Strategic bomber: completely outdated and useless

250
Strategic bomber: completely outdated and useless

Today we will talk about strategic bombers. In general, there are only three countries left in the world that own this species. weapons: Russia, USA and China. The rest somehow don’t even think about getting one, it’s not even clear why. More countries have aircraft carriers, but an aircraft carrier, whatever one may say, is more expensive, and maintaining and repairing it is quite a task. Proven by “Admiral Kuznetsov” and “Charles de Gaulle”.

The strategic bomber is the oldest type of this weapon, it appeared on the very day when the B-29, which did not yet know that it was strategic, dropped a bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima in 1945.




The mission of the strategic bomber was very simple: to climb to a height inaccessible to fighters and deliver an atomic bomb to the enemy. It is possible that only one at first.

The strategy was quite normal, because the same year 1945 showed that not every Focke-Wulf will catch up with B-10s flying at an altitude of more than 000 meters at a speed of about 500 km/h. We can say that these were first generation strategic bombers.


In general, at that time, aircraft that were difficult to oppose, because anti-aircraft missiles had not yet been mastered, and piston aircraft and anti-aircraft guns were not very effective. And all these “Fortresses” and “Liberators” calmly destroyed entire cities in Germany and Japan, even with ordinary high-explosive and incendiary bombs. Well, when the nuclear ones came into play...

And only the advent of jet aircraft grounded the first strategists a little. Well, “a little”, the same B-29 Soviet MiGs dropped more than enough to the ground.

Thus, the prerequisites were created for the creation of the second generation of strategic bombers. They became reactive (almost all of them), flew further, rose higher, and carried more load. All these 3M, M-50, V-58, V-52, Tu-16, Tu-95.


However, first there appeared those who could catch up and destroy these super-bomb carriers (the American Convair F-102 Delta Dagger and the Soviet MiG-21), and then anti-aircraft missile systems like our S-75, which generally removed bombers from the agenda as the main weapon of destruction enemy.


And roughly speaking, due to inertia, the B-1, B-2, Xian H-6 (Tu-16) and Tu-160 appeared, which actually do not solve anything and cannot solve anything. Simply because missiles have appeared that can shoot down a plane at any altitude and planes that carry long-range missiles that can do the same without climbing to super altitudes.

What about bombers? But they (the same Tu-95 and B-52) have not changed at all since the 50s of the last century and they have not developed any new techniques, except for cruise missiles. But cruise missiles are not a panacea for all problems.


As for the armament of strategic bombers, the situation with their armament is very simple.

Bombs.


Good old free-falling bombs, high-explosive, concrete-piercing, nuclear. Weapons that can be used against countries that do not have normal air defense (such as ISIS in Syria) or the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 80s. Or against countries whose air defenses have been destroyed by other types and branches of the military. That is, not at the first stage of the war.

Cruise missiles.


This is, of course, a more modern weapon, but also not imbalanced. Modern air defense systems can easily cope with subsonic cruise missiles, and some can handle supersonic ones. And hypersonic ones, alas, do not have the required flight range so that they can be used from strategic bombers.

Let's try to demolish the USA?

Here's the map. Very small, because the task requires just that. Of course, it is very difficult to find Engels there. As well as an airfield in the Murmansk region, from which strategists can operate. And a similar one in the Far East. But they exist.


And now we have a task: to shoot at targets in the USA. It doesn't matter what it will be, Washington or Miami. What is most important when performing such a task? That's right, go to missile launch range and carry out this launch. And this must be done in such a way that the enemy has as little time as possible to react, right?

Is this even possible?

Even taking into account the range of our most terrible missiles, that is, 6 km, they will still have to be launched from certain points on the globe. Which, alas, is quite large in terms of size.

It is clear that we are not talking about Europe. There our planes will be greeted, as they say, with open arms, because Europe is NATO. We are not interested in the south either; they will meet us there in the same way as over Europe. And only the north and east will remain.

The East is a very delicate matter. If the east is the Primorsky Territory, then, alas, Japan is nearby. Plus, one should not discount American floating airfields-aircraft carriers, which will naturally be moved to positions in the Pacific Ocean.

The north is now also complicated in this regard. Yes, launching from somewhere in the Spitsbergen area means there is a very high probability of arrival. Yes, Canada’s air defense will become the first shield there, NORAD works there, but there are chances. Another question is: are there any chances of flying to Spitsbergen? Finland, as it were, is now a NATO member, and American planes will soon be stationed at its airfields, which will be able to conduct surveillance from the country’s airspace and more. Well, Sweden is next. So access to the Spitsbergen area is doubtful.

An attack from the Far East doesn’t look very good either. The planes will need to go to the Aleutian Islands, but who will allow them to go there?


The only place from which you can safely launch missiles is from the area of ​​the Laptev or Sannikov Straits. But it’s almost 2 km to fly there from airfields in Kamchatka, and even more from the Primorsky Territory. So we’re not even talking about the surprise factor.

And we are not talking about the surprise factor at all.

A modern satellite constellation is able to track almost around the clock all airfields on which a strategic aviation, fortunately, we don’t have that many of them. In addition to the main base in Engels, you can use airfields in Belaya (Irkutsk region), Knevichi (Vladivostok), Severny (Ivanovo), Mozdok, Olenya, Dyagilevo (Ryazan), Kamenny Brook (Sovetskaya Gavan), Ukrainka (Amur region), Shaikovka (Kaluga region). Perhaps some VTA airfields would be suitable.

In general, it is not a big task to monitor literally a dozen airfields for the movement of Tu-95 and Tu-160. Today, the Ukrainians and their assistants are doing a good job of this; at least half an hour after the Tu-95 takes off in Engels, half of Ukraine is already on the edge of their seats, waiting for the arrivals.

Detecting the takeoff of strategic bombers is easy. It is not very difficult to neutralize their departure with the help of interceptor fighters over the sea. Given the level of development of American tracking equipment, satellites, AWACS aircraft, this is indeed possible. Even launching missiles from one’s territory, from one’s airspace, you understand, is not a solution. A rocket can fly into its airspace from anywhere.

And, by and large, a bomber is a very vulnerable thing. Yes, it has electronic warfare systems, it has an on-board defense system, but... But a squadron of fighters will make a chop out of any strategist, either ours or the American one. No chance.

But it's easier for Americans. With their number of allies in the world, they can easily approach our borders and attack from there if they need to. The range of the same AGM-158B JASSM-ER of 1000 km is quite enough to fire a package of missiles at Moscow from a position above Helsinki.

In general, the only relatively safe position for Russian strategists is the regions of the Far North above the Northern Sea Route. There is no one there to meet them in terms of enemy aviation; the air defense of the USA and Canada will have a headache. But alas, it will be met by both air defense systems and aviation, which can quite cope with the task of intercepting subsonic cruise missiles.

Doubts arise that we will be able to use strategic aviation normally, given that Russia is practically surrounded, if not by NATO countries, then by their sympathizers.

Then what is the value of these huge aircraft?


Well, at least in the fact that the massive takeoff of Tu-95 and Tu-160 can simply distract the enemy’s attention from leaving the submarine bases. But now they will be able to come closer and launch their greetings to America from under the water. And this scenario looks more likely, to be honest.

So the actual cessation of work on the PAK DA project is perhaps due to understanding? After all, for the Americans, with their NGB (Next-Generation Bomber) project, everything is also going neither shaky nor slow. More precisely, from 2018, when the plane was supposed to go into production, everything was moved right up to 2030. With postponements, clarifications and improvements. And the Chinese have been fighting for the Xian H-20 for more than 20 years now and without much results. Although, perhaps, a bomber with a flight range of 8 km without refueling would probably be very useful to the Chinese.

And by 2023, such an interesting situation had developed: all three countries that have strategic bombers in service continue to operate old aircraft, slowly tinkering with projects of the future.

Well, if you remember the already distant year of 2012, when our destroyer Rogozin clashed with the then head of the General Staff Makarov precisely on the topic of strategists. And they were arguing about PAK DA, the creation of which doubts began to arise even then.

Rogozin (I didn’t think I would quote him, really!) then said: “Look at the level of development of air defense and missile defense: all these planes will not fly anywhere. Neither ours to them, nor theirs to us. We need to think about completely non-trivial things.”

In general, the then Deputy Prime Minister condemned Russian long-range aviation as unnecessary. But Rogozin sentenced a lot of things during his career, and not all in words. But this time it turned out that there was something to think about.

At least, about PAK DA, or more precisely, about who said what about him, it’s very funny to read today. Igor Korotchenko, for example, has repeatedly stated that “Russia is quite capable of creating a new bomber before 2025.” Some work is underway, ejection seats were tested (but such equipment is generally needed and can be useful in other projects), engines... But without any sparkle or assault.

You can understand. And admit that the time of strategic bombers has passed, and they, as a class of weapons, simply must leave the scene.

70 years ago, when this class appeared, the very concept of warfare was different. And yes, a long-range bomber was something very dangerous, and having received atomic bombs in its compartments, it personified the threat of a nuclear strike.


But after several decades, the significance of these beautiful and powerful aircraft is gradually fading away. And today, perhaps, strategists have no chance of reaching the point of confidently launching missiles towards the enemy simply because the enemy will be aware of the takeoff of the bombers in a maximum of 10 minutes and will be able to take action.

Airplanes, as the war in Syria and the Northern Military District have shown, are very easy targets for cheap guided weapon systems like drones-kamikaze. And in many ways they are inferior to their colleagues in the nuclear triad of any country.


Intercontinental ballistic missiles on the ground are vulnerable only during positioning and launch. A very short period of time, plus being at a great distance from the enemy. And when warheads begin to leave their trajectory at hypersonic speeds, heading towards targets, it is very difficult to intercept them.


Submarine missile cruisers in general today are the most inconspicuous and deadly weapons. Moving under a huge layer of water, which shelters boats even from the watchful eye of satellites, being hit by missiles from under the water is deadly and effective.

Airplanes are too visible and vulnerable. Alas, this is true. And the current role of such bombers is really to strike areas where there is no decent air defense and fighter aircraft, as was the case in Korea, Vietnam (in the first part of the war), Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

I have a hard time imagining B-52 veterans trying to get within striking distance of our borders. And if the B-1 and B-2 may still have some chances of success, one (B-1) due to speed, the second (B-2) due to stealth, then with the B-52 everything looks sadly.

True, the Tu-95 crawling in the skies will also become very easy prey. Yes, in peacetime, these planes, which are able to fly halfway around the world and become the heroes of reports in many countries, are simply beautiful in their power. But in the event of a conflict, alas, their fate will be very unenviable. The Tu-160 has a slightly better chance due to its supersonic speed, while the F-15 will have to try very hard to catch up with the “White Swan” (And in this pursuit I wouldn’t bet on the American). But 17 flying Tu-160s against 80 American B-1s and B-2s...

Speaking about the future of strategic bombers, it’s probably not worth conclusively condemning them to death and oblivion. They will definitely delight us with their power for 10-20 years. And perhaps they will even take part in some conflicts.

But instead of new aircraft, it would be worth building a certain number of missile submarines.
250 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    6 October 2023 04: 19
    Putin has completed the nuclear “petrel”... so you can pop your melatonin and sleep peacefully...
    1. +35
      6 October 2023 05: 49
      It’s in vain that the author writes off “strategists” from local conflicts at this time; the same Tu-16 could well now find application and carry FAB-3000 upgraded to a controlled charge in the northern military district zone, and this is already comparable in power to nuclear weapons, not to mention about the use of FAB-5000 and FAB-9000, we wrote them off too early. To focus on a purely nuclear conflict, because Space is approaching with its capabilities for the use of weapons, a combat laser is being actively developed, time will pass and something even better than hypersound will be created from weapons on Earth.
      1. +9
        6 October 2023 06: 18
        Quote from Silver99
        FAB-3000 upgraded to controlled charge

        Do modernized ones exist? Of course, if they don’t exist, then we need to create them. But we need it yesterday. And if today there is only cast iron, then forget it. As long as the enemy has air defense, or at least its pitiful remnants, no one will substitute strategists, because for such a loss even shoulder straps can argue without a pension, but who needs it?
        And if they exist, then the question of why they are not used must be asked... well, everyone here understands who.
        1. +15
          6 October 2023 06: 38
          Yeah, at a time when it’s not our spaceships that are roaming the expanses of the Universe, but the old SU-22 Iranian Air Force is using gliding bombs to the fullest, the strategic forces of the Russian Federation are offered to either use old, but already ineffective cast iron, or often expensive guided missiles that are many times the cost of the target . Hmmm....

          1. +12
            6 October 2023 06: 52
            Quote: Dante
            Yeah, at a time when it’s not our spaceships that are roaming the expanses of the Universe, but the old SU-22 Iranian Air Force is using gliding bombs to the fullest, the strategic forces of the Russian Federation are offered to either use old, but already ineffective cast iron, or often expensive guided missiles that are many times the cost of the target . Hmmm....

            On pro-Ukrainian Twitters who are trying to work with data on the operation of videoconferencing and drones, there is absolutely groaning and howling in the swamps. Here's something new - 800+ air strikes were geolocated in September. Approximately 1000 UMPCs applied. On this basis, they urgently demand Patriots and other expensive prodigies, which will not be given in significant quantities, and they would not help in this situation.
            Link: https://twitter.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1709652902854246561




            1. -3
              6 October 2023 07: 20
              It looks, of course, handicraft, but the main thing is that it works, but that’s not what I’m talking about

              You just misunderstood my passage a little. Roman had completely forgotten about gliding bombs, and therefore, as often happens to him, he went to two extremes: either or.

              By the way, I believe that it was the emphasis on guided munitions that buried the project to develop a new bomber in the States, because why come up with a new airframe, engines, etc. if the existing aircraft, with the presence of new or modernization of old weapons, is quite sufficient to achieve the assigned goals? Therefore, China has exploited and will continue to exploit the TU-16, the Americans have exploited their B-52, and we need to continue to build and use the Tu-22M and Tu-160, anyway, in terms of the payload ratio, a breakthrough in this area is not expected, so it stands Should you pay more in pursuit of mythical stealth?
              1. +8
                6 October 2023 08: 50
                Quote: Dante
                It looks, of course, handicraft, but the main thing is that it works, but that’s not what I’m talking about

                Footage of the production process of UMPC (universal planning and correction modules) for FABs by the Tactical Missile Weapons Corporation in the Moscow region.


                Quote: Dante
                we need to continue to build and use the Tu-22M and Tu-160

                For the Tu-160, retirees from KAZ, according to the personnel department, were searched throughout the country to resume production. The continuity of generations has been lost.
                1. +12
                  6 October 2023 10: 23
                  I didn't say it was handicraft, I said it looked handicraft. There is still a difference

                  For comparison, the type of product from Iranian colleagues



                  It is clear that the weight of the ammunition and its power are different, but you can still see the difference in the production approach. However, I repeat, it doesn’t matter what it looks like, the main thing is that the product works
                  For the Tu-160, retirees from KAZ, according to the personnel department, were searched throughout the country to resume production. The continuity of generations has been lost.

                  AND ????
                2. +6
                  7 October 2023 07: 07
                  Well, what else can you expect when for 30 years all of us have been intensively poured into our ears about the prestige of “white collar” workers (lawyers, economists, bankers, etc.) and the lack of prestige of engineering and technical specialties, especially middle management, here is the result, the first ones have been produced so much that now there is nowhere to put them, and with the second ones we have huge problems due to their colossal shortage and a huge shortage of qualified personnel, there is a clear imbalance in the labor market caused by the not far-sighted and not thought-out policy of the authorities in this direction.
                3. FID
                  0
                  10 January 2024 12: 45
                  I absolutely agree about the Tu-160.... All pensioners were raised, and the control system was assembled on their knees...
            2. +12
              6 October 2023 07: 49
              I wonder if the bomb (pictured) is above the wings in flight or if it turns over and the wings are on top?

              Regarding strategic bombers, I slightly disagree with the author. For the enemy, of course, submarine missile carriers and what we have on our territory (mobile and stationary missile systems) are more dangerous, but this is a demonstration of force when an aircraft, possibly with nuclear missiles, hangs in the air literally near the border and at any moment can to launch them, our non-friends really don’t like it. But the more dangerous submarine is not visible at all.
              And they are sometimes used as ordinary bombers. For example, Afghanistan, the operation on Pansher, strategists from the Union went there.
              1. +7
                6 October 2023 08: 37
                I wonder if the bomb (pictured) is above the wings in flight or if it turns over and the wings are on top?
                It turns over after being dropped, the upper surface of the wing must be kept clean - the lifting force at subsonic levels is realized there.
                1. +1
                  6 October 2023 12: 24
                  Quote: Aviator_
                  It turns over after being dropped, the upper surface of the wing must be kept clean....
                  Thanks for the information.
              2. +9
                6 October 2023 12: 44
                Quote: Bad_gr
                I wonder if the bomb (pictured) is above the wings in flight or if it turns over and the wings are on top?

                Exactly .
                Quote: Bad_gr
                . But the more dangerous submarine is not visible at all.

                Various tasks. We have SSBNs, this is a second strike weapon. Their task is to survive the first exchange of strikes under water, and then, after additional reconnaissance and analysis of surviving targets, an SLBM strike on these survivors.
                Strategic Aviation strikes together with ground-based ICBMs, but their missile launchers reach their targets in the second wave of the first strike. With the possibility of repeating the strike and participating in the second strike with surviving bombers after reloading at alternate airfields.
                About the stupidity of our strategists’ flight across the Pacific Ocean through Japan and the air defense lines of American carrier-based aircraft, they were generally touching. Why fly a long, dangerous route through air defense lines when there is a safe route through the North Pole? And even longer-range missiles only make this procedure easier.
                NORAD?
                When the Kyrgyz Republic reaches its borders, there will be no stationary radars or airfields with interceptors.
                And the whole stagnation with strategic bombers is explained by the fact that any aircraft can be carriers of the missile cruise missile system - be it military aviation aircraft (already implemented in the USA), or converted civilian passenger ones (there was such a project based on the Boeing 747). Therefore, the resumption of construction of the complex and very expensive Tu-160 in this light does not look very rational. Hand on heart, it would be rational to resume production of the Tu-95SM and equip the transport Il-76MD\MD-90A with air launch complexes for the Kyrgyz Republic.
                Quote: Bad_gr
                They are sometimes used as ordinary bombers. For example, Afghanistan, the operation on Pansher, strategists from the Union went there.

                In Syria, too, strategists poured cast iron.
                1. 0
                  6 October 2023 20: 06
                  We have SSBNs, this is a second strike weapon.

                  The Americans have the first one.
                  1. +4
                    6 October 2023 23: 41
                    Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                    The Americans have the first one.

                    Exactly . They are counting on launching Trident-2 from a dagger distance and along a flat trajectory. And also because their “Minuteman” is very problematically “combat ready”.
                    1. 0
                      7 October 2023 20: 29
                      “their Minutemen are very problematically “combat ready” - in general, it is not hidden that their Minutemen are bait for our warheads. They say it’s better to blow up silos in the desert than cities and infrastructure.
                2. +5
                  6 October 2023 22: 21
                  It would be rational to resume production of the Tu-95SM and equip the transport Il-76MD\MD-90A with air launch complexes for the Kyrgyz Republic.

                  Two years ago I already wrote about retrofitting the IL transporter with missile launches in another dispute. In response to A-to him. And now this is being quietly discussed. By the way, the Tu-95 is a very difficult aircraft to maintain with a fairly short engine life between overhauls. But the IL-76, taking into account refueling, could well patrol in Ledovitoe. In addition, it is several times cheaper.
                  1. +5
                    7 October 2023 00: 24
                    Quote: Alexey Lantukh
                    Two years ago I already wrote about retrofitting the IL transporter with missile launches in another dispute. In response to A-to him. And now this is being quietly discussed.

                    Alexey, the idea of ​​using the database of transport aircraft to launch CR is not new, it has been talked about for a long time and the Americans have implemented this idea for their new CD. But in our Russian realities, we need to understand one simple thing... we have FEW PLANES.
                    Any.
                    Incl. and military transport aviation. And in the event of war, they will all be used for their intended purpose. And believe me, they will be missed. So, in our realities, we need to look for other ways to solve these problems - increasing the capabilities of mass launch of missile cruise missiles. And in our case, it seems that it was decided to implement this with the help of Su-34 tactical bombers, which, having a very decent combat radius, can carry from three to five Kh-50 BD cruise missiles to the launch line. And although they cannot reach the United States from our territory, even taking into account the range of the X-50, they are able to solve the issue of hitting targets in Europe, Alaska and numerous US bases around and on the Asian continent. And in terms of strategists, we and the United States now have approximate parity. And the Tu-160, although slowly, is being built.
                    Quote: Alexey Lantukh
                    By the way, the Tu-95 is a very difficult aircraft to maintain with a fairly short engine life between overhauls.

                    Maintenance of strategists is generally a complex thing, and the Tu-95 and its derivatives were also the workhorses of the Soviet Air Force and Naval Aviation. Yes, and the An-22 was also a hard worker, but the engines on them were the same.
                    Quote: Alexey Lantukh
                    . But the IL-76, taking into account refueling, could well patrol in Ledovitoe.

                    How do you imagine refueling the IL-76? Are they equipped for this? Of course, tankers were made from them themselves. But you compare the range of the Il-76 and Tu-95... this is heaven and earth. And the Tu-95 can definitely be refueled. They have the most economical engines in the history of Aviation (specific consumption), which is why the Tu-95 has a range of 12 and even 000 km. without any refueling. And they can reload at jump airfields. And there is no need for a circus with pilot chutes for launch vehicles of the Kyrgyz Republic with a downward launch. And the Burevestnik has completed its tests, according to the Supreme Commander.
                    А
                    Quote: Alexey Lantukh
                    equipment with air launch complexes KR transport Il-76MD\MD-90A

                    rational only in the case of organizing MASS production of the IL-76MD-90A. So far this has not been observed.
                    In terms of the state of the domestic strategic nuclear forces potential, it is necessary to proceed from the fact that every year we put into operation one SSBN with 16 Bulava SLBMs on board. Moreover, the Soviet "Dolphins" with the "Sineva" and "Lainer" SLBMs are not being withdrawn from service. As a result, our strike potential is growing. If you wish, you can simply withdraw from the New START Treaty and deploy an additional number of ground-based Yars, as well as load the remaining (if any) missile silos from the UR-100 with them. This will be much more reliable... and cheaper. For one ICBM is at the level of a fighter. But at the same time, it can deliver several nuclear warheads to any point in the United States. Russia can very inexpensively and quite quickly dramatically increase its strike nuclear potential. And this is already being done, but so far at the expense of new types of weapons not specified in the treaty. But if you wish, you can do this using classical methods, and it will not cost much. ICBMs are generally the most effective and economical type of weapon in terms of price-quality-effectiveness ratio. And we know how to do them and can do them quite well. They also learned in China. And in the USA they are only trying to restore competence in this regard.
                    And the rhetoric of the President of the Russian Federation suggests that from now on we will talk to our former partners exclusively in the language of force, a demonstration of force, and a demonstration of readiness and determination to use this force.
                    And they already seem to like it.
                    1. +1
                      13 October 2023 22: 38
                      Il-76MD with PS-90A engines has a flight time of about 16 hours when loaded with 12 tons. This is about 8-9 thousand km. If you add tanks a la Il-78 for 20 tons, this will add another couple of thousand km. Not the Tu-95MS, of course - but already comparable ranges.
                3. +1
                  13 October 2023 22: 31
                  Tu-95 is a thing of the past. Because of the engines, the production of which is simply impossible to restore (because of the gearboxes in the first place. But there are also enough “forgotten” alloys in the engine itself). And remotorization to jet engines will require replacing the wing and tail.
                  The Tu-22M does not even have the potential to increase range. And the “shrunk” design (width 1,68 versus 1,9 for strategists) deprives it of the ability to carry a drum with long-range nuclear missiles.
                  So there is only one Tu-160 left, with oversized weapons compartments and a carload of space for electronics. Plus, this is at the same time a fairly simple to manufacture, but technologically complex aircraft. The most important thing is to restore complex production and train staff.
        2. +1
          6 October 2023 17: 06
          Quote: Nagan
          then the question of why they are not used must be asked... well, everyone here understands who.

          But I don’t understand, well, I’m a little stupid - can you please tell me?
        3. -3
          6 October 2023 23: 46
          Well, now we have grenades on airplanes exploding... Note that I didn’t say that!
        4. -1
          7 October 2023 10: 23
          But no one was responsible for the loss of an entire missile cruiser.
      2. +37
        6 October 2023 07: 48
        And this has been a trend for the author lately to write off some types of weapons as scrap. I remember there were helicopters in front of the strategists, and even earlier there was something else, I don’t remember, then there was no desire to track publications.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. +13
          6 October 2023 11: 13
          And before the author wrote off light machine guns, I then laughed heartily at this opus, the man clearly did not serve, and this article shows an amateurish approach to the topic.
        3. +12
          6 October 2023 11: 24
          Quote: Hagalaz
          And this is a trend for the author lately

          It has many trends, but it’s easy to write without delving into the topic or without knowing it at all, so I tweeted, and then those who are in the topic will join in.
          To begin with, no one is going to use strategic aviation in the strike role in the first echelon and that says it all. Strategists will go to the second, if not the third, echelon, when the air defense systems will basically be partly destroyed and partly disorganized, having lost control and guidance.
          I won’t delve further, but the author is not at all familiar with the tactics and strategy of using strategic aviation, hence the heresy under a large number of letters.
          1. -5
            6 October 2023 15: 35
            controversial opinion about the 1st echelon
            Tu-160M ​​can become a real "Air Fortress"
            the new Tu-160M ​​will be equipped with an active jamming system and an on-board defense system, on-board radars with AFAR and Air-to-Air missiles
            The dimensions of the Tu-160M ​​allow even a very large ammunition load of RVV-SD (110 km) and RVV-MD (40 km) missiles to be placed inside.
            1. -2
              6 October 2023 20: 04
              "Tu-160M ​​can become a real "Air Fortress""
              Maybe. But in WWII, “flying fortresses” were shot down. They'll shoot you down now.
            2. +4
              6 October 2023 20: 20
              Quote: Romario_Argo
              controversial opinion about the 1st echelon

              One can argue, but there are no plans to use them in the first echelon; they strike at targets that survived and were further explored after the first strike. And believe me, all their capabilities are not superfluous because there will be a lot left.
              1. -2
                7 October 2023 06: 13
                There will be no second or third echelon and the “strategists” themselves will no longer exist, as well as most of the mines and part of the SSBNs, because if they decide there, they will start first. Only one blow of retaliation is possible, from what survives. They were too close, they came too close. Flight time is measured in minutes. Who will give the command to answer? Our clumsy control system even stalls in the conventional game. And here, practically, moments.
            3. +1
              6 October 2023 20: 42
              Yes, this is not a matter of equipment, but of quantity. To make any sense, you need to build them in batches and so that you have more of them than the enemy. We like to shout that we have the best plane, or the best helicopter, or a tank, or a toilet brush, well, let it be true, the enemy has a little worse, but the trouble is that for one of our best planes, the enemy has a couple of dozen pieces of equipment. worse.
          2. +3
            6 October 2023 20: 03
            “Strategists will go to the second if not the third echelon” - for this they still have to live. It is clear that strategic airfields are the first target after ICBM launchers.
            1. +1
              6 October 2023 20: 17
              Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
              To do this, they still need to live. It is clear that strategic airfields are the first target after ICBM launchers.

              In this regard, both our and their strategists constantly practice the exercise of withdrawing from attack. I haven’t seen the video of our strategists’ exercises, but there’s plenty on YouTube of how the B-52s practice it together with tankers.
              1. +1
                6 October 2023 22: 42
                In the event of a US attack, intercontinental missiles will reach within half an hour. From Western Europe even faster - in 10-15 minutes. Those. Those should essentially be in the air with nuclear weapons on board, as well as on duty at the airfield with heated engines. That's the whole deal with the planes. Very difficult condition.
                1. -2
                  6 October 2023 22: 48
                  Quote: Alexey Lantukh
                  That's the whole deal with the planes

                  You seem to be unfamiliar with phrases like “threatened period.” Stratech laughing
                  1. +2
                    6 October 2023 23: 27
                    Quote: Repellent
                    Quote: Alexey Lantukh
                    That's the whole deal with the planes

                    You seem to be unfamiliar with phrases like “threatened period.” Stratech laughing

                    Yes, again mantras about the threatened period.
                    Even during the Great Patriotic War, in a period of threat, Engels was under attack.
                    2 times.
                    What God's dew do you still believe in...
                    1. -4
                      6 October 2023 23: 32
                      Quote: SovAr238A
                      What God's dew do you still believe in...

                      Why do you need it? You are already confusing the cases... However, I will hint: what is happening now in Ukraine is a warm-up. And training wink Yes
                      1. -1
                        7 October 2023 06: 21
                        Ага. lol Warm-up, for several years. How not to “pump too much”. So what are you hinting at? Shall we smash into dust? The speculative managers will be delighted. You already cut off their oxygen with the geyrops...
                        And by the way, is today already a “non-threatening period”? When our diplomats are kicked out and Bundes tractor drivers are fished out of damaged boxes and they call out the unit number, where they serve?
                      2. +3
                        7 October 2023 08: 37
                        Quote: Essex62
                        So what are you hinting at?

                        It doesn't matter to you. You don't have enough RAM to solve such problems.

                        Quote: Essex62
                        By the way, is today already a “non-threatening period”?

                        By the way - it is written so.
                        The period is called - threatened.

                        No, this is not that period yet:


                        The Great War is still far away... Fate bless Yes
                      3. 0
                        7 October 2023 13: 21
                        How do you spell it? You're literate. Where Only the “threatening” doesn’t change the essence, by the way, I slapped T9, but I didn’t check. What RAM I have enough is not for you to judge, guard.
                        The document you provided is identical, and even more so, with the current state of affairs. Only drones fly straight to the Kremlin and fly to the bases of strategists, and no one is playing around. The most, that there is, that period. There's nowhere else to go.
                      4. -2
                        7 October 2023 22: 35
                        Quote: Essex62
                        How much RAM I have is not for you to judge, guardian

                        Boy, don't say words just because you like them. The label “fucking-ass” doesn’t stick to me - I don’t protect anyone but myself and those close to me. And even you will give me shit.

                        Quote: Essex62
                        The document you provided is identical and even more so with the current state of affairs

                        This confirms the lack of RAM. No, not one to one, and not even one to three. The threatened period, as it exists, has not yet been observed. Well, except in your wallet, ugh, head, yes.

                        Quote: Essex62
                        There is nowhere further

                        It was the shell that hit you in the head that had such an effect on you. Or a sinyukhovka, are you drinking? On the weekend?

                        There is no threat period yet. I said tongue laughing
                      5. -1
                        10 October 2023 08: 46
                        You tired me, inadequate, bourgeois henchman. Take walks more often, it is useful for treating arrogance and conceit. That's all with you, baby. Not interesting. Guardian available. stop
                      6. -2
                        10 October 2023 08: 54
                        Quote: Essex62
                        You tired me, inadequate, bourgeois henchman

                        Here you go. And this is from the very morning, what will happen in the evening belay laughing

                        Friends, you were wrong many times:

                        - “bourgeois henchman” - more suitable for you, a former driver of a member truck, with an income like that of a professor of the USSR Academy of Sciences
                        - inadequate - well, just look in the mirror... you’ll see him there
                        - baby - right there. They say that after a slight concussion... it happens

                        Quote: Essex62
                        Not interesting

                        Writing together. Learn the language, it’s your native language Yes

                        Quote: Essex62
                        Is free

                        Yes. Come on, go. It's time for me to work.
                      7. -2
                        11 October 2023 08: 30
                        Quote: Repellent
                        Quote: Essex62
                        You tired me, inadequate, bourgeois henchman

                        Here you go. And this is from the very morning, what will happen in the evening belay laughing

                        Friends, you were wrong many times:

                        - “bourgeois henchman” - more suitable for you, a former driver of a member truck, with an income like that of a professor of the USSR Academy of Sciences
                        - inadequate - well, just look in the mirror... you’ll see him there
                        - baby - right there. They say that after a slight concussion... it happens

                        Quote: Essex62
                        Not interesting

                        Writing together. Learn the language, it’s your native language Yes

                        Quote: Essex62
                        Is free

                        Yes. Come on, go. It's time for me to work.

                        Yes, yes, go sweep the yard, more benefit. Sofa strategist
                      8. -2
                        11 October 2023 08: 28
                        Haha. This is fabulous! "He said"! Who are you, strategist mom? You are nobody and there is no way to call you. Stop showing off, victim of the Unified State Examination
                      9. -1
                        7 October 2023 11: 01
                        I sincerely wish you that your entire family and loved ones will take part in this warm-up. There, on the first line. And if something happens to them, you can always come up with beautiful words.
                      10. 0
                        7 October 2023 11: 21
                        Quote: Letterhead
                        I sincerely wish you that your entire family and loved ones will take part in this warm-up. There, on the first line

                        You and I both understand that your “wishes” are just hot air.

                        In other words, you couldn’t object, you couldn’t even be really rude. Only air ruined shook request
              2. -2
                6 October 2023 23: 26
                Quote: NIKNN
                Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                To do this, they still need to live. It is clear that strategic airfields are the first target after ICBM launchers.

                In this regard, both our and their strategists constantly practice the exercise of withdrawing from attack. I haven’t seen the video of our strategists’ exercises, but there’s plenty on YouTube of how the B-52s practice it together with tankers.

                Our Air Force has never had an elephant walk.
                Never.
                We tried it once in the 60s and got a bunch of problems.
                And they stopped.
                So our planes don’t know how to escape from an attack
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. +2
                  7 October 2023 11: 51
                  What nonsense? What other elephant walks?
                  Here is a conclusion from under attack using the example of fighter aircraft:
                  https://vk.com/video-182816816_456240664?list=b83dbec808865d8c77
                  They take off in flights or pairs with an interval of 40-50 seconds, using both directions of the runway and the main taxiway.
                  1. -2
                    7 October 2023 23: 20
                    Quote: Lozovik
                    What nonsense? What other elephant walks?
                    Here is a conclusion from under attack using the example of fighter aircraft:
                    https://vk.com/video-182816816_456240664?list=b83dbec808865d8c77
                    They take off in flights or pairs with an interval of 40-50 seconds, using both directions of the runway and the main taxiway.

                    Don't you know the term elephant walk?
                    Well, study the question.

                    And pointing at fighters when I responded to lies about bombers, this is complete nonsense.
                    The article is about strategists.
                    1. +1
                      9 October 2023 09: 49
                      Quote: SovAr238A
                      Don't you know the term elephant walk?
                      Well, study the question.

                      I suggest doing the same.

                      Quote: SovAr238A
                      And pointing at fighters when I responded to lies about bombers, this is complete nonsense.

                      Re-read your message. Regimental and divisional flight-tactical exercises in long-range aviation with the task of withdrawing from attack are not held every year, but regularly. They take off approximately the same as in the video, only 2 directions are not used for obvious reasons. Intervals of 60 seconds, on wide runways Tu-22M3 taxi to the start in pairs and can also take off in pairs. The control link, as well as fighters, can use MRD.
          3. +5
            6 October 2023 20: 23
            Quote: NIKNN
            Strategists will go to the second, if not the third, echelon, when the air defense systems will basically be partly destroyed and partly disorganized, having lost control and guidance.

            Why do you think that the enemy will have everything important destroyed, while we will have everything important intact, and wait for the command to carry out the second or third wave? It is obvious that the bases of our strategists will be destroyed by the first wave, nuclear weapons. And the second wave of cruise missiles will destroy all airfields potentially suitable for strategists and servicing nuclear warheads. In summary, the only good thing will be from strategists standing with a full ammo at a low start - they took off under the noses of falling warheads, reached the line, released the ammo, and you can safely eject, because it makes no sense to land in the taiga at a reserve airfield overgrown with weeds, nor to service the plane, It is simply impossible to replenish the ammunition there, and it will be possible to bring something there from warehouses only in ten years, when the infrastructure destroyed by nuclear strikes is restored. And a follow-up question - how long can a strategist stand in standby mode, with loaded missiles with a nuclear warhead? Will it sit continuously for a week? How about six months? Obviously not, because no one had ever set such a task, then there was no point in it. IMHO, there will be a rotation of strategists on duty, it’s good if half are ready for combat at the same time, stand at a low start. In total, we have aircraft that are expensive to manufacture and operate, but at the same time disposable, of which only half will work as they should. The question is - why make disposable aircraft with cruise missiles, if you can make mobile (railway, for example) disposable missiles with warheads? After all, this is a much more effective weapon, and the price, taking into account the efficiency of strategists of 50%, will be no less hemorrhoids with operation and infrastructure?
            1. +1
              7 October 2023 00: 38
              Many types of weapons are good for first strikes. And in the event of a sudden massive nuclear strike, obviously everything will be difficult. And even with non-nuclear weapons, not only in wars, but also in the entire animal kingdom from time immemorial. And the strategist can pour in a considerable number of missiles in one gulp, catch them later. There are probably an unimaginable number of gliding bombs, if there were so many of them, of course. And something strongly anti-bunker, which we don’t have either. In short, it depends on the goals. If the goal is to bristle so that the strategists are afraid to attack you, the strategists are probably really too expensive, but if you want to take someone out with your feet first, then the thing is definitely useful.
          4. -1
            6 October 2023 22: 14
            "Strategists will go to the second if not the third echelon, when the air defense systems will basically be partly destroyed and partly disorganized, having lost control and guidance." - you have clearly outplayed computer strategies, how simple it is - the enemy’s air defense has been destroyed, the enemy is disorganized and deprived of control. You weren’t hurt, you’re organized and well-managed, and you’re also carrying out additional reconnaissance—the enemy still has something left.
            Yes, your cranberries are picky. wassat
        4. +9
          6 October 2023 11: 27
          It’s strange that the infantry hasn’t been written off yet. After all, everyone is fighting against infantry
      3. +6
        6 October 2023 08: 11
        Quote from Silver99
        It’s in vain that the author writes off “strategists” from

        Agree hi Today, weapons are undergoing another evolution and, accordingly, some things become stronger, and some things change radically. The issue of strategists should be approached not by purpose, but by functionality Yes
        for example, aircraft carriers took battleships out of the game, that is, with the advent of the aircraft carrier, the battleship became obsolete, but large ships continued to dominate the ocean! A new type of large ship (aircraft carrier) replaced the outdated type (battleship).
        A bomber is a large aircraft capable of lifting tens of tons of combat load into the air and using it at a knowing distance, which no fighter is capable of. I am sure that such an ability will be in demand in the future, and it is not yet clear what the strategist will turn into, into a spaceship, or into an air cruiser capable of taking on a squadron of fighters in one person, or into a flying arsenal with hundreds of mini-missiles and UAVs, time will tell, because this depends on advanced technologies, which are developing very quickly today. bully
      4. +5
        6 October 2023 08: 50
        How can any factory be comparable to nuclear weapons, even tactical ones? How can you compare a capacity of several tons with a capacity of several THOUSANDS of tons?
      5. +1
        6 October 2023 15: 18
        It’s in vain that the author writes off “strategists”

        + Because if you load it into it, it will carry it. From a conventional bomb to a long-range cruise missile. In the meantime, while new and more advanced missile systems are being developed, it can stand on the sidelines.
        "Don't scratch yourself"
        "The dagger is good for the one who has it!"
      6. 0
        8 October 2023 17: 16
        Maybe if the factories are delivered as high as possible, and then let them plan to the goal as best they can? You can also reduce the visibility of the fabs so that the projectile is invisible.
      7. 0
        25 December 2023 21: 44
        Quote from Silver99
        FAB-3000 upgraded to a controlled charge, and this is already comparable in power to nuclear weapons

        Whaaat?!
        How is the FAB-3000 comparable in power to a 100-150 kT warhead?!
        Someone give him a physics textbook or something. To start.
      8. 0
        13 January 2024 08: 13
        I stopped reading the article after a few paragraphs. Tanks were also written off before the Northern Military District, but they play a significant role there and are transported there in trains.
        Strategic aviation today is not only relevant, it is more effective than front-line aviation. The launches of our X-101 and X-505 confirm my words. And, unlike the author’s reasoning, they reach their goals and hit the mark. Moreover, the enemy knows about the launches of our strategists and has air defense, but targets are regularly hit, which means strategic aviation is an important element of war.
        Perhaps over time it will be replaced by unmanned systems, but this is a matter of many years.
    2. 0
      6 October 2023 06: 24
      It seems like the Northern Military District strategists fired cruise missiles in Syria too, the authors drink poison
    3. 0
      6 October 2023 23: 41
      The author decided to either die or use something...
    4. +1
      7 October 2023 08: 45
      We need SPACE Strategists, such as the Boeing X-37B.
    5. 0
      7 October 2023 11: 30
      Andrey Yurievich, oh, I belittle you and what are you thinking? N.S. Khrushchev also thought the same thing when he reduced aviation and artillery. installations, focusing on missiles. Serdyukov, who wanted to destroy not only planes, tanks, but also factories. But it turned out that free-falling bombs were ALSO useful. Of course, I could continue to give examples, BUT, what a pity that tomorrow I need to infiltrate the drug cartel. In general, there is no time.
  2. +16
    6 October 2023 04: 32
    They also said about artillery, about tanks that everything has outlived its usefulness, and about the fleet that is no longer needed, that UAVs and cruise missiles will destroy everything that floats and travels. So they will come up with a new strategy and tactics for using Strategic Aviation. One thing is certain: it is no longer possible to fight according to the old patterns.
    At a meeting with Shoigu on TV, you watch the high command one deep old man. War is for the young. soldier
    1. +17
      6 October 2023 05: 33
      It was said to the point, even the T-54s were suitable for war. The use of “obsolete” MIG-31s ​​as a platform for launching Kinzhal and other missiles has proven its right to exist. Offhand, the Tu-160 can be considered as a platform for launching promising missiles, as well as various types of UAVs - reconnaissance aircraft, jammers, kamikazes and others. Imagine, at some point on the map he pours out a huge number of kamikaze UAVs, endowed with network-centric abilities with AI, and they can glide thousands of kilometers, because these are not FABs, they have engines and it will be an impossible task for the enemy to fight off such a swarm. Burying these types of weapons is the same as relying on nuclear bombs, “they exist, why else?” and the experience of the Northern Military District showed the fallacy of this approach. Creating something new and strengthening the old, endowing it with new properties, that’s what we need!
    2. +14
      6 October 2023 06: 21
      Quote: V.
      War is for the young.


      I don’t remember who said it, but it’s relevant: “Wars are started by the old and rich, but the young and poor die in them.”
    3. -16
      6 October 2023 06: 26
      A fleet is definitely not needed, radio-controlled boats with explosives on board will suffice! And strategists are powerful, you can, for example, demolish Japan
    4. +12
      6 October 2023 06: 33
      Quote: V.
      They said the same thing about artillery, about tanks that have all outlived their usefulness, and about the fleet

      That's right.

      The tanks were “buried” a thousand times (and then “suddenly” it turned out that even the repaired Soviet tanks were for dear souls, and the infantry couldn’t do without them). And the Fleet is “buried” every day. We reached the strategists...
      You can understand. And admit that the time of strategic bombers has passed, and they, as a class of weapons, simply must leave the scene.

      Yeah. Leave. And then “suddenly” it turns out that ten tons of precision-guided ammunition will be dropped several thousand kilometers away. there is no one from the border... And as one of the elements of the deterrence triad (and its most mobile part), it is not at all outdated (you need: an airfield network and the skills to quickly take off at hour X). Yes, and “dear partners” have become wildly active with the implementation of the new B-21 project (having as many as three types of them in service) and want about a hundred new ones. Oh yeah, they're stupid...
      And what are the American projects worth arming the strategist with a large number of anti-ship missiles...
      strategists have no chance of reaching the line of confident missile launch

      The author, just for fun, googled the maximum range of strategic cruise missiles...
      Submarine missile cruisers in general today are the most inconspicuous and deadly weapons. Moving under a huge layer of water, which shelters boats even from the watchful eye of satellites, being hit by missiles from under the water is deadly and effective.

      If we take into account the capabilities of covering SSBNs, their total number, the number of those constantly in service, the capabilities and number of enemies at sea, then the picture changes somewhat...
    5. +3
      6 October 2023 06: 40
      Quote: V.

      At a meeting with Shoigu on TV, you watch the high command one deep old man.

      These old people have taken root in their chairs so much that you can’t drive them out with sticks; often personal devotion and not competence unfortunately allows them to sit in them.
    6. +15
      6 October 2023 07: 48
      Strategists have the ability to quickly have a salvo of more than 200 x101 missiles and all sorts of other x missiles anywhere in Russia. The author thinks too narrowly
      1. +2
        6 October 2023 10: 53
        In addition, the frequency of repeated strikes.
      2. +1
        6 October 2023 20: 07
        Let’s say one salvo (if it’s the X-101, i.e. non-nuclear), then what? But nothing special, the enemy suffers some damage, but there are a lot of objects and they cannot all be hit in one salvo.
    7. +4
      6 October 2023 11: 29
      I read the Soviet propaganda of 1924, they already wrote off tanks and large ships. They dreamed that they would shoot heat rays and spray their enemies with chemicals
    8. +2
      6 October 2023 17: 34
      Quote: V.
      At a meeting with Shoigu on TV, you watch the high command one deep old man. War is for the young.

      There is a good saying: “If youth knew, if old age could.” This is the whole wisdom of the answer to your stupid post. A country or people should be ruled by the wise and knowledgeable, not the stupid and ambitious. It is very rare for someone more or less young (35...45) to be able to handle things well. Well, if we take Zelensky as an example, then the rule is obvious.
  3. -14
    6 October 2023 04: 35
    This is precisely why the last one “visible” on the radar, the B1b, was developed in the mid-70s. The amers did not invest any more money in this concept. And I don’t understand at all why there should be objections (or even just talk about objections) to the Tu160? They were the Soviet answer to B1v in the 80s. Since then, almost all B1Bs have flown away and been removed from service. Of the 100 delivered, there are only 25-30 left. The technology of variable wing geometry is a terribly heavy thing and does not give anything at all. And in terms of armament, the 160th has 12 missile launchers versus 16 on the old B52. In short, if you’re going to invest money in strategists, then in R&D on stealth subsonic...
    1. +12
      6 October 2023 05: 21
      « WASHINGTON, March 13. /TASS/. Six new B-21 strategic bombers are currently in production in the United States. This was announced on Monday by the acting Under Secretary of the Air Force Christine Jones, speaking at a briefing at the Pentagon on the department's budget for fiscal year 2024 (beginning October 1, 2023)."
      https://tass-ru.turbopages.org/turbo/tass.ru/s/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/17254371
      " Moscow. July 27. INTERFAX.RU - The US Air Force Global Strike Command expects to receive the first sixth-generation strategic stealth bomber, the B-21 Raider, which is capable of carrying both conventional and nuclear weapons, into service as early as 2025, reports Air And Space Forces Magazine.”
      https://interfax-ru.turbopages.org/turbo/interfax.ru/s/world/913697
      But the Americans don’t even know that they are not building strategists.
    2. -2
      6 October 2023 20: 11
      And I don’t understand at all, why object to the Tu160?

      Generals always prepare for the past war.
  4. +10
    6 October 2023 04: 42
    But cruise missiles are not a panacea for all problems.
    But such a weapon - a panacea - does not exist at all. Any weapon must be protected from specific threats and provided with specific support. And strategists are just such a weapon. And the fact that the hikhly “discover” them is because of the stupidity of our command, and not because of the obsolescence of the type of weapon.
    In general, the author buried helicopters, tanks too, in my opinion, so the strategists are not feeling well, in the author’s opinion. )))
    1. +7
      6 October 2023 08: 30
      In general, the author buried helicopters, tanks too, in my opinion, so the strategists are not feeling well, in the author’s opinion. )))

      Artillery and personal weapons are next in line.
      1. +9
        6 October 2023 09: 37
        It’s just a technique like at a children’s party: “Children, didn’t you see where Little Red Riding Hood went? There? or there? I don’t hear...” And the children unanimously shout hundreds of comments)
        In general, to revive the relevance of old weapon systems, there are two ways that complement each other - the use of new tactics and the addition of new properties. The latter often determine new tactics. In relation to the strategists discussed in the article, you can think about a fundamentally new on-board protection for them - laser weapons.
        There are conditions for this - a high flight altitude, which provides a favorable environment for the laser beam, and large dimensions of the aircraft, allowing it to accommodate a powerful power plant. In this situation, the bet will be placed not on the invisibility of the carrier and the surprise of the strike, but on its inevitability. It is clear that a massive attack on such a strategist will ultimately bury him, but to do this, he must first be attacked. What if he's just patrolling the border? Such tactics are still used today, but with the bomber’s laser defense system, the likelihood of breaking through the enemy’s strategic defense increases.
      2. +1
        6 October 2023 21: 56
        Quote: Dimy4
        Artillery and personal weapons are next in line.

        No, the next fighters. If there are no bombers, then why fighters?
  5. +28
    6 October 2023 04: 46
    It is unfortunate when a person undertakes to discuss some topic about which he knows nothing. crying
    It happened that I read with pleasure Roman’s articles devoted to certain social phenomena or events. But when Roman takes on technical topics, and especially aviation, it’s... wassat
    1. +8
      6 October 2023 05: 52
      Quote: Tucan
      It is unfortunate when a person undertakes to discuss some topic about which he knows nothing.

      Yes, there is no basic common sense here. First he says that the missiles from the strategists will not reach the United States, and then he begins to describe how we are surrounded by puppets of this very United States. Will they reach military bases in Poland, Germany, Japan? Or how?
      What I agree with is the uselessness of the PAK DA - the Tu-160 will be quite capable of performing all tasks.
      1. +3
        6 October 2023 07: 30
        Quote: Dart2027
        What I agree with is the uselessness of the PAK DA - the Tu-160 will be quite capable of performing all tasks.

        The Tu-160 is a very expensive and redundant aircraft. You can’t build a lot of them and maintenance is expensive. We need a subsonic carrier that is cheaper and simpler. Like the Tu-95 only with jet engines.
        1. -2
          6 October 2023 15: 59
          The solution to all problems is to equip them with short- and medium-range Air-to-Air missiles
          Tu-160M2, Tu-95MSM and promising PAK DA - at the exit Air Fortress
        2. +1
          6 October 2023 19: 06
          Quote: Stas157
          We need a subsonic carrier that is cheaper and simpler. Like the Tu-95 only with jet engines.

          Perhaps, but the SA itself is needed.
    2. +5
      6 October 2023 08: 44
      It happened that I read with pleasure Roman’s articles devoted to certain social phenomena or events. But when Roman takes on technical topics, and especially aviation, it’s...
      This has ceased to surprise me in the works of this author. The classic view of a political worker. By the way, political workers themselves are extremely needed, but only those who do not go beyond their competence to discuss social phenomena.
      1. +4
        6 October 2023 14: 28
        Quote: Aviator_
        This has ceased to surprise me in the works of this author. The classic view of a political worker.

        In the past, my relationship with political workers did not work out, and for some reason it didn’t work out with Roman either. I recently received three warnings for comments on his publications.

        Regarding the topic of this article, in order to make a competent publication on this topic, you must have a certain competence and special knowledge, or at least know the history of the use of this type of weapon.

        For example, have statistics on how many B-750V missiles the SA-75M air defense missile crews spent on shooting down one “strategist” B-52 Stratofortress, and why this happened. Or know why the RP-21 radar sight of the MiG-21PF front-line interceptor turned out to be completely inoperable, and the interceptor was guided by commands from ground-based radars, due to which the effectiveness of interceptions was low.

        In addition, I will not reveal a secret if I say that in the late 80s and early 90s, the Tu-95MS missile carrier was considered an “unbreakable” aircraft by the air defense forces. The large internal volumes of the bomber and the presence of powerful on-board power sources made it possible to equip it with very advanced electronic warfare equipment, which in many ways was an analogue of the American ALT-28ECM. Powerful broadband interference generated in various frequency ranges quite effectively suppressed interceptor radars, air defense systems and ground-based radars. Due to this, the Tu-95MS could with a high probability break through to the missile launch line. Of course, a lot has changed since Soviet times, but we can definitely say that the improvement of electronic warfare equipment has continued. And therefore it’s too early to bury even the old Tu-95MS and B-52N.
        1. +6
          6 October 2023 17: 39
          Quote: Bongo
          Or know why the RP-21 radar sight of the MiG-21PF front-line interceptor turned out to be completely inoperable, and the interceptor was guided by commands from ground-based radars, due to which the effectiveness of interceptions was low.

          Well, controlling air defense intelligence from ground points is the corporate style of the USSR air defense. In general, our interceptors were getting closer and closer to the flying remote-controlled airborne attack launcher. smile

          The problem was that even a competently deployed 21st to shoot down a target was forced to go at it without working on radiation. Back in Soviet times, I read a biographical story about the first Vietnamese cosmonaut Pham Tuan - it was directly written there that when the MiG-21 locator was turned on, the “half-second” immediately determined that they were working on it and filled everything around with interference, which disrupted not only the capture, but the opportunity detecting anything in this "blizzard". Therefore, Pham Tuan had to literally crawl to the target within the launch range of the air-launched missile with an IR seeker, using only his eyes.
          1. +3
            7 October 2023 05: 07
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Well, controlling air defense intelligence from ground points is the corporate style of the USSR air defense.

            Certainly. Yes Automated systems were used for this only in normal mode. Only in this case, as you rightly noted below, the fighter’s own radar equipment turned out to be completely incapacitated.
            To be fair, it should be said that the specialized USSR air defense interceptors had more advanced radars, but in any case, the B-52 was never an easy target.
          2. +1
            7 October 2023 12: 26
            Therefore, Pham Tuan had to literally crawl to the target within the launch range of the air-launched missile with an IR seeker, using only his eyes.
            Absolutely right, he destroyed a B-52 from a distance of 2,5 km, even a cannon could have been added, but the missiles were enough.
  6. +4
    6 October 2023 04: 50
    Early on, Roman writes off strategists... if you think carefully, you can find a use for them... well, at least as AWACS aircraft after appropriate modification and modernization.
    Now Sevastopol is again being attacked by naval drones of unknown origin...
    I am sure from the guidance of NATO AWACS aircraft that our aerospace forces cannot do anything about it yet.
    Here is an example of how to conduct a modern war...after all, all these things are predictable.
    We are marking time... marking time... the enemy has the initiative on the battlefield... unfortunately not our armed forces.
    1. +1
      6 October 2023 05: 05
      For DLRO you need a good radar. But he simply doesn’t exist. And you can put anything as a carrier. At least Tu214, at least MS21
      1. +2
        6 October 2023 09: 13
        The Jews even managed to fit AWACS into the Gulfstream, a small business class aircraft. So if there was a radar, the carrier would be found.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EL/W-2085
        1. -4
          6 October 2023 09: 51
          "So if there was a radar, the carrier would be found"
          Boeing? or Airbus? or Baikal, it will be cheaper if they do it
    2. -3
      6 October 2023 16: 01
      in 2022 they said that the new Tu-160M2 will receive air defense missiles and RVV-SD and RVV-MD missiles - all-round defense
  7. +14
    6 October 2023 04: 50
    Unfortunately, the author expresses his thoughts without understanding the tactics of using strategic aviation. After all, strategic aviation is a means of delivering 2nd, 3rd strikes or strikes 5-7 days after the massive use of nuclear weapons.
    You can read an interesting old article and especially the comments at the link:
    https://topwar.ru/116313-bystryy-globalnyy-udar-chast-2.html
    1. -3
      6 October 2023 05: 08
      This was the concept of using strategists in the 70s - 80s. Over 40 years, I think it has changed. For example, B1b and B2 are used exclusively with conventional bombs, and the KR carries only B52
      1. +2
        6 October 2023 14: 33
        Quote: AC130 Ganship
        For example, B1b and B2 are used exclusively with conventional bombs

        With all due respect, the B-2A Spirit is a carrier of thermonuclear bombs.
    2. 0
      6 October 2023 05: 39
      5-7 days? Doubtful. 3, maximum 4 days.
      Read S. Tarmeshev, “Ancient”, book 1 “Catastrophe”. The first three chapters. Everything is beautifully painted there. And, unfortunately, realistic.
      If you like it, the series “To Each His Own” by the same author will consolidate the resulting picture...
    3. -1
      6 October 2023 06: 36
      What a 5-7 day, they will be crushed into powder in the first minutes, we even have fighters standing in the open air, and for strategists there are no shelters at all, or do you think they will have time to take off in half an hour while missiles are flying at us, I doubt it
      1. +4
        6 October 2023 07: 21
        Don't doubt it.
        Back in the 70s, American B-52s constantly practiced avoiding attack. At the same time, the refueled aircraft stood with the turbines rotated by the starter and took off from one runway at intervals of 15 seconds.
        The only way to catch them over the ocean was to cover their refueling point.
        1. 0
          6 October 2023 20: 15
          American B-52s constantly practiced avoiding attack.

          So it is with the Yankees. Do we have something similar?
    4. +1
      6 October 2023 20: 21
      As another Soviet tale says, when at a military school a cadet (training to become a strategist) was inspecting: What will you do if suddenly a war starts right now, he replied that he would go to sleep. This greatly surprised the inspector, and when asked why, he received the answer: according to the regulations, before taking off, the pilot must sleep at least 8 hours, but I did not sleep.
  8. +7
    6 October 2023 05: 00
    Proven by “Admiral Kuznetsov” and “Charles de Gaulle”.
    belay Are we modestly silent about “princes and queens? Visa?... request
  9. +3
    6 October 2023 05: 08
    You can get by, but as for vulnerability... First, ICBMs will fly to the target, they will hit targets of the first and second categories, and the bombers will finish them off.
  10. 0
    6 October 2023 05: 10
    Quote: AsmyppoL
    Strategic aviation is a means of delivering 2nd, 3rd strikes or strikes 5-7 days after the massive use of nuclear weapons.

    I doubt that after the first strike they will be able to take off from bombed airfields.
    If even cheap UAVs cause damage to them...what can we say about their protection. request
    1. +1
      6 October 2023 07: 34
      Well, in theory, they should take off. A small part is already on patrol in flight. The unit at the airfield is preparing to take off. This is if they attack unexpectedly, and if a blow is expected, then half in the air. Although I agree that some of the planes will be destroyed.
    2. +4
      6 October 2023 09: 25
      If even cheap UAVs cause damage to them
      - in the event of the outbreak of a global conflict, satellite constellations are the number one target, where and how will you send UAVs without seeing anything?
  11. +8
    6 October 2023 05: 14
    It is not very clear why the strategists are “outdated and useless” if the United States and China are making new projects. Yes, they don’t force deadlines, for the PRC this is a new complex project, the United States is in no hurry, but they are doing them.
    The Russian Federation is in a completely different position, but the fact that for us they are not of great importance in terms of nuclear deterrence does not mean that they are useless for everyone else.
    Yes, the Russian strategist will not be able to handle the new project, and it is not needed, but the old guys can still be useful to us.
    The author’s stupid “flotophilia” is also not very clear. Submarine missile carriers (mostly stationed at their bases) are little better than strategists in terms of their importance for nuclear deterrence. In the same way, they are covered in the bases as a result of BGU.
    The basis of nuclear deterrence is the Strategic Missile Forces. We need as many ground-based nuclear weapons carrier missiles as possible, with a wide range of ranges, both mobile and silo-based.
    1. +5
      6 October 2023 07: 11
      Quote: Belisarius
      We need as many ground-based nuclear weapons carrier missiles as possible

      They all have one drawback, their location is known to everyone. Unlike nuclear submarines and strategic bombers, which constantly change their location
      1. +4
        6 October 2023 14: 16
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        They all have one drawback, their location is known to everyone. Unlike nuclear submarines and strategic bombers, which constantly change their location

        In reality, everything is exactly the opposite. In the Russian Federation, the overwhelming majority of submarines and strategists are stationed at two bases and two airfields, one of which was successfully covered even, God forgive me, by Ukraine.
        The combat stability of even silos is orders of magnitude higher. Not to mention mobile complexes, not to mention the fact that if you do not sign crazy agreements with “dear Western partners”, it is quite possible in modern conditions to ensure the secrecy of ground-based complexes (for example, the DPRK and the PRC place them in underground shelters).
  12. -1
    6 October 2023 05: 17
    We need unmanned bombers with nuclear weapons so that in the event of a nuclear war they will take off faster than conventional ones. The human factor was excluded. People may be nervous or refuse to follow orders, but the machine will not. True, with the development of artificial intelligence, it will be scary to have such things in service.
  13. +3
    6 October 2023 05: 21
    The author voiced ideas that became relevant 30 years ago. Namely: why the hell do we need this?
    And it is impossible not to agree with him.
    Another thing is that if something happens (God forbid, of course), such strategists will find a use for themselves in isolated cases, because old weapons are always usable and even a stick fires once a year.
    But they will not play any decisive role.
    What is the role of "strategists" today?
    That's right, they are a means of nuclear deterrence.
    What if we or the Americans suddenly cut these aircraft into scrap metal unilaterally, and then the other side will imagine that it has strategic superiority. And from this idea he will build his military-strategic policy. Of course, aggressive.
    This suggests a rather simple conclusion that strategic nuclear aviation in the current period of the Cenozoic era is a peacetime weapon, allowing countries to conduct their foreign policy more boldly and effectively.
    And in this vein, world leading countries still need it (aviation).
    1. +1
      7 October 2023 09: 17
      Criticism of the author’s position usually puts forward arguments in favor of bomber aircraft in general, but please note that this article deals with such machines as strategic bomber. That is, we are talking about those machines that were created specifically for use in a global war. The task of these aircraft was to break through to the attack line - about several thousand km to the target - and launch cruise missiles. Is there such a conflict in which there will be by appointment used strategic bombers chances to remain non-nuclear? Exactly for its intended purpose, because any bomber can drop bombs on terrorists in Syria. And in a global nuclear conflict, is there a chance for the airfield infrastructure necessary for the strategists to take off to survive? More likely no than yes. Therefore, this type of aircraft can be used to deliver a first strike, that is, to break through incompletely destroyed enemy air defenses and aircraft. This is precisely what the author says about the fact that there are not many opportunities at all for the effective use of the strategists we have in such conditions.
      In the event of a global war, it would be more effective to use a bomber to reach the borders of potential enemy countries in Europe or Asia and launch cruise missiles from as close a distance as possible. And for such use, a bomber does not necessarily have to be designed for a global war.
      This does not mean that strategic bombers are not needed as a class, it means that the concept of their use needs to be reconsidered, making it more universal, i.e. an aircraft with a large payload, designed for various applications: conventional war, global war, bomber, carrier of a large number of air-to-air missiles, etc.. In my opinion, today it is the PAK DA that meets these requirements, and should be directed towards it fixed assets, rather than on the outdated and obsolete machines of yesterday.
  14. +11
    6 October 2023 05: 24
    We type in the search engine “The United States is developing a strategic bomber” and see that the Pentagon does not read Skomorokhov’s articles.
    « WASHINGTON, March 13. /TASS/. Six new B-21 strategic bombers are currently in production in the United States. This was announced on Monday by the acting Under Secretary of the Air Force Christine Jones, speaking at a briefing at the Pentagon on the department's budget for fiscal year 2024 (beginning October 1, 2023)."
    https://tass-ru.turbopages.org/turbo/tass.ru/s/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/17254371
    " Moscow. July 27. INTERFAX.RU - The US Air Force Global Strike Command expects to receive the first sixth-generation strategic stealth bomber, the B-21 Raider, which is capable of carrying both conventional and nuclear weapons, into service as early as 2025, reports Air And Space Forces Magazine.”
    https://interfax-ru.turbopages.org/turbo/interfax.ru/s/world/913697
    1. -3
      6 October 2023 08: 00
      Quote: Coward
      We type in the search engine “The United States is developing a strategic bomber” and see

      We type “Tu-160” in the search engine and see:
      Tu-160 (factory designation: “product 70”, developer designation - “K”, in NATO classification - “Blackjack”) - Soviet and Russian intercontinental supersonic strategic bomber-missile carrier with a variable sweep wing (multi-mode), developed at the Tupolev Design Bureau in 1970s.
      We type in the search engine “Russia is developing a strategic bomber” and see a message dated March 8, 2020:
      Stern: Tupolev bomber will be Russia's answer to the B-21 Raider

      AND WHAT??? Have you collected the wreckage of the Il-114 in 1993 and the Il-112V in 2021?
      There is nothing new, but the old corresponds with reservations...
  15. +4
    6 October 2023 05: 29
    ...all these “Fortresses” and “Liberators” calmly destroyed entire cities in Germany and Japan, even with ordinary weapons...

    Calmly? In percentage terms, bombers had the highest mortality rate. Those. the likelihood of survival in any other branch of the military or other aviation was higher. They took stupid quantities.
    By the way, a series about WWII US bomber pilots is due to be released soon. From the creators of Band of Brothers and The Pacific.
    1. +2
      6 October 2023 13: 11
      The flying fortresses were no longer too confused; they actually dropped the atomic bomb after they bombed a couple of Japanese cities without losses on their part. But this, of course, was at the end of the war, when there was almost nothing to counter such raids
      1. 0
        6 October 2023 20: 19
        But this, of course, was at the end of the war, when there was almost nothing to counter such raids

        That's it. The Japanese had almost no fighters or jet fuel.
        1. 0
          7 October 2023 00: 50
          Yes, even when something was still flying, they couldn’t catch up, and the fortresses were also being shot back, and there were more of them, and they were also getting lost poorly. Therefore, the order was for the Japanese to immediately ram, to at least do some good.
  16. +2
    6 October 2023 05: 30
    The number of bomber crew members is 3-9 people. There are roughly 100 submariners. 10 aircraft minimum, this is the load, and most importantly the budget, maintenance, expenses of enemy personnel. And, yes, the more fingers, the more reasoned the fist, the more options to hit painfully even in response, so the adversaries have to think more than once. And other strategists have a better chance of having this opportunity. Again, it’s easy to lose competencies; let the well-functioning mechanism work and not carry charters to Turkey.
  17. +11
    6 October 2023 05: 32
    As a simple drop of blunt-flying aerial bombs on the heads of the enemy, strategic bombers, of course, have already outlived their usefulness. Well, unless you assume that someone in the General Staff suddenly gets the idea to bomb the Papuans. But a missile carrier, which has nuclear weapons on board, undoubtedly has advantages - it can hang in the air for hours, changing its location and causing headaches for enemy General Staffs. So they have to live and live...

    P.S. Well, in modern conditions, when UAVs are developing at a crazy speed, a strategist can play the role of an aircraft for drones, scattering them in the air in whole flocks...
    1. +7
      6 October 2023 06: 28
      The article is provocative in nature. Those. The expectation is that someone will post information containing state and military secrets in the comments; out of naivety, whether this happened or not is difficult to say. VO is guilty of this. But I don't believe in naivety. This is the first one. The second strategist is flying, i.e. highly mobile platform for weapons and various equipment. Do they have characteristics that are redundant today if we don’t break through air defenses? Do they have them? Is it necessary to save money on this? I think not, as life shows, the reserve does not last in the pocket. The resumption of Tu-160 production has two goals, perhaps not stated. The first is to restore competence (as it is fashionable to say) in the production of such complex aircraft, and this is not the Tu-214 and all sorts of superjets. The second thing is not to lose the skills to operate such aircraft. As the frightened patriots sang, life does not end tomorrow. And what only three countries are doing and designing new strategists is that they need to be able to do it. Is it possible to supplement the fleet of strategists with “cheap” flying platforms based on passenger aircraft that “spin” over their territory?
      1. +4
        6 October 2023 07: 06
        Quote: DWG1905
        restore competence and not lose skills in operating such aircraft

        I completely agree, but I would also add that the production of such machines is the peak of technology and by supporting their production, we support technologies that may be useful to us in other areas
  18. +5
    6 October 2023 06: 00
    The author forgets that the earth is round and from Chukotka you can reach any point on the west coast with a reserve.
  19. +6
    6 October 2023 06: 05
    Mr. Skomorokhov decided to compete with Nikita “Jopogolovy” Khrushchev? He also considered the planes to be morally obsolete and inflicted a defeat on Soviet aviation commensurate with the damage caused by Mishka the “tagged” Gorbachev and Boris the “drunk” Yeltsin. The only good thing is that the author does not lead the country.
    1. -4
      6 October 2023 07: 43
      Quote: Amateur
      He also considered the planes morally obsolete and inflicted defeat on Soviet aviation

      So expand your comment, link the words into sentences and explain why this is not so...
      Otherwise, it’s a squeal - don’t carry bags...
      * * *
      By the way, Roman is not talking about all aircraft in general, not even about the updated An-2 and not about the SSJ and MC, but about the concept of the development of strategic aviation, the existing fleet of which will soon turn a hundred years old and which is parked in open parking lots awaiting Ukrainian drones and missiles...
      1. +2
        6 October 2023 13: 19
        and about the concept of development of strategic aviation,

        It was the concept of using strategic, front-line and attack aviation that Nikita Sergeevich thought about when he made the decision to eliminate them.
        ps Perhaps you haven’t found the time to familiarize yourself with the activities of the 1st Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee with the party nickname “zh0p0g0l0vyy”.
        About her on the Internet a long time ago they “linked words into sentences and explained why this is not so...”
        1. +4
          6 October 2023 17: 50
          Quote: Amateur
          It was the concept of using strategic, front-line and attack aviation that Nikita Sergeevich thought about when he made the decision to eliminate them.

          Well, we revived attack aircraft in the 80s. What's the point?
          It could only be used against gangs of third world countries. And that was until the moment when some kind soul gave the bandits MANPADS. After which the attack aircraft began to copy the tactics of the IBA, turning into a poor fighter-bomber.
          In the big war for which the Soviet Armed Forces were built, the attack aircraft was useless - its destiny would be to either throw the NARs from the pitching position, or switch to URO (but then why would it need armor).
    2. +3
      6 October 2023 17: 46
      Quote: Amateur
      Mr. Skomorokhov decided to compete with Nikita “Jopogolovy” Khrushchev? He also considered the planes to be morally obsolete and inflicted a defeat on Soviet aviation commensurate with the damage caused by Mishka the “tagged” Gorbachev and Boris the “drunk” Yeltsin.

      Comrade Amateur simplifies it. smile
      Kukuruznik asked the Air Force the same question as the Navy - why do we need strategic and front-line bombers with cast iron in the late 50s? Taking into account the enemy’s massive deployment of the same Nike series air defense systems and the transition of its IA to URVV.

      After that, only those machines that did not fit into the concept of the “aircraft-rocket” complex went under the knife. The IL-28 could not reach the URO. But the Tu-16 and Tu-95 did, and their production continued.
  20. +3
    6 October 2023 06: 17
    It’s always the same thing... nearby military “experts” begin to perform a requiem on one military topic, strategy, technology, then on another.
    And how it happens... yes, in different ways!
    Sometimes they really get it right, sometimes they don't.
    Current and subsequent events show that they are also different... for some things, time has indeed passed, while others work quite effectively after changing the tactics of application, modernization, and improvement.
  21. 0
    6 October 2023 06: 17
    It’s too early to bury the “old” weapons, which turned out to be a lifeline in the Northern Military District. The use of a nuclear arsenal at the current time is problematic due to the imminent apocalypse, so the use of old weapons with modernization will still be relevant for 40-70 years.
    Almost a century has passed since WWII, and the weapons of those times are still in demand now, and with a famine of shells, who would have thought that without artillery a war could not be won in our time? Also with aviation, without air superiority, victory over the Anglo-Saxons is impossible. “Strategists” are needed and simply absolutely necessary - this is strength!
    Striking the United States, of course, sounds loud, but given the necessary properties, it will be able to accomplish anything. For example, he can deliver a glide flotilla of UAVs to the theater of operations, consisting of reconnaissance aircraft, gunners, attack drones and the rest.
    Imagine, a gliding swarm of Lancet-Xs and others dropped from a TU-160 unfolds in the air, flies to the enemy’s location and independently carries out combat missions!
    If we destroy weapons, then let England and the USA start first, and we then. These tales of disarmament for Gorbachev's traitors. If he had not withdrawn troops from the GDR, there would have been no wars and the USSR would have stood still.
    1. -3
      6 October 2023 07: 35
      Quote from: bobnew2017
      It’s too early to bury the “old” weapons, which turned out to be a lifeline in the Northern Military District...

      stop ...only due to the lack in Ukraine of an extensive air defense system and long-range missiles capable of reaching “strategists” at airfields...
      I’ll tell you more, in the event of an air thermonuclear explosion, when the entire semiconductor element base fails, and there is “snow” on the screens of air defense systems, tube electronic devices and even turboprop aircraft will come in handy...
      * * *
      And what about underwater drones that can approach the shores (port facilities) of the same GB unnoticed?
    2. +2
      6 October 2023 08: 22
      Quote from: bobnew2017
      who would have thought that without artillery a war could not be won in our time?

      those who rightly think that with the dominance of the Air Force in the sky, art does not lose importance, but fades into the background... and why the Russian Air Force does not dominate in the Northern Military District, unlike operations in Yugoslavia and Iraq, is a very multifaceted question..
      and as for strategists, for today it is a weapon of the first strike... because if we don’t strike first, they won’t have time to take off, missile weapons have gone too far in half a century, including in range - and from the ground or nuclear submarines, you can “reach” very far today with tens and hundreds of missiles... but what’s better to have rather than not to have YES the Air Force is a fact, but to do stealth, etc. there is no point - just a flying platform, even based on the IL-76, just for launch, roughly speaking, the Tu-95 is completely enough..
  22. 0
    6 October 2023 06: 22
    The role of a strategic bomber in a global nuclear war is to clean up after the first and possibly the second wave of an RSN strike. In modern conditions (taking into account the START reductions), only B-2/21 and PAK-DA, conventionally Tu-160M, are suitable for this role, all the old guys are just flying arsenals flying in from the least covered direction with an unknown result. Su-34, MiG-31K, Tu-22M3, S-70 may well be able to clear Alaska to organize a corridor for strategists, but they are few in number and Europe will also need them.
  23. +2
    6 October 2023 07: 19
    . But it's easier for Americans. With their number of allies in the world, they will be able to calmly approach our borders and attack from there

    What? Yes, half the site was throwing their caps up over the fact that our geostrategist completely neutralized the approach of NATO with the presence of hypersonic weapons! It turns out, no, or what?? Just recently they were excitedly telling people that, they say, now distance doesn’t matter at all!
  24. +3
    6 October 2023 07: 25
    First of all, in the first lines of my letter I say hello to Aunt Agafya...
    Bah! The familiar hand of a famous author!
    Novel! And I, perhaps, will share your concern and here's why...
    Lately, we have become increasingly convinced that creating something new is very difficult when your imagination doesn’t work. Remember how many science fiction writers there were during the existence of the USSR... Moreover, some of their once fantastic ideas have now been brought to life. What kind of fantasy can there be if existing existence has no future?
    * * *
    We are persistently presented, as a kind of panacea, with modified and modernized examples of technology from the last century, convincing us that with such weapons we are invincible... But this is only happening because our state is not ready to defend itself and us in a fundamental way... It does not work. ..Does not exceed...
    Hypersonic weapons, laser weapons, some kind based on “new physical principles” have entered the arena, and we repeat, like a mantra, we voice two conditions for the use of nuclear weapons, both of which actually exclude their use while maintaining the security of the country...
    * * *
    This inert thinking has led us to a hypertrophied increase in all infrastructures in the European part of the country and their sad neglect beyond the Ural Mountains.
    And now you are arguing against further spending money on long-range aviation...And our bourgeoisie do not intend to spend money on defense at all. It would be much more profitable to put them in Western banks and increase their size in the most usual way (by the way, during Putin’s reign - since 2000 - it was possible to get an income of more than 50% and this is confirmed by refinancing rates).
    Speaking about the future of strategic bombers, it’s probably not worth conclusively condemning them to death and oblivion. They will definitely delight us with their power for 10-20 years. And perhaps they will even take part in some conflicts.

    How happy are we today with the power and capabilities of tactical nuclear weapons coupled with hypersound?
  25. +3
    6 October 2023 07: 46
    I sincerely envy Roman. Specialist and expert in all matters. One in all faces, in the air, on earth and in water. He condemned and judged everyone. Dear Roman, maybe to the State Duma deputies, all of them are specialists there too.
    1. -1
      6 October 2023 09: 21
      expert in all matters
      - that’s his job bully , it’s better to envy Putin, who’s the expert on all issues bully
  26. +1
    6 October 2023 07: 50
    Congratulations, Roman!
    How can one not remember “Bumbarash” with its: “Yashka made a revolution - he threw a bomb!”
    Everything is immediately wrong, especially about the first supposed B-29 strategist. In World War II, strategic aviation was not at all defined as having a transoceanic range (otherwise, why is this island of Tinian needed?). Strategic aviation was defined as a separate type of troops capable of inflicting fatal defeats on ANY strategically important targets deep in enemy territory. So nuclear bombing or massive bombing of civilian targets is one of the types of use of strategic bombers. And yes, they could not be controlled directly by the front command, as front-line aviation could.
    The USSR made it transoceanic, since even then they understood where the main enemy was located. Well, for “further” they went “faster, higher, lower, secretive, etc.”, replaced the “club” (bomb) with a “spear and arrow” (missile), but the result was the same: fly to the launch line and pour out a swarm of arrows at enemy targets. By the way, based on the experience of the Vietnam War, the clearing of air defenses for the second wave was also practiced at targets.
    But the main thing is that strategic aviation is the only type of weapon that can be retargeted during a mission.
    And yet, the conclusion that strategic aviation in its current form is outdated is absolutely fair. It is obvious that existing strategic bombers are of interest only as the basic aircraft of the fleet. The same “aircraft carrier killers,” much more quickly than surface ships, can carry out an almost irresistible strike with dozens of hypersonic missiles on surface ships, sweep away carrier-based aircraft with hundreds of air-to-air missiles with external target designation, and remotely bombard the SSBN search area with illumination buoys and anti-submarine missiles.
    So it’s high time, in the interests of our only ocean-going fleet, to begin deploying strategic bombers in the Far East.
    There, in fact, the main battles of the coming war will take place.
  27. -3
    6 October 2023 07: 51
    Both daggers and strategists are effective only as carriers of nuclear weapons. Using them as a means of striking adjacent territory is driving nails with a microscope. It shows that we have a catastrophic failure in conventional weapons, communications and corrections, as well as the wrong method of using conventional weapons. But this does not mean that strategists are not needed. They are like the navy, “supposed to be.”
    .
    Prospects for the development of strategic aviation after the removal of the START chain of arms: carriers should become small, unmanned and numerous. Instead of a two-hundred-ton strategist, there are one hundred ten-ton (or 20-ton) drones with a single bomb or missile on each. Perhaps taking off in tandem with a tanker or even two.
    1. -2
      6 October 2023 08: 04
      one hundred ten-ton (or 20-ton)

      Alas, it won't work. To operate quickly, you need 40 - 45 tons of fuel for a flight without refueling. Well, you also need a glider of 25 - 30 tons + combat load. And drones already exist - the Kyrgyz Republic, incl. air-based strategic.
      1. -3
        6 October 2023 15: 50
        How are you going to fill a drone carrying one 800 kg warhead on a 3-ton aeroballistic missile and weighing 20 tons with 40-45 tons of fuel?
        .
        They take off in pairs or threes: a strategist with triangular wings and two tankers with high aspect ratio wings. They are moving at subsonic levels, the strategist, who took off with almost dry tanks, refuels from the first tanker. On the way to the enemy air defense zone from the second...
        .
        There is no need to invent problems where there are none.
        1. +1
          6 October 2023 16: 48
          You have problems, Pavel.
          If you try to lift this entire vinaigrette of warheads from a 3-ton rocket on a swept delta wing, then the glider alone will need 20 tons. And don’t be afraid to give up 5 tons of fuel for take-off. And in flight, a supersonic one eats like crazy. Why TWO tankers - so that there are more targets? This is how we caught strategists at refueling stations! And an aeroballistic missile, if not a hypersonic one, is a tasty high-altitude target.
          Of all the things you have proposed, the only interesting option is takeoff with subsequent refueling for the TU-22M-next. But there we are talking about 100 tons of fuel for the entire task, and it is advisable to increase the load to at least six missiles.
  28. KCA
    0
    6 October 2023 07: 56
    Does China have strategists? Why did the TU-16 modification from long-range rangers become strategists?
  29. +9
    6 October 2023 08: 13
    I always suspected that the author was bad at geography. What is Spitsbergen like? Why put a map in the Mercator projection? Look at a map in polar projection or a globe and you will understand that this Spitsbergen is not in the way of the strategists.
    1. +5
      6 October 2023 09: 29
      Quote: old_pferd
      I always suspected that the author was bad at geography. What is Spitsbergen like? Why put a map in the Mercator projection? Look at a map in polar projection or a globe and you will understand that this Spitsbergen is not in the way of the strategists.

      “Do not shoot the pianist - he plays as he can”
      PS The author is inclined to deliberately ignore technical issues that go against his writing.
  30. Eug
    +4
    6 October 2023 08: 16
    Firstly, the “strategist” is a much more mobile means of delivering “gifts” to the launch point than the other components of the “triad”. Secondly, if we consider “strategists” not in isolation from other means, then it is the complex application, especially taking into account the cost and non-nuclear implementation, that can give a very good result. Something similar (in a non-strategic version) was demonstrated by the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Sevastopol - they punched a hole in the air defense and - “functional defeat of the Black Sea Fleet” (as for me, the defeat of the Black Sea Fleet was caused much more by politics than by the Armed Forces of Ukraine). What’s stopping you from making a hole in the strategic air defense with aeroballistic missiles like the X-15 (or SLBMs will help your “colleagues”) and “pour” through this hole handfuls of subsonic missiles, which in WWII and in small groups are not so easy to neutralize, especially if the “gift carpet” "will it spread from the near runways to the far ones? How long will it take to concentrate the air force towards the “hole” and what can be done during this time? I’m putting satellites out of brackets, I really hope that those who need it are now working very hard on this (still theoretically) ... and development is needed - as for me, 3 in 1 - an anti-ship, a long-range interceptor and a long-range missile carrier ("breakthrough", oh "filler" later) - everything corresponds approximately in weight to the Tu-22M (3-4), but at the modern technical level, of course.
  31. +2
    6 October 2023 08: 19
    Quote: mark1
    Only B-2/21 and PAK-DA are suitable for this role,

    Pak-huh?? Did we miss something? Or is this news from an alternate reality? Let them build at least 21 MS20s, then we’ll dream about “pak yes”!
    1. 0
      6 October 2023 08: 45
      Quote: Vladimir80
      Pak-huh?? Did we miss something?

      You haven't missed anything, it just fits, that's all)))
      1. -2
        6 October 2023 11: 17
        it just fits, that's all)))

        What fits where? How can something that does not exist fit?
        1. 0
          6 October 2023 13: 15
          There is a concept and the presence of R&D; they are suitable for discussing the prospects of strategic aviation; for this, kneading, shuffling and trying to taste is absolutely useless.
          1. -1
            6 October 2023 14: 12
            There is a concept and the presence of R&D; they are suitable for discussing the prospects of strategic aviation; for this purpose, kneading, shuffling and trying to taste it is absolutely useless

            those. another empty chatter???
  32. -3
    6 October 2023 08: 24
    Quote from: bobnew2017
    It’s too early to bury “old” weapons

    What should we do with it? In your opinion, why amers and other NATO members easily part with him??? Because one strange war showed the real level of “unparalleled” weapons.
    1. +3
      6 October 2023 09: 10
      Have the Americans abandoned the B-52? Stunning news!!!
      1. +1
        6 October 2023 17: 54
        Quote: Grencer81
        Have the Americans abandoned the B-52?

        Yeah. They've already refused four times! And they returned everything back four times. smile
        And it looks like the eighty-year-old B-52s will still fly in the funeral cortege at the funeral of two of their gravediggers.
  33. +2
    6 October 2023 08: 27
    “Today, the Ukrainians and their assistants are doing a good job of this; at least half an hour later after the Tu-95 takes off in Engels, half of Ukraine is already on the edge of their seats, waiting for the arrivals.”
    As far as I know, they are talking about satellites capable of monitoring the air situation above the earth using radar today in the future tense feel There are no such systems in Kosios yet! No. therefore, the take-off of the Tu95 is reported by satellites, which simply monitor the airfield itself, stupidly counting how many planes there are on it, there are fewer, which means the Tu95 has taken off am but where he flew and why and where he is, the enemy has no idea through satellites, trying to find him with the help of ground and airborne radars! Moreover, the strategist can only be tracked by an over-the-horizon radar, because from a launch range of thousands of kilometers it doesn’t need to get close, and an over-the-horizon radar is a healthy, almost stationary thing, a good target for milking missiles and UAVs, and there are not many of them! If they succeed in disabling them, then the strategists will launch missiles out of “nowhere” and the enemy will only have to deal with massive missile raids, and how the NATO air defense system does this is well demonstrated by the Ukrainian air defense laughing KR targets are regularly destroyed am
  34. +1
    6 October 2023 08: 35
    The Americans do not abandon their strategists. And it seems like they are going to make a hypersonic strategist. Why is there such a rush to become weaker? There is no worthy replacement yet - one component for another. Yes, there are not so many of them, but - if you carry out combined strikes - launch from land, sea and air. There is a chance to overload the enemy's air defense capabilities "at the right time and in the right place." Let's say some tasks are now difficult to accomplish. And others are fine. If it's all about distance and reach. Then if you get rid of the planes, it will become impossible/significantly difficult to complete any tasks.
  35. +4
    6 October 2023 08: 36
    The author keeps talking about surprise... Surprise, real surprise, was perhaps only in the times of the Neanderthals... from the bushes with a club... Nowadays, I think it’s not worth talking about surprise, and it’s not that important. This is a random factor. As for the vulnerability of strategic aircraft, all modern air defense systems do not operate beyond 500 km. In the presence of longer-range cruise and ballistic missiles, massive use, skillful use of decoys and passive and active jamming, the use of strategic aviation is JUSTIFIED.
  36. +5
    6 October 2023 08: 47
    Dear author, where did you get this from or where did you bring this nonsense to light: “Modern air defense systems can easily cope with subsonic cruise missiles, and some can handle supersonic ones. But hypersonic ones, alas, do not have the proper flight range to be able to to be used from strategic bombers"? Since the adoption of cruise missiles (CM) into service, the breakdown of the missile consumption structure when striking ground targets has NOT CHANGED: 20..25% fall due to a malfunction (the reasons may be different), 40...45% are shot down by air defense systems covering the object and 30..40% reach the target. In the conventionally equipped version, the KR is, at best, a FAB-500 with wings and an engine. But in the case of equipping with nuclear weapons, everything is much more complicated... .
  37. +2
    6 October 2023 09: 07
    My great-uncle flew strategists back in the 60s. As a teenager, I asked him whether a combat mission on a modern bomber was a one-way ticket with modern air defense systems. To which he simply answered me that if this were so, then we simply would not have strategic aviation as such. Since it exists, it means there is a use for it.
  38. +6
    6 October 2023 09: 08
    author! The B-29 did not engage in strategic bombing in Europe, that was done there by the B-17, B-24 on the American side, "Lancasters", "Halifaxes", "Whitleys", "Wellingtons" on the British side. And no FW-190 for The B-29 was not raced due to the fact that the B-29 was not used in Europe. This means that the types of Anglo-American bombers I listed above should be considered strategic...
  39. +2
    6 October 2023 09: 08
    Another one of those who yells: "...boss, it's all gone..."!!!
  40. +2
    6 October 2023 09: 09
    But 17 flying Tu-160s against 80 American B-1s and B-2s...

    And what is the conclusion from this? Write off your Tu-shki?
    The fact that we need to build a hundred more Tu-160Ms.

    There is something I disagree with the author. So, after all, nuclear submarines are all tracked, and they can’t hide anywhere from satellites.
    We can agree that we don’t need a triad, ground-based systems are enough. They are always under the cover of air defense, and are many times cheaper than air and sea carriers. Is not it?

    And why does the author send strategists into the first wave of attacks? When the enemy has all the air defense, all the radars, all the interceptors, all the satellites? May be a little later?
    Let Poplar clear the road first, then do additional reconnaissance, and then you can give orders to strategists to work in a targeted manner through the already leaky air defense.
    1. +2
      6 October 2023 10: 58
      Quote: kit88
      And why does the author send strategists into the first wave of attacks? When the enemy has all the air defense, all the radars, all the interceptors, all the satellites? May be a little later?

      He is an artist - that’s how he sees it.
  41. +12
    6 October 2023 09: 13
    And this is where you, dear author, got it from: “And, by and large, a bomber is a very vulnerable thing. Yes, it has electronic warfare systems, it has an on-board defense system, but... But a fighter squadron will make a chop out of any strategist, that from ours, from the American one. No chance." Do you seriously think that in the military research institutes and the general staff there are only idiots sitting and picking their noses, thinking about what kind of nonsense they will come up with again... For your information: when writing the technical specifications for the Tu-160, a huge amount of research work was done in specialized institutes and at GosNIIAS to assess the feasibility of adopting a new strategic bomber. Everything was taken into account: the prospects for the development of enemy air defense, fighter aircraft, air defense tactics and methods of airspace control. Detecting a strategic bomber flying towards the payload launch line is another problem: you can’t see them from space, air defense radars operate at 300...400 km, air defense fighters have a combat radius of about the same size and the time spent in the duty zone is Problems. And the missile launch range is from 300 to 2 km. Estimate the probability of a bomber reaching the missile launch line and you will see that it is somewhere around 000. And then in the 0,9s they well understood and knew that to destroy one aircraft carrier, at least two Tu-70M regiments were required, and at the same time only 22-22 carriers reached the X-2 launch line. When waging a full-scale war (and not the clownery that is happening on the territory of Ukraine), both strategic and front-line aviation are CONSUMABLE materials and when assessing the effectiveness of their use, in this case strategic aviation, the ratio (the cost of destroyed objects + the cost expression of the probable damage that the destroyed objects can cause) / (costs of destruction of objects). If this ratio is not less than one, then it makes sense. And if not, then the decision changes. And there is no other way... Further in the article, every paragraph is another gem. Understand, dear author: in order to write reasoned and serious articles on such topics, you must have: 1) appropriate education, 2) work in the field you are considering or, at least, have a thorough understanding of the topic in question. You have none of this. So we get an article like “a conversation in a smoking room.” Different people read you. And you are doing everything to look, to put it mildly, not serious. Then you get offended and threaten to smear someone...
  42. +2
    6 October 2023 09: 17
    You shouldn't be like Khrushchev. Strategists were created for nuclear strikes, thank God, military operations are now underway without nuclear weapons, but what if with them? We immediately minus satellites and stationary radars...., oops - and now it turns out that the strategists are not visible to everyone, and they can work on their own goals....
    1. +3
      6 October 2023 17: 56
      Quote: faiver
      You shouldn't be like Khrushchev. Strategists were created for nuclear strikes, thank God now military operations are being conducted without nuclear weapons, but what if with them?

      He-he-he... in fact, the current strategists are precisely the merit of Khrushchev, who forced the Design Bureau and the Air Force to abandon cast iron carriers and switch to the design and operation of ALCM carriers.
  43. -9
    6 October 2023 09: 18
    Malicious and anti-Russian article! A criminal case should be opened against the author for undermining the combat effectiveness of the Russian army.
  44. +6
    6 October 2023 09: 28
    I’m already tired of reading here: FSE helicopters, FSE tanks, light armored vehicles in general consumables, heavy ATGMs on the FSE self-propelled base, portable ATGMs nearby, FSE army aviation, FSE fleet, FSE strategic aviation, MLRS and artillery, except high-precision ones (shot and ran away ) fse, army air defense fse, rifle guns generally suck. In short, everything except drones. But they are also fse. Like they shoot down almost everyone. Vigorous weapons are also FSE, no one will ever use them, Patamushta eggs FSE. It's time to switch to spears and slings.))) And most importantly, we are not tortured by academies, but we know FSE. And we teach how to fight too. And where do they recruit such experts? Ahh, I remembered, this is the same Roman who turned out to call the Eastern Front “Russian”. It can be seen in spite of everything. Then oh.))))
    1. +4
      6 October 2023 11: 12
      One gets the impression that the author, with his shocking articles, is simply catching the hype, as young people say.
  45. +8
    6 October 2023 09: 45
    Well, first of all, you need to look not at the map, but at the globe. The author does not seem to know what an orthodrome is, and that the shortest route to the USA is not through Europe and Japan, but through the North Pole.
    ..But 17 flying Tu-160s against 80 American B-1s and B-2s...Well, still not B-1s, but B-1Bs. All B-1Bs are bombers, not missile carriers. And again, the staff doesn’t seem to be very good many of these aircraft are airworthy.
    1. +1
      6 October 2023 10: 56
      Quote: Eugene_4
      All B-1B bombers, not missile carriers

      You are a little mistaken, they have been missile carriers for a long time, although missile launchers cannot be called strategic, but if they reach the launch range, it will not seem like much. And we’ve already seen what our air defense is worth.
    2. -2
      6 October 2023 11: 03
      Well, first of all, you need to look not at the map, but at the globe. The author does not seem to know what an orthodrome is, and that the shortest route to the USA is not through Europe and Japan, but through the North Pole.


      I wonder, for example, what has Roman heard about an airfield like Nagurskoye? lol

      https://maps.aopa.ru/#lon/47.259084/lat/80.803569/z/11/ll/a/bl/gm/p/11525/mode/r
  46. +8
    6 October 2023 10: 17
    I read it and, to put it mildly, was... shocked. They just give up before the wave of amateurism and nonsense that the author has piled up in the article.
    Unless I repeat the conclusions of one of the commentators.

    Further in the article, every paragraph is another pearl. Understand, dear author: in order to write reasoned and serious articles on such topics, you must have: 1) appropriate education, 2) work in the field you are considering or, at least, have a thorough understanding of the topic in question. You have none of this. So we get an article like “a conversation in a smoking room.” Different people read you. And you are doing everything to look, to put it mildly, not serious. Then you get offended and threaten to smear someone...
    1. +1
      7 October 2023 15: 59
      A graphomaniac novel. They pay line by line. Therefore, he writes a lot, tediously and about nothing on any topic.
  47. +1
    6 October 2023 10: 50
    100% of strategists launch ammunition with conventional warheads. The country needs a mobile launcher for the Kyrgyz Republic and ballistic missile with a conventional warhead in conventional conflicts. Another thing is whether an Il96-level aircraft will be much inferior in quality as a bomber to the Tu160 and PAKDA (with equal levels of avionics and defense systems).?
  48. +6
    6 October 2023 10: 53
    Again... Friday started well))) In the morning... threw it on the fan - the day is free)))
  49. +6
    6 October 2023 11: 08
    The author has already written off attack helicopters, tanks, aircraft carriers, and strategists. What next, will the soldiers cut their swords open? Each product has its own niche of application where it will be effective. It may be small, but it is there. You just need to use the tools wisely.
  50. +5
    6 October 2023 11: 15
    The article is hype. The author has a hard time with logic and strategic thinking. Why use birds for targets that are difficult for them to achieve when there are other means of delivery? It is enough to simply lift them into the air and declare legitimate goals in neighboring NATO countries. And if you work on them, a corridor will be freed up for working on distant targets. So, writing off such equipment as scrap is essentially undermining the defense capability of our country.
  51. +3
    6 October 2023 11: 24
    As soon as I saw at the beginning of the article that N-6 is a strategist, I realized that I could continue reading this opus from the perspective of “all in one pile.” For the author to understand, no one except the United States and the Russian Federation can create strategic aviation because it is very difficult and expensive. Maybe Europe would have pooled together to create something like that, the Airbus turned out well, but they probably don’t need it - there is an American umbrella. China is trying, work is going on, but not yet. We are silent about the rest, there is not even any effort. Now about demand. At the moment before the start of a nuclear war, strategists take cruise missiles on board and go to deployment areas. Nobody knows where they will fly, what routes and where, most importantly, the fired cruise missiles will fly. This is both a factor of deterrence in the last resort and a factor of first strike and retaliation. This won't get old for a very long time!
  52. +2
    6 October 2023 12: 10
    The new level of bombers, or other platforms for various types of strike or defensive weapons, and in addition reconnaissance and target designation, will be space, near and then far.
    Without looking at any contracts, we can clearly see the price of them - and they don’t cost a penny!
    That’s why the Americans are working with their space plane, the Starlink network is not the first attempt, but the most successful so far to create a multi-purpose information and combat environment from space, interest in the Moon has increased among everyone who is capable of implementing it (we, interestingly, are included in the number? ).
    But strategic bombers are still in service, and are even being used, although not for their intended purpose... and I wouldn’t cut them down after combat necessity has passed, because they also have cultural value, like the frigate “Vaza” or the cruiser 1- rank "Aurora". Maybe someone visits Aurora with the thought of the advent of the era of communism, but most normal people see the pinnacle of shipbuilding technology at the end of the 19th century, and it is impressive. I think our grandchildren will also be interested in visiting the “Bear” or “White Swan” in our million-plus cities, to see how our fathers and grandfathers, having 1-2 pairs of trousers, made such amazing and beautiful devices.
  53. +2
    6 October 2023 12: 55
    The fact of the matter is that there are NATO countries around and they will have to be turned into a desert if something happens and cruise missiles in a pack from strategists are quite normal, and the flight time too
  54. +3
    6 October 2023 13: 01
    Answer to the respected author: the effectiveness of strategic bombers was, is and will be quite high, but if they are used correctly, if there is an appropriate number of tanker aircraft, if there are dispersal airfields, while maintaining them at a high degree of readiness (at least one third with ALCMs on board, in ready for takeoff in 10 minutes).
    1. 0
      6 October 2023 19: 11
      Quote: Ezekiel 25-17
      the effectiveness of strategic bombers was, is and will be quite high, but if used correctly

      Exactly! It is important to use it correctly and in a timely manner. This is what I'm trying to convey to the author...
  55. -5
    6 October 2023 13: 04
    Unfortunately, the author is right, large aviation is condemned by time and the appearance of other weapons. Only local wars will still require their work. And for our country, with NATO completely surrounded, strategists are completely out of work. We can only rely on our submarines and space rockets, of which we have much less than NATO. Something to think about for the future...
  56. +2
    6 October 2023 13: 08
    The article is frankly weak for a master of the pen.

    I can’t help but note the first gem:
    However, first there appeared those who could catch up and destroy these super-bomb carriers (the American Convair F-102 Delta Dagger and the Soviet MiG-21), and then anti-aircraft missile systems like our S-75, which generally removed bombers from the agenda as the main weapon of destruction enemy.

    For the MiG-21, the interception task was not paramount; for this task, Mikoyan, Sukhoi, Yakovlev, Tupolev and Lavochkin had other lines of aircraft.

    But in essence, is the aviation component needed in the nuclear triad? To answer, we need to consider a specific type of conflict.
    Low-intensity conflict (Syria example) - strategic bombers - long arm when delivering targeted strikes.
    Conflict of medium intensity (Ukraine) - essentially also with a demonstration of strength and capabilities to implicit participants in the conflict
    The conflict is of maximum intensity - the role of aviation is decreasing, other players of the nuclear triad are leaving.

    From the point of view of psychological impact on the enemy, strategic aviation still plays a significant role. Although new tools are appearing: cruise missiles and underwater drones with nuclear propulsion.
  57. +2
    6 October 2023 13: 13
    The article is complete nonsense. You can just as well write that the Strategic Missile Forces are not needed, because long-range missiles have never been used in war - they are universal - they can work with both nuclear weapons and conventional weapons, in conditions of suppression of air defense they can actively work as factories, which the amers are actively doing. Otherwise that the air defense has not been suppressed is not a question for YES. And by the way, in Vietnam, the B 52 was the most difficult target for the 75 due to the presence of electronic warfare systems - the author should at least look through the memories of our air defense officers.
  58. -2
    6 October 2023 13: 19
    What do we have to lose if it starts? The first blow to the allies. We will demolish all of Europe and those like them. Chill is enough. Well, the “dead hand” will reach the states, so that the world without us will not seem like paradise to them. This concept, quite primitive and “inhumane,” must be clearly explained to EVERY Western citizen. It seems to me that the brains will start moving there.
  59. osp
    +1
    6 October 2023 13: 21
    Quote: Eugene_4
    Well, first of all, you need to look not at the map, but at the globe. The author does not seem to know what an orthodrome is, and that the shortest route to the USA is not through Europe and Japan, but through the North Pole.
    ..But 17 flying Tu-160s against 80 American B-1s and B-2s...Well, still not B-1s, but B-1Bs. All B-1Bs are bombers, not missile carriers. And again, the staff doesn’t seem to be very good many of these aircraft are airworthy.

    So what if the shortest route to the USA is through the North Pole?
    Do you think AWACS planes won’t be lifted from Greenland, Iceland, Alaska and Canada and there will be enough of them to settle there?
    And there are a lot of fighter planes in Alaska.
    And there are tankers to refuel all this.
    AWACS will easily detect launched cruise missiles and their carriers.
    Then the shooting range against these missiles will begin.
  60. osp
    +2
    6 October 2023 13: 27
    Today our YES is only a weapon of the first strike, but not of subsequent ones.
    Well, if the planes do not have and will not have any shelters at airfields, then how will they survive?
    From UAV attacks and even from attacks by saboteurs operating near the airbase.

    Then, in order to be on duty in the air, you need a sufficient number of tankers, which are also Soviet-made and of which there are few.
    They also need protection at airfields and shelters.

    The number of bases the United States and its allies have, AWACS aircraft and fighters, tankers capable of refueling all this is more than enough to block all possible routes for missile carriers to reach missile launch lines.
  61. osp
    +2
    6 October 2023 13: 40
    If you look at American strategic aviation airfields, they are usually located in desert areas or in open areas far from populated areas.

    What do we have?
    Most military airfields are located almost within urban areas.
    For example, Migalovo in Tver or Baltimore in Voronezh.
    There are forest plantations, garages, some dachas, collective gardens, and various abandoned industrial areas nearby.
    This gives saboteurs great opportunities.
    Which they would not have in the United States.
  62. +1
    6 October 2023 14: 13
    The strategic bomber is the oldest type of this weapon, it appeared on the very day when the B-29, which did not yet know that it was strategic, dropped a bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima in 1945

    The strategic bomber appeared on the same day that the concept of strategic bombing, that is, a military strategy aimed at destroying the economic ability of an enemy to fight a war, appeared.
    Attempts at such can be observed already during the First World War (for example, the bombing of Zeppelin production facilities in Cologne and Dusseldorf by British aircraft).
  63. The comment was deleted.
  64. +2
    6 October 2023 14: 46
    Once again, a specialist in all kinds of sciences spoke out. Our Roman is truly an encyclopedist. What is there - a storehouse of wisdom. He would be an adviser to the President. Then the General Staff, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other Ministry of Internal Affairs-FSB nafik will not be needed. GDP itself would look pale against its background.
  65. -1
    6 October 2023 15: 14
    Quote: Conjurer
    Why on earth should the opportunity to strike at long range be thrown away just because Skomorokhov thinks the problems are insurmountable?

    there is no need to throw anything away, just look at the direction in which the advanced (!) military thought in the world is moving... and they, in turn, released the B-21, and are not engaged in the production (!) of the obsolete B-1 and B-52 (although they are not thrown away - for carpet bombing of countries with destroyed air defense)
  66. -2
    6 October 2023 15: 52
    Weapons are used comprehensively.
  67. 0
    6 October 2023 16: 19
    The Tu-160 was conceived as a carrier of the intercontinental ballistic missile - "Krekret". According to the project, the missile weighed 25 tons and had 3 warheads. Range 7500km.
    After the cancellation of the missile development, the Tu-160 lost its meaning.
    Strategists are not needed, the cost of one is the cost of 10 fighters.
    We need a replacement for the Tu-22M3, a relatively cheap missile carrier that can carry 20 tons. And have a compartment with a revolver for the winged ones, and on which it will be possible to hang a dagger, X-32 and zircon (in the air version).
  68. +2
    6 October 2023 16: 39
    Quote: Clever man
    It seems like the Northern Military District strategists fired cruise missiles in Syria too, the authors drink poison

    Where you can safely pour cast iron, you can use KR either for recycling or for advertising purposes.
  69. The comment was deleted.
  70. 0
    6 October 2023 16: 41
    Like this author, he immediately attacks the fan. Strike Holland... just as directly from Russian airspace... as well as Egypt
  71. +1
    6 October 2023 16: 59

    the same Tu-95 and B-52) have not changed at all since the 50s of the last century and they have not developed any new techniques, except for cruise missiles.

    The author has no idea about the “aerial weapons platform”, what, how and with what it can be loaded, first of all.
    Secondly, he has no idea about the “second, third wave” of strikes with additional reconnaissance of remaining and newly identified targets, after clearing with ICBMs, after which air defense ceases to exist.
    He also does not know about the “jewelry destruction” of important targets, both newly identified stationary and mobile ones. This is thirdly...
    Study guy, you can go to Academies... ;)
  72. 0
    6 October 2023 17: 02
    Quote: Eroma
    Quote from Silver99
    It’s in vain that the author writes off “strategists” from

    Agree hi Today, weapons are undergoing another evolution and, accordingly, some things become stronger, and some things change radically. The issue of strategists should be approached not by purpose, but by functionality Yes
    for example, aircraft carriers took battleships out of the game, that is, with the advent of the aircraft carrier, the battleship became obsolete, but large ships continued to dominate the ocean! bully

    How many US battleships were sunk by Japanese aircraft carriers AFTER Pearl Harbor? Maybe it's not about the aircraft carriers, but about the better organization of the US Navy? Yamato sank how many aircraft carriers? That's just it, the amers have long learned the main truth: one on one is a fair fight, ten on one is the path to victory.
  73. 0
    6 October 2023 17: 26
    Quote: kit88
    But 17 flying Tu-160s against 80 American B-1s and B-2s...

    And what is the conclusion from this? Write off your Tu-shki?
    The fact that we need to build a hundred more Tu-160Ms.

    There is something I disagree with the author. So, after all, nuclear submarines are all tracked, and they can’t hide anywhere from satellites.
    We can agree that we don’t need a triad, ground-based systems are enough. They are always under the cover of air defense, and are many times cheaper than air and sea carriers. Is not it?

    And why does the author send strategists into the first wave of attacks? When the enemy has all the air defense, all the radars, all the interceptors, all the satellites? May be a little later?
    Let Poplar clear the road first, then do additional reconnaissance, and then you can give orders to strategists to work in a targeted manner through the already leaky air defense.

    Then there will be no strategists anymore, airfields and strategists hanging in the sky are priority targets, you have some kind of interesting conflict, Poplar will clear something there, and Trident 2 will wait.
    In general, the author is right; in their modern form, strategic bombers are more suitable for demonstrating force than for real conflict. The same Tu-95s that heroically surrounded the United States is not at all a fact that they would have had time to shoot something there, because American fighters were constantly accompanying them and the order was to shoot them down if the bomb bays began to open.
    In a real conflict, you need to consider a bomber as a disposable product, if they are not shot down, it’s not a fact that there will be a place to land.
    1. 0
      6 October 2023 17: 43
      Quote from Tim666
      In a real conflict, the bomber should be considered as a disposable product,

      I would add our submarines. Given the current level of NATO anti-submarine defense, the system of underwater acoustic sensors in the seas near Russia, and the state of space reconnaissance, our submarines will survive even less in hour X than bombers. I wouldn't have high hopes for them. Only missiles, ground based.
  74. 0
    6 October 2023 18: 07
    During the time of N. Khrushchev, they also believed that artillery was outdated. Rockets - this is the future!
  75. 0
    6 October 2023 18: 18
    And why the hell do these “stupid” Americans push their president onto Air Force One in case of any danger, since everything is so “sad”?
  76. osp
    +1
    6 October 2023 18: 22
    Quote: RondelR
    The Tu-160 was conceived as a carrier of the intercontinental ballistic missile - "Krekret". According to the project, the missile weighed 25 tons and had 3 warheads. Range 7500km.
    After the cancellation of the missile development, the Tu-160 lost its meaning.
    Strategists are not needed, the cost of one is the cost of 10 fighters.
    We need a replacement for the Tu-22M3, a relatively cheap missile carrier that can carry 20 tons. And have a compartment with a revolver for the winged ones, and on which it will be possible to hang a dagger, X-32 and zircon (in the air version).

    Not quite.
    There was a project Tu-160SK "Diana-Burlak" for launching satellites by air launch.
    It didn't work out either.
    And those 12 subsonic missiles are not serious for such a powerful and heavy aircraft.
    Considering the cost of their maintenance and, most importantly, protection at airfields.

    A replacement for the Tu-22M3 was created, something like the M4 or M5 was called.
    With a pair of NK-32 engines and maximum unification from the Tu-160.
    Not fused.
    I even saw his model.
  77. osp
    +1
    6 October 2023 18: 24
    Quote: cmax
    Quote from Tim666
    In a real conflict, the bomber should be considered as a disposable product,

    I would add our submarines. Given the current level of NATO anti-submarine defense, the system of underwater acoustic sensors in the seas near Russia, and the state of space reconnaissance, our submarines will survive even less in hour X than bombers. I wouldn't have high hopes for them. Only missiles, ground based.

    This is so.
    But there is the White and Okhotsk Seas.
    If they can take them there and set up anti-submarine barriers against the penetration of foreign nuclear submarine hunters, then there is a chance that they will survive and be able to shoot.
    And yes, they have nothing to do in the ocean - there is simply nothing to protect them there even from anti-submarine aircraft.
  78. osp
    0
    6 October 2023 18: 30
    Quote: Rus2012

    the same Tu-95 and B-52) have not changed at all since the 50s of the last century and they have not developed any new techniques, except for cruise missiles.

    The author has no idea about the “aerial weapons platform”, what, how and with what it can be loaded, first of all.
    Secondly, he has no idea about the “second, third wave” of strikes with additional reconnaissance of remaining and newly identified targets, after clearing with ICBMs, after which air defense ceases to exist.
    He also does not know about the “jewelry destruction” of important targets, both newly identified stationary and mobile ones. This is thirdly...
    Study guy, you can go to Academies... ;)

    There is no talk of any second or subsequent waves of strikes if the protection of strategic missile carriers at airfields is not ensured.
    There are no such shelters of a suitable size and it is unlikely that there will be anymore.
    And the air defense of North America is mainly flying radars (AWACS) and fighters.
    There are plenty of them and plenty of bases in those parts.
    Just like in Europe.
    Just like in Japan and South Korea.
    1. +1
      7 October 2023 01: 00
      There are no such shelters of a suitable size and it is unlikely that there will be any more

      Dude, you weren’t familiar with the START Treaties, which directly prohibited “camouflage and shelters” for strategists... ;)

      The Yankee air defense is carried out at once with a triple guarantee against the impact of the first wave.
      After which, nothing will threaten the strategists over America. But even then they will hit from afar from distances of 1-5tkm.
      Or do you think differently? That's why they removed Bomarks, think about the topic at your leisure.
  79. +2
    6 October 2023 18: 39
    The case when the author of an article can be determined by the title...
  80. The comment was deleted.
  81. -3
    6 October 2023 18: 50
    I didn’t understand a little that you can only fight with ami? I personally enjoy it when our strategists fly over neutral waters along Europe and in fact no one knows what is on board. laughing
  82. +2
    6 October 2023 19: 06
    , The author is a super strategist!!! And the author forgot that several floors of specialists sit every day on both sides, and decided to create a smart idea himself!!!
  83. +1
    6 October 2023 19: 09
    In short, Astor is an idiot!!!!! The text of your comment is too short and, in the opinion of the site administration, does not contain useful information.
  84. The comment was deleted.
  85. 0
    6 October 2023 19: 16
    Author, don’t you contradict yourself?
    Your first point:
    Strategic bomber: completely outdated and useless

    Your second point:
    After half an hour of the Tu-95 takeoff in Engels, half of Ukraine is already on the alert waiting for arrivals.


    So outdated and useless? Or forcing half of such a large country to stand on their ears only with his lonely flight?
  86. The comment was deleted.
  87. +1
    6 October 2023 19: 49
    I wonder if in the last 10 years (except for drawings on paper) something real has happened according to PAK DA? It’s not just that the military-industrial complex suddenly 3-4 years ago rushed to “scrape up” the remains in order to get enough for another Swan
  88. +1
    6 October 2023 19: 58
    It’s always nonsense, there’s nothing to quote here, it’s especially touching about the ability of countries to make strategists. 3 countries have them only because they are more difficult to make than aircraft carriers, not cheaper, but more complex in technological terms.
  89. +2
    6 October 2023 20: 45
    Before building these bombers, it is much more important and useful to rivet AWACS aircraft, without which there is little point in aviation at all today.
    1. 0
      7 October 2023 07: 15
      An AWACS aircraft must be made for a radar that will operate on it...
  90. +1
    6 October 2023 20: 47
    I rarely visit the site, but I have already learned to recognize the author by the title.
  91. +1
    6 October 2023 21: 28
    Quote: RVlad
    And this is where you, dear author, got it from: “And, by and large, a bomber is a very vulnerable thing. Yes, it has electronic warfare systems, it has an on-board defense system, but... But a fighter squadron will make a chop out of any strategist, that from ours, from the American one. No chance." Do you seriously think that in the military research institutes and the general staff there are only idiots sitting and picking their noses, thinking about what kind of nonsense they will come up with again... For your information: when writing the technical specifications for the Tu-160, a huge amount of research work was done in specialized institutes and at GosNIIAS to assess the feasibility of adopting a new strategic bomber. Everything was taken into account: the prospects for the development of enemy air defense, fighter aircraft, air defense tactics and methods of airspace control. Detecting a strategic bomber flying towards the payload launch line is another problem: you can’t see them from space, air defense radars operate at 300...400 km, air defense fighters have a combat radius of about the same size and the time spent in the duty zone is Problems. And the missile launch range is from 300 to 2 km. Estimate the probability of a bomber reaching the missile launch line and you will see that it is somewhere around 000. And then in the 0,9s they well understood and knew that to destroy one aircraft carrier, at least two Tu-70M regiments were required, and at the same time only 22-22 carriers reached the X-2 launch line. When waging a full-scale war (and not the clownery that is happening on the territory of Ukraine), both strategic and front-line aviation are CONSUMABLE materials and when assessing the effectiveness of their use, in this case strategic aviation, the ratio (the cost of destroyed objects + the cost expression of the probable damage that the destroyed objects can cause) / (costs of destruction of objects). If this ratio is not less than one, then it makes sense. And if not, then the decision changes. And there is no other way... Further in the article, every paragraph is another gem. Understand, dear author: in order to write reasoned and serious articles on such topics, you must have: 1) appropriate education, 2) work in the field you are considering or, at least, have a thorough understanding of the topic in question. You have none of this. So we get an article like “a conversation in a smoking room.” Different people read you. And you are doing everything to look, to put it mildly, not serious. Then you get offended and threaten to smear someone...

    People who graduated from the academy recently denied drones as a serious strike force as such, let alone the fact that commercial drones with FOGs will fly constantly changing the frequency and the bolt on the electronic warfare and will begin to throw these FOGs into the open hatches of tanks... And the bells ring in the form of attacks on Khmeimim base didn’t even strain their brains. Other academics argue in all seriousness and reinforcing false information in the minds that the chassis of the T-64 sucks, but the T-72..., although even in the public domain there are enough documents about tests dating back to the times of the USSR that say that everything is just the opposite. After the exercises, the West's 86 academicians were confused by one single question: how will laser guidance systems work in the dust and smoke for the implementation of which the country has raised colossal funds...
  92. +2
    6 October 2023 21: 30
    Quote: Glagol1
    As soon as I saw at the beginning of the article that N-6 is a strategist, I realized that I could continue reading this opus from the perspective of “all in one pile.” For the author to understand, no one except the United States and the Russian Federation can create strategic aviation because it is very difficult and expensive. Maybe Europe would have pooled together to create something like that, the Airbus turned out well, but they probably don’t need it - there is an American umbrella. China is trying, work is going on, but not yet. We are silent about the rest, there is not even any effort. Now about demand. At the moment before the start of a nuclear war, strategists take cruise missiles on board and go to deployment areas. Nobody knows where they will fly, what routes and where, most importantly, the fired cruise missiles will fly. This is both a factor of deterrence in the last resort and a factor of first strike and retaliation. This won't get old for a very long time!

    What has the Russian Federation created in the field of strategic aviation? It seems like all of its strategists come from a country where only galoshes were made.
    1. 0
      2 January 2024 13: 16
      Modernization of Tu160 to Tu160M and new Tu160M2, Tu-22M3 - to Tu22M3M and Tu95MS to Tu-95MSM - this is all Russian. Yes, not new models, but this is very significant work and it has been done.
  93. The comment was deleted.
  94. 0
    6 October 2023 23: 19
    Katz offers to surrender?
    I remember one figure, a lover of corn, once already almost condemned aviation.
  95. +1
    6 October 2023 23: 37
    The article is a mystery...
    That's what it's about? Sometimes it is better to remain silent than to bombard others with a stream of consciousness. And this is the same case.
  96. +2
    7 October 2023 00: 10
    Why does it only consider the territory of the states themselves? There are a lot of their bases, a lot of their allies within reach, especially when it comes to non-nuclear weapons. And here strategists are far from useful. But there is also a non-military aspect, or rather not entirely military. If you don’t develop and improve, you can fall very far behind in science and
    engineering. This is a whole technological chain. On the one hand, of course, it’s not cheap, on the other hand, it might be more expensive if you put an end to it. Then we will bite our elbows. So not everything is clear.
  97. -1
    7 October 2023 00: 11
    Air defense systems should be placed in bunkers, and only control antennas and launchers should be removed. The Americans have an example, they have air defense on trucks, with just launchers. Our air defense lacks, in my opinion, radars. We need a warning system, we have a lot of mobile communication stations, and we need to install scanners and locators on these antennas. Any movement into the sky must be sent to a single remote control. The air defense system needs to be redone. In the guise that we have it, it will be quickly defeated and destroyed.
  98. The comment was deleted.
  99. +1
    7 October 2023 00: 35
    Roman, somehow you placed the strategists in 1945 in a strange way. In fact, the term strategic bombing (and therefore aviation) appeared much earlier)))
  100. -1
    7 October 2023 00: 48
    The couch buffoon has canceled another type of weapon. Thousands of fools are designing (and in different countries), and one armchair genius - one single armchair genius already knows that they are toiling around with bullshit. And something doesn’t occur to his brilliant head that some French people don’t make them, not because they don’t need to, but because only a strong country can do this. The French also sawed off their own strategy, but oh... they couldn’t do more than the bloated Mirage. But European airliners can only chip in together. Yes, and the non-strategic author, too, apparently does not know what the strategists wanted: Australia (the United States did not give it), India (they only gave the Tu-142), but Libya, Iraq and Egypt received them. Fools, probably