Military Review

Will the fate of the new strategic bomber B-21 be happy? Part of 1

58

B-21 will be the first strategic bomber, entered service with the US Air Force after the B-2A (pictured)


“There is no hope in hell, nothing will knock us out,” wrote the lead vocalist of the famous hard rock band Motorhead Lemmy in his single 1979, “Bomber” (bomber). Lemmy's confidence in the invulnerability of the aircraft can only be realized through design and technology.

In October 2015, the company Northrop Grumman received a contract from the Air Force to develop a new-generation strategic bomber for the United States. This contract followed a request for proposals for a new bomber published in July 2014 by the Ministry of Defense. The name of the new aircraft has not yet been chosen, but it received its designation B-21 (21 century) at a public presentation of the US Air Force, held at a symposium in Washington in February 2016.


B-21 prospective strategic bomber (concept)

History so far

The US Air Force did not receive a new strategic bomber since the first Invisible Bomber B-2A Spirit of Northrop Grumman was adopted in December 1993, armed with an air regiment stationed at an air base in Missouri. The Air Force currently has a 21 machine, reinforced with 62 strategic bombers B-1B produced by Rockwell Collins / Boeing. B-1B bombers are limited to non-nuclear weapons, because after the signing of the strategic arms reduction treaty in 1991, they were deprived of the opportunity to carry air-launched cruise missiles. Today, the US Air Force strategic nuclear fleet includes B-2A aircraft plus 78 strategic bombers B-52H Stratofortress from Boeing.

The US Air Force did everything to strengthen its strategic component in the intermediate period between the adoption of the B-2A and today by commissioning the Lockheed Martin FB-22A aircraft. The manufacturer began in 2002 on a proactive basis to explore the possibility of developing a mid-bomber version of its excellent F-22A Raptor fighter with the intention of restoring the role played by General Dynamics F / FB-111A / D / E / F / G medium bomber. However, the 2006 Defense Review of the Year, in which the US military doctrine for the next 4 of the year is presented, has canceled this initiative. There was no movement in this direction over the next few years until a request for proposals was issued in July 2014 (see above).

When, during the reign of US President Jimmy Carter, the development of B-70A began in the late Advanced XMNS-80-i program under the modern Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB) program, the main concern of American strategists was the threat of Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles (IDB) . These weapons systems included three-stage solid fuel rocket RT-2PM Topol produced by the Votkinsk engineering plant (remain in service), the development of which began in 2, and the RT-1977 UTTH rocket of the railway-based, which are intended for transportation and launch from a special the trains. Both of these missiles were of serious concern to the planning defense structures, especially their mobility, which increases their survivability compared with stationary ICBMs in launch mines. The land area of ​​the Soviet Union was 23 million square kilometers and therefore, the location and destruction of such targets can be compared with the search for a moving needle in a haystack. This task was solved by the Raytheon AN / APQ-22 radar of the B-181A bomber, which provided high-precision guidance by operating in the radio Ka-band (2-33,4 GHz), especially suitable for detecting and defining targets with high detail.



American unobtrusive strategic bomber B-2А Spirit, developed by Northrop Grumman

Will the fate of the new strategic bomber B-21 be happy? Part of 1
,
B-21 (top) and B-2 bomber design comparison

This radar can also operate in flight mode with rounding of the terrain, which would be necessary if the B-2A bomber were to search for and destroy targets in the territory of the Soviet Union. When performing these tasks, the B-2A would be forced to fly in the possibly most well-protected airspace, so its ability to remain invisible to radars was mandatory. For this ability, B-2A got its nickname “Stealth Bomber” (stealth bomber), and its main recognizable and distinctive feature was a strange “sleek” flying wing, similar to a boomerang. The shape of the aircraft and the widespread use of carbon fiber made it possible to achieve an effective reflection area (EPO) 0,01 m 2. It is important to note that the B-2A is still visible to radars, but it is difficult to detect and, most importantly, difficult to catch with active or semi-active radar homing heads of ground-to-air or air-to-air missiles. However, the fuselage configuration is just part of the story. The aircraft is equipped with Lockheed Martin’s AN / ZSR-63 active protection subsystem. Clearly, information on the AN / ZSR-63 subsystem is not available, although it allegedly uses active radar jamming technology, when incoming radio broadcasts are detected and analyzed and then retransmitted, possibly without a Doppler frequency shift (the phenomenon when the radio signal slightly changes its frequency after it will be reflected from the object). The ability to manipulate the Doppler shift may mislead the radar operator regarding the aircraft's position or speed, provided it can recognize a weak signal reflected from a B-2A aircraft. Last but not least, covert flight modes, such as rounding the terrain and shielding radiation due to the terrain, help to divert the aircraft into the radar shadow.


The F-22A was to serve as the basis for the FB-22 medium bomber project. However, this project did not go beyond the “paper airplane” stage and, ultimately, was closed

Access ban / zone blocking

Low visibility made the B-2A, perhaps the most advanced bomber created during the Cold War era - a conflict in which he never had a chance to participate. The aircraft entered service after the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991. Yet this did not prevent the United States Air Force from using this aircraft, with its rather low level of unmasking signs in subsequent conflicts. Although his role was limited to delivering conventional weapons, he earned 24 recognition in March 1999, when he attacked several targets in Serbia during Operation Allied Force (ALLIED FORCE), an air campaign commanded by the United States that aimed to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Since then, the aircraft took part in the combat operations of the coalition forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and the last time in Libya in 2011. In the end, the B-2A bomber was created to participate in only one potential conflict - a nuclear war with the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries, but later found itself in a more complex geopolitical space, in which it demonstrated its rather high efficiency.

The US Air Force does not forget about the changing geopolitical situation, developing B-21 for tomorrow's combat missions. “The B-21 bomber will penetrate the modern air defense system and perform tasks despite the so-called access-blocking / blocking zone (ZV / BZ),” said Major Robert Liz, a representative of the US Air Force. ZD / BZ is the main problem for the US Air Force. The former and potential opponents of America witnessed the ability of this aircraft to pass through their defenses and then hit particularly important targets, sometimes destroying or weakening the ground-based anti-aircraft defense system so that the following air strike forces could attack other targets with relative impunity. Serious concern to the United States is the development of new systems, such as the C-400 anti-aircraft missile system. The triumph of the Almaz-Antey production, which comes into service with the Russian armed forces, and which was sold to China. The C-400 still has to be tested under combat conditions and earn the respect of the pilots who will fly in its range. The 91H6E C-400 ground-based aerial surveillance radar can detect targets with 0,4 EPO at a distance of 230 km, while its ground-to-air 40H6Е missiles with semi-active and active radar guidance have an 400 km range. Fifth-generation fighters, such as the Sukhoy PAK-FA and MiG LMFS (light multi-purpose front-line aircraft), developed in Russia, as well as the Chinese Shenyang J-31, can seriously complicate the life of American aircraft in the future.

Major Lees expressed the opinion that the solution of the ZD / KB problem is actually at the forefront of the B-21 bomber project. “The need for a B-21 is based on moving in the direction of ... towards the greater ZD / KB philosophy. Consequently, a B-21 bomber capable of operating in such a space, possibly taking off from the mainland of the United States, must inevitably hold targets of all types under the gun. ” The US Air Force plans to use B-21 to continuously monitor and strike targets, using conventional or nuclear weapons. Unlike B-1B, which abandoned its nuclear obligations (see above), the B-21 bomber "will become part of the nuclear triad, being a means of obvious and flexible nuclear deterrence." The nuclear triad includes Ohio-class submarines of the US Navy with ballistic nuclear missiles (these submarines should be replaced in the next decade) and mine-based intercontinental ballistic missiles LGM-30G Minuteman-III.

Продолжение следует ...
58 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 1 August 2016 06: 22
    +18
    Pushing water into the steps - until at least a prototype rises into the air, there’s nothing seriously to argue about - it’s just a criticism of what does not exist in the metal. Flight will look and draw conclusions.
    1. Pavel1
      Pavel1 1 August 2016 07: 33
      +7
      Doppler frequency shift (a phenomenon when a radio signal changes its frequency somewhat after it is reflected from an object)

      damn you read, read, get to such a scribble and don’t want to read further. If he is mistaken in the basics, what can he write in particular? Gramatey, as he wrote, missed one word in his definition of the Doppler effect, but the most important one.

      Doppler frequency shift (a phenomenon when a radio signal changes its frequency somewhat after it is reflected from MOVING object)
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. VIT101
        VIT101 1 August 2016 08: 36
        +4
        [quote = Paul1] [quote] Grammatius, some kind of wrote,

        [Quote] [/ quote]
        In essence, I agree, but you made two grammatical mistakes in the word diplomas. laughing If this is not a banter of course.
        1. Cat man null
          Cat man null 1 August 2016 08: 44
          +3
          Quote: VIT101
          in a word of letters you made two grammatical mistakes. If this is not a banter of course

          - this is not banter, this is Pavel1 request
          - he is Russian laughing
        2. Pavel1
          Pavel1 1 August 2016 12: 33
          0
          [quote = VIT101] [quote = Pavel1] [quote] Grammatius, some kind of wrote,

          [Quote] [/ quote]
          In essence, I agree, but you made two grammatical mistakes in the word diplomas. laughing If this is not a banter of course. [/ Quote]

          grammar-compilation of grammar and temples (prostonar)
    2. RDX
      RDX 2 August 2016 01: 49
      +2
      But the sense of stealth, well, you think a little less dot on the radar, but it’s just as good))) Russian air defense is ahead in the development of STEL technology
  2. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 1 August 2016 06: 28
    +4
    The psychology of bandits is unchanged. As the German Nazis relied on a child prodigy that would flip enemies like seeds, allowing the crew to drink schnapps in safety, so these fathers or followers strive for the same. And like the Germans, they sit in a puddle.
  3. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 1 August 2016 06: 54
    +16
    As an engineer, I am simply moved by talking about the "radio invisibility" of a huge aircraft. Everything is determined by the frequency range. There is one more, rather secret topic. Search for aircraft by "radio shade" using the background radio emission from the "sky". Well, optical stations in all bands. This is about invisibility, rounding the terrain, and so on. Is the monstrous expense to be justified? Well, they will promise anything. Senators and congressmen raised by the Hollywood "Star Trek" will "give a lift", and there is either a shah or a donkey ...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 1 August 2016 09: 20
      +2
      Low-visibility technologies continue to evolve -
      Researchers from the University of Iowa have developed a flexible coating that is superior in performance to today's radar absorbing coatings for technology, including aircraft. According to Aviation Week, the researchers called the new development “meta-skin” (meta-skin) by analogy with metamaterials, whose properties are determined by their structure.
      "Meta-coating" consists of several layers of silicone elastomer manufactured by Goflex. Each coating layer has 225 identical resonators made in the form of an open ring. The dimensions of the layer with so many resonators are not specified. The resonators themselves are cavities in an elastomer filled with galinstan.
      The outer radius of the resonators is 2,5 millimeters, and the thickness of the open ring is 0,5 millimeters. The distance between the ends of the open ring is one millimeter. Researchers filled each cavity of the resonator with galinstan manually. The total thickness of the coating is 1,45 mm. All layers sintered with each other at a temperature of 150 degrees Celsius.
      During laboratory testing, the coating absorbed up to 75 percent of radar radiation in the frequency range from eight to ten gigahertz. At the same time, researchers noted that stretching the “meta-coating” in one or researchers from Huazhong University of China announced the development of a new radio-absorbing coating that can make planes or ships inconspicuous for radars operating in the UHF-wave band (0,3-3 gigahertz). The coating was significantly thinner than conventional radar absorbing materials optimized for UHF.
      It is a flexible circuit board with semiconductor diodes - varactors soldered on it. Such diodes on the board alternate with capacitors. This layer, 0,8 millimeters thick, is located under the layer of copper resistors and capacitors. The thickness of this layer is only 0,04 millimeters.
      Both layers are located on a metal honeycomb substrate with a thickness of seven millimeters, and the latter, in turn, is attached to a metal foil. The total coating thickness is 7,8 millimeters. The coating for operation requires an electric current of ten to 48 volts. By changing the voltage, it is possible to change the absorbed radiation range in a different direction. By changing the tension force, the developers managed to change the absorbed range from 9,15 to 12,38 gigahertz
      1. I read the news
        I read the news 1 August 2016 15: 42
        +1
        At the same time, the researchers noted that stretching the "meta-cover" in that or researchers from the Chinese University ...

        Well, how can this be written?
        1. Zefr
          Zefr 4 January 2017 13: 06
          0
          Quote: I readNews
          At the same time, the researchers noted that stretching the "meta-cover" in that or researchers from the Chinese University ...

          Well, how can this be written?

          At the same time, the researchers noted that stretching the "meta-coating" in one or another direction allows you to change the absorbed radiation range. By changing the tension force, the developers managed to change the absorbed range from 9,15 to 12,38 gigahertz
    2. Verdun
      Verdun 1 August 2016 11: 18
      +1
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      As an engineer, I am simply moved by talking about the "radio invisibility" of a huge aircraft.

      Any ideas to create an absolutely invulnerable type of weapons are doomed to failure. An attempt to focus on one technological area for the sake of achieving a result in a particular area is flawed. Any normal engineer will say that the approach should be comprehensive. And separately - invisible, separately - inaudible, separately - not detectable by touch aircraft can only impress illiterate taxpayers, since modern science knows much more different ranges in which one or another object can be found and studied.
    3. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 1 August 2016 11: 45
      +5
      "Search for aircraft by" radio shade "using the background radio emission from the" sky ".
      Well, optical stations in all ranges. It's about invisibility, bending around
      terrain and so on. The monstrous costs must be justified "////

      All right, but ...
      Air defense, which can reliably detect and intercept modern
      stealth will require costs even more "monstrous" than these aircraft.
      That's the calculation of the attacker.
      A large number of targets, some of which (stealth) underestimate their EPR, while others (distracting) small UAVs - overstate.
      At least two SAMs (very expensive and limited in number) are launched for one combat aircraft.
      Batteries are running low, radars are being declassified. The second wave of attackers shoots defenseless launchers and radars.
      1. rotmistr60
        rotmistr60 1 August 2016 12: 09
        -1
        will require costs even more "monstrous" than these aircraft.
        That's the calculation of the attacker.

        Or maybe everything is much simpler? For the "invisible" to leave our old air defense systems is an excellent example of Yugoslavia. The Americans were shocked - billions down the drain because of the outdated Russian air defense systems.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. VIT101
          VIT101 1 August 2016 15: 48
          +2
          Quote: rotmistr60

          Or maybe everything is much simpler? For the "invisible" to leave our old air defense systems is an excellent example of Yugoslavia. The Americans were shocked - billions down the drain because of the outdated Russian air defense systems.

          Unfortunately, this example is single and it is difficult to talk about whether it is random or not. There are many opinions on this subject. But the trend is visible: the states, when designing new equipment, are going to continue to focus on stealth. And in our press material slipped about the design of our hypersonic manned attack aircraft, which, in my opinion, is completely unrealistic.
          1. Orionvit
            Orionvit 4 August 2016 07: 43
            +1
            Unfortunately, this example is single and it is difficult to talk about whether it is random or not. There are many opinions on this subject.
            What other opinions can there be? What are you talking about? To shoot down an invisible plane by accident? It's just that the Americans are used to bombing the unrequited aborigines, but in Yugoslavia they did not take into account one most important point. That in the anti-aircraft crew were not stupid Arabs, but literate Slavs Serbs, after which the Americans did not send such expensive planes to bomb Yugoslavia. Of course, a lot depends on the weapon, but a lot also depends on the specialists who use it.
        3. ivselim
          ivselim 2 August 2016 05: 21
          0
          Not so long ago I heard about those downed stealth (in my memory, for some reason, it’s 2 pieces, 1 fell in Yugoslavia, 2 seems to be outside). NATO used invisibility during the day. And, in this regard, the command dispersed, along the probable path of their flight, observers. These guys spotted the plane and transmitted its air defense coordinates ... I am not an expert, therefore I can’t describe the events better. The one who told this, this event explained why stealth bombers do not fly during the day. Something like this.
      2. Operator
        Operator 1 August 2016 12: 16
        +1
        And faith does not allow the use of orders of magnitude cheaper cruise missiles (with even lower EPR and surrounded by even cheaper false targets)?
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 1 August 2016 23: 06
          +1
          It does not interfere. Simplified Tomahawks with a Plastic Case Americans
          accumulate in warehouses by the thousands. The stealth bomber strategist has much more "power reserve"
          and it is for more complex and flexible tasks.
          1. Operator
            Operator 1 August 2016 23: 32
            +1
            You are right - American strategic bombers have a much greater range than the strategic range of strategic American cruise missiles (crooked hands, however). So they want to once again cut the budget and release a super-duper bomber.

            In the Russian Aerospace Forces, the opposite is true - the X-102 KRSN flight range (two orders of magnitude cheaper and quieter than the carrier aircraft) exceeds the combat radius of Russian strategic bombers.
      3. Verdun
        Verdun 1 August 2016 12: 24
        +4
        Quote: voyaka uh
        At least two SAMs (very expensive and limited in number) are launched for one combat aircraft.

        You judge by the cost of ammunition for the Patriot complex? It is clear that the use of ammunition to hit a target, the cost of which is comparable to the cost of the target, is ruinous and unpromising. But the cost of many air defense systems is not at all as high as that of MIM-104 or ERINT. In general, if the cost of most missiles were comparable to the cost of aircraft, their use as weapons would be a big question.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 1 August 2016 16: 04
          +3
          One regiment (division) of the S-400 costs $ 200 million. Approximately the price of 3-4 fighters.
          In the regiment of 10 launchers. Each launcher has 4 missiles.
          Total regiment can make 40 shots.
          Counting on two missiles per target, you can shoot at 20 targets.
          The goals are false - all sorts of drones with an EPR similar to an airplane.
          And one radar. If it is disabled ...

          If you triumph hundreds of Triumphs along the front and in depth and for each launch give a couple of dozens of missiles - such an air defense will be difficult to get through. But, as you know, its price
          to exceed all US bombers.
          1. Parsec
            Parsec 1 August 2016 16: 41
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            If you triumph Triumphs hundreds on the front and in depth and for each launch give a couple of dozens of missiles -


            Amateurs are no longer even funny.
          2. Verdun
            Verdun 1 August 2016 16: 42
            +8
            Quote: voyaka uh
            And one radar. If it is disabled ...

            Under normal air defense organization, any missile divisions receive information from dozens of radars. I, for example, served at one time in a military unit that had at its disposal more than two dozen mobile radars with different characteristics and not a single launcher with anti-aircraft missiles. It is these radars operating in different ranges and from different angles that make it possible to reliably determine the nature of targets. At the same time, special ammunition (with a nuclear warhead) has long existed, providing a way out of the situation when the number of targets begins to reach a certain saturation limit. Such a tactic, once called the "starry sky" tactics, has been considered among the possible since the beginning of the 60s. And, for obvious reasons, a nuclear anti-aircraft munition absolutely does not matter who is flying there - drones or the latest stealth bombers. At the same time, the cost and technical capabilities of the S-300 and S-400 missiles make it possible to attack with them not only aircraft and missiles, but even tanks.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 1 August 2016 22: 47
              0
              , "for obvious reasons, nuclear anti-aircraft ammunition absolutely does not matter who flies there - drones, or the latest stealth bombers" /////

              Nuclear anti-aircraft ammunition as an answer to stealth systems. There is nothing to argue. smile
          3. Lt. Air Force stock
            Lt. Air Force stock 1 August 2016 17: 35
            +4
            Quote: voyaka uh
            And one radar. If it is disabled ...

            Radar stations of different ranges 3 at least.
            Quote: voyaka uh
            One regiment (division) of the S-400 costs $ 200 million. Approximately the price of 3-4 fighters.
            In the regiment of 10 launchers. Each launcher has 4 missiles.
            Total regiment can make 40 shots.
            Counting on two missiles per target, you can shoot at 20 targets.
            The goals are false - all sorts of drones with an EPR similar to an airplane.
            And one radar. If it is disabled ...

            Therefore, they create the S-350, on one launcher 12 missiles, thus in the division if you multiply by 8 launchers (like 8 launchers in the division) a total of 96 missiles, respectively, 350 missiles in the S-2 regiment (192 divisions), the missiles are equipped with an active seeker, the radar stations are made using technology with AFAR + for example, for example, 8 Pantsir-C1 launchers (for cover) these are 96 more missiles with a range of 20. In addition, electronic warfare stations are also being developed.

            And as for the front, army air defense should already be working there, S-400, S-350, Shell-C1 belong to the air defense forces, guarding important industrial and military areas of the country.
            Army air defense includes: S-300V4, Buk-M3, Tor-M2U, Pine.
            On one Buk-M3 launcher there are 6 missiles with an active seeker total, for example, in the 8PU division, 48 missiles. Tor-M2U on one launcher placed 16 missiles, total 128 missiles. SAM Pine uses optical guidance, rather than radar, which increases survival. There are also 12 missiles, which means 8 missiles for 96 launchers.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 1 August 2016 22: 58
              +1
              You have described intensive multi-level air defense. Correctly.
              But if the old B-52 or F-15 is clearly printed on all its radars, then the newest
              the stealth bomber will look like a vague speck on the verge of interference.
              And there will be many such spots - drones, baits, false targets.
              And all types of missiles will have to be launched without ceasing, since there will be no accurate indications,
              those. missile defense will be extremely tense.
              Therefore, they continue to improve stealth systems.
              1. Parsec
                Parsec 2 August 2016 00: 10
                +1
                Quote: voyaka uh
                But if the old B-52 or F-15 is clearly printed on all its radars, then the newest
                the stealth bomber will look like a vague speck on the verge of interference.
                And there will be many such spots - drones, baits, false targets.


                Well, why, why no one is bothering to comment on astrophysics or genetics, but with pioneering enthusiasm sculpts at the level of a young technician judgments about a problem in which he understands not even at the level of Popular Mechanics?
              2. Lt. Air Force stock
                Lt. Air Force stock 2 August 2016 19: 59
                +2
                Quote: voyaka uh
                But if the old B-52 or F-15 is clearly printed on all its radars, then the newest
                the stealth bomber will look like a vague speck on the verge of interference.

                For this, they use several radars operating in different ranges, namely: meter, decimeter and centimeter. Data from radars is combined and displayed on the screen at the command post. Indeed, data from 3 radars will not look like a vague speck. The layered defense that I described above is a total of about 400+ missiles of different ranges of application, it will be very difficult to concentrate such a number of targets in order to overload the air defense of even the United States.
            2. alstr
              alstr 31 December 2016 22: 38
              0
              It is necessary to distinguish between what is now getting up on duty and the maximum capabilities of the complex.
              So S-300 (everything further should be no worse):
              Regiment. 1 radar all-round vision + control point.
              Up to 6 divisions. A division is a 4 * 3 launcher for a container with missiles (i.e. 48 missiles without reloading). And in the mid-2000s they had to make containers with small missiles (4 missiles in one container). Plus, a low-altitude detector is attached to stationary objects.

              So consider what a complex can do.
              In this case, usually a regiment was formed of 3 divisions, and a brigade of two regiments. Moreover, before the launch kit was complete (only half was on conservation).

              However, one must clearly understand that the number of launchers and missiles is less important than the number of target channels (i.e. how many targets can be fired at the same time). It is the number of target channels that will determine the saturation threshold. Those. in the case of the S-300, by launching 7 missiles in one division, we are guaranteed to destroy it (if this is not covered by other complexes — BUK, TOR, etc.).
          4. goose
            goose 2 August 2016 02: 28
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            In the regiment of 10 launchers. Each launcher has 4 missiles.
            Total regiment can make 40 shots.

            You were misinformed. If you use 9M96E2 with a range of about 120 km and a mass of about 420 kg, then their ammunition in the regiment will be very significant. And at the same time - inexpensive. Another thing is that with the help of S-400 the Far North with its expanses and mountains will be difficult to cover.

            BUT air defense systems allow you to cover areas where they are most effective to reduce the burden on interceptors. Preliminary 24 missiles at the launch and 2 spare ammunition with them will make the area covered by the S-400 very stable.

            The only problem is planning bombs. The practical range of application is highly dependent on the conditions, but can reach up to 80 km, with small dimensions and light weight. Against them, only short-range air defense systems are economically viable.
      4. Velizariy
        Velizariy 2 August 2016 15: 41
        +2
        Quote: voyaka uh
        All right, but ...
        Air defense, which can reliably detect and intercept modern
        stealth will require costs even more "monstrous" than these aircraft.
        That's the calculation of the attacker.
        A large number of targets, some of which (stealth) underestimate their EPR, while others (distracting) small UAVs - overstate.
        At least two SAMs (very expensive and limited in number) are launched for one combat aircraft.
        Batteries are running low, radars are being declassified. The second wave of attackers shoots defenseless launchers and radars.

        And the whole strategy? Such a clever Evgey does not think that ours do not take this into account and now they think: Aww yay ... what a cunning enemy! He will lower and overestimate the EPR, And what do you do now?
        don’t worry, the attacker will receive expensive missiles on expensive airplanes with low ESR and one expensive system will intercept a lot of UAVs with high ESR. Everything will be honest)
        And after the first wave, the second wave, most likely, will have nowhere to take off from)
      5. Bobik012
        Bobik012 9 June 2017 00: 44
        0
        How much did the F-117 cost? And how did the Yugoslavs bring him down? By the way, where is he this "stealth"? Already written off in the trash. B-2 is able to fly quietly only in conditions of suppressed enemy air defense. F-22 - production has been discontinued (doesn’t resemble the fate of F-117?), F-35 - until now (despite the start of serial production) the declared characteristics have not been achieved. All the successes of stealth technologies in the US Air Force predict the long and glorious life of the B-52 and F-15. They are the hope and support (well, and some other brainchilds of the Cold War). And the new stealth wunderwaffles successfully attack only the US budget
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 1 August 2016 15: 40
      +1
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      As an engineer, I am simply moved by talking about the "radio invisibility" of a huge aircraft. Everything is determined by the frequency range. There is one more, rather secret topic. Search for aircraft by "radio shade" using the background radio emission from the "sky". Well, optical stations in all bands. This is about invisibility, rounding the terrain, and so on. Is the monstrous expense to be justified? Well, they will promise anything. Senators and congressmen raised by the Hollywood "Star Trek" will "give a lift", and there is either a shah or a donkey ...


      Previous air attacks on Yugoslavia, + 2 wars in Iraq have shown that airplanes with technology either do not go down or a number of conditions are required for their destruction (ambush action)
      1. Verdun
        Verdun 1 August 2016 16: 00
        +4
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        Previous air attacks on Yugoslavia, + 2 wars in Iraq have shown that airplanes with technology either do not go down or a number of conditions are required for their destruction (ambush action)

        As a person who served an emergency in air defense, I can only answer one thing - HA-HA three times! May the gentlemen of NATO continue to count as well.
      2. Tsoy
        Tsoy 1 August 2016 16: 35
        0
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        a number of conditions are required (action from ambush)


        everything is much easier ...
      3. Parsec
        Parsec 1 August 2016 17: 03
        +2
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        Previous air attacks on Yugoslavia, + 2 wars in Iraq have shown that airplanes with technology either do not go down or a number of conditions are required for their destruction (ambush action)


        All these operations were carried out after a long concentration in the region, a powerful long-term reconnaissance of all kinds, against a obviously weaker enemy. This situation gives the attacker a lot.

        The ratio of successful / total firing is unknown to you, and seems to be aiming for unity in Yugoslavia.
      4. Velizariy
        Velizariy 2 August 2016 15: 45
        0
        Yugoslavia and Iraq did not have modern air defense systems and control systems.
    6. Lord_Bran
      Lord_Bran 1 August 2016 18: 50
      0
      That we still do not take into account its controllability.
      It is clear that this is not critical for a strategic bomber, but, as it seems to me, the experience of the Fritz in working with Horten 229 should be taken into account.
      At a minimum, he needs to fly quickly, bomb and dump, before he is accustomed.
    7. Orionvit
      Orionvit 4 August 2016 07: 25
      +1
      As an engineer, I am simply touched by the talk about the "radio invisibility" of a huge aircraft
      In-in. Besides the frequency range, you forgot to mention the signal processing algorithm and other physical principles of detection. For example, everyone knows. that when flying at high speeds, the elements of the casing get very hot, and this is clearly visible in the infrared range of the spectrum. In addition, when air molecules rub against the skin, the aircraft glows pretty in the microwave range. And even during the flight, very strong disturbances of the air environment itself arise, and all this can be detected with the help of appropriate equipment, otherwise they are used to relying only on classical active radars. For example (not authoritative, but as an example), an episode from the movie "under siege 2", where the main villain perfectly saw the F-117 from the satellite without any radar. A movie, but instructive. So let them cut their budget, for every tricky part of the body, there is an answer with a screw
  4. papik09
    papik09 1 August 2016 06: 59
    +7
    "perform tasks in spite of the so-called denied access / zone blocking space (ZD / BZ)"
    In the book the question is: if the airspace is "closed", YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN SHO THERE ?! Is that "in the face" to get ...
  5. 320423
    320423 1 August 2016 07: 48
    +7
    operations Allied Force (ALLIED FORCE) - an air campaign under the command of the United States, whose goal was to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo - well, they failed the company, the Serbs were successfully slaughtered there, but seriously ... such nonsense.
  6. Tsoy
    Tsoy 1 August 2016 08: 10
    +3
    It is clear that this is a translation of the article, but somehow everything is in one pile. The author jumps from one to another, talking about everything, but not focusing on the details. Because of this, the impression of article confusion.

    With regards to B21.


    According to the Pentagon, the development phase of the LRS-B project will cost the US military budget 21,4 billion dollars in 2010 prices of the year, or 23,5 billion dollars in terms of the end of 2015 of the year. At this stage, the military will receive several experienced aircraft. Each new bomber of the LRS-B project will spend no more than 511 million dollars in 2010 prices of the year, or 564 million dollars in terms of the prices of 2016 of the year.

    In total, the US Air Force can adopt from 80 to a hundred B-21 bombers.


    Half a billion on a plane is a hell of a lot. Based on the trend of the US military-industrial complex, this is far from the final cost. Spirits also wanted to buy a lot. Of course, now the situation will be different, their 52s almost flew off, and in spite of everything they will need to be changed for something. But still it is hard to believe in the purchase of 80 boards.
  7. Engineer
    Engineer 1 August 2016 08: 11
    +3
    He laughed in the morning, thanks: only a connoisseur of the topic can compare a picture (which most likely will have nothing to do with a real plane) and a real plane.
  8. demiurg
    demiurg 1 August 2016 08: 45
    +9
    It would be clear that b-2 in the series, even the United States can not afford. 2 billion per plane is powerful. But again, they wrote above that 500 million in a first approximation, will easily turn into 1-1.5 billion. Given the progress of UAVs and the Kyrgyz Republic over the past 10-15 years, it does not even smell, but stinks of a powerful cut. And although not, I'm sorry, this is the country of elves, where everyone farts with a rainbow, they call it lobbying.
    1. adept666
      adept666 1 August 2016 11: 21
      +3
      2 billion per plane is powerful.
      2 lard 100 lemons per version with minced meat, but this is nothing compared to the cost of operation ...
  9. Disorder
    Disorder 1 August 2016 09: 45
    +6
    .... the Raytheon AN / APQ-181 radar of the B-2A bomber, which provided high-precision guidance by working in the radio frequency Ka-band (33,4-36 GHz), especially suitable for the detection and determination of targets with high detail. This radar can also work in flight mode with enveloping the terrain, which would be necessary if the B-2A bomber had to search and destroy targets on the territory of the Soviet Union.

    laughing Invisible with a radar is a flying Christmas tree. A flight with an envelope of terrain is generally a circus. Helicopters will hunt for him.
  10. M0xHaTka
    M0xHaTka 1 August 2016 10: 12
    +2
    The article is clearly translated from American. F22 is good, but not great, and b2a is clearly a failure. But advertising is advertising.
    Let's see what kind of miracle they are designing and launching. I hope that an adequate answer already exists, or at least is also being designed
  11. demiurg
    demiurg 1 August 2016 11: 23
    +3
    Not a single superpower will pull a non-nuclear war if it fights with an equal. In Vietnam, as a child, he read somewhere, the murder of one Vietnamese soldier averaged about $ 50000. I think that I will be right if I say that at current prices and current weapons at least 200000 will come out.
    Even in Libya, smart weapons ran out after a couple of months, followed by iron. Iraq all NATO at once prepared to break up six months.
    This is what I need, all current flying / land / sea supermachines are needed for local conflicts.
  12. Sergeant Pank
    Sergeant Pank 1 August 2016 11: 34
    0
    Thanks for the translation. We are waiting for the second part indicating the author and publication.
  13. 0255
    0255 1 August 2016 12: 10
    +5
    I wang that the American media and VO users from Israel will declare that the B-21 is the coolest and it is impossible to knock it down from the word "in general", the Russian media and jingoistic patriots will write that the B-21 saw cut and guano, which will easily knock down the S-400 laughing
    1. Tsoy
      Tsoy 1 August 2016 17: 42
      +2
      Quote: 0255
      I wang that the American media and VO users from Israel will declare that the B-21 is the coolest and it is impossible to knock it down from the word "in general", the Russian media and jingoistic patriots will write that the B-21 saw cut and guano, which will easily knock down the S-400 laughing


      But the truth will always be in the middle ... hi
    2. Velizariy
      Velizariy 2 August 2016 15: 49
      0
      Quote: 0255
      I wang that the American media and VO users from Israel will declare that the B-21 is the coolest and it is impossible to knock it down from the word "in general", the Russian media and jingoistic patriots will write that the B-21 saw cut and guano, which will easily knock down the S-400

      There is none, it will be invulnerable only after the installation of the Izgale avionics and weapons, and before that it will be just the best bomber)
    3. twincam
      twincam 6 December 2016 09: 56
      0
      it will not be superfluous to add such great and simple words about "what is the strength of a brother", and other predictive phrases))))
  14. surrozh
    surrozh 1 August 2016 12: 49
    0
    Well, if bombers fly in a flock, why do we need nuclear weapons? And so information "from there" is never superfluous.
  15. 52
    52 1 August 2016 15: 55
    0
    Honestly? I do not want to seem original, but KG / AM.
  16. fa2998
    fa2998 1 August 2016 16: 44
    +1
    Quote: Exorcist Liberoids
    Flying - we will watch and draw conclusions.

    Something tells me that if the country has a machine that prints dollars, everything can be done. laughing I think in 10-12-15 years we will see a new plane, and it will replace (or help) the V-2 Spirit (1993)
    This year the "newest" Russia turns 25 years old (since 1991) Yes, there were "dashing" and "fat" years, but for a quarter of a century not only a prototype, even a model, there is no new bomber. We are repairing Soviet ones. There are only pictures on the Internet by unknown artists .It seems to me that the Americans will roll out a new plane, and we will only discuss, well, as a last resort, we will start designing. yes hi
    1. zenion
      zenion 1 August 2016 20: 30
      +1
      In exactly the same way they scared space lasers. But they are not visible meanwhile. Even if they appear they will be knocked down by aliens.
  17. Backfire
    Backfire 1 August 2016 17: 26
    0
    Until at least a prototype has taken off, it is difficult to make any assumptions.
  18. zenion
    zenion 1 August 2016 20: 28
    +3
    As one preacher (slightly modified) said, there is nothing invisible that will not become visible. As long as there are motors, everything will be visible, possibly except that it flies with a holy spirit, plates, saucers, glasses, glasses and glasses.