Military Review

B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber: UFO vs. Air Defense

60



UFO flew over Moscow,
Silver metal.


Gilbert Wells was right. Aliens. War of the Worlds. They really exist. Unidentified! Flying! Objects! A phenomenon, a ghost, a strange anomaly, whose appearance contradicts all our ideas about aviation technique.
- The object disappeared from the radar screens!
- Raise interceptors, you need to explore the airspace.
- I'm half a second. Radar "MiG" does not see the target. Heat finder is useless!
...

According to experts from the RAND analytical center, a link of three B-2 stealth bombers is able to stop the Soviet offensive tank divisions, with impunity destroying up to 350 units of armored vehicles in one flight!
...

"The parabolic antenna of the radar H-019 distinguishes B-2 even against the background of the earth" - The scandalous revelation of Larry Nielsen was the subject of heated debate among aviators. Nielsen is not a simple analyst. This is a high-class specialist, test pilot of the US Air Force, who happened to take part in the testing of the MiG-29. The plane fell into the hands of Americans immediately after the unification of Germany and gave the Pentagon many surprises - familiarity with the new Soviet fighter almost put an end to the fate of the “invisible”.
...

The most expensive plane in stories aviation, a fantastic “flying saucer”, capable of overcoming any air defense system and delivering a fatal blow to the very heart of the enemy. Meet today's hero - a strategic stealth bomber B-2 "Spirit"! Hot breath of the Cold War. Ghost plane born of the inflamed imagination of the IDF mystifiers. Super hero left without a super enemy.



Around the B-2 rotates so many mysterious myths, legends and outright delusions that there is no way to determine what this plane really is. Terrible winged ship or useless "vundervafel"? But all the secret sooner or later becomes clear - in the 15 years of operation of the B-2 stealth bombers, enough information was leaked out in the open press to draw certain conclusions about these aircraft.

B-2 looks bad

Noticed correctly - the appearance of a stealth bomber as if borrowed from science fiction. When viewed from the Earth - "Spirit" is similar to a racing patch of black blanket. Flying scat. Fantastic mezvezvedny ship. In profile - a true “flying saucer”, flat, slippery, as if flattened by a blow of a sledgehammer - without the usual fuselage and tail unit. Impressive.

The strange appearance of the aircraft is just an aerodynamic "flying wing" scheme, known long before the appearance of the American Stealth. The scheme has its own characteristics, advantages and disadvantages. The lack of tail feathers does not prevent the “flying wing” from laying bends and twisting pirouettes: contrary to a common misconception, planes do not change course at all with the help of the vertical rudder on the tail fin - it performs only a supporting role. The main task of the keel - flight stabilization.

Turning is always performed by the roll of the aircraft - at the same time, on the "lower" wing, the lifting force decreases, on the "upper" increases, as a result, the "upper" wing "turns" the aircraft in the right direction. “Wing load” is one of the most important parameters in aviation — the less kg per square meter of surface, the easier it is for the aircraft to “deploy”; accordingly, maneuverability improves.

The “flying wing” spins the pirouettes coolly, but doesn’t keep up with the course at all - the absence of a vertical keel makes itself felt. The B-2 control would not have been possible without the use of automation and an electrical remote control system: numerous sensors continuously monitor the position of the aircraft in space and every second give corrective pulses to the elements of the wing mechanization.
It is fair to note that few of the modern aircraft can be controlled "manually" - the same statically unstable Su-27 is also unrealistic to fly without the help of automation.


Air refueling requires delicate control of the aircraft

A similar plane existed even 70 years ago - we are talking about the project of the German fighter-bomber "Horten" Ho.229 (launched in serial production in the spring of the year 1945). The aircraft designers, the Horten brothers, chose this scheme, based on their personal preferences — a sleek, streamlined “wing-wing” was fully consistent with their ideas about a high-speed jet bomber. Unexpectedly, it turned out that Ho.229 has a different, equally important quality - reduced visibility for enemy radars.
It is possible that the specialists of the Corporation “Northrop” were inspired by the works of their German colleagues. However, in terms of technology, B-2 and Ho.229 differ in the same way as an elephant from pterodactyl.

B-2 useless?

The Pentagon has spent 2 billion dollars on an aircraft that is not capable of using cruise missiles. Incredible! How could this happen?

American capitalists are pragmatic people. They will examine every cent of the world before investing in any project. The strategic stealth bomber was under special control of the Congress, and, at first, seemed to be a fully justified decision with fantastic prospects. The situation is reflected in the following illustration:



According to the calculations of the US military, to overcome the Soviet-style air defense system and attack the targets deep in the enemy’s territory, the F-16 fighter-bombers (the estimated number of machines of the attack group is 32 units, using high-precision weapons - 16 units) will require:

- Escort from X-Numx fighter F-16 "Eagle";

- A group of jammers from 4 EF-111 EW-Raven;

- the anti-aircraft defense suppression group of X-Numx airplanes F-8G, the so-called. "Wild Lasky";

- and an armada of tankers to provide all this honest company with fuel - 15 fat-bellied KC-135 “Stratotanker”.

An equivalent strike can be inflicted on X-NUMX stealth aircraft, the F-8 Nighthawk, with the support of two air tankers. But the application of the B-117 looks particularly impressive - just two aircraft are enough to perform the same task, while the “Spirit”, due to its strategic flight range, does not need air tankers!

The task, which requires the 50-60 of conventional aircraft (attack, cover fighters, EW systems) can be performed just two stealth cars! Savings are obvious.

The trick is that the US congressmen and the military were the victims of fraud (accidental or intentional - in this case it does not matter). In front of people who are not well versed in radio engineering and the diffraction of electromagnetic waves, lectures on the creation of an "inconspicuous aircraft" were read regularly - the luminaries of American science promised each other how to implement such a project in practice. Practically undetectable and invulnerable aircraft, which does not require an escort and providing means.



The result of the efforts of Northrop specialists turned out to be more than doubtful: the effective scattering area B-2 is estimated in the interval from 0,0014 to 0,1 square. meters (for comparison, the EPR fighters of the Su-27 family is within 3-4 square meters.). It would seem that the B-2 "Spirit" demonstrates a radical decrease in the ESR, compared with conventional machines.

Flat forms, lack of a vertical keel, widespread introduction of radio-absorbing materials, "zigzag" joints of parts. A huge plane looks on the radar like a tiny bird!

However, not everything is so simple: a small EPR stealth bomber is not a guarantee of the safety of the B-2. The reduction of the EPR provides some protection against obsolete means of detection and air defense systems, but modern radars see such an object (EPR = 0,1 sq. M) at a distance of tens of kilometers. There are problems with the infrared range - despite all the tricks of the engineers (the location of the engines on the upper surface of the wing, a special form of nozzles that forms a "flat" jet for quick cooling of the combustion products) - despite all the efforts, it was impossible to completely hide the red-hot jet exhaust.
According to eyewitnesses (the plane was considered a couple of times in thermal imagers at international air shows), from some angles, "Spirit" shines noticeably in the IR range. Finally, an enemy fighter pilot can visually detect "Spirit" - in this case, a helpless bomber is doomed.



The risk of being discovered (therefore, being destroyed) is still great. No one in their right mind and good memory will send the B-2 "Spirit" alone to the zone of the C-300 SAM or enemy fighter aircraft. In practice, a serious air defense breakthrough is carried out using dozens of specialized F-16CJ, EA-18 “Growler”, EC-130 “Compass Call” aircraft, etc. Enemy air defense systems are being “crushed” by massive volleys of anti-radar missiles, Tomahawk SLCM, squalls of radio-electronic interference, and Hellfire from unmanned aerial vehicles. In this case, the "invisible" B-2 has no clear advantages over conventional aircraft, at the same time, its use is inefficient and ruinous.

In the same place, where the resistance of the air force and air defense of the enemy is minimized (Afghanistan, Libya), the usual F-16 also do an excellent job. Super hero too boring in such conditions.

Who are you, B-2 stelc bomber?

The US Air Force received the usual bomber at an inflated price. No doubt, this is a serious aircraft for “establishing democracy” around the world, capable of taking 80 kg 227 bombs aboard and making a combat flight from Whiteman Air Base (Missouri) to Afghanistan and back, lasting 50 hours (with refueling in the air).

If you do not take into account its controversial "stealth" and the incredible cost, B-2 is not inferior to its legendary predecessor B-52 "Stratofortress" (according to 80's plans, by the beginning of the new century 132 "Spirit" had to completely replace the fleet " Stratospheric Fortresses "). Each of the bombers has its strengths, at the same time, “invisible” does not show clear advantages over the veteran.
The old Stratoforthress (modification B-52H) has almost twice the range, while carrying a large bomb load on the 20%.

The B-2, in turn, demonstrates a stunning set of detection tools: the AN / APQ-21 181 modulated radar, capable of scanning the underlying terrain strip 240 km wide and operating in terrain mapping mode, changed the more impressive LRIP radar from an active HEADLIGHT to 2010 radar . Pilots B-2 have at their disposal the most advanced avionics: the FLIR IR viewing system, electronic reconnaissance equipment, the HANIUAL radio altimeter with a low probability of signal interception, an inertial navigation system, an information exchange channel with reconnaissance satellites, VILSTAR communications equipment, an electronic counter system ZSR-62 , targeting equipment designed to use JDAM guided munitions, TACAN navigation system, VIR-130 radio landing system receiver and passive sensor system, signal about changing the situation overboard.

Another question is why the B-2 "Spirit" needed a super-radar with AFAR - this contradicts the whole concept of using the "inconspicuous aircraft." Just one impulse - and enemy RT intelligence systems spotted the aircraft's location. For example, the famous colleague of "Spirit" - F-117, did not have on-board radar at all. Only passive means of collecting information.
Finally, a veteran B-52 can be equipped with an outboard sighting and navigation container (for example, LITENING) - in this case, the capabilities of the old bomb carrier correspond to any modern aircraft.



The "invisible" has one more paradoxical, at first glance, advantage - it is less dependent on weather conditions! Unlike the bulky B-52 with long and fragile wing planes, the B-2 can make a safe landing with side wind blowing at a speed of 40 m / s.

B-2 "Spirit" is extremely automated. The crew of a large strategic bomber consists of only two pilots! (B-52 requires 5 people to control, B-1B crew consists of 4 people).

Alas, this is a weak excuse for Spirit. The cost of a stealth bomber is much higher than that of any of these vehicles. B-2 basing is possible only in a special hangar with an artificially maintained microclimate - otherwise, ultraviolet radiation will damage the aircraft’s radio absorbing coating. There are not so many air bases on Earth where B-2 can be deployed for a long time - according to official data, the corresponding infrastructure is only available at Whiteman air bases (US territory), Anderson (Guam Island, Pacific Ocean) and Diego Garcia (Chagos Archipelago, 500 miles south Seychelles, Indian Ocean).

Of course, it’s funny to see how Americans care about their expensive “toys”, however, a reverent attitude to aircraft engineering is a very useful tradition, the main thing is not to go to extremes. Finally, the special guard protects the “stealth” not only from sunlight, but also from terrorist attacks and other force majeure situations. It is reported that in the event of a fire, the fire extinguishing system is capable of filling the aircraft with flaming foam in 20 seconds.

B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber: UFO vs. Air Defense


Ammunition. The most intriguing moment. The maximum combat load of a stealth bomber reaches 23 tons (after modernization, an increase to 27 tons is expected). However, bombs cannot be “poured” into the bomb bay as concrete. In practice, the real combat load of the B-2 is within 18 tons. What does it mean?

- 80 free-fall 500-pound bombs Mk.82

- or 16 atomic bombs B-61

- or 36 cluster munitions of the CBU line

- or 12 large-caliber bombs JDAM (ersatz-kit GPS, which turns conventional ammunition into high-precision weapons)

- or laser-guided 8 guided bombs with a GBU-27 Paveway III (calculated weight 907 kg).

Honestly, I have no assumptions about how the myth appeared that B-2 is not capable of using air-based cruise missiles. After all, from the carrier, in this case, not too much is needed - just hang up the ammunition in the bomb bay and deliver it to the point of discharge.

For example, the composition of the B-2 armament may look like this: AGM-8 TSSAM tactical cruise missiles with low radar visibility or 137 AGM-8 JASSM or 158 cruise missiles of the AGM-8 JSOW cruise missiles.


The launch of the cruise missile AGM-158 JASSM

However, the initial plans to equip the Spirit with the AGM-129 super-rocket with a thermonuclear warhead remained unfulfilled - after the collapse of the USSR, the B-52 remains the only carrier of this ammunition (the rockets are suspended from the underwing pylon).

With regard to comparing the B-2 with its peer - supersonic strategic bomber B-1B "Lancer", there is no doubt: "Lancer" looks more preferable. B-1B has almost a 2 times greater combat load (30 + tons in the internal bomb compartments, without taking into account the external weapon suspension), is capable of developing supersonic speed, has the ability to suspend additional sighting equipment (SNIPER XR containers for high-altitude bombing). In the design of the "Lancer" technology is also widely used to reduce visibility, while the B-1B is 5 times less!

Combat career B-2

The first combat use of the B-2 took place in the 1999 year - “stealth bombers” dropped JDAM precision bombs to Yugoslavia around 600. Non-stop flights were carried out from the United States.
During the invasion of Iraq (2003 year), the B-2 "Spirit" worked with the advanced Diego Garcia airbase in the Indian Ocean, part of the aircraft was still working out ultra-long combat missions from the United States. Official statistics - 49 combat missions, 300 tons of dropped ammunition.
In 2011, three cars took part in raids on Libya, attacking ground targets 45.

Well, the combat experience of B-2 is quite a lot, and, moreover, “Spirits” were built with a tiny series of just 21 units.



Also, according to official data, during operation, one vehicle of this type was lost - February 23 2008, the plane with the personal name "Spirit of Kansas" crashed immediately after takeoff from the air base on the island of Guam. Both crew members managed to eject.

Results

The history of the B-2 bomber is a story about how not to make planes. Despite a certain propaganda role, the development of new technologies and limited participation in military conflicts, Spirits have done more damage to the US budget than to opponents of the Pentagon. The plane turned out to be exclusively expensive (the cost of each of the 21 built "Spirits", taking into account research and development, exceeded 2 billion dollars in 1997 prices of the year) and is ineffective in the conditions of modern local conflicts. It is difficult to say how justified the use of stealth technology is, but more and more countries are striving to use these solutions in the design of aviation and naval technology. Obviously, in “stealth” there is a rational grain - another thing is how well the achieved result corresponds to the costs.



Facts and figures:
http://www.airwar.ru
http://www.vert-mi8.ru
http://www.fas.org
Author:
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Canep
    Canep 14 May 2013 07: 41 New
    +1
    Well, at least we haven’t thought of this miracle. Making an airplane invisible is practically impossible at the present stage of technological development. Ours understood this and merged the achievements of invisibility to the Americans, they called it the Stealth program and began to cut grandmothers from the US budget. What is most interesting can not calm down.
    "The parabolic antenna of the H-019 radar distinguishes the B-2 even against the background of the earth" - the scandalous revelation of Larry Nielsen became the subject of heated debate among aviators. Nielsen is not a simple expert analyst. This is a high-class specialist, test pilot of the US Air Force, who happened to take part in the test of the MiG-29.

    This is a MiG-29 !!! On modern aircraft are radar headlamps. What remains to wish the Americans success in squandering taxpayer money.
    1. svp67
      svp67 14 May 2013 07: 50 New
      +8
      Quote: Canep
      Well, at least we haven’t thought of this miracle.
      Who knows, it is worth recalling that, according to the statements of our press, our promising strategic "bomber" should be subsonic and made using Stealth technology, I would not be surprised if it looks very similar to this "miracle"
      1. Santa Fe
        14 May 2013 13: 10 New
        +7
        Quote: Canep
        "The parabolic antenna of the H-019 radar distinguishes the B-2 even against the background of the earth" - the scandalous revelation of Larry Nielsen became the subject of heated debate among aviators. Nielsen is not a simple expert analyst. This is a high-class specialist, test pilot of the US Air Force, who happened to take part in the test of the MiG-29.

        "MiG" with black crosses on the wings looks gloomy and angry

        if you look closely, the illustration is signed with the name of the source from where this frame is taken. This is a German site called FabulousFulcrums.de
        Fulcrum - code designation of the MiG-29 according to NATO classification ("fulcrum")
        Fabulous - fantastic, legendary, amazing

        It seems that abroad "MiG" is loved more than here wink
        1. Papakiko
          Papakiko 15 May 2013 07: 58 New
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          It seems that abroad "MiG" is loved more than here

          So they "love" him in quotes, that is, to a pleasant warmth in their pants.
          B-2 in turn, it demonstrates an amazing set of detection tools: the 21-mode AN / APQ-181 radar capable of scanning a strip of underlying terrain with a width of 240 km and working in terrain mapping mode, by 2010 replaced an even more impressive LRIP radar with an active PAR. The B-2 pilots have at their disposal the most advanced avionics: the infrared surveillance system FLIR, electronic reconnaissance equipment, the HANIUAL radio altimeter with a low probability of signal interception, inertial navigation system, information exchange channel with reconnaissance satellites, VILSTAR communication equipment, electronic warfare complex ZSR-62 , target designation equipment designed for the use of JDAM guided ammunition, TACAN navigation system, VIR-130 radio landing system receiver and passive sensor system, signaling device guides to change the situation behind.
          I respect any work, but the question arises.
          What prevents all of the above from being shoved into the B-52?
          Carrying capacity and volume is enough for everything, in duplicate.
          1. old man54
            old man54 18 May 2013 19: 43 New
            0
            Quote: Papakiko

            I respect any work, but the question arises.
            What prevents all of the above from being shoved into the B-52?
            Carrying capacity and volume is enough for everything, in duplicate.

            But what will the numerous companies of the Amerovo defense industry do? How to occupy them and how will they participate in the cut of the US deficit budget? :) Therefore, we need to build more, more expensive and more expensive! Is it really not clear :)
            1. Basarev
              Basarev 6 November 2013 11: 05 New
              0
              We wish the American military-industrial complex to continue to produce exceptionally useless super-expensive wunderwaffles
      2. bazilio
        bazilio 14 May 2013 13: 18 New
        0
        Quote: Canep
        Ours understood this and merged the achievements of invisibility to the Americans, they called it the Stealth program.

        Yes, I heard about this story, supposedly a "mole" was working in one research institute or design bureau, leaking information about new items of Soviet aviation. it was calculated by the KGB officers, but they did not immediately grab it, but merged the results of the Soviet stealth program through it. the results did not change, deleting only one line "in view of the obvious hopelessness of work on the program to stop"
        Regarding the stealth, I heard that even with the union they came up with a fundamentally different solution to reduce rl visibility using a plasma generator. Who knows what on this topic, tell me, is this project still alive?
        1. Santa Fe
          14 May 2013 13: 53 New
          10
          Quote: bazilio
          the results did not change, deleting only one line "in view of the obvious hopelessness of work on the program to stop"

          A beautiful legend.
          Otherwise, why on the PAK FA use the same elements as on the F-117, F-22 or B-2?
          Parallelism of all main edges and edges, zigzag joints, flat "flattened" fuselage design, curved air intake tunnels, transparent and radio absorbing materials, etc.

          Another thing is that it is not necessary to make a "totem" out of stealth, otherwise flight characteristics will suffer and the plane will turn into a Wobblin Goblin (a lame dwarf is the name of the F-117 in the ranks of the US Air Force)
          Quote: bazilio
          solution to reduce rl visibility using a plasma generator

          This is also a duck
          1. postman
            postman 14 May 2013 16: 43 New
            +4
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            This is also a duck

            Quote: bazilio
            Regarding the stealth, I heard that even with the union

            It's nonsense wandering around the open spaces of the brain for 20 years
            Pravda newspaper: this device, with a weight of 150 kg, will cover the entire plane with plasma, and it will become STELS.
            - Plasma has electrical conductivity, locators "see" it well. (the descent parts of spaceships, methiorites from the radar screens during the descent did not disappear so far, moreover, they are visible with the naked eye).
            -Even if Suddenly (picked up the properties of the plasma) it became radiolucent ... PRESSURE of the incoming air flow on the body, the nose of the fairing? In order to squeeze something, it is NECESSARY to at least provide more, multiply by surface area = get the compressor station, and try to take off
            -How to keep entu plasma? Slow down? "glue" ?: swing, swing, swing and swing again.
            -how to deal with the recombination of the plasma itself into ordinary gas?

            Such an aircraft will be followed by a savory noise plume of recombining plasma. Plus the plasma itself, no matter how "cold" (fire flame), ALWAYS HAS A TEMPERATURE ABOVE the environment (air)!

            A pretty picture: Chelyabinsk meteorites plowing the sky, but the radar doesn’t see them.
            stealth - the basic principle of the idea - selection of the resistance of the material (wave), equal to the wave resistance of the medium (air), which is why along the propagation front el. waves there are no nodes and refractions. The barrier from the stealth substance for the wave looks like an infinite medium - all the energy is released at the active impedance of the material.

            Nedo set the oncoming:
            You can explain the physics of invisibility of this plasma, if one exists.
        2. Andrey57
          Andrey57 14 May 2013 16: 38 New
          +6
          There was no "mole", just a CIA employee who worked at the embassy in Moscow got hold of a 1967 book on theoretical calculations and calculations of reducing the visibility of aircraft on the radars of one young Soviet scientist, I don't remember his last name. It was on this book that the entire calculation base of mattress "invisibles" was based. After the collapse of the USSR, he was invited to the United States, where he taught at a number of universities. When he was shown the F-117 and its results of the bombing of Yugoslavia, the mattress professor said that many years ago he theoretically figured out how to detect "invisible", and then returned to work in Russia. hi
          1. postman
            postman 14 May 2013 17: 30 New
            +2
            Quote: Andrey57
            just a CIA employee who worked at the embassy in Moscow fell into the hands of

            EXACTLY?
            P. Ufimtsev (employee of the Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics of the USSR Academy of Sciences.
            An article by this physicist on calculation methods for determining the EPR, published in 1962 in a small-run narrow departmental journal, was translated into English in 1971. and was used by Lockheed to develop the Echo program for calculating the EPR of bodies of various configurations.
            In September 1990, Ufimtsev as a “visiting professor” went to work at the University of California (USA), at the faculty of Electrical Engineering. In the same place, in the USA, Ufimtsev begins to collaborate with the military-industrial company Northrop Grumman Corporation (Norsrop Grumman Corporation) and participates in the creation of the strategic B-2 bomber.
            Here is an article for you: http: //www.vixri.ru/? P = 3613
            Download and create an "invisible"
            NOTE:
            and what about the works of Karl Schwarzschild, Arnold Johannes Wilhelm Sommerfeld, Fock Vladimir Alexandrovich?

            WHY is the CIA, the US Embassy in Moscow?

            And then what to do with such "facts" (some, I will not say anything about WW2 Germans):

            - late 1940s bomber irradiation Northrop YB-49 a coastal air defense radar located south of San Francisco.
            R&D conducted in the USA since 1965
            - The conclusion of the NATO expert commission on the complexity of the radar tracking of another "flying wing" - the English bomber "Volcano"
            -SR-71 and U-2?
            -four-seat civilian piston aircraft “Eagle” tested 1972-73. in the USA = a four-seater civilian piston aircraft made mainly of plastic, built by Windeker, and its further development is the experimental YE-5A, which had fiberglass plating and an internal structure in which RPMs were used.
            -1973 DARPA Terms of Reference XST (experimental Stealth Technology)
            -1976 tests in anechoic chambers, then Lockheed won the competition, having received a contract for the construction of two experimental aircraft under the Have Blue program (can be translated as “task for a fraudulent, fraudulent object”)
          2. old man54
            old man54 18 May 2013 19: 49 New
            0
            yes, I watched a film on CT about it, but I'm not sure that it was. They can just once again all of us, and for one and the "mattress mates" all this is to snatch, to cover the multi-pass reality!
        3. Argon
          Argon 15 May 2013 01: 59 New
          0
          Alive, but hardly anyone will say something. stop
      3. luiswoo
        luiswoo 14 May 2013 14: 24 New
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        should be subsonic and made using stealth technology, I would not be surprised if it will be very similar to this "miracle"

        It may soon be similar to the T-4MS with a subsonic wing
        - that is, the “flying fuselage”. On what else you can achieve efficiency and reduce visibility, it seems difficult.
      4. Georgs
        Georgs 14 May 2013 15: 24 New
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        Who knows, it is worth recalling that, according to the statements of our press, our promising strategic "bomber" should be subsonic and made using Stealth technology, I would not be surprised if it looks very similar to this "miracle"

        Well, it seems like the preliminary requirements of the Air Force indicated that future development should not be similar to B-2.
    2. patsantre
      patsantre 14 May 2013 14: 18 New
      +5
      Quote: Canep
      Ours understood this and merged the achievements of invisibility to the Americans, they called it the Stealth program.


      Yeah, but for some reason PAK FA and PAK YES are made inconspicuous, why would it?
      The article talks about finding it from a distance of tens of kilometers by modern radars ... this is very, very little in fact, for a modern radar.
    3. cdrt
      cdrt 14 May 2013 20: 58 New
      +1
      How can we not have thought of such a miracle?

      Just the USSR was slightly behind the United States in strategic aviation. They began to launch B-2, we only recreated at a higher level the ideology of B-1B.

      And now - actually PAK DA - a subtle subsonic plane. By ideology - well, it’s very similar to B-2 ...

      All kinds of Rogozins with a desire to really achieve some kind of breakthrough - a hypersonic bomber, for example, the American did not seem to break the tradition of repeating mistakes ...
  2. Dart weyder
    Dart weyder 14 May 2013 08: 23 New
    +4
    yes, dear contraption ... but with subsonic vehicles - in case of strong opposition to enemy air defense - you cannot survive ... the same F-117 was used only at night, because when meeting with enemy fighters - there was no chance of his maneuverability ... and so here - only with suppressed air defense and dominance in the air - but then you can bomb at least piston airplanes ....
  3. rugor
    rugor 14 May 2013 08: 30 New
    -8
    It is strange that in combat losses the plane shot down in Yugoslavia is not mentioned.
    1. Borat
      Borat 14 May 2013 08: 36 New
      +8
      You are confusing something, B-2 Spirit was not shot down in Yugoslavia!
    2. Greyfox
      Greyfox 14 May 2013 08: 37 New
      +8
      This is a myth born of Internet stuffing. If there were only a few aircraft (each ship has its own name), then such a loss could not have gone unnoticed.
      PS In Yugoslavia, F-117 was really shot down
    3. Santa Fe
      14 May 2013 14: 30 New
      +4
      Quote: rugor
      It is strange that in combat losses the plane shot down in Yugoslavia is not mentioned.

      Quote: Greyfox
      then such a loss could not pass unnoticed.
      PS In Yugoslavia, F-117 was really shot down

      In Yugoslavia, the F-117 was shot down, about which literally everything is now known: the serial number (82-0806); pilot name (Dale Zelko), etc. things. The only thing covered in mystery is how he was shot down.
      A lot of films were shot about the downed F-117, and library books were written. The wreckage is carefully stored in the Belgrade Museum of Aviation

      It is easy to imagine how much noise would rise if, instead of the 20-ton f-117, the 150-ton B-2 fell)))
      1. DRUG DRUG
        DRUG DRUG 16 May 2013 10: 02 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        In Yugoslavia, the F-117 was shot down, about which literally everything is now known: the serial number (82-0806); pilot name (Dale Zelko), etc. things. The only thing covered in mystery is how he was shot down.

        It is known that it was shot down by a missile of the S-125 air defense system, developed in the USSR in the 50s. After this incident, F-117 flights over Yugoslavia were banned.
  4. Landwarrior
    Landwarrior 14 May 2013 08: 45 New
    +1
    Not a bad wunderwaffle. True, it can only be used against those enemies who have nothing more serious than the "Dvina" or "Pechora" in their armament.
    1. Atrix
      Atrix 14 May 2013 09: 37 New
      +8
      Quote: Landwarrior
      Not a bad wunderwaffle. True, it can only be used against those enemies who have nothing more serious than the "Dvina" or "Pechora" in their armament.

      Well, how do you know whether or not you can use it? All military conflicts show its success. He, like F22, does not participate in air shows in other countries, so you can’t check whether he can be detected for example C300 / С400 all that is written is a theory that may not materialize in practice. And all these experts are worthless by their conclusion, firstly they did not fly on the B2 and do not know its real capabilities, and secondly they also do not work on air defense systems, for example the same as the C400 and do not know the capabilities. Only real combat experience can show whether it will be successful or not against advanced air defense.
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 14 May 2013 11: 41 New
        +3
        F22 does not participate in air shows in other countries

        F-22 EMNIP flew to Farnborough
        so it’s impossible to check whether it’s detected, for example, C300 / C400

        You seriously underestimate our air defense. There are a lot of others besides your detection tools.
        e.g. SKY-M http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-690.html
        And to him, with his radars, is deeply violet to stealth in cm and mm range.
        1. Atrix
          Atrix 14 May 2013 14: 21 New
          +5
          Quote: leon-iv
          You seriously underestimate our air defense. There are a lot of others besides your detection tools.
          e.g. SKY-M http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-690.html
          And to him, with his radars, is deeply violet to stealth in cm and mm range.

          Well, here you can also write that you seriously underestimate the capabilities of B2. And who of us is right and who is not can only show a real conflict between the USA and Russia. But it’s better that this never happens, and all our estimates are "theory" not backed up by practice.

          Quote: leon-iv
          F-22 EMNIP flew to Farnborough

          I didn’t know, I just read that the Americans do not show it at exhibitions outside the United States, but you will agree that it is not possible to check it for visibility for our air defense, and everything else is guesswork.
          Yes, and in some way I do not belittle the dignity of Russian air defense, but I also advise you to underestimate the likely enemy.
          1. viktorR
            viktorR 14 May 2013 14: 54 New
            +2
            But it’s better that this never happens, and all our assessments are "theory" not supported by practice.

            Nothing of the kind has been proved by practice that long-wave stealth radars detect no worse than no stealths; the entire stealth is imprisoned for a centimeter range.
            1. Atrix
              Atrix 14 May 2013 15: 18 New
              10
              Quote: viktorR
              But it’s better that this never happens, and all our assessments are "theory" not supported by practice.

              Nothing of the kind has been proved by practice that long-wave stealth radars detect no worse than no stealths; the entire stealth is imprisoned for a centimeter range.

              Damn well are you so tight ?? Have you defended your doctorate in stealth technology? Or maybe you’re a B2 developer or maybe you are a pilot? What practice is proven? Does Russia have B2 or F22? What is proven there!? And especially by whom!? Why write this nonsense about proven. When Russia captures B2 and F22 and conducts tests to detect them with its air defense then it will be said that it has been proved. If it is proven why PAK FA is built on stealth technology?
              And again, stealth is non invisible aircraft it’s an inconspicuous aircraft, and as someone already wrote, there is a big difference to see the aircraft at a distance of 200km or to see it at a distance of 20km.
              1. viktorR
                viktorR 14 May 2013 15: 35 New
                +3
                Do not boil so)))
                The effectiveness of stealth technology used by Americans is very dependent on the frequency range of the radar. They are mainly designed for the X-frequency range, in which most modern radars operate. This is a centimeter wavelength. Older air defense radar systems used the L-frequency range (decimeter waves) and for them, American stealth technologies are almost useless!
                It is for this reason that an L-band locar is being developed for PAK-FA, the antennas of which, in theory, will be located in the socks of the wing.
                PAK-FA is not done with an emphasis on invisibility, just a tribute to the fashion for Indians to buy (IMHO).
                And do you really think that if the Amers had the opportunity to bombard us with invisibles, they would not do that?
                Everywhere where airplanes with low visibility were used, before that air defense was suppressed by the good old f-16 and f-15 with the help of the AGM-88 and PP planes as well as tamahawks. Or there was no air defense at all.
                And even if you take into account the state of coverage of these aircraft, which has already been written about several times, I don’t think that their already exaggerated data on the EPR (even in profitable projections) correspond to reality.

                Z.Y. Do not become a victim of propaganda (or make others wink ) Just go to specialized forums, and not to yellow articles, and everything will become clear to you.
                1. Atrix
                  Atrix 14 May 2013 15: 55 New
                  +2
                  Quote: viktorR
                  And do you really think that if the Amers had the opportunity to bombard us with invisibles, they would not do that?

                  Damn that you are so notorious, why start a nuclear armageddon? Do you sell oil, gas, timber, minerals for green papers? What else is needed ? Why bomb?
                  Quote: viktorR
                  PAK-FA is not done with an emphasis on invisibility, just a tribute to the fashion for Indians to buy (IMHO).

                  That's right, in order for the Hindus to buy, they spend money on the development of stealth technologies.
                  Quote: viktorR
                  Do not become a victim of propaganda (or make others) Just go to specialized forums, and not to yellow articles, and everything will become clear to you.

                  You are right when you say it is not worth believing everything that is said on the first channel about "having no analogues in the world." Mind you, I'm not talking about planes, otherwise you will start to write that they were in the sky over Lebanon, I am talking about missiles that, as advertised as "unparalleled" Panzer should shoot down like flies
                  The batch of anti-aircraft missile and cannon systems (ZRPK) "Shell-S1" at the beginning of this year was delivered to Syria
                  More details: http://www.vpk-news.ru/news/14477

                  The Pantsir-S1 anti-aircraft missile and gun system was developed by the Tula Instrument Design Bureau, a member of the NPO High-Precision Complexes OJSC. ZRPK “Shell-S1” is capable of hitting all modern and promising air attack weapons (primarily high-precision weapons) at ranges up to 20 km and with a height of destruction of up to 15 km. In this case, the rocket speed is 1300 meters per second. Four targets can be fired simultaneously
                  More details: http://www.vpk-news.ru/news/14477
                  1. viktorR
                    viktorR 14 May 2013 16: 11 New
                    +2
                    "We" are just not notorious), as a rule, those who are notorious are those who, in communication with others, become personalities instead of arguments.

                    And here the shell does not understand at all request ?

                    Regarding the shells: I am not familiar with the situation, but is there any mention that the shells were on duty in the direction of the strike, and they could not cope with their task?

                    Z.Y. The first channel I do not watch
          2. Papakiko
            Papakiko 14 May 2013 19: 58 New
            +2
            Quote: Atrix
            that it’s not possible to test it for visibility for our air defense,

            Yes Yes.
            IMPOSSIBLE and this is putting it mildly.
            And they are based in Alaska, and ours do not fly there.
            1. Atrix
              Atrix 14 May 2013 20: 19 New
              -2
              Quote: Papakiko
              Quote: Atrix
              that it’s not possible to test it for visibility for our air defense,

              Yes Yes.
              IMPOSSIBLE and this is putting it mildly.
              And they are based in Alaska, and ours do not fly there.

              Have you already come up with the flying С400 in Russia? Or have 55ZH6M Sky-M been taught to fly? Or do you have little idea what air defense is? Tu-95 has already become an air defense system? And I will tell you a terrible secret in Alaska yours do not fly, since this is the territory of the United States. And if they start flying, then I think that child prodigy that you have in the photo would have shot down these flyers.
              1. old man54
                old man54 18 May 2013 20: 11 New
                0
                Quote: Atrix
                в

                and what prevents the installation of the key elements of the radar and the emitter itself (in a transformed form) on an IL-76 class aircraft, or the same Tu-95 and to work out the sensitivity of solutions for detecting stealth? You can also stupidly put all this on a military "scientific ship" of the okenograph class or collect information, which is even easier, and hang out in the area with the likely appearance of stealth aircraft! Didn't they announce this on the Central Television? Wikipedia doesn't say anything? Well, if so, then probably then it’s not true, I believe! :)))))
      2. djon3volta
        djon3volta 14 May 2013 14: 27 New
        0
        Quote: Atrix
        check will detect it for example C300 / C400

        and the S-300 has ever taken part in REAL military operations somewhere? Maybe Gaddafi didn’t sell it, because he could have tested it in REAL military operations ... you never know ... but they sold it to Syria, which means something maybe the S-300 will not be tested again in REAL what
      3. Landwarrior
        Landwarrior 15 May 2013 12: 53 New
        0
        Quote: Atrix
        Well, how do you know whether or not you can use it? All military conflicts show its success. He, like F22, does not participate in air shows in other countries, so you can’t check whether he can detect him, for example, the C300 / C400; all that is written is a theory that may not be justified in practice. And all these experts are worthless by their conclusion, firstly they did not fly to B2 and do not know its real capabilities, and secondly they also do not work on air defense systems, for example the same as C400 and do not know the possibilities. Only real combat experience can show whether it will be successful or not against advanced air defense.


        That’s why you conjecture, huh? wassat I'm not talking about 300, not about 400 I did not write anything lol
        I meant exactly the S-75 (Guideline, if you understand so) and modifications, and only it laughing
  5. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 14 May 2013 09: 39 New
    +7
    2 Landwarrior: For this "wunderwafe" "Pechora", like the ancient P-15 radar, is a very dangerous weapon. It is worth remembering that the same F-117 in Yugoslavia was shot down by the C-125 smile
    1. Landwarrior
      Landwarrior 14 May 2013 14: 10 New
      +1
      Kamrad, S-125 is already "Neva", this is already another wink
      And what I prescribed is modifications of the S-75 wink
      1. Reserve buildbat
        Reserve buildbat 14 May 2013 14: 31 New
        +5
        Thanks for the clarification, druh. I know. It was simply a matter of the effectiveness of even an apparently outdated weapon. Due to the fact that radio-absorbing coatings themselves are effective in a narrow wavelength range. Another wavelength - and all "invisibility" flows down like water off a duck's back smile
  6. Dima190579
    Dima190579 14 May 2013 09: 51 New
    0
    It is fair to note that few of the modern aircraft can be controlled "manually" - the same statically unstable Su-27 is also unrealistic to fly without the help of automation.

    Who can comment on this statement.

    Does the Su-27 really have such unstable aerodynamics, or does it mean the ability of the aircraft to conduct over-maneuverable combat.
    1. Felix2012
      Felix2012 14 May 2013 11: 50 New
      +4
      This is his genius. Static instability, this is not bad. There is a beautiful film about its creation, the su-27 is the best fighter in the world, everything is pictured in the pictures
    2. luiswoo
      luiswoo 14 May 2013 11: 52 New
      +3
      Does the Su-27 really have such unstable aerodynamics, or does it mean the ability of the aircraft to conduct over-maneuverable combat.

      Meant static unstable for high maneuverability. The 4-5 generation fighter has such a feature - without automation it is an elegant brick :)
      1. viktorR
        viktorR 14 May 2013 15: 02 New
        +2
        I do not agree. All the same, he can continue the flight, for example, take the Mig-29, 4th generation, and so there is no CDS as such at all. By this, by the way, Western pilots complained that the effort was too much on the handle, after f-16 with its fly-by-wire. It all depends on this very stock of longitudinal instability.
        1. luiswoo
          luiswoo 14 May 2013 20: 14 New
          0
          Quote: viktorR
          All the same, he can continue to fly.

          “There is a bull-calf swinging, sighing on the go ...” - who argues, only this is no longer a fighter.
          take for example the instant-29, 4 generation, and so there is no CDS as such at all.

          SPG-451:

          • all-maneuverable control of the aircraft through the pilot’s handle while operating dampers with stabilization of the roll and pitch angles available at the moment the handle was released for roll and pitch;
          • bringing the plane to horizontal flight from any spatial position;
          • stabilization of angular positions and barometric altitude in the entire area of ​​aircraft operation;
          Read more: http://www.arms-expo.ru/051057053057124050052055055055.html

          Isn't it?
    3. viktorR
      viktorR 14 May 2013 13: 15 New
      +4
      It means that the Su-27 is equipped with a CDS and when it is turned off, the aircraft cannot be controlled. But this is also a myth, as I read at the aviation forum of pilots with the Su-27, they piloted quite normally when the CDS failed, they say that the plane is simply less obedient in horizontal flight in pitch, and there are no restrictions on the angle of attack by automation, which in general It’s dangerous, but no one will turn the aerobatics with a failed CDS. Well, the CDS there is still not the same as on modern airplanes, its failure will not necessarily lead to the loss of the aircraft, such as fly-wire at f-16

      here is more detailed http://www.airbase.ru/hangar/russia/soukhoi/su/27/sdu.htm
      1. luiswoo
        luiswoo 14 May 2013 13: 38 New
        +1
        so they piloted quite normally in case of failure of the CDS

        For general development: Did you mean to get to the aerodrome without incident or was the controllability completely preserved - can aerobatics and the like be safely performed? Just wondering.
        1. viktorR
          viktorR 14 May 2013 14: 59 New
          0
          No, it’s unrealistic to twist the aerobatics, as long as I get to the airfield)). That is, the failure of the CDS is all the same an incident, and there can be no question of any continuation of the task
      2. Santa Fe
        14 May 2013 14: 05 New
        +2
        Quote: viktorR
        they say that just a plane less obedient in horizontal pitch flight

        It is weakly said
        The plane responds inadequately to the movement of the handle "from itself to itself"
        As soon as you grab the handle, the plane will tumble back "over the head" - the center of gravity changes every second and depends on the specific position of the plane in space

        With a working EMDS is an advantage
        C failed - deadly number
        1. viktorR
          viktorR 14 May 2013 15: 00 New
          +2
          And no one says that the failure of the CDS is the norm)).
          C failed - deadly number
          Yes, and aerobatics - all the same, it’s not possible to run away to the store behind a bun.
          As soon as you take the handle on yourself - the plane will tumble back "over the head"
          It is somewhat exaggerated, according to the descriptions of the Lituns, it is quite difficult to maintain the pitch, the airplane constantly tries to go either up or down, but at the same time these vibrations in amplitude are not so great that they would lean on the tail and make a turn around the tail). Well, if, of course, you take the handle on yourself well enough, then you will go into a mode with an angle of attack of 80 degrees and a sickly overload, but who will be so blunt from the pilots when his rita yells "SDU failure"
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. avt
    avt 14 May 2013 09: 57 New
    +3
    You can argue, guess about the effectiveness of the device, but they promoted it notably. Such horror caught up with what they themselves believed. Here's another movie which they shot as aliens built it for them. laughingAnd that so few of them were piled up - so cursed flew away.
    1. smirnov
      smirnov 14 May 2013 13: 23 New
      +2
      And call it "Independence Day from China" wink
  9. pensioner
    pensioner 14 May 2013 11: 13 New
    0
    This is a wunderwaffle so wunderwaffle ... The photo pleases. More often ... And more. Our guys from the department of military representatives said that in Yugoslavia the missilemen "caught" on the "exhaust" of invisible engines (by the way, they said that not one was shot down, but three). Arguably so ... (like free electrons, etc.). Like specialists. Enlighten. I will be grateful. Itself in the theory of radar is not boom-boom.
    1. pensioner
      pensioner 14 May 2013 20: 14 New
      0
      Quote: retired
      This is a wunderwaffle so wunderwaffle ... The photo pleases. More often ... And more. Our guys from the department of military representatives said that in Yugoslavia the missilemen "caught" on the "exhaust" of invisible engines (by the way, they said that not one was shot down, but three). Arguably so ... (like free electrons, etc.). Like specialists. Enlighten. I will be grateful. Itself in the theory of radar is not boom-boom.

      Not. Well, I could have sat next to the computer with a clever mug and not asked anything (Schaub did not decipher), but for what I bought, I sold for that. And the misunderstandings remained. And further. I also know a lot about the s-300 (within the limits of my competence + 3m8 ..., especially "from the inside"), but I'm not trying to shine with knowledge here ... I just asked: what's wrong? Some cons. And the info is "0". Meaning? You know - tell me. You can't talk - it's obscene. Let's get it.
      1. pensioner
        pensioner 14 May 2013 22: 21 New
        0
        they said that in Yugoslavia the missilemen "caught" on the "exhaust" of invisible engines (by the way, they said that they did not shoot down 1, but 3).

        Well, okay ... I'll die with that.
  10. rlanry
    rlanry 14 May 2013 12: 00 New
    +6
    Honestly, I have no assumptions about how the myth appeared that the B-2 is not capable of deploying air-based cruise missiles.

    Honestly, I have no assumptions why our authors continue to use outdated data.
    The only cruise missile that the B-2 (both B-1B and B-52) can carry, and which is actually available, is the AGM-158 JASSM. However, it does not have nuclear equipment at all, its flight range is only 350 km (the ER option with a range increased to 925 km has not yet been adopted). Other missiles mentioned in the article do not exist in nature - AGM-137 did not reach the production stage, and its project was canceled in favor of AGM-158. The AGM-129 has been removed from service since 2007 and has already been cut.
    1. viktorR
      viktorR 14 May 2013 13: 21 New
      0
      Plus. Propaganda, you know, sometimes the journalist's "religion" prohibits analyzing data))
    2. patsantre
      patsantre 14 May 2013 14: 22 New
      0
      And what's wrong? AGM-158 is their main ALCM.
      1. viktorR
        viktorR 14 May 2013 15: 17 New
        +1
        it does not have nuclear equipment at all, its flight range is only 350 km
        - Compare with the X-55SM which has 3000 km and which is capable of carrying nuclear warheads. This is not a strategic weapon, but a tactical maximum and then not nuclear. in order to drop a nuclear bomb he needs to fly over the target, at such a height that he is not caught in the explosion. So much for the strategic bomb carrier, but not as a strategic missile carrier. I am silent about the fact that even using missiles with a high degree of probability it will enter the air defense coverage area.
        1. patsantre
          patsantre 14 May 2013 21: 22 New
          +2
          But why make an airplane inconspicuous if it still doesn’t enter the air defense coverage area? For this, the same B52 will do.
  11. rudolff
    rudolff 14 May 2013 13: 28 New
    +9
    And I like this car. Attempts to look for flaws in it under a magnifying glass and demonstrate condescending sarcasm rather from anger and envy. If we had such a technique in service, a similar article would have been with a completely different calico.
    Many do not quite understand the use of stealth technology. No one ever claimed that its use gives invisibility in different ranges of radio emissions. It is only a question of reducing the radio visibility within the realistically possible limits. And this is a huge plus! Agree, it is one thing to pinpoint a target at a distance of 200 km or to notice it only for 50 km! Yes, and identification problems are guaranteed! Instead of a large bright illumination on the radar screen, a faded scattered non-informative spot.
    Spirit's main drawback is its fantastic price. Here the story seems to be repeating itself with Seawulf, which turned out to be a magnificent ship, but so expensive that it was necessary to "invent" a cheaper analogue, Virginia.
    As noted in previous comments, our future PAK YES will most likely look like Spirit. Stealth, wing, subsonic.
    Well, the argument that such a technique should be stored in special hangars is rather a stone in our garden. I remember how the Americans were angry, saying that tens of millions of bucks do not regret a new plane, and you are squeezing a couple of tens of thousands under the hangar! And this is with the Russian climate! There is nothing to answer here, it remains to grind one’s teeth and hope for technicians.
    1. Santa Fe
      14 May 2013 14: 03 New
      +4
      Quote: rudolff
      Spirit's main drawback is its fantastic price. Here the story with Seawulf seems to be repeating itself, which turned out to be a magnificent ship, but so expensive that it was necessary to "invent" a cheaper analogue

      This is where you need to start)))
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 14 May 2013 21: 18 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        This is where you need to start)))

        Do you have data on the combat use of F-117 in Iraq in 2003. 20 units participated and I can’t find the result.
  12. USNik
    USNik 14 May 2013 13: 43 New
    -1
    People, and in my opinion, the diagram shows how much and what can be built instead of 2x B-2 hi
    1. Santa Fe
      14 May 2013 14: 02 New
      +1
      Quote: USNik
      People, and in my opinion, the diagram shows how much and what can be built instead of 2x B-2

      Are you confused by the word "Value"?))

      I have two conflicting questions:
      If the B-2 price is indicated here, why did the number of F-16 suddenly decrease (in the second column on the left)?
      And why is there a comparison of the cost of not one but two B-2?
      1. Beast Evil
        Beast Evil 24 January 2015 20: 51 New
        0
        it is written in black and white, 2 column - an option using high-precision weapons ...
        What surprises me more is why F-16 was taken as a shock, and not F-15 or FA-18 ....
    2. Know-nothing
      Know-nothing 14 May 2013 20: 22 New
      0
      Wrong. Here is a complete picture with numbers for 1991 year.
      Source http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/afd-080128-004.pdf
  13. Burbulator
    Burbulator 14 May 2013 13: 53 New
    +1
    A bewitching sight !!!
    Whoever says anything.
  14. Pimply
    Pimply 14 May 2013 14: 10 New
    +7
    I don’t believe, I don’t believe that an article about the American plane was normal, well-balanced, with analysis, that appeared on the site for once. I dream about it 8)

    Oleg, senks. Great review
  15. throst
    throst 14 May 2013 14: 41 New
    0
    IMHO, and f-117 (which should be called A), and B-2 Spirit - this is the victory of technology. But victory over common sense. And if ours decide to file down a subsonic pterygoid stealth PAK YES - you can safely shoot for treason. Although, as I understand it, it is being developed in the future so much that it will be possible to talk about its likely appearance and characteristics only after 2 years.
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. postman
    postman 14 May 2013 17: 18 New
    +4
    Quote: Author
    The story of the B-2 bomber is the story of how you don't need to make planes

    Not at all!
    If you ask a passerby why a plane is flying, he will witily answer: across the sky

    ... the famous American astronomer S. Newcom (1835-1909) mathematically proved the impossibility of creating aircraft heavier than air.

    And why (the reason) does the plane fly and what does it need for this?
    Answer: Wing (lifting force and engine (source of driving force, everything else is superfluous)

    Which perfectly proves B-2.
    ABOUT! So it is also inconspicuous. This is generally super

    Oh (No. 2)! so it also has MEDICAL LTX has strategic parameters for range and guidance
    (Yugoslavia in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001 were hit exclusively from the USA.)
    NSS navigation subsystem, including the Kearfott inertial IMU, connected to the Northrop astroinertial AIU, the ability to carry and use both conventional and high-precision weapons.

    Oh (No. 3)! This, after all, is only his THIRD GENERATION of American stealth aircraft!
    And still in service? and will be there
    1.-SR 71
    2.F-117
    3.B-2 (first flight July 17, 1989.)
    4.Macdonnell-Douglas A-12
    5.Northrop YF-23 and Lockheed / Boeing F-22
    AND HOW MUCH did he "give" to the American aircraft industry?
    The function of the rudders is performed by fissile shields mounted on the ends of the wing. The front edge of the body is sharp, without kinks, its sweep is 33 °. The trailing edge has the shape of a double W, the external break point is approximately half-span. The wing has a supercritical profile.
    Airplane Glider Built mainly from titanium and aluminum alloys with widespread use of carbon fiber reinforced plastics with bismaleimide and polyamide matrices, which have increased heat resistance compared to epoxy binders. The main supporting component of the design is a single-span titanium caissonlocated in the front central part of the hull and in adjacent intermediate sections to which carbon-fiber wing consoles that do not have a narrowing are attached. The thickness of monolithic titanium caisson panels reaches 23 mm. A number of titanium elements are manufactured using superplastic molding and diffusion welding. Some titanium cladding panels are the longest in US aviation. For example, the panels of the intermediate sections of the housing in the area of ​​the engine compartments have dimensions of 0,31 × 3,66 m, three times larger than previously used. The wing consoles, equal to 19,8 m, are an unprecedentedly long composite structure.
    etc. Go about engines, diagnostic systems?

    Oh (№4) - oh, something on the sol, that is. on "about" pulled. I stop ...
    JUST THE FIRST Pancake ALWAYS lightly with lumps.
    Moreover, the USSR was then
    1. postman
      postman 14 May 2013 17: 18 New
      +1
      Meanwhile .......
      In the open press, there were reports of several projects of the XNUMXst century strategic bomber. - Under a contract with the US Department of Defense, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and Northrop-j Graffiman study the concepts of the FSA (Future Strike Aircraft) ), made according to the scheme "flying wing" with a two-keel plumage, which after 2030 should become a replacement for the B-52H, B-1B and B-2 bombers.
  19. Crang
    Crang 14 May 2013 19: 06 New
    +2
    Americans (unfortunately) are our enemies. But the plane is outstanding. Such a beautiful, graceful.
  20. Raphael_83
    Raphael_83 14 May 2013 19: 26 New
    +3
    As for the connection of Ho229 with "stealth", so much ragromous criticism has already been written that to bring it here is just trolling. The legendary DeHavilland "Mosquito" in the same way (just earlier) was made of an analogue of delta wood and was perfectly detected by German radars - radio emission was reflected by the frame and metal components of the engines. All of Horton's statements / interviews / books are nothing more than an attempt to snatch a piece of fame and fit perfectly into the saying about "heard the ringing".
    The analytics are not bad at all. True, there is something openly sarcastic (no offense) in a number of conclusions in the author's articles. To my shame, I realized who the author was only for the paragraph "B2 is useless?" hi
    1. postman
      postman 14 May 2013 21: 37 New
      0
      Quote: Raphael_83
      was made of an analogue of delta wood and was perfectly detected by German radars

      Do you think the delta-wood does not reflect RI?
      wave resistance dd is not equal to the wave resistance of the medium (air)
      Radar in meteorology?

      Reflections of radio pulses from turbulent and inversion layers in the troposphere were first noted in 1936 by R. Colwell and A. Friend (USA) at medium and short waves. The first reports of rainfall detection using centimeter (CM) radars date back to early 1941 (UK). In 1943, A. Bent et al. Organized the first operational observations of heavy rains and thunderstorms in the USA. In the USSR, V.V. Kostarev in 1943 began measuring wind speed and direction in high atmospheric layers by tracking the movement of balloons with passive reflectors.

      Where is the metal frame here?

      All is not 1897
      A.Popov: "The influence of the ship's environment is reflected in the following: all metal objects (masts, pipes, gear) should interfere with the operation of devices both at the departure station and at the receiving station, because, getting in the path of an electromagnetic wave, they violate its correctness, in part similar to how the breakwater acts on an ordinary wave propagating over the surface of the water, partly due to the interference of the waves excited in them with the waves of the source, i.e. the effect is not favorable. ... "
      1. Raphael_83
        Raphael_83 15 May 2013 18: 30 New
        0
        I apologize, but the article is not about atmospheric layers, but about the visibility of aircraft heavier than air. Other things being equal, the lining of percale or glued plywood with polymer impregnation (of the same LaGG-3 of ours, by the way, was carried out) is noticeable on radars much less than a metal frame and engines, not to mention all-metal machines.
        1. postman
          postman 16 May 2013 04: 04 New
          0
          Quote: Raphael_83
          I apologize, but the article is not about atmospheric layers, but

          I mean that even if the radar distinguishes turbulent flows in the atmosphere, then the tree is even more so.
          Quote: Raphael_83
          much less noticeable on radars

          send you the characteristics of the radars of German, English and American 2MB?
          True, everything is in German. Photocopy from the original
          1. Raphael_83
            Raphael_83 16 May 2013 17: 27 New
            0
            I’m unlikely to figure it out (I studied more lingua franca at school laughing ), but for the argument and suggestion: thanks!
  21. cyclist
    cyclist 14 May 2013 21: 19 New
    0
    I still think that the Americans could adapt the B-2 to launch missiles, probably everything is kept secret
  22. ed65b
    ed65b 14 May 2013 22: 42 New
    -1
    The story of the B-2 bomber is the story of how no planes need to be made. Despite some propaganda role, the development of new technologies, and limited participation in military conflicts, the Spirit did more damage to the US budget than the Pentagon’s opponents. The plane turned out to be exceptionally expensive (the cost of each of the 21 built Spirites, taking into account R&D, exceeded $ 2 billion in 1997 prices) and is ineffective in conditions of modern local conflicts.

    Here are the results of the work of the KGB of the USSR. Draining useless stealth technology. And the result.
  23. CAPILATUS
    CAPILATUS 14 May 2013 23: 09 New
    +3
    Quote: Oleg Kaptsov
    Turning is always performed by the roll of the aircraft - at the same time, on the "lower" wing, the lifting force decreases, on the "upper" increases, as a result, the "upper" wing "turns" the aircraft in the right direction. “Wing load” is one of the most important parameters in aviation — the less kg per square meter of surface, the easier it is for the aircraft to “deploy”; accordingly, maneuverability improves.


    The author, it would not hurt you to get acquainted with the basic knowledge of aerodynamics and flight control theory. I will explain. What you described in no way relates to a U-turn. According to the written - this is the roll, if the process is not stopped (do not return the ailerons to the neutral position), you get a barrel - the plane rolls around its axis.
    The rotation is performed as follows: a roll is laid and the CAM aircraft performs a turn, due to the lift of the wing, the result of which will now be directed at an angle to the horizon. Now the only thing left for the pilot is to maintain the nose of the aircraft with the elevator so that the nose does not lower. On large planes of the usual scheme, we also drive a turn. Although I am sure that the B-2 is deployed through the release of interceptors, slowing down one or the other wing, so that the turn takes place without a roll, otherwise the EPR will increase.
    As for the “wing load” - yes and no. Maneuverability depends primarily on the area of ​​the control surfaces, but the load on the wing helps to save energy on maneuvers. The lower the wing load, the less energy loss per maneuver will be less, as a side effect - the payload will increase.
    And so - thanks for the article, written interestingly
  24. Backfire
    Backfire 14 May 2013 23: 25 New
    +4
    The author of the article, Kaptsov, is systematically trying to downplay the importance of advanced technological developments, but only those that Russia does not have.

    Now he is carrying a blizzard about aircraft carriers, now he has taken up Stealth.
    Statements such as: "so what they say that we got a decrease in EPR compared to the Su-27 in the range from 40 to .... 2800 times !! Just think, our super-duper radars still see them and kill them all."

    Each new step in technology costs more and more. Even for a small step forward you have to pay a lot. The loyalty of the stealth direction is proved by the fact that all countries are trying to cost planes, ships, and are even already thinking about tanks with this technology.

    And the numbers themselves do not say anything.
    Say 0,3 times or 30% is a lot or a little? Watching for what.
    For example, when running 100 meters, these same 0,3 times or 30% - 3 seconds - this is the difference between the result for the TRP icon = 13 seconds and the read by people on Earth capable of running this distance in 10 seconds.

    If only Kaptsov could be smart: think about 3 seconds, only 30% of the difference.
    Yeah, only 0,4 times, or 40% of the difference = 9 seconds, not one person on the earth can handle!

    And the V-2 EPR is "only" 2 times less. Well, think of strong deeds!
    1. Fofan
      Fofan 15 May 2013 00: 36 New
      0
      Monsieur, you are careful about tsifirki. 30% of 13 seconds is not 3 seconds. Who told you about Epr Ve-2? and the most important thing. Do you know why the Americans never built the coveted hundred in-2? because in response, the USSR would begin to actively seek ways to combat them. and then everything starts to rest not even on the cost of equipment, but on its mass. On the ground, you can always place more equipment than in the air. And one moment. Until the middle of the second world aircraft did they somehow shoot down other planes without using any radar, or is it all mysticism?
  25. Backfire
    Backfire 15 May 2013 00: 14 New
    +1
    The author of the article, Kaptsov, is systematically trying to downplay the importance of advanced technological developments, but only those that Russia does not have.

    Now he is carrying a blizzard about aircraft carriers, now he has taken up Stealth.
    Statements such as: "so what they say that we got a decrease in EPR compared to the Su-27 in the range from 40 to .... 2800 times !! Just think, our super-duper radars still see them and kill them all."

    Each new step in technology costs more and more. Even for a small step forward you have to pay a lot. The loyalty of the stealth direction is proved by the fact that all countries are trying to cost planes, ships, and are even already thinking about tanks with this technology.

    And the numbers themselves do not say anything.
    Say 1,3 times or 30% is a lot or a little? Watching for what.
    For example, when running 100 meters, these same 1,3 times or 30% - 3 seconds - this is the difference between the result for the TRP icon = 13 seconds and the read by people on Earth capable of running this distance in 10 seconds.

    If only Kaptsov could be smart: think about 3 seconds, only 30% of the difference.
    Yeah, only 1,4 times, or 40% of the difference = 9 seconds, not one person on the earth can handle!

    And the V-2 EPR is "only" 2 times less. Well, think of strong deeds!

    Sorry - added this post because I made a mistake in the previous one: not 0,3 times, but 1,3 times, and accordingly not 0,4 times, but 1,4 times. So as D'Artagnan said: "I beg your pardon ... but only for that."
  26. Backfire
    Backfire 15 May 2013 02: 20 New
    +2
    Quote: Fofan
    Monsieur, you are careful about tsifirki. 30% of 13 seconds is not 3 seconds.

    So I already corrected my mistake below, look, my post with corrections was, moreover, 20 minutes before yours.
    And I took 3 seconds as 30% from 10 seconds, as from the "base" result, and not from 13. Is it really incomprehensible? It's so easy to check: I wrote 1,3 times - it is clear that the number 10 was taken as the starting point.
    So no, a specialist "wedged" between two posts, we show literacy. Oh well. But in essence there is something to say?

    Quote: Fofan
    Do you know why the Americans never built the coveted hundred in-2? because in response, the USSR would begin to actively seek ways to combat them.

    And they did not build the V-2 as much as they wanted due to the fact that the USSR ordered a long life.
    The fact that the answers to "stealth" are being sought and perhaps something has already been found - so no surprise. Progress does not stand still, and the competition between "sword and shield" and "shell and armor" continues and will continue as long as humanity is.

    Quote: Fofan
    and then everything starts to rest not even on the cost of equipment, but on its mass. On the ground, you can always place more equipment than in the air.

    The fact that more "equipment" can be placed on the ground is not an option. And the founder of the air war, Giulio Douai, showed this very convincingly back in the last century. Douai's theory - you've probably heard. So he compared all air defense systems with a fence. And he proved very convincingly that the construction of such "fences" is much more expensive than the creation and maintenance of an adequate air force. He also gave simpler examples: if a couple of rabid dogs entered the village, then it is stupid for each owner to passively guard only his house for days on end. Much wiser to get together a few men and kill these dogs.
    Of course, air defense is needed, but only the Air Force will very quickly gather forces in a fist and deliver a massive strike. Moreover, choosing a place and time convenient for the attacking side.

    The one with the initiative dictates the conditions on which the battle will take place. For example, you can first launch a bunch of targets simulating an air raid "covering" with a "cloud" of interference. There will be a complete impression that a full-fledged attack has begun. At the same time, the defending side will shoot some of its missiles and reveal its own positions.


    Quote: Fofan
    And one moment. Until the middle of the second world aircraft did they somehow shoot down other planes without using any radar, or is it all mysticism?

    Well, how to intercept the same bomber without radar at night?
    That 60 years ago, nightly bombardments were aimless. Now a completely different matter. Inertial guidance systems, or those with GPS - they’re on the drum day or night.
    Now the plane without radar is a blind man who entered the ring against the sighted!
    1. postman
      postman 15 May 2013 02: 53 New
      +1
      Quote: Backfire
      Now the plane without radar is a blind man who entered the ring against the sighted!

      I do not agree. Rather, I do not quite agree.
      The AWACS can issue a control center, which is communicated to the interceptor via a low-power communication line with a low probability of detection (it can generally be a single-channel AWACS-> interceptor), when entering the launch zone, a short-term (for now) turning on the radar for the control center.


      Well, or passive mode
      and a bomber (like B-2) doesn’t need a radar at all
      COMPLETELY ENOUGH passive receiving system type ALR-94 (Sanders) / STR as a component of CEA.

      note:
      ALR-94 - the most effective passive system that has ever been installed on board a fighter. It has over 30 antennas located in the wings and the fuselage, which provides coverage on all ranges within 360 °. The system is able to detect accompany and identify the target long before the radar detects it, at a distance of 460 km and even more. When approaching a target at a distance of at least 180 km, target designation for the APG-77 is provided using the tracking file generated by the ALR-94 system. As a result, the airborne radar detects and accompanies the target using a very narrow beam (2 (2 ° in the azimuthal and elevation planes).
      It remains to solve the problem of missile defense for airborne weapons, without impulses from 77 (IC, ECO in turbulence or something similar) and everything is gone from the radar
  27. Backfire
    Backfire 15 May 2013 06: 28 New
    0
    Quote: Postman
    I do not agree. Or rather, I do not quite agree. AWACS can issue a control center, which is communicated to the interceptor via a low-power communication line with a low probability of detection (it is possible to use a single-channel AWACS -> interceptor), when entering the launch zone, a short-term (still) turning on of the radar for the control center. or a passive mode a bomber (type B-2) does not need a radar at all. FULLY ENOUGH of a passive receiving system such as ALR-94 (Sanders) / SPO as a component of electronic equipment.

    I agree with you.

    But my post was in response to the assertion that during World War II they somehow managed without radars, and now it’s possible to shoot down other planes. Those. it was about aerial combat.

    You give an example with passive, but still radar / detection systems.
    Nevertheless, there, for final guidance, a radar is needed, albeit with a very narrow beam, but a radar is needed.
    I think we will not enter into an unnecessary discussion - whether a passive detection system can be called a radar or not.

    Most air-to-air missiles have radar. On some, it turns on only in the last phase of approaching the target. Yes, there is an IR guidance head, it is possible through an optical channel.

    In the example you have given, there is also an AWACS aircraft - i.e. also a radar.

    My opponent claimed that as they shot down 70 years ago without radar, that’s the type we’ll do now.
    1. postman
      postman 15 May 2013 12: 11 New
      0
      Quote: Backfire
      My opponent claimed that as they shot down 70 years ago without radar, that’s the type we’ll do now.

      Well, this statement is not correct to say the least
      PICTURES I DO NOT WANT TO FOOT, posted on google Do not be too lazy to see files / impressive
      https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-CIPzHIbgsdk/UZNAM1dNDGI/AAAAAAAAANI/XYow
      2GI3_YE/w1343-h821-no/%D0%A1%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BA fuk.JPG

      (attention to dates)

      https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vTVGZ-UQBkY/UZNBpNMd3RI/AAAAAAAAAN8/tpPR
      B5bgIqI/w575-h820-no/%D0%A1%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BA fuk 2.JPG


      / 254 pages is not how to find time to translate /

      And the "whip of the Atlantic"?

      Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor (with "Rostok" radar - C4), 1937 from "Uncle" Tank
      1941 Fw 200 C-3 / U4
      FuG Rostock Search Radar
      Telefunken FuG 200 Hohentwiel Marine Radar;
      some are equipped with FuG 203b Kehl III remote control missiles and Hs missiles
      293.

      I will not argue about passive radar or not radar. Although it’s still a sensor (only a receiver)
      generally notable is the tendency (For f-35) to detect targets by the reflected signal from TWO (or more) side (spurious) radar lobes, from side directions, with spurious noise filtering.
      I already wrote.
      There is super software, and implementation, the developer received a prize (not Stalin’s course request )
  28. ed65b
    ed65b 15 May 2013 11: 12 New
    0
    During the Soviet Union, there was a ready-made development on stealth technologies and since it was recognized as costly and ineffective, it was simply poured through the KGB to the amers, and they picked up and put so much money and money into this city, but when it became clear it became clear. Why did ours score on stealth technology and on the T50 just limited to half measures? because the praised stealth is only suitable for war with the Afghans and Lebanons with Iraq. That is, where there is a 100% probability of being shot down. That's the whole layout. And Backfire defends the honor of the flag under which posts are written. After all, admit that they got into it like a reluctance. They are bl..d winners.
    1. postman
      postman 15 May 2013 12: 58 New
      0
      Quote: ed65b
      During the USSR there was a ready-made development for stealth technologies

      Can I find out which one? At least a hint?
      Quote: ed65b
      and they picked up and played so much money and money into this city.

      Yes. In DARPA, Lockheed, Northrop, Poppy Donel, only suckers sit and get paid.
      Weak something is believed
      All the "leaks" of the KGB were clear after the 1957-1961 scam, and they never got into this again.
      Quote: ed65b
      Why did ours score on stealth technology and on the T50 just limited to half measures?

      Just something (quite a lot) we are not able to produce yet (Technological base does not allow.
  29. ed65b
    ed65b 15 May 2013 11: 35 New
    +1
    And this time the Soviet counterintelligence actively exploited Tolkachev's interest in the creation of the "invisible" aircraft. Almost at the same time, we started to develop Stealth, a foreign analogue of Soviet know-how. Was organized a drain of desa - according to the recollections of the s, they almost in one to one stupidly skewered those drawings that went through Tolkachev. And so they went into a rage that they did not even realize what they were doing. When American generals realized that Stealth was visible on Soviet radars and the $ 10 billion spent on its development simply went into the sand, it was too late.
    Tolkachev was taken on June 9, 1985. In order not to repeat the situation with Trianon, the Alpha group of the KGB of the USSR received clear instructions. Moreover, it was known that the Sphere carries with it poison, mounted in the shackle of glasses.
    It was Sunday. Tolkachev and his wife were returning from the dacha to Moscow, and the wife was driving. The traffic police car on the side of a country road did not cause suspicion. Tolkachev did not even have time to come to his senses, as his clothes were torn off and handcuffed. After 4 days, they took Paul Stroumbach Jr., the second secretary of the US Embassy in Moscow. He was detained when he went to a meeting with Tolkachev, who was played by a make-up KGB officer.
    September 24, 1986 Adolf Tolkachev was shot.
  30. The comment was deleted.
  31. Kowalsky
    Kowalsky 15 May 2013 16: 02 New
    +2
    In fact, in the world there is the only real invisible aircraft - F-22Raptor. No one has ever seen him above the battlefield :)
  32. snardova
    snardova 2 November 2014 22: 03 New
    0
    Hi!
    I’ll say, thanks, please write to the mail who needs help in matters of how to promote a website or an Internet project
    All success
  33. romashki74
    romashki74 27 December 2014 15: 25 New
    0
    Let the American guys cut the babos among themselves! It’s a pity that Mr. Serdyukov cannot be introduced to them;