Is this what will fly over our borders?

108
Is this what will fly over our borders?

Boom Supersonic's XB-1 demonstrator aircraft broke the sound barrier, marking a major milestone in the development of a larger, 55-seat supersonic airliner known as the Overture.


"Overture", will you be the third?


"Concorde" and Tu-144.

It is very difficult to judge to what extent this could be a prototype for a passenger airliner, the similarity with the Tu-144 and Concorde is very distant. But if you look at such devices as the U-2 and SR-71, then they have something in common.




SR-71


XB-1

However, the US makes no secret of the fact that they are looking at the plane from the other side. At least, “in general, this program could have significant consequences not only for commercial aviation, but also for the military” - this is what the developer company itself thinks.

And this demonstrator of the company's XB-1 broke the sound barrier for the first time, accelerating to supersonic speed in just over 11 minutes of flight.


The aircraft accelerated to Mach 1,1 under the control of former U.S. Navy test pilot Tristan "Geppetto" Brandenburg from Mojave Airport in California. For most of the flight, the XB-1 was accompanied by two other supersonic aircraft: a Mirage F1 piloted by A.J. "Face" McFarland (not a civilian pilot, by the way), which served as the primary escort, and a T-38 Talon, which served as a photo control. During the flight, the XB-1 reached supersonic speeds three times and landed safely in Mojave after a flight lasting just over 30 minutes.


What's remarkable is that, of course, the Mirage F1 was never in service with the US Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps. It's probably a private jet owned by McFarland, whose call sign screams that AJ is a military or former military (if former is the norm for them, otherwise it might not be) pilot. And the T-38 is a regular training aircraft for both the US Air Force and NASA. And for some reason, the pilot's name modestly disappeared from the reports.

So yes, the XB-1 was a prototype built for a passenger airliner program, but the military was lurking unobtrusively behind the tail unit.


The XB-1 becomes the latest supersonic platform to take to the skies over Test Flight Valley, continuing historical The first flights were made here by aircraft such as the X-1, North American X-15 and Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird.

The XB-1 is ultimately expected to have a top speed of around Mach 2,2, or about 2 km/h.

The XB-1, also known as "Baby-Boom," is a 1/3 scale technology demonstrator for Overture. It made its maiden flight in Mojave on March 22, 2024, and during that flight, the XB-1 reached speeds of nearly 500 mph and an altitude of 2500 ft. Chief Test Pilot Bill "Doc" Shoemaker was at the controls that time, and "Geppetto" Brandenburg was flying a T-38 Talon escort plane. Which pretty much confirms the larger picture: Boom Supersonic has military/former military personnel in many positions, meaning the military is well aware of everything that's going on at Boom Supersonic.

The company first announced the development of a prototype in November 2016, about eight months after announcing its plans to build the Overture. On October 7, 2020, Boom Supersonic released the XB-1, which has the civilian registration number N990XB in the United States.

The XB-1 design makes extensive use of advanced technologies, including carbon fiber composite materials, advanced avionics and digital aerodynamic optimization.


The XB-1 has an unusual power plant that allows it to reach supersonic speeds and perhaps has the potential for more. It consists of three General Electric J85-15 turbofan engines, which together produce about 60 kN of thrust.

The J85 is a well-established engine, also used in the Northrop F-5 and T-38. But it could easily be replaced by something roughly the same size but more powerful. The three-engine design itself is exotic, but since the XB-1 was introduced, another three-engine aircraft has emerged from the shadows: a Chinese advanced combat aircraft tentatively known as the J-36.

Compared to the XB-1, the Overture will be considerably larger: 61 meters long versus 21 for the prototype, but the altitude and speed characteristics are declared to be approximately the same: maximum speed is 2,2 Mach, cruising speed is 1,7 Mach, and the range at cruising speed will be about 9 km. And these figures indicate that the Overture will have slightly different engines.

The Overture, which aims to make supersonic travel more accessible to more travelers, is expected to carry a total of 64 to 80 passengers. Designed to significantly reduce the duration of transoceanic flights, the aircraft is “designed to be profitable for airlines at prices similar to first and business class,” according to the company’s website.

The last time such characteristics were available to passengers was on board the Anglo-French Concorde.


A ticket on this iconic airliner cost several times more than an equivalent business class ticket, and the airliner was taken out of service at the end of 2003. And accidents also played a role.


Before Concorde, there was the Soviet Tu-144, which became the world's first supersonic passenger jet when it entered service in 1975. However, it made only about 100 commercial flights, about half of which were passenger flights, before it was quickly relegated to cargo duties. It ended its career as a supersonic research aircraft, including for NASA.


Boom has previously said that each Overture will cost $200 million to produce. On its website, it also says that Overture's "order backlog consists of 130 orders and pre-orders" from American Airlines, United Airlines, and Japan Airlines.

Boom says the plan is to roll out the first version of the Overture in 2026, with test flights starting in 2027 and type certification expected by 2029. It's still a very ambitious project with many hurdles to overcome, and we wouldn't be surprised if those deadlines aren't met. These days, deadlines that are "shifted to the right" and then cost more are par for the course.

But beyond the commercial market, the potential military applications of the Overture should not be overlooked. We simply must consider this scenario as well.

There are some prerequisites for this: Since 2020, Boom has been working with the US Air Force to develop a potential version of the Overture for high-speed flights of government officials. While transporting government officials at supersonic speeds would be a unique and highly prestigious opportunity, the Overture’s design also allows for the rapid transport of cargo and personnel, something the Air Force is also interested in.

In July 2022, Northrop Grumman and Boom announced a collaboration to develop a variant of Overture specifically for the U.S. military and its allies. At the time, Boom noted that a military variant would be ideal for “rapid response operations.”

Chief Test Engineer Nick Sherica spoke about the capabilities of the XB-1 in the following style:

"Equipped with specialized capabilities, the aircraft can be used to deliver medical supplies, perform emergency medical evacuations, or monitor large areas faster than conventional aircraft. The special mission variant of the Overture can also be used to coordinate other aircraft and ground assets in a variety of scenarios."

Well, that's it. Observation of large areas and coordination of other aircraft. What kind? Of course, not passenger aircraft. The resource www.airandspaceforces.com, without any embarrassment, hinted that the J85-15 engines could be replaced with F-135-PW-100/400 from Pratt & Whitney with minimal expenses, which would give a threefold increase in power. And here, with such a layout, we can already talk about other speeds and other altitudes.

It’s hard to say how much effort has gone into developing “defense options” for the Overture. In September 2023, Boom announced the creation of its own defense advisory group, building on its partnership with Northrop Grumman. The group is designed to help define “national security missions” for which the aircraft could be used.

But, as with Overture's commercial applications, the prospect of a military version is also fraught with difficulties. The history of previous programs shows how difficult it is to make commercial supersonic flight a reality, especially at an affordable price. However, whether Boom's primary goal remains impossible to say. Military budgets make more money than commercial flights, that's a fact.


But for now, it’s worth thinking about the Boom Supersonic’s achievement of breaking the sound barrier with the XB-1. Whatever the future holds for this ambitious program, the exotic test aircraft will undoubtedly attract the attention of the military. And they are unlikely to miss their chance.

In fact, the US has long been looking with great pleasure towards the private sector. NASA has long since caught up with Roscosmos in helplessness and has nothing to offer in terms of spaceships. Everything is done by private companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, Sierra Space, Boeing. Who said that the same is completely impossible in the field of aircraft manufacturing? And if there is a decent private development, then why is the military department unable to use it to the fullest extent? And at the end, get a product ready for use, no matter whether as a reconnaissance aircraft or a high-speed transport. This really does not matter, the final result is important.


The passenger airliner "Overture" - yes, of course, it could well happen. But the production of airliners, sales, maintenance, payback - all this will fall on the manufacturer. And the military budget is a military budget. This is a temptation, so a high-altitude high-speed reconnaissance aircraft or an operational delivery aircraft may appear much earlier than a commercial airliner. Especially since the US has an obvious problem with these classes of aircraft. And high-speed aircraft capable of quickly transporting cargo over the vast distances of the Pacific Ocean - this will be necessary if the US does not write off China as enemy No. 1. And reconnaissance aircraft capable of looking with impunity a little further than satellites are also not a useless thing.

So the emergence of a successor to the U-2 and SR-71 is not such a stupid idea as it may seem. And a super- or hypersonic transport that does not particularly need an escort is even more so.
108 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    5 February 2025 04: 23
    If a military aircraft is created on the basis of a passenger plane, it will be a very unusual decision. It is more common when a civilian product is created on the basis of a military one. The classic, well-known example is the Tu-16/Tu-104. And here we have some kind of "reverse engineering" :)))
    1. +3
      5 February 2025 06: 11
      Quote from Andy_nsk
      It is more common when a civilian product is created on the basis of a military one.

      The times are such for aviation. Conventionally, 10 thousand engineers work for the military, 100 thousand for civilian enterprises. Private companies pay better, therefore the best go there. The state wins where monstrous initial investments are needed, and the result will be much later and that is not a fact, look at space, without NASA there would be no SpaceX, Blue Origin, Sierra Space, Boeing, without GDL and the Ministry of General Machine Building of the USSR there would be no Roscosmos, although as we see in this scheme there are failures.
      1. +2
        5 February 2025 09: 51
        The state wins where monstrous initial investments are needed, but the result will be much later and that is not a fact, look at space, without NASA there would be no SpaceX, Blue Origin, Sierra Space, Boeing, without GDL and the Ministry of General Machine Building of the USSR there would be no Roscosmos

        Roscosmos is a purely state corporation, so comparison with SpaceX is inadequate.
        1. -4
          5 February 2025 10: 01
          NASA (read: USA) technologies essentially make it a government corporation-feeding trough at maximum capacity.
          1. +9
            5 February 2025 15: 46
            Romantics who dream of conquering Space and colonizing Mars should receive money and engage in new developments. In this case, the trough works as it should. When we have romantics sitting at the trough, and not Rogozins with a trampoline, then things will go well.
        2. 0
          5 February 2025 11: 37
          Quote from Andy_nsk
          Roscosmos is a purely state corporation, so comparison with SpaceX is inadequate.

          Yes, I agree the example is not entirely correct, by the way I wrote that
          We see that there are failures in this scheme.

          but at least they launch something.
          A rough analogue of SpaceX from our side would be S7 Space, but everything is really sad there.
    2. +1
      5 February 2025 08: 05
      A classic and well-known example is the Tu-16/Tu-104.

      Tu-95/Tu-114
      1. -4
        5 February 2025 11: 48
        Quote: Dedok
        A classic and well-known example is the Tu-16/Tu-104.

        Tu-95/Tu-114
        February 15 2024
        Russia plans to launch production of the domestic Tu-324 business jet, which could become an alternative to foreign models. The project has been developed by the Tupolev ASTC since the 1990s, but has been repeatedly delayed for various reasons. Now its financing will be taken over by a Gazprom structure, and branding is possible under the AURUS brand.
        Tu-324 is regional airliner with a capacity of 50 passengers with a flight range of up to 2,5 thousand km, which can also be adapted for VIP transportation. Its cost is estimated at 13 million dollars, which is one and a half to two times cheaper than similar foreign aircraft.

        The passenger version of the Tu-160 will not be mass-produced, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin confirmed, adding that “in Russia and abroad there are rich and super-busy people who are ready to pay big money to save their time.”
        1. +4
          5 February 2025 14: 02
          The passenger version of the Tu-160 will not be mass produced, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin confirmed, adding that “in Russia and abroad there are rich and super-busy people who are ready to pay big money to save their time.”

          You can immediately forget about what this person said/says, because it's a lie...
          1. 0
            5 February 2025 16: 45
            With the average speed increase of all these options being negligible, the effect looks rather negative when you consider the new hassle.
        2. +1
          5 February 2025 21: 29
          In the US they were working on a supersonic business jet that doesn't pound the surface with a sound wave at supersonic speeds in order to fly over land. I wonder if Overture has this technology?
          If not, then this is a specialized airliner for transoceanic flights, because they will not be able to fly supersonic over land! In this case, the whole point of the development is to make an economically attractive aircraft for business class passengers on transatlantic flights and possibly for transoceanic flights from Japan. Actually, that's all, there are no super innovations there, which is hinted at by the use of engines from decommissioned fighters of the 70s.
          1. 0
            6 February 2025 01: 21
            A specially designed turbofan engine optimized for supersonic flight
            https://boomsupersonic.com/symphony
        3. +2
          6 February 2025 01: 29
          Quote: Andriuha077
          Its value is estimated at 13 million dollars.

          I wouldn't fly on a $13 Mio plane. Look at the market price of various planes of this class and you will understand that it is impossible to make a reliable, high-quality plane for such a price.
          1. 0
            6 February 2025 01: 42
            I am no longer surprised by such amazing statements.
            For example.
            Mikhail Mishustin took part in the international digital forum "Digital Almaty 2025"
            January 31 2025
            In another year, we will create the basis for our own low-orbit group. In the future, about 300 devices will be operating, which will be able to fully cover the needs of not only Russia, but also all countries of the union for cheap and fast, and most importantly, reliable Internet.
            http://government.ru/news/54093/

            Musk, Ilf and Petrov are resting.
            1. 0
              6 February 2025 01: 44
              Quote: Andriuha077
              I am no longer surprised by such amazing statements.

              Are you talking about my comment, or Mishustin’s statement that in a year a domestic analogue of Starlink will appear in the Russian Federation?
              1. +1
                6 February 2025 01: 45
                I am talking about our space plans, which will happen, but then, as they say, tomorrow, there is no need to ask again every year.
                1. +1
                  6 February 2025 01: 49
                  I see, thank you. And of course I agree. Although at the turn of the millennium Russia had every chance to realize everything you want.
    3. -1
      5 February 2025 10: 53
      - such devices as U-2 and SR-71,
      The author, comparing the device with well-known spy planes, gives reason to think about the true purpose of the XB-1.
    4. 0
      5 February 2025 11: 16
      This is not at all uncommon, the RC-135, C-135 and KC-135 were all based on the Boeing 367, the P-8 was based on the Boeing 737, etc.
    5. 0
      5 February 2025 11: 44
      Orion and Poseidon avax look at us with the question, are we some kind of joke?
    6. 0
      5 February 2025 11: 54
      Quote from Andy_nsk
      If a military aircraft is created on the basis of a passenger plane, it will be a very unusual decision.

      Oh, come on. The vast C-135 family was built on the civilian Boeing base - the military branch of the Boeing 367-80, the forefather of the Boeing 707.
      And in the era of piston aviation, even bombers were made on the basis of civilian aircraft - the same B-18 Bolo.
    7. 0
      5 February 2025 12: 22
      Is it the other way around? Here's a quick idea: R-3S Orion, R-8A Poseidon - military vehicles based on civilian ones. If you dig deeper, I'm sure there will be more examples.
  2. +4
    5 February 2025 04: 47
    It's not just the US that has a problem with these classes of aircraft. But "Leopold cats" don't need it.
    1. -2
      5 February 2025 09: 33
      Quote: Grencer81
      It's not just the US that has a problem with these classes of aircraft. But "Leopold cats" don't need it.

      Delivery man is definitely not needed.
      The scout is so-so...
  3. +1
    5 February 2025 05: 02
    We are getting a strategic reconnaissance aircraft, and in the future, a strategic carrier of special ammunition.
    Moreover, no one will rush to catch up (or overtake) us, because there is no one, no time and nothing to do.... Times are different now, as is the approach to setting goals and objectives.
    1. +2
      5 February 2025 08: 02
      Quote: U-58
      Times are different now, as is the approach to setting goals and objectives.

      Goals and objectives are set, sometimes (looking at a piece of paper), but their implementation is not monitored. IMHO.
    2. -4
      5 February 2025 10: 40
      So what's the special thing? To squeeze out 2,7 Mach? No big deal. MiG-31 squeezes out 3 Mach. Not recommended, but it can. Something like 6-8 Mach would be more correct.
      1. -3
        5 February 2025 12: 51
        The point is not to "squeeze" it out.
        And in order to deliver ammunition to destroy a given area.
        1. +3
          5 February 2025 15: 09
          Quote: U-58
          The point is not to "squeeze" it out.
          And in order to deliver ammunition to destroy a given area.

          Any target on the planet is now always within the reach of ICBMs, MRBMs, existing military aviation, etc.
          Why invent a new joke?
        2. -3
          5 February 2025 15: 12
          MIG-31 with the Kinzhal complex. Everything has been thought out long ago.
          1. +2
            5 February 2025 17: 07
            Will our MiG reach North Dakota? San Diego, Rota?
            1. 0
              6 February 2025 11: 51
              There's a Tu-160 for that. It can reach whatever you want))))
              1. 0
                8 February 2025 19: 22
                Quote: PROXOR
                There's a Tu-160 for that. It can reach whatever you want))))

                not it, but a cruise missile on it and in order to launch it - preparation, takeoff, reaching the launch line and until it flies - it takes about 15 hours.. The Yars is the same - it will be at the "addressee" in an hour maximum... and we almost never shoot it down.. and an airfield is not needed.. and the launcher is much cheaper - Tu-160.. do you feel the difference?
        3. -2
          5 February 2025 20: 09
          Quote: U-58
          The point is not to "squeeze" it out.
          And in order to deliver ammunition to destroy a given area.

          Hmm... but what about the topic of supersonic delivery vehicles? light and warmth to every home didn't bury it together with the Valkyrie? And then they sent the B-1A to the same grave.
        4. 0
          5 February 2025 21: 04
          The key word is "deliver"... There are many who want to "accept" the courier, with the ability to accept him with dignity. The load capacity for a solid delivery is too small. And reconnaissance... that is if the reconnaissance side allows it. The goal is not difficult even for the ancient "circle".
    3. 0
      5 February 2025 14: 46
      A spy of what?) Every Russian has a phone with an American operating system in his pocket, always connected to the Internet)
      Damn, they know what every Russian soldier had for breakfast, his pulse, and how he pooped. What did you want to look at from the plane?
  4. -9
    5 February 2025 05: 16
    In principle, Russia can also restore supersonic passenger aviation. As I see it. I won't touch the TU-160. But based on the SU-34 and TU-22M, we can try. This is to fit a new passenger fuselage into the design of these aircraft, on the SU-34 for 20 people and the TU-22M for 40 people. Probably no more is needed, due to the high cost of tickets available only to rich Pinocchios.
    The combat SU-34 has a speed of 1700 km/h, while the TU-22M has a speed of 2300 km/h. If we remove all the combat equipment and make the planes as light as possible, I think passenger planes will have the same speed. And they will have access to civilian airports.
    1. +6
      5 February 2025 06: 38
      Both SU and TU can reach supersonic speed only with afterburner. The task is to reach cruising supersonic speed without afterburner. Su-34, Tu-22m3, Tu-160 are not capable of this.
      1. +1
        5 February 2025 10: 46
        Quote: Mitrich73
        The task is to achieve supersonic cruising speed without afterburning.
        To do this, the bomber must be accompanied by a tanker, or even two tankers. And ground services must be able to change the engine after each flight. wink
        1. 0
          6 February 2025 01: 37
          What is this for? Overture is a civilian aircraft that should deliver passengers from A to B at speeds of up to 2400 km/h, without any aerial refueling.
    2. +11
      5 February 2025 06: 54
      Quote: V.
      The combat speed of the SU-34 is 1700 km/h

      Actually, 1900 km/h, but this is with non-adjustable air intakes; with adjustable ones like the Su-35S, it would fly faster.
      Quote: V.
      TU-22M has 2300 km/h.

      Yeah, but both planes have afterburner speed. Afterburner is an emergency mode for the engine and it can't be turned on for long. And after supersonic flight, technicians have to overhaul/test it. So these are not supersonic planes, but planes with the ability to make a supersonic burst - to break away from pursuit, to quickly intercept a target, and also briefly during vigorous maneuvering so as not to lose speed.
      The SR-71, Concorde and Tu-144 were supersonic, and the MiG-25 and MiG-31 can also be considered supersonic, as they could/can maintain a speed of 2500 km/h for 22 minutes due to their special engine design (this is based on personal observations and statistics of such flights). For supersonic cruising flight, engines are needed that are capable of developing high thrust during supersonic flight without using the afterburner. The F-35 engine without an afterburner will give a maximum thrust of 13 kgf. But maintaining maximum thrust throughout the entire flight at cruising supersonic speed is also unacceptable - the engine will be offended by this and there will be a catastrophe. But with such engines, it is already possible to mold a supersonic business jet. A small one on two and a larger one on three.
      We don't have such engines today. Although you can try your luck with the NK-32M without afterburner, they produce 16 kgf. without afterburner at maximum. But they are quite large and weigh at least 000 kg with afterburner.
      There is a promising development of the R-579V-300 engine, which, with the weight and dimensions of the American, produced 14 kgf on the stand, and the developer also proposed a special modification of such an engine for a commercial supersonic. But at what stage of work on it is now unknown. And now the domestic bourgeoisie and managers have no time for aviation delights. Of course, they love to saw the budget, but to make and bring to the final serial sample request All steam goes into PR. They can't even replicate the post-war An-2 biplane or create an engine for it.
      The current ones, like the "old regime" ones under Nikola-2, can't do anything, don't know how and don't want to. With Manturovs and Co. we won't even have turboprop planes.
      1. +4
        5 February 2025 07: 29
        I understand that we currently have no one to work on supersonic passenger aircraft. But it is not harmful and not forbidden to dream. In practice, Tupolev made passenger aircraft based on military aircraft with a speed comparable to military ones. Before the TU-144, there was the long-range bomber T-100, which, however, did not go into production.
        I agree with you that the bourgeoisie and managers do not need the development of national aviation. As Gaidar said, we will need to buy planes.
        1. +3
          5 February 2025 08: 02
          Quote: V.
          I understand that we currently have no one to work on supersonic passenger aircraft. But dreaming is not harmful and is not forbidden.

          A passenger supersonic makes sense and can somehow justify the costs of its creation if it is in the size of a business jet. Very rich people who value their time very highly and a government air squadron. It is unlikely that it will be possible to make the ticket price for ordinary passengers at the level of business class of modern airliners. The cost of such an aircraft in purchase, the cost of its maintenance and infrastructure for this, as well as a much higher specific fuel consumption guarantee many times more expensive tickets. So only a business jet and only for VIPs.
          In principle, there are quite a few rich people in the world, and 10-15 years ago, Arab sheikhs approached Putin with a request to create such a business jet... but the Russian Federation was already late, others are making it.
          Quote: V.
          Before the TU-144 there was the long-range bomber T-100, which, however, did not go into production.

          Which made only a few flights.
          It could have been a simply gorgeous reconnaissance aircraft to rival the American SR-71, but as a missile carrier the MRA no longer met the demands of the time - supersonic flight at an altitude of 20 km no longer only did not provide safety from enemy interceptors, but was also detected by ship radars many hundreds of kilometers from the order ... even without an AWACS aircraft. It was decided to make the MRA strike aircraft multi-mode and transfer it to low altitudes.
          1. 0
            6 February 2025 01: 46
            Quote: bayard
            10-15 years ago, Arab sheikhs approached Putin with a request to create such a business jet...

            Can I link to this?
            1. 0
              6 February 2025 02: 02
              Quote: karabas-barabas
              Can I link to this?

              I don't keep it, but many resources wrote about it back in 2015, after the decision was made to resume production of the Tu-160M. And later too. When Putin was shown the first Tu-160M, he himself talked about it and even ordered it to be "worked out" ... and then it began.
              In fact, back in the mid-90s, the Sukhoi Design Bureau proposed several business jet projects on AL-31F engines (when their service life was raised to an acceptable level) - on two and three engines. But they did not find any sponsors back then.
              And Putin himself spoke on camera about the sheikhs’ appeals, and this was then discussed amicably.
              For the Russian Federation, such a supersonic business jet will be possible when the working R-579V-300 appears. It produced more thrust on the stand without afterburner at maximum than the AL-31F with afterburner - slightly more than 14 kgf. And with afterburner - 000 kgf. With its own engine weight of 24 - 000 kg. For comparison, the NK-2000M produces a thrust of 2200 \ 32 kgf. with its own weight of 16 kg. and higher fuel consumption.

              But now the sheikhs' requests will most likely be satisfied with this American ashcan. Even if we wanted to, we wouldn't make it - we're 8-10 years behind.
              1. 0
                6 February 2025 02: 26
                What does the Tu-160 and business jet have to do with it?? The Tu-160 is a subsonic aircraft: It develops supersonic speed for a short time, and not for the entire flight. So how can Putin or the sheikhs come up with such thoughts when they see the Tu-160?? The AL-31 is similar in weight, dimensions and thrust to some business jet engines and not only, such as the BR700 series, but the fuel consumption and service life raise questions. And of course, we are not discussing a supersonic business jet now, but a "regular" subsonic one. For a supersonic AL-31, it seems like a joke. Well, I suppose both the sheikhs and Putin understand almost nothing about the construction of supersonic business jets and could not discuss such topics by definition.
                1. 0
                  6 February 2025 03: 30
                  Quote: karabas-barabas
                  For the supersonic AL-31 it looks like a joke..

                  Sukhoi Design Bureau proposed a light business jet with 5-7 passenger seats. Several layout solutions. But at that time no one was interested.
                  Quote: karabas-barabas
                  I believe that both the sheikhs and Putin understand almost nothing about the construction of supersonic business jets and could not discuss such topics by definition

                  Absolutely right - from the questions and proposals he made on camera, it was obvious. But the servants picked up on it, it promised a new budget and... proposals from the Tupolev Design Bureau and not only poured in. And then after the analysis and calculations... the fire of enthusiasm died down and everything was quietly forgotten.
                  A cruising supersonic can only be made on engines with very high specific thrust without afterburner, and at the same time with reasonable/acceptable consumption. Such engines in the Russian Federation could be the promising "Product-30" and R-579V-300. But since these engines essentially do not exist yet, especially in series, in order to evaluate their reliability and other advantages necessary for a business jet to transport billionaires and top officials.
                  Quote: karabas-barabas
                  How can Putin or the sheikhs come up with such thoughts when they see a Tu-160?

                  But they came after all. lol A huge bomber, supersonic. Yes That it is only capable of supersonic speed (though it can maintain supersonic speed for up to 40 minutes!). He first asked if it was possible to organize a passenger cabin in the Tu-160M... And in their joy they began to offer him TWO small, but non-communicating cabins in the bomb bays of both weapons bays... It was funny to watch such wildness.
                  Then they came to their senses and proposed a business jet with two NK-32M without afterburners. But according to the calculations, it turned out to be so-so.
                  So until the serial AL-51F and R-579V-300 appear, there is no need to think about a domestic supersonic business jet. And these engines will appear in a reliable series only in the next decade. AL-51F will certainly appear earlier, but first it will be necessary to evaluate their reliability, service life and operational characteristics. When and if these engines appear, new opportunities for many things will open up, including for the supersonic business jet.
      2. +5
        5 February 2025 08: 02
        Quote: bayard
        With Manturov and Co. we won’t even have turboprop aircraft.

        What kind of future can there be with people in management who can't string three sentences together without a piece of paper?
        They are simply making fun of us and our country, putting anyone they can into leadership positions and not evaluating the results of previous work... It seems that the selection is based on the principle of who brings in the most money...
        1. +2
          5 February 2025 08: 06
          Quote: yuriy55
          They are simply making fun of us and our country, putting anyone they can into leadership positions and not evaluating the results of previous work... It seems that the selection is based on the principle of who brings in the most money...

          In fact, it is just external control.
          If all our oligarchs of the 90s are in fact just trust managers of the assets of the Rothschilds and Co. (see Khodorkovsky's interview with Dud), then who else could the ministers appointed by them be?
          1. -1
            6 February 2025 01: 50
            Quote: bayard
            In fact, it is just external control.

            Are you by any chance from Zhenya Fedorov's NOD sect?
            1. -1
              6 February 2025 02: 08
              Of course not. But a long time ago I myself worked for some time in one of the Rothschilds' management structures in the USSR/RF and I knew the person Dud interviewed personally. As well as some others.
              1. 0
                6 February 2025 02: 27
                Judging by who was elected in the US, it is more likely that Putin is stirring things up there than some unfortunate Rothschilds in Russia.
                1. 0
                  6 February 2025 03: 40
                  Quote: karabas-barabas
                  Judging by who was elected in the US, it is more likely that Putin is stirring things up there than some unfortunate Rothschilds in Russia.

                  I don't think Putin is involved in Trump's rampage, rather Donald decided to implement what Kennedy couldn't do in his time. But if they manage to coordinate, it would be good.
                  They tried to throw off the IMF yoke in the Russian Federation back in 2005, but they failed. Now very good conditions are developing for a second attempt, but... everything in the Russian Federation has become so ossified... everyone at the top is doing so well now... And our... specialists don't have enough talent to do such a good job in the US.
                  But the Rothschilds are not the same anymore.
        2. +1
          5 February 2025 08: 31
          They are simply making fun of us and our country by putting anyone they can into leadership positions and not evaluating the results of previous work...

          so today's "youth" coming "to power" - they are selected "according to themselves"... God forbid, they will be smarter!
        3. 0
          5 February 2025 09: 38
          Quote: yuriy55
          What kind of future can there be with people in management who can't string three sentences together without a piece of paper?

          What future did the USSR have when Brezhnev and Co. couldn’t string three sentences together without a piece of paper?
          1. -1
            6 February 2025 01: 58
            Brezhnev was like that at the end, in my opinion the Politburo simply tortured the man, because tradition, you know, only feet first. But before his health failed, Brezhnev was quite strong, smart and energetic. If they had followed the Chinese, or even better the Yugoslavian economic path from the beginning to the middle of the 70s, if they had allowed small and medium-sized businesses, farming, the service sector, then the country would have been flooded with quality food, clothing, furniture, household appliances and everything that the Soviet people lacked so much, which in the 80s became a disaster and eventually led to the collapse of the country.
            1. -1
              6 February 2025 02: 35
              Quote: karabas-barabas
              and even better the Yugoslav economic path

              And where is this Yugoslavia? I don't think we should have followed its path.
            2. 0
              6 February 2025 02: 36
              Quote: karabas-barabas
              If we had followed the Chinese, or even better the Yugoslavian economic path from the early to mid-70s, and allowed small and medium-sized businesses, farming, and the service sector, then the country would have been flooded with quality

              The USSR then - in the early 70s did not need any "Chinese" way (which did not exist at that time), we had the experience of the Stalinist Economy, which was broken and distorted by Khrushchev. There was the Kosygin program at the turn of the 60s - 70s - in essence, a return to the norms of the Stalinist Multi-Structure Economy, with a developed sector of Industrial Cooperation and patents for individual entrepreneurs. Until 1955, 18% of the GDP in the USSR was provided by Industrial Cooperation, which produced clothing, footwear, practically all categories of consumer goods, the first Soviet televisions, radios, tape recorders, there were even design design bureaus-cooperatives - this is how our famous Mil and Kamov design bureaus started. Most of the restaurants and cafes in the USSR were cooperative, a significant number of shops, studios, hairdressers, many dentists and doctors were self-employed. In the post-war period, the commodity and food shortages were overcome in record time precisely thanks to production cooperatives. And the collective farms then worked differently - as agricultural cooperatives. But the leadership of the USSR was then frightened by the events in Czechoslovakia, with which Andropov intimidated the Politburo, declaring that if Kosygin's Program was implemented, "we will have the same." And he convinced. The Program was curtailed, although the Union and republican ministries and Cabinets destroyed by Khrushchev were recreated, even the State Planning Committee was restored ... they stopped the rabid anti-Stalinist propaganda, but they did not dare to restore the Multi-Structured Economy ... They decided to postpone this issue for 20 years - "to freeze the situation" in Brezhnev's words.
              So the USSR was left with an inescapable shortage of goods on the consumer market, a limited range of products and not very high quality. They should have listened to the smart Kosygin, and not the rogue Andropov.
              1. -1
                6 February 2025 11: 52
                Quote: bayard
                Until 1955, 18% of the USSR's GDP was provided by Promkooperatsiya, which produced clothing, footwear, practically all categories of consumer goods, the first Soviet televisions, radios, tape recorders, there were even design design bureau-cooperatives - this is how our famous Mil and Kamov design bureaus started. Most of the restaurants and cafes in the USSR were cooperatives, a significant number of shops, studios, hairdressers, many dentists and doctors were self-employed.

                Only you forgot one trivial nuance - the funds (which were completely state-owned) and the market - also state-owned and therefore determining all the positions of the sale of goods.
                As soon as the state recovered from the war (and the market became a little saturated) - the state became FORCED begin to strictly regulate this circle of people.
                That's why Khrushchev forced was to eliminate them as a class...
                When there are "funds", there is a state enterprise and there is a private individual - the funds will always go to the private individual - he will bring money, and the state director can bring a diploma at most...
                They tried to do this in the USSR 3 times - they managed to kill them twice, but the third time the USSR collapsed.
                1. 0
                  6 February 2025 12: 57
                  Quote: your1970
                  As soon as the state recovered from the war (and the market became a little saturated), the state was FORCED to begin strictly regulating this circle of people.

                  In fact, industrial cooperation, cooperatives and artels worked quite well before the Great Patriotic War, but it was after the war that the state stimulated the development of industrial cooperation for the accelerated restoration and saturation of the market. And these were not private individuals, but cooperatives - collective property, for which the state prescribed standard charters.
                  Quote: your1970
                  That is why Khrushchev was forced to liquidate them as a class...

                  He simply nationalized them without redemption. And the country IMMEDIATELY suffered a consumer goods shortage crisis. The state industry simply did not produce them. Some categories of goods disappeared from stores for years (for example, children's and Christmas tree toys), quality furniture and shoes disappeared, there was nowhere to order clothes for sewing... Kosygin also spoke about this back then - already in the early 70s. He wanted to return everything to how it was, but Andropov scared everyone with "Czechoslovakism" and Brezhnev summed up the debate - "the country needs to be frozen for 20 years, we will return to the issue in 20 years". So what we remember is no longer the Stalin-type Socialism that worked miracles, but a state broken by Khrushchev's "reforms", which was slightly resuscitated and ... left on a drip feeding.
                  And Stalin was not going to curtail anything "after", but on the contrary, he developed a theory for a socialist state, developed laws, rules, wage scales, forced enterprises to transfer all qualified workers to piecework whenever possible. In order to avoid overproduction, he developed a program not to cut jobs, but to gradually reduce the working day to 5 hours, so that after work the Soviet person would have half a day left for personal matters, family, improving education, self-development. You should read Stalin's latest works, there is a lot of interesting stuff there. He saw Socialism not as "state capitalism", which Khrushchev arranged, but as a society of free people where state enterprises are supplemented by industrial cooperatives (which were also growing to the level of medium-sized enterprises even then) and artels, where there was no exploitation of man by man, but there was a joint business on shares. And all this was spelled out in the charters of these enterprises. If it weren’t for Khrushchev, the USSR would have already caught up with the USA in terms of standard and quality of life by the 70s.
                  Since childhood, I was amazed at the quality of furniture they made in the 50s (my parents had a wardrobe, my grandparents had almost all their furniture "from a master" - durable, beautiful, without sharp corners, with carvings... And how carefully the state furniture factories made their chipboards...
                  Quote: your1970
                  there is a state enterprise and there is a private enterprise - the funds will always go to the private enterprise - it will bring in money

                  All industrial cooperative enterprises had equal rights in supply with state enterprises, they also had access to state bases, but they could also independently conclude direct contracts with manufacturers of the goods and components they needed, with collective farms and private farmers (there were still some at that time), with the same cooperatives that made, for example, buttons, zippers, and other accessories - for dressmakers and sewing cooperatives/artels. Everything in the USSR was orderly and reasonable, until a scoundrel and his gang broke into power.
                  As one very respected Japanese businessman, who was already many years old in 1992, said at the international economic forum in Moscow where he was invited by Chubais and Nemtsov, when he was given the floor: "When in the 30s you Russians became smart, we Japanese were dyR@k@s, when after WWII you Russians became VERY-VERY smart, we Japanese were still dyR@k@s, but after 1955 you Russians instantly became like 5-year-old children... and we Japanese - we became smarter." And having bowed, he left the podium. But he was given the opportunity to say the final word at the forum of "young reformers".
                  1. -2
                    6 February 2025 15: 05
                    Quote: bayard
                    but they could have independently conclude direct contracts with manufacturers of the goods they need
                    This is precisely why Khrushchev slapped them down - there was a crisis in the country uncontrollable state money circulation.
                    I didn't come up with the "pushers" in the USSR in the 1960-70s - life forced me to. And this was with the condition that everything was state-owned and everyone had equal access to funds.
                    And when access is equal - but some They could throw in some money for the funds - that would be cream for them, and blue water from boiling eggs for the rest...
                    Therefore, it was not done in a decorous and reasonable manner - alas, but it was not done.
                    The only difference between Stalin's artels and state industry was the absence of a limit on the upper limit of wages under piecework.
                    That's exactly what it was. the only the real factor in their flourishing under Stalin.
                    And then apparatus of power saw that - "Wow, they're millionaires!!!" and this has an extremely bad effect on the government and the people. And he twisted off this guy's head sprout "Chinese communism" of today.
                    Well, I set the upper limit of wages.
                    "Well, why tear up the facade if you can't jump higher than the ceiling?" © thought the people and gave up...
                    1. 0
                      6 February 2025 16: 44
                      Quote: your1970
                      There was money circulation in the country that was not controlled by the state.

                      What does this phrase mean?
                      In the USSR there was a two-circuit monetary system - all funds could be received ONLY by cashless payment - control even until the Poppy Lent. But retail trade was carried out for cash and trade organizations had cash. There may have been some violations there, but that's why you have law enforcement agencies getting their salaries. If you want to control - control.
                      But Khrushchev decided to fight "dandruff" by cutting off heads - he simply destroyed the entire industrial cooperative and individual entrepreneurs, while robbing ALL shareholders almost to the last thread.
                      Really good guy?
                      Quote: your1970
                      I didn't come up with the idea of ​​"pushers" in the USSR in the 1960-70s - life forced me to.

                      They have always been there. If they were solving production and supply issues, then why not? And if they allowed any violations, there is a Law for that.
                      But Khrushchev was killing practically the entire sector of production of high-quality consumer goods and services... He was killing deliberately, making people's lives sometimes simply unbearable. The only thing that saved them from riots was the habit of steadfastly enduring adversity and the stupidity of the authorities, acquired during the war... But sometimes it still exploded. Like in Novocherkassk.
                      Quote: your1970
                      And when access is equal - but some could throw in some money for funds - then they get the cream, and the rest get the blue water from boiling eggs.

                      Don't exaggerate, this only happens in a DEFICIT economy, and by the mid-50s we had already dealt with deficits, on the contrary - statistics showed a possible crisis of overproduction soon. That is, in a normal economy (and in Stalin's USSR the economy was exactly normal) demand creates supply, and the higher the demand, the faster the production of the necessary product increases.
                      And Stalin fought the approaching crisis of overproduction not only by a planned gradual reduction of the working day, but also by ... raising the level of wages, including the transfer of qualified specialists to piecework, and in addition, once or twice a year, he lowered prices for consumer goods. That is, he stimulated DEMAND for consumer goods by increasing the level of solvency of the population. So he could not possibly want to somehow fool limit the growth of citizens' well-being. On the contrary, he considered it necessary to constantly increase it. Including by means of ever wider involvement of workers and creative masses in industrial cooperation.
                      You apparently do not understand that by status both state enterprises and production cooperatives were in the People's Ownership. Only state enterprises were in the public domain, and cooperatives were in the collective domain. No one was going to put them under a single line with salary caps, and for just thinking about it you could get an article - for anti-people activity. And even real enemies of the People were afraid to become Enemies of the People... and sat like mice under a broom.
                      And then those same Enemies of the People, who had not been identified in previous years, seized power. And they arranged for the People such a Bartholomew's Tale... which only the "Brothers Grimm" were capable of composing.
                      Quote: your1970
                      This was the only real factor in their flourishing under Stalin.

                      In fact, there were many factors, but FAIR wages are the best incentive for production and product quality. But also the amazing quality of government management, planning, support for each project by those responsible from the Central Committee and ministries... you can simply take an example from any industry as a standard model. They never worked like that in the USSR again. After Khrushchev's Trotskyist pogrom of the Soviet state system... there was a gradual but steady degradation. My friend's father, who then worked in Gosplan, told me how it happened in the Holy of Holies of the Soviet management system at that time. He still lived through Stalin's Gosplan with its "Stalinist bison", and then all that chaos that the Enemy of the People in a Russian shirt had brought about - first there were purges of the most competent and honored employees, and then the complete abolition and dispersal of the USSR Gosplan, the Government of the USSR (and the Union Republics), the establishment of direct party management of the economy through economic councils... The economy of the USSR was being broken SO violently that it seemed that only scraps of it should have remained. He again drove the People into poverty and even destitution with his monetary reform and the abolition of Stalin's unified tariff scale.
                      Quote: your1970
                      And then the government apparatus saw that - "Wow, they're millionaires!!!"

                      This device, which saw this and screamed, should have been put up against the wall back in 1938-1939. I was not mistaken with the dates - it was then that the clever Beria headed the NKVD and began to restore order in the organs and bring to justice the true Enemies of the People. But the war began, it was necessary to carefully review all the cases of those previously convicted and rehabilitate the innocent, it was necessary to restore the intelligence network in Europe almost from scratch, prepare the Country for War, and Industry for Evacuation.
                      Lavrenty never got around to the main ghoul and the author of the overwhelming majority of death sentences - Khrushchev. He played the village DyR@4k@ and clown too cleverly - how could you suspect DyR@k@ of such a thing?? That's why Stalin, Beria, and the whole country paid for it.
                      Quote: your1970
                      "Well, why tear up the facade if you can't jump higher than the ceiling?" © thought the people and gave up...

                      Not right away, but I scored.
                      And then he started drinking.
                      Because there was nowhere for the creative energy of the people to escape - in Khrushchev's shackles, what kind of "Bright Future" could there be?
                      Quote: your1970
                      Khrushchev was forced to liquidate them

                      Yeah... And the women went to have abortions.
                      And before the arrival of this ghoul, on the contrary - Mothers became Heroines! They received medals for the birth of new members of the Socialist Society!
                      And the people are in captivity request does not reproduce.
              2. 0
                9 February 2025 00: 21
                How come so many countries with a high standard of living, industry, and technology do not arrange any Stalinist experiments? You are telling some fantasies about the post-war period, even in Soviet films of Stalin's, post-war time, where they tried to show a fountain of happiness, everything looked rather modest. And I actually have ancestors who remembered that time. The FRG, which was defeated at 0, reached the top level already in the late 50s.
                1. 0
                  9 February 2025 11: 47
                  Quote: karabas-barabas
                  How come so many countries with a high standard of living, industry, and technology do not conduct any Stalinist experiments?

                  A first-grader's question. If you are talking about industrialization, then exactly the same thing happened in the USA in the 30s - Industrialization. It was called differently, but it was carried out in exactly the same way - all the unemployed were forcibly (!) driven into labor armies, in which they worked with gusto for 1 dollar a day, while they also had a deduction for food and housing. And with the efforts of these unfortunates, the very same US Industry (and Infrastructure!) was built, which historians and eyewitnesses still admire.
                  Collectivization?
                  And what was the intentional ruin of small farmers in the US at that time and the concentration of agricultural land in the hands of large agricultural companies? In fact, it was the same thing, but the name was different. It's just that the start in the US was from a higher level, they were not in a state of ruin after the Civil War, they were not subject to the same sanctions as the USSR, their assets were not stolen abroad (as it sounds in modern terms). And during WWII they did not know war on their territory, their economy provided not only for the needs of the US, but also simply gigantic supplies to all warring parties (supplies to Germany went through intermediaries and were financed by the bank of Bush Jr.'s grandfather).
                  But the political and social system in the USSR was different. Which allowed it to quickly emerge from ruin and become the SECOND World Economy in 1940. And this is according to US data - their statistics, cited in the film "What We Fight For" in 1943.
                  Quote: karabas-barabas
                  The FRG, which had been defeated by 0, had already reached the top level at the end of the 50s.

                  Forgot about the "Marshal Plan"? smile In addition to the huge amounts of money poured into the FRG economy by American banks, huge amounts of Reich money, taken out of Europe at the end of the war, also returned to the country. The Americans installed former representatives of the Wehrmacht, SS and Reich to power in the FRG, so from the beginning of the 50s, not only US money but also saved Reich money began to be poured into the FRG in the form of investments. In addition, we should not forget what Germany was in scientific and technical terms - until the mid-40s, about 80% of all patents in the world were German. Not all patents could and were fully implemented, but in scientific and technical terms, it was the most developed state, with an excellent education system and training of technical personnel. This is not Somalia for you to rebuild.
                  Moreover, the payment of huge reparations stimulated the economy of the FRG - they could pay off these obligations only by exporting high-quality products of the highest level of processing, because they have critically few of their own raw materials and natural resources. Here you have the "secret" of the German miracle.
                  Quote: karabas-barabas
                  Even in Soviet films of Stalin's post-war era, where they tried to show a fountain of happiness, everything looked rather modest.

                  Most of the European part of the country lies in ruins, 27 million in total losses just killed. And how many cripples were left after the war? And there was definitely no "Marshal Plan" for us, we were not given loans and were not sold industrial equipment from the USA as before. And the USSR still had the Eastern European countries, which suffered less, but also ended up under sanctions. And nevertheless, ration cards were abolished in the USSR earlier than anyone else in Europe. And again, the growth rate of the USSR economy was the highest in the world - 15-17% per year. But all this efficiency began to fall sharply in 1955, when Khrushchev's gang seized power. That's when all the distortions and unrest, deficits and restrictions on the standard of living of the population began. If you want to understand the meaning of what was happening then - look at the statistical reference books of those years. If Stalin had lived at least 5 more years, we would not have recognized our country. And it was only enough for the post-war reconstruction of the country. During the war, he had three heart attacks. He did not survive the fourth heart attack and stroke.
                  Quote: karabas-barabas
                  Stalin's experiments

                  But they were ALL successful. What's more, they were extremely successful.
                  And those "repressions" that his enemies are shaking down... after all, they were started by his enemies themselves. And Stalin's requests to re-vote the decision to carry out purges before the first all-Union elections on an alternative basis... were rejected. And he asked the congress TWICE. And Khrushchev chaired that congress. He came up with the initiative to carry out those purges. He signed the overwhelming majority of death sentences, as a member and chairman of the Moscow "Troika". And then he himself blamed his crimes on Stalin, and lied about the many times greater scale of those "repressions".
                  So the period of Stalin's rule was the most successful period of our history, but at the same time, this period also saw the most terrible trials for our country.
            3. -2
              6 February 2025 11: 36
              Quote: karabas-barabas
              We would have gone from the beginning to the middle of the 70s in Chinese,

              China is blooming and smelling because of this then:
              1) there was simply a wild amount of practically free (up to a cup of rice a day and this is not an exaggeration!) labor
              2) PDA guaranteed Western companies have the right to property and investment inviolability
              3) taxes for them were zero for 5 years
        4. +1
          5 February 2025 13: 56
          They are simply making fun of us and our country by putting just anyone into leadership positions.
          just anyone - that means there must often be a person with brains. And here, as if hand-picked...
    3. +3
      5 February 2025 08: 07
      In principle, Russia can also restore supersonic passenger aviation. How I see it.

      I don't want to offend, but who were you in your "past life"?
      1. +2
        5 February 2025 08: 18
        Why do you need it? To summarize, a ship mechanic, an engineer-technologist for the repair and manufacture of ship machines and mechanisms according to his diploma.
  5. +1
    5 February 2025 06: 01
    And yet... there is no point in considering it as a military facility. Considering it as a commercial project... it is not yet clear what it will be and HOW MUCH!???
    1. 0
      5 February 2025 08: 12
      A passenger plane with one pilot? Somehow this doesn't fit into safety standards. Still, this is an attempt to hide a wolf under sheep's clothing. For example, to use budget money.
      1. +1
        5 February 2025 22: 59
        This is a scale copy of 1/3 of the project
    2. +5
      5 February 2025 09: 14
      Quote: rocket757
      And yet... there is no point in considering it as a military facility. Considering it as a commercial project... it is not yet clear what it will be and HOW MUCH!???

      And this is precisely a civil project.
      And it was originally developed in this vein.
      I remember the news about the creation of this project from the moment of the idea. Search for investors for the project.
      Search for the optimal shape of the aircraft, minimizing the sonic boom at supersonic speeds to an acceptable value.
      An economic component that will allow supersonic flight to pay for itself in the next 5-30 years.
      Blowing models.

      Why did Skomorokhov drag military significance into this? I don't know. But it has no military significance.
      1. 0
        6 February 2025 02: 03
        Quote: SovAr238A
        Why did Skomorokhov drag military significance into this? I don't know. But it has no military significance.

        Thank you, I was looking for a comment on the meaning of yours. The article seemed a bit too far-fetched to me.
    3. -2
      5 February 2025 09: 40
      Quote: rocket757
      it's not clear yet what it will be and HOW MUCH!???

      Business jet for the super rich.
      It definitely won't work on regular flights - where there aren't the necessary oligarch volumes. The Concorde story will repeat itself.
      1. 0
        6 February 2025 02: 05
        Quote: your1970
        Repeating the history of Concord

        The Concorde was a commercial success. For many middle-class people, $10 was the price they were willing to pay to make their dream come true.
    4. -1
      5 February 2025 13: 01
      a supersonic or even hypersonic airliner will be economically viable provided it uses a hybrid propulsion system
      2-circuit turbojet engine for takeoff, landing and acceleration
      and the main hypersonic ramjet engine scramjet
      The British are developing such a project, but the Chinese already have a prototype in hardware
      1. 0
        5 February 2025 17: 58
        Technical perfection, plus reliability - if so, then there will be those who want to quickly move around the planet, regardless of the costs.
        It won't be widespread, yet, but later... then we'll see what they come up with.
  6. +1
    5 February 2025 06: 29
    Install engines three times more powerful and everything will immediately increase, but three times? Let's first test the idea on the Zhiguli - let's install a biturbo engine in them)
  7. 0
    5 February 2025 06: 30
    Quote ""
    However, the US does not make a secret of the fact that they look at the plane from the other side. At least, "in general, this program can have significant consequences not only for commercial aviation, but also for military aviation" - this is what the developer company itself believes. - the main financier of the US Ministry of Defense, this is not even hidden
  8. 0
    5 February 2025 07: 33
    maximum speed - 2,2 Mach
    For a passenger plane, it's cool. But for a reconnaissance aircraft flying with impunity over foreign territory, it's nothing. The MIG-31 reaches 2,83 Mach, and the missiles, both air-to-air and SAM, even more. In addition, radars cannot be mounted outside at such speeds. And to fly around the borders at a safe distance, such speeds are only a hindrance.
  9. +1
    5 February 2025 07: 51
    If you use it as a reconnaissance aircraft, you need to know what its practical ceiling is. The U-2 could climb to 20 km. If you make an AWACS with such a ceiling, then even without flying into enemy airspace, it could scan the coast 200 km deep.
    1. +1
      5 February 2025 14: 45
      If we were to make an AWACS with such a ceiling, then even without flying into enemy airspace it could scan the coast 200 km deep.
      About 1200 km.
  10. +4
    5 February 2025 07: 54
    But we can't create engines for the MS-21... What's more, they can't reincarnate the MS-21 or An-2...
    * * *
    May the hands that rake away from themselves wither away...
    1. -2
      5 February 2025 10: 51
      "Let not the hand of him who gives be empty, and let not the hand of him who takes wither."

      Quote: yuriy55
      May the hands that rake away from themselves wither away...

      But the reason is still the same...
    2. -1
      5 February 2025 17: 01
      yuriy55, even if you are a Siberian, do not broadcast nonsense from domestic media on the air... And the Lord God "initiates" the "withering away of the hands" of those who rake in "for themselves".....
  11. +1
    5 February 2025 08: 14
    there are a lot of letters in the author's article
    but when I look at what they do, I get the idea that they still have engineers (despite the failures at Boeing)...
    how the space industry is developing...
    how much money is "poured" into NASA research...
  12. -1
    5 February 2025 09: 13
    In principle, after the end of the war and at least partial normalization of international relations, such an aircraft would be useful to us.
    I think it would be possible to revive the T-144, naturally with new materials and avionics. Make it lighter, stronger and modernize the engines in terms of efficiency and reliability.
    1. +2
      5 February 2025 15: 13
      Quote: George Sviridov
      In principle, after the end of the war and at least partial normalization of international relations, such an aircraft would be useful to us.
      I think it would be possible to revive the T-144, naturally with new materials and avionics. Make it lighter, stronger and modernize the engines in terms of efficiency and reliability.


      Aircraft like the Tu-144 or Concorde will never be economically justified, simply based on the totality of their flight scheme...
      This article is about an aircraft that was designed completely differently with different input data and construction.
  13. +1
    5 February 2025 09: 29
    But before the SVO it was announced that our people and the Arabs would be making a private super-jet.
    And? silence....

    Familiar.
    1. 0
      6 February 2025 08: 39
      But before the SVO it was announced that ours and the Arabs will do it
      private superjet.

      so arabs are not suckers
  14. -2
    5 February 2025 09: 40
    But if you look at devices like the U-2

    You don't need to look at the U-2. It's not supersonic. request
    The XB-1 is ultimately expected to have a top speed of around Mach 2,2, or about 2 km/h.

    Their fighters don't fly that fast. lol
    And you are reporting on a passenger plane, albeit one that presumably has a military future.
  15. -2
    5 February 2025 09: 58
    "Concorde" and Tu-144.

    What kind of museum is this?
    1. kpd
      +1
      5 February 2025 10: 35
      Concorde and Tu-144 at the Museum of Technology in Sinsheim, Germany
  16. +2
    5 February 2025 10: 26
    NASA has long since caught up with Roscosmos in its helplessness and has nothing to offer in terms of spaceships. Everything is done by private companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, Sierra Space, Boeing.

    It is immediately obvious that the author does not follow the development of cosmonautics in the world at all.
    SpaceX can, but NASA cannot - because the very emergence of private space companies is a consequence of the program to delegate the functions of a carrier to private owners.
    NASA was created as an organization for advanced developments and research, including the study of planets and satellites of the solar system, the launch of orbital vehicles, the launch of observatories, research in laboratories on the ISS, etc.
    Launching cargo on demand (commercial or military communications satellites) has always been an additional function for NASA. And the organization's structure was never designed to prioritize the work of a carrier.
    When the Cold War ended in the 90s with the fall of the Soviet Union, funding for research programs was cut sharply (it was already being cut, but due to the lack of competition from the USSR, it completely collapsed) and as a result NASA became mostly engaged in pure transportation. But it turned out that there was almost no money for research (there are a lot of research scientists working in the NASA camp who have no work if NASA simply launches communications satellites on request).
    As a result, in the late 90s, a decision was made to create private companies that would take on the burden of launching commercial and military satellites into space, leaving NASA for advanced scientific research.
    The same NASA was able to design, build and LAUNCH a whole super-heavy launch vehicle for its advanced Artemis program. And here, Roscosmos changes its plans every six months about what kind of launch vehicle we will design. Good job they at least got Angara ready for flights, but if we fly to the Moon, it will only be in the 40s and possibly on a Chinese rocket.
    1. +1
      5 February 2025 12: 33
      The first column is the number of spacecraft launches, the second is the number of successful ones.
      USA 141 140
      China 68 65
      Russia 17 17
      New Green 13 13
      Japan 7 5
      India 5 5
      Iran 4 4
      EC 3 2
      DPRK 1 1
      Total 259 251
      Spacecraft Purposes
      USA China Russia
      Manned 5 2 2
      OS supplies 4 2 4
      Interplanetary stations 3 4
      Communications and broadcasting GSO 5 2
      Connections Other 1960 85 3
      Navigation 1 2
      Weather satellites 8 5 1
      Scientific satellites 5 8 13
      Remote sensing 58 83 12
      Military 120 16 6
      Others 51 50 56
      source https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%B2_2024_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%83
  17. -5
    5 February 2025 10: 46
    The essence of Russian civilization is Bolshevism.

    Quote: R. Skomorokhov
    Is this what will fly over our borders?

    Not above ours, but close by. If the S-500 is capable of shooting down satellites, then surely we won't shoot this down? No need to change diapers ahead of time! laughing
  18. 0
    5 February 2025 11: 17
    TU-144 (tail number 77110) is the world's first supersonic airliner. It carried out passenger transportation Moscow-Alma-Ata (1977-1978). It was exhibited at the international air show Le Bourget (France). Dislocation Ulyanovsk Museum of Civil Aviation.
    History of the Tu-144https://tu-144.kai.ru/ru/istoria-legendy
  19. +1
    5 February 2025 12: 01
    The article is not bad, but in my opinion, it was worth mentioning the main directions of developments for this program. And judging by the comments, many think that this is an aircraft for the army with the ability to perform civilian flights.
    Because that's not true.
    All the research that the developers conducted (and NASA helped them with this) was aimed at 2 things:
    1) Reduce the cost of flying an aircraft at supersonic cruising speed
    2) reduce the noise load both inside the aircraft (for passengers) and outside (to meet aviation standards for sound pollution)
    And all because the developers are trying to create a supersonic business jet.
    Therefore, the price of a first-class plane ticket is simply a guideline for them as the minimum price for a flight per person. The main goal of the program (and the private owner of the project) is to create the first supersonic business jet for developers.
    In fact, the business jet market is currently divided between a couple of companies, within which all aircraft are divided into 2 types. For flights within the country and the nearest borders. And for flights between parts of the world and continents (landmark, transatlantic Gulf Streams). And they can compete with each other only in comfort.
    And here the developers want to pull the niche from the fact that they are ready to provide a business jet that will transport a businessman from New York to London not in 8-9 hours, but in 3-4.
  20. -2
    5 February 2025 12: 52
    Quote: yuriy55
    But we can't create engines for the MS-21... What's more, they can't reincarnate the MS-21 or An-2...
    * * *
    May the hands that rake away from themselves wither away...

    There is no need to make a hunchback about the MS-21.
  21. 0
    5 February 2025 13: 15
    It is very difficult to judge to what extent this could be a prototype for a passenger airliner, the similarity with the Tu-144 and Concorde is very distant. But if you look at such devices as the U-2 and SR-71, then they have something in common.
    The only thing the U-2 and SR-71 have in common is their color, their designer, and the company that manufactured them... And also, that they are high-altitude... But I find it hard to even say what the plane in the photo has in common with the U-2...
  22. 0
    5 February 2025 13: 27
    Quote: bayard
    Afterburner is an emergency mode for the engine and should not be turned on for long periods of time.

    Oh my God!
    This is not possible with a piston engine. In fact, what is called "afterburner" (removing power in excess of that incorporated into the design) is not really afterburner in a turbojet engine. It's just that in the farting gases of a turbojet engine, due to the peculiarities of the combustion process (large excess air), there is still a lot of unburned oxygen. That's where additional fuel is injected. Since everything happens outside the gas generator, the engine doesn't care either way.
    Kerosene consumption is becoming absolutely exorbitant, that's for sure!
    It is precisely to ensure a long flight range at supersonic speed that the 5th generation aircraft are required to cruise at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners.
  23. +3
    5 February 2025 16: 00
    What kind of heresy is this? What do your borders have to do with it? The plane is a demonstrator of technologies.
    Such startups are just waiting for a big uncle to buy them. After that, everything will end by itself. By the way, today the average fighter flies M1.8 - M2.2. The old Mig31 flies M3
  24. 0
    5 February 2025 16: 54
    In short and to the point: we are waiting..... It is possible that "Boom Supersonic" will succeed, based on "ХВ-1", in making a quite "playable" ""Overture"..... With their money and technological capabilities, there is a cautious assumption that they will make this technical "fairy tale" a commercial "reality"....
  25. +1
    5 February 2025 18: 46
    Another article by an author with a telling surname to justify his salary. "Intriguing" with the dual purpose of the plane, the writer tries his best to pull the owl onto the globe, trying to attract the public to participate in this too))
  26. -1
    5 February 2025 21: 51
    The ceiling, speed, and load capacity of this model already indicate its promising use for military purposes.
  27. 0
    6 February 2025 00: 24
    A typical embezzlement. Former military men are fooling around. A supersonic transport is too expensive. And no one has yet suggested how to make it cheaper. And how many similar projects have there been? Just remember Burt Rutan.
    Although, we must give respect to the American military. At least they finance such projects, unlike ours. After all, no one has cancelled romance)) Maybe they will achieve something)
  28. 0
    6 February 2025 14: 30
    This plane is for oligarchs and millionaires who have real estate in both America and Australia. Not a practical plane.
  29. 0
    6 February 2025 16: 39
    Everything is done by private companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, Sierra Space, Boeing. Who said that the same is completely impossible in the field of aircraft manufacturing?
    Eeeee... And before that, were all the planes in the US built by government agencies? Boeing, Lockheed, etc. are all private, absolutely. And in their space transportation, design and construction are also all private. The same Boeing and its comrades. NASA has always acted only as a customer and operator.