for your fool. Licensed killer, right...
                      10. Serge-667
                        Serge-667 18 January 2022 23: 07
                        0
                        You don't have to die. Live happily ever after in your mania.
                      11. rtv
                        rtv 18 January 2022 23: 17
                        0
                        Well, there is such a thing - a figure of speech. To die with laughter is a stable idiomatic expression that signals the extreme degree of laughter at something / someone. In this case, over your teenage ideas about the military as "licensed killers." Although, for a person far from military affairs, this is, of course, excusable, but still very funny. They like to joke about such naive people in the army. In the navy, too, I'm sure.
                  2. onstar9
                    onstar9 19 January 2022 22: 36
                    0
                    Quote: Serge-667
                    Would it be funny to you if Rust brought a nuclear charge to Red Square? Or did he have a bacteriological weapon stuffed in the cockpit instead of additional fuel?

                    What are you talking nonsense? Rust would "bring a nuclear bomb" to Red Square and blow it up... So what? Would the Americans "win" a nuclear war? Who in Washington would come up with such a "scheme" of victory in the war with the USSR? Only you, probably so smart ... By the way, then there were small nuclear charges that fit in a diplomat. And it could be safely brought to Moscow by diplomatic mail and blow it up right in the center of Moscow deep in the ground at the metro station - Revolution Square, right under the Kremlin. It would have been much easier and more efficient than Rust's. Also, Soviet diplomats could bring the same "bomb" to Washington and blow it up there. But ... neither the American side nor the conscience had such "smart" people as you then. That's probably why they didn't do anything.
                    1. Serge-667
                      Serge-667 19 January 2022 23: 18
                      +1
                      Who in Washington would come up with such a "scheme" for victory in


                      And what does the Pentagon have to do with Rust?
                      Or are you a supporter of the Zionist conspiracy and intrigues of the zhedomasons and the NSA?
                      Quote:
                      "In the period from 1970 to the late 1990s, up to several hundred terrorist attacks occurred annually, with the number of victims often exceeding 150 people per year ... "
                      On the plane it was written: "hello, I'm Rust-kind guy"?
                      Or on Boeings that crashed into a shopping center: "we are for world peace"?
                      WHERE AND WHO KNEW who was sitting in that whatnot with wheels and what he was carrying?
                      And since when is the goal of terrorists a universal victory over everyone?
                      Maybe due to the fact that some terrorists are good guys, the Jews always piss them in the toilet and do not negotiate with them? So that no one knows about their kindness?
      4. The comment was deleted.
    2. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov 13 January 2022 11: 27
      +10
      Not a single air defense system in the world is capable of repelling a massive air strike, the question of minimizing the consequences of this strike, but here everything is very difficult. Another question is who would be the first to strike at whom - are they at us with cruise missiles, or we at their carriers, the CD and air bases. The treaty on intermediate and shorter-range missiles appeared for a reason and was beneficial in the first place to the USSR.
      1. this
        this 14 January 2022 07: 55
        +4
        Yes, most likely the country's air defense and can reflect it, it was made for this. A massive air raid is far from a missile one, it is very difficult.
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 14 January 2022 14: 35
        -7
        On flat terrain, subsonic missiles are now a very easy target, the development of air defense systems and radars does not stand still.
        1. rtv
          rtv 17 January 2022 19: 55
          0
          It's strange that the absolutely correct answer was downvoted. Subsonic cruise missiles on flat terrain are exactly an easy target. So light that you need to work on such a target with a cannon, it’s even a sin to waste a rocket.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 17 January 2022 20: 56
            -3
            Yes, here all the tops are rubbing - so they mold, do not pay attention to them.
    3. Egg
      Egg 16 January 2022 08: 17
      -3
      Quote: Pavel57
      In the 80s, authoritative experts believed that the Soviet air defense would not be able to repel a massive missile attack from aircraft and ships

      strange ... why then did the S-75 and S-200 with nuclear warheads exist? what
      1. Bongo
        16 January 2022 08: 26
        +4
        Quote: Telur
        strange ... why then did the S-75 and S-200 with nuclear warheads exist?

        SAMs with "special" warheads were primarily intended for the destruction of group targets, and for use in a difficult jamming environment, when accurate guidance was difficult. Against the KR, the S-200 and S-75 air defense systems are ineffective due to the poor ability to hit targets in WWI.
        1. Egg
          Egg 16 January 2022 17: 31
          0
          Quote: Bongo
          to destroy group targets

          Here are the keywords hi
          and at the training ground, we, cruise missile simulators, knocked down the current on the way, no problems. tongue
          1. Bongo
            17 January 2022 14: 23
            +1
            Quote: Telur
            and at the training ground, we, cruise missile simulators, knocked down the current on the way, no problems.

            Excuse me, but what simulators of the KR did you shoot down those going to WWI and with what?
            1. Momento
              Momento 17 January 2022 18: 21
              +1
              Yes, the imitators were shot down. but you know where it will fly, when. Yes, and it does not fly 10 meters above the ground. and she will fly 200m more to the right or more to the left and hello
              1. Egg
                Egg 17 January 2022 19: 02
                0
                well, that task at the training ground was for 5 targets: 2 ballistic missile simulators, 1 aircraft simulator and 2 winged simulators, but we also got a "cherry on the cake" rocket launched from KapYar, flew to our training ground during the firing of our division, outside plan. They also shot down, for which they received an excellent mark in the shooting. In those distant times, I served on the S-125.
                1. Bongo
                  19 January 2022 06: 03
                  +1
                  Quote: Telur
                  In those days, I served on the S-125.

                  In those distant times, with the help of 5V24 and 5V27 missiles, it was possible to fight ballistic missiles? what Where did they launch the KR simulators from, from the Tu-16 or from the ground? In any case, you did not shoot them down in WWI, and these were not analogues of "Axes". No.
                  1. Egg
                    Egg 19 January 2022 07: 48
                    0
                    Simulator cr. They launched from the ground, but from KapYar, you want to say, just a stick flew to the training ground in Sary-Shagan? laughing
                    In the USSR, the combat readiness of the country's air defense forces was taken very seriously
                    1. Bongo
                      19 January 2022 10: 56
                      +2
                      Quote: Telur
                      In the USSR, the combat readiness of the country's air defense forces was taken very seriously

                      And who argues with this, I myself am with the 11th Air Defense Division.
                      Quote: Telur
                      Simulator cr. Launched from the ground

                      La-17? So so imitator No.
                      Quote: Telur
                      from KapYar, you want to say, just a stick flew to the training ground in Sary-Shagan?

                      But this is not a smart replica. I don’t know what kind of “sticks” you flew there, but not a single modification of the S-125 according to the BR is capable of working. No.
                      1. Egg
                        Egg 19 January 2022 16: 04
                        -1
                        Smart or not, the subscription ended a long time ago, I say what happened during the live firing of our S-125 division at the Sary-Shagan air defense range, thanks to this unexpected goal, our division received "excellent" for shooting.
                        At the expense of Lashka, this is your personal opinion and it is not at all necessary that it is correct.
  9. EvilLion
    EvilLion 13 January 2022 09: 52
    .
    The newly built T-160M ​​took off yesterday. How many new bombers have the United States commissioned since 1991? This is a quantitative factor, and there is also a qualitative one in the form of an increase in the capabilities of the air forces and air defense of other states. Considering nuclear and thermonuclear bombs as weapons, in principle, is meaningless, the carrier will not reach. Rockets from the 80s are also not something that modern air defense systems should be afraid of.
    1. KKND
      KKND 13 January 2022 10: 23
      +7
      Quote: EvilLion
      Rockets from the 80s are also not something that modern air defense systems should be afraid of.

      To see a specialist a mile away. As the air defense systems missed Rust, NATO members missed our Mig launched in response, the Syrians and Iraqis of the American KR. The answer is simple, radio horizon.
    2. Seba
      Seba 13 January 2022 10: 38
      +11
      A key mistake in the perception of thermonuclear bombs and their carriers as weapons of the first or second wave. This is a weapon of the last order, when a single air defense field has already been torn apart. When it makes sense to quickly reorient towards newly emerging goals. That's when bombs make sense. They are cheaper than cruise and easier to refocus during execution. This is a big difference between their forms of tiao application from ours. It is important to remember this.
    3. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 13 January 2022 15: 09
      +10
      Quote: EvilLion
      The newly built T-160M ​​took off yesterday. How many new bombers have the United States commissioned since 1991? This is a quantitative factor, and there is also a qualitative one in the form of an increase in the capabilities of the air forces and air defense of other states. Considering nuclear and thermonuclear bombs as weapons, in principle, is meaningless, the carrier will not reach. Rockets from the 80s are also not something that modern air defense systems should be afraid of.

      Well, since 1991 they have introduced 16 new bombers.
      And over these 30 years, almost all of the existing ones have been modernized.
      By the way, the Tu-160M ​​is still a modernization, not a new aircraft.
      We are now building PAK-DA, which is an analogue of the B-2.
      And we must understand that the Americans built it back in the early 80s.
      And we, 40 years later, did not even get to the flight copy of the analogue.
  10. riwas
    riwas 13 January 2022 10: 33
    +12
    According to the reference data, as of 2021, there were 57 B-52Ns, 19 “invisible” B-2A and 45 B-1B supersonic bombers with variable wing geometry in service.
    For comparison: according to open sources, Russia has 55 strategic turboprop missile carriers T-95MS6 / 16 / MSM and 13 supersonic Tu-160 / M.

    And this does not take into account the fact that the American military transport aircraft can be used as a carrier of bombs and cruise missiles. Although on our IL-76 there are weapon suspension points on the wings.
    1. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov 13 January 2022 12: 53
      -7
      "American military transport aircraft can be used as a carrier of bombs and cruise missiles" - only in theory and in the minds of amateurs. I am aware of the bomb suspension assemblies on our VTA aircraft, but using transports as bombers is ... well, I hope you understand. The idiocy of our military even went so far that the Su-11 interceptors were trained in attacking ground targets. And what, they became stormtroopers from this?
      1. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 13 January 2022 15: 11
        +7
        Quote: Sergey Valov
        "American military transport aircraft can be used as a carrier of bombs and cruise missiles" - only in theory and in the minds of amateurs. I am aware of the bomb suspension assemblies on our VTA aircraft, but using transports as bombers is ... well, I hope you understand. The idiocy of our military even went so far that the Su-11 interceptors were trained in attacking ground targets. And what, they became stormtroopers from this?


        Before carrying such a pompous text with such a kind of smart guy, study the concept of arsenal aircraft based on the BTA.
        And her last test in the US Air Force...
        1. Sergey Valov
          Sergey Valov 13 January 2022 15: 55
          -3
          The fact of the matter is that I have been reading about this concept since the late 70s. winked , and the concept did not progress beyond the concept laughing
          PS And don't be rude.
          1. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 13 January 2022 16: 31
            +5
            Quote: Sergey Valov
            The fact of the matter is that I have been reading about this concept since the late 70s. winked , and the concept did not progress beyond the concept laughing
            PS And don't be rude.


            I point out that in this context your words "dilettante" do not characterize someone, but you.
            You seem to have moved away from real news for a long time.
            Here is the news that confirms this.
            The crew of the mc130j commando aircraft received target designation data in flight and dropped four transport pallets with real ammunition and three mock-ups over the Gulf of Mexico. According to a statement from the US Air Force Research Laboratory, immediately after launch, the cruise missile made a maneuver and headed towards its intended target. As a result, the cruise missile managed to destroy the object.


            It was LRASM with a 99% probability.
            That the latest versions of Tomahawk, Harpoon, JasmER, and LRASM are equipped with a target designation and retargeting transmission system already in flight - I hope you read.
            Accordingly, in a couple of months we will see how the containers "fall" from the Globemaster.

            And this is not really a concept.
            And really a fact.
            1. Sergey Valov
              Sergey Valov 14 January 2022 00: 10
              -7
              “Is it really a fact” - is it in service? No. So the concept.
  11. Pavel57
    Pavel57 13 January 2022 10: 34
    +5
    Quote: KKND
    Quote: Pavel57
    ...

    She (air defense system) and then and now single launches of the CD can hardly reflect. Watch the flight of Rust, the return flight of our Mig after the pilot's ejection and the American attack on the Syrian airfield. The radio horizon is a very unpleasant thing for air defense systems of any country.

    With Rust it is more difficult - they could shoot him down, but the commanders were afraid to give the order.
    1. KKND
      KKND 13 January 2022 10: 50
      +2
      Quote: Pavel57
      With Rust it is more difficult - they could shoot him down, but the commanders were afraid to give the order.

      This is a fairytale. I saw a video of Rust's landing in Moscow. Nobody accompanied the plane. If the plane had been detected in advance, it would have been accompanied by Migi or Mi-24 interceptors. None of this in the landing video.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 13 January 2022 12: 47
        +10
        Quote: KKND
        If the plane had been discovered in advance, it would have been accompanied by Migi or Mi-24 interceptors.

        The Cessna's maximum speed is lower than the landing speed of the MiG-23 - how to escort it? And helicopters appeared in the air defense, EMNIP, only after Rust (although there were problems with intercepting light aircraft before that - mainly in the ZakVO and SAVO)
        After Rust crossed the border, his car was driven by RTV, ZRV were ready to shoot down - but there was no command. And then a mess began with the transfer of goals and classification.
        1. onstar9
          onstar9 19 January 2022 22: 50
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          After Rust crossed the border, his car was driven by RTV, ZRV were ready to shoot down - but there was no command. And then a mess began with the transfer of goals and classification.

          After Rust crossed the border and flew to Moscow, I think that the Soviet leaders did the only right thing, that they did not shoot him down. Although it was unpleasant that the maize maker flew unhindered to Moscow, they "didn't fool around" by shooting it down as if it was something "threatening" for the state. He did not pose any threat from himself, and that is why the "air Shield of the Motherland" was not envisaged for such options, which is quite understandable ... They were carried out along the line of hooliganism and violation of the border by a civilian. They did the right thing.
      2. Castro Ruiz
        Castro Ruiz 16 January 2022 21: 56
        0
        KKND
        Only the AN-2 could accompany him in speed. :)
    2. vovochkarzhevsky
      vovochkarzhevsky 13 January 2022 13: 49
      -7
      Quote: Pavel57
      With Rust it is more difficult - they could shoot him down, but the commanders were afraid to give the order.


      And is it not destiny to study the essence of the issue before expressing "clever thoughts"?
  12. vovochkarzhevsky
    vovochkarzhevsky 13 January 2022 13: 46
    -8
    Author, aviation is clearly not your topic. Before posting numbers, you need to check them. Here's an example:

    The wingspan of the V-52N is 56,39 m, the length of the aircraft is 49,5 m.The mass of an empty bomber is about 83 t, maximum takeoff weight - 221 item Fuel tanks can take more 181 liters aviation kerosene. The maximum combat load reaches 27,2 tons. The crew is 5 people.

    181 liters of kerosene is 000 kg, we add the empty weight to 144800 kg and we get 83000 kg. But the empty weight does not yet include refueling with oils and other liquids.
    1. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 13 January 2022 15: 14
      +8
      Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
      Author, aviation is clearly not your topic. Before posting numbers, you need to check them. Here's an example:

      The wingspan of the V-52N is 56,39 m, the length of the aircraft is 49,5 m.The mass of an empty bomber is about 83 t, maximum takeoff weight - 221 item Fuel tanks can take more 181 liters aviation kerosene. The maximum combat load reaches 27,2 tons. The crew is 5 people.

      181 liters of kerosene is 000 kg, we add the empty weight to 144800 kg and we get 83000 kg. But the empty weight does not yet include refueling with oils and other liquids.


      Hmm ... where do you come from???
      Is it Bongo - Linnik - "accused of ignorance of aviation"?
      Drukh_ what tree of tears are you from? Get in back.

      Attention question.
      Here the plane took off with 1/3 tanks and with full ammunition.
      How much fuel can he refuel in flight if the capacity of his tanks is 181000 liters?
      1. vovochkarzhevsky
        vovochkarzhevsky 13 January 2022 22: 48
        -6
        How from where? We are finishing specialized military schools. We serve in aviation, we know how to calculate the takeoff weight.
        http://artofwar.ru/editors/l/lisowoj_w_i/
        And what is Linnik's side to aviation?
        1. KKND
          KKND 14 January 2022 01: 19
          +6
          Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
          And what is Linnik's side to aviation?

          So you got out on the VO again, shuravi? Before you look for mote in the eye of others to look for your article, remember where you shot down anti-aircraft missiles with a machine gun, radar detected bullets and carried other tin.
          The one who does nothing makes no mistakes. Write your article at a level inaccessible to Sergei, and we here, as a team at VO, will evaluate it.
          1. vovochkarzhevsky
            vovochkarzhevsky 14 January 2022 11: 50
            -4
            The most interesting thing is that this was not an article. So, my post on one forum, which was posted here without my knowledge.
            As for the essence of the issue, you are just carrying the tin.
            Google at your leisure what objects in terms of linear dimensions are capable of detecting millimeter-wave radars. bully
            In addition, don't modern ZSU missiles shoot down? So what faith does not allow you to shoot down an anti-aircraft missile from the same GShG-7,62 under conditions of automatic guidance?
            As for the team, how many people here have a suitable VUS? Although what am I talking about, many here do not have VUS at all. hi
    2. Amateur
      Amateur 13 January 2022 17: 04
      -5
      Has a local guru been encroached on? Now "honor" will write this to you ...
      And if the wife of Mr. Linnik has an eye on you, then I do not envy you.
      1. vovochkarzhevsky
        vovochkarzhevsky 13 January 2022 22: 52
        -4
        Well, yes, "honor" negodue even when you stick it into the rules of interception of civil aircraft. bully
      2. zyablik.olga
        zyablik.olga 14 January 2022 04: 17
        +3
        Quote: Amateur
        And if the wife of Mr. Linnik has an eye on you, then I do not envy you.

        Mr. dilettante, do you want me to lay eyes on you? wink
  13. Wildcat
    Wildcat 13 January 2022 15: 21
    +5
    hi
    Good article!
    Some photos of B52 close up

  14. Wildcat
    Wildcat 13 January 2022 15: 25
    +8
    winked
    Zhykovskii airbase on a rainy day - nest for B52




  15. Wildcat
    Wildcat 13 January 2022 15: 33
    +6
    hi
    Photos for the article are wonderful as always!

    and there are no B-52Ns suitable for recovery in storage at all.
    - the question is of course interesting, what is left there:
    "The first of the planes - the Ghost Rider (" Ghost Rider ") - returned to service in 2015, the second - Wise Guy (" Wise guy ") -" revived "only at the end of last year. The process of its recovery after ten years in a junkyard took more than two years and formally ended on December 30 last year. (2020 - ed.)"
    https://rg.ru/2021/01/14/amerikanskij-bombardirovshchik-vernuli-v-stroj-posle-10-let-na-svalke.html
    1. Bongo
      13 January 2022 15: 44
      +5
      Quote: Wildcat
      Photos for the article are wonderful as always!

      drinks
      Quote: Wildcat
      The question is of course interesting, what is left there:
      "The first of the planes - the Ghost Rider (" Ghost Rider ") - returned to service in 2015, the second - Wise Guy (" Wise guy ") -" revived "only at the end of last year. The process of its recovery after ten years in a junkyard took more than two years and formally ended on December 30 last year. (2020 - ed.) "

      If you believe the "means of objective control" (satellite images), then in storage in a relatively complete form remained 8 V-52. The rest can only be used as a source of spare parts.


      1. Wildcat
        Wildcat 13 January 2022 15: 46
        +5
        hi
        IMHO, the number is almost the same as the wiki, which gives 9 pieces for the reserve.
        1. Bongo
          13 January 2022 15: 49
          +6
          Quote: Wildcat
          hi
          IMHO, the number is almost the same as the wiki, which gives 9 pieces for the reserve.

          There are a few more pieces in the repair and restoration center at Tinker Air Force Base and Edwards test and test base.
  16. Wildcat
    Wildcat 13 January 2022 16: 19
    +3
    laughing
    Earlier, when after the "damned 90s" our air defense was weak, B1Bs could fly near Moscow as they wanted.


    But now, thanks to the air defense that has no analogues in the world, and most importantly - electronic warfare and over-the-horizon radars, our sky has become peaceful!
    Only the Chinese arrive once every 2 years.
    Hurray!
  17. Amateur
    Amateur 13 January 2022 16: 59
    -9
    At first I decided that it was Damantsev. But it turns out that juggling with terms and "ambiguous" information is "omicron-like"
    1. Wildcat
      Wildcat 13 January 2022 17: 50
      +7
      hi
      IMHO, this is useful for the site and clickbait.
      Readers may skip the article titled "Some US Air Force Combat Readiness Issues."
  18. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 13 January 2022 17: 35
    +6
    The paragraph on bases outside the US does not mention Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Maybe something has changed? Tell... winked
    1. Bongo
      14 January 2022 02: 45
      +7
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      The paragraph on bases outside the US does not mention Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Maybe something has changed? Tell... winked

      I confess my mistake. I knew about this base but did not mention it.
      The United States previously deployed B-52H strategic bombers to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to participate in military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      2006 year shot

      In 2020, after a long break, the B-52N landed at this base. Observers attribute this event to the aggravation of the situation around Iran.
  19. Wildcat
    Wildcat 13 January 2022 17: 47
    +7
    Well, what is the article about US nuclear bombers without Tibbets?
    The third generation of Paul Tibbets, already on B2.

    As Colonel Tibbets' grandfather, Brigadier General Tibbets said, “Let’s reason like this. The decision to use atomic weapons was made not by Tibbets, but by the main political leadership of the country. In 1945, I was at a reception with President Truman. I remember his words:“Never feel guilty. This is my decision. You are a soldier and you had no choice”. I do not want to hide behind high authorities, but I think the same way.
    The decision to bomb Japanese cities was not easy for anyone. But the question was whether to continue the war for at least another year with the involvement of a 2 million army, or to end it faster? How many lives would it cost this year, equal to us and the Japanese? By the way, and at what material cost? The Manhattan Project cost the country two billion dollars, and each month of the war was worth seven billion. Don't forget about the Pearl Harbor factor, too. The American nation longed for a worthy satisfaction.
    - And why only the Japanese were bombed? The Germans were also enemies of the United States.
    - The United States simply did not have time. We had two groups: Asian and European. Berlin was lucky that he capitulated on time.
    - What was the point of bombing Nagasaki after Hiroshima?
    - Political and fully justified. The Japanese leadership believed that we had only one bomb - "for blackmail" and refused to surrender. The second bomb was “convincing”.
    - What is the personal attitude of the Japanese towards you now?
    - Do not be surprised, after the war I have been to this country many times and it was there that I found more understanding than anywhere else. But they have no reason to love me, of course, and no one insists on this."
  20. shahor
    shahor 13 January 2022 18: 56
    +7
    Quote: Sergey Valov
    "American military transport aircraft can be used as a carrier of bombs and cruise missiles" - only in theory and in the minds of amateurs.

    You are all right with aplomb! Have you heard about the Rapid dragon program? A couple of months ago, a cruise missile was launched from a C-130 aircraft from a special dropped pallet at the test site. The S-130 will be able to carry up to 40 pallets with an AGM-158er missile. C-17 - bigger. Previously, they successfully threw MALD trompe l'oeil from transporters. Lagged behind life!
  21. vovochkarzhevsky
    vovochkarzhevsky 13 January 2022 22: 58
    -6
    The most credible photo is here. The car clearly has problems with durability.

    https://i.ibb.co/xSLVSmm/usaf-Boeing-b52h-stratofortress-600038-buff-big-ugly-fat-fucker-united-states-air-force-long-range-B.jpg
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. Illanatol
    Illanatol 14 January 2022 09: 45
    +1
    Quote: KKND
    See the flight of Rust, the return flight of our MiG after the pilot ejected and the American attack on the Syrian airfield. The radio horizon is a very unpleasant thing for air defense systems of any country.


    Rust's flight is a provocation organized, among other things, by the Soviet special services. The goal is to eliminate representatives of the military elite who are dissatisfied with Gorbachev's policy in the field of disarmament.
    Rust's plane was detected by the air defense system. But after the incident with the South Korean Boeing, it was forbidden to shoot down civilian aircraft without special permission (and there was none).

    As for the MiG-23. And what about the radio horizon? After the Soviet pilot left the car, the plane gained altitude and it was not difficult to detect its radar. But the NATO air defense elementary missed the fighter, which eventually crossed several state borders and fell on a residential building (in Belgium, if I'm not mistaken).
    And this despite the fact that the MiG-23, unlike the "Tsesna", is capable of carrying tactical nuclear weapons.
  24. vovochkarzhevsky
    vovochkarzhevsky 14 January 2022 11: 52
    -4
    Quote: Illanatol
    Rust's flight is a provocation organized, among other things, by the Soviet special services. The goal is to eliminate representatives of the military elite who are dissatisfied with Gorbachev's policy in the field of disarmament.
    Rust's plane was detected by the air defense system. But after the incident with the South Korean Boeing, it was forbidden to shoot down civilian aircraft without special permission (and there was none).


    Exactly. Moreover, if he had been shot down, the scandal would have been even louder.
  25. Wildcat
    Wildcat 14 January 2022 12: 43
    +3
    hi
    Good question: what is the difference in nuclear strikes B52, B1B and B2?
    IMHO, from what is in open sources:
    B52 - "rocket carrier", which is planned to be used for launches of ALCMs outside the air defense zone.
    B1B - "rocket carrier", but with the possibility of "deeper" strikes when "breaking through the air defense zone".
    B2 - "bomber" for missions "pass unnoticed by air defense" to identify the target and / or find the target (such as PRGC) and strike.
    IMHO, and all this is not only for strikes when the air defense is destroyed (or retaliatory strikes), but also for disarming / decapitating strikes (also a good question, how much is possible) to bypass the early warning system.
    And it will all be more fun when the F35A is finally certified for the B61.

    And another good question: it seems that the US fleet has lost non-strategic nuclear weapons (1994, Clinton seems to remove weapons from non-strategic carriers, under Obama 2010, nuclear Tomahawks are removed from service altogether).
    .
    And although in 1993-1994 it seems that all B61s were removed from aircraft carriers, what will happen if the F35S receives them?
    It seems that in the 80s of the 20th century, 1 aircraft carrier carried up to 100 atomic bombs.
    https://fas.org/blogs/security/2016/02/nuclear-weapons-at-sea/
  26. zenion
    zenion 14 January 2022 17: 56
    -6
    Not understood! For whom it is written! Is it written only in Russian, or has all the progressive humanity of the planet been informed?
  27. German A
    German A 16 January 2022 02: 09
    -3
    Unfortunately, the article is a statement of facts from open sources. There are no thoughts or conclusions in it.
    For example, I don't understand the concept of "stealth" aircraft, bombs and subsonic speed at all. The presence of such missiles as a dagger eliminates the need for an air defense breakthrough. For me, there is only altitude, speed and range, but I am not familiar with the capabilities of the latest infrared tracking satellites or radar satellites ...
    What are the radar capabilities of aircraft? Or is the fate of interceptor fighters a foregone conclusion? Those. why can't the fighter find the same B2 by target designation from the ground? And / or do you need powerful infrared cameras to detect an interceptor from an aircraft?
    1. vovochkarzhevsky
      vovochkarzhevsky 16 January 2022 12: 51
      -4
      You will laugh, but invisibility for radar in aviation cannot be realized in principle.
      And it's not even on the plane. The whole problem is that there is always a zone of compacted air in front of the aircraft. And radio waves are perfectly reflected from it. The principle is the same as seeing a bubble of transparent air in transparent water.
      1. Toucan
        Toucan 16 January 2022 12: 57
        +3
        Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
        You will laugh, but invisibility for radar in aviation cannot be realized in principle.
        And it's not even on the plane. The whole problem is that there is always a zone of compacted air in front of the aircraft. And radio waves are perfectly reflected from it. The principle is the same as seeing a bubble of transparent air in transparent water.

        Tell that to Serbian and Iraqi radar operators.
        No one is talking about invisibility, but it is quite realistic to radically reduce visibility in the centimeter and decimeter ranges for a subsonic bomber.
        1. vovochkarzhevsky
          vovochkarzhevsky 16 January 2022 13: 12
          -3
          What is it about. All this "invisibility" works only in colonial wars, against outdated air defense.
          But is there any point in disfiguring the aerodynamics of an aircraft for this, if, according to the doctrine, long-range aviation is only a means of retaliation, and without entering the air defense zone?
          1. Toucan
            Toucan 16 January 2022 13: 20
            +2
            Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
            What is it about. All this "invisibility" works only in colonial wars, against outdated air defense.
            But is there any point in disfiguring the aerodynamics of an aircraft for this, if, according to the doctrine, long-range aviation is only a means of retaliation, and without entering the air defense zone?

            Can you imagine the difference between meter and decimeter / centimeter radars? Apparently not... No.
            What is the "ugliness" of aerodynamics on the Su-57?
            Like it or not, but modern combat aircraft and cruise missiles are now more or less created with elements of low radar visibility.
      2. German A
        German A 17 January 2022 04: 39
        -2
        How I imagine it. These forms are designed just for the meter and maybe partially decimeter range. Centimeter is covered with paint. Plus, as elsewhere, it all depends on the radiation power and the size of the antenna. Those. if we are talking about radars on aircraft, then they may not see them, but ground-based radars should see them due to the size of the antennas and the radiation power. Those. I can't imagine that B2 will fly into the S-400's area of ​​​​operation and be able to bomb off. The S-400 has radars covering all ranges. If you launch a dagger over 1000 km at an altitude of 18 km, then it does not matter whether the S-400 sees you or does not see you (from 18 km the dagger will fly even further). And if there are no air defense systems, then it doesn’t matter what and how you bomb at all, even B-52 or SU-24.
  28. vovochkarzhevsky
    vovochkarzhevsky 16 January 2022 16: 32
    -5
    Quote: Tucan
    Can you imagine the difference between meter and decimeter / centimeter radars? Apparently not... no


    Imagine, I have an idea and much better than you. Still, he dealt with them in the service.

    What is the "ugliness" of aerodynamics on the Su-57?
    Like it or not, but modern combat aircraft and cruise missiles are now more or less created with elements of low radar visibility.


    Have you looked at the PAKDA sketch drawings? Can you even imagine what a headache will be with the exploitation of this flounder?
    1. Maxim G
      Maxim G 16 January 2022 16: 37
      +4
      Those. to make a glider with an emphasis on stealth on the F-22, was the F-35 the wrong decision?
      And the Su-57, Su-75 are also based on an erroneous approach?
      1. vovochkarzhevsky
        vovochkarzhevsky 16 January 2022 19: 39
        -3
        Why is it wrong? If this contributes to commerce, then everything is correct, but whether it is needed in a combat situation or not is the tenth thing.
        You need to understand that what is suitable for hot spots, or "export of democracy" is not very suitable for war. Which, if it happens, will be nuclear-missile, without options.
        Therefore, if the Su-57, Su-75 are aimed at export, then the strategists are built for "personal use." And here we need really working machines, like the Tu-160 and Tu-95MS.
        1. Maxim G
          Maxim G 17 January 2022 08: 26
          +1
          Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
          And here we need really working machines, like the Tu-160 and Tu-95MS.


          And Tu-22M?

          And is there a place for fighters (even with stealth, even without) in such a "nuclear missile" war?
          1. Outsider
            Outsider 17 January 2022 13: 37
            +3
            - Necessarily! Because the war will inapplicably be complex, there will be room for conventional, non-nuclear weapons.
            1. Maxim G
              Maxim G 17 January 2022 15: 38
              0
              I was referring to the use of fighters as fighters, not as attack aircraft.
              1. Outsider
                Outsider 17 January 2022 19: 26
                +2
                - Of course, fighters will also be used as fighters, although all of them are now multi-purpose and can work equally well against both air and ground / surface targets.
                Here, the updated F-15EX can take up to 22 air-to-air missiles! laughing Although, as a rule, he takes 12 pieces of them:
                1. Maxim G
                  Maxim G 18 January 2022 09: 35
                  0
                  Quote: Outsider
                  Here, the updated F-15EX can take up to 22 air-to-air missiles! Although, as a rule, he takes 12 pieces of them:

                  And what's funny?)
                  1. Outsider
                    Outsider 18 January 2022 15: 40
                    +2
                    - And this is terribly funny:
                    And is there a place for fighters (even with stealth, even without) in such a "nuclear missile" war?
                    1. Maxim G
                      Maxim G 18 January 2022 18: 33
                      0
                      What's so funny about clarifying a point of view?
  29. German A
    German A 17 January 2022 10: 44
    0
    Yes, it's funny how the minuses or pluses are molded here without even trying to discuss :-)
  30. vovochkarzhevsky
    vovochkarzhevsky 17 January 2022 10: 45
    -3
    Quote: Maxim G
    And Tu-22M?


    And they, too, missed.

    And is there a place for fighters (even with stealth, even without) in such a "nuclear missile" war?


    As carriers of tactical nuclear weapons, they are used. But in general, yes, there is a very noticeable trend in the development of conventional weapons in the direction of the requirements of colonial and small wars.
    Of the relatively new in the strategy, I would single out the so-called "jackal pack" doctrine. For example, during the Patriotic War, Germany and the satellites that joined it fought against the USSR.
    The current "Sherkhan" understands that if he climbs himself, he will rake off in full. Regardless of whether it will be with the company or not. Therefore, he will send forward jackals, who are officially not included in his flock, so that he, as it were, is out of business. There have already been samples, the same Georgia.
    And even if each individual jackal is still a fighter, together they can cause enough trouble.
    1. Maxim G
      Maxim G 17 January 2022 15: 25
      +1
      Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
      As carriers of tactical nuclear weapons, they are used.

      Those. how will they not use fighters in a big war?
  31. Outsider
    Outsider 17 January 2022 13: 07
    +2
    Quote: EvilLion
    If you do not commission new aircraft, you will degrade. Have the United States introduced many new bombers since 1991?

    - But it is in no way clear that there were no analogues of either the B-1B or the B-2A in the Russian Air Force in 1991, there are none now and will not be in 10 years?
    That is: the American B-52, B-1B and B-2A strategic bombers-missile carriers simply will not be able to "degrade" enough to drop to the current level of Russian strategic aviation.
  32. Outsider
    Outsider 17 January 2022 13: 23
    +3
    Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
    How from where? We are finishing specialized military schools. We serve in aviation, we know how to calculate the takeoff weight.
    http://artofwar.ru/editors/l/lisowoj_w_i/

    - Undereducated, you were quite rightly told that the plane can:
    1. Take off with the maximum rocket and bomb load. And a third of the fuel in the tanks.
    2. After takeoff, meet with the tanker and refuel 2/3 more fuel for the remaining space in the tanks.
    3. At the same time, its flight weight will significantly exceed the maximum take-off, - since maximum takeoff weight is calculated from tire pressure (critical failure rate) and available runway length.
    4. In such cases, the plane is subject to additional restrictions - do not enter areas of strong turbulence and do not exceed additional restrictions on operational overload on the maneuver.
    5. As the fuel runs out after a certain time additional overload restrictions are removed.
    ..............................
    A similar technique for US strategic and transport aviation is quite typical.
  33. Outsider
    Outsider 17 January 2022 13: 27
    +3
    Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
    What is it about. All this "invisibility" works only in colonial wars, against outdated air defense.
    But is there any point in disfiguring the aerodynamics of an aircraft for this, if, according to the doctrine, long-range aviation is only a means of retaliation, and without entering the air defense zone?

    - Another "stealth whistleblower"! laughing lol How many of you are divorced! am
  34. Outsider
    Outsider 17 January 2022 13: 33
    +2
    Quote: Hiroo Onoda
    Quote: Vadim237
    The missile carrier will not enter the air defense zone

    What? That is, you are claiming that the aircraft (let's take a hypothetical F-35), and by default, has a longer range than the air defense system opposing it (let's take a hypothetical S-400)?
    That is, you can forget about the parity of aircraft-versus-air defense? Is there no parity? Aircraft will always win because from afar, without entering the affected area of ​​the air defense, they can shoot these same air defense?
    Am I still following your logic or have I deviated somewhere?

    - It's time to forget them - planes now they will always win, because from afar, without entering the air defense zone, they can shoot these same air defense systems:


    Given that the range of dropping GBU-39 cruise bombs from these aircraft will be equal to the drop height in level flight at subsonic multiplied by 10, for example, from a height of 11 km - 110 km, etc. wink
  35. Outsider
    Outsider 17 January 2022 13: 39
    +3
    Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
    Why is it wrong? If this contributes to commerce, then everything is correct, but whether it is needed in a combat situation or not is the tenth thing.
    You need to understand that what is suitable for hot spots, or "export of democracy" is not very suitable for war. Which, if it happens, will be nuclear-missile, without options.
    Therefore, if the Su-57, Su-75 are aimed at export, then the strategists are built for "personal use." And here we need really working machines, like the Tu-160 and Tu-95MS.

    - Which are visible from the air for 500-600 km, from the sea - as soon as they appear from under the radio horizon.
  36. vovochkarzhevsky
    vovochkarzhevsky 17 January 2022 16: 34
    -3
    Quote: Outsider
    3. At the same time, its flight weight will significantly exceed the maximum take-off weight, since the maximum take-off weight is calculated from the pressure in the tires (critical destruction speed) and the available runway length.


    Is a song. You even need to write it down. lol
    1. Outsider
      Outsider 17 January 2022 19: 19
      +3
      - This is elementary, it's just elementary that you don't know. Though this method was described in the journal "Foreign Military Review" about 50 years agoduring the Vietnam War era. I remember her from then on. But then you only read "Soviet Sport" ... lol
      1. vovochkarzhevsky
        vovochkarzhevsky 17 January 2022 19: 33
        -3
        Quote: Outsider
        - This is elementary, it's just elementary that you don't know. Although this method was described in the journal "Foreign Military Review" about 50 years ago, during the era of the Vietnam War. I remember her from then on. But then you only read "Soviet Sport" ...


        Yes of course. Add more curvature of the earth, the most it will be.
  37. vovochkarzhevsky
    vovochkarzhevsky 17 January 2022 16: 37
    -3
    Quote: Outsider
    - Another "stealth whistleblower"! laughing lol How many divorced you are!

    Well, just not everyone believes in fairy tales. bully
    1. Maxim G
      Maxim G 17 January 2022 17: 34
      +1
      Are you planning to write an article on this topic? Or record a video with Vladimir Potapov, a stream about the prospects for military aviation, many would be interested.
      1. vovochkarzhevsky
        vovochkarzhevsky 17 January 2022 18: 14
        -3
        Quote: Maxim G
        Are you planning to write an article on this topic? Or record a video with Vladimir Potapov, a stream about the prospects for military aviation, many would be interested



        A bit of a non-graduate level. For the most part, I only know the basics.
        My destiny is more army aviation. For instance:
        https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5ac0950fd7bf2113e95daebd/neskolko-slov-o-puskah-ptur-5f7ae3a771c44f0829c2cde1
        1. Maxim G
          Maxim G 17 January 2022 21: 01
          0
          Thank you, I read it - interesting, especially about UAVs.
  38. vovochkarzhevsky
    vovochkarzhevsky 17 January 2022 16: 43
    -2
    Quote: Outsider
    - Which are visible from the air for 500-600 km, from the sea - as soon as they appear from under the radio horizon.


    Everyone is visible, and your favorite B-2 too. The only difference is that the speed of the Tu-160 is twice as high.
    1. Outsider
      Outsider 17 January 2022 19: 15
      +2
      - Hello, Volodya! Are you really the one Shurawi"?! wink
      Long time no see! I am the one Voodoo.
      And you are still the same milk-literate, you don’t change over the years ... The RCS of B-2 is comparable to the RCS of F-22 / F-35 and is ~ 0.0002-0.0005 m². And the same radar will only see it at a distance less than the Tu-160, 20-25 times! laughing lol When you understand this, you can finally consider your aviation education completed. And while you're a loser... wink
      1. vovochkarzhevsky
        vovochkarzhevsky 17 January 2022 19: 39
        -3
        Quote: Outsider
        - Hello, Volodya! Are you really "the same Shuravi"?! wink
        Long time no see! I am that Voodoo.
        And you are still the same milk-literate, you don’t change over the years ... The RCS of B-2 is comparable to the RCS of F-22 / F-35 and is ~ 0.0002-0.0005 m². And the same radar will only see it at a distance less than the Tu-160, 20-25 times! laughing lol When you understand this, you can finally consider your aviation education completed. And while you're a loser...


        Otherwise, I don’t know who you are and your favorite habit of casting a shadow on the fence. As well as the fact that your Russophobia only grows over the years along with self-conceit. But the reality is still the same. The court training regiment, and the department at the school, that's your whole horizons. No offense, Misha.
        1. Outsider
          Outsider 17 January 2022 19: 44
          +3
          - Yes, what kind of "grievances" can the flight commander have - against the "co-pilot" on the Mi-24? laughing What kind of "grievances" can a teacher of the department of aviation radio-electronic means have against a half-educated helicopter operator who has not read anything but "Red Star"? lol
          You just don't know what you're talking about, nevertheless, you have been happy to misinform the public for a dozen years already ... repeat
          1. vovochkarzhevsky
            vovochkarzhevsky 17 January 2022 22: 00
            -4
            Quote: Outsider
            - Yes, what kind of "grievances" can the flight commander have - against the "co-pilot" on the Mi-24? laughing What kind of "grievances" can a teacher of the department of aviation radio-electronic means have against a half-educated helicopter operator who has not read anything but "Red Star"?

            Well, you were offended that they didn’t let you out like that. In fact, you stayed away from Afghanistan there. And then he dumped into a teacher. wink
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 17 January 2022 21: 00
        -4
        And you are still the same milk-literate, you don’t change over the years ... The RCS of B-2 is comparable to the RCS of F-22 / F-35 and is ~ 0.0002-0.0005 m². And the same radar will only see it at a distance less than the Tu-160, 20-25 times! Such an EPR for these aircraft is only in fairy tales, perhaps.
  39. vovochkarzhevsky
    vovochkarzhevsky 17 January 2022 16: 58
    -2
    Quote: Outsider
    - It's high time to forget them - aircraft will now always win, because from afar, without entering the air defense zone, these same air defense systems can shoot:


    And the fact that air defense is not just separate complexes, but a single system is not known to you?
    1. Outsider
      Outsider 17 January 2022 19: 17
      +2
      - I know and understand all this... lol And you just don't understand, oh than you say...
  40. vovochkarzhevsky
    vovochkarzhevsky 17 January 2022 19: 41
    -1
    Quote: Outsider
    - I know and translate all this... lol And you just don't understand what you're talking about...

    How, maybe you even know that meter-long radars even see atmospheric vortices? bully
    1. Outsider
      Outsider 17 January 2022 23: 00
      +3
      - Wavelength 3 centimeters:
      https://furuno.ru/meteorologicheskaja-rls/wr-2100-meteorologicheskaja-radiolokacionnaja-stancija/
      - Wavelength 3 centimeters:
      https://furuno.ru/meteorologicheskaja-rls/wr110-doplerovskaja-meteorologicheskaja-rls-x-diapazona/
      https://star-wiki.ru/wiki/Weather_radar#Avionics_weather_radar
      ...Shorter shorter wavelengths are useful for smaller particles, but the signal attenuates faster. So the radar 10 см (S-band) is preferred but more expensive than the system 5 см C-band . Radar 3 см X-band is used only for short-range devices, and weather radar 1 см The Ka-band is only used to study fine particle phenomena such as drizzle and fog. W-band (2.7--4.0mm) weather radar systems are used to a limited extent by universities, but due to faster data attenuation they are not operational.
      ---------------------------
      Where is your "meter range", ignorant?! am
    2. Toucan
      Toucan 18 January 2022 03: 35
      +3
      Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
      How, maybe you even know that meter-long radars even see atmospheric vortices?
      fool
      Apparently such a radar was on your helicopter instead of a main rotor? Of course, I read a lot of nonsense on VO, but this ... wassat
  41. Outsider
    Outsider 17 January 2022 21: 35
    +3
    Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
    You will laugh, but invisibility for radar in aviation cannot be realized in principle.
    And it's not even on the plane. The whole problem is that there is always a zone of compacted air in front of the aircraft. And radio waves are perfectly reflected from it. The principle is the same as seeing a bubble of transparent air in transparent water.

    - What dense nonsense you are talking, it's scary to read! It would be nice to start telling a popular tale about "visibility of the shock wave radar during the flight of the target in supersonic"But telling this "version" about subsonic flight is just terry illiteracy and dense nonsense.
    1. vovochkarzhevsky
      vovochkarzhevsky 17 January 2022 22: 03
      -4
      Quote: Outsider
      - What dense nonsense you are talking, it's scary to read! It would be nice to start telling a popular tale about "the visibility of a shock wave radar when a target is flying at supersonic speed", but telling this "version" about subsonic flight is just terry illiteracy and dense nonsense.


      Misha, what does supersonic have to do with it? The densified air is having a higher density and that's it. Even atmospheric vortices are visible on the P-18 indicator. Although what am I talking about, such shifts passed you by. School however. request
      1. Outsider
        Outsider 17 January 2022 22: 19
        +3
        - What are you talking about, unfortunate??! It would be fine to say: "Millimeter-wave radars can observe atmospheric disturbances, and you are trying to P-18, meter range, for this solder! Shame and shame. fool
        1. Bongo
          18 January 2022 13: 56
          +3
          Quote: Outsider
          It would be fine to say: "The radar stations of the millimeter range can observe atmospheric disturbances, and you are trying to attach the P-18, the meter range, for this!

          I can believe that decimeter P-15s and P-19s or 35D6s were able to see moisture-saturated thunderclouds or a rain front.
          But here it is:
          Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
          How, maybe you even know that meter-long radars even see atmospheric vortices?
          - is definitely an artistic whistle. No.
          Although, the P-18 meter-range radar is probably able to see a tornado in which metal roofing sheets torn from roofs are spinning. Maybe your counterpart meant this?
          1. Outsider
            Outsider 18 January 2022 15: 49
            +2
            - In fact, centimeter-range radars, the old and widely popular P-35, for example, perfectly see thunderstorms and powerful cumulus clouds. Radar waves of the meter range pass through thunderclouds, practically not noticing them...
            IMHO, that is why for the AWACS aircraft of the aircraft carrier aircraft "Hokkai" they chose the operating range of 66 cm - 77 cm, despite the fact that there are more instrumental problems with it. But on the other hand, guaranteed identification of enemy targets in any weather and guaranteed control of their aircraft. For AWACS - 15 cm - 30 cm.
            I have been virtually acquainted with vovochkarzhevsky for at least 15 years, he does not change "in his stubborn delusions" ... laughing lol
          2. Spike Javelin Touvich
            Spike Javelin Touvich 18 January 2022 18: 30
            +3
            Sergey does not want to interfere in the conversation of these two comrades, but what does your
            Although, the P-18 meter range radar
            in autumn and spring on IKO 5n84a (Defence) it was possible to observe the movements of flocks of birds, I have no doubt that this was also possible on P-18
            1. Bongo
              19 January 2022 05: 45
              +3
              Quote: Spike Javelin Touvich
              Sergey does not want to interfere in the conversation of these two comrades, but what does your
              Although, the P-18 meter range radar
              in autumn and spring on IKO 5n84a (Defence) it was possible to observe the movements of flocks of birds, I have no doubt that this was also possible on P-18

              Hello!
              We are not discussing birds now, but this statement:
              Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
              P-18 indicator shows even atmospheric vortices

              Large shoals of geese on the radar screens are sometimes really visible, but have you fixed "whirlwinds"And"air seals"?
              I have an idea about the capabilities of the Oborona-14 radar. Moreover, I was friends with the lieutenant head of the station, his aunts-contractors sat as operators, and we used to drink right at the station sometimes.
        2. vovochkarzhevsky
          vovochkarzhevsky 18 January 2022 18: 12
          -3
          Misha, have you spent at least an hour behind the P-18 indicator? Or CPR to understand what and what he sees? Obviously not. You are just a theorist.
          1. Outsider
            Outsider 18 January 2022 19: 27
            +3
            - You know how to make me laugh: I went on duty for the reception and release of single aircraft from 1976 to 1988 - 12 years! Once every 8-10 days, with breaks only for holidays. And before my eyes at the checkpoint, when I was on duty, there were immediately IKO P-12 (1.7 m), P-35 (10 cm), RSP-7 (3 cm), RSBN-4 (DMV) and there was also a take-out from P-40 from the air defense officers in the neighborhood (1.7 m), a huge aeran, almost a meter in diameter. I've seen enough of all these screens - in a thunderstorm, and in a snowfall, and the devil knows what kind of weather ... And often I gave the command to turn on both the P-12 and P-15, and, of course, the RSP-7 - simultaneously. And there was an opportunity to compare HUNDREDS of times how much what wavelengths, how and what clouds pass through ... smile
            1. vovochkarzhevsky
              vovochkarzhevsky 18 January 2022 19: 34
              -3
              Good fantasy, I like it. laughing
              1. Outsider
                Outsider 19 January 2022 23: 00
                +1
                - Volodya, maybe you really - that one? fool This happens... winked
  42. Outsider
    Outsider 17 January 2022 22: 24
    +3
    Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
    Quote: Outsider
    - Yes, what kind of "grievances" can the flight commander have - against the "co-pilot" on the Mi-24? laughing What kind of "grievances" can a teacher of the department of aviation radio-electronic means have against a half-educated helicopter operator who has not read anything but "Red Star"?

    Well, you were offended that they didn’t let you out like that. In fact, you stayed away from Afghanistan there. And then he dumped into a teacher. wink

    - fool fool fool
    1. vovochkarzhevsky
      vovochkarzhevsky 18 January 2022 18: 15
      -3
      Shame on you, Misha. So you yourself switched to a discussion of personalities, why are you crying now?
      It is clear that with age you want to mean at least something, but alas, you yourself chose your fate, a cab pilot at a school, and a teacher of a secondary department. request
      1. Outsider
        Outsider 18 January 2022 19: 38
        +2
        - I once told you, but you forgot: two years after graduation, on vacation, I went to Domna, to ZabVO, where people were driven at gunpoint - + 50 ° C in summer, minus 50 ° C in winter, with winds over 20 meters per second ... The regiment commander was at first ready to make me a transfer, began to write down my data, but when he got to the "nationality" column, his handwriting changed and his face turned gloomy ... He promised that "when the first opportunity" (people were really needed there and not a single dog was eager to go there), but I immediately realized that the hell with two he would "hit a finger on a finger" ... 1975, even Belenko had not yet escaped, but anti-Semitic the order was already working, since 1967 ...
        You, a broad Ukrainian, do not understand this ... No.
        You talk so funny about some Afghan, from whom I allegedly got away with it ... But who would have sent me there, eccentric?! fool am If they didn’t take me even in the godforsaken, tattered-shitty ZabVO?!
        1. vovochkarzhevsky
          vovochkarzhevsky 19 January 2022 17: 38
          -1
          Here's how strange. Served with me in the ZabVO and those whose nationality column was also listed as a Jew. And they went to Afghanistan together.
          Maybe they just had a nationality, but you have a vocation? bully
          I don’t need to tell fairy tales about how you were “forcibly” kept in the court regiment.
          1. Outsider
            Outsider 19 January 2022 20: 15
            -1
            - Well, how can I explain and prove to you, an absolutely broad Ukrainian, that in 1967-1988 years in the USSR there was a full-fledged state anti-Semitism? And if the Jews got somewhere "where they are not supposed to" - that was the exception, not the rule.
            You still don't understand and you don't believe. So - tryndi! laughing lol
            I don’t need to tell fairy tales about how you were “forcibly” kept in the court regiment.

            - Just because from the city of Shadrinsk, Kurgan region, my plane could not fly to any border of the Soviet Union without additional refueling. CENTRE.
            1. vovochkarzhevsky
              vovochkarzhevsky 19 January 2022 21: 58
              +1
              I have never hidden the fact that I am Ukrainian by nationality. Well, which one of me is wide, so in 1995, in Chechnya, it was clear.
              And your attempts to pass off your own cunning as some kind of oppression are simply ridiculous. For that matter, be it, figs you would have grown to a short circuit in the court regiment.
              1. Outsider
                Outsider 19 January 2022 22: 53
                +2
                - Order MO 0040 (if my memory serves me):
                "... persons of Jewish, German, Chinese and Korean nationality are prohibited from being appointed to positions from which admission to the military academies is allowed ..."

                It was possible to enter the academy from a position not lower than the deputy commander of an air squadron. Therefore, up to the flight commander - to grow in health, but higher - "to hell with the snout"! I did not even know about the existence of this order and learned about it quite by accident, after a big booze, in the area of ​​​​the Chemitokvadzhe sanatorium, from a retired KGB officer, after two bottles of excellent vodka drunk together.
                When I began to complain that, they say, "my link is the best in the regiment for the third year, I have no complaints either in service or in flight work, - and one" bypassed me ", the other" bypassed ", the third" bypassed "- with that they are obviously and obviously not better than me, but worse!"
                He laughed:
                - You didn't know?
                - What did you not know?
                - About the existence of such an order?
                And then he told me everything! belay
                I returned after a vacation to the unit, the first thing I rushed to our regimental special officer:
                - It's true??!
                - How do you know that?!
                - "Forty on the tail brought."
                - But it's not my idea!
                He "confessed". I went to the personnel officer (with whom I was on fairly friendly terms). He repeated it almost word for word:
                - Did I come up with this?
                And then all my doubts disappeared forever. In the yard - 1982. I am being "married" to the post of political officer of the ae. I categorically refuse.
                In 1988, Gorbachev canceled this discriminatory order. But there I am already old, I am 38 years old, I spit on everything and move to a teaching position, where over the next 7 years I learned so many new and interesting things! wink
  43. vovochkarzhevsky
    vovochkarzhevsky Yesterday, 18: 51
    -3
    Quote: Outsider

    It was possible to enter the academy from a position not lower than the deputy commander of an air squadron. Therefore, up to the flight commander - to grow in health, but higher - "to hell with the snout"! I did not even know about the existence of this order and learned about it quite by accident, after a big booze, in the area of ​​​​the Chemitokvadzhe sanatorium, from a retired KGB officer, after two bottles of excellent vodka drunk together.


    Listen, Misha. Start telling stories. Simple, you sank your teeth into the court regiment and that's it. Where and before the short circuit is the problem to advance. But the service is calm as work, life is adjusted. This is not a garrison behind the "Crooked Lake". And we had Jews in the squadrons by nationality and nothing. In our 307th regiment, there was only one Russian in command, the deputy for flight. And then, the Chuvash regiment commander, the second deputy Belarusian, the engineer of the Buryat regiment, the chief of staff, the Jew, the navigator Uzbek, and so on.
    Therefore, I repeat, there are Jews by nationality, and there are by the state of the soul. You were just looking for somewhere warmer and that's it. And now you're spreading demagogy.
    1. Maxim G
      Maxim G Yesterday, 19: 31
      +2
      How to understand the court regiment?
      Shadrinsk is not Moscow or Leningrad, the wilderness, where the nearest more or less large city of Tyumen is.