Military Review

Heavy bombers are fading

61



The US Air Force leadership fears that B-2 may become the last manned heavy bomber. This type of aircraft was first adopted by the American army 1980-ies and since then has been the backbone of the US air force. However, new technologies (more efficient missiles and UAVs) may put an end to the use of heavy bombers. Currently, America has fewer 200 of such aircraft and only 20 of the latest model, B-2. Only about 600 people who have ever flown on B-2 are on active service. This is less than one percent of the total number of Air Force pilots. Moreover, only 35 of these pilots flew B-2 for over a thousand hours, and only 17 of them still serve on B-2. It usually takes a decade or more to fly a thousand hours on a B-2, since pilots spend a lot of time on work not directly related to flying. No pilot has ever flown X-NUMX watches on B-2000 yet. With such a small number of aces, which form the basis of the flight personnel of any type of aircraft, it is not surprising that there are not so many supporters of the new heavy bomber.

The Air Force has long been developing plans for a new heavy bomber, but the biggest problem here was getting enough money for a long-range bomber. The Air Force claims to be able to design, develop, build and adopt a long-range bomber during 15 years at a price of $ 550 million for each (at current prices). Development costs will remain low when using a large number of already existing technologies. In fact, a long-range bomber would be an enlarged version of the F-35, capable of carrying 6-10 tons of smart bombs more than 9000 kilometers without refueling. Few congressional thinks that the air force is able to carry out these plans and believe that if they were allowed to try, the long-range bomber would not be ready in time and cost more than a billion dollars each. Moreover, the Air Force's budget is shrinking, and huge costs are looming over more than a thousand new F-35s to replace the outdated F-16 and F-15. There is also a desire to go to the unobtrusive combat UAVs, from which the fighter pilots who are now guiding the air force now are not at all delighted. The future of long-range bombers, and indeed of manned aircraft in general, does not look very bright. Regardless of the wishes of the leadership of the US Air Force, they will have to deal with the more pressing problems of the onset of unmanned aerial vehicles and the payment of all new F-35.



At the same time, the Air Force continues to modernize a small number of the B-2s they have in service. Over the past few years, modernization has included a change of bomb racks, which now allow each B-2 to carry 80 smart 227 kg bombs. In addition, a radar with an active phased array antenna (AFAR) was also installed on B-2. AFAR consists of thousands of tiny emitters that can independently be directed in different directions. AFAR radars are popular mainly due to their ability to track a large number of targets simultaneously. AFAR B-2 allows the bomber to independently detect the target and strike at them with one of the 80 JDAMs. The V-2 also received more powerful satellite communication lines, which allows it to more quickly transfer data from AFAR or cameras to other aircraft (including UAVs). With 80 JDAM, the Air Force sees one B-2 as a whole fleet bombers capable of destroying 80 different targets.

The B-2 is a complex aircraft, first used in the 1999 year of the bombing of Kosovo. This aircraft was difficult to maintain in combat condition, because its anti-radar coverage requires time-consuming maintenance. One hour flight required 53 man-hours service. The normal combat readiness ratio in the Air Force is 0,6 (60% of aircraft are fully operational), however, the B-2 ratio was only 0,33. Since then, the situation has improved significantly, but B-2 still requires much more maintenance than other heavy bombers, such as B-52 or B-1В.

Heavy bombers are fading


The 2 weighs a ton of 181, was developed during the 1980's and was put into service in the 1992 year. B-2 is a combination of fundamentally new and untested technologies that were very advanced, difficult to implement, and very, very expensive. 25 billions of dollars were spent before B-2 even took to the air and the projected costs were more than $ 70 billions on the 132 of the aircraft. Only twenty bombers were built by 1996 at a cost of more than two billion dollars for each aircraft. This means that two B-2s cost more than an atomic aircraft carrier, and one B-2 costs more than half a dozen LGM-118A Peacekeepe ICBMs and their high-security shelters. The 2 is capable of carrying 20 tons of bombs for more than 8000 kilometers, or, with air refueling, to any point on the planet. The stealth technology allows one B-2 to operate in a situation in which more than a dozen other specialized aircraft are required, some of which will be lost during the bombing. As a result, the Air Force treats the B-2 more like a warship that can be quickly sent to any point on the planet and strike in this case 80 with high-precision bombs. This unprecedented potential has not really been exploited yet. Today, it is much cheaper to use B-52 or B-1 to deliver smart bombs. With the developing UAVs, it seems no new heavy bombers can compete.

Meanwhile, only the Russian Air Force is talking about the development of a new heavy bomber. No one else sees the future in this type of airship, and Russian generals face the same obstacles as their American counterparts. A new generation of manned heavy bomber may still appear, but all the odds against it.
Originator:
http://strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20131013.aspx
61 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Airman
    Airman 16 October 2013 09: 17
    +7
    For America, this is the right conclusion, since it has the most powerful aircraft carrier fleet, which can solve problems anywhere in the world. A large number of submarine, air and shipborne missile systems allows solving the whole range of tasks assigned to strategic bombers. In Russia, the use of strategic bombers is still relevant since the solution of tasks in the far zone can only be assigned to them. Although in the future, as drones and the Kyrgyz Republic develop, they will leave the arena too.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 16 October 2013 13: 18
      +4
      Quote: Povshnik
      For America, this is the right conclusion, as it has the most powerful aircraft carrier fleet, which can solve problems anywhere in the world.

      Not there, dear

      map of US military bases - anywhere in the world there is a runway for the F-22 and F-35
      1. postman
        postman 16 October 2013 17: 01
        11
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        map of US military bases - anywhere in the world there is a runway for the F-22 and F-35

        persistent delusion caused by intolerable intoxication.

        it's all about the little things:
        -almost 70% of all air bases in South Korea and the United States are in the firing range of artillery and MLRS DPRK and will be completely destroyed within 1-2 hours of the war. Together with everything that will be on them.
        And so, in principle, with any airfield in the "corner of the world", except for the United States itself
        -the picture is certainly amazing, well, let's take (for example) Naval Air Facility Atsugi (Japan) and?
        The deployment of the United States Pacific Fleet Navy OAP at the end of 2012:
        Carrier Air Wing Five (CVW-5) is a United States Navy 5th OAP home aircraft carrier # 73 ("George Washington")
        and the same mess with 1,2,3,7,8,9,11,14,17 Carrier Air Wing and Tactical Support Wing.
        REMOVE THEIR PLIZ WITH THIS CARD
        -picture of course amazing (part 2)
        1. Directly the US Air Force owns 79 Avb, and 72 civilian airfields are involved. Besides, US Air Force uses four US Navy airbases. Thus, the formation of the national air force is based (deployed) at 155 facilities located in the country (including Puerto Rico),BUT Continental USA 74 Air Force Base
        2.14 US Air Force Base have no runways at all or have an inactive (closed) runway
        3. In September 2011, the Pentagon completed the fifth phase of the program for closing and reprofiling bases (ZPB), authorized by the US Congress in November 2005. During this phase, over the course of six years (2005-2011), 320 US Department of Defense facilities were reorganized. At the same time, 185 military facilities (bases) for various purposes were closed and redesigned, of which five and 135 belonged to the Air Force, respectively.
        4 . The number of the US Air Force in May 2013 amounted to 934 fighters, 96 bombers, 138 attack aircraft, 329 transport aircraft, 216 tankers, 938 aircraft and 921 other aircraft.
        Now we subtract from the ento number what is based on the continental part (even including Puerto Rico)
        And?
        And we get
        for example for Al-Dafra Air Base ... what is it?
        TR-1, E-3 and Squadron F-22 / Shaw can they?
        or
        Inzhirlik airbase, but what? here: 39th air wing (supply)
        or Ramstein Air Base, and here? And here:
        US Air Force transport planes and 150 nuclear buns are deployed, and yes, FORGOTTEN
        nearby is the largest american hospitaland outside the US
        ==========================
        hide this plate and don’t show it to anyone else, it is effective ONLY FOR US Air Force Continental Aviation in the US TERRITORY

        You will, of course, scare the public of Kadena Air Base
        DD / GPS 26.3631, 127.764; DMS: 26 ° 21'47 "N, 127 ° 45'50" E.
        Distance from base to Moscow: 8260 km
        Distance from the base to the border with Russia: 1800 km

        Where is the 18th Wing based?
        oh, how scary: "Vampires" from the 44th Fighter Squadron (F-15C / D) and COCKS (combat) from the 67th Fighter Squadron (F-15C / D)
        WILL BOMB CONTINENTAL CHINA?
        1. Papakiko
          Papakiko 16 October 2013 21: 00
          -1
          Quote: Postman
          The number of US Air Force as of May 2013 amounted to 934 fighters, 96 bombers, 138 attack planes, 329 transport aircraft, 216 tankers, 938 aircraft and 921 other aircraft.

          Did you all count them personally or who whispered in your ear?
          You just need to Wikipedia (non-important source, but in this matter almost 100% fidelity) to dig in order to overturn their figures.
          And this is even without taking into account the US Navy Aviation.
          I completely forgot the Air Force of the National Guard.
          In general, you’ll get tired of counting min hertz: how Alexander Danilovich Menshikov liked to talk.
          1. postman
            postman 16 October 2013 23: 05
            +3
            Quote: Papakiko
            Did you all count them personally or who whispered in your ear?

            humor is inappropriate
            www.af.mil/
            (probably it will not start from Russia, try Israeli proxy)
            Quote: Papakiko
            You just need to wikipedia

            if you like wikis, then (and only, but not like ru) here:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force
            and links, study links

            Quote: Papakiko
            knock over your numbers.

            try you without EMPTY fartingjust do not use 2010 data

            in comparison with the Russian Federation
            Name In operation (total number) Percentage of the number of operated
            Average age (as of 2013)
            Fighters

            F-22A 85 (141) 9,1% 5-6 years Su-35C 18 (18) 2,4% 0,5 years F-15C 55 (157) 5.9% 28 years Su-27CM 307 (406) 41,6, 3% 4-15 years F-13D 28 (1,4) 28% 29 years old MiG-255SMT 555 (34,6) 12% 13-16 years F-318C 619 (34) 21% 31 years old MiG-158BM 358 ( 21,4) 13% 15-16 years old F-6D 117 (0,6) 21% 18 years old F / A-457 (all mod.) 753 (48,9) 12% 14-35 years old F-71 (all mod.) n / a (0,5) n / a 1-934 year Total US 1886 (17.1) ~ 738 years Total RF 1337 (10.2) ~ XNUMX years
            Bombers
            B-52H 44 (53) 45,8% 50 years Tu-95MS 32 (92) 19,6% 50 years B-2A 16 (16) 16,7% 17 years Tu-22M3 115 (213) 70,6% 25-26 years B-1B 36 (54) 37,5% 25 years Tu-160 16 (16) 9,8% 20-21 years Total US 96 (123) ~ 34,2 years Total RF 163 (321) ~ 31,9 year
            The US Air Force has 96 strategic bombers: 44 V-52N, 36 V-1V and 16 V-2A
            Stormtroopers
            A-10A 38 (65) 34,5% 28 years A-10C 72 (129) 65,5% 6-7 years Su-25CM 200 (300) 100% 10-11 years Total US 110 (194) ~ 13,4, 200 years Total RF 300 (10) ~ 11-XNUMX years
            Strike aircraft
            F-15E 138 (223) 100% 20 years Su-24M 124 (300) 81% 29-30 years F-111 / FB-111 0 (84) 0% Over 40 years Su-34 29 (29) 19% 0,5 , 1-138 year Total US 307 (20) ~ 153 years Total RF 329 (24,4) ~ XNUMX years
            DRLO

            E-3 24 (33) 100% 32 years A-50 27 (27) 100% 27-28 years

            Quote: Papakiko
            And this is even without taking into account the US Navy Aviation.

            and she (navy aviation) and? Have you even mastered what it is about? (Oleg scoreboard take a look)
            Quote: Papakiko
            I completely forgot the Air Force of the National Guard.

            I remind
            http://pentagonus.ucoz.ru/af/Strukt/ng/ng-5.JPG
            it would be necessary to add isho Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (there is something around 4-5000)
            CALCULATOR TO GIVE? or is there?

            Quote: Papakiko
            In general, you’ll get tired of counting min hertz: how Alexander Danilovich Menshikov liked to talk.

            it's trend generated by the cinematography of the USSR
            http://viktor-korkia.narod.ru/drama/minherz/minherz.htm
            1. tomket
              tomket 17 October 2013 00: 25
              0
              I especially shed tears from the immense amount of MiG-29 SMT, apparently the government like slaves pricked and riveted such a quantity on galleys)))) It seems that all MiG 29 MiGs including pedestals and monuments were recorded in SMT, since there are only about 30 in Kursk in their memory or am I mistaken ????
              1. postman
                postman 17 October 2013 02: 27
                0
                Quote: tomket
                especially cried from the immense amount of MiG-29 SMT

                translation errors, they have the same thing. lol
                1999, the MiG-29SMT fighter received the certificate of the Russian Air Force, that's all under one comb
                and SM and without and MiG-29UBT and probably MiG-35
                1.December 2008 years: The Russian Air Force now has 291 MiG-29s / general director of the Chernyshev Moscow Machine-Building Enterprise
                2.34 re-export MiG-29SMT, which Algeria refused to accept from Russia under the contract in 2008
                3.something like this
                19th Guards Nikopol Fighter Aviation Regiment - Millerovo - MiG-29
                31st Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment - Zernograd - MiG-29
                120th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment - Domna - MiG-29
                14th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment - Kursk (Kursk-Vostochny) - MiG-29
                28th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment - Andreapol - MiG-29
                644th Aviation Training Regiment - Michurinsk - L-39, Su-24, Su-25, MiG-29
                237th Aviation Technology Display Center - Kubinka - L-39, MiG-29, Su-27, Su-27M
                713th Aviation Training Regiment - Armavir - L-39, MiG-29
                968th Sevastopol Instructor-Research Mixed Aviation Regiment, Lipetsk. MiG-29, Su-27, Su-27SM, Su-30 fighters, etc.
                116th combat training center - Astrakhan - MiG-23, MiG-29
                797th Aviation Training Regiment - Kushchevskaya - L-39, Su-25, Su-27, MiG-29


                Quote: tomket
                or am I mistaken ????

                on SMT, definitely not
            2. Papakiko
              Papakiko 17 October 2013 00: 39
              0
              Quote: Postman
              Su-25SM 200 (300) 100% 10-11 years

              Well done, good dreamer!
              Rub-KA and do not need to inflate bubbles and puffed up. hi
              Better contact the VAF and he will give an "optimistic" alignment at full height.

              And then the hour is not even and attribute museum exhibits to SU-39.
              1. postman
                postman 17 October 2013 22: 09
                +2
                Quote: Papakiko
                Well done, good dreamer!

                Man ...
                you apparently ........ over?
                Or make-up to see, to read prevents?
                What is it about? about the Su-27? about MiG-29? about ITB-3?
                Huh?
                it seems that it was about the American Av.baza and aviation park!
                You already foolishly led the La National Guard (and they are abroad?)
                La Navy USA! Menshikov and now TB-3, but a picture (not true at that) from the topvar.
                That is, the brain is m / ears or what?
                Quote: Papakiko
                Poke KA

                What for? Did you: find something from me from the stern or sniff? Are you that 3,14door?

                Quote: Papakiko
                Get Better at WAF

                And, what is Sergeus special in the US Air Force (count of number and base)?
                Well, if you are on such a meek leg, then contact
    2. ShturmKGB
      ShturmKGB 16 October 2013 15: 23
      +1
      And if we assume that this new bomber under development can be used in the future without pilots. those. in automatic mode, it is quite promising ... an analogy with an "armata" tank, where an "unmanned" mode is expected in the future ...
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 16 October 2013 15: 43
        -2
        ShturmKGB
        And if we assume that this newly developed new bomber can be used in the future without pilots

        Tell me why a "distant reconnaissance officer" needs to carry extra tons of fuel with him, be so heavy and expensive. Why do you even need a "long-range reconnaissance / bomber" - if there is always a suitable air base nearby
        1. postman
          postman 16 October 2013 16: 17
          +3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          - if there is always a suitable air base nearby

          ?
          1. And if the United States does not want (do not trust) the country where the airbase is located?
          Or the situation has changed (kicked out from Okinawa, the UAE, etc.)

          2.Islamic opportunists (or those who sympathize with them) can stupidly sit at a "suitable air base" and report (yes even by imesage) so many F-35 (F-15) with full combat (and this is visible visually) took off (it is clear where): so it was with Yugoslavia, Libya
          But with Barksdale, Louisiana or Minot; North Dakota or Whiteman, Montana
          it will be difficult to do (they fly regularly and HZ where)

          3.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          anywhere in the world there is a runway for the F-22 and F-35

          but not for B-2 and B-52
          -F-22 and F-35 are not strategists (yet) JASSM and JASSM ER

          still B-1B loads 24 carcasses, I doubt that you will cram the same number of 35 (or 22)
          - not all "corners of the world" can base carriers of nuclear weapons and store nuclear weapons, and not all "corners" can be trusted
          4. Operation Chimichanga

          showed both the ability to strike up to Samara (and possibly Chelyabinsk), and the inability to repulse a similar strike against the United States if the enemy had (will have) B-1B and JASSM and JASSM ER.
          F-22 could not cope, Block 3.1 is a release so far, but not life (ni)

          5. still need arguments? (Well, there is a reduction in strategic arms and a certain bias beneficial to some)
          1. Papakiko
            Papakiko 16 October 2013 21: 38
            0
            Quote: Postman
            5. still need arguments? (Well, there is a reduction in strategic arms and a certain bias beneficial to some)

            No reason to argue.
            We are not Papuan Guinea and we need long-range strategic aviation.
            In order for all kinds of LGBD to drive thoughts out of their heads about beating not only diplomats but also ordinary citizens-tourists.
            So that the premature civilization of civilization does not happen.
            1. postman
              postman 16 October 2013 23: 13
              -1
              Quote: Papakiko
              No reason to argue.

              with such a nickname and avatar such, yes, of course, it is easier to fart. and no argument is required

              Quote: Papakiko
              We are not papuan guinea and long-range strategic aviation we need.

              You are not the Russian Air Force, and it is unlikely that you (personally) define anything
              Do I need a general air force in the Russian Federation?

              Quote: Papakiko
              So that the premature civilization of civilization does not happen.

              What is smoked, if not a secret of course?
    3. Andrey Skokovsky
      Andrey Skokovsky 17 October 2013 17: 27
      0
      the figure in the article flashed
      the United States has more than 60000 military pilots !?
      I wonder how true this is?
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. rrrd
    rrrd 16 October 2013 09: 22
    11
    you can minus me, but I b-2 plane ndrvritsya! nice.

    The US Air Force leadership fears that the B-2 may become the last manned heavy bomber.
    since this is a costly pleasure, I think the operation of this aircraft comes in a round sum. and using it against a strong opponent is not cost-effective (they will lose it), and chasing banana countries to bomb is also expensive. and to create a more perfect (large) also makes no sense. shorter cut them)
    1. xetai9977
      xetai9977 16 October 2013 09: 32
      +8
      And why minus you, b-2 is really beautiful, in addition and powerful!
    2. Zerstorer
      Zerstorer 16 October 2013 09: 36
      +4
      Well, the taste and color markers are different) B-2 is interesting to me from a technical point of view. The article says something different: the US Air Force does not want to have a crystal club (expensive, beautiful, impressive, but not as effective), but a workhorse that will replace the B-52, and B-2, and then also the B-1B ( I think this one will last a little longer in service).
      1. HollyGremlin
        HollyGremlin 16 October 2013 10: 19
        +3
        Precisely that "crystal club", the Americans need a bomber for every day, of course, the B-2 is not profitable to drive against the Papuans, but we need a strategist as part of the nuclear triad.
        1. MilaPhone
          MilaPhone 16 October 2013 11: 32
          +3
          Quote: rrrd
          you can minus me, but I b-2 plane ndrvritsya! nice.

          In my opinion, one of the most unusual aircraft in the history of aviation.
          Photos in the article are beautiful. Here is also a good photo:
          1. Papakiko
            Papakiko 16 October 2013 21: 07
            +3
            Quote: Milafon
            you can minus me, but I b-2 plane ndrvritsya! In my opinion, one of the most unusual aircraft in the history of aviation.

            Everyone admits that it is a very elegant "wunderwaffle". good
            "Thrush" is also very, very beautiful.
          2. Hitrovan07
            Hitrovan07 16 October 2013 22: 14
            +2
            The impression that "not terrestrial" technologies in general - the difference from "classmates in growth and use" is colossal. The plane is very beautiful - it's a pity we won't have something like that - they will "jump" again through a generation crying
  4. 0255
    0255 16 October 2013 09: 24
    +4
    Quote: Povshnik
    For America, this is the right one.

    the United States already has military bases all over the world where you can place all sorts of F-15E and F-16, as well as aircraft carriers. Maybe they don't need "strategists". Russia has not had its bases in Africa and Eastern Europe for a long time (thanks to Gorbachev and Yeltsin), so the PAK DA should come in handy if the US suddenly wants to attack us.
    1. Airman
      Airman 16 October 2013 10: 18
      +6
      Quote: 0255
      [so PAK YES should come in handy if the US suddenly wants to attack us.

      If America attacks us, then neither TU-160 nor PAK YES will be needed (even if they can take off), only missiles.
      1. 0255
        0255 16 October 2013 11: 04
        +6
        If America attacks us, then neither TU-160 nor PAK YES will be needed (even if they can take off), only missiles.

        in the 1960s, the USSR and the United States wanted to abandon "strategists" in favor of ICBMs. But then they realized that it was too early to write off the "strategists". One of the reasons is that the crew of a bomber with a nuclear bomb on board can be given the command to go back if governments have managed to peacefully solve the problem. And if you have already launched an ICBM, then you cannot bring it back, it will reach the target in any case, so there will be no peaceful settlement of the conflict.
        During the Caribbean crisis, strategic bombers Myasishchev 3M and M-4 with nuclear weapons on board were on duty around the US borders, ready to strike at any time, which kept the Americans at bay. ICBMs cannot be forced to barrage over the United States in order to at least intimidate them, although it would be fun to do so good laughing
        so PAK YES should still come in handy smile
        1. VAF
          VAF 16 October 2013 13: 24
          11
          Quote: 0255
          During the Caribbean crisis, strategic bombers Myasishchev 3M and M-4 with nuclear weapons on board were on duty around the US borders, ready to strike at any time, which kept the Americans at bay.


          Dear, where are you from all the time "take 2 some" HAT " belay

          Where and when on duty, especially at the borders of the United States, during the Caribbean crisis ????
          What M-4 with nuclear weapons on board. if they all since 1959 (after a year of inactivity) turned into only TANKERS.

          "Striking the US territory at .... perilde" is only a THEORY and preparation for such flights. (One-way flights soldier )
          The maximum that happened since 1964 began to fly from Šiauliai to the Atlantic in search of AUG and AUS.

          And the ICBM missile ... you can not return, but "self-destruct"! And the flight time of the strategist to enemy targets is 5-6 hours and do you seriously think that during this time it suddenly became possible to agree? belay
          What the .. "baby talk" negative
          1. albert
            albert 16 October 2013 21: 33
            +1
            Quote: vaf
            A missile ICBM ... you can not return, but "self-destruct"!

            The self-liquidation system is used on strategic missiles only during training launches; there are none on the missiles standing on the database so that the enemy does not know how to blow them up on takeoff.
        2. postman
          postman 16 October 2013 17: 28
          +4
          Quote: 0255
          During the Caribbean crisis, strategic bombers Myasishchev 3M and M-4 with nuclear weapons on board were on duty around the US borders, ready to strike at any time,

          1. How could they be on duty?
          Myasischev M-4 / 3M

          2.motorresource AM-3A
          3. free fall bombs on the internal suspension in the bomb bay in the fuselage 5000-24000 kg (for M-4 up to 18000 kg) or 4 long-range missiles on the outside.KSR-5? they are on the Tu-16 current
          Re-equipment of aircraft No.0503, designated ZM-5, has begun in 1973 g.
          The Caribbean crisis was destined to happen earlier -in October 1962 year.

          Quote: 0255
          what kept Americans at bay

          Oh how they kept ....
          This is the USA:

          This is the USSR:

          draw the line in 1962, marvel
          Nikita Sergeich for such "fear" flew from the post of general sek.
      2. alone
        alone 16 October 2013 11: 07
        +5
        quite right. some exclude all this, relying on tanks and infantry))
  5. svp67
    svp67 16 October 2013 10: 14
    +3
    Heavy bombers are fading
    Not where they will not go, but as they flew, they will fly to the FUTURE ... They are from Ultimate ratio regum
  6. Fuzeler
    Fuzeler 16 October 2013 10: 20
    +3
    And why do we need to develop something fundamentally new if we have the Tu-22M3, as well as the Tu-160? Based on them, you can create, for example, through deep modernization, a new heavy aircraft.

    And about the Americans - I agree with the interlocutors, they have a lot of bases around the world, so they naturally don’t really need it ... Although, on the other hand, if you look at the Chinese Air Force, there, I think, the AUG’s Americans will be saved little To disable the armed forces of the PRC, front-line aviation resources are scarce.
    1. 0255
      0255 16 October 2013 11: 22
      0
      And why do we need to develop something fundamentally new if we have the Tu-22M3, as well as the Tu-160? Based on them, you can create, for example, through deep modernization, a new heavy aircraft.

      you must definitely move forward! See which bomber could fly today if the USSR did not break up:
      http://paralay.com/t60.html
      Therefore, let PAK YES appear! I want to see him smile I hope Poghosyan will not ruin him for his personal purposes.
      Tu-22M3 upgrade to Tu-22M3M modification. Still, the production of Tu-160 would resume ...
      1. VAF
        VAF 16 October 2013 13: 56
        +4
        Quote: 0255
        Tu-22M3 upgrade to Tu-22M3M modification.


        And what's the point? Only for the war with the Papuans .. no more!
        And with such a rate of "modernization" soon .. there will be nothing to "modernize" .. the planes are getting old .. finally.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. Scandinavian
    Scandinavian 16 October 2013 10: 32
    +1
    to check its invisibility as in Yugoslavia in 99
    1. 0255
      0255 16 October 2013 11: 26
      0
      Quote: Scandinavian
      to check its invisibility as in Yugoslavia in 99

      Rumor has it that the B-2s were shot down in Yugoslavia. Only the Serbs did not provide their fragments, and therefore the United States does not recognize their loss. I don’t know if this is true or not. Who knows how it could be.
  9. pahom54
    pahom54 16 October 2013 10: 33
    0
    Regarding Russia, it’s difficult to say that YES will not be needed soon ... You don’t need to step on the rake that Nikita Khrushchev once stepped on when rockets appeared - after all, he started (with him, with his instructions started) cutting new ones practically airplanes and warships ... For Russia, the existence of YES will be relevant for a long time ... And rightly it was said above that Russia has good equipment in the form of Tu-22M3 and Tu-160, the possibilities for their deep modernization are an uncultivated field .. .
  10. USNik
    USNik 16 October 2013 10: 35
    +3
    Generally adequate article, but the conclusions are crooked:
    Meanwhile, only the Russian Air Force speak of the development of a new heavy bomber. No one else sees future in this type of aircraft, and Russian generals face the same obstacles as their American counterparts.

    "Doesn't see" and cannot, these are different concepts, Russia can and will do PAK YES. Moreover, the new strategist will not be a flying crystal billion like Spirit, but a practical, inexpensive complex to maintain, capable of performing all assigned tasks in any theater of operations.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 17 October 2013 00: 21
      0
      Quote: USNik
      Moreover, the new strategist will not be a flying crystal billion like Spirit, but a practical, not expensive to maintain complex capable of performing all tasks in any theater.


      Are you from the future, or just a naive optimist?
  11. Nitarius
    Nitarius 16 October 2013 10: 48
    +5
    The United States can do whatever it wants! And the bombers were THERE AND WILL BE-NEEDED!
    with the advent of all FOOD- PEOPLE AS ATTAKEN WITH A SPOON and eat!
    It is necessary to develop the USE - put the AUTOMATIC on a regular GUN, and it shoots with GREAT SPEED and PRECISION IS ABOVE. SO THAT JUST NEED ON THINGS to watch from ALL PARTIES!
  12. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 16 October 2013 11: 15
    +4
    Everyone seemed to forget that one of the main tasks of strategists is not to bomb the Papuans, but to ensure the survival of the nuclear component. During the threatened period, part of the machines must constantly hang in the air and due to this remain invulnerable to enemy means.
  13. Vasia kruger
    Vasia kruger 16 October 2013 11: 26
    12
    About the unsightly past of manned military aviation, this author IMHO turned down.

    About V-2 ... and has he ever encountered a modern and active air defense? There is a suspicion that there is, otherwise it would become a hundred times more expensive, due to the loss of mat parts and specialists)

    The trend itself seems strange to me, Americans are fighting mainly with Papuans of varying degrees of Papuanism. The Papuans do not have enough ... and often in general modern technology and weapons, warfare, air defense, etc.
    But the means of combating the Papuans are becoming more sophisticated and more expensive every year. One gets the feeling that the US military can set up its tasks with the same success without using overly expensive and modern types of weapons.
    But then it turns out that the development of expensive wunderwafers is an end in itself. Or simply put, the dough-making business, not the process of achieving any military superiority.

    IMHO of course.
    1. Shotoff
      Shotoff 16 October 2013 11: 44
      +1
      I agree with your thought, but not only this reason. In modern American society, it has become very difficult to hide the loss of personnel, even with the help of "creative accounting", these very losses cause a resonance in their overly liberal and politically correct society, therefore, their politicians have the following picture in their heads: war without losses = satisfied electorate = re-election ...
      1. Vasia kruger
        Vasia kruger 17 October 2013 11: 02
        0
        It seems to me a satisfied or not satisfied electorate has little to do with elections. Selected technologies IMHO can bring to any position even a cannibal, even a pedophile ... this is a matter of professionalism of the candidate’s team, and money. At the same time, I'm not talking about stuffing, or direct fraud.

        As for the losses ... how many pilots did the US lose in Iraq and Afghanistan? It seems to me when the United States wants to wage a war without unnecessary losses in earnest, then they do not make UAVs, but change the war itself. Look at Syria, in fact the US is waging war, but their troops are not in Syria. Although, again, one does not interfere with the other. Grandmas both here and there are chopped.
    2. bolonenkov
      bolonenkov 16 October 2013 13: 32
      +2
      Basil, this is called corruption 2.0
    3. Al_lexx
      Al_lexx 22 January 2014 16: 47
      0
      It has long been known that the United States is not a state. This is a business.
  14. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 16 October 2013 12: 03
    +5
    The disappearance of heavy bombers was prophesied back in the late 1950s. However, since then they are still in service. Moreover, machines developed in the very 50s of the last century are also in service ...
    So I doubt that heavy bombers in speed will leave the stage. And I doubt very much ...
  15. rotor
    rotor 16 October 2013 12: 17
    +1
    Why should Russia build a copy of the B-2 now, when it is possible to build an unmanned hypersonic bomber with new capabilities, for example, it could launch various cargoes into space. Especially now hypersonic missiles and a heavy attack drone are being developed.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. rotor
      rotor 16 October 2013 12: 30
      0
      And why build a manned bomber when
      American long-range B-2 Spirit subsonic bomber, built according to the “flying wing” scheme, is so difficult to control that direct piloting by such aircraft is simply not provided. In fact, the computer is responsible for takeoff, flight and landing. The pilot is assigned only the role of a controller with the right to taxi along the runway, amending the flight mission and using weapons.
      1. rotor
        rotor 16 October 2013 13: 04
        0
        Here is the promising American strategic bomber LRS-B (Long Range Strike Bomber), in terms of its characteristics and capabilities it will be similar to aircraft of the same class B-2 Spirit and will be manned at first, but it will be designed and built in such a way that over time it you could add an "unmanned option".

        It seems ours went along the American path.
        1. Professor
          16 October 2013 13: 28
          +2
          Quote: rotor
          Here is the promising American strategic bomber LRS-B (Long Range Strike Bomber), in terms of its characteristics and capabilities it will be similar to aircraft of the same class B-2 Spirit and will be manned at first, but it will be designed and built in such a way that over time it you could add an "unmanned option".

          There will be no Long Range Strike Bomber, just about this and the article.
          1. rotor
            rotor 16 October 2013 14: 05
            +1
            There is no alternative to heavy bombers yet. But what about the aviation component of the nuclear triad?
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 16 October 2013 14: 48
              -1
              Quote: rotor
              But what about the aviation component of the nuclear triad?

              Enough capabilities of modern land and sea-based ICBMs (SLBMs)
    3. Nitup
      Nitup 16 October 2013 20: 10
      +1
      Quote: rotor
      Why now Russia to build a copy of the B-2

      I agree, you do not need to create a copy. Although individual solutions may be worth using.
      Quote: rotor
      when you can build an unmanned hypersonic bomber

      Are you sure that Russia now has similar opportunities? It may take 10-15 years to create a GZ rocket, let alone a huge bomber. And most importantly, why should it be hypersonic?
  16. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 16 October 2013 13: 15
    +1
    In addition, a radar with an active phased array antenna (AFAR) was also installed on B-2.
    Hmm ... Why did the stealth need such a super-radar, with AFAR
    One inclusion of such a thing completely unmasks the device

    The predecessor of B-2 - F-117 didn’t have a radar at all, only passive systems for collecting information: thermal imagers, radar warning sensors, etc. The only exception is the laser target illumination system, but it turned on for only a few seconds
    1. Professor
      16 October 2013 13: 30
      +2
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Hmm ... Why did the stealth need such a super-radar, with AFAR

      IMHO behind enemy lines after overcoming air defense to seek goals.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 16 October 2013 14: 50
        +1
        Wow, in the continental part of some China or Iran there are no military districts, air defense and fighter aircraft. All air defense systems lined up at the border

        For this reason, the f-117 didn’t even have a radio altimeter - in any case!
        1. VAF
          VAF 16 October 2013 14: 58
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          For this reason, the f-117 didn’t even have a radio altimeter - in any case!


          Oleg, hello! Neither RV nor DISS nikre "unmask" the plane wassat
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 16 October 2013 15: 45
            0
            Quote: vaf
            Neither RV nor DISS nikre "unmask" the plane

            how so? radiation source on board
            1. VAF
              VAF 16 October 2013 16: 30
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              how so? radiation source on board


              And where does he ... "radiate" - then wink or rather ... which way laughing
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 16 October 2013 17: 51
                +1
                vertically down if the plane flies straight
                and if the roll - ... should it be off to the side?
                1. VAF
                  VAF 16 October 2013 18: 04
                  +2
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  and if the roll - ... should it be off to the side?


                  Oleg, you will be surprised, but during the evolution of the aircraft, the RV and DISS switch to the "Memory" mode of operation and the radiation goes to the "equivalent" of the antenna (this is the PRD), and the receiver remains "open" wink
                2. postman
                  postman 16 October 2013 18: 24
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  and if the roll - ... should it be off to the side?

                  Normal operation of the radio altimeter is ensured in flight with angles heel no more than ± 15 °.
                  as follows:

                  turn off ... what is there according to the instructions?
                  reset 150 ms?
          2. postman
            postman 16 October 2013 18: 23
            +1
            Quote: vaf
            RV nor DISS nikre do not "unmask" the plane


            ?
            RV (RV-5 for example)

            No stay in the field radiation transmitting antenna.
            radiation pattern width no more than 24 °(if I am not mistaken)

            DISS (DISS-7 for example):
            first and fourth rays

            oriented into the front hemisphere of a military aircraft, they unmask it with radio emission when approaching the front line, to the target, and thus prematurely notify the enemy front-line and target air defense, including active jamming stations, of their approach, which also affects the accuracy and stability of the diss.
            1. VAF
              VAF 16 October 2013 18: 38
              +3
              Quote: Postman

              oriented to the front hemisphere of a military aircraft, they unmask it by radio emission when approaching the front line, to the target, and thereby prematurely notify the enemy’s front and target air defense systems, including active jamming stations, about their approach, which also affects the accuracy and stability of the DISS .


              Basil, hello! How many years, how many winters: drinks +! fellow

              these are theoretical calculations, in practice the front line breakthrough is carried out on the PMW and under the petals of the radiation patterns of the air defense and air defense systems.
              Going to the target is also carried out at criminal low altitudes.

              And the approach to the detection border is monitored and the reduction is performed .. under the petal.

              But the inclusion of our own PP stations is yes ... a complete demotion, as well as the use of passive group stations, when the UG goes ahead (it used to go (Tu-22PD, TU_16P) and sprinkled with "dipoles" of all ranges, creating such a spot that on another continent it can be seen, well, plus also Bouquets .. made a rustle.
              For sure ... nothing worked for us, but for the "foes" lol
              1. Botanologist
                Botanologist 16 October 2013 19: 19
                +1
                Greetings, dear drinks

                gave water?
                Is the rain over?

                Still, your opinion, the further evolution and expediency of YES?
                I understand that they are needed under the START treaty as carriers, but isn’t it easier to withdraw from the treaty?
              2. postman
                postman 16 October 2013 22: 38
                0
                Quote: vaf
                Basil, hello! How many years, how many winters: drinks +!

                Hi...
                in-in.
                Sousi ate, drank wine, answered you, Muscovites, did not count lope, the implementation is floating ....
                NOT: RV and DISS = P R O N E .. unambiguousI’ll go add
                Quote: vaf
                Going to the target is also carried out at criminal low altitudes.

                That's right aksakal, so you were taught to break through, and to "catch" and "destroy" me ...
                Only now the radars and software are different now, on the "noise" of the side lobes (serifs on the right, left, filtering, processing, comparison with the background, etc.) = YOU WILL BE DETECTED.
                I don’t know how in the Russian Air Force (now), but they (for Germany, for sure) have a breakthrough (overcoming)-disable
                By the way, on criminally small, not everyone can. Do you know many?

                Quote: vaf
                For sure ... nothing worked for us, but for the "foes"

                it works for them
                Well, the "spot" is understandable, if you wish, you can fill up the entire broadcast, but the spot itself is a fact WHAT?
                Tovs
            2. VAF
              VAF 16 October 2013 19: 18
              +1
              Quote: Postman
              RV (RV-5 for example)


              The ability of low-altitude airborne rocket propulsion systems is ridiculously small, only about 15W. moreover, the signal goes strictly vertically downward, so that how the air defense radar can detect the operation of low-altitude airborne radios, and even more so when flying on air defense missiles request
              High-altitude ditch there and power more ..100-140W, but still this is a minuscule compared to tens of kilowatts of aircraft radar power: wink

              According to the DISS-diss, it also "irradiates" the earth's surface with its rays at a small distance from the aircraft (its own prd), plus a calm calculation is made according to the known wind and the diss can be turned on only for a short time, to check the calculated data drinks
              1. postman
                postman 16 October 2013 22: 49
                0
                Quote: vaf
                The ability of low-altitude airborne rocket propulsion systems is ridiculously small, only about 15W. and the signal goes strictly vertically down

                0,15W? don't you confuse This is the minimum
                RV A-037 (technical operation manual)
                In no case do not stick under the antenna ... for 0,15 watts why?

                Is it a LITTLE () 0,15)?

                How did Dudarik get it purchased? Dap to Iridium? ?

                GOST 17589-72. Aircraft and helicopter altimeters for altitudes up to 1500 m.

                Basic parameters and technical requirements (again for 5).
                7. General sensitivity:
                1 range - at least 80 dB. 2 range - not less than 70 dB.

                Quote: vaf
                how can an air defense radar detect a missile defense

                Radar is not, and f-35?

                Quote: vaf
                plus to this, according to a well-known wind, a calm calculation is done and the diss can be turned on only briefly

                in order to avoid these difficulties, we applied at 117:
                DU Infrared Laser (FLIR) and Downward Infrared Laser (DLIR)
                -Honeywell H-423 / E ANN
                -Automatic RAARS-based airfield return system
                - On-board computer AR-102
                - well, about the pipes in the "nose" about which he wrote
    2. postman
      postman 16 October 2013 17: 57
      +2
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      The predecessor of the B-2 - F-117 didn’t have a radar at all,

      why is he (radar) to him?
      BLU-109B, GBU-10 and GBU-27 have a laser guidance system
      Raytheon AGM-65 Maverick (optoelectronic guidance system: television in models A and B, infrared image in models D and G, laser - model E, with infrared - model F) and Raytheon AGM-88 HARM (passive radar seeker )
      AIM-9 Sidewinder (IR GOS)
      Why "goat button accordion"?
      Honeywel and multi-channel pilot static tubes installed in the nose managed the target.
  17. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 16 October 2013 14: 17
    0
    It’s interesting that the Americans will create a machine so that it can use bombs and launchers, since neither b1-v nor b2 can use cr. Ours, on the contrary, are going to make a car not only with cr but also with bomb weapons, since those 160 and 95 cannot use ordinary bombs.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 17 October 2013 00: 26
      0
      I will open for you America, can. JASSM, google.
  18. nikcris
    nikcris 16 October 2013 14: 20
    +1
    But nefig America was these fools for crazy grandmother sharpening bombs. And now everything - you can’t sprinkle coal with a steam engine. Now only with frontal bombs on the MiG-31.
  19. nikcris
    nikcris 16 October 2013 14: 37
    +1
    Quote: 1c-inform-city
    It’s interesting that the Americans will create a machine so that it can use bombs and launchers, since neither b1-v nor b2 can use cr. Ours, on the contrary, are going to make a car not only with cr but also with bomb weapons, since those 160 and 95 cannot use ordinary bombs.

    Tu-95, if desired, can use freely falling bombs. And not very frail. And to drive 160 (B-2) bombing positions of the Indians of Moget is only the most advanced people. Thank God, until we treat them fellow
    1. Professor
      16 October 2013 14: 40
      +1
      Quote: nikcris
      And to drive 160 (B-2) bombing positions of the Indians of Moget is only the most advanced people.

      Let's not even start counting who-where-what and for what drove. The wrong score will not be in favor of your flag. hi
    2. VAF
      VAF 16 October 2013 15: 00
      +2
      Quote: nikcris
      Tu-95, if desired, can use freely falling bombs.


      Even with a very big desire .. can not! soldier

      But the Tu-160, yes ... this one can. but this is ... "anachronism"! wassat in all senses!!! soldier
      1. nikcris
        nikcris 16 October 2013 15: 16
        0
        With 95 dismantled equipment for bombing. And I wrote - AT THE DESIRE. But I don’t know what strength (if any) this desire will be. And he can drag missiles twice as much as he drags. It’s like with refueling TU-22M3 wassat
        1. VAF
          VAF 16 October 2013 15: 37
          0
          Quote: nikcris
          With 95 dismantled equipment for bombing.


          You just confuse the Tu-95 and Tu-95MS .. these are completely different machines And if you "think" that it's easy .. to take it and "stick it in", if you wish lol , OPB with RP, yes through the AS (communication equipment (which you also have to "plug" in and tie all this to the NC ... then you are very much ... mistaken laughing

          Quote: nikcris
          And he can drag missiles twice as much as he drags.


          I don’t understand .. this is what and what you are and with what you compare request

          Quote: nikcris
          It's like with a refueling TU-22M3 wassat


          request recourse
          1. nikcris
            nikcris 16 October 2013 16: 02
            +1
            Besides the fact that it can carry an additional eight missiles on four pylons, only overseas friends agreed with us that we would never do this drinks
            1. VAF
              VAF 16 October 2013 16: 36
              0
              Quote: nikcris
              Besides the fact that it can carry an additional eight missiles on four pylons, only overseas friends agreed with us that we would never do this


              Well, firstly not 8, but 10 wink that's why Tu-95MS-16 is called: wink
              About the 8th, you mean X-101..which ..... awww hde they are, oh yes .. by the decision of Taburetkin .. adopted wassat
              Secondly (carriers) are actually in quantity .... bully pieces.
              Thirdly, with such a suspension, the MS'a range "falls" by more than a third ..... the frontal resistance has not been canceled yet, .. you know lol
  20. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 16 October 2013 16: 28
    0
    It turns out that they will create an anachronism.
  21. soaring
    soaring 16 October 2013 16: 43
    -1
    nikcris-super !!!! drinks lol
  22. e3tozy
    e3tozy 16 October 2013 19: 25
    0
    Quote: rotor
    Why should Russia build a copy of the B-2 now, when it is possible to build an unmanned hypersonic bomber with new capabilities, for example, it could launch various cargoes into space. Especially now hypersonic missiles and a heavy attack drone are being developed.

    For ordinary, precision, axes and so on, yes. But an UAV with nuclear weapons on board is a little too much. There must be a man.
    1. Kyrgyz
      Kyrgyz 16 October 2013 19: 49
      0
      Quote: e3tozy
      For ordinary, precision, axes and so on, yes. But an UAV with nuclear weapons on board is a little too much. There must be a man.

      It is unlikely that it makes sense to use nuclear weapons from an aircraft outside its own vast borders, missiles can be launched from your territory, but it is also strangely easier and safer to use other nuclear weapons delivery vehicles that are more secretive and protected.
      A strategist is just not bad for using high-precision non-nuclear weapons from far away without entering the enemy's air defense zone, and for this it can be unmanned, or even better, cheap just like a cheap long-range "cart" for the WTO.
      But there is always the risk of interference in the UAV from the outside.
  23. voliador
    voliador 16 October 2013 19: 59
    +1
    I think that for us, TB with KR on board is still relevant.
  24. GUSAR
    GUSAR 16 October 2013 20: 17
    0
    Che cannot believe that the heavy bombers will leave, though ...
  25. mr.Man
    mr.Man 16 October 2013 20: 27
    0
    An ICBM with a non-vigorous filling will be able to compensate for the range of bombers once, but its launch may not be so understood by "friends" ...
    Quote: 1c-inform-city
    It turns out that they will create an anachronism.

    DB / TB / SB is generally an anachronism, you need to put them into space, but how about this under contracts for weapons in space (?), And what we have only against the Papuans and the old people will go in whatever new modification they are, in the flesh before without a pilot ...
  26. ivanovbg
    ivanovbg 16 October 2013 21: 51
    0
    Although the author did not indicate the TTX in tabular form at the end of the article (objective flaw) and did not put a snapshot of the interior, which I personally really like (but this is not an objective flaw), I have one (+). I hope to read more impartial professional reviews and less ideological howls about the tzahal.
  27. ivanovbg
    ivanovbg 16 October 2013 21: 52
    0
    Although the author did not indicate the TTX in tabular form at the end of the article (objective flaw) and did not put a snapshot of the interior, which I personally really like (but this is not an objective flaw), I have one (+). I hope to read more impartial professional reviews and less ideological howls about the tzahal.
  28. scientist
    scientist 17 October 2013 01: 07
    0
    Article +. Indeed, military economists should consider whether strategic bomber aviation will be needed in the future
    one B-2 costs more than half a dozen ICBMs
    Perhaps a small number of pages of bombers still need to be saved for solving any unforeseen tasks. But it seems to me that the delivery of “payload” to the most remote places on the planet using ICBMs is cheaper, more reliable and faster.
  29. sivuch
    sivuch 17 October 2013 16: 34
    0
    This unprecedented potential has not really been tapped yet. Today it is much cheaper to use a B-52 or B-1 to deliver smart bombs.
    -------------------------------------------------- -----------------
    And here's how to say it. In the military (although what kind of fighting there is one name) B-2 was used in 2011 when bombing the Gardabia airfield
    http://pfc-joker.livejournal.com/17437.html
    An interesting comment - why did both B-2 and KR
    Very good question, really.
    Striking only the CD would certainly not have been a problem. The Florida SSGN alone can carry up to 154 "Tomahawks", during the operation it used up about 90 of them. It's another matter that it would have been a little more expensive :) All 45 guided bombs dropped on Gardabia, taken together, cost a little less than one. the only "Tomahawk".
    To strike with one bombers alone is also possible, but this would require the involvement of 5 aircraft instead of 3. At least 10 years ago, the B-2's scourge was precisely low mission capable rates, when out of 20 aircraft, only 5-6 were ready at one time. Now the Americans seem to assure that this problem was mainly solved, but nevertheless it is quite possible that the organization of the simultaneous departure of 5 bombers, providing them all with tankers, etc. is not such a trivial task.
    I would suggest that we decided to combine business with pleasure: use the limited forces of the bombers (relatively speaking, only the duty link), allocate some of the goals to the Fleet, whose ships were already on the coast of Libya with the KR on board, and work out synchronized attack of bombers and the Kyrgyz Republic on a common target in almost proving grounds
  30. air wolf
    air wolf 18 October 2013 15: 01
    0
    I believe that the most ideal option for the development of bombers is the modernization of the Tu-22M3 (economical engines, avionics, adding stealth coatings, additional corrections, etc. And we will be happy!
  31. nightingale
    nightingale 18 October 2013 15: 46
    -1
    It seems that the carrier is preferable to a bomber and high-precision weapons allows you to spawn targets without entering the air defense zone. As far as I remember, 23 billets of the Tu160 center section still fell off. can be completed by modifying them as much as possible. Of course, Tu160 does not reach b2, but the Americans have b1 about 50 pieces, and Tu160 15 remains.
  32. Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 22 January 2014 16: 50
    0
    I can not understand the thesis about UAVs. Who can explain how the 100% interference-protected radio channel can be created to control shock unmanned aircraft?
    I understand that in Iraq or Libya all this applies. But against really technologically advanced countries, how is it?
    Strange article.
    Of course, thanks to the author, for drawing some moods in the Pentagon.

    I think it would be logical to use such bombers, including as a flying command post, for a flock of UAVs, since due to the small distance between the aircraft in one group and the powerful transmitter on the bomb, it can provide a stable channel for radio commands. In another I can not imagine.