Military Review

The National Interest: beware of the supersonic Tu-160

114
The first case of the combat use of strategic bombers Tu-95MS and Tu-160 became real news weeks and, quite expectedly, did not go unnoticed by foreign experts and the media. Both domestic and foreign publications point out the uniqueness of the recent operation and its importance for stories Russian Air Force. In addition, attempts are being made to understand the first results of the use of strategic bombers and to predict its possible impact on various processes in the future.


As an example of the reaction of the foreign press to the recent actions of the Air and Space Forces of Russia, consider the material of The Russian Air Force's Super Bomber: Beware the Supersonic Tu-160 (Russian Super Bomber: Beware of the supersonic Tu-160) of the American edition of The National Interest, published on November 18 . The author of this article, Dave Majumdar, recalled the history of the Russian "super-bomber", reviewed his current state, and also studied its strategic potential in the matter of solving combat missions.

At the beginning of his article, the author reminds his readers that the combat debut of the Russian strategic bomber Tu-160 had taken place the day before. Several planes of this type hit the objects of the terrorist organization Islamic State, which was banned in Russia and other countries. This operation and its “main character” are the subject of the article.

The National Interest: beware of the supersonic Tu-160


The aircraft Tu-160 in NATO was given the symbol Blackjack. In Russia, in turn, the unofficial nickname “The White Swan” is widely used. D. Majumdar notes that this nickname is associated with some features of the aircraft: they have a characteristic white "anti-nuclear" color and a thin silhouette. Tu-160 was the last strategic missile carrier, created in the Soviet Union before its collapse. The initial task of these aircraft was to “turn the cold war into a hot one” - the delivery of nuclear ammunition to targets in the United States. In the future, Russian specialists refined this aircraft and made it possible to use non-nuclear weapons. According to the author, the Tu-160 is a kind of response to the last American strategic bomber during the Cold War - the subtle B-2.

According to the company Tupolev, the development of the project of a promising "super bomber" started in the early seventies, i.e. shortly before the start of work on the project B-2. The sketch project was prepared by the middle of the same decade, and the first flight took place on December 18 1981. The prototype of the new aircraft was controlled by the crew of the test pilot BI Veremea

Flight tests of the first production aircraft of the new model began in October 1984 of the year. After some time, this car was handed over to the air force. The Blackjack service in the military began in April 1987, when the first of the serial aircraft was transferred to the 184 Guards Heavy Bomb Aviation Regiment, which served in Priluki (now Ukraine). This compound in a few years received a new type of 19 aircraft, whereas a total of 35 machines were built. After the collapse of the USSR, the aircraft of the 184 regiment remained independent to Ukraine.

D. Majumdar recalls that eight "Ukrainian" aircraft in the late nineties were transferred to Russia, so that the Russian Aerospace Forces currently have 16 Tu-160. The remaining aircraft in Ukraine were disposed of. The same bombers, who managed to change the owner and survive, are being upgraded. During repairs, they receive new avionics and the possibility of using new types of weapons.

Not so long ago, Russia announced its desire to resume the mass production of its "super bombers". According to The National Interest, production will be conducted at the Kazan Aviation Plant from 2023. It is planned to build at least fifty new aircraft. In addition, simultaneously with the construction of the new Tu-160, the development of the PAK DA project will continue, the goal of which is to create an entirely new strategic bomber. Here D. Majumdar asks one of her favorite questions: how is Russia going to pay for new airplanes, even if their production is planned for a fairly distant future. In this context, the author refers to the statements of the Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia, Yuri Borisov. Previously, he argued that the construction of a new version of the Tu-160 aircraft would begin in the 2023 year. The deadlines for the implementation of the PAK DA project will be shifted to ensure the implementation of all existing plans.

The new version of the aircraft "Blackjack" should receive the designation Tu-160М2. Probably, the glider of this bomber will be fully borrowed from the base project. In this case, there is information about the intention to use new engines and modern radio-electronic equipment. A few months ago, Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an interview with one of the leaders of the Concern "Radioelectronic Technologies". In July, Vladimir Mikheev said that only the platform itself would remain in the new project from the base project. It will be installed only new avionics with enhanced performance.

The newest US strategic bomber, the B-2, relies on its stealth when carrying out its tasks. In the case of the Tu-160, the successful accomplishment of the task is ensured by the possibility of movement at high speed, as well as by the presence of long-range cruise missiles that must deliver warheads to the specified targets. The Tu-160 has four dual-circuit turbojet engines with an afterburner of the type NK-32 with a maximum thrust of 55 thousand pounds (25 thousand kgf). This power plant allows you to reach speeds of the order of M = 2,05, but in practice it is recommended to reach speeds of no more than one and a half speeds of sound. Such requirements are associated with reducing the load on the airframe and saving the resource.

The essence of the concept of using “Blackjacks” is that the aircraft must go to the launch area as soon as possible, and then launch the cruise missiles before the conditional opponent has time to react to it. Commenting on similar methods of combat use, D. Majumdar refers to his acquaintances from the air and naval forces of the United States. According to them, intercepting a high-altitude air target flying at a speed of about M = 2 is an extremely difficult task, even for modern and highly efficient fighters such as the F-15C.

The armament of the missile carrier Tu-160 is placed on two drum launchers placed inside the fuselage. Each such installation has mounts for six cruise missiles. The main armament of these aircraft is the X-55 cruise missile, which can fly a distance of 1600 miles (2500 km) and deliver a nuclear warhead to the target. In addition, there is an improved version of this missile called X-555, the main difference of which is the use of a conventional warhead. The National Interest author notes that these missiles will be replaced in the future with new weaponswhich was created in recent years.

In the official video of the Russian Ministry of Defense, demonstrating the use of "super-bomber" in Syria, a new cruise missile was shown. The attack on the targets of the terrorists was carried out using the latest X-101 cruise missiles. Among other things, according to D. Majumdar, this means that the nuclear version of the missile, known as X-102, has been adopted. The appearance and the start of exploitation of such weapons allows Blackjack to maintain its status as an extremely dangerous enemy.

The author recalls the uniquely high performance of the Russian aircraft. The Tu-160 carries on the internal suspension an enormous payload weighing up to 88 thousand pounds (40 t). For comparison, the F-15E fighter fully loaded and loaded weighs about the same. The maximum take-off weight of the Tu-160 reaches 606 thousand pounds (275 t). Thanks to this, the bomber retains the title of the heaviest combat aircraft currently in service.

It is noted that the Tu-160 can be considered a response to the American B-2. In this case, however, two aircraft differ in methods of application. B-2, using its stealth, must break through the enemy's air defense and strike at key targets. Tu-160, in turn, is the carrier of cruise missiles and the “launch platform”, which should not overcome air defense. Thus, the aircraft can not be considered direct analogues.

D. Majumdar completes his article with an interesting conclusion and comparison of two aircraft, as well as two combat use concepts. He notes that stealth planes are extremely expensive, but can use relatively cheap ammunition. Platforms like the Tu-160 differ from low-profile aircraft at a lower cost, but are intended for the use of more complex and expensive ammunition. Both of these concepts, despite significant differences, can ensure the effective delivery of warheads to the intended targets. The author expresses the hope that humanity will never have to compare in practice which of these concepts is better.

***

From the very beginning of his article, D. Majumdar has been trying to compare the Russian Tu-160 bomber and the American B-2, which raises some questions. These aircraft were never considered analogs and have too many differences to be considered similar. However, the author later explains his thought. At the end of the article, he compares the methods of application and the concepts themselves that underlie the two projects. As a result, this idea boils down to the “confrontation” of two systems: “expensive aircraft, inexpensive weapons” and “inexpensive aircraft, expensive weapons”. For obvious reasons, the author cannot assert which of these systems is better, and also does not want this to become clear in practice, in the course of an armed conflict.

Such a comparison of two strategic bombers created at the end of the Cold War is the most interesting point of the whole article. In addition, it can be noted that at the end of the article, talking about record-breaking characteristics, the author almost admires the Russian aircraft, including indicating the “enormous” payload and comparing it with a mass of American fighters. Nevertheless, he, as always, tries to maintain objectivity.

One of the main conclusions of the article The Russian Air Force's Super Bomber: Beware the Supersonic Tu-160 is that, despite the differences from other aircraft of its class. The Russian “super-bomber” Tu-160 still remains a dangerous opponent for the enemies of Russia. He is able to quickly reach the launch line and "unload" 12 cruise missiles with nuclear or conventional warheads. The arsenal of a bomber has recently been replenished with new missiles, which allows it to maintain and increase its strike potential, as well as to confirm the status of a dangerous enemy that should be feared.


Article "The Russian Air Force's Super Bomber: Beware the Supersonic Tu-160":
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-russian-air-forces-super-bomber-beware-the-supersonic-tu-14385
Author:
114 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
    1. aba
      aba 20 November 2015 06: 43 New
      24
      why print entogo majumdar

      No, why so ?!
      It is interesting to know how they see us, albeit through such ridiculous comparisons.
      1. aktanir
        aktanir 20 November 2015 07: 49 New
        15
        why an absurd comparison? the author is objective and himself says what are the main differences between the NATO and Russian bombers. Good material, just not added for the sake of fairness information about the size of the "white swan" - this is a really huge plane, therefore its thrust-to-weight ratio has no analogues. It's a pity that new ones will start arriving only after 2023 and the PAK DA project was "released" on a long voyage.
        1. krokodil25
          krokodil25 20 November 2015 08: 14 New
          51
          In fact, the TU-160 should be compared with the B 1 Lancer and not with this cake B2 request No.
          1. Malkor
            Malkor 20 November 2015 09: 04 New
            +7
            What stealth is strategic V-2 ??? Just Tu160 for breaking through supersonic air defense, cruising economic subsonic speed. Only now, thanks to the range of the missiles, it is not necessary to fly into the air defense zone. Which d.u.r.a.k. will drive the V-2 in order to bomb out cheap OFAB ??
            1. the most important
              the most important 20 November 2015 09: 20 New
              +8
              Quote: Malkor
              Just Tu160 for breaking through air defense at supersonic

              And also, and to a greater extent, it is intended to treat the dementia of the regimes that use barmaley for their political purposes not only in Syria, but also in the Caucasus ... .to. the bomb dad is more effective than the CD due to the much larger warhead mass, and it won't be difficult for the White Swan to "walk" back and forth, but brains, if they are available, will start working for many ..
              1. umah
                umah 20 November 2015 09: 32 New
                18
                Majumdar refers to his friends from the U.S. Air Force and Navy. According to them, intercepting a high-altitude air target flying at a speed of the order of M = 2 is an extremely difficult task even for modern and highly efficient fighters, such as the F-15C

                X-55 flies on 2500 km. X-102 - at 5000 km. How are they going to intercept the Tu-160 at such a range? No interceptor aircraft with this range. And if launches are over the Arctic, then there will be no opposition at all.
              2. FID
                FID 20 November 2015 11: 13 New
                +5
                Quote: the most important
                since the bomb dad is more effective than the CD due to the much larger warhead mass, and it won't be difficult for the White Swan to "walk" back and forth, but the brains, if they are available, will start working for many ..

                I have never heard something about the Tu-160 equipment with free-falling ammunition ...
                1. Nik_One
                  Nik_One 20 November 2015 14: 37 New
                  +2
                  Because we have too few of them to use as an ordinary bomber. All Tu-160 are missile carriers.
                  1. Talgat
                    Talgat 20 November 2015 20: 19 New
                    +1
                    Yes, of course - platforms for launching the Kyrgyz Republic

                    And the analogue to compare will not be B2 (like this Majumdar), but a similar B1 - also supersonic and even outwardly similar in some way - only smaller
            2. Evgeny_Lev
              Evgeny_Lev 20 November 2015 09: 30 New
              +2
              Having fantasized, you can offer the author to compare not Lebed and B2, but B2 and X 101/102))
              1. PSih2097
                PSih2097 20 November 2015 12: 23 New
                +2
                Quote: Evgeny_Lev
                a B2 and X 101/102))

                AGM-129 ACM with B2 flies on 3 - 500 km.
                1. eucledes
                  eucledes 20 November 2015 12: 54 New
                  -2
                  Quote: PSih2097
                  AGM-129 ACM with B2

                  So.
                  Plus, the AGM-129 is a stealth version of a cruise missile for a stealth bomber.
            3. FID
              FID 20 November 2015 11: 15 New
              +8
              Quote: Malkor
              Just Tu160 for breaking through supersonic air defense, cruising economic subsonic speed

              Yes, he doesn’t enter the air defense zone, and even more so at supersonic ... But to flee at supersonic is yes ... There are no defensive weapons on it!
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 20 November 2015 11: 56 New
                +4
                Quote: SSI
                There are no defensive weapons on it!

                Good day to you, Sergey Ivanovich. hi Somehow I came across an article on the test of one of the Swans for the reduction of EPR of visibility using plasma. But something after the project subsided.
                Now, the other day, on the Internet I came across an article that we are still working on the use of plasma. Moreover, we have already discussed not only the reduction of the EPR, but also the fact that thanks to such a plasma cocoon, the speed characteristics of aircraft increase by several times ...
                Best regards hi
                1. FID
                  FID 20 November 2015 13: 48 New
                  +3
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  Good day to you, Sergey Ivanovich.

                  Good day, Andrey! Zababakha at the end of the fuselage was for that purpose ... But in the early 90's you yourself understand. But about the increase in speed at times - these are fairy tales. Invisibility for radars - a plasma cocoon was supposed for this ...
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 20 November 2015 14: 41 New
                    +2
                    Quote: SSI
                    Good day, Andrey! Zababakha at the end of the fuselage was for that purpose ... But in the early 90's you yourself understand. But about the increase in speed at times - these are fairy tales. Invisibility for radars - a plasma cocoon was supposed for this ...

                    Just yesterday I read an article about a plasma cocoon, and, as I understand it, cold plasma, which allows the aircraft to "glide" through the air, and therefore the speed becomes much higher. Apparently we are talking about a certain type of plasma ... I don't know.
                    One thing is definitely clear that such developments are being conducted in our country, however, as in the case of the adversary.
                    Best regards hi
                    1. cast iron
                      cast iron 22 November 2015 02: 07 New
                      0
                      Apparently we are talking about some kind of fabulous or mythical plasma))) You read how spacecraft reduce their speed. Suddenly it turns out that they slow down on the atmosphere, falling in a "cocoon" of plasma))) In this case, which is characteristic, their speed does not increase, but, on the contrary, decreases.
                2. tracer
                  tracer 20 November 2015 19: 10 New
                  +1
                  It does not seem to you that it is precisely because of this that it "quieted down". IN THE QUIET WHIRLPOOL there is always something to be found.
            4. PSih2097
              PSih2097 20 November 2015 12: 20 New
              0
              Quote: Malkor
              Which d.u.r.a.k. will drive the V-2 in order to bomb out cheap OFAB ??

              and 16 x B61-11 (340 kilotons) or 16 x B83 (1,1 megatons), 16 x AGM-129 ACM (5-150 kilotons) or 16 x AGM-131 SRAM II (200 kilotons) do you want?
              And that's not counting the rest of the ammunition ...
            5. edge
              edge 20 November 2015 16: 16 New
              +3
              Quote: Malkor
              Which d.u.r.a.k. will drive the V-2 in order to bomb out cheap OFAB ??

              probably a staffer, even the Yugoslavs showed that the enti invisible, in years, are stray by our (even obsolete) air defense systems.
            6. mvg
              mvg 20 November 2015 17: 26 New
              +1
              Imagine. He doesn’t use V-2 missiles, only bombs .. Therefore, free-falling bombs are his bread. Here are the d.u.r.a.k. and then they came up with .. request Probably they don’t understand at all ..
              CR has never been used on it, although it was written that in 2012 the integration into the BIUS was completed, the ability to use air-to-surface CRs.
              even the Yugoslavs showed that the enti invisible, in years, stray our (even obsolete) zrk.

              How many kilograms did you hit? wink Enough in your ear? ... fins and tails left? To show the world that they are not lying? Throwing up hands?

              Before you pour comments, look into the book at least some thread, suddenly there the letters will be familiar ..
          2. Cynic
            Cynic 20 November 2015 15: 54 New
            +2
            Yes, fairy tales are for preschool children _
            1984, Tu-160 was launched into serial production

            1985, the B-1B entered service with the U.S. Air Force

            Once again, the SSA drove through the face of the table, but a little time passed and the 160th was already the answer to B2 accepted for service ten years later!
          3. Xsanchez
            Xsanchez 20 November 2015 18: 16 New
            +2
            Actually, the amers didn’t succeed in B-1B: the small bomb bay did not allow it to carry cruise missiles, and in the modern world, it will not allow air defense to the point of dropping freely falling bombs.
          4. Peterhof 73
            Peterhof 73 21 November 2015 11: 25 New
            0
            Quote: krokodil25
            In fact, the TU-160 should be compared with the B 1 Lancer and not with this cake B2 request No.

            And what is the English word for "cow cake"? That's how it will be, so we need to call B-2. And in general, introduce an English classification of their devices, naming them in a language they understand. At the same time, take into account what they resemble visually.
            1. Serhio
              Serhio 29 November 2015 21: 24 New
              0
              Cow dung. And what? Sounds! lol
        2. yousha1980
          yousha1980 20 November 2015 13: 04 New
          +2
          Perhaps TU160M2 will be one of the elements of PAK-YES. After all, PAK-DA is not just a glider.
        3. anatoliy73
          anatoliy73 20 November 2015 14: 45 New
          0
          By the way, and it’s lousy - we don’t have 160s and their motor resources are not endless hi
          1. cast iron
            cast iron 22 November 2015 02: 09 New
            0
            Engines are not difficult to change.
        4. opus
          opus 20 November 2015 23: 52 New
          +4
          Quote: aktanir
          the author is objective and says himself what are the main differences between the NATO and Russian bombers.

          The author of Dave Majumdar, to put it mildly, is dumb, dumb and does not know corny history
          Here is this freight

          "writes" a lot (nonsense)

          Other rubbish retype
          ..
          Touched
          Quote: Dave Majumdar
          Tu-160 is a kind of response to the last American strategic bomber of the Cold War - the inconspicuous B-2.

          1. The design of the final version - product 70, project Tu-160M, aircraft "K" started in 1975 by the order of the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated June 26, 1974 and the decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR N 1040-348 of 19.12.1975.
          2. The first image of the Tu-160 known in the West - the same "satellite" image of the Tu-160 (the satellite was made from a civilian plane taking off from Bykovo airport November 25, 1981 DoD USA).

          the aircraft was named RAM-P ("Ramenskoye", unidentified model of equipment No. 16).
          3. Advanced Technology Bomber (ATV) started back under Carter, in 1979 (and dreamed in 1970),


          by 1980, something had formed

          4. The first contract for the supply of US Air Force B-2 aircraft was signed in 1981.
          The first two Tu-160 experienced series entered the 184th DA guard regiment in Priluki in Ukraine April 17, 1987 until the completion of state tests.
          1. opus
            opus 20 November 2015 23: 59 New
            +2
            5. To oppose Tu-160 and V-2S ("spirit of the Amurikan response to Tu-160") to each other least strangely




            Quote: Dave Majumdar
            Commenting on such methods of combat use, D. Majumdar refers to his friends from the US Air Force and Navy.

            Who will speak with this Indo-Pakistani in USNAVI and USAIF?
            Yes, and he is young to "have friends."
            He saw planes only at exhibitions.

            Here's the cockpit EA-18G Growler climbed .. well, really for the 35th anniversary.

            blog in a word tweet
      2. 79807420129
        79807420129 20 November 2015 09: 33 New
        24
        I watched the footage when Swans were disposed of in Ukraine, it was so teardrops, it hurt so much, the whole Khokhlyat essence was sold for our mother’s money, then we offered them, we reset what they owe us, and I don’t remember how much but for a half lard bucks and the Americans offered roofing felts 80 llamas roofing felts 120 llamas, cash and equipment for destruction. Naturally, Kuchma chose the money, we at least saved several planes.
        1. An64
          An64 20 November 2015 14: 59 New
          -7
          Quote: 79807420129
          I watched footage when Swans were disposed of in Ukraine, it’s so teardrops, it hurt so much, so the whole creature of Khokhlyat’s

          Do not bend, dear comrade! If Ukraine had not renounced its nuclear status, had not eliminated ICBMs and Security Councils, the balance of power would be completely different today. Do we need this?
          1. Nik_One
            Nik_One 20 November 2015 15: 09 New
            11
            Friends, Ukraine DO NOT REFUSE NUCLEAR STATUS, because she never had this status. After the collapse of the USSR, all nuclear weapons were controlled exclusively by Russia. The removal of nuclear weapons and the destruction of carriers, as well as launchers of ICBMs - this was an American condition for the collapse of the USSR and the recognition of independent Ukraine. You can talk a lot about the Americans, but they are not so stupid that they wanted to create another nuclear state, which was all the more planned to be used as an anti-Russian one.
            1. Valiich
              Valiich 20 November 2015 16: 45 New
              +1
              The Soviet Union collapsed, but there is a Tu-160, and something else in the bins, and there are people from the USSR! This, for the West, for many years to come, is enough to strain and fear us!
            2. Doctorleg
              Doctorleg 20 November 2015 18: 25 New
              0
              It is much more convenient to use a nuclear state as an anti-Russian one. IMHO
              1. Peterhof 73
                Peterhof 73 21 November 2015 11: 35 New
                +2
                Quote: DoctorOleg
                It is much more convenient to use a nuclear state as an anti-Russian one. IMHO

                Ukraine, even under the USSR, was an anti-Russian state in the state. God did not give horns to a vigorous cow.
          2. Ramzaj99
            Ramzaj99 20 November 2015 17: 43 New
            +3
            Quote: An64
            Do not bend, dear comrade! If Ukraine had not renounced its nuclear status, had not eliminated ICBMs and Security Councils, the balance of power would be completely different today. Do we need this?

            Comrade ....)) Do not bring nonsense! I realized what I said ????
            When was Ukraine a nuclear power ???))))
            Think next time, or read some books on the topic ......
            Russia withdrew all its nuclear weapons after the collapse, and no one asked Ukraine anything, since documents on a nuclear-free status that separated countries from the USSR were signed with the United States.
            1. Kasym
              Kasym 20 November 2015 18: 38 New
              +5
              This Kazakhstan calmly abandoned nuclear weapons and all poison in one day. the warheads were taken out (even they themselves asked and assisted). In exchange, the EBN offered the military equipment we needed, and we even handed over the carriers (Tu-22, excuse me, I don’t know what kind of modification it was), and the mines were urgently asked to be destroyed.
              But Ukraine was "forced" to do it. Until all the nuclear powers "put pressure", Ukraine did not want to give up. In the end, the United States threatened with a finger (they then began to "list" threshold countries and "designate outcasts"), only then the authorities gave the go-ahead. hi
              And Tu-160, in my opinion, is the best strategist in the world.
            2. An64
              An64 21 November 2015 09: 12 New
              0
              Quote: Ramzaj99
              or read some books on the topic ...

              Great tip! That is exactly what he did.
              That's right - Ukraine was not a nuclear power, it pledged not to be ... Although it could become ...
              Please just don’t talk about the fact that I don’t understand anything in the nuclear weapons control system ... - I say that, theoretically, I could not withdraw nuclear weapons from my territory ...
              1. Nik_One
                Nik_One 21 November 2015 09: 15 New
                0
                Quote: An64
                I say that, theoretically, it might not have removed nuclear weapons from its territory ...

                Could not ... Otherwise, it would simply not have been Ukraine as a state.
                1. Cynic
                  Cynic 21 November 2015 16: 36 New
                  0
                  Quote: Nik_One
                  I could not...

                  Whoever would serve it, one might think that there are specialists at the dill.
              2. Cynic
                Cynic 21 November 2015 16: 32 New
                0
                I think it’s not necessary to mention the ratification of this document, who wanted to, he learned that he was not ratified by the Russian Federation. This is so purely rhetorical.
                And the main thing, to take possession of nuclear weapons does not mean to become a nuclear power. Production e ?! TVELs are not nuclear weapons, why aren’t they produced?
                Only whine much _ robbed, robbed; rob, rob! You might think something is left. It’s the only gas transmission network, Chevron has been grazing there for a long time, but it has curtailed after the North Stream, and its militia has broken off with the production of shale fuels. And you thought the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the National Gadgets there lay their heads for Nenko ?! For the profit of the Yusovites, they die there, but the Almighty is with them, but they not only die themselves, they kill others! Well, _
          3. The comment was deleted.
        2. Cynic
          Cynic 20 November 2015 18: 38 New
          +4
          I watched footage when the Swans were disposed of in Ukraine

          Yusovtsy did it with their own money, this alone means a lot _
      3. War and Peace
        War and Peace 20 November 2015 16: 15 New
        +2
        Blackjack military service began in April 1987

        The essence of the Blackjack application concept is

        it seems that this Majumar, that Ryabov write their opuses only in order to emphasize that OUR TU160, OUR WHITE SWAN is purebred, the essence of some kind of blackjack is rootless, the tongue of this scribbler is scratched, it would be his will so the whole Russian would be corrupted by other people's words.
        Yes, the picture is such that our plane does not look like a WHITE SWAN, but a ragged chicken, shabby, unpainted, admins might not miss such photos ...
      4. SAXA.SHURA
        SAXA.SHURA 20 November 2015 20: 33 New
        0
        Let everyone fear !.
      5. Zoldat_A
        Zoldat_A 21 November 2015 02: 32 New
        +1
        Quote: aba
        It is interesting to know how they see us, albeit through such ridiculous comparisons.

        This Hindu deserter has already been bored! Let him scribble articles about the turkey army and think where the Indians will get money from to buy weapons from his new "mole". And the most interesting thing is that he seems to be a "military expert", and he himself does not cut a fig in the question. No matter how much I read his "reviews" - all the nonsense is at the level of "one grandma said" ... He always compares hedgehogs with giraffes ...
        The Indian bought a house in London. His new neighbor, an Englishman, bought a Rolls-Royce. A month later, a Hindu says to an Englishman:
        - I live as well as you, you have a Rolls-Royce and I have a Rolls-Royce.
        The Englishman built a swimming pool and a solarium. A month later, an Indian comes to him:
        - And I live no worse than you, I also have a pool and a solarium.
        Another month has passed, the neighbors meet again and the Indian says:
        “And I live better than you, I have an Englishman next door, and you have a Hindu.”
        He, this Majumdar, thinks that because he writes another nonsense about our army, he will become a little more European?
  2. Mikhail m
    Mikhail m 20 November 2015 06: 28 New
    14
    The remaining aircraft in Ukraine were disposed of.

    Scum, definitely !!!
    1. inkass_98
      inkass_98 20 November 2015 07: 22 New
      +5
      They did it with American money.
      1. Mhpv
        Mhpv 20 November 2015 09: 54 New
        +1
        He notes that stealth aircraft are extremely expensiveHowever, they can use relatively cheap ammo.

        Well, the pilots, and the pilots do not count, it turns out so with the Amers, as the kamikaze breaks through, well, no, well, let’s let the next one go.
  3. Fyva
    Fyva 20 November 2015 06: 52 New
    -5
    And what is the uniqueness of the bombings? Was it that they even flew to Syria? Or did they "break through" the deeply echeloned air defense? Snot, drooling and orderlies. Dear authors, how do you get napkins? wink
  4. SeregaBoss
    SeregaBoss 20 November 2015 07: 04 New
    +6
    Guys, sometimes Dave writes and reading is pleasant for us, but here's what annoying this article yesterday was procrastinating on other resources under a different heading.
    As for the aircraft, my opinion is that it is not necessary to restore the production of these aircraft, we need to make a new hypersonic PAK DA using the experience of building Swans, because our advantage is in speed, so let's make a bias for this. In connection with the development of air defense, "stealth" as an advantage has exhausted itself.
    1. Azitral
      Azitral 20 November 2015 11: 51 New
      +5
      Truly HYPERSONIC, i.e. with a multi-mode scramjet engine and, at the same time, an AIRCRAFT, it’s such a breakthrough that the country that committed it has no reason to be afraid of rivals. These are airplanes of the suborbital and orbital class, cheap satellite output into space, and, most importantly, in itself means such technological development that it is useless to fight.
      1. Yuri Y.
        Yuri Y. 21 November 2015 21: 50 New
        0
        Quote: Azitral
        On the plane, my opinion is that there is no need to restore the production of these aircraft,

        And in my opinion a timely decision. They simply restore the possibility of producing such an aircraft. In fact, there is nothing now. And the production of such a sophisticated technology is not a pound of raisins. And on this basis it is possible to develop further, now, in principle, only something is being restored. Well, the upgraded TU-160 with new missiles is still awesome.
  5. inkass_98
    inkass_98 20 November 2015 07: 24 New
    +8
    The article could not be written, all comparisons were made long ago in one demotivator.
    1. inpu
      inpu 20 November 2015 17: 11 New
      0
      What about the discovery?
  6. 31rus
    31rus 20 November 2015 07: 53 New
    +8
    Dear, despite the "laudatory" article, the analysis of the aircraft is weak, you can talk and dream about the prospects for a long time and a lot, the presence of only 16 excellent machines for a country like Russia is no less a shame, it is good that we will start to build new Tu-160 characteristics give grounds for serious modernization of the aircraft, engines, electronics, I am sure the expansion of weapons
    1. AUL
      AUL 20 November 2015 10: 19 New
      +4
      And what good is to expect from Majumdar? He puffs out his cheeks with an important look, but, in fact, writes amateurish articles. You need to feed your family!
  7. Tatar 174
    Tatar 174 20 November 2015 08: 01 New
    +3
    With today's level of technology, you can’t hide such a huge thing from radars as a huge bomber, and the exit should be in increasing the ceiling and speed, maybe even with access to orbit. In this case, it turns out that this will be going to another level.
    1. orisa87
      orisa87 21 November 2015 11: 20 New
      0
      So it is necessary to revive "Spiral"
  8. Old26
    Old26 20 November 2015 08: 01 New
    10
    To the author Kirill Ryabov plus for publishing the article, article is a big minus for a huge amount of mistakes and a low professional level.
    All these comparisons, more precisely the comparisons of TU-160 and V-2, such as the Tu-160, were a response to V-2 (in fact, an answer to V-1) do not withstand any criticism. It seems that the author of this publication in The National Interest, Dave Majumdar, is generally special in everything. They will be given the task of writing about submarines - they will write about them. About biotechnology - yes no problem
  9. Fearless
    Fearless 20 November 2015 08: 16 New
    0
    Tu 160 is definitely a bomb on the wings and in the sky
  10. Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 20 November 2015 08: 37 New
    0
    For some reason, very little information about the effectiveness of the applied X-101. The video shows the Syrians who carry spent or unworked fragments of these missiles. How true is this?
  11. guzik007
    guzik007 20 November 2015 08: 39 New
    +4
    From the very beginning of his article, D. Majumdar has been trying to compare the Russian Tu-160 bomber and the American B-2
    ----------------------------------
    Ah mardjuman, you can’t compare, a horse and a trembling doe.
    In comparison, be careful
    In short, margin, not cormorant.
  12. Zheka40
    Zheka40 20 November 2015 09: 02 New
    +3
    Dumb expert, oh well, let him have fun further.
  13. ARES623
    ARES623 20 November 2015 09: 14 New
    +1
    And who is this D. Majumdar? There are a lot of links to him in Russian-language resources, but his track record is incomprehensible. In those allegedly primitive "analyzes" that are attributed to him, he looks more like a literary critic. If anyone has data on this subject, share, plz.
  14. AlNikolaich
    AlNikolaich 20 November 2015 09: 39 New
    +6
    Majumorda again ... I can’t understand how this deer could become a military observer of the national
    interest! It's like Kirby in the State Department! He knows nothing, he is not competent in anything, but he has answers to everything
    questions.
    “Madame, do you know how to play the piano?”
    -Ah, I’m right, and I won’t say, I have never tried it!
  15. sanik0909
    sanik0909 20 November 2015 10: 10 New
    +2
    I wonder why this Mujamar compared with B-2? when there is a much closer V-1 Lancer ... (even though it is no longer supersonic due to modernization)
  16. Limon1972
    Limon1972 20 November 2015 10: 25 New
    0
    Why is he so colorful in the photo? Is this a prototype?
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. FID
        FID 20 November 2015 11: 19 New
        +3
        Quote: WUA 518
        Yes, prototypes 01 and 03 flew unpainted.

        Moreover, for 1 remotes and controls are completely different than for 3, and even more so on combatant. And under series 1 of the first 3 was finalized ...
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 20 November 2015 10: 59 New
      0
      Why is he so colorful in the photo?

      Just not painted. And parts of the casing of different materials.
      1. FID
        FID 20 November 2015 11: 21 New
        +1
        Quote: Wedmak
        Just not painted. And parts of the casing of different materials

        Well, well ... only radiolucent, everything else, except for the center section - lumen ... Unpainted - yes.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. FID
            FID 20 November 2015 11: 48 New
            +2
            Quote: WUA 518
            Hi Seryozha,

            Hello Sasha! Is it at MAX? And there is a fuel tank ...
            1. WUA 518
              WUA 518 20 November 2015 11: 58 New
              +3
              Quote: SSI
              Is it at MAX?

              Yes, Serge. If I'm not mistaken, it's 95. I have a different question, just yesterday I watched a report from Engels, they showed the Baklan spacesuit. How, is it used, or not?
              1. FID
                FID 20 November 2015 13: 52 New
                +4
                No, they don’t even use anti-overload ones, ordinary flight equipment. SLE is very decent, there is a toilet and a kitchen (well, say, a microwave and a boiler). And they walk around the compartment if their legs are numb ...
  17. castle
    castle 20 November 2015 11: 06 New
    +2
    I'm here for the US aircraft name - "Blackjack". This official code name comes from the first letter "B" - Bomber - bomber and launch vehicle, and from the name of the gambling card game. But the guys with whom I had to meet at work called the Tu-160 "Black Knave" - ​​Black Jack or Black Dodger. There are several more translations for the word Knave.
    1. lelikas
      lelikas 20 November 2015 12: 51 New
      +2
      Quote: hrad
      I'm here for the US aircraft name - "Blackjack". This official code name comes from the first letter "B" - Bomber - bomber and launch vehicle, and from the name of the gambling card game. But the guys with whom we had to meet at work called the Tu-160 "Black Knave" - ​​Black Jack or Black Dodger. There are several more translations for the word Knave.

      Just not from the game - in their slang - "black jack" - an analogue of our "democratizer" - ie. - a police baton. laughing
  18. qwert
    qwert 20 November 2015 11: 13 New
    +1
    And according to Russian media they say that only Tu-22М3 took part in the bombing. Who to believe ?????
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 20 November 2015 12: 08 New
      +3
      So in the bombing same. Strategists do not bomb with bombs. We went to the launch line, issued gifts and home.
      1. gjv
        gjv 20 November 2015 12: 46 New
        +1
        Quote: Wedmak
        Strategists do not bomb with bombs. Went to the launch line, issued gifts and home

        At first there was the thought of launching from our territory. Still, it looks like Iran.



        Yesterday I "drew" the Tu-22M3 flight route. Tu-160 seems to be coming out over the Caspian Sea to the north of Makhachkala.
      2. gjv
        gjv 20 November 2015 12: 46 New
        0
        Quote: Wedmak
        Strategists do not bomb with bombs. Went to the launch line, issued gifts and home

        At first there was the thought of launching from our territory. Still, it looks like Iran.



        Yesterday I "drew" the Tu-22M3 flight route. Tu-160 seems to be coming out over the Caspian Sea to the north of Makhachkala.
  19. nazar_0753
    nazar_0753 20 November 2015 11: 21 New
    +2
    In addition, it can be noted that at the end of the article, talking about the record-breaking characteristics, the author almost admires the Russian aircraft, including pointing out the “colossal” payload and comparing it with the mass of American fighters. Nevertheless, he, as always, tries to maintain objectivity.

    Someone decided to play a joke on the campaign. I have never seen Majumdar's articles differ in objectivity and at least minimal knowledge of the matter. Rather, it was necessary to compare the Tu-160 with the B1-B Lancer
    1. Manul
      Manul 22 November 2015 02: 11 New
      -1
      Quote: nazar_0753
      I have never seen Majumdar's articles differ in objectivity

      It seems to me not because of objectivity that such articles are published here. Probably the easiest way to find comments on our actions there. Here they are reprinted. If no one had commented and everyone was rigidly minuscating, maybe then other resources would be in use.
      But in principle - if there is no other reason to discuss a good topic, why not? Na..at on Majumdar, but let's talk winked
  20. Welcome to hell
    Welcome to hell 20 November 2015 11: 27 New
    +1
    Quote: krokodil25
    In fact, the TU-160 should be compared with the B 1 Lancer and not with this cake B2 request No.

    just the B1 Lancer is an analogue of the TU-160, but after modernization it became subsonic
  21. Belousov
    Belousov 20 November 2015 11: 31 New
    +1
    Who had brains he had feared before. And whoever doesn’t have it will only correct the grave, and the X-101 will also make a good embankment.
  22. fa2998
    fa2998 20 November 2015 11: 39 New
    +2
    Quote: aktanir
    why ridiculous comparison? the author is objective and says himself what are the main differences between the NATO and Russian bombers.

    Ridiculous comparisons are when they compare completely different things. The Tu-160 has an opponent in the US Air Force-B-1V. That's what you compare with it. They are even outwardly similar, they are both HEAVY, SUPER-SOUND BOMBERS with VARIABLE WING GEOMETRY. Unfortunately against B-2 no one to put! hi
    1. FID
      FID 20 November 2015 11: 49 New
      +2
      Only Tu-160 times 1,5-2 more ...
      1. fa2998
        fa2998 20 November 2015 12: 21 New
        +1
        Of course, I am aware, but the V-1B is somewhat closer to the Tu-160 than the mentioned V-2 in construction and tasks for which it was built! V-2 is a separate opera. hi
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. gjv
        gjv 20 November 2015 13: 20 New
        +2
        Quote: SSI
        Tu-160 times 1,5-2 more ...

        232 / 181 = 1,28
        275000 / 216365 = 1,27
        Still, only 30%, Sergei Ivanovich. hi
        1. FID
          FID 20 November 2015 13: 55 New
          +2
          Well so be it ...
  23. da Vinci
    da Vinci 20 November 2015 11: 55 New
    +1
    It is unfortunate that Russia is again being driven into an arms race, which has become one of the reasons for the destruction of the USSR. Unfortunately, today's politicians, chasing their own profit, will not be able to resist the temptation to spend thoughtlessly trillions of rubles on super weapons (imaginary) (I do not mean that 160, although there is a question here: after 2023, do PAK YES and, at the same time, overwhelming by that time that 160?) and plus outright theft. request
  24. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 20 November 2015 12: 15 New
    +5
    Amerian savages are satanic; instead of spending billions of dollars on own planes, they paid uk penny, and they joyfully cut the Tu-160 for scrap; including airplanes zero plaque.

    And then they paid pennies to the Yeltsinoids, and they, no less joyfully, cut 941 "Sharks" into scrap metal.

    But the pinnacle of Amer's Satanism is the export of Soviet plutonium to the United States under the Chernomyrdin-Gore agreement. As a result, plutonium worth hundreds of billions of dollars was "bought out"for ridiculous money. Tens of thousands of Soviet people heroically worked in its production; Mr. Chernomyrdin gave the United States millions of Soviet workdays (which, in fact, did not belong to him). We must strictly ask the amers; in terms of paying the real cost."

    Or provide them with additional plutonium for free. am
    1. Azitral
      Azitral 20 November 2015 15: 09 New
      +3
      1) Not only plutonium, but also enriched uranium, this is worse.
      2) I was always wondering: what didn’t we finish off the year, that way, in 1995? After all, they wouldn’t tweet! Like the priest from the bell tower ... Now it’s clear: they paid a gigantic indemnity unheard of in history. I wouldn’t give up Yeltsin (I was never a fan) would take by force. What was the army worth then, evident from the 1st Chechen one, remember?
      3) I think you will like it: such a quantity of enriched uranium (they never learned how to burn plutonium in reactors) killed the uranium enrichment industry in the United States. This is the market: there are no orders for new uranium, no work, no salaries, some of the cascades have been stopped, specialists have crawled out, they have not managed to learn new ones. Suffice it - but there is no production. Something about twelve percent left. We are now the only country with a "complete" nuclear cycle.
      1. Gormenghast
        Gormenghast 21 November 2015 14: 19 New
        +1
        I agree. smile

        1. MOX fuel is available only at our place and only at Beloyarsk NPP.
        2. 50% of the world's enrichment capacity is Russia.
        3. The production of the world's best gas centrifuges - this is Russia.
        4. The alpha emitter of plutonium-238 was bought-bought in Russia, but they forgot how to produce it themselves; only recently restored production; something about 4-5 kg. in year.
        Mars rovers on Mars; Devices near Pluto are Russia and its plutonium. Otherwise - what the hell would do.
        5. A neutron source for compaction of polonium-210 nuclear weapons is 100% Russia.

        What is the result? If suddenly needed, Russia can enrich more weapons-grade uranium in a year than all NATO put together. And if it is very much needed - only Russia can very quickly increase the enrichment capacity (all production is domestic!) To the required values. And, as far as I know, the fast reactor BN-800 at the Beloyarsk NPP, due to the peculiarities of the fuel cycle, produces plutonium; you can't get away from this. Nobody produces it; and Russia does not produce, but it is still being formed "natural"way. smile
  25. Oznob
    Oznob 20 November 2015 13: 12 New
    +1
    Something I like the tactics of using our swan more. This pilot can’t even appear over the enemy’s territory, the iron-propelled grenade itself will work out.
  26. Patriot C
    Patriot C 20 November 2015 13: 13 New
    +4
    the number of Tu-160 - 16 pieces
    the number of B-1B Lancer - 100 pieces.

    what comparisons and conversations can be here?
    1. cast iron
      cast iron 22 November 2015 01: 49 New
      0
      The point is in 66 B2012B aircraft in service (for 1), completely converted to bombs (they cannot launch cruise missiles), if more than 150 Tu22M3 have much more impressive capabilities? I repeat specifically for Kazakh nationalist propagandists: the American B1B Lancer does not carry cruise missiles, does not know how to launch them, and does not know how to fly in super sound. Count it, huh?
    2. Manul
      Manul 22 November 2015 02: 32 New
      0
      the number of Tu-160 - 16 pieces
      the number of B-1B Lancer - 100 pieces.

      what comparisons and conversations can be here?

      Well, let's imagine. Combat alert, all strategists to take off. The Tu-160 has already fired a salvo (192 missiles), returned back, took a new ammunition and took it back in the sky. And the B-2 is still on its way. And where will it fly? Even taking into account the planning bombs, they will not fly farther than the Baltic states, because they will shoot down. The maximum that they will catch is the outskirts of our country. At this time, the capitals and the most important strategic objects are already blazing at the opponents, blood, fire and panic are everywhere. And in the sky, our Swans are again approaching the shooting zone. I'm wondering if our "partners" are capable of fighting when everything in their countries becomes very uncomfortable? There are no ports left, no airfields, no military bases ..
      And this is only about the Tu-160 conversation. So your comparisons do not concern us. Everything is fine with us, but it will be even better.
  27. _my opinion
    _my opinion 20 November 2015 13: 21 New
    0
    Tu-160 is still a dangerous opponent for the enemies of Russia.

    but nehru to be an enemy of Russia !!!
    1. Catafract
      Catafract 20 November 2015 17: 39 New
      0
      Quote: PatriotC
      the number of Tu-160 - 16 pieces
      the number of B-1B Lancer - 100 pieces.

      what comparisons and conversations can be here?
  28. Vittt
    Vittt 20 November 2015 15: 02 New
    +2
    Quote: krokodil25
    In fact, the TU-160 should be compared with the B 1 Lancer and not with this cake B2 request No.

    In principle, you are right, but essentially: B-1 is a strategic (in some sources, distant, such as Tu-22M3) bomber of an enemy’s air defense breakthrough (that is, we), it’s capable of penetrating air defense at low altitudes (those who wish can see the Pentagon reports )
    Ours cannot do this, well, imagine a "bear" at an altitude of 200-300 meters, or a Tu-160 - a fierce pain for all those below, sitting and lying.
    But seriously, the dumb amero-experts realized that the B-1 is a dead end of civilization, and the elegant B-1s have become an analogue of our Tu-22M3, and not strategic bombers. They understood it because Russia has a magic wand - electronic warfare systems are called.
    And to our "strategists" I can rest assured which side they have a skullcap - they are launching all this "good" even from the territory of the Russian Federation.
    That is, took off, gained altitude, pulnul and sat on his native airfield.
    1. cast iron
      cast iron 22 November 2015 01: 53 New
      0
      I did not become an analogue of B1B to our Tu22M3, because it does not know how to launch cruise missiles at all. Generally can not. Absolutely not at all. Only bombs. Plus, his speed is far from being supersonic. Not at all supersonic. By the way, we would see how a 46 meter giant (our Tu160 - 54 meters) flies around the terrain. I’m probably screaming))))
  29. UzRus
    UzRus 20 November 2015 15: 04 New
    0
    Fear the enemies! All fear!
  30. An64
    An64 20 November 2015 15: 08 New
    +1
    To be honest, I do not share the enthusiasm for using the Tu-160 in Syria. They fired over the territory of Iran, 12 missiles on board - the Caspian "Calibers" launched from their native shores seem to be more effective ...
    1. Nik_One
      Nik_One 20 November 2015 15: 23 New
      +2
      This must be treated as a teaching and demonstration of power. In fact, the Kyrgyz Republic is too expensive a pleasure for the Igil Papuans. In the case of Syria, massive strikes from the Tu-22M3 look much more efficient and simpler. This is just his niche. We need more different experiments with free-falling bombs ...
  31. Raphael_83
    Raphael_83 20 November 2015 15: 47 New
    0
    Thanks to the author. I believe that the materials of this, with the permission of Majumdar, can be laid out not in the form of a pure translation, but only through the prism of analysis - t. localized perception - then the nonsense is not so striking.
    And it would be absolutely great if Oleg Chuvakin periodically took on all the nonsense that Comrade Majumdar is carrying - this is the person (!) Who will be able to competently and skillfully support everything that this character carries in his blue eye. And then already nostalgia rolls over humoresques within the framework of the "ZeZe" project and others.
  32. win
    win 20 November 2015 17: 36 New
    +2
    Service Blackjack the troops began ...


    For the author of the article, the American name is more significant, more significant ...
    1. Manul
      Manul 22 November 2015 02: 38 New
      +1
      Quote: Siegen
      For the author of the article, the American name is more significant, more significant.

      Oh .. Found something to reproach a foreign hack. After all, he is from there and has every right. So you try to convince the readers of our site that it is correct to say not "Satan", but "Voevoda". And not a vacuum bomb, but a volumetric detonating one. You will immediately pop a basket with a slide of minuses. And you will not prove anything.
  33. Old26
    Old26 20 November 2015 17: 50 New
    0
    Quote: Gormengast
    And then they paid pennies to the Yeltsinoids, and they, no less joyfully, cut 941 "Sharks" into scrap metal.

    What all? And why are elcinoids?

    Quote: Gormengast
    But the pinnacle of Amer’s Satanism is the export of Soviet plutonium to the United States under the Chernomyrdin-Gore agreement.

    That's just not a gram of weapons-grade plutonium was exported

    Quote: Azitral
    1) Not only plutonium, but also enriched uranium, this is worse.

    Another connoisseur of the Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement ...

    Quote: Azitral
    2) I was always wondering: what didn’t we finish off the year, that way, in 1995? After all, they wouldn’t tweet!

    We need to understand (based on your posts) we had nothing to answer?
    And nothing that during these years the maximum number of "Topol" and "Voevod" were put into service ??

    Quote: Azitral
    You, I think, will like it: such an amount of enriched uranium (they never learned how to burn plutonium in reactors) killed the uranium enrichment industry in the USA.

    Oh, kill ... "Killed a nigger, oh killed."
    So they killed that of the nuclear states producing uranium in 2013 they are on SECOND WORLD (on the eighth in the overall ranking of countries) Only Russia is ahead. And the rest of the nuclear behind. China in third, India in fourth, Pakistan in fifth, France in sixth place. Of course the killed enriched uranium industry, oh killed belay crying
  34. tracer
    tracer 20 November 2015 19: 35 New
    0
    While there is no new bomber, the previous one needs to be modernized, including through the release of new mvshins. The right decision. It will work out new technologies that will then become the basis for the development of a new bomber. Without this, there is no way to create a new one. The main thing is to create production and technological chains that allow the production of such equipment. MIG 31 is also not a new car but the best in its class so far. I think that this machine also cools the ardor of many ill-wishers.
  35. win
    win 20 November 2015 19: 53 New
    +2
    The newest of the American strategic bombers, the B-2, relies on its stealth to complete tasks.

    Stealth is very doubtful, especially after he was shot down near Belgrade with an obsolete missile from the S-75 complex.
    But the flight characteristics cause a rash. According to Euro-News, several B-2s have arrived and landed in Europe.
    One of them, even with an automated landing system, could sit down only the second time. And it is in the afternoon.
    1. cast iron
      cast iron 22 November 2015 02: 17 New
      0
      The words of the brave Yugoslav anti-aircraft gunners should be divided by at least 2. There are a lot of conflicting interviews given by Yugoslav anti-aircraft gunners, and often the same "participants in the events" contradicted themselves.
  36. Old26
    Old26 20 November 2015 20: 27 New
    +1
    Quote: Siegen
    Stealth is very doubtful, especially after he was shot down near Belgrade with an obsolete missile from the S-75 complex.

    IN 2? Over Belgrade? How quickly myths arise
    1. win
      win 20 November 2015 20: 41 New
      +2
      IN 2? Over Belgrade?

      I wrote "under Belgrade "
      Wikipedia says "the first (88-0329," Spirit of Missouri ") was shot down on May 20 over a suburb of Belgrade"
      1. glasha3032
        glasha3032 21 November 2015 02: 49 New
        +1
        Only F-117 was shot down. And the Americans store B-2 and do not use it for risky operations.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 21 November 2015 16: 53 New
          0
          Quote: glasha3032
          Only the F-117 was shot down.

          Not caught, not a thief! And then there was no way to dodge, we were caught!
          By the way, are you familiar with the statistics of tank losses of the SGA? I was always surprised at such a strong discrepancy between official and unofficial data about them. Then I caught the eye of an interview with an American expert, in which, with a blue eye, he told me that the Moscow Defense Administration shows only irrevocable losses! And this means that any machine that can be restored does not count losses! For information, only the destruction of a solid hull can unambiguously hinder recovery, so that even a hull burnt to the ground, with a torn tower, will not be considered a loss. Damaged he! And then the plane ...
        2. Manul
          Manul 22 November 2015 02: 43 New
          0
          Quote: glasha3032
          Only the F-117 was shot down.

          You are right.
          Quote: glasha3032
          Americans store B-2 and do not use it for risky operations.

          They have different tasks. B-2 could hardly be used for the war in Yugoslavia. He is a strategist for a total blow, there is a strategist. Well, they also cherish, not without it.
  37. Old26
    Old26 20 November 2015 22: 53 New
    -1
    Quote: Siegen
    I wrote "near Belgrade" Wikipedia says "the first (88-0329," Spirit of Missouri ") was shot down on May 20 over a suburb of Belgrade"


    There is not much difference. Over or under. The fact is that Vicki writes that 2 B-2s were shot down over Yugoslavia. One "Spirit of Missouri" near Belgrade, the second -! Spirit of Washington "in Croatia (both in 1999 with Russian S-300P complexes). Plus one -" Spirit of Kazans "burned down in 2008 in Guam. In total, 21 were produced.
    The simplest calculation shows that there should be 21-3 = 18. But the funny thing is that:

    1. As far as I remember, the S-300P was not in Yugoslavia. It was their supply that the Yugoslavs sought. And nothing confirms that they were there. And to hell with it, with this complex.

    But as of 2007, the US Air Force had 20 bombers in the Air Force (16 in combat and 4 in reserve) and one for testing.
    In 2009, after one burned down on Guam in the US Air Force, 16 vehicles remained in combat formation, 3 in reserve and 1 for testing
    In 2014, there were: in combat formation 12, 7 in reserve (non-deployed under the START-3 agreement) and 1 for testing.

    A fair question arises: where are these two downed B-2 bombers ???
  38. Gardener91
    Gardener91 20 November 2015 23: 02 New
    0
    Quote: An64
    Quote: 79807420129
    I watched footage when Swans were disposed of in Ukraine, it’s so teardrops, it hurt so much, so the whole creature of Khokhlyat’s

    Do not bend, dear comrade! If Ukraine had not renounced its nuclear status, had not eliminated ICBMs and Security Councils, the balance of power would be completely different today. Do we need this?

    Ukraine would then remain a part of the Russian Federation as a federal subject and would not become a victim of squandering the Kravchuk pack.
    1. cast iron
      cast iron 22 November 2015 02: 20 New
      0
      How easily you forgot that the RSFSR itself was completely squandered by Russian packs under the leadership of the drunk Yeltsin.
  39. mvg
    mvg 21 November 2015 04: 48 New
    0
    Quote: Xsanchez
    Actually, the amers didn’t succeed in B-1B: the small bomb bay did not allow it to carry cruise missiles, and in the modern world, it will not allow air defense to the point of dropping freely falling bombs.

    It’s a very small bomb gate, and the bomb load is for children .. Maybe you’ll even look at Wikipedia .. well, for general development .. And the load is greater than that of the Tu-160 and it easily carries 24 missiles in the bomb compartments, not the smallest, comparable to the caliber .. I remind you that the Tu-160 carries 12 pieces, and then, not all ..
    Why not get into a book before commenting? You won’t look like a clown ..
    1. cast iron
      cast iron 22 November 2015 20: 28 New
      0
      You forgot one small detail. All B1B were converted to bombs. Exclusively under the bomb. They do not have any SLAs that allow them to launch rockets, nor the equipment for their transportation and launch. And the conversion of a purely bomb plane into a carrier of cruise missiles is only 5 minutes in a computer game. But in reality, all this is very very long and very very expensive. Plus you forgot one more detail. Not a single B1B is capable of accelerating over 1500 km / h.
  40. Mirrorfax
    Mirrorfax 21 November 2015 19: 49 New
    0
    While there is something to read, including from real pros in their field, there is no need for Wikipedia here. Leave it to schoolchildren and children with a pacifier on the neck. We will not let a serious resource turn into a kindergarten for children with developmental delays!
    There, ignoramuses often write articles, take a word. )
    Once, when there was no answer, an official form flew out to write about what I was asking. Since then, I have never gone there. )
    Or maybe it’s in vain that he didn’t write something SO! You look at some sort of "special" trump card of my nonsense, written "for the sake of laughter." )))