B-52J: Wait, I never left to come back!

114
B-52J: Wait, I never left to come back!

Well, as they say, “the song is sung”: it has been officially announced that the service of the main American strategic bomber B-52 in the B-52J modification will be extended until 2040 after the completion of the work.

The aircraft, which has been in service with the US Air Force since 1955 and is already the record holder for service duration, is approaching its centennial. At least in 2040, the B-52 will have served for 85 years. And this is simply an unimaginable duration for an aircraft. In 2055, if everything goes as planned, the B-52 will be able to celebrate its centennial in military service, and, it should be noted, not everyone reading this will be able to witness such a remarkable service life. The author, for example, is completely confident that he will not write an article dedicated to this event.



But if it is "well-cut and tightly sewn", then why not? In the end, let the American crews worry about this, who will decide for themselves whether they are getting into the cockpit of a piece of junk or a combat aircraft.


Naturally, a lot of those billion dollars that are so dear to the hearts of the American military will be spent on all of this.

Since the condition of the airframes satisfies American aviation experts, who extend the service life with unwavering hands, so that's how it is, we won't argue. After all, they know how to fly airplanes there too.

So, the upgrade will affect other things. And it really is, because there is an EVENT coming: the B-52J will finally get new engines!

This is how it happens in our world: literally recently the Pentagon seriously considered the issue of completely writing off the B-52 fleet, but alas, it did not work out. We must maintain our fragile primacy in the world by all means, including in terms of airborne nuclear carriers weapons. This is a theoretical matter in principle, but politically advantageous. Therefore, contrary to all expectations, a decision was made to extend the service life of strategic bombers until 2040, and in the future even further.

The main obstacle to this used to be the problem with engines. The Pratt & Whitney JT3 was the engine that carried the strategic might of the US Air Force for more than half a century. But only diamonds can be considered eternal in this world, and even then, only conditionally.


Today, this engine does not meet any modern requirements, especially in terms of efficiency. But the main problem is that a long time ago, during a fire, a significant part of the technological information was lost, which was not digitized. A decent problem, which did not allow the re-establishment of engine production. Yes, there was a decent stock of engines from the first series of aircraft, but sooner or later everything ends.

The bomber will be given new life by an engine from Rolls-Royce.


The BR725 engine, which the US military called the F130, has been faithfully carrying Gulfstream G650 business jets into the skies.


The engine, of course, is not comparable to its predecessor from Pratt & Whitney in terms of efficiency and service life, so it came in handy.

The F130 engine version was generally liked by the military and was provisionally registered on C-37 and E-11 aircraft. Civil and military aircraft with these engines have already flown more than 29 million hours and have proven their reliability. The new engine is capable of developing thrust up to 75,6 kilonewtons, the same as the TF33, but with much lower (estimated savings of about 30%!!!) fuel consumption.

The work is complex, the work is expensive. Of course, such a thing as 3D modeling helps to solve many issues, but still, the engine replacement program is complicated. Remember, there was an idea to install 52 engines from a Boeing 8 on the B-4 instead of 747 standard engines? Why didn’t this seemingly good idea work? It’s simple: it turned out to be very difficult to redesign the wing, engine nacelles, fuel supply system and fire protection system.


For the F130 engines, the nacelles had to be redesigned, and it is worth noting that modern nacelles turned out better than the classic ones: the efforts of the developers were successful and now the new engine can be serviced and repaired without removing it from the aircraft. And this saves both money and time. The latter is even more useful, especially when it is necessary for bombers to work hard.

Complex testing of the new engines in the new nacelle is planned to begin in the fourth quarter of this year. The tests will be conducted at NASA's John Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. There is a test complex E there, which is designed for testing small engines. And by the standards of space testers, the F130 is a very small engine.

The first group of modified B-52s is expected to enter service by the end of 2028.

But not just the engine, as they say... Naturally, replacing the engines will entail fundamental changes in their control system, replacing sensors, etc. At the end of it all - digital engine control for pilots and new information displays in the cockpit.


So if so, welcome to the 21st century...

In total, the entire program to upgrade B-52 strategic bombers to the B-52J level is planned to cost $11,9 billion. For the 76 aircraft remaining in combat service, that is more than impressive.

Here is another thing to think about: new, more economical engines, if they really save a third of the fuel compared to the previous ones, can affect the bomber's range. It already has more than that - more than 7 km, plus the ability to refuel in the air... But even with such a range, the B-000 can approach the territories of Russia and China at 52 km without refueling. And if its range on the new engines increases by 2 km, this will be even easier. And here it is worth looking at another nuance.

What else besides the engine and controls?

That's right, weapons.


As part of the modernization of the B-52J, they have prepared the ability to operate hypersonic cruise missiles rockets (HACM).

This Mach-plus, scramjet-powered hypersonic missile is still in development, but developments are finished sooner or later. And while the Air Force has confirmed that it will not buy any hypersonic weapons in FY5, that’s only because it doesn’t have one yet. But it does have a budget request for FY2024 that includes $2025 million for HACM research and development, followed by another $380 million in FY517 for production. And so the Air Force plans to have the missile operational by 2026.

And the B-52J is planned to be modernized by 2028. In general, everything fits together. The main thing is that everything goes according to the developed plans. Then in 2028, 76 bombers will become B-52J, with hypersonic missiles and new engines.


Is this an option? Yes. Is it possible that the Americans won't be able to do all this by the deadline? Also yes. In fact, there isn't that much time, only three years.

Considering that the US Air Force did not send its aircraft to the scrap heap, there is something to keep the remaining 76 aircraft operational, especially since they were all manufactured in the last years of production, that is, in 1961-1962.

And the "Buffs" (nicknamed B-52) will have to squeak for a very long time. We all understand that hopes for the B-1 and B-2, to put it mildly, were not justified. We will see if something meaningful comes out of the B-21 program, but not soon. And there must be defense. Therefore, the 52nd will serve as a scarecrow, a carcass, but. There is simply nowhere to go, just write off 76 strategic bombers - the US cannot afford this, because they will be left with nothing.

What will happen there in 2040, whether the B-21 will fly by then or not, is a second question. And the first is that if anything happens, the US Air Force missiles and bombs will be able to move from point A to point B on D-Day in the bomb bays and on the pods of the B-52. And that is much better than not moving.


But what to do if out of 100 B-1Bs, less than half remain today? And the condition of those remaining is satisfactory and nothing more? And as carriers of nuclear weapons, B-1Bs have all served their purpose.

Two dozen B-2s, whose average age has already crossed the 25-year mark, also seem to hint that there are no special prospects ahead. And we all understand that if any of the aforementioned trio have prospects for the next 20 years, then these are definitely not the “newbies”.

This is where such an ugly comparison comes to mind: "kopecks" and "sixes", the average age of which is 50 years, are found on the streets about as often as "tens" and "elevens", which are on average 25 years old. In approximately the same degree of wear and tear, "kopecks" even often win. I don't even want to talk about modern miracles of the auto industry like "Granta" and "Vesta", after five years they already start to rust at an accelerated rate. And the fact that they will not survive at least until 25 years - here I am ready to argue.

It's about the same with American aircraft. The most modern B-2s will end up in the trash in the next 10 years. B-1 Lancers will get there a little later. And B-52s will only appear when something really flying appears. There are many of them, and they are still combat-ready, although their combat capability is very conditional. But they will be able to fly to the launch distance of China from the Pacific Ocean. If they are not detected, and even if they are detected, then this is a completely different conversation in terms of tactics. And missiles on suspensions or in compartments with a flight range of 1500 km are very serious. Not as serious as ours, which are capable of flying 6 km, but nevertheless.

So in 2028 we're expecting old new B-52Js with new Rolls-Royce engines and new missiles. It's not that long of a wait, but something tells me that in those three years we'll see more than one interesting black comedy moment.
114 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -7
    29 September 2024 06: 08
    In total, it is planned to spend $52 billion on the entire program to upgrade B-52 strategic bombers to the B-11,9J level.

    The allocation of such money for the modernization of old B-52s says only one thing: all the new Bs (B-1, B-2, B-21, etc.) are complete crap.
    1. +11
      29 September 2024 12: 28
      Not at all. It's just that the backlog in terms of upgrading the B-52 turned out to be huge. And the quality of its production. We also have an example - the Tu-95MSM, although the scope of work is completely different - only a few pieces. There is a slight shortage of money and capacity, as well as people. The Americans know how to build bombers - the B-17 was the best long-range bomber in the European theater of WWII, the B-2 was generally ahead of its time, so much so that even the USSR copied it in the Tu-29 (dramatically advancing its aviation industry), then there was, back in the late forties, the B-4, the world's first strategic nuclear bomber, the long-range jet B-36, and soon - the B-47. The B-52B and B-1 managed to fight, had no combat losses, and what will happen to the B-2 - we'll see. There is no point in begging the successes of enemies. They must be parried.
      1. -8
        29 September 2024 14: 00
        You are wrong. The B52 was good maybe until 80 and that was with the advent of the cruise missile. Today it is an anachronism. A zombie. No low altitude with terrain following, no speed, no runway requirements at all. And there are some other little things. And everyone is raising it. There is no alternative.
        1. +6
          29 September 2024 19: 50
          "No alternative" - ​​that's exactly it, and translated into more understandable Russian - a wonderful plane. You refute your own words.
          1. +1
            4 October 2024 04: 03
            You know the tasks for which the B52 was created. Vietnam is the pinnacle of their use. Few people want to stick their noses into an area with advanced air defense on the B52. Even a needle will take it. Well, or several.
            1. 0
              4 October 2024 07: 34
              Even against the Houthis, few would risk a B52. But let the black voivode and the demented and the Jewish channel decide where to put this aged monster.
          2. 0
            5 October 2024 07: 32
            It's not a fucking thing, there's just no other. However, let them decide for themselves what kind of shit to burn their billions on. For me, the future belongs to strategic UAVs. But I'm not an expert on topavar.
            1. 0
              5 October 2024 14: 47
              “there’s simply no other way.” - well, that’s because there’s nothing better to do.
              "The future belongs to strategic UAVs." - strategic UAVs have been created for a long time, they are called ICBMs. hi
              1. 0
                7 October 2024 16: 51
                Your imagination is really bad. You have to be able to confuse a kr with an ICBM. I could have given you an assessment as the only author here, but he immediately started snitching. Move your brain, that was the slogan
                1. 0
                  7 October 2024 18: 51
                  I wasn't confused. Firstly, there is a smiley there, apparently you didn't notice it. request
                  Secondly, there is a grain of truth in every joke.
                  Thirdly - what is wrong with my statement? Does the ICBM have a crew? No. That means it is a drone. Does it have an intercontinental range? Yes. That means it is a strategic drone. hi
                  "Confusing the cruise missile with the ICBM" - please quote where you wrote about the cruise missile in your comment. belay
                  1. 0
                    8 October 2024 08: 13
                    A UAV is an aircraft, an ICBM doesn't actually fly (it flies on a ballistic trajectory). But let's not argue - it's a waste of resources. Strategic UAVs are basically nuclear-powered cruise missiles. You can attach something else to them. I'm more interested in the question - were our higher powers lying about having such cruise missiles with nuclear propulsion?
                    1. 0
                      8 October 2024 08: 47
                      "The ICBM doesn't actually fly (it flies on a ballistic trajectory)" - fantastic!!! I'm delighted! What don't you complain about on VO!
                      1. 0
                        8 October 2024 09: 03
                        And in your opinion, a thrown stone or a fired projectile or a Grad rocket also flies. (Well, I didn’t want to argue).
                        What a stubborn uncle! belay
                        And don't complain, it won't help. laughing
                      2. 0
                        8 October 2024 09: 07
                        "or the Grad rocket also flies" - and what are they doing??? Floating? Driving? Walking? Rolling? Sliding? Really, let's stop.
                      3. 0
                        8 October 2024 09: 12
                        Maybe I should start whining too, in a mournful way. smile An aircraft is one that performs controlled flight - maneuvers, for which it has wings (planes) and engines. This is to improve education. lol Flying and (being able to perform maneuvers in flight) are not the same thing
        2. +9
          29 September 2024 20: 26
          A bomber is a weapons platform and the requirements for it are determined by the weapons it uses. Bombs that need to be delivered to the target area, bypassing air defenses, are one thing. This includes speed, terrain following, and everything else. A long-range missile is quite another: you just need to deliver it to the launch point (although this is also a task), and the rest is the missile's business.
        3. +3
          30 September 2024 12: 58
          Quote: Larich
          Today it is an anachronism. Zombies. No low altitude with terrain following, no speed, no runway requirements at all.

          Why does the strategist need all this?
          The combat load should do all this - it should fly to WWI with terrain following. And the carrier should carry as much load as possible to the specified area and unload the revolvers and suspensions in it.
          That's why the B-52 is still alive and the B-1 is dead. smile
      2. +1
        29 September 2024 20: 17
        Quote: Glagol1
        B-52. B-1B and B-2 managed to fight, had no combat losses

        B-52s suffered losses in the skies over Vietnam, and quite significant ones, even though they had powerful electronic warfare and automatic chaff-cutting systems. They were shot down not only by air defense missile systems, but also by fighters. One such (B-52) was on the account of a friend of mine (now deceased), a general, he had two tours there, an air defense missile specialist, and shot down two aircraft: an F-105 in the first and a B-52 in the second. When he was already retired, he was the chairman of the Russian (it would be better to say Soviet)-Vietnamese friendship society for a long time.
        So they shot down a B-52, no doubt about it, in Hanoi near the museum there is a pile of its wreckage lying... next to other wreckage.
        Quote: Glagol1
        Don't beg for your enemies' successes. They need to be parried.

        We will have even more Tu-95MSM for parrying. And they are much newer - built in the 70s - 80s.
        1. -1
          29 September 2024 20: 32
          So you think the Americans will destroy the Russian forces so much that it will come to carpet bombing in the Vietnamese style? winked
          1. +2
            29 September 2024 21: 17
            Where did you get that from? I pointed out that the B-52 had combat losses in its history during the Vietnam War. And even then - during carpet bombings they were a very difficult target due to their powerful electronic warfare system.
            And I was a little mistaken about the number of Tu-95MS\MSM, there are currently 58 of them in service (no more than B-52) and about 30 in storage. The figure of their total number in our country is imprinted in my memory.
        2. +2
          30 September 2024 13: 01
          Quote: bayard
          They were shot down not only by air defense missile systems, but also by fighter jets.

          Yeah... covert approach to the target without turning on the radar and the operation of the air defense missile system with the IR seeker. Otherwise, the very first activation of the fighter's onboard radar would disrupt the attack - the "half-past one" air defense missile system would immediately detect the radiation and begin to suppress everything that the MiG-21 had.
          1. 0
            30 September 2024 18: 09
            Yes That's right. But they still shot them down.
            Although all participants in such a process, even many years later, when mentioning the B-52, shook their heads: “It has very powerful electronic warfare.”
            1. 0
              5 October 2024 23: 08
              But they still shot down

              If memory serves, according to Vietnamese data, one was shot down successfully, one with the loss of a fighter. The Americans did not admit the loss in the first case.
  2. +14
    29 September 2024 06: 20
    There is something mystical about this car after all. How many times has it been called obsolete and condemned to a quick exit?
    And he, having fought and simply served for almost 70 years, continues to "pull the strap". We are practically the same age, with my not-so-conditional opponent, and now it looks like he will outlive me. Well, here the motto of the House of Bruss is appropriate: "We were!"
    I just thought: a bad start is a bad start. They still have a bunch of machines in storage. And if they reinforce the airframe and change the skin, then, although for a different amount of money, they can start producing this or even the next modification. With the improvement of weapons and the increase in range, this machine will be able to create a real threat everywhere, and simply reign over the oceans. Here, the reincarnation of the TU-160 as an intercontinental interceptor with ultra-long-range air-to-air missiles, including with SBCh, may be needed.
    1. +4
      29 September 2024 06: 46
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      And if you reinforce the airframe and change the skin, then, although for different money, you can start producing this, or even the next modification.
      The same can be said about the Tu-16, but they were crippled and sent for disposal. And the Skals, in a fit of peace and stupidity, sent the Tu-160 for disposal too.
      1. +10
        29 September 2024 08: 54
        And the Skalki, in a fit of peacefulness and stupidity, sent the Tu-160 to the scrap heap


        And how are we different from the Skalks?
        Greetings from Vozdvizhenka.







        1. +4
          29 September 2024 10: 34
          Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
          Greetings from Vozdvizhenka
          I don't need greetings like these that make my heart bleed stop
        2. +8
          29 September 2024 15: 07
          And how are we different from the Skalks?
          Greetings from Vozdvizhenka.
          Both countries rushed to fulfill their agreements with the Americans.
        3. +4
          29 September 2024 20: 23
          Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
          Greetings from Vozdvizhenka.

          It's scary to look at such barbarity, because the planes were almost new... How much human labor was wasted. angry
      2. 0
        29 September 2024 12: 31
        The Americans have a unique place where they store hundreds of large vehicles in the open air. A climate miracle. There was no such place in the USSR, and you can't fit hundreds of bombers under a roof.
        1. +6
          29 September 2024 13: 18
          Quote: Glagol1
          but you can't fit hundreds of bombers under the roof.

          So we have enough money for oligarchs' yachts worth billions, but no money to build a miserable hangar? That's clear.
          1. 0
            29 September 2024 13: 36
            A simple hangar won't do. And the oligarchs have nothing to do with it - there weren't any in the USSR, and everything was in the open air anyway. I'll explain scientifically why a hangar won't do. First, humidity control. It has to be dry. Otherwise, condensation and hello hot to everything, electrics, hydraulics, materials, etc. Second, temperature control. It shouldn't jump, otherwise condensation, details see above. Let's move on: we have to spend electricity and, in our long winters, heat too. Now imagine such a hangar - with climate control, 60X60X15 meters = 54 thousand cubic meters, with long-term winter heating, how much it costs to build it and how much electricity and heat it will consume over a certain period. And a hangar like a "cold warehouse" will give nothing. It's simple, economics. I think we could have looked for something in Central Asia, as God gave it to the striped ones, but apparently they didn't find it...
            1. 0
              29 September 2024 13: 46
              Quote: Glagol1
              And the oligarchs have nothing to do with it - there weren’t any in the USSR, and everything was still out in the open.

              And? I'm not talking about the USSR. They had a different economy, industry, social system, and their own ideas about technology. We're talking about today. And it's also quite possible to fight condensate, no one said that planes should be kept in full combat readiness.
            2. +1
              29 September 2024 18: 00
              So it's better to store them right in the open air?))
              Even a simple canopy already protects the body from precipitation.
              1. +2
                29 September 2024 20: 28
                Quote: Jager
                So it's better to store them right in the open air?))
                Even a simple canopy already protects the body from precipitation.

                There are also the conditions of the agreement with the USA - all strategic bombers must be based on open sites so that their numbers can be counted from a satellite, since the numbers are stipulated by the agreement. And so a canopy would certainly not hurt. Or even a cold hangar - it will be much more comfortable for technicians to service.
        2. +7
          29 September 2024 15: 47
          The Americans have a unique place where they store hundreds of large vehicles in the open air. A climate miracle. There was no such place in the USSR, and you can't fit hundreds of bombers under a roof.


          However, even in their unique climate, Americans carry out measures to seal vehicles in storage. Example.



          And here those in power have only one thing in mind: how to steal as much as possible and obtain more privileges for themselves.
          This is how our "valiant" Aerospace Forces store An-124s, of which there are only 14 in storage and 12 in service.
          They didn't even manage to make basic arched shelters.

        3. +2
          30 September 2024 05: 06
          Quote: Glagol1
          Americans have a unique place where they store hundreds of large machines in the open air. A climate miracle
          Have you heard anything about preserving equipment? wink
      3. +2
        29 September 2024 13: 33
        Not peace-loving or stupidity, but an insatiable eternal desire to do harm to Russia. Thank God, several planes were traded for debts, and several planes were urgently flown to Russia without Ukraine's consent. We should remember and be proud of the pilots who practically "hijacked" the White Swans.
        1. 0
          5 October 2024 23: 11
          Several Su-24s were hijacked, and I'm not sure that the planes were not returned. Tu-160s were not hijacked.
  3. +3
    29 September 2024 06: 22
    And missiles on suspensions or in compartments with a flight range of 1500 km are very serious. Not as serious as ours, which can fly 6 km, but nevertheless.

    Well, stupid Americans©
    They can't fill the cruiser with a large amount of kerosene)
    1. 0
      5 October 2024 23: 12
      They have Trident.
  4. +2
    29 September 2024 06: 38
    An interesting article, but after reading about the enemy's weapons, I always have a question - what's happening to our similar aviation? And our similar aviation, if I'm not mistaken, is the Tu-95, Tu-22M, Tu-160. Which also claims to have a long service life. I'm waiting for an article from Roman about us, our beloved ones, and our aircraft. hi soldier
    1. +9
      29 September 2024 06: 48
      What can I say? The competence to build Tu22 and Tu95 has been irretrievably lost. Their quantity is much less than the quantity of B52s the Americans have. The loss of any of them is an irreparable loss of combat readiness. Tu160 production has been restored, but its pace is simply staggering.
      1. +2
        29 September 2024 10: 23
        Bayard will come running now and shower you with numbers
        1. +2
          29 September 2024 20: 53
          Quote from Sumotori_380
          Bayard will come running now and shower you with numbers

          Don't you like numbers?
          But for clarity and illustration, I will say that currently (according to Wikipedia) there are 58 Tu-95MS (31 units) and Tu-95MSM (27 units) in service - as of the end of last year. Not so long ago there were 61 units, but there were accidents and even at least one catastrophe. About three dozen more were in storage, now their fate is unknown. Those that are in service and have undergone modernization will serve until the mid-40s.
          1. Alf
            0
            29 September 2024 22: 50
            Quote: bayard
            Quote from Sumotori_380
            Bayard will come running now and shower you with numbers

            Don't you like numbers?
            But for clarity and illustration, I will say that currently (according to Wikipedia) there are 58 Tu-95MS (31 units) and Tu-95MSM (27 units) in service - as of the end of last year. Not so long ago there were 61 units, but there were accidents and even at least one catastrophe. About three dozen more were in storage, now their fate is unknown. Those that are in service and have undergone modernization will serve until the mid-40s.

            And what about the Tu-160?
            1. +2
              29 September 2024 23: 42
              There are already about 20, by the end of this year there should be/become more. It seems like this year they should reach the rate of 3 units per year (under the USSR they built 5 units, but they wanted to increase it to 10 units per year. There was a delay with the NK-32 engines, they were slowly accelerating production. But they were going to install this engine on the Tu-22M4, which was supposed to reveal the full potential of this airframe. They didn't have time.
              1. Alf
                +1
                29 September 2024 23: 44
                Quote: bayard
                slowly ramped up production.

                Especially if you knew with what kind of swearing it happened. And it does happen...
                1. +1
                  29 September 2024 23: 50
                  But they were also going to install the NK-32 on the Tu-144, their entire fleet in Voronezh was waiting for new engines. They did install one, made a flying laboratory... the Americans rented it for several years in the 90s - tested it, evaluated it.
      2. +2
        29 September 2024 12: 36
        Tu-22M and Tu-95 are slowly being modernized and repaired. There are quite a few of them - about a hundred, of all types, although not all are in service. So in this type, considering almost two dozen 160s, we are not far behind. But where the situation is dire, these are AWACS aircraft and tankers.
        1. +3
          29 September 2024 21: 03
          Quote: Glagol1
          So in this respect, considering almost two dozen more 160s, we are not far behind.

          Numerically, we even have parity - about 150 units on each side.
          Quote: Glagol1
          But where the situation is dire is with the AWACS aircraft and tankers.

          Last year, two new A-50Us were transferred from modernization, and this year they promise the same number (one has already been transferred). Also last year, the first A-2 with full hardware began testing, and by the end of this year, the second A-100 may join it. A decision was made after the modernization of the last A-100s to A-50Us to continue building such aircraft based on the Il-50MD-76A from scratch until the moment of complete refinement of the A-90s and their entry into serial production.
      3. -2
        29 September 2024 20: 00
        "The competences for building Tu22 and Tu95 are lost" - what competences??? What kind of unknown beast is this? What is lost? The tooling? The machine tool park? Have you been to Kazan or Samara? Where did you get the information? The machine tool park is most likely alive or can be easily restored. Fortunately, progress has stepped forward strongly. A year and a half is enough to restore the tooling (if it is lost). I say this as an aviation technologist.
        1. Alf
          0
          29 September 2024 22: 52
          Quote: Sergey Valov
          Have you been to Kazan or Samara?

          I live in Samara and I see that the Aviation Plant that built and repaired the Tu-95 has been completely destroyed.
          1. 0
            30 September 2024 09: 21
            Okay, I'll write more specifically, although I think you already understood what I meant - do you visit the aircraft factory? And secondly - I visited both factories in the 80s, I saw what kind of equipment was there then. Restoring all this is not that easy and fast, but quite feasible. As an example - they were able to restore the production of Il-76 in Ulyanovsk after losing Tashkent. But with the Il it was more difficult.
            1. Alf
              0
              30 September 2024 19: 42
              Quote: Sergey Valov
              Do you visit aircraft factories?

              It was there that I thought I would get a job in 2004, but after walking around the workshops and listening to the ringing silence, I realized that the plant was dead, or rather, killed. By the way, as of 2024, it has not been resurrected.
    2. +2
      29 September 2024 07: 13
      Quote: V.
      An interesting article, but after reading about the enemy's weapons, I always have a question - what's happening to our similar aviation? And our similar aviation, if I'm not mistaken, is the Tu-95, Tu-22M, Tu-160. Which also claims to have a long service life. I'm waiting for an article from Roman about us, our beloved ones, and our aircraft. hi soldier

      You forgot to mention 3M, Myasishchev's strategist.
      By the way. The 3M has the same chassis as the American. The runway at the airfield where I happened to be was three-lane. Well, you understand why three.
      But I look at the photo of the American, and it seems to me that they have a single-lane runway.
      How wide should the runway be for such an aircraft?!
      1. Des
        +1
        29 September 2024 13: 53
        The planes are really comparable in size. The difference in span is ~6 meters. At Baikonur, the strip at Yubileiny was quite capable of accepting everyone. That is, the width is 70 m. M4 - no problem.
        1. +1
          29 September 2024 14: 29
          Quote: Des
          The planes are really comparable in size. The difference in span is ~6 meters. At Baikonur, the strip at Yubileiny was quite capable of accepting everyone. That is, the width is 70 m. M4 - no problem.

          Wow! 70 m is no joke.
          M4, as far as I knew in those years, is a refueller.
          1. Des
            +2
            29 September 2024 17: 29
            Quote: your vsr 66-67
            M4, as far as I knew in those years, is a refueller.

            Basically, yes. But its modification - VM-T - transported parts of the Energia-Buran hull. One of the external differences is the spaced rear empennage.
            1. +2
              29 September 2024 19: 55
              Quote: Des
              Quote: your vsr 66-67
              M4, as far as I knew in those years, is a refueller.

              Basically, yes. But its modification - VM-T - transported parts of the Energia-Buran hull. One of the external differences is the spaced rear empennage.

              I haven't heard about the modification. And I first met the Mkas back in 1968, and only after they were supposedly declassified and allowed to land at their airfield.
              This is Seryshevo, Ukrainka airfield.
              When we saw them for the first time, we were stunned! Our AN 12 seemed so small compared to theirs.
              I served in Razdolnoye, Zavitinsk.
              1. +2
                30 September 2024 14: 36
                I had a chance to see the VM-T in person, either over the Tushino field, or in Zhukovsky, or both, somewhere between 1988 and 1993. The first impression: it was an airship with a suspended airplane.
                1. 0
                  30 September 2024 14: 41
                  Quote: Quzmi4
                  I had a chance to see the VM-T in person, either over the Tushino field, or in Zhukovsky, or both, somewhere between 1988 and 1993. The first impression: it was an airship with a suspended airplane.

                  Impressive! They knew how to make things in the USSR. And not just galoshes. They tore apart the tail section of the strategist, and here you go - a transport!
                  1. +1
                    30 September 2024 14: 50
                    But it's a one-off. Insurance if "Mriya" doesn't fly. And here "Buran" turned out to be unnecessary, and that's all.
                    1. Des
                      0
                      30 September 2024 19: 54
                      2 workers, one experienced).
                      Quote: Quzmi4
                      But it is a single copy.
                      1. 0
                        1 October 2024 21: 10
                        I admit I'm wrong.
                        But 2,5 doesn't fundamentally change things.
                        It's a pity that "Mriya" is all( ...
                        Although for lovers of symbolism it is beautiful: the heirs of the ancient Ukrainians destroyed the Dream with artillery...
      2. 0
        5 October 2024 23: 16
        By the way. 3M has the same chassis as the American.

        Unfortunately, no. The B-52 is much more advanced.
    3. -3
      29 September 2024 09: 08
      Quote: V.
      and what is happening with such aviation? And our similar aviation, if I am not mistaken, is TU-95, Tu-22M, Tu-160
      The Americans operate equipment according to its condition. For example, some unit has an operational guarantee of, say, 1000 hours of flight, after which the unit is disassembled and inspected by specialists, after which they make a verdict - whether its further operation is possible or not. And so on until the unit is completely worn out. With us, everything is the other way around - if the passport states that the unit is to be operated for, say, 1000 hours, then this unit is removed and sent for disposal, regardless of the degree of its wear...
      1. +3
        29 September 2024 10: 46
        With us, everything is the other way around - if the passport states that a unit is to be used for, say, 1000 hours, then this unit is removed and sent for disposal, regardless of the degree of its wear...

        If we had it like that, then the Tu-22 would not have flown for a long time because engines for them have not been assembled for 30 years and there are no reserves... With the MiG-31 it's the same story
        1. 0
          29 September 2024 12: 08
          Quote: spektr9
          If this were the case with us, then the Tu-22 would not have flown for a long time because engines for them have not been assembled for 30 years and there are no reserves...
          There was information that the Tu-22M3 would be equipped with the same engines as the Tu-160 (NK-32 TRDDF), only with a different arrangement of the power unit. I don't know how reliable it is, I haven't come across any more information on this topic.
        2. +1
          30 September 2024 06: 38
          Quote: spektr9
          If we had it like that, the Tu-22 would not have flown for a long time.
          And are there many of them flying?
        3. exo
          0
          30 September 2024 11: 21
          At the end of the exploitation of Soviet passenger aircraft, they also switched to exploitation "according to condition". Like in Western technology. As in the Air Force, I don't know.
  5. -7
    29 September 2024 06: 43
    And the B-52J is planned to be modernized by 2028. In general, everything fits together. The main thing is that everything goes according to the developed plans. Then in 2028, 76 bombers will become B-52J, with hypersonic missiles and new engines.

    The Americans cannot move away from the strategy of a "mother", which is protected by a link: in the ocean - an aircraft carrier and a strike group, in the air - a strategic monster with fighter escort... There is no other way.
    Now imagine a low-observable long-range missile, the range of which will be up to 300-400 km, launched from an aircraft with a low EPR and aimed with the help of AI at the B-52... Or a dozen of such missiles... Or a hundred interceptor drones... Or the same, brought to mind, "Alabuga"... In a good scenario, both the AUG and the bomber with the escort turn into a pile of iron...
    Skeptics will note that Russia has not yet demonstrated such weapons, that these are just words... By the way, the B-52J is only a project...
    1. +7
      29 September 2024 06: 50
      ...but something tells me that over these three years we will see more than one interesting moment in the style of a black comedy of situations.

      But why write this at the end of what is, in principle, a good article? To, so to speak, withstand the "demand of the current moment" - "to belittle", "to sow a degree of doubt"? Without this, there is no way at all?
      1. +3
        29 September 2024 13: 23
        Quote: Monster_Fat
        Without this, there is no way at all?

        In general. We need to show that not everything is good there either and that there are problems. This can distract us a little from our internal problems and smooth out the indignation a little.
        1. +1
          30 September 2024 14: 41
          How many military - and other - programs have they started and ended in nothing? The main thing is that "money in the amount of" was spent...
          But we have bonds, shifts to the right and an unchangeable one. Joke, if anyone didn't understand.
          I am actually a patriot, but the further I go, the more patriotism is subjected to completely unnecessary
          tests.
    2. 0
      5 October 2024 12: 41
      The strategic monster is not accompanied by fighters. Except if it performs tactical tasks, but this is rare.
  6. -3
    29 September 2024 06: 57
    Actually, in my opinion, the opinion of an aviation layman, to raise a 80-year-old plane to a modern level - engines, avionics, weapons, etc., it is cheaper to make a new one, and twice as cheap. Apparently, not all is well in the house of Usher.
    1. +2
      29 September 2024 07: 49
      There is a BUT here!
      If you create a new strategist, then you need a new strategy for it.
      Here is the strategy for which the B-52 was created, and it is still in effect today: a strike on any point on the globe due to its range. At the same time, attempts to overtake interceptors (HB-70), break through air defenses due to multi-mode flight (B-1), and low visibility relative to the main range of radar radiation (B-2) have sunk into oblivion. All that remains is range and improvement of weapons. Well, and electronic warfare (but that's always the case).
      I predict that if strategic aviation has a future, then the bomber of the future is a near subspace vehicle with anaerobic engines, possibly using nuclear energy. This will allow for the organization of constant patrols of such vehicles with modern weapons, which are less vulnerable to air defense systems, both due to the reaction time and approach, and due to the weakening of the shock wave factor at super-altitudes. Whether they will be inhabited, and whether they will be at all, time will tell.
    2. +2
      29 September 2024 10: 48
      In fact, in my opinion, the opinion of an aviation layman, it is cheaper to upgrade an 80-year-old aircraft to a modern level - engines, avionics, weapons, etc., than to make a new one, and twice as cheaply.

      This aircraft is upgraded every 5 years to maintain combat capability, so it is clearly not cheaper, and a new aircraft does not appear immediately - it still takes time to build it...
    3. +3
      29 September 2024 12: 15
      We probably have it so good that we have replacements for the An 12, An 24, An 2, Il 18, Yak 40, Tu 154, Tu 134.
      1. +6
        29 September 2024 13: 27
        Quote: dimon642
        An 2

        This is a real pain. The epic of attempts to replace the AN-2 is simply a marker of what a monstrous technological, production and management abyss Russia has fallen into, under the cheerful speeches about great victories and steadfastness in the face of sanctions. And also under the reasoning that the country has never lived so well. Which is already somewhat fading against the backdrop of what is happening, but is not giving up its positions yet.
    4. 0
      30 September 2024 13: 06
      Quote: Larich
      In fact, in my opinion, the opinion of an aviation layman, upgrading an 80-year-old aircraft to a modern level - engines, avionics, weapons, etc. - is cheaper than making a new one, and twice as cheap.

      In large series - yes. But when the cost of R&D is spread over 100-150 machines, it turns out to be cheaper to upgrade the old hardware.
      The Americans have extensive experience in "reducing purchase lots" - this results in an IFV costing several MBTs and 155mm shells costing as much as a Tomahawk. smile
    5. 0
      5 October 2024 12: 43
      And what about design, testing, training, ground facilities? That's a lot of trouble with the B-21.
  7. +12
    29 September 2024 08: 10
    The author is of low competence.
    The B-52H modification aircraft currently in service are equipped with TF33 engines. And things are not as bad there as with the JT3. Not a word about that.
    The decision to modernize was made for the sake of completeness of the strategic bomber fleet until B-21s enter service in equivalent quantities. Not a word about that.
    Where to put dislikes?
    1. +8
      29 September 2024 09: 50
      This author can't be voted, they can give a ban for that)
  8. 0
    29 September 2024 09: 13
    Talks about replacing engines on the B-52 have been going on for 20 years now, and nothing has happened. Let's see what comes out of this attempt.
    1. +1
      30 September 2024 13: 07
      Quote: TermNachTER
      Talks about replacing engines on the B-52 have been going on for 20 years now, and nothing has happened. Let's see what comes out of this attempt.

      The replacement of the engine model on the B-52 will only happen when they are finally exhausted. granaries of the Motherland at AB Davis-Montain. smile
      1. -1
        30 September 2024 14: 29
        Well, the bins aren't bottomless, and each B-52 has eight engines.
  9. +8
    29 September 2024 09: 49
    The most modern B-2s will end up in the trash in the next 10 years
    Roman Skomorokhov

    Will you write the same thing in 10 years? winked
  10. +4
    29 September 2024 10: 18
    Roman is on fire! When needed - he has a 25-year-old Raptor practically new. Oh-oh-oh, how can you write something like that off! When needed - even 25-year-old B-2s are old men, what can they do?
  11. 0
    29 September 2024 10: 19
    And who is it that is attempting and is ready to destroy the fragile advantage of the United States?
  12. +2
    29 September 2024 11: 13
    I wonder if the new engines will retain the pyrotechnic launch function?
    A pyrotechnic charge is initially inserted into the engine. When burning, it generates enough gases to start the engine turbine and start it. To the point that B-52s carry several charge as a replacement.
  13. +4
    29 September 2024 11: 56
    During the fire, a significant portion of the technological information was lost, which was not digitized. A significant problem, which did not allow the engine production to be re-established


    It turns out that the drawings were in a single copy and all this was stored in one place? Quite a strange practice...
    1. -1
      29 September 2024 12: 17
      This is something that will be long and hard for us to saw off money and in the end it will be a dud.
    2. -2
      29 September 2024 22: 44
      And where, in your opinion, do the mattresses have the drawings and expertise for the Saturn-V "lunar" rocket? :)
    3. +2
      30 September 2024 13: 19
      Quote: Most polite
      It turns out that the drawings were in a single copy and all this was stored in one place? Quite a strange practice...

      There is a classic story about technoarchaeology: how they searched for documentation on a chemical plant installation that had been put into operation 30 years earlier. All that was left was an operating manual in the style of: "if the light comes on, pull the lever."
      It turned out that during the operation of the installation, technical documentation was lost everywhere: companies merged, split, moved, optimized expenses... in short - empty archive shelves. The situation was saved by a retired developer who, in violation of all prohibitions, copied the working documentation for himself in order to work calmly where it was convenient for him, without running to the office every time or without arranging for the removal of documents outside the office. The most difficult thing turned out to be to secretly bring the documents back to the archive, so that later suddenly "discover" them. smile
    4. The comment was deleted.
  14. +2
    29 September 2024 12: 26
    Differences between the 2022 modified B-52s and the old ones, and a comparison of the sizes of the B-52s with the B-2s
    1. 0
      5 October 2024 12: 49
      Even though he is an enemy, he is still a beautiful pest.
  15. +2
    29 September 2024 14: 48
    Perverts. To install English engines instead of their own... I was sure that the B-52 would be equipped with engines either from a Boeing-777 (General Electric GE90, flew to Australia without refueling) or from an F-35 (P&W F135, for unification). They are too lazy to redesign the gondola with fire extinguishing... But they are not too lazy to keep 8 engines per plane.
    1. +5
      29 September 2024 15: 10
      Install English engines instead of your own...
      Rolls-Royce is no longer English, but American
    2. 0
      5 October 2024 23: 22
      It seems that if you install 4 engines, you will have to redo the wing.
  16. 0
    29 September 2024 15: 08
    I always say that the Myasishchev M-4 could fly for 100 years, but this propeller-driven and useless Tu-95 eats up so much money and is of no use, the modernization of the M-4M with the D-30, it could also fly around the world, with a couple of refuelings soldier
    1. 0
      30 September 2024 14: 47
      The Myasishchevs immediately turned out to be inconvenient as soon as it became necessary to hang something larger, including rockets, due to the bicycle-like chassis design.
      1. +1
        30 September 2024 18: 46
        And isn't Bi-52 a bicycle? And that doesn't stop him from living and working am
        1. 0
          1 October 2024 21: 07
          Myasishchev is two-wheeled, Bi is four-wheeled, plus points under the wing.
          I remember that they started to come up with some kind of loading methods for ours by “driving into a pit”, but fortunately, they came to their senses in time.
          1. 0
            5 October 2024 23: 23
            B-52 is even lower than the Emok, but somehow they manage, including driving it into a pit.
            1. 0
              10 October 2024 17: 04
              Can you imagine driving a car into a pit with TWO main struts? And then driving it off loaded?
  17. +2
    29 September 2024 18: 08
    Does anyone have a bomber comparable to the 52m, so that the Americans would stir up a radical replacement? There are none, and the 52 will remain the standard bomber for a long time in terms of the amount of goods carried, given the geography of their bases, it will remain in history for a very long time, provided that they make new ones and not use worn-out gliders.
  18. +2
    29 September 2024 20: 49
    About the probable enemy and its armament, either nothing or the whole truth... The B-52 bomber is a fairly successful aviation platform, in all respects, for the section of aviation tasks for which it was created... Regular "upgrade" of its systems, from avionics to control systems, airframe, engines, electronic warfare, puts it on a par with the most modern military aircraft of its class, its area of ​​use... American practicality is repeated here, for decades now...
  19. +3
    29 September 2024 23: 42
    One of the reasons for the long service life of the B52 and Tu95 is that the airframe was made with a large, multiple safety margin, designed for a long service life, against the action of a shock wave from the explosion of an atomic bomb dropped on its own.
    In the 50s, when these machines were being designed, no one could have imagined the possibility of computer modeling of flight conditions, the impact of a shock wave, under conditions of powerful thermal radiation, and an electromagnetic pulse.
    In each series of aircraft there is a leader aircraft, that is, an aircraft with the greatest number of flight hours.
    After a specified significant number of flight hours, the aircraft is partially disassembled in a research laboratory and the main power units and assemblies are studied. The degree of fatigue, deformation, hardness, elasticity, corrosion, etc. are determined.
    At the time of the aircraft design, the words "kickback", "misuse", "share", and "dacha with a bathhouse in Borvikha" did not exist.
    That's why they did it conscientiously, firmly and for a long time.
  20. 0
    30 September 2024 19: 52
    Well, so what? I have a 2003 Hentai Accent, pure Korean, mileage about 400, bought a Kong
    . I've been with him since 2017. I've wound up another 150. Without any dancing with tambourines.
    He'll dance at my funeral.
    Not a single rust or blemish.
    B-52 is nothing compared to that. :)
  21. +1
    30 September 2024 21: 56
    Good plane. Unfortunately, there are no replacement engines for the Tu95.
    Well, just for reference:
    Tu95 - 8 KR
    Tu160 - 12 KR
    B52 - 16 KR.
    Cruising speed and flight range are approximately the same (+/-). We do not take into account the short-term supersonic modes of the Tu-160
    1. 0
      5 October 2024 14: 42
      "Tu95 - 8 KR" - in fact, in the bomb bay there is a revolver mount for 6 KR, plus on the external pylons located under the wing you can hang up to 10 KR (or 8, I don't know which source to trust), and in the last year or two I have seen aircraft with pylons flying many times.
  22. +1
    1 October 2024 05: 00
    It looks like the same story is with American fighters. The F16 and F15 will outlive all budget-splintering for half a century. And the Hornet is better suited for aircraft carriers.