Military Review

Future strategic bomber resembles Star Wars destroyers

64
Future strategic bomber resembles Star Wars destroyersEvents in Syria again brought into focus the issue of the future strategic aviation. What will it become - more speedy and load-lifting, more “smart” and less noticeable? So far, PAK DA remains the “dark horse” of Russian military aviation. But it is known that in their response to the challenge of Russia, the United States focuses on the Tu-160.


The war with LIH emphasized the well-known truth: if the artillery is the “god” of a general war, then the bomber is without a doubt the “god” of the air war. Whole sense of air weapons comes down to strikes, first of all, on ground targets. This is either the enemy troops, or objects of industrial and economic potential in its rear. Militants have already experienced the effects of Russian “strategists” - the Tu-95, Tu-160 and Tu-22М.

"It reminds of starships of Star Wars" - spear-shaped fuselage, built on the principle of "flying wing", small keels "

There are also “demigods” - fighter-bombers and attack aircraft, solving, in principle, the same tasks, but due to the limited range and duration of the flight - not far from the front line. Alas, even the kings of the air, which are grounded in mass culture — fighters — justify themselves only to the extent that there are bombers and their varieties that must be fought with or defended.
In the USSR / Russia and the USA, great attention was always paid to bombers. But due to the fact that America is separated from potential adversaries by the oceans, the emphasis in the development of its bomber aircraft was placed on large strategic ones, while in the USSR it was on medium tactical “bombers”.

This feature determined the appearance of US fighter aircraft during the Second World War. American cars had a long range, powerful enough weapons, but compared with the Soviet, British and German fighters were heavy and not very maneuverable. The designers did not particularly bother to give them these qualities. What for? After all, their main task was to accompany the "air fortress".

Day past


In the Cold War, strategic bombers became the same symbol of global confrontation, like ballistic missiles. During the years of confrontation, the Soviet Union created and put into operation six types of similar machines, not counting the Tu-4 (including its modification Tu80 / 85), which was copied from the American B-29.

Soviet "strategists" include the turboprop Tu-95, and also the jet Tu-16, M-4 / 3М and supersonic Tu-22, Tu-22М and Tu-160. Currently, the TU-95, TU-22M, which are “under fifty dollars”, and TU-160, which are only a little “over thirty”, are in service with the seventh decade.

The United States had eight types of strategic “bombers” designed and commissioned. These are piston B-29 and B-50, hybrid reactive-piston B-36, reactive B-47 and B-52, supersonic B-58 and B-1, as well as stealth B-2. From this “constellation”, the expanses of the air of the ocean now ply only three types: В-52, В-1 and В-2. The youngest of them - B-2 - has been in operation for a quarter of a century.

Not surprisingly, when the “great standoff” in 1991 ended, the number and heavy “bombers” were reduced as part of the reduction of strategic offensive arms.


Russia's share in the global arms trade (infographics)

But when cold winds blew out in relations between Russia and the West in 2014, long-range bombers again attracted attention. Initially, Tu-95 began to make patrol flights near the borders of western states, and in early June last year, the United States decided to send B-52 to fly over the borders of Russia as part of the NATO exercises planned for the same month.
So, no ballistic missiles will replace the "good old" strategic bombers. However, if their kindness is doubtful, then old age is undoubted. Both Tu-95 and B-52, which form the basis of the strategic aviation of Russia and the United States, first flew into the air in the same 1952 year. It is obvious that in the 21 century it is at least strange to bet on the solution of the question “to be or not to be” to whole states on machines of the middle of the last century. It is not surprising, therefore, that Moscow and Washington were seriously thinking about strengthening and renewing their strategic bomber power.

Flocks of "White Swans" and PAK YES - today and tomorrow


In late May, it became known that Russia intends to build before the end of this decade at least X-NUMX Tu-50 bombers, also known as the “White Swan” (in the West they are called Blackjack). So that no one would think that Moscow intends to replicate not the most modern equipment to the detriment of the development of new technology, Commander-in-Chief of the Aerospace Forces (BKS), Viktor Bondarev, stressed that the purchase of a whole flock of “White Swans” would not hurt to create and commission the so-called PAK DA (A promising aviation complex for long-range aviation).

According to currently available plans, the first flight of the PAK DA should be done no later than 2019 of the year, and in 2023 – 2025 the machines of this type will replace the Tu-95, Tu-22М and Tu-160.

If the White Swan configuration and its tactical and technical characteristics are well known, the PAK DA is a “dark horse.” This is what is said about him in Wikipedia: “According to Anatoly Zhikharev, Commander of Long-Range Aviation of the Aerospace Force, this is a fundamentally new aircraft with an aiming and navigation complex. Such an aircraft should be able to use all existing and promising types of weapons, it should be equipped with the latest communication systems and electronic warfare, and also have a low visibility. " To create it will, apparently, Tupolev Design Bureau.

The take-off weight of the car is from 100 to 200 tons, and it will fly at subsonic speed. Arms - cruise missiles, including anti-ship, and bombs.

There are many images of this bomber on the Internet, on which it often resembles Star Wars combat starships - a spear-shaped fuselage built on the principle of a “flying wing”, small keels. Sometimes this miracle of technology is decorated with wings of variable geometry. That's all. According to Wikipedia, the “flying wing” scheme was chosen for the aircraft, that is, it would be similar to the American B-2.



“The significant wingspan and design features,” continues Wikipedia, “will not allow the aircraft to overcome the speed of sound, while at the same time providing reduced visibility for radars.”

PAK YES, of course, will fly and will probably be a good aircraft. If the domestic civil aviation industry (not counting the Superjet, which has been molded from foreign components and not yet born MS-21), has practically disappeared, Russia has not forgotten how to make world-class cruise military vehicles. The question is - how efficiently will the PAK DA airborne equipment help it solve combat missions, and most importantly, will the Russian economy be “pulled” by mass production of these machines?

The United States, in its potential response to the “bomber” challenge to Russia, is guided mainly by the Tu-160.

But is it worth being guided by it? This is the question asked by Tom Nichols, a national security specialist at the Naval College, part-time teaching at a branch of Harvard University. According to him, expressed on the Internet resource Nationalinterest.org, the decision of the Russian Federation on the additional construction of fifty Tu-160 (now there are about a dozen of such machines in Russia's arsenal) “means nothing” from a military point of view. Nichols believes that this is just one of the "provocations" that does not require any response from America.

After all, the classic American strategic "trident" - bombers, ballistic missiles and submarines, says Nichols, this is a relic of the Cold War. He was needed in order "not to put all the eggs in one basket." In the event of a first strike from the USSR on the objects of US strategic nuclear potential, at least one of the “teeth” of this trident, for example strategic bombers, should have struck back.

Nichols believes that in modern conditions, neither Russia nor the United States will try to launch “paralyzing” nuclear strikes to each other. For this they, he is sure, do not even have enough means of attack. If in the 1981 year, both sides had a total of 50 000 warheads, now, in accordance with the START-3 agreement, only on 1550 on each side.
This, says Nichols, is clearly not enough to neutralize the enemy with a preemptive strike (apparently, given the significantly increased effectiveness of protection against ICBMs). In addition, he stresses, nuclear-warning warnings, combined with missile defense, make the strategic nuclear facilities in the United States and Russia much less vulnerable than in the cold war.

Why, then, Russia intends to spend huge funds for the construction of a whole flock of "White Swans"? And then, Nichols is convinced that Russia has a large nuclear potential and armed forces obsessed with symbols of nuclear power. The continuation of the production of nuclear "toys", he notes, makes everyone happy: the Russian military industrial complex gets jobs and money, the military - a nuclear "umbrella". And Russians have the opportunity, as Nichols puts it, to “beat his chest”, arguing that they can restrain Obama’s nuclear “ferocity.”

The final conclusion that Nichols makes is: “Our response to Russia's nuclear threats should be the absence of any reaction, except to confirm our ability to protect ourselves.” As for the new Tu-160, the main thing, Nichols stresses, is that their numbers do not exceed the limits of the one defined by the START-3 agreement.

Tu-160 - looks old, the content is new


Speaking about the resumption of production of "White Swans", the deputy head of the Ministry of Defense Yuri Borisov said RIA "News":" In essence, this is a new aircraft - not the Tu-160, but the Tu-160М2. With new flight characteristics, with new features. This is only the airframe will be old, and even then - digitized, and the possibilities will be completely new. "

It is quite possible that it is so, but the question is different: is the mass production of this modernized bomber within Russia? Some experts doubt it. “Those who make such plans still think that we live in Soviet times, when it was enough to make a loud statement, and all the design offices together with the factories immediately rushed to carry it out. And at the same time, no one considered the costs, but what is even worse - no one thought about whether this was necessary, ”one Moscow military expert told IHS Jane's Defense Weekly.

Keywords: military aviation, army of Russia, Pentagon, Air Force, military-industrial complex, fighter jets, army and armament, USA and USSR, videoconferencing
The list of serious weaknesses of the Russian military industrial complex is not in the last place is the shortage of skilled labor, especially if we compare the situation in this sector of industry with Soviet times. According to IHS Jane's Defense Weekly, the number of trained and experienced personnel that Russia currently has for the production of Tu-160 does not exceed 10% of that which was at the disposal of the USSR in 1980-s.
Under the wing of the LRS-B, or between "2018" and "2037"

Despite the markedly reduced role of nuclear “bombers” in the last half century due to the emergence of “smart” and high-precision rocket weapons, America does not intend to “get out” from the protection of their wings.

Initially, the US Air Force set a high "bar" for the future bomber. He had to become invisible, supersonic, distant and also be able to solve problems without crew on board. The last requirement in this list is a product of the trend that is observed in military aviation, if not the whole world, then at least technologically developed countries.

However, it turned out that before 2037, this miracle of technology is unlikely to be able to be put into operation. Therefore, the intended bomber and received the name "2037". But to this mark still 20 more than years. Do not fly all this time on outdated machines! Therefore, the US Air Force decided to create an intermediate version of the strategic "bomber", which received the symbol of "2018" - the year by which it was to be created and generally tested. The car is still impersonal stationery name LRS-B (Long Range Strike Bomber), which translates as "long-range strike bomber." Sometimes it is also called B-3.

Life has made adjustments to these plans. 2018 is unlikely to be commissioned before the first half of the 2020s. Two competitors fought for the right to develop and build it: Northrop Grumman, the parent of B-2, and a consortium of companies Boeing and Lockheed Martin. In late October, it became known that Northrop Grumman won.

The total contract amount is estimated at 80 billion. For this money, Northrop Grumman, according to the American source Defensenews.com, is to supply 80 – 100 machines of type B-3 to the USAF. For reference: the 21 bomber B-2 cost the Pentagon 44 a billion dollars, that is, one B-3 should be almost two times cheaper than B-2, costing about 2 billion dollars. According to the resource InsideDefense.com, the final price of LRS-B can reach 900 million dollars per unit.

Let's lift the veil of secrecy


How do the military capabilities of Russia and NATO

The main features of the appearance of the future car leaked to the press. That's what last March managed to learn about it for Forbes magazine. First, the range of the LRS-B / B-3 without refueling will exceed 9000 kilometers. He should be able to reach out to China and Russia without problems. Secondly, its bomb load will be less than that of its predecessors. This is due mainly to the need to reduce the price of a new car. Experience shows that the price of a bomber increases approximately in proportion to its carrying capacity. In the "invisible" B-2, it reaches 18 tons.
However, the use of bombs that have become significantly “more sophisticated” over the past quarter century, combined with their reduced mass and size, will allow the LRS-B to inflict the same damage to the enemy as B-2, but with half the bomb load. It is estimated that a couple dozen B-3s will be able to process the bombs to 1000 targets daily with high accuracy.

Third, however strange it may seem, no “breakthrough” technologies will be involved in the creation of the LRS-B, unlike, for example, B-2. In B-2, many innovative or even revolutionary engineering solutions have been used. Take at least his trim "stealth". But for every hour of the B-2 flight, 18 hours of maintenance were required, which seriously raised the operating cost of this bomber. In addition, the B-2 was given the mocking nickname of a bomber that cannot fly in the rain, because water jets erase an additional anti-radar coating from it.

LRS-B will be based on the most advanced technologies, but those that have already been invented and tested in practice. This will also be done in order to reduce the price of a new car. In addition, the B-3 will probably be more multipurpose, computerized and maintainable than the B-2.

Fourth, B-3 will not be supersonic. Supersonic and invisibility do not fit well. In this flight mode, the skin is seriously heated, plus the aircraft’s acoustic visibility increases significantly. Since the designers still couldn’t run away from the rocket, the designers decided to let it be better, the LRS-B would be slower, but less noticeable. And the price of a plane with supersonic capabilities would be significantly higher.

Fifth, it will not be “at times unmanned”, as it was supposed. The US Air Force believes that a machine carrying nuclear bombs and missiles should always be under the control of the crew. This is a somewhat conservative point of view given the fact that unmanned means of delivering nuclear weapons in the form of ICBMs exist in the world for more than half a century. Probably, the periodic unmannedness will be embodied already in the 2037 bomber.

Not size, but skill

Sixth, B-3 will look different from B-2. Many experts believed that in principle the LRS-B would be the same “flying wing” as its predecessor. But, as it turned out, the size of the aircraft and its outlines in terms of as important for inconspicuous as the skin. During operation, it was found that the length / width of the B-2 facilitates its detection by long-wave radars. Therefore, B-3 will most likely be smaller than B-2. In addition, B-2 was originally conceived as a night bomber, and B-3 should be “round-the-clock”.

Seventh, LRS-B will have greater information and intellectual self-sufficiency than B-2. By the way, this is also partly due to the desire of B-3 designers to reduce the cost of its operation. The more functions the aircraft and crew perform independently, the less the ground support services will have to be involved.

But this will require a serious revision of the principles of “invisibility” used for B-2. Designers "stealth" tried to make sure that his crew as little as possible get in touch with the ground, because it can also unmask the "invisible." However, B-3 will be integrated into the complex of intelligent combat systems, in particular, to work "hand in hand" with reconnaissance satellites, which means that they will almost always find themselves with electromagnetic radiation. The challenge is to mask it effectively.

Finally, unlike the B-2, built in the number of 21 copies, the US Air Force plans to purchase, as already noted, at least 80 – 100 B-3. It is expected that a car of this type will replace all other strategic American bombers, including B-52, B-1 and B-2.

Do not get old soul veterans

However, not only the soul, but also the wings and fuselage. And the program of updating the existing one helps them in this. fleet B-52, currently consisting of 76 vehicles. In total, in the years 1952-1962, 744 bombers of this type were fired. Thus, approximately one out of ten B-52s remained in service from this quantity.
"The old horse will not spoil the furrow," the US Air Force decided. B-52 turned out to be too reliable and unpretentious aircraft, so that it could be written off only because of old age. And in this regard, his fate is reminiscent of the Tu-95.

In the spring of last year, the B-52 process of re-equipment began as part of the “Connected technologies [for integration] into the combat network” program (CONECT). This will significantly increase the “intellectual coefficient” of the old “bomber” and allow it to carry the most modern weapons on board. In total, 30 B-52 should be upgraded within CONECT.

The fact that these bombers remain a symbol of US strategic power was demonstrated a few days ago. According to the newspaper VIEW, one B-52, accompanied by one American and one South Korean fighter, flew over the territory of South Korea near the DPRK border. This flight was a response of the United States and its allies to the test of North Korea in early January, presumably the hydrogen bomb.

The American Internet resource Nextbigfuture.com called B-52 "an airplane that refuses to die" last December. According to the publication, the current plans of the US Air Force provide for the operation of machines of this type until at least 2040 year. This means that the youngest B-52 will be almost 80 years old by that time, because the release of these bombers, as already noted, ended in the 1962 year.

But the belief in "old horses" does not stop only on B-52. The United States intends to continue operating B-2. According to the Washington Post, in order to reduce the time spent on overhauling the "stealth", Northrop Grumman will now carry out these repairs more than seven times as before, and once every nine years.

The long-suffering (otherwise you will not call it) supersonic B-1 supersonic bomber with variable wing geometry remains in service. It is difficult to imagine how many ordeals fell on this aircraft. He began to enter service in the first half of 1970's, but after its production was frozen by President Jimmy Carter. Ronald Reagan again "put" B-1 on the conveyor, but this did not save the bomber from the technical problems that led to several disasters. As a result, B-1 first struck a blow at real targets only in 1998, in Iraq, during Operation Desert Fox.

After the Cold War, it was remade as a “bomber” capable of carrying conventional weapons, and relatively recently, according to the American Internet resource Stars and Stripes, demonstrated its “magnificent qualities as an aircraft directly supporting ground forces” in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Tactician" in the guise of "strategist"

And yet, in order to launch a “smart” cruise missile, even the B-52 is not needed. For this, the “flying fortress” B-17 of the Second World War is quite enough. Moreover, tactical bombers of the Su-34 type, modern American and Russian multipurpose fighters of the Su, MiG and F type may well be used to deliver small-sized nuclear weapons to the target, thus solving strategic tasks. Why, then, need a very expensive bunch of the most advanced technologies such as B-3?
The answer lies in the words of former US Ambassador to Ukraine Stephen Peifer. He believes that NATO can best respond to Russia's actions with the help of non-nuclear, but conventional forces. This is what, according to Peifer, Russia allegedly fears most, because after the end of the Cold War, its conventional armed forces have weakened considerably.

Thus, there is every reason to assume that the LRS-B, capable, unlike Su, MiG and F, to strike from overseas, was conceived primarily as a tactical bomber, which can be used in a strategic variant. This is indicated by its features: low visibility; reduced price compared to B-2; "Circulation" in quantities up to 100 units; increased versatility; maintainability; the ability to continuously "process" multiple targets. All of this indicates that the ability to dump dozens of non-nuclear bombs on the enemy’s head is just as important in a new bomber as the platform’s role is to launch nuclear cruise missiles.

Like it or not, it will be possible to check only in conditions of war, to which, we hope, things will never come.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.vz.ru/society/2016/1/11/787943.html
64 comments
Ad

Our projects are looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Tatar 174
    Tatar 174 16 January 2016 06: 16 New
    15
    As you know, artists do not participate in the creation of such machines, well, maybe it can be done in the design of its coloring, but good planes are obtained with a perfect design, and all because it requires features of its purpose and application, and designers come to these forms as if necessary . It turns out that beauty is the perfection of functionality. Therefore, there is not a single gram of doubt that this aircraft will turn out beautiful and accordingly pleasing to the eye with its shapes. Look at our streets, how many cars delight us with the perfection of their shapes? There are frank brutal, there are a lot of "neither this nor that", but there are also handsome men who are immediately accepted by the soul and pleasing to the eye. By the way, I have not seen a single competition where products such as airplanes or cars would be evaluated according to the criteria of beauty and perfection, which is a pity. I would give first place to our TU-160 and T-50, as well as GAZ-21 with a deer on the nose of the hood)))
    1. venaya
      venaya 16 January 2016 06: 27 New
      +7
      It is you who give an explanation of the saying of A.N. Tupolev: "An ugly plane just won't fly"I agree, there really is interdependence.
      1. Michael.
        Michael. 16 January 2016 11: 33 New
        +5
        This was said by Yakovlev.
        1. jjj
          jjj 16 January 2016 11: 58 New
          13
          Even Yakovlev believed that a good plane can only be built in a clean and tidy workshop. Therefore, from the very first years of the Yakovlev Design Bureau and the production of airplanes, doors in workshops were painted white so that every door opening with a boot imprinted on a white surface. The reception is simple, but it worked, the production culture took root faster
          1. iouris
            iouris 16 January 2016 19: 52 New
            0
            These are not frequent examples of the implementation of the basic principles of scientific management on our soil. So to speak, organized life through consciousness determines a person’s attitude to everything, and not just to work. Maybe it played a role that Yakovlev visited aircraft factories in Germany on the eve of the war.
      2. Mikhail m
        Mikhail m 16 January 2016 20: 14 New
        +2
        How do you look at the idea that everything that has a control system and engines of sufficient power can fly? The rocketeers are joking like that.
    2. Just BB
      Just BB 16 January 2016 07: 16 New
      +6
      The Chief Designer is Nature! You can’t argue against her laws. Look at the swift animals: dolphin, killer whale, leopard, etc.
      At the same time, a buffalo, an elephant, finally a horse
      1. novobranets
        novobranets 16 January 2016 08: 43 New
        +4
        Quote: Just VV
        dolphin, killer whale, leopard, etc.
        At the same time, a buffalo, an elephant, finally a horse

        The first three are speed, the second is tri-power. Each species has its own beauty, such as an airplane and a tank. Whales, this is an unsurpassed natural experience of hydrodynamics, not for nothing that submarines are similar to them.
        PySy You did not mention the birds, also a masterpiece of nature.
    3. sergeybulkin
      sergeybulkin 16 January 2016 08: 49 New
      -3
      "An ugly plane just won't fly"

      Oh my, of course. BUT, these “flying wings” in general, in principle, cannot fly. In flight, they behave like a sheet of paper thrown downwind. That is, there is no aerodynamics, its flight in a straight line and all maneuvers are supported by a computer that continuously controls a complex system of stabilizers. There is no point in bothering, the flying wing is just a beautiful fantasy, no more. Our "white swan" is without a doubt the most successful aircraft of this class, like the TU22, SU24. Another thing, designed in the 60s - 70s of the last century, they are made of not sufficiently durable materials, such as after a long flight on a supersonic TU160 is subject to decommissioning,
      MIG 25 high-altitude supersonic fighter bomber.
      due to overheating of the fuselage, it deforms, cracks appear, etc. Our only aircraft capable of flying without supersonic sound is the MIG 25, in which most of the fuselage is an all-welded stainless steel assembly, with additional lower spars and beams - a fuel tank compartment, without operational connectors. This is a mass-produced machine which still does not have and had no analogues. On September 6, 1976, the MiG-25 was hijacked by Soviet Air Force pilot Viktor Belenko to Japan (Hakodate). This put an end to the history of the USSR’s most unique aircraft. tongue
      1. Susul
        Susul 16 January 2016 09: 20 New
        12
        Well, you wrote ...
        SU-27/30 and 35 by themselves cannot fly either, because they are built according to the aerodynamic instability scheme.
        And it helps them to fly where the on-board computer is needed, which decides where and how the plane should fly ... And if the computer does not agree with the actions of the pilot, then the pilot will only have to beat his head against the RUS
        1. sergeybulkin
          sergeybulkin 16 January 2016 09: 32 New
          -4
          Well, you wrote ...
          SU-27/30 and 35 by themselves cannot fly either, because they are built according to the aerodynamic instability scheme.

          You are mistaken, in fact, everything is wrong there, because a compromise was needed between stability in flight at subsonic and supersonic speeds, this glider flies like a bird, but with a flying wing it is the other way around - it always wants to fall into a tailspin.
          1. Midshipman
            Midshipman 17 January 2016 17: 03 New
            0
            "Flying Wings" quite a fly without any corkscrew. Watch the video of flying drones - half of the bottom is made according to the "flying wing". The same - R / U aircraft model, he himself had one. And the history of the construction and operation of such aircraft began long before B2.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. lysyj bob
        lysyj bob 16 January 2016 12: 19 New
        +8
        "they are made of not strong enough materials, such as after a long flight on supersonic TU160 to be written off in scrap metal"

        The supersonic flight for the Tu-160 is needed only to carry out a combat attack with nuclear weapons. And it’s not a fact that he will have to go back. So he will fulfill his task and have a margin of safety. Making a strategic bomber of this size using MiG-25 technologies is an unreasonably expensive pleasure. In peacetime, it can fly
        1. sergeybulkin
          sergeybulkin 16 January 2016 12: 39 New
          -22
          Making a strategic bomber of this size using MiG-25 technologies is unreasonably expensive

          Who knows, there was a project of a plane with a nuclear reactor on board, maybe in time we will finally understand that it is better to build schools and kindergartens, good roads and housing, grow bread and potatoes, than invest trillions of villages. rub. into iron, which should essentially only scare enemies from overseas! tongue tongue tongue
          1. Saratoga833
            Saratoga833 16 January 2016 15: 46 New
            16
            Who does not want to feed his army - will feed someone else's! Of course, building schools and kindergartens is very good, but without their protection it’s an empty occupation!
          2. theadenter
            theadenter 16 January 2016 18: 32 New
            +3
            The army is needed no less than schools, hospitals and kindergartens. And even more.
            1. Captain45
              Captain45 16 January 2016 20: 48 New
              +2
              Quote: theadenter
              The army is needed no less than schools, hospitals and kindergartens. And even more.

              Quite right. There will not be a strong army, there will be no schools, no hospitals, no kindergartens.
          3. Dart2027
            Dart2027 16 January 2016 20: 43 New
            10
            Quote: sergeybulkin
            maybe in time we will finally understand that it is better to build schools and kindergartens, good roads and housing, grow bread and potatoes, than invest trillions of villages. rub. into iron, which should essentially only scare enemies from overseas!

            Tell me please. Have you ever had to talk with Serbs, Libyans and Syrians on this subject?
            1. mav1971
              mav1971 19 January 2016 13: 25 New
              0
              Quote: Dart2027

              Tell me please. Have you ever had to talk with Serbs, Libyans and Syrians on this subject?


              This is understandable.
              But there are other examples.
              On the other hand are the Japanese.
              At first it was all.
              The largest military machine.
              Destroyed.
              Then a minuscule to the military commissar.
              All to schools, universities. industry.
              Now the result - you can see for yourself.
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 25 January 2016 23: 19 New
                0
                Quote: mav1971
                Now the result - you can see for yourself.

                Yes, an occupied country that is completely dependent on the grace of the owner.
        2. Iline
          Iline 16 January 2016 15: 33 New
          +6
          Quote: lysyj bob
          Supersonic flight for the Tu-160 is needed only to carry out a combat attack with nuclear weapons

          Missiles in service with the Tu-160 cannot be dropped at supersonic carrier speeds. The declared range of speeds of the aircraft carrier is at launch 540 - 1050 km / h. Moreover, due to the sufficiently flimsy rocket hull, no one will risk launching at speeds above 800 km / h.
          Swam - I know.
          1. BLOND
            BLOND 16 January 2016 16: 45 New
            +2
            Quote: Iline
            Quote: lysyj bob
            Supersonic flight for the Tu-160 is needed only to carry out a combat attack with nuclear weapons

            Missiles in service with the Tu-160 cannot be dropped at supersonic carrier speeds. The declared range of speeds of the aircraft carrier is at launch 540 - 1050 km / h. Moreover, due to the sufficiently flimsy rocket hull, no one will risk launching at speeds above 800 km / h.
            Swam - I know.


            During the development of the Tu-160, more than a dozen suspension options for ASP were worked out (including with nuclear free-falling bombs)
            So supersound was necessary to escape from the epicenter of a nuclear explosion to reduce the impact of its damaging factors
            Also for overcoming the air defense zone and avoiding the pursuit of enemy fighters
            1. Iline
              Iline 16 January 2016 17: 24 New
              +3
              Quote: BLOND
              So supersound was necessary to escape from the epicenter of a nuclear explosion to reduce the impact of its damaging factors

              So the subsonic Tu-95V freely left at its speed from the epicenter of a nuclear explosion. The only snag was with the Tsar bomb - I had to reduce its TNT equivalent. Otherwise, the plane would not have dodged. And note - this type of aircraft conducted real nuclear tests.
              To date, no country in the world is armed with bombs of similar power. So the presence of supersonic for the goals voiced by you is not necessary at all.
              About the use of bombs on this type of aircraft in general. In my memory, in combat units, for various reasons, bombs were never used. This is a long history of bombing on the Tu-160, but the fact remains.
              1. BLOND
                BLOND 17 January 2016 04: 55 New
                +1
                Yes, in Priluki there was no Tu-160 for bombing (for this it was necessary to remove the MKU, I don’t remember the labor intensity) I think in Engels too
                found
                The Tu-160 bomber armament is regarded as a “second stage” weapon, designed to destroy targets that survived after the first bomber missile strike. It is also located in the weapons compartments and may include adjustable bombs of various types, including the most powerful domestic ammunition of this class of the KAB-1500 series with a caliber of 1500 kg.
        3. the most important
          the most important 16 January 2016 17: 07 New
          -2
          Quote: lysyj bob
          . In peacetime, he can fly on the "subsound"

          Do you need bombers for peacetime ???
        4. mav1971
          mav1971 19 January 2016 13: 23 New
          0
          Quote: lysyj bob
          "they are made of not strong enough materials, such as after a long flight on supersonic TU160 to be written off in scrap metal"

          The supersonic flight for the Tu-160 is needed only to carry out a combat attack with nuclear weapons. And it’s not a fact that he will have to go back. So he will fulfill his task and have a margin of safety. Making a strategic bomber of this size using MiG-25 technologies is an unreasonably expensive pleasure. In peacetime, it can fly


          Nothing prevented the Americans from making an F-111 which flew including supersonic at an extremely low altitude of 60-80 meters in the envelope mode. and moreover, repeatedly and without writing off to scrap.
      3. dustycat
        dustycat 16 January 2016 12: 42 New
        +8
        Well, you are somehow sloppy to flying wings.
        Flying wings in nature are flying squirrels and eagles and owls.
        It’s quite normal to drive without supercomputers and are economical in flight.
        Aircraft of the pre-war series K, for example, or post-war British.
        Of course, a fighter according to the scheme of a flying wing is not a fountain - for this purpose it is real without computer steering at all, but where you need to take as much as possible as far as possible and as soon as possible the flying wing will be lit by radars just right.
        By the way, the Tu160 in super sound mode also has a flying wing configuration, and at the same time dispenses with supercomputers in taxiing.
        As for cracking planes, you have broken it.
        Normally, the metal for the Tu160 holds super sound mode.
        1000 (according to some sources 3000) hours of super sound (it can blow for 4 hours at one gas station) is not a fountain, but so far not a single White Swan has flown even a quarter of it.
        But with engines it’s more difficult for them. There is still work and work.
        This is far from the end.
        New coatings for the fuselages, new control technologies, new materials and engines come.
        Mig25 is a nice car.
        But there is also a MiG31. Also made of stainless steel.
        And he had already been buried three times.
        Flies and will fly.
        1. sergeybulkin
          sergeybulkin 16 January 2016 13: 28 New
          +2
          Flying wings in nature are flying squirrels and eagles and owls.
          It’s quite normal to drive without supercomputers and are economical in flight.

          Hello, come! And the brain of these squirrels and mice is not a super computer ??? tongue tongue tongue
      4. The comment was deleted.
      5. opus
        opus 16 January 2016 18: 33 New
        +4
        Quote: sergeybulkin
        . In flight, they behave like a sheet of paper thrown downwind. That is, there is no aerodynamics, its flight in a straight line and all maneuvers

        Come on.
        Northrop B-35,1946



        --------------------------------------
        According to test pilots, the B-2 bomber has good stability and controllability along all axes, but its small length makes it somewhat sensitive to pitch fluctuations. A large wing span contributes to good roll stability, and a large wing area in plan and low inductive resistance allow flight with a small angle of attack. During the first flight tests, greater efficiency of the steering surfaces was revealed than previously assumed. In addition, the use of flaps or slats in some flight modes is not mandatory, and the take-off and landing distance is relatively small for an aircraft of this size. According to test pilots, the design of the B-2 is so aerodynamically clean that the engines are completely throttled during landing. Depending on the operating mode of the engines, it is possible to fly in a wide range of altitudes and speeds, with low sensitivity to changes in flight mass. In addition, it is allowed to maintain a single take-off speed regardless of the take-off mass of the aircraft and maintain the flight speed selected in accordance with the requirements of the combat mission, and not due to the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft. The four-channel digital electronic control system (EDSU) by General Electric ensures the stability of the aircraft in course and pitch. Adaptive EMF with automatic channel restructuring for stable control of the bard operator with asymmetric engine thrust or aircraft damage. The control system includes a limiter of the angle of attack.

        Even in the software for the on-board computer complex of the flight control system (after testing) minor changes were made to the control laws, since the plane turned out to be more stable in pitch than anticipated.
        1. Evrepid
          Evrepid 18 January 2016 15: 24 New
          0
          These were brought to paralai.
    4. Evrepid
      Evrepid 18 January 2016 12: 24 New
      0
      Euler said that mathematical ideality and perfection in beauty are one and the same. :)
  2. Internal combustion engine
    Internal combustion engine 16 January 2016 07: 08 New
    19
    These liberal-American ministers dispersed and closed all vocational schools. Just some kind of natural rejection, even their fear of the working class. Things have already reached the point that it is impossible to find a good (namely good) turner and even a normal welder at a regular enterprise.
    1. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 16 January 2016 07: 29 New
      +9
      Quote: ICE
      Just some kind of natural rejection, even their fear of the working class.

      This "natural rejection" bears the name of the class, as well as the inverse class hatred of the working man towards the exploiter. Sounds funny, huh? As if from a Soviet school history course? But in fact, the way it is. The old man Marx was right - the deeper the crisis of world capitalism becomes, the more sharpened are the class contradictions. History repeats itself, comrades.
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 16 January 2016 08: 24 New
        +1
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        the deeper the crisis of world capitalism becomes, the more sharpened are the class contradictions.

        Oh, and don’t say, the crisis of world capitalism is staggering! How much is the ruble today? what
        1. Ami du peuple
          Ami du peuple 16 January 2016 09: 00 New
          +5
          Quote: Bayonet
          Oh, and don’t say, the crisis of world capitalism is staggering! How much is the ruble today?

          But hell knows, I do not closely follow the courses. The economy of today's Russia is embedded in the global capitalist economy, therefore it is no wonder that the "crisis of world capitalism is embarrassing." Moreover, despite all our efforts, in this global system of redistribution of goods, we are a weak link. And too much, it seems.
        2. Captain45
          Captain45 16 January 2016 20: 54 New
          0
          Quote: Bayonet
          How much is the ruble today? what

          "I went to the Internet. I wanted to see what course ru .... damn it today !!!"
    2. srha
      srha 17 January 2016 10: 01 New
      +1
      No, not so ... Good workers will not appear, even if the ministers decide to open vocational schools. Higher education institutions have discovered, and the result? And vocational schools are only part of the path to obtaining a good professional worker. After all, all vocational schools were created for enterprises, at enterprises, so that enterprises would prepare a shift for themselves. And a graduate of vocational schools then studied for a dozen years until the 6th grade. Not everyone could ... Our 6th grade was quite equivalent to a university diploma + three-year practical activity. And to obtain it, it was necessary to study a lot, both theoretically and practically (advanced training courses) and pass exams. There are no more enterprises that care about the change and qualifications of their workers - such workers began to disappear.
    3. mav1971
      mav1971 19 January 2016 13: 36 New
      0
      Quote: ICE
      These liberal-American ministers dispersed and closed all vocational schools. Just some kind of natural rejection, even their fear of the working class. Things have already reached the point that it is impossible to find a good (namely good) turner and even a normal welder at a regular enterprise.


      And here it is?
      If you do not remember, then I will remind.
      Almost all vocational schools were either subordinate or "tied" to a particular enterprise.
      enterprise shutdown - termination of financing of vocational schools.
      And do not forget. that we didn’t let our children go to vocational schools.
      It was we who began to pull them with all our might into schools "in the tenth grade," into institutes. I don’t care what, but an institute.
      Right now, crowds of lawyers and economists / accountants got it. Which, due to the excessiveness of their own, already in the salary of 15 thousand rubles work.
      In flower stalls take only with higher education. Survived.

      But a normal welder or turner or milling machine. Especially non-drinker and knowing his own worth - he receives less than 50-60 thousands. and this excuse the 3 x years ago. When the dollar is 30 and everything is in chocolate.
      Involuntarily a question pops up again when applying for a job: "It's all good! And what can you do?" :)
  3. Just BB
    Just BB 16 January 2016 07: 33 New
    +2
    Not an article, but as it were ... "many beeches" (as they sometimes write on the net)
    One of the questions is the “dire need” of a strategic bomber?

    - “Air missile launch point” (closer to the adversary) - then it's a missile carrier. First of all, speed is important (flew by, started up and “on the move” —whose one-time is needed? - a rocket!), The refueling should provide a range.
    After all, the classic American strategic "trident" - bombers, ballistic missiles and submarines, says Nichols, this is a relic of the Cold War. He was needed in order "not to put all the eggs in one basket." In the event of a first strike from the USSR on the objects of US strategic nuclear potential, at least one of the “teeth” of this trident, for example strategic bombers, should have struck back.
    1. Iline
      Iline 16 January 2016 08: 54 New
      +4
      Currently in service are the Tu-95s that have exchanged their seventh decade

      For this pearl article immediately rated the count. Or to delve into the topic of an adult, or not to write at all, because after that, there is no confidence in the data given.
      And airplanes, including strategic bombers, are designed based on the appropriateness of its use, new technological achievements and the country's economic capabilities.
      Only these three parameters determine the appearance + aerodynamics.
      1. vladimir_krm
        vladimir_krm 16 January 2016 10: 19 New
        0
        Exactly! The author at least looked at Wikipedia. In service - only the Tu-95MS (and the years of release are indicated there), it makes no sense to compare it with the ancient Tu-95. As well as talk about some kind of abstract "bombing". For some tasks, the supersonic Tu-160 is more suitable, for some tasks, the subsonic subtle PAK YES.
    2. Beaver
      Beaver 16 January 2016 11: 03 New
      +1
      Quote: Just VV
      Not an article, but as it were ... "many beeches" (as they sometimes write on the net)

      This is due to the abundance of quotes from other articles, and not processed, not adjusted to one another and not even always cleared of excess, for example:
      even worse, no one thought about whether it was necessary, ”a Moscow military expert told IHS Jane's Defense Weekly.

      Keywords: military aviation, army of Russia, Pentagon, Air Force, military-industrial complex, fighter jets, army and armament, USA and USSR, videoconferencing


      Quote: Just VV
      - "Air missile launch point" (closer to the adversary) - then it's a missile carrier

      Here it is necessary to determine the terms.
      Bomb truck - long-distance flight, overcoming the layered air defense system, the use of weapons in the immediate vicinity of the target, a safe return to the base. Very difficult and risky, effective only against the "Papuans."
      missile carrierYou wrote about it. Definitely a more versatile and modern tool.
      Quote: Just VV
      One of the questions is the “dire need” of a strategic bomber?

      Long-range aviation of the Russian Federation should be “farther” than that of our “partners”, for lack of our military bases in close proximity to their borders. hi
  4. ICT
    ICT 16 January 2016 07: 36 New
    11
    there is another analog
    1. Susul
      Susul 16 January 2016 09: 26 New
      -7
      Nothing! In Russia master modern animation technologists?
      1. ICT
        ICT 16 January 2016 17: 34 New
        0
        Quote: SUSUL
        Nothing! In Russia master modern animation technologists?

        there are a lot of self-taught them on YouTube
        here is another of the most epic examples
    2. Dan4eG
      Dan4eG 16 January 2016 11: 30 New
      +2
      power animation! Respect to the author!
  5. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 16 January 2016 08: 06 New
    +2
    Let's not rush, You know: “It was smooth on paper, but forgot about the ravines!” So, let’s wait and see, it’s too early to say that PAK YES will be subsonic.
  6. lukewarm
    lukewarm 16 January 2016 08: 42 New
    +5
    Statements and plans are good. Just look at the price of oil, a government meeting with a constant lady and his conversations for the budget ... It is very clear that there will be no PAK YES, not only by 2020 but also in the foreseeable future. Got game, turning the country into a gas station. So it will be necessary to fight, it will be necessary soon, and most likely approximately as in Ukraine. Only with the use of aviation. We have few chances, so after some time we will have to solve the dilemma of surrender or the use of nuclear weapons. Tactical as deterrence and warning. Whether there will be political will is a question. Unless a palace coup is added here. What cannot be ruled out seeing the omnipotence of the liberal clan
  7. kuz363
    kuz363 16 January 2016 08: 56 New
    +1
    The author is an amateur in the classification of aircraft. Let him first study this topic. TU-22M has never been a strategist. It is just a long-range bomber. And the strategists are TU-160 and TU-95.
    1. Windy
      Windy 16 January 2016 09: 37 New
      0
      Tu-22m was a strategist until we (at the request of amers, according to some kind of agreement) removed the air-to-air refueling system from it. In my opinion it was in the early 90s.
      1. NIKNN
        NIKNN 16 January 2016 10: 46 New
        +5
        Tu 22m was created as a plane for the destruction of the AUG initially there was no other task. hi
        1. jjj
          jjj 16 January 2016 12: 03 New
          +4
          The rest of the Tu-22M and the modern Tu-22M3 are completely different cars, although their indices are the same. It’s just that in Soviet times it was necessary to go to different tricks: to build a completely new car, calling it the modernization of the old
  8. podgornovea
    podgornovea 16 January 2016 10: 51 New
    +1
    "This is evidenced by its features: stealth; reduced price compared to B-2;" circulation "in the amount of up to 100 units"

    Actually, B-2 not 20 pieces were planned:

    "In connection with the collapse of the USSR, from the originally planned 132 bombers, only 20 units were purchased for the entire production period."
  9. Yak28
    Yak28 16 January 2016 11: 00 New
    -5
    Aircraft in the shape of which resembles the B-2 Spirit or F-117 fly only due to the heap of modern electronics, which stabilizes the aircraft in flight, the question is whether to create a futuristic glider, which in aerodynamics is much inferior to airplanes 50 years ago. In general, a strategic bomber is good, in the course of hostilities with a not-so-strong opponent. But if suddenly NATO countries attack Russia, then almost all strategic bombers will be destroyed at airfields.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. varov14
    varov14 16 January 2016 11: 31 New
    +3
    First, it’s better to discuss where we will take the staff, and for any industry. Not one year will pass to get a high-class worker, and before you realize that he can be trusted as himself and he does not require control for some time, and finally he can be instructed to educate and train the next generation. Production is not a guide for relatives from under the “table” in any ministry, there is no kind, all-forgiving guarantor, the demand is different both from those around you and from life, often does not forgive mistakes. It’s easy to break up with do.ru, and it’s even easier to make a stupid consumer from the young generation - management, now you try to drive the opposite into his head. So squeals. whose ... in different forums in powerlessness to do something.
    1. Yak28
      Yak28 16 January 2016 11: 48 New
      +1
      Now the attitude towards workers of any specialty is usually negative, and their salaries are not large. The trainees gave me less and no one left to work by profession. The guys say we are better at the mall phones, or we will sell disks or other crap than poking around in the mud, and you don’t need to know anything and you don’t need to think.
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 16 January 2016 13: 17 New
        +2
        Yes. With cadre frames.
        Something thinking, those who were born and studied in the USSR.
        What has been studied already in the Russian Federation and even more so after the USE is quiet horror.
        It’s scary to give a file, let alone scrap, to their hands — to cripple.
        There is no question of giving something more intellectual.
        An urgent need to return the formation of the USSR sample of the 1950s.
        Although it is superfluous for 80%, it is teaching to think the remaining 20% ​​are suitable for leadership.
        And now there is no one to find a master, although people with higher education are much more numerous than in the USSR.
  12. air wolf
    air wolf 16 January 2016 12: 03 New
    -1
    I have long been saying that the deep modernization of the Tu-22M will create a reserve for strategists until 2050. Given the increase due to new engines and refueling over a range of over 10 thousand km. And there is no point in investing in TU-160! We have enough Tu-22soldier
    1. servant.
      servant. 17 January 2016 08: 32 New
      +1
      And what new engines are installed on the TU-22?
  13. evge-malyshev
    evge-malyshev 16 January 2016 12: 24 New
    +3
    Information for some:
    In Tsarist Russia and the USSR, Long-Range Aviation was called Far.
    In the "new" Russia, for some time, it was the 37th VA of the All-Russian High Commission for Strategic Command (CH - strategic purpose - the term "strategic", like many other things in those times, was borrowed from adversaries). In modern Russia, Long-Range Aviation has again become Long-Range.
  14. dustycat
    dustycat 16 January 2016 13: 08 New
    +2
    I don’t get it.
    We started with a picture of something reminiscent of a supersonic seaplane distant bomber Bartini.
    And they ended up with some sort of verbiage not even based on Wikipedia at least.
    The picture is certainly frightening, but we must take into account that 60% of the opposing Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are purely fuselages requiring a fair amount of investment, another 20 are under repair and can be ready within a week at best, the rest rolls into the tail and mane and by half X and it will require a major overhaul.
    Comments on a more comprehensive article.
    In principle - leave one headline and comments.
  15. Old26
    Old26 16 January 2016 13: 31 New
    +3
    Quote: Windy
    Tu-22m was a strategist until we (at the request of amers, according to some kind of agreement) removed the air-to-air refueling system from it. In my opinion it was in the early 90s.

    In the early 80s. Under the OSV-2 agreement. After removing the refueling system, he lost its continental range.

    Quote: jjj
    The rest of the Tu-22M and the modern Tu-22M3 are completely different cars, although their indices are the same. It’s just that in Soviet times it was necessary to go to different tricks: to build a completely new car, calling it the modernization of the old

    When they write in the text that, for example, an airplane, for example, 40 or 60 years old, has in mind the base machine with which the family went. TU-22M and TU-22M3 could have different equipment, different engines and weapons, but their layout remained the same (with some variations, but nonetheless). Yes, in Soviet times they did some tricks, but in principle, from military vehicles, I know only one - TU-22. In reality, the TU-22 and TU-22M are really different cars. But when it comes to the family - this is still not quite true.

    Quote: Iline
    Currently in service are the Tu-95s that have exchanged their seventh decade

    For this pearl article immediately rated the count. Or to delve into the topic of an adult, or not to write at all, because after that, there is no confidence in the data given.
    And airplanes, including strategic bombers, are designed based on the appropriateness of its use, new technological achievements and the country's economic capabilities.
    Only these three parameters determine the appearance + aerodynamics.

    The phrase is clumsily written, I do not argue. It would be better to write differently, for example the latest modification, which exchanged the 7th decade of the TU-95 bomber

    Quote: vladimir_krm
    Exactly! The author at least looked at Wikipedia. In service - only the Tu-95MS (and the years of release are indicated there), it makes no sense to compare it with the ancient Tu-95. As well as talk about some kind of abstract "bombing". For some tasks, the supersonic Tu-160 is more suitable, for some tasks, the subsonic subtle PAK YES.

    Why there is no point. This is one family of cars that has a couple of dozen modifications. After all, speaking of the same B-52, we are talking about it as a "ancient" car, which is already over 60. But after all, everyone understands that the B-52A is different from the filling of the B-52N
  16. Orionvit
    Orionvit 16 January 2016 14: 48 New
    -1
    Quote: podgornovea
    "This is evidenced by its features: stealth; reduced price compared to B-2;" circulation "in the amount of up to 100 units"

    Actually, B-2 not 20 pieces were planned:

    "In connection with the collapse of the USSR, from the originally planned 132 bombers, only 20 units were purchased for the entire production period."

    They correctly say that all new American equipment is indecently expensive and indecently difficult to maintain. Everything will be like with B-2. A plane for $ 2 billion, that's cool. Budget for sawing yes, combat use, let them try. Only stupid Arabs do not see the praised invisibility, but the same Serbs see perfectly (we all remember the case of the "unkilled" F-117), not to mention Russian air defense.
  17. vv3
    vv3 16 January 2016 14: 52 New
    +2
    First about the “gods of war." The GOD of modern warfare is information technology. From this point of view, PAK YES is a golden target or a means of cutting money. At least in the realities of the modern economic crisis for us. First, create combat links "UAV ~ ArtSystem", " Aircraft reconnaissance-art system "," RLO-Art system "and ....
    m, these ligaments need to be combined into information and combat systems, with the ability to select information and combat components by the operator to achieve maximum success, and all this in real time ... In the meantime, there is no PAK FA and PAK YES, robots and Armata complete garbage .. .
  18. CRASH
    CRASH 16 January 2016 15: 14 New
    0
    All this is garbage, the main thing is to survive 2016 without defaults, etc.
  19. Old26
    Old26 16 January 2016 18: 05 New
    0
    Quote: dustycat
    We started with a picture of something reminiscent of a supersonic seaplane distant bomber Bartini.


    more like a T-4MS bomber
  20. iouris
    iouris 16 January 2016 20: 03 New
    +1
    The farther, the more and more it becomes unclear why the USSR collapsed. This did not affect the US military budget.
  21. BABAY22
    BABAY22 17 January 2016 05: 15 New
    +1
    Russia intends to build at least 50 Tu-160 bombers before the end of this decade

    According to current plans, the first flight of the PAK DA must be completed no later than 2019, and in 2023–2025 this type of aircraft will be replaced by Tu-95, Tu-22M and Tu-160

    Sorry, dear comrades. But are they really holding us for anything, or is this sermon intended for the patriotic education of first graders?
    For the remaining 4 years, 50 Tu-160 strategists?
    And then these same 50 brand new Tu-160s in 5 years to the guillotine, since the newest PAK YES are coming in packs from factories, and there isn’t enough space at the airfields to stack them.
    I’ll go, I’m probably from here.
    1. servant.
      servant. 17 January 2016 08: 30 New
      0
      Well, then all the SU-24s have been replaced by PAK FA, since 2015, re-equipment is in full swing ... as if with PAK YES it just didn’t work either .....
  22. Scraptor
    Scraptor 17 January 2016 09: 13 New
    0
    Those who draw here should also take into account (in terms of tanks and aryillery) that NATO does not border China, which was even a bigger problem for the USSR.
  23. Sergey-8848
    Sergey-8848 17 January 2016 14: 54 New
    0
    While all aviation is in Engels, at least 5, at least 150 can be produced. The goal on impact will be one. It is necessary to restore the ground component, and this money is comparable with the production of new equipment. It is easy to plunder - it’s easy to recover later - twice as much.
  24. leon1204id
    leon1204id 17 January 2016 22: 23 New
    0
    PAK YES not yet, but the world war is already underway (informational, economic, psychological, war for brains and technologies)
    This article is just a rehash on famous topics.
    But if you don’t think about it, it’s nice. laughing