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

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

Comments

[75 hammer]

Saw, saw, saw .............

[jjj]

They’ll cut, as I think, much more than 2 billion apiece

[Now we are free]

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 ...
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 But this is also 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 by no means $ 511 million, and I think not 2 billion dollars ... In general, it's cool to print money yourself, you can create an airplane and for 3 trillion dollars to come up with and for one and a half trillion dollars to buy

"Sweet couple" - Serdyukov & Vasilyeva are children from the nursery Northrop Grumman -RULIT !!!

P.S. I wonder how many Northrop Grumman representatives "Brought" to the Senate and Min. defense of the United States to choose their plane? ..

[Baikonur]

Neighing heartily over the word "Brought"! Our school! Ameripedes on this subject already!

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Baikonur

Ameripedis about this graduate students are already

Not red-graduates ... Yankees are professors who teach hard science: how to "defeat" corruption, renaming it lobbying.

[Cat man null]

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" is, IMHO, in vain

[Kostyar]

They make them from platinum and inlaid with trousers.... ?????!

[222222]

on the topic ... http: //bmpd.livejournal.com/1548962.html

.. "" "Americans are only capable of copying .. writing and babloping ..." ""

[insafufa]

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

[AAV]

"Judge not lest ye be judged"

You might think that everything is clean and smooth in the Russian defense industry.
The construction of the Vostochny cosmodrome alone is worth ...

[Your friend]

Quote: AAV

"Judge not lest ye be judged"

You might think that everything is clean and smooth in the Russian defense industry.
The construction of the Vostochny cosmodrome alone 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.

[Abakan]

Whack, Whack, Whack-Whack-Whack))))

[Dreiko11]

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 ...

[Coconut Tima]

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.

[lelikas]

Quote: Tim Coconuts

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.

[andre]

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 !!!!

[marlin1203]

If they have fu35y such money, what will be the real price tag for the bomber? they will probably start to make it of gold right away, in order to justify expenses somehow

[Andrea]

Another budget eater. Congratulations to the Americans with a successful cut.

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Andrea

Congratulations to the Americans on a successful cut.

What difference does it make to them, they print greenery - that's all. And all progressive humanity will pay. And we, too, because most of our "money box" in the US GKO.

[ssergn]

Yah? Show!!!!
Publicity requires !!!

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: ssergn

Yah? Show!!!!

What to show you? What if I'm shy?
but seriously -

[ssergn]

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-box"

Well, it does not pull.

I'm just about it.

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: ssergn

Where is 385 and where is 70. Something somehow on

I will insist - more than 30% of the currency "moneybox" is in the United States, 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.

[ssergn]

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 ...

[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.

[Aleksey_K]

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.

[Wedmak]

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.

[Vadim237]

In the development of modern air defense systems, fundamentally new aircraft are needed, namely hypersonic aerospace.

[Wedmak]

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.

[Vadim237]

We have made such an engine and it is undergoing final tests.

[Mera joota]

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.

[Windy]

Northrop? So there will be a simplified version of B-2.

[Vladimyrych]

Most likely Lockheed Martin will be. He’s so fun at breaking programs and cutting loot

[Santa Fe]

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.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Vladimir

And I have written:

Read books before writing

Lockheed Martin - 70 years of history, dozens of complex projects have been implemented - which are the value of Hubble and the Viking rovers. And the special department "Skunk Works" with Clarence Johnson at the head

[Alexey RA]

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".

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.

[Santa Fe]

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.

Etc.

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

[Alexey RA]

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 Lockheed's notorious reputation for corruption was only fixed because in the 70s the corporation violated the 11th commandment - "Don't get caught". And away we go -" the Lockheed case "," the Lockheed scandal "... the name of the company has become a household name. And only because of the 22 megabax spent on bribes.

[Santa Fe]

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 life cycle cost of "Spirit" is as high as that of the domestic Tu-160

Life Cycle = Life Cycle

Whoever does not understand what it is about - let them mumble further about "sawing in the Pentagon", without even delving into the essence of the purely Russian concept of "sawing"

[Varyag_1973]

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!

[Wedmak]

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.

[Varyag_1973]

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!

[Wedmak]

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.

[fzr1000]

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.

[Wedmak]

that there are no hypersonic missiles in the USA yet

Not yet. But they will appear. Ours are also developing this topic.

[Varyag_1973]

What stealth, I beg you, don't tell me! Fu-117 was also considered "invisible", but only the Americans forgot to warn the Serbs about this, and they, being completely unaware of the "invisibility", took it and spotted it with an antediluvian radar, and then the same antediluvian S-200 and shot down !

[Wedmak]

and those, being completely unaware of the "invisibility", took and spotted it with an antediluvian radar station, and then the antediluvian S-200 and shot it 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?

[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! 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!

[Wedmak]

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.

[Alexey RA]

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 another version that they detected the approach of the "lame goblin" just with the help of the surveillance radar. And they issued a control center for the C-125. But the SNR-125 on the radar channel could not give a normal return signal for capture / tracking - and had to launch based on data from the backup optical channel.

[33 Watcher]

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.

[homedition]

Then, when we will be provided with more necessary weapons at the moment.

[Vadim237]

The new Tu 160 will cost 18 billion rubles if not more.

[Vladimir 1964]

“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.

[GRAY]

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?

[Santa Fe]

Quote: GRAY

Does anyone know what kind of turboprop pornography flies there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-35

[GRAY]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-35

Thank you.

[A-Sim]

How unexpected ... Of the three, choose one. It was difficult.

[Engineer]

I wish them the same successful bomber as the F-35 successful fighter.

[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.

[Catafract]

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.

[Uncle lee]

And why is the peace-loving Yankee a fresh strategic bomber?

[Corsair]

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 ..

[GRAY]

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?

[GRAY]

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

[Wedmak]

A blooper on a blooper. And this is a huge, serious corporation? Scud (9K72 Elbrus) threatens America? In the air? On the right is something very similar to the ballistic missile launcher "Bal". Are they serious? Only in the center of the PAK FA, again ... do not meddle with us and you will not see these planes 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.

[GRAY]

Quote: Wedmak

Are they serious?

Hamburger eaters do not delve into such trifles.

[Maksus]

They decided on the manufacturer, and who will develop?

[Aleksey_K]

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.

[tchoni]

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 ...

[solovey]

Amers will still be printed with greens. 18 trillion of debt or 20 trillion is no longer a difference

[Oleg1080]

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.

[cte-power]

50 years will not work
until the first blow - will reach

[tomsk]

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? !!!

[Catafract]

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.

[tyras85]

At the choice of the manufacturer of a huge order, I see, they are trying to save money. But it will not work ...

[tomsk]

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.

[33 Watcher]

Like the Tu-95, but nonetheless ...

[Wedmak]

It’s curious what they’ll roll out. The project, as I understand it, is not yet. Even the appearance is not defined.

[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?

[Your friend]

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.

[VP]

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?

[chunga-changa]

Save the company. Lockheed crushed almost the entire defense order. For the same reasons, we are busy with MIG.

[2s1122]

And we will order this from the Moscow Region

[Wedmak]

And in my opinion a controversial project. If you look closely, there are a lot of absurdities.

[Mera joota]

Quote: Wedmak

If you look closely, there are a lot of absurdities.

So this is a joke ...

[Vadim237]

This ekranoplan aircraft carrier with a nuclear power plant, our economy will cost a trillion rubles.

[2s1122]

You’re kidding me, it’s also a futuristic sketch. But it looks great

[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 has spent as much on Obamakea (medical reform) as neither LM nor Boeing can even dream of.

[Wedmak]

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.

[Mera joota]

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.

[Your friend]

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 has spent as much on Obamakea (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.

[Mera joota]

Quote: Your friend

I drank and no one canceled in the US why argue.

I drank it when the money was mastered in my pockets, giving out a "cardboard fool" for the product. In the United States, this is more about medicine, by the way, costs are the highest in the world, and quality is far from being in the first place. That is why Obama started the fight on this very front.

[mamont5]

They were already making a new fighter. To be continued...

[Vadim237]

And they did F 22, but because of the trickiness with F 35, the problems came out.

[Old26]

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