Military Review

Russia – USA: bomber contest (The National Interest, USA)

85
Russia – USA: bomber contest (The National Interest, USA)



In previous articles - “This is a Russian nuclear weapon Better American ”and“ US vs Russia: the struggle for nuclear supremacy under water ”(US vs Russia: Struggling for Undersea Nuclear Supremacy) - we looked at the strategic nuclear balance between Russia and the US in the context of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles launched from submarines, respectively. We also examined in detail the issue of the total number of strategic carriers and nuclear warheads in the arsenals of these countries, as well as the question of their fulfillment of the terms of the new START treaty, according to which the number of carriers should be reduced to 700 and the number of warheads to 1550.

In this article, we will look at the remaining component of the nuclear forces, namely the strategic bombers. In the US and Russian arsenals, bombers make up the smallest share of strategic nuclear forces: Washington’s 5,5% of warheads (85 bombers, each of which has one warhead) and about 3% of Russian warheads (approximately 50 bombers).

At first glance, this is a very insignificant share, which cannot play any significant role. But there is one “but”: although, according to the START treaty, there is one warhead for each bomber, in reality it carries much more warheads. For example, the Russian Tu-160 White Swan can carry up to 12 strategic cruise missiles with nuclear warheads on board, so the real potential of strategic bombers does not match what is written on paper. In general, strategic bombers have a number of advantages and disadvantages compared to ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles. Among the advantages are the significant unpredictability of the attack direction, the ability to change the combat mission in flight, and the ability to use non-nuclear high-precision weapons in local and regional conflicts. As for the main drawback, it is possible to single out a lower speed of action during a counterattack - modern intercontinental ballistic missiles require a maximum of five minutes to prepare for launch, and in this sense aviation to a large extent inferior to them. On the other hand, when several planes are on the alert at once, it is almost impossible to destroy them by means of a preventive strike over the “home” territory. But from a technical point of view, intercepting a bomber or a cruise missile is a more realistic option than an effective missile defense system.

Now let's take a closer look at the strategic aviation of the United States and Russia and compare the effectiveness of their current weapons.

USA: “Ghost” without rockets and “good old” B-52

According to the US Department of State's 1 January 2016, the X-NUMX Spirit Spirit bomber and the B-12 Bomber StratoFortress bomber are currently in service. There is another bomber that was previously classified as strategic - B-2 “Lancer” - but it is not capable of carrying nuclear weapons, so we excluded it from the list - for the reasons that will be discussed below.

Let's start with В-52Н, which, despite its considerable age (the equipment that is currently in service, was made in 1960-ies, that is, for more than 50 years), remains almost the only carrier of strategic cruise missiles in US Army. I'm talking about AGM-86B ALCM missiles, whose range is 2,4 thousands of kilometers. High-precision non-nuclear modifications of these missiles, which can hit targets at a distance of up to 1,2 thousands of kilometers, still remain in service. This makes the B-52 the main aircraft of nuclear deterrent.

As for the B-2 "Spirit", this aircraft is the most high-tech and expensive bomber in the world. These aircraft entered service in the 1994 year. Then the 21 aircraft was released, after which they were stopped doing - they were prohibitively expensive. Given the cost of development, the price of a single B-2 aircraft is 2,1 billion dollars. For the same money, the United States received a plane with the lowest ESR parameters - the lower this figure, the less noticeable this or that object becomes for enemy radars. Moreover, there is information indicating that the ESR of the giant B-2 is lower than the EPR of the small F-22 and F-35 fighters. It was originally planned that they would penetrate into the zone of enemy air defense systems to conduct an attack. However, modern Russian radars are capable of fixing targets of this type — lower visibility only makes it possible to shorten the detection distance, but does not completely eliminate it. Given that the B-2 bombers are equipped only with free-fall nuclear bombs and do not carry strategic cruise missiles onboard, an effective attack on an adversary, such as Russia, seems highly unlikely. For example, the Russian C-400 anti-aircraft missile systems recognize “normal” targets at a distance of 600 kilometers. Even if the B-2 bomber is “recognized” at a distance of just 200 or even 100 kilometers, it will not be able to drop its bombs on time. Modern and modernized fighters, such as the Su-30CM, Su-35C and MiG-31BM, can also be connected to the search for "ghosts." This is what makes the B-2 somewhat clumsy aircraft: despite its record price, its real role in a hypothetical nuclear conflict will be insignificant. This bomber is much more suitable (and often used) for conducting non-nuclear attacks in local conflicts.

Finally, let's say a few words about the B-1 “Lancer”. This bomber, outwardly very reminiscent of the Russian Tu-160, turned out not the way it was originally planned. It cannot develop any practically significant supersonic speed: the maximum possible speed is Mach 1,25 (that is, the speed of sound is at 25% faster). AGM-69 SRAM missiles that this bomber could carry up to 1990 year (that year they were discontinued) could cover distances of only 160 kilometers, which was not in any way compared to Soviet cruise missiles. Further, this bomber was able to carry free-fall nuclear bombs, and later it was not equipped with nuclear weapons at all, because of which it was removed from the list of strategic weapons. That is why the B-1B bombers did not make it to the list of the new START treaty. Nevertheless, if necessary, this bomber can be equipped with nuclear weapons again - this does not require any major modifications. However, the free-fall bombs will be quite difficult to deliver deep into the territory of Russia or China, even for B-2, not to mention B-1, for which this task will be impossible.

Speaking of prospects, a new strategic bomber is currently being developed as part of the Program for creating a long-range strike bomber. The approximate concept of the new bomber was made public on 27 on February 2016 by US Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James. This bomber, which was named B-21, will be created in the “flying wing” type, as well as B-2. The main requirements for the aircraft - it is even lower level of visibility and adequate cost (it is planned that one such aircraft will cost 564 million dollars). Northrop Grumman will receive a total of 80 billions of dollars in the development and production of hundreds of new bombers. Production will begin no earlier than the middle of the 2020-s. B-21 bombers must replace all B-52H and B-1В aircraft. Obviously, the new bomber will carry onboard modern cruise missiles, which are being developed as part of a weapons program used outside the air defense zone. Information about when this weapon will be developed and what characteristics it will possess is not yet available.

The White Swan and the Bear are equipped with the most advanced strategic cruise missiles

As in the case of the United States, there are now two types of strategic bombers in service with Russia: the Tu-95MS (according to the NATO codification "Bear") and the Tu-160 "White Swan" (according to the codification of NATO "Blackjack").

Let's first consider the Tu-95MS. The basic version of the Tu-95 entered service in the USSR in the year 1956. However, all earlier versions of this aircraft were disposed of. The upgraded "Bears", which are now in service in Russia, were released in the period from 1981 to 1982 year, that is, they are much "younger" than the American B-52. Now 64 bomber of this type is at the disposal of Russia, although half of them are in storage, and 30-35 bombers remain in service. The main weapon of the Tu-95 is the X-55CM cruise missile with a maximum launch range of 3,5 thousands of kilometers. Moreover, the process of upgrading this bomber to version Tu-95MSM (before 35 aircraft) has already begun. The upgraded bombers will be able to use the latest X-101 / 102 cruise missiles with non-nuclear and nuclear warheads, respectively. This new rocket has excellent performance: the maximum launch range of the 5,5 is thousands of kilometers, its filigree accuracy and all-round deviation of only five meters. In addition, this rocket was made using stealth technology. Non-nuclear missile X-101 has already been successfully used in the field - in Syria. The Tu-95 carries on board eight cruise missiles, either X-55 or X-101 / 102. After the modernization process is completed, this bomber will last a long time, at least until the 2030-s.

The most advanced Russian strategic bomber is the Tu-160. Currently in service with the Russian Air Force are 16 bombers of this type. Its maximum speed is much higher than that of its American twin, the B-1, and is Mach 1,6. Moreover, the Tu-160 carries strategic cruise missiles on its 12 board. The Tu-95MS bombers are equipped with the same cruise missiles: these are the X-55 and X-101 / 102 missiles. Aircraft of this type are already undergoing some modernization: they are installing new equipment that will allow them to use high-precision non-nuclear weapons. In addition, work is underway to update the production of the White Swan, which will be upgraded to version Tu-160М2. An improved bomber will have a completely new electronic "stuffing" and in many ways superior to its predecessor. The exact number of aircraft that is planned to be released is still unknown, but there was talk about 50 bombers. Their production, according to the plan, will begin in 2023 year.

Regarding the project of the new PAK DA bomber (Advanced Aviation Complex of Long-Range Aviation), after the decision to resume production of the Tu-160, the conditions for implementing this project became extremely vague: before its first flight was planned to be held in 2025, which now seems impossible. The concept of this aircraft has not yet been disclosed, however, most likely, it will be a subsonic low-profile bomber, resembling an American long-range strike bomber.

conclusions

In terms of quantity, American strategic aviation has a significant advantage over Russia. However, the American aircraft are now equipped with much worse: the range of the Russian X-101 / X-102 cruise missiles, which are already in service, exceeds the range of their American counterparts more than twice, which is a guarantee that Russian bombers will be able to release all their missiles from a safe distance to any enemy. However, knocking down the B-52H, which carries the AGM-86B ALCM rocket, is a very difficult task. In addition, B-2, which is not equipped with cruise missiles at all, is unlikely to be able to realize its potential in a real global nuclear war, despite the fact that this platform is the most advanced in the world.

As for future prospects, the B-21 development program has just begun, and it is unclear what difficulties the developers may encounter and whether it will be possible to fully implement this program. The same can be said about the Russian project PAK DA - the future of these two bombers is still uncertain. But this cannot be said about the Tu-160М2, the start of production of which may be difficult, but it is quite realistic. Considering what level Russian developers in the field of strategic cruise missiles were able to achieve, the upgraded Tu-160 with its guns will be able to serve as a nuclear deterrent for several decades, as well as take part in local conflicts if necessary.

Nuclear deterrence strategy for the foreseeable future

Now let us briefly summarize the results of our series of articles devoted to all components of the US and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals.

As far as we understand, possessing mobile launch platforms and more advanced systems for penetrating missile defense systems and approaching the creation of a maneuvering supersonic warhead, Russia has a significant advantage over land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles compared to the United States. This may be due, among other things, to the fact that the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and began to actively develop this type of weapon, provoking Russia to an asymmetric response to the emerging threat.

As for submarines equipped with sea-based ballistic missiles, the United States now has more balanced forces in this area thanks to the use of Ohio-class atomic submarines equipped with highly reliable Trident II missiles. However, Russia became the first country to create fourth-generation strategic nuclear submarines: three submarines of the Borey project 955 are already in service. Therefore, for some time, until the United States begins to develop the SSBN (X) submarine, which should replace Ohio, the scales may be in balance or lean toward Russia.

We wrote about strategic aviation above. Its role in the use of nuclear deterrent is less than the role of intercontinental ballistic missiles and sea-based ballistic missiles, although it also occupies its niche. Today we can talk about the situation of parity of the parties in this area.

Summarizing all the above, we come to the only conclusion: nuclear weapons still play an important positive role in preventing global wars. Moreover, in the foreseeable future the situation will not change - every step of one of the parties will be accompanied by a swift response. Therefore, while the US is developing its missile defense systems, Russia will develop intercontinental ballistic missiles and warheads that will be able to overcome these missile defense systems. In this situation, only weapons manufacturers benefit, who will always enjoy generous funding. Thus, all the arguments and statements about nuclear war are either propaganda or destructive - people simply do not understand what they are talking about.
Author:
Originator:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/russia-vs-america-nuclear-bomber-showdown-16460
85 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Teberii
    Teberii 9 June 2016 21: 42
    +9
    All types of weapons have their own advantages. And it is good that only 2 countries have a full arsenal.
    1. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 9 June 2016 22: 03
      +10
      Quote: Teberii
      .. only 2 countries have a full arsenal
      Uh ... But China does not take into account? The Chinese have a full nuclear triad.
      1. Tusv
        Tusv 9 June 2016 22: 10
        +12
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        The Chinese have a full nuclear triad.

        As the intelligence says, the Chinese will take over on the DB here. It is this "here that" that distinguishes the full-fledged nuclear triad from all the others.
        1. Ami du peuple
          Ami du peuple 9 June 2016 22: 48
          +5
          Quote: Tusv
          As intelligence says
          Intelligence may be wrong, in addition, the Chinese know how to keep secrets (especially when China is not bound by any strategic offensive arms treaties). But the fact that China has strategic land-based (mobile and mine) -based missiles, sea-based ICBMs (on at least two SSBNs) and strategic bombers capable of carrying missiles is beyond doubt. Let the Chinese strategic nuclear forces are not a couple of Russian and American, but they are. And not nominally.
          Quote: Tusv
          This is a club of two countries.
          The Chinese will not ask anyone for permission. At the current growth rate of their economy and the military-industrial and scientific potential, China is quite capable of creating competition for the strategic nuclear forces of the United States and the Russian Federation.
          1. poquello
            poquello 9 June 2016 23: 09
            +1
            Maybe that has changed, but China could not fully threaten its US strategic nuclear forces, and I have not heard about Chinese bases near America.
            1. Ami du peuple
              Ami du peuple 9 June 2016 23: 39
              +3
              Quote: poquello
              Maybe that has changed
              Nothing has changed much, including the fact that experts radically diverge in assessing the nuclear potential of China, estimating the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads over a wide range from 50 to 250 pieces smile
              Quote: poquello
              ..but China could not fully threaten its US strategic nuclear forces
              And now he cannot, just as he is not capable of causing unacceptable damage to the States. But from this fact, all three components of the Chinese nuclear triad will not go anywhere, right?
              1. poquello
                poquello 9 June 2016 23: 52
                0
                Quote: Ami du peuple
                And now he cannot, just as he is not capable of causing unacceptable damage to the States. But from this fact, all three components of the Chinese nuclear triad will not go anywhere, right?

                the triad is a delivery method, their submarines were close to a walk to the US coast, but since the Americans do not squeal, it means so far
                1. Ami du peuple
                  Ami du peuple 10 June 2016 00: 18
                  +1
                  Quote: poquello
                  Submarines they were close to a walk to the US coast
                  They have close nuclear submarines, and land-based ICBMs can reach the United States (at least Hawaii and Alaska are definitely at risk smile )
                  Quote: poquello
                  since Americans don’t yell, it’s still dull
                  Why should they scream? From the PRC side, the hypothetical nuclear threat is much less real for them than from the RF side. It’s just right for Russia to think about, with our common border with China of 4 thousand km.
                  1. bulvas
                    bulvas 10 June 2016 01: 35
                    +2

                    Speaking about the possibilities of China, do not forget that the meaning of nuclear

                    deterrence is not a secret, but just the opposite.

                    Opponents should be well aware of each other's capabilities.

                  2. The comment was deleted.
                  3. 73bor
                    73bor 10 June 2016 07: 55
                    +1
                    And they have nuclear submarines and ICBMs, but the Chinese have tight bombers and this is a fact!
          2. crazyrom
            crazyrom 9 June 2016 23: 29
            0
            AGM-69 SRAM rockets, ... could cover distances of just 160 kilometers

            No wonder they are called Sram.
          3. silver_roman
            silver_roman 10 June 2016 17: 43
            0
            What is worse is that the Chinese have short-range missiles. We are limited by INF. Nobody is threatening the states. So, in essence, we are in a vulnerable position in this regard. But in fact, this also has no essence, because The INF Treaty does not apply to water, where we have calibers, and also an Iskander rocket can easily spit 1000+ km.
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 10 June 2016 01: 24
        -4
        China has no cruise strategic missiles and no new bombers either.
        1. Leto
          Leto 10 June 2016 06: 47
          -3
          Quote: Vadim237
          China has no cruise strategic missiles and no new bombers either.

          Naive Albanian youth ...
          Xian H-6K
          1. 73bor
            73bor 10 June 2016 08: 01
            +4
            These are not new bombers, these are old Tu-16 analogues that even do not reach the Tu-22M3, they are up to strategists how to dig to the Chinese metro!
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 10 June 2016 10: 06
            0
            This is generally technological junk - stupid copying.
        2. opus
          opus 10 June 2016 12: 59
          +1
          Quote: Vadim237
          China has no cruise strategic missiles yet

          belay

          STRATEGIC WINGED ROCKET CJ-10K (CJ-10A) AIR AND LAND / MARINE BASING (CHINA)



          STRATEGIC WINGED ROCKET Rocket based CJ-10 / Cháng Jiàn 10 / Long Sword

          the presence in the armament of the Second Artillery Corps (strategic missile forces) of the PLA of mobile Sword-10 cruise missile systems (CJ-10 / Cháng Jiàn 10 / Long Sword / Long Sword, was first shown at the 2009 military parade of the year)
          Threat China did not sign the INF Treaty


          "Sword-10" has its own characteristics. The flight control of the existing version from the ground control station is carried out from a mobile command post, the aviation version of the Kyrgyz Republic - from an airplane. Terrestrial-based RCs have a range of 1500 to 2500 km, and the airborne RCs are 3000 km. The missile is equipped with a warhead weighing 300 kg and is capable of sinking a missile cruiser with a displacement of 10000 tons.




          For a strategic missile, a terrain guidance system is used, like American-made AGM-86 and Tomahawk missiles, Russian-made X-55 and Granat missiles, as well as a GPS-type satellite navigation system.

          China and Pakistan strategic arms
          1. poquello
            poquello 10 June 2016 13: 22
            0
            Quote: opus
            Quote: Vadim237
            China has no cruise strategic missiles yet


            STRATEGIC WINGED ROCKET CJ-10K (CJ-10A) AIR AND LAND BASING (CHINA)

            probably he meant delivery for 8000, those ability of China to hit continental states
            1. opus
              opus 10 June 2016 14: 48
              +1
              Quote: poquello
              probably he meant delivery for 8000, those ability of China to hit continental states

              1. Well, I am more concerned about the blow to the Russian Federation, to the USA, let them hit me like that.
              and land-based rocket-based missile defense in the Far East is mba us.
              China is not a party to the INF Treaty, however, like Sweden, Germany, France, England and Ukraine
              2.CJ-10 Media



              Will be placed on the submarine
              3.Tomahawks the same from California or from Cape Kennedy.
              Quote: poquello
              Shipping for 8000,
              will not master.
              But
              Quote: poquello
              ability
              to strike at the territory of the Russian Federation - is not in doubt?
              But he meant specifically
              Quote: Vadim237
              Cruise missiles in China not yet

              China changed the name of the Changjiang-10 or CJ-10 ground-based cruise missile to Dongfeng-10 or DF-10. DF-10 missile with a firing range 1500-2500 km

              Classification
              Cruise missiles are divided

              by type of charge:
              with nuclear equipment
              with conventional equipment

              for tasks (purpose) to be solved:
              strategic
              tactical
              operational tactical

              by type of base:
              terrestrial
              aerial
              Maritime
              underwater

              1. poquello
                poquello 11 June 2016 00: 37
                +1
                Quote: opus
                ability to strike on the territory of the Russian Federation - not in doubt

                therefore, China’s progress towards the possibility of striking the United States is more interesting to me, and they are moving towards this
                1. opus
                  opus 11 June 2016 12: 26
                  +2
                  Quote: poquello
                  China to the possibility of hitting the US I am more interested

                  If only not in our direction, if only not the Far East and Kazakhstan.
                  Av side of the United States (duhoook!) Or Japan (isho what a favor!) - only for. yes
                  "tangerines" they are, they remember everything ...
                  But....
                  However:
                  we are closer
                  more accessible transport
                  and almost unprotected by China.

                  After all, when the INF Treaty was initiated, smart heads moaned:
                  DO NOT DESTROY! REMOVE THE EUROPEAN PART OF THE USSR, MOVE TO DV.
                  If there were positional areas in the Far East now
                  RSD-10 Pioneer and RK-55 / 3K12 Relief




                  it would be a different world (what kind of "the question of the northern territories" would not be remembered about, and the expansion of China would hardly touch us)
    2. Tusv
      Tusv 9 June 2016 22: 06
      +2
      Quote: Teberii
      All types of weapons have their own advantages. And it is good that only 2 countries have a full arsenal.

      This is a club of two countries. In relation to others, absolute agreement between the USA and Russia
    3. tol100v
      tol100v 9 June 2016 22: 14
      +3
      You're wrong! Not two countries, but much more! And while the SGA and the Russian Federation reduced the amount of nuclear weapons, others increased it. After all, no one knows the nuclear potential (and gold, too) of China. But nuclear weapons of V. Small Britain and France are not taken into account in calculations with the Russian Federation. And how many unrecognized and few recognized owners of nuclear weapons remain ?! And the main question - What will they do with it and where to direct !?
      1. Tusv
        Tusv 9 June 2016 22: 29
        +2
        Quote: Tol100v
        You're wrong! Not two countries, but much more!

        In what? Being in a nuclear club does not mean having a nuclear triad. Moreover, already now Russia and the USA are quadro nuclear powers, having the beginnings of missile defense. That is, there is no protection against each other, but the others then theoretically go astray
        1. poquello
          poquello 9 June 2016 23: 22
          +4
          Quote: Tusv
          Quote: Tol100v
          You're wrong! Not two countries, but much more!

          In what? Being in a nuclear club does not mean having a nuclear triad. Moreover, already now Russia and the USA are quadro nuclear powers, having the beginnings of missile defense. That is, there is no protection against each other, but the others then theoretically go astray

          START pleased
          It is noted that the most important components of Topol were simply stored in closed rooms, but were not disposed of without the possibility of recovery, so the inspectors could not confirm the liquidation of the missiles.

          http://vz.ru/news/2016/6/9/815310.html
          finally their fat to them the same muslim
    4. hirurg
      hirurg 9 June 2016 22: 21
      -9
      In reality, only One country possesses an arsenal and carriers.
    5. Finches
      Finches 9 June 2016 22: 30
      +13
      I, a military man, as a military commissar at the age of 18 I took to the army, I still do not let go ... laughing but I want to say - when do we evolve to the understanding that scientific and technological progress should not focus on the permanent destruction of humanity in the hope of its vitality, but on its natural desire for prosperity for a more comfortable life without killing its own kind ...
      1. Finches
        Finches 9 June 2016 22: 50
        +1
        I’ll clarify my post - already the 5th dozen will not let go by the commissar, from the urgent - and then suddenly questions arise! laughing
      2. Karasik
        Karasik 9 June 2016 23: 36
        +1
        Quote: Finches
        when we evolve to the understanding that NTP (scientific and technological progress) should not focus on the permanent destruction of humanity in the hope of its vitality, but on its natural desire for prosperity for a more comfortable life without killing its own kind ...

        I think never. Most likely, aggression and the desire to "grab someone else's" is inherent in Homo sapiens at the genetic level. This property is especially evident in Homo anglo-saxiens.
        1. poquello
          poquello 9 June 2016 23: 58
          +1
          Quote: Karasik
          Quote: Finches
          when we evolve to the understanding that NTP (scientific and technological progress) should not focus on the permanent destruction of humanity in the hope of its vitality, but on its natural desire for prosperity for a more comfortable life without killing its own kind ...

          I think never. Most likely, aggression and the desire to "grab someone else's" is inherent in Homo sapiens at the genetic level. This property is especially evident in Homo anglo-saxiens.

          evolved into "perestroika, glasnost", then we evolved so much that somehow I don't want to evolve anymore
      3. gladcu2
        gladcu2 11 June 2016 20: 10
        0
        Zyablintsev

        Unfortunately so far the only way.

        But your desire for progress can only change with a different economic system. Capitalism is unfortunately too gangster system to lead a person to real progress. And all these wars are largely due to this capitalism.
    6. hirurg
      hirurg 9 June 2016 23: 14
      0
      Her only one
    7. Denis Obukhov
      Denis Obukhov 9 June 2016 23: 59
      +2
      Everyone understands that with the start of a nuclear war, civilization will come to an end. In order to restrain each other from rash acts, this deadly weapon is created.
    8. Denis Obukhov
      Denis Obukhov 10 June 2016 00: 01
      +5
      The author forgot to mention a few more important parameters for assessing the combat potential of strategic aviation:
      - the number of CDs on the B-52 is more than 2 times greater than on the Tu-160 or Tu-95.
      - the appearance in service with the US Air Force of the Kyrgyz Republic with an adjustable trajectory (i.e., it can be used not only for stationary targets)
      - Tu-160 is faster than V-52 at distances of up to 1000 km. At 3 V-000 is already ahead of our Tu-52 (see FAI table of records)
      - Range and duration of flight without refueling in the B-52 more
      - The US fleet of refueling aircraft is an order of magnitude larger and higher in quality
      - The Americans are able to quickly place their strategists near the borders of Russia (V. Britain, Japan)
    9. Iline
      Iline 10 June 2016 10: 37
      +1
      some annoying bloopers in the article. It seems to be a serious approach, but you go ..
      The modernized Bears, which are now in service in Russia, were released between 1981 and 1982.
      They were produced until 1992.
      The Tu-95 carries eight cruise missiles, either the X-55 or the X-101/102.

      Tu-95MS carries on board 6 X-55 cruise missiles in the internal armament compartment on the MKU. But here you need to know that it was originally designed for 16 of these missiles, taking into account external suspensions. After signing the next START treaty, they began to be produced in a complete set for 6 of these missiles and the already issued MS-16s were transferred to the same configuration.
      But MSM can carry X-101 / X-102 only on external suspensions in the amount of 8 pieces (they are not yet placed in the cargo compartment in length). Although there is talk of improvements to this compartment for these missiles.
      That would be more correct.
  2. Lens
    Lens 9 June 2016 21: 46
    +2
    I understand the meaning of the article - listing tactical and quantitative data of the bombing vehicles of the two superpowers with a conclusion - the main thing is not these data, but the data of the missiles that the aircraft are equipped with!
  3. Vladimir 1964
    Vladimir 1964 9 June 2016 21: 52
    +1
    The opinion of the author is interesting, and quite competently, in the digest style for modern youth, briefly and simplistically. Just in the style of the REGNUM news agency. But by the way, in my opinion, current generations are not ready for the perception of deep and detailed information. hi
  4. ALABAY45
    ALABAY45 9 June 2016 21: 53
    +8
    "B-1B Lancer - however, it is not capable of carrying nuclear weapons, so we excluded it from the list - for reasons that will be discussed below."
    B-1B Lancer bomber ... nuclear bombs B28 (power 1,45 Mt), B61 (selective power 1-5 Mt) or B83 (selective power 1-2 Mt). The aircraft could carry 12 B28 bombs (total weight 11 kg), 810 B24 (61 kg) or 7630 B24 (83 26 kg). Theoretically, the bomber could also carry strategic cruise missiles AGM-135B and AGM-86A ... (March 129, 9, "Military Review") repeat
  5. gelezo47
    gelezo47 9 June 2016 21: 59
    +4
    The war is canceled !!!!
    But gunpowder must be kept dry ... soldier
    1. gladcu2
      gladcu2 11 June 2016 20: 28
      +1
      gelezo

      The war is not canceled. For example, for Kaliningrad.

      In World War II there was a ban on the use of chemical weapons. No country has used chemical weapons.

      Nuclear weapons preserve the world on a third world scale. But local clashes do not prevent even between countries with nuclear weapons.
  6. Avega
    Avega 9 June 2016 22: 07
    +4
    Thank you for the article! even though I am new to this field, I was able to assess the potential difference in one or another global nuclear weapon. I am glad that our country seeks to be in good shape with potential friends. I hope that you do not have to use this powerful device.
    1. Karasik
      Karasik 9 June 2016 23: 44
      0
      Quote: Avega
      Thank you for the article!

      Yes, the article may have some inaccuracies, but nonetheless reassuring. It was not for nothing that it was posted on the site late at night - as the saying goes "for the coming sleep"! laughing
  7. masiya
    masiya 9 June 2016 22: 13
    +2
    Most importantly, Russia isn’t in the ... about .., we can’t afford to be worse than them, and we won’t give them superiority ... our VKS and Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will show to the fullest if necessary ... and don’t let God to them to shove us ...
  8. NEXUS
    NEXUS 9 June 2016 22: 15
    +5
    In light of this, the question of the TU-160M2's stealth is interesting ... and judging by some of the emerging crumbs of information, stealth will be achieved by "cold plasma". Apparently our scientists have solved the problem in this matter, or are very close to a solution.
  9. t118an
    t118an 9 June 2016 22: 40
    +3
    Since such a frank comparison of the capacities of the two states has begun, it means that all these NATO movements speak directly about the aggressive policy pursued with respect to Russia. Similar conclusions sad. All of these American missile defense systems, the teachings of the North Atlantic Alliance are directed against Russia, and even a child understands this. But Russia today has weapons that can withstand this. Believe me, the answer will be worthy and it is better not to joke with the West with the Russians.
  10. masiya
    masiya 9 June 2016 22: 45
    0
    Again, Amerov’s cattle minus .. yes, what kind of punishment is it that they don’t take it .. everything that is against, they don’t like, is disgusting ... reptiles, but Schaub you dumped your ass in the UNITED STATES or in Europe that kind of refugees are waiting...!!
  11. SSeT
    SSeT 9 June 2016 22: 54
    0
    What kind of bullshit ?? Under B-2, the AGM-129A was originally developed (with which X-102 was made by TTX and implementation), of which it can carry up to 8 on a drum, to the author a 10 megoton cyanide enema! Db! fool
    1. poquello
      poquello 10 June 2016 00: 03
      0
      AGM-129A is not very similar to the x-102, well, yes, an analogue in tasks, but why
      Quote: SSeT
      with which the performance characteristics and implementation of the X-102
      ?
  12. masiya
    masiya 9 June 2016 23: 23
    +1
    This is an impromptu, just like that, emotions ... Beat the American invaders, the victory will be ours, GLORY OF RUSSIA. Hurray!
    1. gladcu2
      gladcu2 11 June 2016 20: 32
      0
      massia

      Russia should not be praised. It looks primitive. Cheap.

      I serve Russia or somehow differently. But constant praise .... some kind of kindergarten.
  13. atamankko
    atamankko 9 June 2016 23: 35
    +3
    The answer will be worthy; don’t scare Russia and you cannot trust the West.
  14. hirurg
    hirurg 9 June 2016 23: 50
    +1
    In fact, here and stop. Amer has no means of delivery.
    Well, let’s say PL and Trident and ... What next? But nothing !! Missile defense? about nothing.
    SO why? Just scare?
    I have an assumption. And registered for this.
    I believe that there is a supranational corporation.
    And she will be in th ...













    % will win
  15. Vadim237
    Vadim237 10 June 2016 01: 29
    0
    I wonder if the B 2 bomber can board the aircraft carrier and take off from it.
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null 10 June 2016 02: 08
      +1
      Quote: Vadim237
      I wonder if the B 2 bomber can board the aircraft carrier and take off from it.
      1. An60
        An60 10 June 2016 03: 59
        +1
        Anyone can sit down (see the film "Banzai!"). But take off ... with the help of a trampoline only if.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 10 June 2016 10: 19
          -3
          To do this, it will be necessary to strengthen the aerofinisher and put on the aircraft carriers more powerful electromagnetic catapults - and in size it passes.
  16. Konar
    Konar 10 June 2016 07: 37
    0
    I love to read how everything is fine with us) It’s easier on my soul)
  17. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 10 June 2016 07: 45
    +1
    I don’t know what murzil’s writers have read, but the B-2 carries cruise missiles
    Combat load - 18000 kg normal, maximum - 22680 kg
    Nuclear weapons: 16x B61-11 (20 megatons) or 16x B83 (1.1 megatons) or 16x AGM-129 ACM or 16x AGM-131 SRAM 2
    Conventional bombs: 80 Mk.82, 16 Mk.84 or 36 cluster bombs CBU-87, CBU-89 GATOR, CBU-97
    High precision weapons: 8 GBU-27 or AGM-154 JSOW or 12 JDAM or 8 AGM-137 TSSAM, AGM-158 JASSM

    http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/b2.html
    1. Leto
      Leto 10 June 2016 07: 46
      0
      Quote: BlackMokona
      but B-2 carries cruise missiles

      With nuclear b / h no. AGM-129 was discarded.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 10 June 2016 07: 58
        0
        You can always shove a vigorous loaf on the AGM-158 where there is a half ton head.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 10 June 2016 10: 41
      -1
      You still forgot to mention that B2 can carry the heaviest and most powerful anti-bunker bomb
      1. screw cutter
        screw cutter 10 June 2016 14: 23
        +1
        With such a thing under his wing, he never once stealth. And the fig ask such an expensive bomb carrier?
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 10 June 2016 17: 04
          0
          This bomb is suspended in a locked bomb bay of an airplane.
  18. Leto
    Leto 10 June 2016 07: 45
    -1
    I already asked a question: why the hell do you need strategic bombers as carriers of nuclear weapons? On the defensive, they are absolutely useless when the adversary of the United States or China launches their ICBMs on us, it remains only to deliver a retaliatory nuclear strike and it will be super-sufficient. In the end, the strategists from Engels will not have time to take off, not to mention the fact that they would refuel and suspend the TCR ...
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 10 June 2016 07: 59
      0
      The military has a lot of useless things, but it stretches for political reasons.
    2. poquello
      poquello 10 June 2016 13: 26
      +1
      Quote: Leto
      In the end, the strategists from Engels will not have time to take off, not to mention the fact that they would refuel and suspend the TCR ...

      and duty for what?
  19. Zomanus
    Zomanus 10 June 2016 07: 57
    0
    Interesting article. If you do not go into details.
    It turns out that the United States has a more developed marine component.
    But ... but, we forget that under the USA all NATO goes.
    And if something happens, all of NATO will be against us, all of Europe, as usual.
    But Russia yes, again alone against all ...
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 10 June 2016 08: 06
      0
      The USA has not only NATO. There are still allies outside of NATO.
  20. Vadim237
    Vadim237 10 June 2016 10: 34
    0
    The B2 has a decent range of ammunition - do not underestimate the plane
    1. screw cutter
      screw cutter 10 June 2016 13: 55
      0
      And where is at least one KR? Some are free-falling and correctable. You can’t fly high with such a load. And where is the point.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 10 June 2016 17: 11
        -2
        All US bombers are the second strike after a nuclear one when, all air defense systems and enemy airfields will be destroyed, if the US attacks first, they will immediately lift all aircraft into the sky and only after that they will launch ICBMs - the arrival time to Russia is only 20 minutes, bombers from the territory The United States will fly to us for a couple of hours, and then bomb all that remains and there will be nothing to shoot them down.
        1. berezin1987
          berezin1987 10 June 2016 19: 00
          0
          They will not be able to discreetly prepare all nuclear bombers for takeoff. Military preparations will become noticeable to reconnaissance, in which case Russia will also keep its aircraft in full readiness for departure. Our missiles will take off ten minutes later than the American ones in case of war. Some of the bombers will also have time to take off and, after 5-6 hours, strike a blow at the rest of the USA
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 10 June 2016 23: 02
            -2
            You don’t forget about the US Navy, and it will meet our bombers, all the same, a thousand fighters and helicopters, as well as thousands of cruise missiles, are a very serious force.
            1. rafaelich
              rafaelich 11 June 2016 23: 18
              0
              And you forgot about our fleet ...
  21. realist
    realist 10 June 2016 11: 25
    0
    I think the role of strategic aviation in the aspect of nuclear deterrence is small, the ballistic missile warheads will reach their goal faster, and if they are still off the coast of North America, they’ll be near! I think it is necessary to develop the fleet ................
  22. dummy
    dummy 10 June 2016 14: 19
    +2
    Quote: opus

    In Russia - the lowest labor productivity in Europe, experts from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found out. Comparing the size of the country's annual GDP with the time Russians spent on production for the year, the researchers came to the conclusion that in man-hours in Russia a product is produced at $ 25,9, which is less than in the most “lagging” Latvia in Europe ($ 27,6) and Poland ($ 29,7), almost one and a half times less than in Greece ($ 36,2), and half the average eurozone countries - $ 55,9.
    At the global level, the Russian indicator is equal to Chilean. But, judging by the OECD statistical base, there are countries with an indicator below the Russian one - in Mexico it is equal to $ 19,5. The highest labor productivity indicators, according to the same estimates, are in Luxembourg ($ 95,9), Norway ($ 88) and Belgium ($ 66,5).

    And what is labor productivity in terms of the OECD? This GDP per capita (even if PPP) is divided by working time. Well, yes, it seems logical. Only now, when the OECD compiled its rating, they were CONSCIOUSLY limited to Europe. And if you expand this concept to a slightly larger territory, you will find that the highest labor productivity in the world will be in Qatar (one and a half times more than in Luxembourg), then in Macau (40% more than Luxembourg), then in Luxembourg, then in Brunei. Data do not bother? DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE that in Qatar, and at the same time in Luxembourg, high labor productivity?
    Facts can be rigged very subtly, or even rudely, the main thing is to make the face a chopper and speak authoritatively.
    Well, and another question - what is produced in Poland that their labor productivity is greater than Russia? Isn't all the apples rotted?
  23. Operator
    Operator 10 June 2016 15: 26
    -1
    The Russian author of an article in an American magazine is off topic - strategic aircraft are designed only to finish off the enemy with a reaction time of up to 15 hours - 8 hours of airplane summer to the launch line and 7 hours of summer cruise missiles to the target.

    In addition, cruise missiles have a chance to fly where it is necessary only in case of preliminary suppression of radars, missile systems and air defense fighters, otherwise these slow-moving, low-maneuverable air targets will be knocked down at once, despite all the stealth technologies.

    Therefore, strategic bombers will come into action only after the first American strike with high-precision conventional weapons at Russian command posts in the European part of the country, with a Russian tactical nuclear strike against military bases in Europe, the launch of American ICBMs and the return launch of Russian ICBMs at military-industrial facilities in national territories, launching American and Russian SLBMs in cities.

    Those. the functions of strategic bombers are realized at the seventh stage of the global nuclear conflict, when everyone will not care if there are no / the presence of several dozen more nuclear explosions.

    Therefore, Russia should increase the missile component of the strategic nuclear triad (as having the least flying time) by reducing aviation. Well, as always, stamping and stamping tactical nuclear weapons deployed on medium and long range cruise missiles of sea and air bases that are not subject to the INF Treaty Ban Treaty.
    1. berezin1987
      berezin1987 10 June 2016 19: 06
      0
      High-precision strike is possible only in the case of the use of hypersonic missiles. Using tomahawks as a weapon of the first sudden strike is pointless. Their range is too small to destroy targets throughout Russia, and a low flight speed will not allow the destruction of Russian mbrs before takeoff from the mines. Do not forget about the poplar and yars. Some of them are constantly moving around the territory while on combat duty.
      1. Operator
        Operator 10 June 2016 20: 01
        -1
        At the moment, the United States has subsonic cruise missiles AGM-86, Tomahawk, JASSM and JASSM-ER in quantities from 3000 to 4000 units.

        At the first stage of the local conflict, a mass launch of the Kyrgyz Republic with conventional naval and aviation-based combat units is planned in order to overload the air defense systems of Russia or China with the number of targets so that approximately a thousand missiles are guaranteed to break through to control centers, communication centers, air defense radars and other priority objectives .
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 10 June 2016 23: 20
        0
        Tomahawks are designed to strike with the third wave, after ICBMs and bombardments, if US ships come close to the shores of Russia, bombers and aircraft carriers get winged missiles and fighters to our entire territory, the USA may have one more X 37-based spacecraft delivery vehicles that are more effective than ICBMs — orbital bombers that can last a year or more and take combat duty in orbit, and on day A — instantly destroy warheads over Russian territory within 3 to 4 minutes.
  24. t118an
    t118an 10 June 2016 20: 00
    +2
    here I read the comments .. adequate, setting out their essence, meaningful, not discrediting anyone ... and comparing a lot of minuses from normal comments .. and what kind of Sheep started up ... minus and minus .. it’s not in the Pluses but in the statements of People’s thoughts that is, Us and you. but why ???? ... Interlocutor Someone offended or offended you sometime .. tell me here .. People will understand this is not in the Pros, but in the statements of Ours Maybe we are something wrong say .. write do not be shy ..