What is the B-21 Raider: from the B-52 stealth to the “flying destroyer”

111
What is the B-21 Raider: from the B-52 stealth to the “flying destroyer”

The date November 10, 2023 became another milestone in stories combat aviation – the newest American strategic bomber B-21 Raider made its first flight. Unfortunately for our country this news does not bring anything good, since the masks have almost been dropped; the USA is our irreconcilable and mortal enemy.

One can only be surprised when reading the comments on the news about the first flight of the B-21 on Russian thematic resources - “as soon as it appears, we will take it.” Definitely, for such mischief, you must have either a split personality or bipolar disorder - We have been unable to destroy the air force of Ukraine for almost 2 years, not to mention achieving strategic air supremacy over this country, but when the B-21s appear, we’ll knock them all down at once.”



Of course, it’s fun to mock Americans in the style of Mikhail Zadornov, but it has little to do with reality; no matter what destructive processes are taking place in the United States, this country still has enormous scientific and industrial potential.

Another common misconception is that the time of the strategic bomber is over.

What happened? In what capacity?

If we are talking about strategic nuclear deterrence, then yes, the importance of the aviation component in it is minimal, but as a means of attack, strategic bombers are quite effective. Huge Strategic bombers and carriers of conventional weapons have potential.

In general, modern bombers are usually referred to as missile-carrying bombers, but since almost all of them can carry missiles or can be modified to use them, we will not “create entities” - bombers.

In addition, bombers in the process of their development may well evolve and go far beyond their basic purpose.

Soviet/Russian and American approaches


If you look at the history of the development of bomber aviation in the 29th century, the Soviet (Russian) and American approaches are largely similar. If we discard the pre-revolutionary period, when Tsarist Russia was “ahead of the rest” with its “Ilya Muromets”, then subsequently there was a lag behind the same USA, as a result of which the USSR had to copy the American B-XNUMX strategic bomber.

Subsequently, the evolution of Soviet and American bombers proceeded in parallel - both the United States and we had highly effective subsonic bombers, the B-52 and Tu-95, respectively, which serve to this day and are quite capable of flying both the B-21 and the PAK DA. Both the USA and the USSR developed, but did not launch into series the ultimate supersonic North American XB-70 Valkyrie and, accordingly, the T-4 (“product 100”) of the Sukhoi Design Bureau.


T-4 “Sotka” and XB-70 “Valkyrie” - there are obvious similarities in both the concepts and fate of these aircraft

Well, then the B-1 Lancer and Tu-160 appeared, similar in appearance as twin brothers. However, there was already a difference in approach here - the American B-1B was optimized for flights at high transonic speeds at low altitudes, while the Soviet Tu-160 was intended for flights at supersonic speeds at high altitudes.


Despite all the external similarities between the Tu-160 and the B-1B, these machines differ both structurally and in terms of application concept

Well, then the United States got the Northrop B-2 Spirit. By this time, the USSR was already on the verge of collapse, and we had no alternative to the B-2 Spirit. However, we can say that the collapse of the USSR “shot down” more than a hundred B-2 Spirit, since due to the high cost of this aircraft and the decrease in the external threat, instead of 132 units, only 21 aircraft of this type were built.


The combat use of the B-2 Spirit is extremely limited, however, the F-22A fighter has it even worse

The growing Chinese threat and the emerging resurgence of Russia as a great power forced the United States to begin developing a new bomber, which became the B-21 Raider. In Russia, there seems to be a similar project for a new generation bomber PAK DA (advanced long-range aviation complex), but there are no details about its progress, and for now Russia has resumed production of supersonic Tu-160 bombers, which can only be welcomed.

Something similar to the B-2/B-21 - the Xian H-20 bomber is being built by China, which is gaining strength, but there are few details here, previously the Chinese Air Force used only Xian H-6 bombers, which are deeply modernized Soviet Tu-16 bombers.


Estimated appearance of the Chinese Xian H-20 bomber

The question is, what is the B-21 Raider?

B-52 steals


Of course, we are not talking about the appearance of some next modification of the well-deserved B-52 bomber; rather, we are talking about a concept in which the future bomber should become an ideological replacement for the B-52, that is, a reliable, inexpensive to manufacture and operate machine capable of serving many decades, which will have a number of technical advantages that provide it with increased survivability in the air.


The B-52 bomber is one of the most successful combat aircraft in history; the service life of these machines can exceed 100 years!

It can be assumed that when creating the B-21 Raider, the United States took into account the mistakes made in the design of the B-2 bomber and the F-22A fighter, namely: the high complexity of their maintenance and the corresponding high cost of operation, as a result of which these machines are more often on the ground, than are exploited in the sky.

The B-21 Raider bomber's signature was likely reduced compared to the B-2 bomber, both in the radar and thermal ranges. Many still do not understand why an aircraft needs stealth technology - they say, our radar stations (radars) will still see it, someone will definitely remember the meter range radar, but everything is not so simple.

Let’s say a meter range radar sees a radar mark in the sky, and then what? Based on this data, will it be possible to identify the type of aircraft? Point anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAM) at him?

No, it will be possible to understand what is in the air only very indirectly, based on the flight characteristics (flight characteristics) of the target - altitude, flight speed, as well as their changes. However, this is not enough.

It could be a B-21 Raider or Global Hawk, a decoy, or a specially targeted wingman UAV designed to provoke an attack. It will also not be possible to aim a missile defense system using a meter range radar - the accuracy is insufficient.

Maybe then an anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) like S-400?

Yes, but at what range?

First of all, the whole point of stealth technology is not to make the aircraft invisible, but to reduce its detection range so that it can infiltrate between the positions of air defense systems, having previously detected the radiation of their radars with its sensors, or come closer in order to launch anti-radar missiles ( PRR), possibly together with MALD-type decoys. That is, stealth allows the attacker to be the first to see the enemy’s radar radiation, determine its location and be the first to strike.


Visibility parameters are always strictly classified, but there is little doubt that the United States has implemented all available developments in this area in the B-21 Raider

Okay, then let's send fighters to intercept?

They sent it, they got close to the target and discovered that it was not a B-21 Raider, but a wingman UAV, which only lured them into a trap for enemy fighters, by the way, a decoy target ADM-52 Quail was developed for the B-1995 back in 20 .

And if this is still a B-21 Raider, and our aircraft launched air-to-air missiles (A-A), then the second most important stealth factor is manifested here - low-power active radar homing heads (ARLGSN) of A-A missiles, and SAMs may simply not capture a stealth aircraft and pass by.


ADM-20 Quail decoy

Also, presumably The B-21 Raider must primarily operate from high altitudes, as opposed to the B-1B and B-2, designed for low-altitude penetration of enemy air defenses.

The logic here is quite clear - modern air defense systems include missiles with ARLGSN and are capable of hitting low-flying targets even beyond the radar visibility of the air defense system itself according to external target designation, for example, from long-range radar detection and control aircraft (AWACS) - Russian AWACS and air defense systems now have the ability to work in tandem.

Don’t forget that one of the advantages of American aviation is electronic warfare (EW) systems; according to open sources, the B-52 bomber’s EW systems are capable of protecting it from attacking fighters even at long distances; most likely, this means that the The bomber's electronic warfare interferes with the operation of the radar stations of fighter aircraft, which provide guidance for V-V missiles when firing from a long distance, and the operation of the ARLGSN of the V-V missiles themselves. It can be assumed that the B-21 will be equipped with the best electronic warfare equipment available to the US Armed Forces.

In general, a “stealth B-52” will be much more difficult to detect and shoot down than a “regular B-52.”

In addition, while the original B-52 was initially armed with a six-barreled 20mm rapid-firing automatic cannon in the tail (which was later abandoned in favor of electronic warfare), the defensive armament of the B-21 Raider bomber may be much more serious.

At a minimum, with a high probability, it will include short-range V-V missiles with an infrared homing head, as well as anti-radar missiles to destroy enemy air defense radars.

And at the very least, the B-21 Raider bomber can turn into a multi-functional combat vehicle, a kind of “flying destroyer” capable of attacking all types of ground, underground, surface and air targets.

Multi-role bomber


Earlier in the article "B-21 Raider: Bomber or More" We have already looked at what the newest American bomber could become, however, given the fact that new aircraft of this class do not appear very often, as well as the ever-increasing prospects for “close acquaintance” with American military equipment for various purposes, it is worth considering again potential capabilities and threats that the B-21 Raider may pose.

To give the B-21 Raider the ability to attack not only ground but also air targets, it must include a modern radar, at least with an active phased array antenna (AFAR), as well as medium- and long-range V-V missiles.

Based on the configuration of the front part of the aircraft, the presence of such a radar is not visually visible, although, given that the body of the B-21 Raider can be predominantly or even completely made of composite materials, the antenna panels could potentially be located anywhere. In addition, a planar conformal radar with AFAR or digital antenna array (DAR) can be integrated into the B-21 Raider design.


Visually, the presence of a powerful radar on the B-21 Raider is not visible, but modern technologies potentially make it possible to integrate it practically into the skin of the aircraft

Another interesting point is the presence of one large and two additional weapons bays, at least this is the impression that is formed based on the configuration of the lower part of the B-21 Raider bomber. Of course, all compartments could potentially contain an air-to-surface (A-S) payload, but this configuration is more like a “separation of duties” - a central compartment for weapons V-P, including promising long-range stealth cruise missiles with a nuclear warhead (YBC) AGM-181A LRSO, and side compartments for V-V and PRR missiles.


Central weapons bay (highlighted in red) and two proposed side weapons bays (highlighted in green)

In addition to air attack capabilities, the B-21 Raider can carry anti-missiles V-V. Moreover, a number of sources mentioned the possibility of integrating on-board self-defense laser systems on the B-21 Raider - in principle, there is no better candidate for this role, the aircraft is large, designed from scratch, it can take into account the possibility of taking power from the engines, and the Laser weapons have made significant progress recently.

Conclusions


Considering the degree of secrecy of the B-21 Raider bomber program, it is difficult to say where the US Air Force settled on the conditional B-52 stealth - a relatively inexpensive to operate functional analogue of the B-52 bomber, which will simply replace the entire range of existing B-52H, B- bombers 1B and B-2, or they came to the need to create a multi-role bomber with significantly greater survivability and capable of solving a much wider range of tasks.

However, there is a compromise option when, at the initial stage of deployment, the B-21 Raider bomber will be quite simple, but at the same time it will have reserved volumes and the ability to take power to power additional equipment, such as radar, electronic warfare equipment and laser defensive weapons. In the future, as the relevant technologies are ready, the B-21 Raider bomber will receive new capabilities during the modernization process.

Only one thing can be said with confidence: this car should not be underestimated.
111 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    19 November 2023 05: 05
    It must be admitted that in the decades after the collapse of the USSR, domestic aviation technology fell far behind American ones. During my youth, I worked in the Soviet aviation industry, everything happened before my eyes, and investments in aviation in the nineties simply came to zero and gradually began to increase only later. Of course, even now the costs of the aviation industry are much lower than in the Union. What is more important: sausage or airplanes - I don’t dare to judge, on the one hand, the USSR collapsed due to a shortage of sausage (and airplanes were not saved), because the population wanted to buy sausage without coupons and restrictions and demolished the existing government (again, everything happened before my eyes , and I don’t believe in the machinations of the CIA). On the other hand, the conduct of the SVO showed the need for modern combat aviation (which, alas, does not exist), and how can one not recall the banal phrase: if the citizens of a country do not want to feed their army, then they will be forced to feed someone else’s!
    1. +26
      19 November 2023 06: 13
      Quote from Andy_nsk
      The USSR collapsed due to a shortage of sausage (and the planes were not saved), because the population wanted to buy sausage without coupons and restrictions and demolished the existing government (again, everything happened before my eyes

      There was no such thing. Not a single sausage riot. Moreover, in 1991 a referendum was held, where an overwhelming number of citizens voted FOR the preservation of the USSR.

      Sausage was freely sold in Moscow and Ukraine. And in other cities it could be bought in markets and co-op stores for a ruble or two more.
      As for modern times, a self-respecting person does not eat the sausage that is sold in stores. Harmful to health and digestion.
      1. 0
        19 November 2023 08: 23
        Quote: Stas157
        And in other cities it could be bought in markets and co-op stores for a ruble or two more.

        Well, not for a ruble or two, but for 5 rubles. That is, if you take the equivalent of half a liter, it’s about 300 modern rubles. There is a difference - sausage for 500 rubles. kg or the same sausage for 800 rubles. kg? For what % of the population today does this difference exist?
        1. +3
          19 November 2023 10: 38
          Well, not for a ruble or two, but for 5 rubles. That is, if you take the equivalent of half a liter, it’s about 300 modern rubles.

          It depends on the sausage. Cervelat was about 4-5 rubles more expensive. But the problem is that now such sausage costs three times more than the chemicals that are sold in our stores.
          1. +6
            19 November 2023 11: 11
            The author, in general, correctly explained to the idiots what the B-21 is and the complete inability of our air defense to repel the B-21 raid, for example, from the Laptev Sea through the Taimyr Peninsula and further through the uninhabited areas of Eastern Siberia with the launch of missiles from our airspace in China or the Moscow region , due to the fact that in those areas it is impossible to physically place S-400 or S-350 every 100 km.
            But why the author belittles the USSR is not at all clear.
            If we discard the pre-revolutionary period, when Tsarist Russia was “ahead of the rest” with its “Ilya Muromets”, then subsequently there was a lag behind the same USA, as a result of which the USSR had to copy the American B-29 strategic bomber.

            Ilya Muromets was certainly a breakthrough. But why did the author keep silent about the TB-1 and TB-3 built in large series in the 30s, and the fact that in the early 30s no country in the world had five thousand heavy bombers?

            All strategic aviation of the Russian Federation was made in the USSR, and even the restoration of production of the Soviet Tu-160 at enterprises built in the USSR and surviving after 30 years of chaos is presented as an achievement. And most likely there will be no release of the PAK DA at all, such a financial burden is beyond our country’s strength in its current form, which is why they are resuming production of the Tu-160 with great effort, but are afraid to admit it honestly. But those who can think understand that the possibilities of the second world economy of the USSR and the possibilities of the Russian Federation, which is not included in the top ten, are completely different things.
            And the Americans are not building the B-21 against us, it is mainly being built against China, as a response to the Chinese analogue of the B-2. They are not considering our PAK YES, because they know exactly at what stage of work on PAK YES and their prospects.
            1. +1
              19 November 2023 13: 27
              But why did the author keep silent about the TB-1 and TB-3 built in large series in the 30s, and the fact that in the early 30s no country in the world had five thousand heavy bombers?


              Have you ever tried to think about why “not a single country in the world had half a thousand heavy bombers”? You can use the joke about the elusive Joe as a hint.
              1. -1
                19 November 2023 14: 31
                Oh, Elusive Joe is already a minus! We are on the right track!
                1. Fat
                  +2
                  20 November 2023 13: 44
                  Quote from Frettaskyrandi
                  Oh, Elusive Joe is already a minus! We are on the right track!

                  Buddy! Are you still not fed up with your own attention to haters? Well, not everyone can understand the three-valued logic of life within the framework of binary artificial intelligence. )))))))))
              2. +5
                19 November 2023 17: 04
                Have you ever tried to think about why “not a single country in the world had half a thousand heavy bombers”? You can use the joke about the elusive Joe as a hint.

                Have you ever wondered why, 10 years later, the United States acquired half a thousand long-range bombers?
                1. -2
                  19 November 2023 17: 40
                  Do you know that answering a question with a question is purely Jewish, when there is nothing more to say. Or there is nothing to think about.
                  1. 0
                    20 November 2023 01: 28
                    Quote from Frettaskyrandi
                    Or there is nothing to think about.

                    So show off your “thinking apparatus”, enlighten everyone, why “nobody needed” hundreds of long-range bombers”, but at the same time everyone worked hard to ensure that they had them? And the British, and the USA, and Germany. But Germany is just didn’t have time, and although the USSR built the TB-3 armada first, by the beginning of the war they were already irrelevant as bombers due to their low speed.That’s why they worked for most of the war as transport ones.
                    But after seeing the Soviet Armada at the parade, both the USA and England created very advanced long-range bombers. And although the USSR created the Pe-8, it couldn’t/didn’t have time to organize mass production. I made up for it after the war.
                    1. +3
                      20 November 2023 15: 44
                      So show off your “thinking apparatus”, enlighten everyone, why “no one needed” hundreds of long-range bombers,” but at the same time everyone worked hard to ensure that they had them? And the British, and the USA, and Germany.

                      There will be no answer, he has already realized but does not admit it.
                      But Germany simply did not have time, and although the USSR built the TB-3 armada first, by the beginning of the war they were already irrelevant as bombers due to their low speed. That’s why they worked for most of the war as transport vehicles.

                      Yes, the British and especially the Americans quickly realized the advantages of an armada of bombers and throughout the war they terrorized the Germans and Japanese with the horrors of carpet bombing, Dresden alone is worth it!
                      And as for our bombers. Tupolev promised Stalin to create a new long-range bomber, Stalin allocated a bunch of resources to him, allowed him to inflate the design bureau, but there was no result, for which Tupolev was imprisoned, quite deservedly.
                      1. +1
                        20 November 2023 19: 59
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        Tupolev promised Stalin to create a new long-range bomber, Stalin allocated a bunch of resources to him, allowed him to inflate the design bureau, but there was no result, for which Tupolev was imprisoned, quite deservedly.

                        There were no engines of sufficient power, and high-altitude engines at that. The issue of supplying air to engines at high altitude was so serious that a fifth engine was installed on the TB-7\Pe-8 to pump air into the remaining engines. It was possible to create a turbine for pumping each engine through a power take-off shaft only later, during the war. And so the main problem was the engines. And the Germans too. The engine engineers simply couldn't keep up.
                        Well, Tupolev was always a “master”, he loved comfort and leisurely work, and did not keep up with the needs of the time. So Comrade Beria created all the conditions for them so that nothing would distract them from their work. Later, following the example of such effective sharashkas, academic towns were organized.
                      2. 0
                        20 November 2023 22: 08
                        Well, Tupolev was always a “master”, he loved comfort and leisurely work, and did not keep up with the needs of the time. So Comrade Beria created all the conditions for them so that nothing would distract them from their work. Later, following the example of such effective sharashkas, academic towns were organized.

                        Exactly! It turned out after decades of slop that Beria was not an enemy of the people, but a truly effective manager.
                        And the Tupolev Design Bureau produced many brilliant aircraft designers under the management of all this by Lavrenty Pavlovich.
                  2. +3
                    20 November 2023 15: 35
                    Do you know that answering a question with a question is purely Jewish, when there is nothing more to say. Or there is nothing to think about.

                    You just realized that you were stupid and are trying to get out of it by hanging labels.
                2. Fat
                  +1
                  20 November 2023 13: 58
                  Well, it has begun...
                  After the end of World War II, the United States did not go well with missiles as a means of delivering atomic bombs to the consumer, and from there it turned towards long-range bombers
                  1. +1
                    20 November 2023 14: 31
                    Quote: Thick
                    After the end of World War II, the United States did not go well with missiles as a means of delivering atomic bombs to the consumer, and from there it turned towards long-range bombers

                    Actually, everything was fine with the ICBMs. And "Titan 2" and "Minuteman" were generally masterpieces for their time.
                    And the USSR reached parity in strategic nuclear forces with the United States only in the first half of the 70s. And before that there was a pursuit race.
            2. +2
              19 November 2023 16: 58
              According to the recent words of Deputy General Director of Rostec Artyakov, work on PAK DA is proceeding according to schedule, without delays. The first PAK DA should appear before 2027. According to some reports, the prototype should be ready early next year (February-March). So we'll see.
              And the fact that there is almost no information - so with the beginning of the SVO, information on many developments was cut down.
            3. +1
              21 November 2023 20: 27
              the complete inability of our air defense to repel the B-21 raid

              What to do!? The B-21 does not yet exist even in the form of a finished single copy, not to mention a flock capable of performing raid, failure to is already there. This is the end!
              But wait, there is a way out - Peresvet. Massive use of overexposure against a massive raid of invisible superbombers. It looks like this is the only chance at the moment. Don't miss it
            4. 0
              26 January 2024 18: 18
              They are building B-21s right against us. But it won’t be possible to fly to the middle of Siberia; the air defense infrastructure in the north is being improved. Few people know anything specific about PAK YES, but why bury what you don’t know?
              1. 0
                30 January 2024 23: 14
                They are building B-21s right against us. But it won’t be possible to fly to the middle of Siberia; the air defense infrastructure in the north is being improved.

                By decree of the President, the laws of physics were abolished specifically for the air defense of the Russian Federation or what?
                Do you understand how long the Russian coastline is in the north?
                Do you understand that one radar of an S-400, S-300 or S-350 and even S-500 air defense system division can detect air targets with EPR like the B-21 at best within a radius of 50-60 km? Now divide the length of the coastline by 100 km and tell me whether it is realistic to produce such a number of air defense missile divisions or not? The USSR thought it was unrealistic. And although it had many times more air defense systems, antenna posts, AWACS aircraft and MiG-31 specially created for this, it believed that the northern coastline was not covered.
          2. +3
            19 November 2023 11: 36
            Quote: Stas157
            There was no such thing. Not a single sausage riot..........

            60 years ago, protesters in Novocherkassk who demanded a reduction in prices were shot
            https://www.1tv.ru/aksenov/novocherkassk.html
          3. -1
            30 January 2024 22: 27
            Yes, yes, there is chemistry all around, and in the USSR even polystyrene foam was made from milk. But it is not exactly. The wretched tales of the communists are so amusing to listen to.
        2. 0
          25 February 2024 18: 56
          Here it is. In Ukraine and Moscow, everything was. For some, everything, for the rest, nothing. For example, the Volga region was a hole. That’s why there were “sausage” trains to Moscow.
      2. +2
        19 November 2023 10: 59
        There may not have been any sausages, but I almost took part in the tobacco one in 1990. Moreover, there was very little left as an overclocking side :(
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. 0
        27 November 2023 20: 17
        In August 91, the population ran to defend the White House with Yeltsin and not a single dog supported the State Emergency Committee. To a very large extent, and because Yeltsin painted the path to sausage and the State Emergency Committee seemed to ban sausage for a long time. And you say there were no sausage riots.
      5. +1
        30 January 2024 22: 26
        Or higher than the mountains. Today's food products are much more varied and of normal quality. And one can only laugh at the denial of deficits.

        >Moreover, in 1991 a referendum took place, where the overwhelming number of citizens voted FOR the preservation of the USSR.

        Pathetic manipulation, essentially a lie. Firstly, the referendum took place in 9 of the 15 republics. That is, more than a third of the country had already left the USSR and had no plans to return at all. Secondly, the question sounded specific, and was about the creation of a new USSR. There was no talk about socialism in 1991, yeah. People no longer believed in him then.
    2. +4
      19 November 2023 08: 12
      Quote from Andy_nsk
      . On the other hand, the conduct of the SVO showed the need for modern combat aviation (which, alas, does not exist), and how can one not recall the banal phrase: if the citizens of a country do not want to feed their army, then they will be forced to feed someone else’s!

      What the SVO really showed was the need to have a full-fledged, comprehensive air defense!!!
      Which does not consist of only, even the best air defense systems, but many, many, in the required quantity, effective reconnaissance, control and management systems!!!
      In general, a lot of things are needed so that it works as it should!!!
    3. +11
      19 November 2023 08: 18
      Quote from Andy_nsk
      (again, everything happened before my eyes, and I don’t believe in the machinations of the CIA)

      What does the CIA have to do with it? Did everything happen before your eyes? Have you not seen who manipulated public opinion and the masses and how? Who became the owners of factories, newspapers, ships?
    4. -2
      19 November 2023 14: 41
      what are you lagging behind? In Ukraine, “they don’t tell you everything,” that is, they don’t tell you anything. It just showed that Russian technology is the best. Aviation in general turned out to be the best in the world. The equipment of NATO and the USA turned out to be “a little overpraised. Something the author of the article does not disclose is the technical characteristics of the “superplane” of the USA, it will turn out to be the same “invisible superplane” as the F35 and V2 with an exorbitant cost, with critical design flaws. Therefore, the F35 could not have been used for 20 years take into service and only the threats of NATO partners to withdraw from the project forced the Pentagon to accept into service. With the wording “limitedly suitable for operation,” they were promised to eliminate the main errors of the aircraft, but according to last year’s report of the armaments commission, “the aircraft will retain critical errors, the manufacturer so and did not begin to eliminate them" i.e. corruption rules the military-industrial complex pay generals for accepting unusable equipment
    5. 0
      28 November 2023 11: 07
      because the population wanted to buy sausage without coupons and restrictions

      And the nomenklatura wanted more than sausage, they wanted to become oligarchs, but this could not be done under the union, so the nomenklatura broke the union, including creating the art of military deficits.
  2. -6
    19 November 2023 05: 58
    this news does not bring anything good, since the masks have almost been dropped; the USA is our irreconcilable and mortal enemy.

    This is good news, because the hidden enemy is much more dangerous.
    We have been unable to destroy the air force of Ukraine for almost 2 years, not to mention achieving strategic air supremacy over this country, but when the B-21s appear, we will “knock them all down at once.”

    It's distorted here. Those. B-21 Raider strategists from the territory of Ukraine are striking at the Russian Federation using stealth, and we do not have air superiority there.
    In the future, as the corresponding technologies are ready, the B-21 Raider bomber will receive new capabilities during the modernization process.

    There is no absolutely “black body”, so if it is barely noticeable in one range, it is clearly visible in another. Therefore, the decimeter and meter range will make it possible to determine the approximate position, and a modern 40N6 missile with an active head in the last section is guaranteed to shoot them down. Because physics, or rather mathematics, cannot be fooled. Because the response signal fades to the fourth power of the distance. If a rocket at 100 km has an illumination power of 1, then at 50 km the illumination power will be 2^4 = 16 times greater, and at 25 km it is already 4^4 = 256 times stronger. Yes, even if you separate the radars into emitting and receiving ones, then everything will also be visible.
    Only one thing can be said with confidence: this car should not be underestimated.

    This is an element of the nuclear triad, and this is the only way to treat it, and not as a “prodigy.”
    1. +9
      19 November 2023 06: 37
      Quote: bya965
      It's distorted here. Those. B-21 Raider strategists from the territory of Ukraine are striking at the Russian Federation using stealth, and we do not have air superiority there.

      Not distorted. Regarding the B-21 in Ukraine, you yourself distorted it. But in reality in Ukraine, not only the bridges are not destroyed, but also the airfields are intact. Therefore, Ukrainian Soviet-built aircraft still take off from there. And since the Ukrainian air defense is also not knocked out, our planes do not fly into the depths. What kind of domination can we talk about?
      1. 0
        19 November 2023 13: 22
        I have something personal for you.
        Do you have any difference between shell and non-shell?
        Question for a journalist: what percentage of explosives is the weight of a high-explosive projectile?
        Then why bother talking about bridges, you know about wrapping paper.

        Percentage of explosives from the total weight?
        Well, yes, I myself winced about the B-21 in Ukraine!
      2. +1
        19 November 2023 22: 21
        Air defense has been around as long as airplanes have been flying.
        We don’t fly deep because we are completely unable or because we are very afraid. It is possible to plan and carry out a large-scale attack on enemy air defenses and airfields. But for now the price is high.
  3. -3
    19 November 2023 06: 08
    I don’t agree with everything, the distant one is slowly being restored. I don’t think that in war conditions, funding is proceeding at an accelerated pace. It’s not good at all with the naval and reconnaissance departments.
    1. -2
      19 November 2023 13: 48
      That's it - quietly. Rat style. Well, you know who I'm referring to.
    2. 0
      26 January 2024 18: 22
      Right. We have bombers. But reconnaissance and anti-submarine warfare are piecemeal...
  4. +2
    19 November 2023 06: 38
    The date November 10, 2023 became another milestone in the history of military aviation - the newest American strategic bomber B-21 Raider made its first flight.
    When will our PAK DA be shown to the public? Isn’t it time to report on the years and finances spent on its construction...
    1. 0
      19 November 2023 07: 08
      On the networks they write that the pilot flew the SU 27 from Ukraine to Russia. Who knows?
      1. 0
        19 November 2023 10: 03
        Quote: Aerodrome
        On the networks they write that the pilot flew the SU 27 from Ukraine to Russia. Who knows?

        Let's not make any noise yet, let's wait for specifics.
        As far as I understand, the Air Force pilot, the Su-27 pilot, defected to the Russian Federation and arrived to us on a COMMERCIAL FLIGHT, from one of the countries.
  5. -4
    19 November 2023 06: 44
    Quote: Stas157
    Quote from Andy_nsk
    The USSR collapsed due to a shortage of sausage (and the planes were not saved), because the population wanted to buy sausage without coupons and restrictions and demolished the existing government (again, everything happened before my eyes

    There was no such thing. Not a single sausage riot. Moreover, in 1991 a referendum was held, where an overwhelming number of citizens voted FOR the preservation of the USSR.

    Sausage was freely sold in Moscow and Ukraine. And in other cities it could be bought in markets and co-op stores for a ruble or two more.
    As for modern times, a self-respecting person does not eat the sausage that is sold in stores. Harmful to health and digestion.

    It's like that. People are being stuffed with chemicals, Europe and the USA are returning to products labeled with the fashionable word “BIO”. This is presented to us as an achievement for which we must pay extra, once again removing the “chips” from us.
    Aviation is in decline, engineers refuse to work for 25 thousand rubles. Crowds of managers attack like flocks of crows.
    This country is not for everyone, but for American-Israelis.
  6. -5
    19 November 2023 06: 48
    For our country, this news does not bring anything good, since the masks have almost been dropped, the USA is our irreconcilable and mortal enemy.

    And when has the United States not been the “irreconcilable and mortal enemy” of our country? I don't remember something. Maybe Mr. Mitrofanov can remind you?
    ps It’s a shame to comment on the rest of the “Mitrofanovism”.
    1. +6
      19 November 2023 08: 55
      Quote: Amateur
      For our country, this news does not bring anything good, since the masks have almost been dropped, the USA is our irreconcilable and mortal enemy.

      And when has the United States not been the “irreconcilable and mortal enemy” of our country? I don't remember something. Maybe Mr. Mitrofanov can remind you?
      ps It’s a shame to comment on the rest of the “Mitrofanovism”.

      WWII, WWII, the situation with the Far Eastern Republic. The situation with hunger at the dawn of the Soviet Republic and throughout Tsarist times.
      And into industrialization. The same Ford actively built factories in the USSR like many other US capitalists
      1. -7
        19 November 2023 14: 46
        In 1914, at the request of the US government, Russia sent about 2000 Russian engineers to the Americans to create a heavy military industry in the United States.
        1. +6
          19 November 2023 14: 52
          donpablo, reading your comments, you begin to understand what prompted Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky to write the novel “Idiot”.
          1. Fat
            +1
            20 November 2023 14: 05
            What prompted it?
            Well, well.
            Ukrainian propaganda fakes? In the time of Fyodor Mikhailovich, even the name “Ukraine” itself was rarely strange.
            No?
        2. +2
          19 November 2023 21: 56
          In 1914, at the request of the US government, Russia sent about 2000 Russian engineers to the Americans.
          The USA joined WWI in 1917, which is what this country was called at that time. For 3 whole years, “2000 Russian engineers” worked for them? Did they have nothing to do in RI? Storyteller!
  7. +13
    19 November 2023 06: 51
    Tell me, what does “steals” have to do with it? Maybe "stealth"? Personally, without hesitation, I write “stealth” and eat me with porridge for profanity
  8. +12
    19 November 2023 06: 59
    Author, the English word steals means to steal, to steal. And stealth planes are called stealth.
    1. +12
      19 November 2023 07: 04
      Quote: Adieu
      Author, the English word steals means to steal, to steal. And stealth planes are called stealth.

      Don't shoot the pianist (an amateur graphomaniac), he plays (writes) as best he can.
      Considering the fact that this author is not able to distinguish between South Korean and North Korean soldiers in the photo, this is not significant.
    2. +6
      19 November 2023 08: 54
      Author, the English word steals means to steal, to steal. And stealth planes are called stealth.

      Mitrofanov understands English about the same as he understands airplanes. drinks
  9. +6
    19 November 2023 07: 12
    Quote: svp67
    When will our PAK DA be shown to the public? Isn’t it time to report on the years and finances spent on its construction...

    Quote: svp67
    When will our PAK DA be shown to the public? Isn’t it time to report on the years and finances spent on its construction...

    Will it be easier than how the Su-75 was “showed”? Yes, they put together a model for the exhibition, but it may take decades before we build a production aircraft. hi
    1. Fat
      -1
      20 November 2023 14: 13
      Quote: fa2998
      It could take us decades.

      The engine will be worked out, and this “feature” will be put on the assembly line. After the Su-57, this cheap degeneration of his will become quite viable.
      When the defense industry suddenly gets going, it cannot stop without cataclysms.
      So it will happen soon. The global south needs budget fighters wassat
  10. -8
    19 November 2023 07: 21
    In my opinion, all these stealth bombers and missile carriers are a dead end for aviation. This is not the level of aviation development that any army in the world needs. What kind of anti-missile maneuvers can this piece of aircraft perform “as a last resort”? An eternal flat tailspin without getting out of it? Why is everyone screaming about the notorious real estate when a cheap drone remotely turns off the on-board computers and the vaunted stealth becomes scrap metal due to near-zero maneuverability. What kind of supersonic missile will this misunderstanding be able to evade, or “escape” if it itself is subsonic, and the missile that will shoot it down has a flight speed of 4m? This is a dead end for aviation, they have never fought anywhere where there is normal air defense! That's why the United States got the impression that this is an almighty and indestructible plane! It was like that only until the first one shot down by an anti-aircraft missile!
    1. 0
      19 November 2023 08: 02
      The concept itself, to make an object “invisible” for technical means of detecting the enemy, is not new, but is still in the category of science fiction... but that’s it for now.
      So far, it has been possible to significantly reduce t, to some extent, but even here there is a competition between camouflage means and detection means!!!
      For now, there are only such means of attack ahead that can be higher, faster, more ultimatically, and the world rests on this, because only the strongest, largest states have such weapons, in sufficient quantities, and any conflict between them would become a disaster for all participants conflict soldier
    2. +4
      19 November 2023 11: 39
      Quote: Thrifty
      What anti-missile maneuvers can this scrap of aircraft perform “as a last resort”?
      Exactly the same as the aerodynamically perfect Tu-160. This is a strategic bomber, what kind of anti-missile maneuvers?
      Quote: Thrifty
      when a cheap drone remotely turns off its on-board computers
      How is that? Will he press a button on the outside of the case? Unreal.
  11. -4
    19 November 2023 07: 51
    One can only be surprised when reading the comments on the news about the first flight of the B-21 on Russian thematic resources - “as soon as it appears, we will take it.” Definitely for such mischief
    . And what, there are no/few completely adequate assessments of this “phenomenon”?
    Military experts have assessed the “phenomenon”, options for solving it have been outlined and will be fully implemented, and some are already ready for full use!
    In general, there is a threat, and there is an answer to it!
    By the way, the organizers of such threats are quite aware that the answer will arrive immediately, that’s why they don’t fly!!!
    In general, everything is as always!!! Someone “quacks” loudly, and someone silently holds him at gunpoint, ready to pull the trigger soldier
    1. +1
      19 November 2023 14: 05
      “In general, there is a threat, there is also an answer to it!” We have an answer, and it is always the same: “We express our deep concern.”
      1. -2
        19 November 2023 15: 32
        There would be no answer, all sorts of different people would fly wherever they want, they have to... but they DO NOT FLY! AND WHY?
  12. +2
    19 November 2023 08: 00
    To complete the picture, we must remember that the Tu-160 concept largely repeated the B-1A concept. But we didn’t have time to develop the B-1B concept, even if it was relevant to us.
    1. 0
      19 November 2023 08: 45
      Quote: Pavel57
      To complete the picture, we must remember that the Tu-160 concept largely repeated the B-1A concept.

      To complete the picture, it should be understood that the B-1A and Tu-160 are completely conceptually different aircraft.
      Strictly speaking, the US concept was simple. In the beginning - classic bombers, and the B-52 as their apotheosis. Then, with the development of air defense, they tried to go with the "Valkyrie" - a supersonic bomber capable of bombing from 20 km or more, where they would not be reached by air defense systems. Then, when it became clear that they would be reached at 20 km, US military thought failed, giving birth to the essentially absurd concept of an intercontinental bomber capable of breaking through air defenses at low altitude.
      B-1A, B-1B and B-2 are representatives of this concept.
      Unlike them, the USSR went with the concept of strategic missile carriers
      Quote: Pavel57
      But we didn’t have time to reach the B-1B concept

      Rather, Americans are slowly growing up to our concepts
      1. +1
        19 November 2023 10: 35
        The logic that the B-1A and B-1B are conceptually identical is erroneous.
        1. +3
          19 November 2023 11: 26
          Quote: Pavel57
          The logic that the B-1A and B-1B are conceptually identical is erroneous.

          This is not logic, but history. Logic is the enemy of the historian:)))))
          The main tactics for using the new aircraft was to penetrate the target at low altitudes with high subsonic speed, while not discarding the possibility of flying at high altitudes, which could significantly increase the range of action and provide the aircraft with greater flexibility in combat use.
          The AMSA bomber was supposed to have a flight range without in-flight refueling of 16000 km and a cruising speed of 2,5 Mach, and in case of an air defense breakthrough, fly at an altitude of 60 m for at least 1600 km. Moreover, for compatibility with existing infrastructure (hangars, etc.), its geometric dimensions should not exceed the size of the average B-47 bomber. The estimated take-off weight of the promising vehicle was 150 tons, of which 43,5 tons were payload. The main armament of the future aircraft was considered to be SRAM (Short-Range Attack Missile) missiles with nuclear warheads.
          The SRAM AGM-69 missile was developed by Boeing since 1966, had a simplified inertial guidance system and was intended to suppress air defense centers and destroy large strategic targets. It was equipped with a solid fuel engine and therefore was unpretentious in operation. Its flight range depended on the given trajectory and ranged from 50 to 150 km.
          In 1968, the Air Force, based on research under the AMSA program, announced a competition to create a bomber under the designation B-1 A.
          1. 0
            19 November 2023 14: 12
            Logic is generally the enemy of humanity. More recently, a law was even discovered: NOTHING IS DONE ON REASONABLE BASIS.
    2. -6
      19 November 2023 09: 06
      To complete the picture, we must remember that the Tu-160 concept largely repeated the B-1A concept. And we didn’t have time to develop the B-1B concept, even if it was relevant to us

      Why did it happen? Tu-160 is precisely a B-1B. Only “strongly” supersonic. And it is not intended for dense air defense. And this is precisely what lay in the concept of the B-1 program and the AGM-69 SRAM missiles. A kind of cleaning aircraft destroys the air defense, opening the way for bomb carriers with free-falling bombs. The short life of the AGM-69 SRAM and B-1A (which did not go into production at all) is explained by the collapse of the concept and the success in the development of long-range subsonic cruise missiles. The B-1B is a deep adaptation of the B-1A as a carrier of the AGM-86 and later AGM-158 JASSM long-range cruise missiles. Well, a breakthrough on ultra-small ones only works against relict Soviet air defenses.
      So with these things the Tu-160 is doing well, but with the concept of application it doesn’t matter. Everything that the Tu-160 can do, the Tu-95 can do, but neither one nor the other can break through air defense, and the main armament of the X-101/X-102 is therefore designed to strike from a distance of up to 5500 km. And even with a take-off weight in the shock version of 216 tons, the B-1B carries 60 tons of combat load due to external suspensions, and our Tu-160 carries up to 45 tons with a take-off weight of 275 tons.
      In fact, the place of the Tu-160 and Tu-160M ​​is long-range maritime aviation. Based in the Pacific Theater of Operations. That’s where it could well prove itself as a “supersonic destroyer.” And the Tu-95 needs to be upgraded into an AWACS/VKP aircraft. If necessary, we could seriously consider resuming production of these machines, taking into account progress in engine building.
      1. +4
        19 November 2023 12: 06
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        And even with a take-off weight in the shock version of 216 tons, the B-1B carries 60 tons of combat load due to external suspensions, and our Tu-160 carries up to 45 tons with a take-off weight of 275 tons.

        “No, son, this is fantastic!” (With)
        1. -5
          19 November 2023 12: 15
          In terms of age, you are just old enough to be my son.
          You can look at the maximum load with a take-off weight of 216 tons in reference books. No one reports the maximum load range, but it does exist.
          1. +8
            19 November 2023 12: 37
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            You're old enough to be my son

            If so, then this cannot in any way prevent me from quoting an advertisement that was famous in my time.
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            You can look at the maximum load with a take-off weight of 216 tons in reference books. No one reports the maximum load range, but it does exist.

            As usual, you have a complete misunderstanding of the issue being discussed.
            There is such a concept - USEFUL LOAD. Which is equal to the difference between the empty plane and the maximum take-off weight. And the B-1B has this payload, roughly = 216-87 t = 129 t. And the Tu-160 has this payload equal to 275-110 = 165 t
            That is, the Tu-160, being 26% heavier, carries 27% more payload. And the fact that the B-1B can take BC instead of a significant part of the fuel is nothing more than an advertising gimmick, which practically does not increase the combat potential of the aircraft against the Russian Federation. We can also install suspensions on the wings of the Tu-160, but why? To make it look nice in the directory?
            1. -2
              19 November 2023 13: 09
              I promised myself not to overeat with you, but what can you do!
              You will always distort my thought, the fact is that 60 tons is not an advertising gimmick, but a REAL OPPORTUNITY. Those. if it is necessary to bombard an area, you can place an ADDITIONAL 26 tons of combat load on the external sling. Everything is ALREADY provided for. Moreover, you named the components correctly: 87 + 69 +60 = 216 tons (roughly, of course). But at the same time, the aircraft naturally loses its aerobatic qualities, in particular the possibility of maximum wing sweep, speed, etc. In reality, the takeoff weight of the B-1B is about 200 tons, of which the combat load is 34 tons (75 pounds).
              So, purely for prestige, we are trying to maintain high supersonic speed for the bomber. In this case, it is often much more useful to drain some of the fuel, but fully charge the suspension. So the Tu-160 could easily lift 70 - 80 tons of combat load when operating against our beloved Japan or South Korea.
              When I write about a naval bomber, I primarily mean an aerial platform for long-range weapons, including the neutralization of air targets at ranges prohibitive for fighters, when the F/A-18 and E-2 turn from a hound dog into a wolf's feed. There are also all the KS-135 and RC-135 and R-3, and without them you can’t fight much. This is where you need a pair of Tu-95 AWACS/guidance aircraft and a Tu-160 - S-500 platform.
              On the contrary, when on patrol, the load should be taken sparingly and the suspension should be replaced with additional tanks. Here, by the way, the idea of ​​using liquefied natural gas as aviation fuel would be suitable.
              1. +4
                19 November 2023 16: 26
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                You will always distort my thought, the fact is that 60 tons is not an advertising gimmick, but a REAL OPPORTUNITY

                Firstly, you are distorting here, presenting a large combat load as an advantage of a US aircraft. Secondly, the “opportunity” you recommend is completely unnecessary within the framework of the tasks that the Tu-160 solves. And, by the way, so does the B-1B. And the B-52, if you think about it.
                Suffice it to remember that during the carpet bombing of Iraq (Desert STORM), the average load of the B-52 was about 16 tons, that is, much less than normal.
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                So, purely for prestige, we are trying to maintain high supersonic speed for the bomber

                What prestige? Supersonic sound is necessary to solve combat missions. The fact that you don’t understand this and are imagining some of your own tactics does not negate this fact.
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                When I write about a naval bomber

                Then write better on alternative history
                1. +1
                  19 November 2023 18: 40
                  What prestige? Supersonic sound is necessary to solve combat missions. The fact that you don’t understand this and are imagining some of your own tactics does not negate this fact.

                  Not a single mission for a bomber operating without entering an air defense zone requires switching to supersonic sound or super stealth.
                  If you have chosen the strategy of launching cruise missiles (CM) from a long distance, then you only need the range to reach the launch point, the CR will do the rest for you.
                  An air defense breakthrough is the ability to overcome the detection and launch zone of missile defense systems, or the interception zone by fighters, which in modern realities is simply impossible without the destruction of air defense systems. And after their destruction, you can bomb from any aircraft. The Americans understood this perfectly well and implemented it back in 1972.
                  The Tu-160 has so far not solved any problems other than unpunished cruise missile bombing of Barmaleev sheds and non-strategic objects on the territory of Ukraine. To do this, it did not require either supersonic speed, range or stealth, but increasing the combat load due to external suspensions due to all three of the listed components is a completely necessary thing, only this is by no means simple, since it affects the airframe design. The Americans foresaw this - we did not. And apparently we will “master” the PAK DA, which in our realities is needed like a stop sign for a hare.
                  The Pacific Ocean is the last refuge of our long-range aviation. She won't be able to act anywhere else. The advantage of such platforms is the flexibility in the use of various weapons systems and a huge reserve for placing on-board electronics. So, it’s not far off that the TU-95 platform will be equipped with all the necessary AWACS and VKP equipment and the Tu-160 platform will be redesigned to destroy sea/air targets over the ocean from a long distance. If not, then the Tu-160M, etc. is just a museum piece.
                  And lastly, you yourself dragged Sevastopol to the battle against the Derflingers, and even to the North Sea. That's when we fought for the first time, but I apologized, given your passion and age difference. So althistoria (this is where everything goes the way you like) is your thing.
                  1. +1
                    19 November 2023 21: 44
                    Quote: Victor Leningradets
                    Not a single mission for a bomber operating without entering an air defense zone requires switching to supersonic sound or super stealth.

                    First mistake. Reaction time is one of the most important properties of missile-carrying aircraft, both in nuclear and non-nuclear conflict.
                    Quote: Victor Leningradets
                    If you have chosen the strategy of launching cruise missiles (CM) from a long distance, then you only need the range to reach the launch point, the CR will do the rest for you.

                    Second mistake. Tell this to the MRA regiments that did not have time to intercept the American AUS.
                    Quote: Victor Leningradets
                    increasing the combat load due to external suspensions due to all three listed components is a completely necessary thing, but this is by no means easy, since it affects the airframe design. The Americans foresaw this - we did not.

                    Third mistake. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from hanging warheads from the wings in exchange for some of the fuel stored in them.
                    Quote: Victor Leningradets
                    And lastly, you yourself dragged Sevastopol to the battle against the Derflingers, and even to the North Sea

                    Yes, in a hypothetical situation.
                    Quote: Victor Leningradets
                    So althistoria (this is where everything goes the way you like) is your thing.

                    Althistori is not “where everything is as you like,” but a variant of historical development that differs from the current one as a result of the emergence of a bifurcation point. And yes, that's my thing. And I recommend that you go to the althistory website with your ideas, not because you have a good alternative, but because there they will popularly explain to you the depth of your delusions.
                    1. 0
                      20 November 2023 07: 56
                      Nonsense is nonsense. And really, what I love is true!
                      1). Reaction time (in the event of a nuclear conflict, please do not tell me; you were not allowed to access a special folder). It only matters for a counter strike. Everything else is done within the flight time of the weapon used. And yes, in case of a close strike, they will return by switching to supersonic - it won’t work, since tanker aircraft are needed. In 10 minutes (this is the extreme reaction time) you will win against a subsonic cruise missile (2100-900)/60x10=200 km. Let's say you fired a rocket at 3600 km. Instead of 4 hours, it will take 3 hours and 47 minutes to reach the goal. Oh yes victory! If they take the salvo point (and in the case of work at high altitude and afterburner this is more likely), then they will intercept in both the first and second cases.
                      About launching at sea targets, we can repeat the same thing, either we hit with a Dagger without entering the air defense coverage area, or we use subsonic modifications and try to overload the air defense orders.
                      I don’t want to talk about the denseness in terms of where the additional combat load is suspended, read in your spare time and don’t touch the wings. The Americans solved the problem in a non-trivial way, and on the second try.
                      I have already written about althistories and bifurcations. Stretching an owl onto a model of the globe in order to get the desired result is childish. But you write interestingly, so if you have the desire, try to replay Moonsund without Bayern on the German side (well, without submarines and aircraft, of course). Oddly enough, the chances here are also not zero.
                      1. +1
                        20 November 2023 08: 12
                        Quote: Victor Leningradets
                        Reaction time (in the event of a nuclear conflict, please do not tell, you were not allowed to access a special folder)

                        Victor stated and... rushed to talk about the concept of a nuclear strike. He sleeps, apparently, with a special folder in his arms :))))
                        Quote: Victor Leningradets
                        In 10 minutes (this is the latest reaction time)

                        That is, you don’t even understand what reaction time is.
      2. 0
        20 November 2023 21: 36
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        And even with a take-off weight in the shock version of 216 tons, the B-1B carries 60 tons of combat load due to external suspensions

        Would it be difficult to name the load variant with the indicated mass?
    3. -8
      19 November 2023 10: 36
      To complete the picture, we must remember that the Tu-160 concept largely repeated the B-1A concept. But we didn’t have time to develop the B-1B concept, even if it was relevant to us.


      Where do you come from, alternatively gifted, zero knowledge on the topic, just a desire to lick the West’s ass deeper.

      Tu-160 is a further development of Myasishchev’s concept. In this case, from the M-18 project.
      B-1A also repeats it. They just couldn’t bring it to fruition, so they made a “light” version of the B-1B.
      1. 0
        19 November 2023 11: 18
        If the B-1A had not been a hit in 1975, when we were trained on it as the future “main opponent” and every flight of pre-production vehicles was not recorded in all the details obtained, I would not answer.
        And so ...
        It cannot be said that in terms of airframe we were somehow inferior to the enemy, rather the opposite. Electronic weapons were creaky, but they also made it possible to maintain a brand (well, work in Vietnam really helped here). Engines are a disaster, we can do it for records, but they are bad for combat work: they are gluttonous, have limited resources, and are labor-intensive to maintain. But the worst problem is the weapons (I’m talking about 1975).
        After all, we were terrorized by the possibility of a repetition of the “Christmas bombings”, that the notorious SRAM would clear the air defenses, and then the bombers would dump their cargo almost unhindered. By the way, then the B-52G and B-52H each carried six AGM-69s on pylons precisely as a means of cleaning air defenses. Well, there’s also the fashionable variable wing geometry, which has proven its effectiveness on the F-111. And here it is at the exit - a super-duper bomb carrier with the ability to break through air defense, all-mode flight and strategic range.
        But then came the realization that the latest B-52 modifications can confidently carry up to 20 SRAMs or a combination of 6 SRAMs and 20 tons of bombs, and then it turned out that the FB-111 from Europe with 6 SRAMs is quite capable of solving B-1A tasks at lower costs . The Americans are a pragmatic people and the B-1 program was frozen. And in 1982 it was defrosted again, but as a carrier of AGM-86 cruise missiles. It should be noted that this decision of the Reagan administration was more of a demonstrative step, like much of their program to destroy the Soviet Union, but it influenced the development of the Tu-160 project in terms of weapons and the concept of combat use.
        And yes, the Tu-160 - in the main decisions it is the M-18, transferred from the Myasishchevites to the Tupolevs by the decision of the MAP.
        1. -3
          19 November 2023 12: 01
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          It cannot be said that in terms of airframe we were somehow inferior to the enemy.
          The airframe of the Tu-160 is not a fountain: it is overweight (you will laugh - because of the rivets, they used not the ones that were needed, but the ones that were), it is not resistant to overloads, and during a long flight at supersonic, the skin begins to warp. They wrote some other nasty things about him, but I didn’t remember them.
          1. +1
            19 November 2023 17: 10
            The airframe of the Tu-160 is not a fountain: it is overweight (you will laugh - because of the rivets, they used not the ones that were needed, but the ones that were), it is not resistant to overloads, and during a long flight at supersonic, the skin begins to warp. They wrote some other nasty things about him, but I didn’t remember them.


            And where is it overweight? Empty weight 110 kg. About rivets in general, enchanting stupidity.
            1. -1
              19 November 2023 18: 45
              Quote: bk0010
              The airframe of the Tu-160 is not a fountain: it is overweight (you will laugh - because of the rivets, they used the wrong ones

              The center wing (that part of the aircraft that carries the greatest load) of the Tu-160 is generally made of titanium alloys; there is much more to be done for the aircraft to be durable, but at low weight. It’s the same for the new Tu-160, you couldn’t find the right size rivets?
              If we compare the payload of the aircraft to the maximum weight of the aircraft, both the B-2 and the Tu-160, it is the same and equals 40%. Did the B-2 have the same problem with rivets (if the B-2 is equal in performance to an overweight aircraft)?
              1. 0
                19 November 2023 20: 28
                Quote: Bad_gr
                It’s the same for the new Tu-160, you couldn’t find the right size rivets?
                I don’t know about the new ones: the cooperation was over, they could do what needed to be done.
                Quote: Bad_gr
                If we compare the payload of the aircraft to the maximum weight of the aircraft, both the B-2 and the Tu-160, it is the same and equals 40%
                Compare with the B-1B.

                Quote: Bad_gr
                Did the B-2 have the same problem with rivets (if the B-2 is equal in performance to an overweight aircraft)?
                The B-2 is a strange aircraft, which not only had its aerodynamics damaged, but also had its engines shoved into its rear. You shouldn't compare a normal one with him.
                1. 0
                  20 November 2023 21: 12
                  Quote: bk0010
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  If we compare the payload of the aircraft to the maximum weight of the aircraft, both the B-2 and the Tu-160, it is the same and equals 40%

                  Compare with the B-1B.

                  Will you divide 186807 pounds into 477000 yourself or help?
  13. -4
    19 November 2023 09: 12
    If you look at the history of the development of bomber aviation in the XNUMXth century, the Soviet (Russian) and American approaches are largely similar.
    I don't agree. In the beginning this may have been the case, but now the approaches are completely different. The amers are counting on quietly flying up to take a shit and disappearing. Without getting into a fight. And we are counting on an open battle, where stealth is by no means a decisive factor.
  14. -8
    19 November 2023 09: 23
    I think the B-21 will repeat the fate of the B-2. Especially if the price turns out to be comparable to B-2. They wanted to build 100 aircraft, but they could only build 20. The same thing will happen with the B-21. The essence of military weapons is not in quality (which is no less important) but in quantity. We have an example with the super-buper SU-57, expensive and sophisticated, you can count the number on your fingers, but the Su-35, SU-34, SU-25, SU-24 are fighting. The same example with tanks, with Armata and T-72, T-90, T-80
    Another issue for us is organizational. All technically sophisticated weapons must have their own ministries with professionally trained leaders. Ministry of Aviation and Ministry of the Navy. This has more pros than cons.
    Returning to the B-21, I think that we have techniques and methods for detecting the B-2, and the B-21 is practically no different from it. soldier
    1. +5
      19 November 2023 14: 03
      Quote: V.
      I think the B-21 will repeat the fate of the B-2.

      Unfortunately, the Yankees have worked on their mistakes. The B-21 is conceptually very good. Proven engines and avionics from the F-35, a repeatedly tested and researched flying wing design, a bomber class between long-range and strategic bombers. They make a workhorse, not a wunderwaffe.
      1. -6
        19 November 2023 14: 29
        Conceptually, everything is always good in words. The Americans themselves admit that the F-35 is a crude aircraft, not yet fully developed, and making another aircraft based on it is doubtful. For some reason, only Americans in the world amuse themselves with flying wings. But that's their problem. There are still ten years before it is put into operation. During this time, we will figure out how to deal with it no matter what. soldier
        1. +2
          19 November 2023 17: 01
          For some reason, only Americans in the world amuse themselves with flying wings.

          Russia with PAK DA and China with their new strategist warmly applaud you.
          1. -6
            19 November 2023 18: 09
            PAK YES and China with its plane is a monkey from America, there is nothing good here. Just a waste of time and money. If modern air defense destroys all supersonic combat aircraft, then what can we say about an allegedly invisible aircraft with the speed of ordinary passenger aircraft. It is necessary to develop a line of aircraft with dimensions such as SU-34, TU-22M3, SU-57. soldier
  15. -7
    19 November 2023 10: 51
    Ahhhh, invisible, invisible. We've had enough already. Invisible for whom? For the Papuans and their own citizens! Yes, they detect not as far as simple ones. But just think about it. This is a one-time aircraft. He opened the bomb bays and everyone can see. I turned on the electronic warfare again for everyone, like on a silver platter. Bomber! How can he get to the minimum distance to attack?
    Clearly this is written by someone who admires this.
  16. -3
    19 November 2023 11: 09
    So Ryder flew! NATO is ready for battle!
  17. -3
    19 November 2023 11: 40
    The B-21 is the most high-tech machine in history! The bomber definitely has no analogues and will be able to use a wide range of weapons!
  18. -1
    19 November 2023 11: 56
    The American B-1B was optimized for flights at high transonic speeds at low altitudes
    It was not optimized: the engines were left from the supersonic version (B-1A), and the variable-sweep wing. And all this for the sake of 1.2M.
    That is, stealth allows the attacker to be the first to see the enemy’s radar radiation
    You can be the first to see the enemy's radar radiation without invisibility: the radar screams "all over Ivanovo", it can be detected from a greater distance than it can see.
    Maybe then an anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) like S-400?
    Well, it won’t work with the S-400 (yet), but in principle, if you make missiles with an active seeker and radio command control, then you can shoot down stealth missiles. According to the long-wave radar data, the missile is launched into the detection area, and then, due to the short distance to the target, the active seeker will capture the “invisibility”.
    and the UAV is a wingman, which only lured them into a trap for enemy fighters
    In a trap? How is that? Is there a squad of fighters hiding behind the hill? Or have the stealth fighters turned off their radars and are sitting far away? So they will have to turn on the radars for battles; they won’t be able to fight using subnoise detection data. According to AWACS data? Yes, you can fight, but where is the guarantee that our RVV-BD fighter will not be sent to him?
    low-power active radar homing heads (ARLGSN) of V-V missiles, and even missiles, may simply not capture a stealth aircraft and pass by
    If the rocket is close, then no amount of invisibility will help: the signal will be strong. If from afar, then yes, the capture may not take place.
    1. +3
      19 November 2023 16: 04
      Bombers do not have the same restrictions on weight, size and energy parameters for electronics as fighters do, so they usually have powerful electronic warfare stations.
    2. +3
      19 November 2023 17: 06
      It was not optimized: the engines were left from the supersonic version (B-1A), and the variable-sweep wing. And all this for the sake of 1.2M.

      Let's put it this way - the B-1B is a remake of the B-1A airframe using stealth elements, while the maximum speed at high altitude was greatly reduced, but the Americans considered that the game was worth the candle. And low-altitude flights were provided for both versions of the machine.
    3. +1
      19 November 2023 18: 55
      It was not optimized: and the engines were left from the supersonic version (B-1A)

      B1B is also supersonic. But optimized for low altitude flights.
      Due to the fact that the B1B uses fixed air intakes optimized from the point of view of radar signature and low flight altitude instead of the adjustable ones of the B1A, the speed at low altitudes increased, and the radar signature decreased at the expense of speed at high altitudes. The maximum take-off weight has also increased.
  19. -6
    19 November 2023 12: 31
    The F35 and B21 stealth bombers will provide the United States and its allies with superiority for years to come! They are also about to be armed with hypersonic missiles!
  20. 0
    19 November 2023 12: 46
    The masks have been dropped a long time ago and no one in Russia has any illusions about the US attitude towards us. But we cannot agree with the fact that the Ukrainian Air Force has not been destroyed. And the air defense and air force there are no longer Ukrainian, and if NATO constantly throws new systems at them, they will not be destroyed for a long time. But the process is underway.
  21. +1
    19 November 2023 12: 53
    Quote from Andy_nsk
    if the citizens of a country do not want to feed their army, then they will be forced to feed someone else’s!


    The Germans, Koreans and Japanese are happy with everything))
  22. -4
    19 November 2023 13: 53
    Well, we now understand that we have learned how to build flying irons)))
  23. +6
    19 November 2023 16: 00
    Well, then the B-1 Lancer and Tu-160 appeared, similar in appearance as twin brothers. However, there was already a difference in approach here - the American B-1B was optimized for flights at high transonic speeds at low altitudes, while the Soviet Tu-160 was intended for flights at supersonic speeds at high altitudes.

    The author is not aware of the existence of the B1A, in the “image and likeness” of which the Tu-160 was made.
    The B1A was built as a high-speed high-altitude bomber; it took off in 1974; the Tu-160, using the same concept, was created by 1981. But by this time, the Americans had already come to the conclusion that the concept of a high-altitude high-speed breakthrough had completely outlived its usefulness, and by 1980 the B1A was reworked into a completely different concept - a low-altitude breakthrough with an automatic terrain following mode, for which the new B1B was optimized.
  24. BAI
    -1
    19 November 2023 16: 38
    We have been unable to destroy the air force of Ukraine for almost 2 years, not to mention achieving strategic air supremacy over this country

    Yes, because we haven’t been fighting there for 2 years, but are engaged in masturbation, and we put the interests of the population of Ukraine and our own traitors in the Russian government above the interests of our own army
  25. +1
    19 November 2023 17: 50
    Given the trends in future aviation, as well as the discussions surrounding the B-21, I think the Ryder will be a return to the fortress bomber concept.
    What I mean. Some bombers were called flying fortresses because, in addition to the bomb load, they carried a colossal amount of defense weapons. Machine guns and autocannons.
    And in the end, the bombers of the past could defend themselves and fight back. But after the Second World War, the means of self-defense of aircraft somehow greatly degraded into means of passive protection (stealth, reduction of the thermal footprint). The only active ones were the shooting of heat traps and sometimes electronic warfare equipment. But they did not hit the enemy or his missiles, but only deflected them to the side.

    And now we are on the verge of realizing a simple truth - passive defense methods have exhausted their entire supply of implementation, and air defense systems are still developing. And now everyone understands that they need to return to the possibility of conducting active defense by aviation.

    Hence the wave of development of a new generation of explosive and anti-missile missiles. Instead of staying on the sidelines and on the edge and acting based on the enemy’s actions. New generations of bombers will impose their own game through decoy UAVs and their own means of jamming. And in case of contact with the enemy, they will be able to stand up for themselves using active means of self-defense.

    And it seems "Ryder" is the first incarnation of a bomber with this returned concept!
  26. 0
    19 November 2023 18: 31
    Obscurantism, these strategists - the missile will arrive faster, it’s more difficult to shoot it down and costs a lot less
  27. +1
    19 November 2023 23: 36
    Only one thing can be said with confidence – the article is full of PPC. Crap from the author in every paragraph. From incorrect conclusions, rearrangement of causes and effects, to contradictions to facts that have already happened. Dis.
  28. 0
    20 November 2023 18: 37
    “Only one thing can be said with confidence: this car should not be underestimated.” –
    Absolutely right. Raider B-21 will be as dangerous as B-2
  29. +1
    20 November 2023 19: 00
    read the comments.
    My couch opinion.
    PAK YES there will be but not now but later. It will happen anyway.
    B - 21 mattresses will be made, but very little due to the high cost and degradation of design ideas. Let me explain. And what do they have with B - 2? They never finished it.... And what do they have with fu - 22? So you didn’t finish it? What about fu 35? Problems too? Are pilots no longer suffocating? And another 800 problems were fixed? There is only one answer to all these questions - NO!!! And then suddenly they will do everything super and cool? Yes, but in words and in advertising brochures.
    But we need to save money, so they will make B-21, but not much. 20 pieces)
    1. +1
      22 November 2023 11: 08
      I tried to convey almost the same thing three days ago. It was downvoted, but I gave you a plus, I completely agree with you. For Russia, a flying wing for military purposes is a dead end at this time, it is a provocation, like with Star Wars.
      If you are downvoted, don’t worry, these are Jewish commentators who have left, and local Russophobes. And maybe there is also a filter that does not allow positive comments from Russian patriotic commentators to pass through. soldier
      1. +1
        23 November 2023 14: 27
        Catch the return plus)) Although these pluses don’t make me cold or hot. I have an opinion and it’s my own.)))
  30. 0
    24 November 2023 08: 16
    Quote: bayard
    It was possible to create a turbine for pumping each engine through a power take-off shaft only later, during the war.

    There is something important: a Freudian slip.
    Please realize that the turbine does not pump anything anywhere. A turbine may be a motor, but not an actuator. The compressor pumps up.
    Drive centrifugal superchargers (CCN) have been installed on engines since the times of Tsar Gorokh and the USSR was no exception.
    Overcome your laziness and open Kotelnikov, “Domestic Aviation Piston Engines”, everything is written there.
  31. 0
    26 November 2023 08: 30
    I don’t even doubt that the Americans will build them in a large series. Let’s see what we have with PAK YES, how many will be ordered, although not soon, but in general the problem is always in large-scale serial production, we make planes one by one.