Military Review

The Pentagon decided on the choice of the manufacturer of the new bomber

74
The Pentagon called the company, which will be contracted to produce a new strategic bomber. The main manufacturer will be the corporation Northrop Grumman, reports RIA News.


In-2

It is assumed that the new machine will be in service with the next 50 years.

“The plane will replace the famous B-2 and B-52 bombers,” said Air Force Minister Deborah James.

According to the Pentagon’s assistant head, William Laplant, “it is planned to build 100 aircraft, including the first stage - 21, at the rate of 511 million dollars per plane in 2010 prices of the year”.

Recall that the Boeing and Lockheed Martin alliance also fought for the right to receive an order. However, the US Department of Defense chose Northrop Grumman, who had previously built B-2 (total 21 units), which was later abandoned due to the high price. The cost of one aircraft reached $ 2 billion.

Help Agency: “Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) is an American military-industrial company operating in the fields of electronics and information technology, the aerospace industry, and shipbuilding. Established in 1994 by the merger of Northrop Corporation and Grumman Corporation. ”

In-52
Photos used:
http://worldweapon.ru/, http://www.globallookpress.com/
74 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. 75 hammer
    75 hammer 28 October 2015 09: 49 New
    13
    Saw, saw, saw .............
    1. jjj
      jjj 28 October 2015 09: 55 New
      +9
      They’ll cut, as I think, much more than 2 billion apiece
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Now we are free
        Now we are free 28 October 2015 10: 05 New
        17
        According to the assistant to the head of the Pentagon, William Laplant, “it is planned to build 100 aircraft, including 21 at the first stage, at the rate of 511 million dollars per plane in 2010 prices. "
        Well, yes, of course, 511 million ... wassat
        Northrop Grumman, which previously built the B-2 (a total of 21 units), which later had to be abandoned due to the high price. The cost of one aircraft reached $ 2 billion laughing laughing laughing But this is still design and survey work, testing, bringing to mind ... In general, the "Golden F-35" will give way to the "Platinum Bomber" from Northrop Grumman and the final price of the bomber will not be $ 511 million, and I don’t even think 2 billion dollars ... In general, it’s cool to print money yourself you can plane and for 3 trillion dollars to come up with and a half trillion dollars to buy bully

        "Sweet couple" - Serdyukov & Vasilyeva are children from a day nursery belay Northrop Grumman -RULIT !!!

        P.S. I wonder how many representatives of Northrop Grumman "brought" to the Senate and Min. US defense so that their plane is chosen? ..
        1. Baikonur
          Baikonur 28 October 2015 10: 13 New
          +1
          Soully neighing over the word "brought"! Our school! Ameripedis about this graduate school already! laughing
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 28 October 2015 10: 56 New
            +7
            Quote: Baikonur
            Ameripedis about this graduate students are already

            Not graduate students ... Yankees are professors who teach hard science: how to “defeat” corruption by renaming it lobbying. smile
            1. Cat man null
              Cat man null 28 October 2015 11: 01 New
              +3
              Quote: Alexey RA
              how to “defeat” corruption by renaming it lobbying

              Well, actually lobbying is much more intellectual work than stupidly bringing dough to someone ..

              So what about "renaming" - this, IMHO, in vain yes
          2. Kostyar
            Kostyar 28 October 2015 11: 06 New
            0
            They make them from platinum and inlaid with trousers.... ?????!
        2. 222222
          222222 28 October 2015 11: 53 New
          +5
          on the topic ... http: //bmpd.livejournal.com/1548962.html

          .. "" "Americans are only capable of saving .. writing and bubble peeling ..." ""
      3. insafufa
        insafufa 28 October 2015 11: 07 New
        +2
        Quote: jjj
        They’ll cut, as I think, much more than 2 billion apiece



        Unit Cost B-52B: $ 14,43 million
        B-52H (1962): $ 9,28 million
        B-52H (1998): $ 53,4 million
        744sht

        Rockwell International B-1 Lancer
        Development program cost $ 20,5 billion
        $ 283,1 million (1998)
        100sht

        Northrop B-2 Spirit
        Development program cost $ 44 billion [1]
        Unit cost $ 1 billion price without equipment.

        2 billion 1 million with equipment (total purchase value), according to NSIAD-97-181
        Units produced 21pcs -1 crashed

        According to the Pentagon’s assistant head, William Laplant, “it is planned to build 100 aircraft, including the first stage - 21, at the rate of 511 million dollars per plane in 2010 prices of the year”.
        Well, yes, of course, 511 million ...


        P / S They want to say that he is only two more expensive will be the B1 Lancer, which I doubt however smile
    2. AAV
      AAV 28 October 2015 10: 07 New
      13
      "Judge not lest ye be judged"

      You might think that everything is clean and smooth in the Russian defense industry.
      One construction of the Vostochny spaceport is worth ....
      1. Your friend
        Your friend 28 October 2015 11: 23 New
        +2
        Quote: AAV
        "Judge not lest ye be judged"

        You might think that everything is clean and smooth in the Russian defense industry.
        One construction of the Vostochny spaceport is worth ....


        All right. But the main thing, despite the cuts (certainly they will), the bomber will be created and brought to full-scale production. Here they nod at f35 - such as a bad plane - no matter how bad it is, but this is a 5th generation aircraft, mass-produced unlike ... They will finish it, I have no doubt.
    3. Abakan
      Abakan 28 October 2015 10: 09 New
      +2
      Whack, Whack, Whack-Whack-Whack))))
    4. Dreiko11
      Dreiko11 28 October 2015 10: 28 New
      0
      but what's the point .. they've already made a new fighter ... nobody wants to take ... and their bomber is no good with modern air defense and there are fighters now ...
      1. Coconut Tima
        Coconut Tima 28 October 2015 10: 53 New
        +4
        Quote: Dreiko11
        they have already made a new fighter ... nobody wants to take ...

        But the successful operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria turned out to be the best advertisement for our aircraft industry. The governor of the Novosibirsk region, where the aircraft plant of the Sukhoi Corporation is located, Sergei Semaka, confirmed that the company had new proposals for concluding contracts for the Su-34.
        1. lelikas
          lelikas 28 October 2015 11: 06 New
          +4
          Quote: coconut tim
          But the successful operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria turned out to be the best advertisement for our aircraft industry. The governor of the Novosibirsk region, where the aircraft plant of the Sukhoi Corporation is located, Sergei Semaka, confirmed that the company had new proposals for concluding contracts for the Su-34.

          True, 50% success is the complete absence of enemy air defense. Nevertheless, you can’t imagine a better advertisement for weapons.
        2. andre
          andre 28 October 2015 11: 10 New
          +2
          But the successful operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria turned out to be the best advertisement for our aircraft industry. The governor of the Novosibirsk region, where the aircraft plant of the Sukhoi Corporation is located, Sergei Semaka, confirmed that the company had new proposals for concluding contracts for the Su-34.

          The governor is Gorodetsky !!!!
    5. marlin1203
      marlin1203 28 October 2015 10: 53 New
      +2
      If they have fu35y such money, what will be the real price tag for the bomber? belay they will probably start to make it of gold right away, in order to justify expenses somehow laughing
  2. Andrea
    Andrea 28 October 2015 09: 49 New
    +3
    Another budget eater. Congratulations to the Americans with a successful cut. laughing
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 28 October 2015 09: 54 New
      +8
      Quote: Andrea
      Congratulations to the Americans on a successful cut.

      What difference does it make to them, they will print greens - and that’s it. And all progressive humanity will pay. And we, including most of our "capsules" in the GKO USA. laughing
      1. ssergn
        ssergn 28 October 2015 11: 01 New
        +2
        Yah? Show!!!!
        Publicity requires !!!
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 28 October 2015 11: 39 New
          +3
          Quote: ssergn
          Yah? Show!!!!

          What to show you? What if I'm shy? repeat
          but seriously -
          1. ssergn
            ssergn 28 October 2015 13: 28 New
            +1
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            but seriously -


            Here it is, exactly, seriously. On your chart, approximately 70 billion $ appears.

            Foreign exchange reserves of Russia in the 2015 year

            According to official information of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the gold and foreign exchange reserves of Russia in 2014 were reduced by approximately 25%. The size of the gold reserves in January 1 of 2014 of the year was equal to $ 509 billion, and as of January 1 of 2015 of the year it became equal $ 385 billion

            Where is 385 and where is 70. Something somehow on
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            most of our "egg capsules"
            Well, it does not pull.

            I'm just about it. hi
            1. Ingvar 72
              Ingvar 72 28 October 2015 14: 28 New
              +2
              Quote: ssergn
              Where is 385 and where is 70. Something somehow on

              I’ll insist - more than 30% of the currency capsules are in the USA, including in GKO. About 17% in Germany, 8% in England, and only 1% in Russia. The rest is in various international funds. The size of international reserves is indicated in US dollars. Source: Bank of Russia.
              Gold reserves of Russia on 01.10.15g - 371 yards with a penny, and the gold in it is almost 49 yards. The rest is currency and foreign currency debt obligations. 371-49 = 322 yards. And only 1% in Russia (3.2 yards). Everything else is in the West. In T-bills, in other forms of investments - no difference, the key phrase is in the West.
              Draw your own conclusions.
              1. ssergn
                ssergn 28 October 2015 19: 58 New
                0
                Damn, Igor, you and I were cut off for the United States, and not for the West. If you had this in mind - it’s not a question, only words cannot be ejected from a song, they wrote about the USA. You can assume that I find fault, but still ...
    2. aleksfill
      aleksfill 28 October 2015 09: 57 New
      +3
      Yes, expensive, however, targets for Russian air defense. Well wait, for 10 years
      until they are about to launch them in a series and we will not stand still.
      1. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K 28 October 2015 10: 57 New
        +2
        Quote: aleksfill
        Yes, expensive, however, targets for Russian air defense. Well wait, for 10 years
        until they are about to launch them in a series and we will not stand still.

        These aircraft will never be targets for any air defense, including ours. Missile launches (rockets also develop gradually) will be carried out for 2000 km from the zones of protected air defense. Our strategists also expect to beat the enemy at a distance from the enemy’s air defense.
        The second one. We are already standing still. Tupolevs have just begun designing our PAK YES. And this aircraft is already worse in all respects in comparison with the strategist of the Sukhoi Design Bureau T-4 (manufactured in 1972) and even more so the T-4MS. The only thing they will take into account is the reduced visibility and modern computer equipment.
        So we are definitely in complete stagnation until 2050, when Russia will finally understand that because of the Tupolevites Russia will be left without strategic aviation.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 28 October 2015 11: 03 New
          +6
          We are already standing still.

          I remember designing a few years ago. and even decided on the look already, there is OCD, there is a design of nodes and mechanisms. Compared to the T-4 ???? Are you seriously? Again, compare warm to soft? Subsonic strategist with supersonic? Tupolevites are the only ones who make strategists in our country. They ate a dog on this and more than one. And you say that because of them we will be left without these aircraft.
          Something logic is some kind of curve.
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 28 October 2015 14: 25 New
          0
          In the development of modern air defense systems, fundamentally new aircraft are needed, namely hypersonic aerospace.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 28 October 2015 15: 38 New
            0
            fundamentally new aircraft are needed, namely hypersonic aerospace.

            Yes, who would argue. Only here is no such engine yet. If you create a glider, it’s not a problem already, then in dual-mode engines, the snag is very difficult.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 28 October 2015 18: 59 New
              0
              We have made such an engine and it is undergoing final tests.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Mera joota
      Mera joota 28 October 2015 13: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: Andrea
      Another budget eater.

      Have you ever watched their budget? Defense spending compared with spending on social programs, education, and even more so medicine.
  3. Windy
    Windy 28 October 2015 09: 49 New
    +3
    Northrop? So there will be a simplified version of B-2.
  4. Vladimyrych
    Vladimyrych 28 October 2015 09: 50 New
    -3
    Most likely Lockheed Martin will be. He’s so fun at breaking programs and cutting loot laughing
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 28 October 2015 10: 15 New
      11
      Quote: Vladimir
      Most likely Lockheed Martin will be. He’s so fun at breaking programs and cutting loot

      Another victim of the exam
      "saw, saw, saw ..."

      Lockheed built the U-2 high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, the most popular Hercules transporter in the world, the Orion naval aircraft and Galaxy heavy transport, which had no analogues in carrying capacity for 15 years. Ballistic missiles for submarines - Polaris, Poseidon, Trident (1 and 2).

      Among the well-known space projects of the Lockheed firm: the Agen booster block, the Korona series reconnaissance satellites, and the orbital Hubble telescope.

      The second member of the corporation is Martin Marietta. She successfully mastered the chemical industry and built the world's first floating nuclear power plant. But the main glory of this office was also associated with space:

      Interplanetary probes of the Viking series, spent on the surface of Mars from four to six years.

      Station “Magellan”, performed a detailed mapping of the surface of Venus.

      ICBMs of the “Titan” series and a family of launch vehicles based on them.

      Intercontinental ballistic missile MX heavy class.

      The ballistic missile medium range “Pershing-2” with a maneuvering warhead.

      The cold flickering of stars, the dust of Martian storms and precision weapons ...

      A new chapter in the story began in 1995, when Lockheed and Martin Marietta merged into a single company, turning into Lockheed Martin.

      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 28 October 2015 10: 24 New
          +9
          Quote: Vladimir
          And I have written:

          Read books before writing

          Lockheed Martin - 70 years of history, implemented dozens of complex projects - what are the Hubble and the Viking rovers. And the Skank Works special department with Clarence Johnson at the head
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 28 October 2015 11: 55 New
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Lockheed built the U-2 high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, the world's most popular Hercules transporter, the Orion maritime aircraft, and Galaxy heavy transport, which had no analogues in payload for 15 years.

        And also the F-104 aircraft, which became one of the reasons for the Lockheed scandal. smile

        So, just one scandal - and the company's reputation has been tarnished for many years. Few people already remember what was the matter with this scandal, but the fact itself is not forgotten.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 28 October 2015 22: 44 New
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          And also the F-104 aircraft, which became one of the reasons for the Lockheed scandal.

          And what was the scandal, can you recall?


          The fact that the son of the then President of the Bundestag Kai-Uwe von Hassel accidentally crashed on this car on March 10, 1970

          As of the end of the 60's. the average flight time of German F-104G per accident was 2970 hours, while that of American F-104С was 5950 hours.


          For comparison: the accident rate of Soviet fighters was expressed by approximately the same values: MiG-21 - raid on one accident 4422 h, MiG-19 - 4474 h, an absolute anti-record set Su-7, beating every 2245 hours (well-known aphorism: Sukhoi designer, and wet technician). Common stories for aircraft of that era.

          Noteworthy is the statistics of the Spanish Air Force: not a single “Strafighter” lost in the seven years of their operation (from the 20 fighters that were available). Even taking into account their low intensity of operation, under ideal weather conditions, this result does not confirm the reputation of the F-104 as the emergency fighter itself.

          .

          F-104 “Starfighter” was the first production fighter to break the line of two speeds of sound. In the 1959 year, he set an absolute world record, rising to a height of 31 kilometer. Remained in service for 15 years. the last Italian F-104ASA were withdrawn from service in 2004



          Obviously, not the most unsuccessful aircraft in the history of aviation
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 28 October 2015 11: 51 New
      +2
      Quote: Vladimir
      Most likely Lockheed Martin will be. He’s so fun at breaking programs and cutting loot

      Now you won’t be able to saw alone. The same YAL-1A program was attended by Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin.

      And the notoriety of corrupt officials was assigned to Lockheed only because in the 70s the corporation violated the 11 commandment - "Don't get caught". And away we go -" Lockheed’s case "," Lockheed scandal "... the name of the company became a household name. And all because of 22 megabytes spent on bribes. smile
  5. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 28 October 2015 09: 50 New
    +3
    which later had to be abandoned due to the high price. The cost of one aircraft reached $ 2 billion.

    old bike, reprinted from article to article

    2 billion dollars - B-2 Total Lifecycle Cost, with spare parts and maintenance, upgrades, all equipment and an auxiliary power unit, complete with the aircraft, a pilot training program and, of course, R&D



    details - http://topwar.ru/41871-samolet-kak-slitok-zolota-paradoksy-sovremennoy-aviacii.h



    tml

    Moreover, in the case of the B-2 we are talking about a monstrous combat vehicle with take-off weight of 180 tons. The cost of the life cycle of Spirit is as high as that of the domestic Tu-160


    Life Cycle = Life Cycle

    Who doesn’t understand what it’s about, let him chatter further about “cuts in the Pentagon,” without even delving into the essence of the purely Russian concept of “cut”
    1. Varyag_1973
      Varyag_1973 28 October 2015 10: 45 New
      +7
      The cost of one B-2 = 1,157 BILLION, the cost of Tu-160 is 250 million evergreens! That is 4,6 times cheaper than our plane! Our speed is twice as high, our combat load is 40% more, our ceiling is 6,7 km higher. Our combat radius is 2000 km more! Give me at least one indicator because of which, it would be worth paying such a loot for this flying UG, which by the way is very unstable in flight!

      You compare the hot with the round and try to shove the unbeatable here!
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 28 October 2015 10: 49 New
        +4
        You compare the hot with the round and try to shove the unbeatable here!

        So you compare the subsonic stealth bomber with a supersonic strategic missile carrier. We have no B-2 analogues.
        1. Varyag_1973
          Varyag_1973 28 October 2015 11: 02 New
          +4
          We have no B-2 analogues.

          And God forbid us from such analogues! Weapons should be effective, not spectacular!

          Why have 20 prodigies worth more than a billion each, if you can only use them against banana republics that do not have serious air defense ?! For the bombing of countries such as Iraq and Libya, a B-52 is enough, and for the bombing of Russia, neither a B-52 nor a B-2 are suitable!
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 28 October 2015 11: 06 New
            0
            and for the bombing of Russia, neither B-52 nor B-2 are suitable!

            Yes, here's how to see more. If you fasten there hypersonic long-range missiles, and put them there a couple of dozen. Stealth will allow reaching the line of attack even when AWACS planes are hanging in the air, dropped rockets and left.
            1. fzr1000
              fzr1000 28 October 2015 11: 12 New
              +2
              Stealth will not allow. Is it still not clear? Moreover, there are only 21 of them and their places of deployment are known and visible from space, especially since there are no hypersonic missiles in the United States so far. But they have underwater missile carriers. Lot. And this is a terrible weapon.
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 28 October 2015 11: 38 New
                +2
                that there are no hypersonic missiles in the USA yet

                Not yet. But they will appear. Ours are also developing this topic.
            2. Varyag_1973
              Varyag_1973 28 October 2015 11: 14 New
              +1
              What stealth, I beg you, do not tell! The Fu-117 was also considered "invisible", but only the Americans forgot to warn the Serbs about it, and those, completely unaware of the "invisibility", they took and spotted its antediluvian radar, and then also antediluvian S-200 and shot down !
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 28 October 2015 11: 34 New
                +1
                and those, being completely unaware of the "invisibility", took yes and spotted it antediluvian radar, and then also antediluvian C-200 and shot down!

                Well, first of all, the Yankees themselves are to blame for their stealth flying only on several routes, and almost ran into an ambush. Secondly, they detected it visually, and the missile was pointed when the bomb opened the bomb, its EPR increased and naturally got an warhead in its belly. These are, so to speak, the most current versions of how they shot down.
                Now imagine that such a plane flies at an altitude of 15 thousand meters. At what distance will the AWACS plane detect it? And will it not be too late when the rockets are already fired, and he escapes from the launch site?
                1. Varyag_1973
                  Varyag_1973 28 October 2015 12: 24 New
                  +1
                  Again, you are wrong! All locations are well known and tracked from outer space, both with us and with them! Therefore, the probability of reaching the borders of the zone of use of weapons and remaining unnoticed is equal, if not zero, then somewhere close to this! I can admit that a single plane may go unnoticed, but what's the use of one bomber for a country like Russia ?! Well, even if they dare to strike, they will strike in a massive way and most likely only with cruise missiles and from a maximum distance! But then again, if a massive take-off of bombers is recorded, it is unlikely that Russia will sit and wait for a blow to us, most likely they will lift into the air all that is and fighter-interceptors in the first place! And MiG-31 will intercept any V-2 long before they use bombs and missiles!
                  1. Wedmak
                    Wedmak 28 October 2015 12: 46 New
                    +1
                    All locations are well known and tracked from outer space, both with us and with them!

                    You still have to get to the basing places. What do you order to destroy planes there, if this place is deep in the country and is surrounded by an air defense system? And if take-off is carried out at night? A strategist can overcome several thousand kilometers in any direction in a few hours, and a satellite hangs over an object in just a few tens of minutes. There are windows when the satellites are not hanging at all. Finding a flying airplane from a satellite over an area of ​​millions of square kilometers is a difficult task.
                    that a single aircraft may go unnoticed, but what's the use of one bomber for a country like Russia ?!

                    If the strike is nuclear, losses from even one aircraft will be critical.
                    Well, even if they dare to strike, they will strike in a massive way and most likely only with cruise missiles and from a maximum distance!

                    But I agree with this, it has already been discussed.
                    if a mass take-off of bombers is recorded, it is unlikely that Russia will sit and wait for a strike against us

                    In our defense strategy, it is written about the use of nuclear weapons proactively. Anyway, we won’t be able to bring down all hundreds of American KR and bombers. And Europe also has a missile defense. Who can guarantee that those anti-ballistic missiles SM-3 are somehow not really ballistic medium-range nuclear warheads ???
                    But back to our question: an inconspicuous aircraft with hypersonic weapons has a very good chance of finding a hole in our air defense system and striking Moscow before it is discovered and shot down. Distracting blows are possible so that one leaks out. After that, the account of the victims will go to thousands and it will be useless to appeal to the voice of reason. I have no doubt in the answer of our military. I doubt that then at least someone will care about who started the mess.

                    And judging by the rhetoric of American hawks, they won’t stop at anything, just to harm Russia’s maximum, but it’s better to destroy it. With hope to sit out, as in the old days, on his own continent, supplying weapons to Warring Europe. Moreover, the hegemony of the United States has been a clear threat.
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 28 October 2015 15: 08 New
                  0
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  Secondly, they spotted him visually, and the rocket was pointed when the bomb opened the bomb, his EPR increased and naturally got himself an warhead in his belly. These are, so to speak, the most current versions of how they shot down.

                  EMNIP, there was still a version that detected the approach of the "lame goblin" just using the surveillance radar. And they gave TsU on S-125. But SNR-125 could not give a normal reflected signal for capture / tracking on the RL channel - and I had to start based on data from the backup optical channel.
      2. 33 Watcher
        33 Watcher 28 October 2015 10: 57 New
        +3
        You know, of course I agree with you that ours is better! But..! Better, yes, no better. Now, when our MO order 100 pieces of Tu-160M, and receive them, then it will be really good! And by and large, I don’t really care how much it will cost, the main thing to do.
        1. homedition
          homedition 28 October 2015 12: 35 New
          0
          Then, when we will be provided with more necessary weapons at the moment.
      3. Vadim237
        Vadim237 28 October 2015 14: 29 New
        0
        The new Tu 160 will cost 18 billion rubles if not more.
  6. Vladimir 1964
    Vladimir 1964 28 October 2015 09: 51 New
    +3
    “The plane will replace the famous B-2 and B-52 bombers,” said Air Force Minister Deborah James.


    It would be interesting to learn something about the new aircraft, the saga with the F-35, we are no longer interested. yes
    1. GRAY
      GRAY 28 October 2015 11: 26 New
      +2
      Quote: Vladimir 1964
      It would be interesting to learn something about the new aircraft, the saga with the F-35, we are no longer interested.

      Join.
      Promotional video Northrop Grumman.
      Does anyone know what kind of turboprop pornography flies there? This is it?
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 29 October 2015 02: 49 New
        +1
        Quote: GRAY
        Does anyone know what kind of turboprop pornography flies there?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-35
        1. GRAY
          GRAY 29 October 2015 06: 12 New
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-35

          Thank you.
  7. A-Sim
    A-Sim 28 October 2015 09: 54 New
    0
    How unexpected ... Of the three, choose one. It was difficult.
  8. Engineer
    Engineer 28 October 2015 09: 56 New
    +2
    I wish them the same successful bomber as the F-35 successful fighter.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 28 October 2015 14: 35 New
      0
      And what's wrong with the F 35 he has a good glider, engines too, but with avionics and life support systems, suppliers and developers were very disappointing.
      1. Catafract
        Catafract 29 October 2015 01: 38 New
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        And what's wrong with the F 35 he has a good glider, engines too, but with avionics and life support systems, suppliers and developers were very disappointing.

        Yes, everything is in perfect order, the childhood illnesses that are present in each project have been inflated no more, nevertheless, the aircraft is serial and has already been accepted.
  9. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 28 October 2015 09: 58 New
    +6
    And why is the peace-loving Yankee a fresh strategic bomber?
    1. Corsair
      Corsair 28 October 2015 10: 17 New
      +3
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      And why is the peace-loving Yankee a fresh strategic bomber?

      Democracy and freedom will be thrown out of the bombs to the peoples suffering from dictatorship and tyrants ..
    2. GRAY
      GRAY 28 October 2015 10: 45 New
      +2
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      And why is the peace-loving Yankee a fresh strategic bomber?

      Screen from. Northrop Grumman website http://www.northropgrumman.com/Pages/default.aspx
      Learn the technique?
      1. GRAY
        GRAY 28 October 2015 10: 54 New
        +1
        Oh, they are also working on public opinion, people like should convince the government that this expensive crap is needed like air:
        http://capwiz.com/americasnewbomber/issues/alert/?alertid=67294626&PROCESS=Take+
        ACTION
      2. Wedmak
        Wedmak 28 October 2015 10: 57 New
        +7
        Blooper on a blooper. And is this a huge serious corporation? Scud (9K72 "Elbrus") threatens America? In the air? On the right, something very similar to the PU DBK "Ball". Are they serious? Only in the center of PAK FA, then again ... do not meddle with us and you will not see these aircraft on your radars.
        But the logic struck most of all: the opponents are developing defense strategies, we don’t like it, let's build bombers to attack and bomb everything.
        1. GRAY
          GRAY 28 October 2015 11: 06 New
          +2
          Quote: Wedmak
          Are they serious?

          Hamburger eaters do not delve into such trifles.
  10. Maksus
    Maksus 28 October 2015 09: 58 New
    +1
    They decided on the manufacturer, and who will develop?
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 28 October 2015 11: 02 New
      +1
      Quote: Maksus
      They decided on the manufacturer, and who will develop?

      Weird question? And who previously developed the B-52 and B-2? That will be.
  11. tchoni
    tchoni 28 October 2015 10: 10 New
    +4
    Pancake. This is a reason to think. Surely the machine will be VERY ambitious ... And not a cheesy fact. In here they shout: drank! Drank it up! - and in real life this money will go to the high-tech sector. For support and brainwashing. It is clear that not all money will go into business, but nonetheless ...
  12. solovey
    solovey 28 October 2015 10: 15 New
    +3
    Amers will still be printed with greens. 18 trillion of debt or 20 trillion is no longer a difference wink
  13. Oleg1080
    Oleg1080 28 October 2015 10: 15 New
    -1
    They’ll come up with 50 years, and then it turns out that this is a Belarus tractor ... and they will allocate additional money for gluing wings to it.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  14. cte-power
    cte-power 28 October 2015 10: 17 New
    0
    50 years will not work
    until the first blow - will reach
  15. tomsk
    tomsk 28 October 2015 10: 21 New
    +2
    Well, if such a byak went, then our VKS probably will not stay in debt. which means that our Tu-22 will have a refueling system in the air again and fear America with Europe! Is it just Europe? Isn’t it time to send the United States to three Russian letters? !!!
    1. Catafract
      Catafract 29 October 2015 01: 42 New
      0
      Quote: Tomsk
      our Tu-22 will have a refueling system in the air again and be afraid America with Europe!

      without fighter cover, these are flying targets.
  16. tyras85
    tyras85 28 October 2015 10: 31 New
    0
    At the choice of the manufacturer of a huge order, I see, they are trying to save money. But it will not work ...
  17. tomsk
    tomsk 28 October 2015 10: 34 New
    0
    B-52, although powerful but hopelessly outdated. and we don’t need to scare our population ... it will be taken by our air defense of any kind even at the start from the airfield ... I'm not talking about the approach to our borders.
    1. 33 Watcher
      33 Watcher 28 October 2015 11: 00 New
      +2
      Like the Tu-95, but nonetheless ...
  18. Wedmak
    Wedmak 28 October 2015 10: 44 New
    +1
    It’s curious what they’ll roll out. The project, as I understand it, is not yet. Even the appearance is not defined.
  19. Mama_Cholli
    Mama_Cholli 28 October 2015 11: 10 New
    0
    An order for 100 pieces of strategic bombers is serious.
    Ours need to think at least about parity ...
    How many TU-160 do we have?
    1. Your friend
      Your friend 28 October 2015 11: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: Mama_Cholli
      An order for 100 pieces of strategic bombers is serious.
      Ours need to think at least about parity ...
      How many TU-160 do we have?

      Are you seriously? What parity, compare our economies. No need to chase the United States, tear again.
  20. VP
    VP 28 October 2015 11: 35 New
    0
    Incomprehensible choice of the manufacturer.
    Surely they will try to make it using the technologies that are used in the development of the 35th.
    And they took out the whole brain Lockheed sharply lengthening and raising the cost of the project. Despite the fact that they already had experience on the 22nd.
    It would be more logical, probably, to entrust this to those who have already managed to eat a whole plantation of cacti and have some experience.
    Northrop will attack all the rakes again.
    Or Lockheeds just stopped trusting?
  21. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 28 October 2015 11: 44 New
    0
    Save the company. Lockheed crushed almost the entire defense order. For the same reasons, we are busy with MIG.
  22. 2s1122
    2s1122 28 October 2015 12: 43 New
    0
    And we will order this from the Moscow Region laughing
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 28 October 2015 12: 48 New
      +2
      And in my opinion a controversial project. If you look closely, there are a lot of absurdities.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Mera joota
        Mera joota 28 October 2015 13: 48 New
        +3
        Quote: Wedmak
        If you look closely, there are a lot of absurdities.

        So this is a joke ...
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 28 October 2015 14: 40 New
      0
      This ekranoplan aircraft carrier with a nuclear power plant, our economy will cost a trillion rubles.
      1. 2s1122
        2s1122 28 October 2015 17: 35 New
        0
        You’re kidding me, it’s also a futuristic sketch. But it looks great soldier
  23. Mera joota
    Mera joota 28 October 2015 13: 57 New
    +1
    It began .... drank, drank, drank ... The patriots of envy have nothing more to say? As if this money was taken from poor pensioners. The United States can afford to spend more than a trillion on medicine and rations to loafers who don’t work (and don’t intend) living on benefits and food stamps.
    Obama spent as much on obamaque (medical reform) as neither LM nor Boeing can even dream of.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 28 October 2015 14: 26 New
      +2
      The USA can afford and spend more than a trillion on medicine

      That's what they have paid medicine. And anyone comes to any sneeze with a bunch of zeros.
      and rations to loafers who don’t work (and don’t gather) living on benefits and food stamps.

      Dooh ?? So then unemployment is so big, why work if you can live on a freebie? Where does this soldering come from ...
      no matter how much LM or Boeing can even dream of.

      How much they spend on awkward child prodigies, it was already possible to fly to Mars in a manned ship.
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 28 October 2015 21: 14 New
        -1
        Quote: Wedmak
        That's what they have paid medicine. And anyone comes to any sneeze with a bunch of zeros.

        What does it have to do with it? The United States spends on medicine more than anyone else in the world, 8,5 thousand per person, i.e. about 2,7 trillion dollars a year. The military nervously smokes on the sidelines.
        Quote: Wedmak
        So then unemployment is so big, why work if you can live on a freebie?

        This is a problem for them, millions of Americans are plowing for themselves and for that black (mostly) guy who is the third generation living on benefits and food stamps, trades poison on the corner and is not averse to stir up anything for easy.
        Quote: Wedmak
        Where does this soldering come from ...

        From honest taxpayers. For example, on coupons (food stamps) you can stock up on average $ 143 a month in groceries. Our pensioners and the poor did not even dream of such happiness. And they sue the state, like you can’t buy healthy food at the food stamp, hence the extra weight ...
        Quote: Wedmak
        How much they spend on awkward child prodigies, it was already possible to fly to Mars in a manned ship.

        And do hell there? Are there living conditions there? No, robots are quite suitable for studying Mars, which is what NASA is basically doing.
    2. Your friend
      Your friend 28 October 2015 14: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: Mera Joota
      It began .... drank, drank, drank ... The patriots of envy have nothing more to say? As if this money was taken from poor pensioners. The United States can afford to spend more than a trillion on medicine and rations to loafers who don’t work (and don’t intend) living on benefits and food stamps.
      Obama spent as much on obamaque (medical reform) as neither LM nor Boeing can even dream of.

      I drank and no one canceled in the US why argue. Another thing is that despite all the cuts, the US economy is still in the first place, like their army.
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 28 October 2015 21: 18 New
        0
        Quote: Your friend
        I drank and no one canceled in the US why argue.

        I drank it when I mastered the money in my pockets, giving out a "cardboard fool" for the product. In the United States, this is more relevant by the way medicine, the highest costs in the world, and the quality is far from the first place. Because Obama began the fight on this front.
  24. mamont5
    mamont5 28 October 2015 14: 00 New
    +1
    They were already making a new fighter. To be continued...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 28 October 2015 14: 43 New
      +1
      And they did F 22, but because of the trickiness with F 35, the problems came out.
  25. Old26
    Old26 29 October 2015 08: 17 New
    0
    Quote: Varyag_1973
    Again, you are wrong! All locations are well known and tracked from outer space, both with us and with them! Therefore, the probability of reaching the borders of the zone of use of weapons and remaining unnoticed is equal, if not zero, then somewhere close to this! ...

    You seem to have written everything correctly, but here are tracked bombers from satellites far from real-time. What do we have, what do they have. And right Wedmak, who wrote

    Quote: Wedmak
    Finding a flying airplane from a satellite over an area of ​​millions of square kilometers is a difficult task.


    Quote: Varyag_1973
    And MiG-31 will intercept any V-2 long before they use bombs and missiles!

    Alas, not a fact. The Yankees, after all, are not fools, to send bombers there even when the MIG-31 will be there. Yes, and MIG alas, not a strategist. So much in the air can not hang ...

    Quote: Wedmak
    Anyway, we won’t be able to bring down all hundreds of American KR and bombers. And Europe also has a missile defense. Who can guarantee that those anti-ballistic missiles SM-3 are somehow not really ballistic medium-range nuclear warheads ???

    I’m afraid that it’s not about hundreds, but about thousands of missile defense systems. The SM-3 missile defense systems simply cannot physically be missile defense systems. Now they have a head of 500-60 kg at ranges of 80 km. And the ballistic missile defense assumes much more, besides the charge itself, for example, a guidance system. And it turns out that the charge will have a weight of 3 tens of kilograms. The point is in such a charge, with a capacity of 40-50 ct. Yes, they have different delivery methods. BRDS should deliver a certain load over a long distance at a certain speed. A missile is a much smaller load, much closer, but with bОspeed.

    Quote: Uncle Lee
    And why is the peace-loving Yankee a fresh strategic bomber?

    Well, why do we need a new PAK YES? After all, there is TU-95, TU-160, finally