Military Review

Democratic senator proposed not to limit the Pentagon in the acquisition of Russian RD-180

54
Legislators should waive restrictions on the purchase of the RD-180 Russian rocket engines by the military; TASS words of american senator bill nelson.

Democratic senator proposed not to limit the Pentagon in the acquisition of Russian RD-180


The Senate has begun to discuss the US military budget for 2017. The bill currently proposes to limit the purchase of Russian engines by nine units. However, according to Nelson, “it is not yet known how long the Pentagon will need engines,” and how many years it will take to develop the American counterpart.

“A premature ban on the use of these engines will not only cost billions of dollars to taxpayers, it will also jeopardize our national security and, for no reason at all, will limit our ability to launch satellites into space,” said the legislator.

Given these circumstances, he proposed his own amendment to the bill that would allow the Pentagon to procure the RD-180 until the end of 2022.

Earlier, US Deputy Secretary of Defense Kendall stated that “a premature abandonment of the use of the RD-180 will cost the Pentagon more than $ 1 billion”, and that “American companies will be able to create their own engine no earlier than 2021 of the year”.
Photos used:
Boris Kavashkin / TASS
54 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. kursk87
    kursk87 9 June 2016 12: 23
    +4
    Sanctions are implicitly required to comply with Europe and a number of other countries, the United States will act on the basis of its own benefits
    1. Pavel1
      Pavel1 9 June 2016 12: 31
      0
      where is F1, why are they soaring?
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 9 June 2016 14: 39
        +1
        Quote: Paul1
        where is fxnumx

        And Elon Musk with his missiles)), and then everyone argues who lags behind whom))) here is a good example, America has lived up to the point that they cannot launch their own astrannaftof into orbit, nor can they drop it from orbit, that's their engine It is not known when to appear.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 9 June 2016 17: 41
          0
          There is a problem that the United States does not want to make SpaceX a monopoly for launching its satellites. The ULA lobby (Lockheed and Boeing) is trying its best.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 9 June 2016 19: 30
            0
            F-1 is not Spacex.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 9 June 2016 19: 37
              0
              I answer that. And where is F1?
              And Elon Musk with his missiles)), and then everyone argues who lags behind whom))) here is a good example, America has lived up to the point that they cannot launch their own astrannaftof into orbit, nor can they drop it from orbit, that's their engine It is not known when to appear.

              And that F-1 has not been produced for a long time and no one needs it, it has already been discussed many times. Too outdated, its IA and stamina are not at all competitive.
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 10 June 2016 02: 28
                0
                While the F-1 SpaseX is a competitor.

                He had such a price because there were no competitors in the closed market. To start producing it again does not technically interfere.
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 10 June 2016 08: 12
                  0
                  How does the F-1 compete with SpaceX? How can an engine compete with a company? laughing
                  He had such a price because there were no competitors in the closed market. To start producing it again does not technically interfere.

                  In addition to the total and total reluctance of all market participants, Orbital spat on it with its air launch and light rocket, SpaceX with its Marilyn and Raptor on the way, and ULA with Russian rocket engines and Delta-4 with hydrogen
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 10 June 2016 16: 10
                    0
                    SpaceX bought the rights to it?

                    But in fact, just the F-1 is much worse and therefore there is no alternative to the Russian RD-180 heavy class.
                    And you are trying to cover up this fact for a cookie with some kind of "competition" with light engines, starts and launch vehicles of which are not yet available and it is not known whether they will be.
                    1. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 11 June 2016 13: 38
                      0
                      SpaceX bought the rights to it?

                      Rights to whom? And so all NASA technologies are publicly available for private traders from the United States.
                      But in fact, just the F-1 is much worse and therefore there is no alternative to the Russian RD-180 heavy class.

                      I already said this in this thread
                      And that F-1 has not been produced for a long time and no one needs it, it has already been discussed many times. Too outdated, its IA and stamina are not at all competitive.

                      And you are trying to cover up this fact for a cookie with some kind of "competition" with light engines, starts and launch vehicles of which are not yet available and it is not known whether they will be.

                      Um, Falcon-9 flies in full, and Delta-4 flies in full, Taurus and Pegasus fly, these carriers cover all loads from light to heavy. And Falcon-9 is a direct competitor to Atlas-5, all the more to the NOU it takes out 4 tons more than Atlas-5. At three times lower price wink
                      1. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 11 June 2016 21: 57
                        0
                        On F-1, as was written. What is it out of date? Especially when compared with what astronauts are now flying on? Available under capitalism for free? Well, this is only for Elon Mask.
                        Because the F-1 was an American sweeping shit full, which even one captured American German did not sniff in time. More precisely, even a lot of Germans. Probably already de-naturalized.

                        As a result, none of these LVs is piloted in full, manned, there is no such engine in its thrust, so 9 on Falcon are dragged like half of the Soviet one, and cookies are so sweet ...
                      2. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 12 June 2016 11: 03
                        0
                        1. As I already wrote, the F-1 UI is low for its price.
                        Under capitalism, a lot of things are free, and education and medicine, capitalism has changed a lot since Keynes. And now I’m generally thinking of leading everyone an unconditional income. To lay in everyone’s pocket, simply for being a citizen.
                        2. Why, then, Falcon-9 displays more cargo on the DOE than Atlas-5?
                        fellow
                      3. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 13 June 2016 08: 03
                        0
                        Even under socialism, patents, R&D, and hardware were supposed to be paid. Thrust and not UI. The F-1 does not have a high price, but reliability is almost nonexistent.
                        Why don't astronauts fly to Falcon-9 and what will happen if one of its 9 engines fails (or even explodes)?
                      4. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 13 June 2016 16: 59
                        0
                        UI
                        Why don't astronauts fly to Falcon-9 and what will happen if one of its 9 engines fails (or even explodes)?

                        As practice has shown, the Dragon will bring to the desired orbit. There was already a case fellow
                      5. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 13 June 2016 22: 23
                        0
                        Practice has shown that fun explode from time to time, while without astronauts. laughing
                      6. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 14 June 2016 10: 03
                        0
                        All launches except one are successful. wink And they explode on all launch vehicles.
      2. hirurg
        hirurg 9 June 2016 20: 21
        0
        no one is promoting, and prohibiting is unlikely. We give what they can take. They’ll try more, hoop ..))
    2. RussianRoulette
      RussianRoulette 9 June 2016 13: 01
      +5
      In the meantime, overseas continue to work on improving their engines.
      1. Stalker.1977
        Stalker.1977 9 June 2016 13: 10
        +2
        "American companies will be able to create their own engine no earlier than 2021 of the year."

        Oh, how about .... the country of victorious capitalism.
      2. kodxnumx
        kodxnumx 9 June 2016 13: 16
        +1
        The much-praised America with their advanced technologies is unable to live without a bastard Russia with their economies torn to shreds, but alas, rocket engines need ours, their only technology in movies in Hollywood is the coolest!
  2. siberalt
    siberalt 9 June 2016 12: 23
    0
    So, they already have these engines in reserve. The other day from Baikonur we again sent American satellites. We help, it turns out, in response to sanctions.
    1. Dam
      Dam 9 June 2016 12: 54
      +2
      I agree, I’m not sure that you need to increase their orbital grouping even for a lot of money (of course, if we do not have bookmarks)
  3. Monos
    Monos 9 June 2016 12: 24
    +13
    By 2021 ... Yes, this Nelson is an optimist! They didn’t build it in half a century, but by the 21 year!

    Welcome to the gas station, hegemony!
  4. Funnels
    Funnels 9 June 2016 12: 27
    +3
    This is the only time I agree with MeckCain "to prohibit the purchase of Russian engines. Another would be to prohibit our sale (it is clear that this is real money for the development of production and salaries. But still).
    1. Ased
      Ased 9 June 2016 12: 53
      0
      They buy from us, to the detriment of their designs!
  5. Kos_kalinki9
    Kos_kalinki9 9 June 2016 12: 30
    +3
    I certainly understand that Energomash needs to earn money. But on the other hand, our senators could also discuss whether it is worth selling these engines to potential "partners", say, to support them (partners am ) in "good shape",
    1. Vasiliev Yu
      Vasiliev Yu 9 June 2016 12: 58
      0
      And sending astronauts into space? Where is the pin ... the dos would end up with our ban?
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 9 June 2016 18: 48
        0
        Would launch with the help of Dragon 2, on Falcon-9 rockets
    2. The comment was deleted.
  6. Max40
    Max40 9 June 2016 12: 31
    0
    Sorry guys that is not the topic. Please tell me where and when to start selling tickets for tank biathlon!
  7. x.andvlad
    x.andvlad 9 June 2016 12: 36
    0
    Can we ourselves introduce restrictions on the supply of these engines in the United States?
    1 piece per year, not more !!!
    How will the "hegemons" sing there?
  8. Wedmak
    Wedmak 9 June 2016 12: 37
    0
    That is, how to impose sanctions - you are the first. We also thought of complaining to the WTO about our import substitution. Like you are a little pressure, but you do not resist. And as the engines need steel, so let's make an exception. We need to ...
    It's time, oh it's time for our government to press this lever a little. At least bring up for discussion the feasibility of supplying our engines for launches of military spacecraft our potential adversary.
    And it turns out that they constantly shit and cripple us around the world, and we supply them with high-tech products. How is that?
    1. Leto
      Leto 9 June 2016 13: 10
      -2
      Quote: Wedmak
      It's time, oh it's time for our government to press this lever a little. At least bring up for discussion the feasibility of delivering our engines for launching military spacecraft of our probable enemy.

      These rocket engines no one else buys.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 9 June 2016 13: 20
        +2
        These rocket engines no one else buys.

        This is not an argument for selling them to a country using the same engines against us. (Launching military satellites) And constantly arranging all sorts of nasty things against us.
        In general, the RD-180 is the halved RD-170. In turn, on the basis of RD-170, RD-191 was developed, which stands on the Hangar. So I don’t think that we will lose much.
        Moreover, the United States has a license to manufacture these engines. They bought it. Well, go ahead with the song.
        1. Leto
          Leto 9 June 2016 13: 48
          -1
          Quote: Wedmak
          Moreover, the United States has a license to manufacture these engines. They bought it. Well, go ahead with the song.

          Perhaps it will be so. This news is not entirely complete. A closed meeting is being held at the Pentagon to discuss the feasibility of purchasing Russian rocket engines, for which Elon Musk has been called in. The other day we find out the result.
  9. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 9 June 2016 12: 37
    +1
    What are rushing about? We’ll take it, then we won’t, then we will again. Or take it, no do it yourself, it doesn’t work, so do not bend. We can twist the price up referring to our problems, including your sanctions.
    1. Vasiliev Yu
      Vasiliev Yu 9 June 2016 13: 01
      0
      Here I agree, `` there is not enough money, we want more money '' - they would have been impudently told.
  10. Valkh
    Valkh 9 June 2016 12: 40
    0
    I am not a senator and not a democrat !!! And pretexts they don’t sell our rd-180 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  11. bad
    bad 9 June 2016 12: 44
    +1
    Quote: Militon
    A gas station sells space technology that the exceptional cannot. Something here is not so upside down. 21 years old? What century? Kuev’s optimists.
    ..et sure + you drinks
  12. electrooleg
    electrooleg 9 June 2016 12: 47
    +1
    It was necessary to put the question like this: Do you want to go into space - we start on the alliance and on our engines from Baikonur. Do not want to - forward to the trampoline.
  13. Wolka
    Wolka 9 June 2016 12: 47
    0
    RD-180 sell the Yankees only for gold, and no more and no less, strictly for a specific flight-order ...
  14. Alexez
    Alexez 9 June 2016 12: 47
    0
    Let them buy it, and we will develop a new one with this money and again we will nose them in space in the morning.
  15. Dr. Barmaley
    Dr. Barmaley 9 June 2016 13: 04
    +8
    "American companies will be able to create their own engine no earlier than 2021 of the year."
    1. Pitot
      Pitot 9 June 2016 14: 21
      0
      Well yes, what about the lunar engine ??
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 9 June 2016 15: 00
        0
        Forget about Lunar engines, they are already museum exhibits - they are large and not economical on the Atlas 5 rocket and you can’t put Antares on them - since these missiles were made under RD 180.
  16. Enoch
    Enoch 9 June 2016 13: 47
    -1
    Democratic senator proposed not to limit the Pentagon in the acquisition of Russian RD-180


    This democrat must be punished well - he is pro-Russian. Shish to you, not Russian engines.
    You have nothing to litter the space.
  17. Ros 56
    Ros 56 9 June 2016 14: 05
    0
    Something I don’t get a sense of humor, they stick us in the wheel, and we give them all-round help. And in Afghanistan, and in space, and in finance (US bonds), our government is famously working, they rule here, and dividends are there.
  18. Vadim237
    Vadim237 9 June 2016 15: 03
    +1
    More interested in when in Russia they will resume the release of RD 0120 in a new version.
  19. Felix Crimean
    Felix Crimean 9 June 2016 16: 01
    0
    How long will Russia seek economic feasibility in everything?
    After all, a sense of dignity should be pre-empted.

    Well, not so long ago, Ragozin warned pin.dosov that they would soon be their own
    Stratonauts from the catapult to the ISS launch.
    We finally decided not to launch it anymore, though since 2018, while the current contract is in effect.

    So with the engines you must do. Pin.dos themselves say that the 5 years necessary to create their own engines will drop them for decades in space exploration.

    And this, not counting the minimum of $ 5 billion they will spend on creating engines that will obviously be worse than ours.
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null 9 June 2016 16: 18
      0
      Quote: Felix Crimean
      Well, not so long ago, Ragozin warned pin.dosov that they would soon be their own
      Stratonauts from the catapult to the ISS launch.
      We finally decided not to launch it anymore, though since 2018, while the current contract is valid.

      So with the engines you must do
      .

      - on RD-180, do not believe it, too "the current contract is still in force"
      - that is, Americans can decide - to buy / not to buy
      - The Russian Federation cannot do this. Naturally, I did not see the text of the contract, but if there are no penalties for late-non-fulfillment, then I am a telephone box ..

      Quote: Felix Crimean
      Pin.dos themselves say that the 5 years necessary to create their own engines will drop them for decades in space exploration.

      And this, not counting at least $ 5 billionthat they will spend on creating engines, which will obviously be worse than ours

      - the figure of 5 billion where did it come from? Let's get 100 negative
      - "obviously worse" - where did you get it? They are not stupid guys at all, they have enough money and technologies ... they will get everything from them ... unfortunately

      Quote: Felix Crimean
      How long will Russia seek economic feasibility in everything?
      After all preualize self esteem

      - it should not it to do .. by the way, but What is it like? laughing
      - politics is a concentrated expression of the economy (V.I. Lenin). And no other way request
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 12 June 2016 02: 31
        0
        Their delivery to the United States is not economically feasible for Russia at all - it’s the same as selling the most powerful record engines from cars for a penny, but you shouldn’t use them yourself and walk or ride a bicycle.
        However, cars cannot run without dvigla and this is the most difficult and expensive part of a car, a rocket, and a launch. they should make up the greater part of the cost, which, despite the "market" relations, is not observed at all.
        What trampoline is there? They don’t throw a rocket on it. Let their rockets with astronauts or without into space fly reindeer sleighs from Santa Claus ...
        They have this engine now, like the Union and Protons (the American company removes foams from launches from Baikonur) there is nothing to replace!
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 12 June 2016 02: 33
          0
          ... One I noticed in the photo in the article a portrait of Yeltsin on the wall?
      2. The comment was deleted.
  20. Valeriy 1979
    Valeriy 1979 9 June 2016 16: 08
    0
    Wow, this is what America gives, and we scream the coolest of all, and these rocket engines are bought from us that are made in 60 g
    1. Ros 56
      Ros 56 9 June 2016 19: 13
      0
      Quote: Valeriy 1979
      which are made in 60 g


      But you didn’t pay attention to such a thing, the Americans, well, the very big pontogues praise themselves, and they force others to believe in it. But in fact they are ordinary n .... s, and if they seriously click on the nose, it will be like in that joke about Vasya.
    2. Cat man null
      Cat man null 9 June 2016 20: 51
      0
      Quote: Valeriy 1979
      Wow, this is what America gives, and we scream the coolest of all, and these rocket engines are bought from us that are made in 60 g

      They are awesome cheap. And there is a contract under which the Russian Federation has pledged to supply the States with a certain amount of these engines.

      Therefore, they did not hum.

      The buzzing started now, like "sanctions". But since Baba Yaga The Pentagon is most likely against boltology and will end.

      The suggestions here "show the striped cookies and don't sell" come from people who have never seen a single purchase agreement.

      Such agreements always include a clause on the liability of the supplier (and here the supplier is the Russian Federation) for:

      - delay in delivery
      - delivery of goods of inadequate quality
      - delivery failure

      That is, people who propose "do not sell" offer the following:

      - lose payment for engines (trifle, about $ 10 million apiece)
      - pay penalties and fines (I don’t know the amount, but when I didn’t deliver the S-300 to Iran, the lawsuit was worth $ 4 billion. IMHO, there will be roughly the same order of numbers)
      - to lose the reputation of a "bona fide supplier" (a la guardians with Mistrals), and this is very, very bad ...

      Here is such a .. situevina request
  21. The comment was deleted.