Military Review

Media: US Air Force intends to arm themselves with new ballistic and cruise missiles

180
The US Air Force ordered defense enterprises to develop new ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and air-based cruise missiles, reports RIA News Reuters message.


Media: US Air Force intends to arm themselves with new ballistic and cruise missiles


According to the agency, this development will be carried out “as part of an expensive program to modernize nuclear weapons».

“The new installations should replace the 2027 Minuteman 450 rockets, which appeared in the middle of the 3's, by the 60 year. In addition, it is planned to replace the air-to-ground AGM-86B cruise missiles, ”the report indicates.

The Pentagon will allocate $ 69 billion to develop the updated system. It is expected that contracts will be signed in a year after the main order implementers are determined.

The military believes that new air-launched missiles "will allow old bombers to successfully attack targets that are out of reach for air bombs."

Opponents of this project accuse the American authorities of "exorbitant spending during the budget cuts."

According to Reuters, "the total cost of modernization in the US Armed Forces, during which it is planned to replace bombs, nuclear bombers, missiles and submarines, will exceed $ 350 billion over ten years."
Photos used:
David B. Gleason
180 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 31 July 2016 10: 50
    +6
    the path to "nowhere" continues ... when the "game over" comes ???
    1. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 31 July 2016 10: 51
      0
      The belly button gets loose! They have lost the scientific potential and technology for the development and production of such projects. How many scandals have already happened when Chinese boards were found in aviation and rocket technology that regularly fail.
      1. Khariton
        Khariton 31 July 2016 10: 55
        -3
        And why is it not scary, but funny ... bully
        1. SRC P-15
          SRC P-15 31 July 2016 10: 59
          +10
          According to Reuters, "the total cost of modernization in the US Armed Forces, during which it is planned to replace bombs, nuclear bombers, missiles and submarines, will exceed $ 350 billion over ten years."

          This is called an arms race, in all its lush color.
          1. operrus
            operrus 31 July 2016 12: 22
            -2
            And as you know the arms race leads to one winked , the impoverishment of the state, in the present realities there is a possibility that America’s navel will be untied with all the consequences belay
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 31 July 2016 12: 55
              +11
              Quote: operrus
              the poverty of the state, in the real world there is a possibility that America’s navel will be untied with all the consequences

              At the same time, the mattresses have a proven method for years, so that the navel does not unleash, unleash not a regional but a global war, staying away and warming your hands on the blood of the warring parties.
              this is not to be forgotten.
              1. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 31 July 2016 21: 56
                +3
                Quote: NEXUS
                There is a proven method for years, so that the navel doesn’t unleash - not unleash a regional, but a global war, staying away and warming your hands on the blood of the warring parties

                Colleague! Global war (!) Without the participation of the USA (?) Is how you imagine it ???
                But they will not succeed in staying away and warming their hands in the rapprochement of the Russian Federation and China.
                And then, after the accumulation of a certain supply, Au will decide the issue with the dollar. That's where the true ass for the stripes is!
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 31 July 2016 22: 14
                  +3
                  Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                  Colleague! Global war (!) Without the participation of the USA (?) Is how you imagine it ???

                  And this is how I imagine, colleague. For example, on the European continent, if the puppet governments of European states, hoping for US support, decide to fight the Russian Federation in a compartment with Japan, which has one of the youngest and most powerful fleets. I emphasize, puppet! Why not candidates for this role, for example, Ukraine, the Baltic states in full force, the same Poland, Japan ... all these countries with long-standing territorial claims against the Russian Federation. That's the reason ... Let us recall the recent talks of the Japanese on the Kuril issue, again the same Crimea. And the USA, as it were, has nothing to do with it ...
                  Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                  And then, after the accumulation of a certain supply, Au will decide the issue with the dollar. That's where the true ass for the stripes is!

                  Collapse the dollar will be possible only if our ruble at the same time Au becomes an alternative currency in at least a third of developed countries, while completely free from oil-dollar dependence. And this is not a matter of ten years.
                  Sincerely. hi
            2. tanzor69
              tanzor69 1 August 2016 18: 41
              0
              has not been untied for many years, they can afford to spend so much, unlike us
          2. sharp-lad
            sharp-lad 31 July 2016 19: 32
            0
            Only this time, the Americans "drove" themselves! laughing
      2. Tusv
        Tusv 31 July 2016 11: 01
        .
        Quote: Lord of the Sith
        The belly button gets loose! They have lost the scientific potential and technology for the development and production of such projects.

        They captured the outskirts, and Yuzhmash can. There are brains and production. Not everyone was pulled into Russia.
        1. Lord of the Sith
          Lord of the Sith 31 July 2016 11: 04
          +11
          Quote: Tusv
          They captured the outskirts, and Yuzhmash can. There are brains and production. Not everyone was pulled into Russia.

          They captured Ukraine not in these two years, but under Kravchuk 25 years ago. Yuzhmash took part in Sea Launch. But a week ago, Brazil refused to cooperate with Ukraine and jointly develop a new missile.
          1. Tusv
            Tusv 31 July 2016 11: 18
            +4
            Quote: Lord of the Sith
            Yuzhmash took part in Sea Launch.

            And whose sea launch will be? Ours refused the zenith, because 60 green cartoons wanted a little little aboriginal, almost at the price of Proton
            1. Lord of the Sith
              Lord of the Sith 31 July 2016 11: 29
              +5
              Quote: Tusv
              And whose sea launch will be? Ours refused the zenith, because 60 green cartoons wanted a little little aboriginal, almost at the price of Proton

              I’m renting a garage, but that doesn’t mean that I participated in the development of an engine for a tenant leaving my garage.
              1. Tusv
                Tusv 31 July 2016 11: 43
                +8
                Quote: Lord of the Sith
                I'm renting a garage

                I do not envy. Native walls, rest from the wife
        2. Great Attractor
          Great Attractor 31 July 2016 11: 23
          -2
          Of course, not everyone was pulled into Russia. A whole breakthrough was also drawn into America and England. And my relatives do live and live in Australia. Small by little, he makes good. Not bad.
        3. grandson of the hero
          grandson of the hero 31 July 2016 11: 25
          0
          Maybe they have made hypersound progress? Or maybe vice versa - it doesn’t work and tear farted?
        4. siberalt
          siberalt 31 July 2016 11: 26
          +6
          Ukraine itself is not a blunder. It already has its own universal heavy-duty weapon. laughing
        5. Proxima
          Proxima 31 July 2016 11: 34
          +6
          Quote: Tusv

          They captured the outskirts, and Yuzhmash can. There are brains and production. Not everyone was pulled into Russia.

          YUZHMASH WILL NOT HELP the Americans! If only because this association has not been dealing with solid-fuel missiles for a long time. Although it is not clear from the article what the projected rocket will be, liquid or solid propellant. In the article, nothing is clear at all. As they say, there are five mistakes in a three-letter word. For example, it is written that the new missile will replace the "outdated" Minuteman 3, which "appeared in the mid-60s." I do not know who they "appeared", but the Americans had them in service only in the 70s. Plus, this rocket went through two upgrades in 2007 and 2012. In many respects Minuteman 3 surpasses even our "Topol" and "Yarsy" similar in performance characteristics. Only in one thing does the American missile have a clear failure - the Minuteman CANNOT BE MOBILE. For this rocket, only stationary basing is provided.
          1. sabakina
            sabakina 31 July 2016 11: 46
            +2
            Quote: Proxima

            In many respects Minuteman 3 surpasses even our "Topol" and "Yarsy" similar in performance characteristics.

            And I, and I, and I ... And I will show you Kuzkin’s mother!
            Comrade, if Poplars and Yarses were worse than the Minitmenevs, they would not be accepted into service. I think so!
          2. Tusv
            Tusv 31 July 2016 11: 53
            +7
            Quote: Proxima
            In many respects Minuteman 3 surpasses even our "Topol" and "Yarsy" similar in performance characteristics.

            It’s not appropriate to compare a mobile complex with a mine complex, but calling them similar is silly
            1. Proxima
              Proxima 31 July 2016 12: 14
              +3
              Quote: Tusv

              It’s not appropriate to compare a mobile complex with a mine complex, but calling them similar is silly

              It is not appropriate to write various nonsense. Understand at least a little on the subject of the question. "Topol" and "Yarsy" are both mine-based and mobile. "Minutemans" - no. "Poplars", "Yarsy" and "Minutemans" - THESE ROCKETS OF THE SAME CLASS! Write this on your forehead. I do not compare the Minuteman with the Stiletto or, even less so, with the Voevoda. It's really stupid to compare them, although I think I explain this to a lamppost. Once again, I tell you, sort out the topic of the question, and then write.
              1. Tusv
                Tusv 31 July 2016 12: 49
                -3
                Quote: Proxima
                Poplars "and" Yarsy "are both mine-based and mobile.

                What difference do you know? In the amount of BG and range - a no brainer
          3. dvina71
            dvina71 31 July 2016 12: 07
            +2
            Quote: Proxima
            about many parameters Minuteman 3 surpasses even our similar in performance characteristics "Topol" and "Yarsy"

            This phrase always amused .. especially when it is pressed into clever texts .., as proof. Well .. According to what parameters, the Minuteman is superior to the RS-24 and RS-12m2.
            Only with tsifirki pozhalsta. Otmazki for steep examiners and "vysmirznaet" .. no need.
            1. Proxima
              Proxima 31 July 2016 12: 41
              +3
              Quote: dvina71
              Quote: Proxima
              about many parameters Minuteman 3 surpasses even our similar in performance characteristics "Topol" and "Yarsy"

              This phrase always amused .. especially when it is pressed into clever texts .., as proof. Well .. According to what parameters, the Minuteman is superior to the RS-24 and RS-12m2.
              Only with tsifirki pozhalsta. Otmazki for steep examiners and "vysmirznaet" .. no need.

              Is it too hard to figure it out yourself before writing nonsense? Good. I will give the performance characteristics of "Topol-M", in brackets - "Minuteman-3". Maximum firing range, km - 10000 (15000), number of warheads - 1 (1-3), warhead dispersion ellipse - 350 m (210 m). ENOUGH? The "Poplar" has two serious "pluses", I have already spoken about mobility. The most important thing is that our missile is capable of repeatedly changing its flight path, that is, it is more maneuverable than its American counterpart.
              1. Muvka
                Muvka 31 July 2016 13: 08
                +3
                But do not tell me what acceleration time the minuteman has, on what path it flies, what are its means of overcoming missile defense and 15000km with full or partial load? I like such comparators. Especially when it comes to Tridents, for at full load, which is indicated on the wiki, the trident flies something about 8k or 6k km. I just just don’t remember.
              2. NEXUS
                NEXUS 31 July 2016 13: 16
                +4
                Quote: Proxima
                The "Poplar" has two serious "pluses", I have already spoken about mobility. The most important thing is that our missile is capable of repeatedly changing its flight path, that is, it is more maneuverable than its American counterpart.

                It is these parameters that overlap all the small pluses of Minuteman.
                Quote: Proxima
                the number of warheads - 1 (1-3)

                Minuteman has already been reduced to one warhead.
                Quote: Proxima
                Maximum firing range, km - 10000 (15000)

                Not 15 km, but 000 km.
                Quote: Proxima
                I do not compare the Minuteman with the Stiletto or, even less so, with the Voevoda.

                And it is more correct to compare the Voivode with the LGM-118A Peacekeepe, which, if I am not mistaken in 2005, was removed from service under the START-3 treaty.
                1. Muvka
                  Muvka 31 July 2016 13: 29
                  +1
                  I'm not special, but rather START-2 :) START3 was like in the 10s, with Medvedev. If I confuse, correct.
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 31 July 2016 13: 32
                    +2
                    Quote: Muvka
                    I'm not special, but rather START-2 :)

                    Yes that's right ... my mistake is START-2. Thank you for correcting. hi
                2. Proxima
                  Proxima 31 July 2016 14: 33
                  +2
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  Quote: Proxima
                  The "Poplar" has two serious "pluses", I have already spoken about mobility. The most important thing is that our missile is capable of repeatedly changing its flight path, that is, it is more maneuverable than its American counterpart.

                  It is these parameters that overlap all the small pluses of Minuteman.

                  Well, first of all, I have not argued that Mini is better than Poplar. On the contrary, in my opinion, in terms of the aggregate characteristics, the Topol is superior to the American missile. Secondly, I didn't even stutter about the "small pluses of the Minuteman". I can cite them. 1) The Mini is 3 meters shorter than the Poplar, like a trifle, but a low rocket is more stable at launch. 2) The Mini is more stable at launch. is capable of varying the mass and, accordingly, the power of the warhead. In the maximum version, the power of the American warhead is still superior to that of the Topol warhead - however, the flight range will no longer be 15000 km, but less. 3) The mass of the Mini is almost 1,5 times less than the mass of our missile, that is, in terms of the ratio of the warhead mass to the mass of the entire missile, the Minuteman is superior to the Poplar. All these three mini-advantages come from the fourth advantage of the American missile - the fuel of the Mini is more efficient than that of the Poplar, which is not surprising , Americans have been dealing with solid fuel since the 50s, while we seriously approached this topic only in the 80s.
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 31 July 2016 14: 40
                    +2
                    Quote: Proxima
                    We, seriously, approached this topic only in the 80s.

                    Not certainly in that way...
                    To gain experience in the field of long-range solid fuel missiles in the USSR, in 1959, work began on a three-stage solid-fuel rocket RT-1 (8K95) on ballistic gunpowder (due to the lack of technology for mixed fuels), but this project did not leave the test stage ( the launch accident rate was high), although it made it possible to work out a number of technologies, for example, the RT-1-63 modification was used to test the upper stages of the first Soviet solid-fuel ICBM RT-2 (8K98), the work on which was started simultaneously with the RT-1, within one comprehensive ruling. RT-2 was adopted only in 1968.
                    There was also a Temp-2S (SS-16) missile, the forerunner of the “Topol”. It was developed since 1965 and began to arrive in the Strategic Missile Forces at the end of 1975. This ICBM mounted on the MAZ chassis had an impressive range of 10500 km and a powerful 1,6 Mt warhead.

                    A year later, a similar Pioneer complex (SS-20) appeared with a medium-range missile capable of covering a distance of 5000 km and carrying three warheads with a total capacity of 0,45 MT.
                  2. Muvka
                    Muvka 31 July 2016 15: 54
                    0
                    Quote: Proxima
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Quote: Proxima
                    The "Poplar" has two serious "pluses", I have already spoken about mobility. The most important thing is that our missile is capable of repeatedly changing its flight path, that is, it is more maneuverable than its American counterpart.

                    It is these parameters that overlap all the small pluses of Minuteman.

                    Well, first of all, I have not argued that Mini is better than Poplar. On the contrary, in my opinion, in terms of the aggregate characteristics, the Topol is superior to the American missile. Secondly, I didn't even stutter about the "small pluses of the Minuteman". I can cite them. 1) The Mini is 3 meters shorter than the Poplar, like a trifle, but a low rocket is more stable at launch. 2) The Mini is more stable at launch. is capable of varying the mass and, accordingly, the power of the warhead. In the maximum version, the power of the American warhead is still superior to that of the Topol warhead - however, the flight range will no longer be 15000 km, but less. 3) The mass of the Mini is almost 1,5 times less than the mass of our missile, that is, in terms of the ratio of the warhead mass to the mass of the entire missile, the Minuteman is superior to the Poplar. All these three mini-advantages come from the fourth advantage of the American missile - the fuel of the Mini is more efficient than that of the Poplar, which is not surprising , Americans have been dealing with solid fuel since the 50s, while we seriously approached this topic only in the 80s.

                    The thrown mass of poplar is 1,2 tons, the minuteman is 1,150. Warhead minuteman last 1x350, poplar 1x550. Where is less then? At the same time, again, for some reason, you do not take into account when comparing fuel efficiency, the number of false targets that also weigh, fast acceleration, which requires spending a large amount of fuel. Why do people constantly compare dry numbers? :(
              3. Operator
                Operator 31 July 2016 13: 53
                +2
                RS-24 "Yars": number of warheads - from 3 to 4, range with maximum load - 11000 km, basing - mobile and stationary.

                The stage of breeding warheads RS-24 "Yars" is equipped with KSPO (complex of means of overcoming missile defense), including light and heavy decoys, as well as active jammers. Maneuvering warheads have not yet left the testing stage.
              4. dvina71
                dvina71 31 July 2016 17: 29
                +1
                Quote: Proxima
                Is it too hard to figure it out yourself before writing nonsense? Good. I will give the performance characteristics of "Topol-M", in brackets - "Minuteman-3". Maximum firing range, km - 10000 (15000), number of warheads - 1 (1-3), warhead dispersion ellipse - 350 m (210 m). ENOUGH? The "Poplar" has two serious "pluses", I have already spoken about mobility. The most important thing is that our rocket is capable of repeatedly changing its flight path, that is, it is more maneuverable than the American analog

                Below you have already been answered, but you are nonsense.
                Range Mini-13t Poplar - M 11t, there is a small but, RS-18 also indicated a range of 11t, but it flew off at 13, with a full load.
                Diffusion? Are you seriously? For tyaz with a capacity of about 5 mgt? Tell me how much is the radius of a solid lesion in such a charge?
                You generally strangely evaluate weapons .. by MGH.
                And you need the probability of defeat. Well, and who is she more? Do rockets with great acceleration at the booster stage? With a variable path? With the presence of serious means to overcome missile defense? On a mobile platform?
                And where is Mini?
              5. Reserve officer
                Reserve officer 31 July 2016 21: 47
                +2
                Sometimes I’m just blinking away from the comments. They poked a muzzle somewhere - so in response immediately - but I know this, I’ll say this now!
                The site is international! And these comments are read not only by your interlocutors, gentlemen of the debaters, but also by anyone. And before you flaunt the characteristics of products in the heat of the moment, turn on your head!
                Maybe your comment is not enough to complete the picture. Didn’t think? So think before you write!
                1. dvina71
                  dvina71 1 August 2016 01: 44
                  0
                  Quote: Reserve officer
                  The site is international! And these comments are read not only by your interlocutors, gentlemen of the debaters, but also by anyone. And before you flaunt the characteristics of products in the heat of the moment, turn on your head!

                  AND? All this data is in open sources. We will not say anything new here. Moreover, most likely even what is indicated .. how to say .. true, but under certain conditions. But no one voices these conditions.
                  Besides tgo..in the beginning of the 2000s..in the network cluster there was trouble .., it could be found by the technical characteristics of military equipment .. the hairs on my head moved. Now everything is cleaned up)))
          4. Zulu_S
            Zulu_S 31 July 2016 19: 28
            0
            The issue of the article is not in the Yuzhmash minutemans, but in the usual demagoguery of the United States. They are outraged that Russia is modernizing its nuclear weapons, calling it "aggressive behavior", almost a challenge to "the entire civilized world," while they consider themselves entitled to carry out a large-scale modernization of their own. Behind them, the NATO allies and those eager to join the same manure are yelling about "Russia's aggression".
      3. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 31 July 2016 11: 11
        +9
        Quote: Lord of the Sith
        The belly button gets loose! They have lost the scientific potential and technology for the development and production of such projects. How many scandals have already happened when Chinese boards were found in aviation and rocket technology that regularly fail.

        Oh, somehow I doubt it. And the rover is working for them and the Boeings are flying and we are texting processors developed in the USA. So, do not bury the American scientific potential.
        1. Monos
          Monos 31 July 2016 11: 20
          +9
          Quote: Aron Zaavi
          Oh, somehow I doubt it. And the rover is working for them and the Boeings are flying and we are texting processors developed in the USA. So, do not bury the American scientific potential.


          I agree with you. hatred here is inappropriate. The Indosov engineering school is good, they accumulate scientific potential from all over the world and can quickly establish mass production. I would take their plans seriously. Until the organization of sabotage.
          1. Operator
            Operator 31 July 2016 14: 00
            +1
            In the field of launch vehicles for strategic nuclear weapons, the United States has lagged behind forever - only Russia possesses the technology for the production of highly efficient liquid-fueled missiles NDMG + AT of the Voevoda, Sarmat, Sineva and Liner types.
        2. Lord of the Sith
          Lord of the Sith 31 July 2016 11: 26
          +2
          Quote: Aaron Zawi
          Oh, somehow I doubt it. And the rover is working for them and the Boeings are flying and we are texting processors developed in the USA. So, do not bury the American scientific potential.

          All that you have listed was created long ago. As for Boeing, remember how many accidents occurred with engines and other systems in a year? Whose rocket was the rover launched on? Immediately the topic is raised about "new ballistic and cruise missiles", and these are again engines ...
        3. Khariton
          Khariton 31 July 2016 11: 28
          -6
          Quote: Aaron Zawi
          Quote: Lord of the Sith
          The belly button gets loose! They have lost the scientific potential and technology for the development and production of such projects. How many scandals have already happened when Chinese boards were found in aviation and rocket technology that regularly fail.

          Oh, somehow I doubt it. And the rover is working for them and the Boeings are flying and we are texting processors developed in the USA. So, do not bury the American scientific potential.

          Aron, Israel merged in ecstasy with the United States and England ....? When such articles appear, you are all right there, you begin to "explain" to us what's what ... It's interesting to watch you ... bully A small country, and so many problems from you ..)))))
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 31 July 2016 11: 46
            +13
            "A small country, but so many problems from you ..)))))" ////

            Those famous Russian figures who (God forbid) get sick are recorded in the queue
            for operations in our hospitals. And medicines are bought in a "small country", and not
            in Russian pharmacies, even specially come to do tests in our clinics.
            So, if you regret, you are welcome fellow
            1. sabakina
              sabakina 31 July 2016 12: 04
              +1
              Alexey, can you give those "famous Russian figures" the Russian medicine in your package? I have been sick for a week and a half, all medical workers have been put on me, they have seen the vacation season! I am self-medicating. hi
            2. Monos
              Monos 31 July 2016 12: 17
              +4
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Those famous Russian figures who (God forbid) get sick are recorded in the queue


              Oh, stop it! One Jew from Russia will come to relatives in Israel for medical treatment, and you already scream to the whole world that all of Russia is coming to you for treatment.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 31 July 2016 12: 30
                +3
                "One Jew from Russia will come to his relatives in Israel to receive medical treatment" ///

                No. This is a solid industry called "medical tourism".
                Gives Israel multimillion-dollar profits. Those wishing to "heal"
                so many that for them and their relatives they build special large hotels near hospitals, expand laboratories and emergency rooms, etc.
                And the vast majority of non-Jews come from Russia, Ukraine,
                countries of Central Asia of the former USSR.
                1. tolian
                  tolian 31 July 2016 15: 22
                  0
                  They came to Israel from the USSR not only and not so many Jews as it seems to you, a warrior. So the Russians of different ethnic groups are going to heal in Israel. They peck at advertising.
            3. Khariton
              Khariton 31 July 2016 12: 20
              -3
              Quote: voyaka uh
              "A small country, but so many problems from you ..)))))" ////

              Those famous Russian figures who (God forbid) get sick are recorded in the queue
              for operations in our hospitals. And medicines are bought in a "small country", and not
              in Russian pharmacies, even specially come to do tests in our clinics.
              So, if you regret, you are welcome fellow

              We also have not bad doctors .. High-tech operations are done, young surgeons and very high quality .. There’s a direct stream! ALL FOR FREE! Believe me .. hi Simple village peasants, oh I heard enough of all sorts of stories ... (it came to tears, even the night was neighing ..))))
            4. PKK
              PKK 31 July 2016 12: 25
              +2
              As usual, Jews take advantage of the ignorance and ignorance of the rich, including from Russia. They take it from the heart for obvious cases. And you come to us, even if nothing hurts, we will cure for free.
            5. 33 Watcher
              33 Watcher 31 July 2016 12: 58
              +4
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Those famous Russian figures who (God forbid) get sick are recorded in the queue
              for operations in our hospitals.

              Those who are being treated will be cured here, no worse. But there are already legends about the ability of your and German "comrades" to pump up the incurable grandmother.
              And well-known figures generally do a lot of things on the principle that show-offs are more expensive than money.
              1. Kent0001
                Kent0001 31 July 2016 14: 22
                +1
                I agree. One acquaintance was promised to be cured of the fourth stage of oncology. Only he died in them in the clinic a week later, but they managed to take the grandmother's snow. It helps someone well, but not everyone, they take noble money.
            6. Operator
              Operator 31 July 2016 14: 06
              0
              That's what your Prime Minister Netanyahu is day and night in Sochi - is it really in the direction of medical tourism (such as treatment for diarrhea)? laughing
              When the Arabs descend Israel into the Mediterranean Sea, your leadership clearly knows who to turn to for help.
              1. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 31 July 2016 22: 38
                +2
                Quote: Operator
                When the Arabs descend Israel into the Mediterranean Sea, your leadership clearly knows who to turn to for help.

                1. I would not be happy about this event. Israel is the only Christian state against Islamic fundamentalism. It is it that holds back Islamic extremism in the region. Therefore, do not bring the Lord.
                2. The leadership of Israel, and this must be recognized by the results of the UN vote on a number of issues, is not going to lose its profit (to please the States) on its own. (Gescheft, however!)
                3. Regarding the maintenance of the world order in the BV, the views of our leadership coincide in many respects with the position of Israel. Therefore, summits so often occur. I personally have no reason not to trust our President.
                So, let this Christian state live and prosper, where "a quarter of our former people" (c).
                Xenophobia is not the best adviser in international relations.
                Yours faithfully, hi
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. Operator
                  Operator 1 August 2016 02: 38
                  0
                  I just reminded the Israelis that the meetings are held in Russia, which is much more indicative than the direction of medical tourism.

                  If Israel was to contain Islamic extremism in the Middle East, it would have fought on the side of the Syrian government: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" (C).

                  A quarter of the population of Israel come from the peoples of the USSR, but they are not the people of the Russian Federation, the basis of which are Russians - 82 percent. Taking into account the Little Russians and Belarusians - 90 with an extra percent (mononation by definition).
                  For comparison, Jews in Israel make up only 75 percent and their share is declining every year due to the accelerated increase in the Arab population.

                  PS Israel is a Jewish, not a Christian state.
          2. sabakina
            sabakina 31 July 2016 11: 59
            +2
            Quote: Aaron Zawi

            Oh, somehow I doubt it. And the rover is working for them and the Boeings are flying and we are texting processors developed in the USA. So, do not bury the American scientific potential.

            Aron, judging by my observations, they will do ICBMs and KR based on your favorite Boeing.
            About processors.
            All electronics created once in the USA have long been manufactured in China. In the US, zero. Boom to argue?
            And lastly.
            A nuclear charge is not a piece of TNT packaged in a cylinder.
            Well, and personally for you, so to speak, for dessert.

            And do not say that this is red propaganda ...
            1. retardu
              retardu 1 August 2016 03: 16
              0
              only low-margin production requiring manual labor has been launched in China. Electronics and processors are automated and mainly located in the USA.
        4. 33 Watcher
          33 Watcher 31 July 2016 12: 51
          +3
          Quote: Aaron Zawi
          Quote: Lord of the Sith
          The belly button gets loose! They have lost the scientific potential and technology for the development and production of such projects. How many scandals have already happened when Chinese boards were found in aviation and rocket technology that regularly fail.

          Oh, somehow I doubt it. And the rover is working for them and the Boeings are flying and we are texting processors developed in the USA. So, do not bury the American scientific potential.

          That's right, but in addition to the ones you have listed, there is also the F-35, Zumwalt and the last of the aircraft carriers (I don’t remember what is called). There is clearly something missing, really, I don’t know what ...
      4. PKK
        PKK 31 July 2016 11: 19
        +2
        Are the USA sure that they will reach 2027? Well, obviously optimists.
        1. Great Attractor
          Great Attractor 31 July 2016 11: 35
          +4
          Bye, damn it. And why is this the United States does not reach 2028? Do you believe in these tales that the 44th president is their last president? It will be the 44th right after Abama. The last American, the 45th will not. So in 1991 I read this bike for the first time in a newspaper, such as Gordon Boulevard. It was still printed against the backdrop of a slept eye with an enlarged pupil and a glowing candle. Probably for the sake of serenity. Exactly in December 1991, in the days of whitewash, the people read it with great interest. In the section like globa. Kazali-Pissali, after 1991 there will be Texas and Oklahoma collective farms with chairmen, etc. And Wyoming shock Komsomol construction sites. The people in all seriousness tada read this, 25 years ago. Right now, has it become fashionable back? In 2977, it may be so, it is possible, and in 2028 there is not much optimism in this regard?
          1. sabakina
            sabakina 31 July 2016 12: 06
            +2
            For the Great Attractor.
            If Baba Vanga said to the morgue, then to the morgue!
            1. Tusv
              Tusv 31 July 2016 12: 20
              0
              Quote: sabakina
              If Baba Vanga said to the morgue, then to the morgue!

              Or maybe this, like him in the New Amazons, into naturalization?
            2. Great Attractor
              Great Attractor 31 July 2016 13: 28
              +1
              Quote: sabakina
              If Baba Vanga said to the morgue, then to the morgue!


              sabakina, so I’m saying ... And many tady spoke. Do not remember? 1991, whole selected thematic columns were printed on this subject. Starting from the mysterious departure of Igor Talkov and his prediction of the future, and ending with the 44th last president of the United States. This was their industry theme. And the people read, read to the holes! For it was very interesting. But what is not interesting and not exciting ?! Can you imagine? 1991, the USSR is living its last days. And the USA ??? But those who know and write in the newspaper are smart and wise. Now there is the 41st president, Bush. As they later recounted and eliminated the inaccuracy, after 20 years, in fact, he turned out to be the 40th, and not the 41st. The USA was extended due to this, by 8 years. Then the 41st (Clinton Bill), then the 42nd (Bush son), then the 43rd (Obama). And, finally, the time has already come, as it turned out November 2016, the 44th, the last president of the United States. Either the Clintons, or the Trampoline. Who is pulled out of them there. And the 45th? And the 45th will be gone! Next will be the type of US-Avian communion, dispossession, etc. So educated women and sometimes men spoke to each other. That is, by any means, beyond 2028 the United States could not exist with its white houses and democracies and dollars! Then the people gradually and quickly lost interest in these tales. Many right now run to charge cramaks to Chumak? And then it was such a medicine, there were full houses! And about 6 years ago I read, after a long break, the fears of the globa that the 44th could really be the last. And I immediately remembered Bialowieza 1991 December and the 44th of the last. Well, now among the people this idea again went into fashion --- 12 or 13 years old and that’s all --- the USA will no longer be on the world map!
            3. siberalt
              siberalt 31 July 2016 13: 52
              -3
              Doctor: - And this patient to the morgue!
              Patient: - I'm still alive.
              Doctor: - So you have not been reported to the morgue. laughing
      5. The comment was deleted.
      6. 222222
        222222 31 July 2016 11: 47
        0
        So they already tried to change them for Peacemaker. Pshik and left
        1. APASUS
          APASUS 31 July 2016 11: 58
          +1
          In the United States, they can also make new charges, but still the main point in this article lies in one phrase:
          According to Reuters, "the total cost of modernization in the US Armed Forces, during which it is planned to replace bombs, nuclear bombers, missiles and submarines, will exceed $ 350 billion over ten years."

          The American military-industrial complex wants to receive orders and this is a very real reason.
          1. tolian
            tolian 31 July 2016 16: 07
            0
            Convert 350 billion dollars to rubles at the current exchange rate and compare this amount with the one that Russia allocated to the army in the next decade. Don't be surprised?
            1. Monos
              Monos 31 July 2016 17: 03
              +4
              Quote: tolian
              Don't be surprised?


              Not surprising. Compare the cost of the T-14 and the Abrams, the cost of the T-50 and the F-35, the cost of the Ash and the SeaWolf ... and so on, and this will also stop surprising you.
      7. Phantom Revolution
        Phantom Revolution 31 July 2016 12: 39
        +1
        Quote: Sith Lord
        The belly button gets loose! They have lost the scientific potential and technology for the development and production of such projects. How many scandals have already happened when Chinese boards were found in aviation and rocket technology that regularly fail.

        I would underestimate the United States in its scientific and technological potential, but there are problems.
        We relaxed in some areas, but if necessary, we’ll catch up, but in some areas it’s not very rosy for us.

        And in China they do, well, this is a normal economy, they must be transferred to another country. The United States is not afraid of China at the moment, they have a frantic turnover, so to speak a symbiosis, and both do not want to lose this cooperation. And China is sculpting chips for US technology.
      8. Mercenary
        Mercenary 31 July 2016 16: 56
        -2
        Ukrainians, MotorSich, Yuzhmash will help, besides 90 (future Americans from the USSR removed so many military secrets and developments that the CIA admitted that it was not able to process the entire amount of information! They will print money, create something, there is nothing to rejoice about.
      9. dauria
        dauria 31 July 2016 19: 57
        0
        The belly button gets loose! They have lost the scientific potential and technology for the development and production of such projects.


        35 xenon atoms. 1989 year. And they also know how to launch vehicles beyond the borders of the solar system. You can not love them, but underestimate the crime against their country.
        1. Mikhail m
          Mikhail m 31 July 2016 20: 56
          +1
          And what is the substrate of? From electrons?
          1. dauria
            dauria 31 July 2016 21: 40
            +2
            And what is the substrate of? From electrons?



            no, it's a nickel crystal. However, see for yourself about tunneling microscopes, and who invented them. An American who understands the principle of moving atoms is simply worthy of respect for his inquisitive mind and stubbornness. Ah, does not fit with Zadornovsky "stupid"? Happenes...
            By the way, the distances are much less than the wavelength of the visible range. Is it not interesting how the picture turned out?
            1. Kasym
              Kasym 1 August 2016 01: 07
              0
              They have long been announcing the beginning of work on a new generation of their carriers of poison. weapons. But somehow they won't start. And it seems to me the reason is that you can't really expand the "business" - you can't sell it, because carriers i.o .. And to be honest, they are "late" in this "rearmament" game. And it is not worth getting involved in this new arms race - the United States apparently wants to repeat the fate of the USSR (debts, political stagnation, distortion in the economy). Of course it's too early to bury, but as we know, their development never meets the deadlines and budgets - some of their new planes are what they got. And it can be applied only in unprofitable space. Plus legalized corruption.
              It is not worth hoping that they cannot do it. These mega-corporations will hire an international scientific and technical team and master the "order", any imported technology (it will be necessary and political pressure will be used) will "get it." And since "exclusive" and a small series, they will milk out the budget - be healthy. But they need a new generation of BTT and a lot of other things. So I think that all this will be such a "burden" that tomorrow Texas will blow up or some other state.
              You will see, tomorrow they will come up with some SDI again. The image of enemies is sculpted only by noise: the Russian Federation, China, Syria, etc. But there is no need to get involved in this race - there will always be a cheap way - like project "Status-6" or some other "kuzka mother" to come up with; but not just some science and technology fiction from which you can bend. Everything is gradually, step by step, without breaking the "navel" as they say - Russia is the leader in these matters and it is not for you to run with your pants up. hi
  2. The comment was deleted.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 31 July 2016 10: 56
      +2
      35 billion a year with a budget of 600 - they’ll loose, and the United States turns out to do the best bombs and missiles, for example, the AGM 154 and AGM 158 have no analogues in the world, even in Russia.
      1. lwxx
        lwxx 31 July 2016 11: 21
        0
        Yes, the shtatovtsy began to understand that he was behind us. But unlike us, they quickly harness. Ours should not stop in the further development of missile weapons, as, however, as usual.
      2. Tusv
        Tusv 31 July 2016 11: 22
        +1
        Quote: Vadim237
        it turns out that the United States does the best missiles, for example, AGM 154 and AGM 158 there are no analogues in the world, even in Russia.

        Do not be silly. They are up to tth ha 101/102 as before Beijing, through the Mariinsky Depression with cancer
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 31 July 2016 11: 24
          +1
          And we have what X 101 and 102 missiles can carry fighters?
          1. Tusv
            Tusv 31 July 2016 11: 31
            +2
            Quote: Vadim237
            And we have what X 101 and 102 missiles can carry fighters?

            On pylons, these birds are forbidden to carry by contract, and so under the belly they can.
            By the way, a year ago I read about our anti-radar missile. Harm nervously smokes aside - have a little. Our airmen on approach will mix with the carrier. and 300 km is not a beaver
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 31 July 2016 11: 47
              0
              The AGM 154 bomb has a range of flight with an accelerator of 560 kilometers, the AGM 158ER flies 980 kilometers - carriers will not even need to enter the air defense zone.
              1. Tusv
                Tusv 31 July 2016 12: 13
                0
                Quote: Vadim237
                The AGM 154 bomb has a range of flight with an accelerator of 560 kilometers, the AGM 158ER flies 980 kilometers - carriers will not even need to enter the air defense zone.

                Nothing so inconspicuous Ha101 / 102 flies 5500 km. This is only official. No need to leave the aerodrome area repeat
              2. dvina71
                dvina71 31 July 2016 12: 32
                +4
                Quote: Vadim237
                AGM 154 bombs, flight range with an accelerator of 560 kilometers, AGM 158ER flies 980 kilometers - carriers will not even need to enter the air defense zone

                I would not focus on these numbers. Because in the US version, this is more of an advertisement than a combat TTX.
                I had the pleasure of talking with one of the developers of Klab, they came to us in Severodvinsk when they integrated him into the Hindu Kilo. I didn’t want to get a rocket .. I had to send people from the KB)))
                Well, well ... they started talking about missiles. The meaning is - the Soviet, Russian military put forward a very chewing demands. In addition to -50 \ + 50, cr must always fly against a strong headwind, very often perform pro-maneuver maneuvers .. well, and a bunch of such things. Therefore, the exact range of the Russian cr is difficult to accurately determine.
                It was like with RS-18, the bark indicated a range of 11+ thousand km, and it flew away at 13+ ..
              3. Lt. Air Force stock
                Lt. Air Force stock 31 July 2016 12: 43
                +1
                Quote: Vadim237
                The AGM 154 bomb has a range of 560 kilometers with an accelerator

                200 km with an accelerator like. In general, there is nothing outstanding in this, if you install a solid-fuel launch accelerator from Caliber-NK on the new Thunder corrected aerial bomb, it will also be able to fly such a long distance.
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 31 July 2016 13: 12
                  0
                  Only here we have no air-based calibers and judging by the purchased quantity of only up to 100 pieces a year, it will not appear.
          2. Muvka
            Muvka 31 July 2016 11: 37
            0
            Quote: Vadim237
            And we have what X 101 and 102 missiles can carry fighters?

            X-38 for Su-35, T-50, not?
            1. sabakina
              sabakina 31 July 2016 12: 37
              +1
              Vadim237, do you like AGM 158ER so much? So marry her!
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 31 July 2016 13: 14
                0
                I consider the AGM 158 to be the best air surface rocket for fighters in the world.
                1. Muvka
                  Muvka 31 July 2016 13: 33
                  +1
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  I consider the AGM 158 to be the best air surface rocket for fighters in the world.

                  Rocket air-to-surface for fighter. Apparently I don’t understand something in this life. And let's invent an ICBM for a tank! In will be cool. Or an air-to-air missile for the Tu-160.
                  1. Vadim237
                    Vadim237 31 July 2016 14: 06
                    +1
                    A fighter - a bomber, for there are no more clean fighters - I think it will be more understandable to you. And the project of arming bombers with air-to-air missiles was, but the Soviet Union collapsed and all projects safely died.
                    1. Muvka
                      Muvka 31 July 2016 14: 17
                      0
                      Quote: Vadim237
                      A fighter - a bomber, for there are no more clean fighters - I think it will be more understandable to you. And the project of arming bombers with air-to-air missiles was, but the Soviet Union collapsed and all projects safely died.

                      Because they do not need nafig. And there are missiles for the Su-34. At least a small radius and caliber without an accelerator. Although this is at the rumor level, but the rocket is new, it can be classified.
                    2. Tusv
                      Tusv 31 July 2016 15: 02
                      0
                      Quote: Vadim237
                      there are no more clean fighters

                      WADA not on them laughing , only KABushek bombers on board can take more than twenty times
                2. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 31 July 2016 13: 37
                  +3
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  I consider the AGM 158 to be the best air surface rocket for fighters in the world.

                  Today it is very controversial, since we have such missiles as the X-101 and X-555, the performance characteristics of which so far have not been possible to block the mattresses.
                3. Muvka
                  Muvka 31 July 2016 14: 00
                  0
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  I consider the AGM 158 to be the best air surface rocket for fighters in the world.

                  And by the way, it is very similar to: I have the longest shovel handle that my bed has ever been dug.
      3. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 31 July 2016 12: 40
        +1
        Quote: Vadim237
        AGM 158

        Aviation Caliber is.
        Quote: Vadim237
        AGM 154

        Thunder's New Planning Adjustable Ammunition.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 31 July 2016 13: 15
          0
          "Adjustable ammunition Thunder". - Is it in service, launched in series?
        2. Operator
          Operator 31 July 2016 14: 25
          0
          Air-to-surface planning guided munition weighing 600 kg, warhead 300 kg:
          "Grom-E1" - with a rocket booster;
          "Grom-E2" - without a rocket booster.

          Planned adoption date - 2017 year
  3. Coconut
    Coconut 31 July 2016 10: 53
    +10
    Quote: Andrew Y.
    the path to "nowhere" continues ... when the "game over" comes ???


    something like this)
  4. s30461
    s30461 31 July 2016 10: 55
    +1
    According to the agency, this development will be carried out "as part of an expensive program to modernize nuclear weapons systems."

    The key word in the message is "expensive." Balm for the soul of the US arms tycoons ...
  5. Verdun
    Verdun 31 July 2016 10: 56
    +5
    Order development and develop something - two big differences. I hope that the US military-industrial complex will create the most modern weapon - something in the key of the F-35, with the same price level and terms for bringing it to mind.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 31 July 2016 11: 10
      -2
      What about the F 35? - The aircraft is already in the series, it has been flying successfully for 16 years, for the light class fighters the most heavily armed, high-tech, problems only with avionics, but they are solved.
      1. Verdun
        Verdun 31 July 2016 11: 32
        +5
        Quote: Vadim237
        The aircraft is already in the series, it has been successfully flying for 16 years, for the light class fighters the most heavily armed, high-tech, problems only with avionics, but they are solved.

        Where does this figure come from - 16 years? Or do you consider all the years of testing?
        For the first time, the USA announced the successful tests of F-35 fighters in October 2013.
        And the development started in 2001. At the same time, even assuming that the F-35 has problems with avionics, in modern combat, an airplane with such problems, to put it mildly, is not viable.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 31 July 2016 11: 51
          -4
          I consider all the years of testing - not a single accident in 16 years.
        2. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 31 July 2016 11: 55
          +3
          Software flaws are not related to airplane flight (some planes have already exchanged 10,000 hours, there were no accidents), but to integrations
          some types of weapons.
          About 3 percent of the software was unprepared. August seems to be going
          declare 100 combat readiness version "A".
          1. Verdun
            Verdun 31 July 2016 12: 11
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            About 3 percent of the software was unprepared. August seems to be going
            declare 100 combat readiness version "A".

            Are you soothing yourself with auto-training in connection with the acquisition of the F-35 by the Israeli Air Force? As far as I know, there are enough problems besides the software - not everything is all right with the engines, wing cracks were found on the machines of the first releases ... And this "Lightning" flies so-so. In any case, 16 years from the beginning of development to obtaining the status of 100% combat readiness is too much. And the main thing is the price of this miracle. Even if we assume that the car will cost $ 100 million, as promised by Lockheed, one gram of it will still cost more than $ 7,5. But it is not frail operating costs that are planned there. Maybe it was easier to buy gold with this money or to make something of your own? After all, Israel's military-industrial complex is doing well.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 31 July 2016 12: 51
              +2
              "In any case, 16 years from the beginning of development until the status of 100% combat readiness is obtained -
              a bit too much. And most importantly - the price of this miracle "///

              No, 16 years is a bit. Compare with the development cycle of the F-15, Su-27, Tornado, Yurofayter ...
              And the price of 100 million is the norm for a modern fighter.
              And given that from 2019 they will switch to large-scale production and the price
              will fall (tentatively) to 85 million. This is equal to the latest modifications to the F-16 and significantly cheaper than the Silent Eagle.
              1. Verdun
                Verdun 31 July 2016 13: 21
                +2
                Quote: voyaka uh
                Compare with the development cycle of the F-15, Su-27, Tornado, Yurofayter ...

                Comparing. The flight of the first F-35B - 2001.
                Su-27
                The first flight of the prototype took place in 1977. In 1982, aircraft began to arrive in aviation units, and in 1985 their operation began.

                F-15
                . On December 23, 1969, the company was awarded a contract for the construction of prototype aircraft, and 2.5 years later, on July 27, 1972, test pilot I. Barrows raised the prototype of the future Igla, the prototype YF-15 fighter, during the first flight. The next year, a two-seat combat training version of the aircraft was flown around, and in 1974 the first production fighter F-15A Eagles and Sparky TF-15A (F-15B) appeared

                Eurofighter - the first flight in 1994, the beginning of operation in 2003. I don't take the tornado into account - it's still an "airplane".
                And the price of 100 million is the norm for a modern fighter.
                I sincerely understand the desire of the owners of aviation concerns to earn more money. Especially considering the funds spent on advertising companies.
                1. Tusv
                  Tusv 31 July 2016 14: 16
                  +2
                  Quote: Verdun
                  I don't take a tornado into account - it's still an "airplane"

                  He re-glued all the planes against which he was on duty. A paper copy of the Tornado flew farthest than anyone else, and approaching our border is 100% exempt from outfits. Straight from the guard post with a galloping Kalash. All on duty
                2. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh 31 July 2016 14: 29
                  +3
                  You see, if Israel received the first F-35, I would be worried.
                  But already 200 planes fly, in different countries, with different pilots.
                  There, the Norwegians conducted training melee battles of their F-16 and F-35.
                  It turned out that the F-35 is quite suitable for close combat, not inferior to the F-16, but in some ways superior. A trifle, but nice.
                  The Americans drove their F-35 aerobatics with afterburner.
                  Also, it turned out, the motor gives in practice more power than
                  It was in the calculations, can withstand extreme conditions.
                  And so, we need a new generation drummer, inconspicuous and capable
                  lead and work with drones, ground artillery and tanks.
                  Radio communication is outdated. Today, the direction is a network that connects in real time all types of troops. Work for everyone directly without "translators" from various headquarters.
                  I clearly explained?
                  1. Verdun
                    Verdun 31 July 2016 14: 50
                    0
                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    Today, the direction is a network that connects all branches of the military in real time. Work for everyone directly without "translators" from various headquarters.

                    Great idea. And I will fully support it, as soon as it is possible to create such a network, reliably protected from various interference and extraneous influence. Development in this direction is necessary. But at the current technological level ... Such a network is probably suitable for combating Somali pirates. But in the event of a collision of armies with serious means of electronic warfare, it will be completely useless.
                    There, the Norwegians conducted training melee battles of their F-16 and F-35.
                    It turned out that the F-35 is quite suitable for close combat, not inferior to the F-16, but in some ways superior. A trifle, but nice.
                    Here are just the latest F-16s, which are in service with the Royal Norwegian Air Force - 1989 release. Of course, starting in 2014, cars are undergoing major repairs. But they are not few years old and if the F-35 was inferior to cars that are a quarter of a century older, it would be just a shame.
                    1. voyaka uh
                      voyaka uh 31 July 2016 16: 13
                      +1
                      "as soon as it is possible to create such a network, reliably protected from various interference and outside influence" ////

                      In the 1st World used telephone lines. They were easily cut with a knife or torn accidentally with fragments, or
                      spies connected to them ... Nevertheless, it was a revolution. Who used the connection had a huge advantage.
                      In the 2nd World War we switched to radio communications. You yourself know how the USSR suffered without timely equipping its equipment
                      radios / transmitters.
                      Now Russia is stepping on the same rake. Instead of urgently developing network-centric systems
                      trying to defend itself against the enemy with the help of electronic warfare (which is actually basically against normal radio communications).
                      It's like, instead of wiring your telephone lines 100 years ago - just cut the enemy with scissors.
                      1. Verdun
                        Verdun 31 July 2016 16: 23
                        +1
                        Quote: voyaka uh
                        It's like, instead of wiring your telephone lines 100 years ago - just cut the enemy with scissors.

                        The war of communication systems and their means of disabling has always been and always is. But I really would not like to be in the role of, say, a company commander equipped with such a system if this system is infected with a virus. Whatever you say, for now, such systems are very vulnerable.
                      2. dvina71
                        dvina71 31 July 2016 21: 28
                        0
                        Quote: voyaka uh
                        Now Russia is stepping on the same rake. Instead of urgently developing network-centric systems

                        Again .. if you could only say a clever word .. and all .. your victory.
                        What are network-centric systems?
                        In a nutshell, please?
                  2. Operator
                    Operator 31 July 2016 21: 21
                    -1
                    Working with drones, artillery and tanks against Hesbola’s urban guerrillas is, of course, wonderful.

                    And here is the situation with the Penguin with the work against the Su-35С and S-350 front-line fighters, you are modestly silent bully
              2. Tusv
                Tusv 31 July 2016 14: 01
                +1
                Quote: voyaka uh
                And the price of 100 million is the norm for a modern fighter.

                Tady all kaput, our modern fighters are far from the most modern. do not even reach the fifty dollars
                And the cadets will ask what Fu 35 will do when they meet with 29 Mig or Sushka, I will run away and let them raise the f-15 air wing to protect me.
                There are articles on the application of super duper pepelats
          2. sabakina
            sabakina 31 July 2016 12: 40
            +1
            The key word "seems" means "maybe".
          3. 33 Watcher
            33 Watcher 31 July 2016 13: 06
            +1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            About 3 percent of the software was unprepared. August seems to be going
            declare 100 combat readiness version "A".

            Well, %% can be different. And you can declare anything. In aviation there is no concept of "slightly" and "Almost". THE AIRCRAFT IS NOT READY. He still has a lot of problems, not only from to, but what to talk about, he stupidly does not have an ejection seat !!!
            That's when it is ready, then we'll talk.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 31 July 2016 13: 10
              +1
              "he stupidly does not have an ejection seat !!!" ////

              He does not have an ejection seat for midgets pilots. smile
              We did not think about pilots of small stature and weight (up to 55 kg).
              1. Tusv
                Tusv 31 July 2016 14: 24
                0
                Quote: voyaka uh
                He does not have an ejection seat for midgets pilots.

                Toli case domestic equipment. My brother was shoved in t 80 with parameters 193 on almost a meter in the shoulders laughing
            2. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 31 July 2016 13: 10
              0
              "he stupidly does not have an ejection seat !!!" ////

              He does not have an ejection seat for midgets pilots. smile
              We did not think about pilots of small stature and weight (up to 55 kg).
              1. Verdun
                Verdun 31 July 2016 13: 28
                0
                Quote: voyaka uh
                He does not have an ejection seat for midgets pilots.

                Do you want to compare McDonnell Douglas ACES II with K-36DM? repeat
  6. Observer2014
    Observer2014 31 July 2016 10: 58
    +3
    US Air Force orders defense enterprises to develop new land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and air-based cruise missiles
    Well, ordering and spending money on development in the USA does not mean that the military product will be manufactured and have combat potential.
  7. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 31 July 2016 11: 05
    +2
    Will the printing press overheat? The national debt will soon be 20 trillion! but for some reason Matrasia doesn't care. Well, against the backdrop of such a debt, some 350 lard is such a trifle ... especially in 10 years. Although theirs "Minutemans" on floppy disks are not impressive. Interestingly, engines for missiles will be ordered from us? Or at Yuzhmash? laughing and chips in Taiwan. No, no, I guessed! Musk will do the rocket! Because he held back with his stupid projects.
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 31 July 2016 11: 13
      +4
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Will the printing press overheat? The national debt will soon be 20 trillion! but for some reason Matrasia doesn't care. Well, against the backdrop of such a debt, some 350 lard is such a trifle ... especially in 10 years. Although theirs "Minutemans" on floppy disks are not impressive. Interestingly, engines for missiles will be ordered from us? Or at Yuzhmash? laughing and chips in Taiwan. No, no, I guessed! Musk will do the rocket! Because he held back with his stupid projects.

      2/3 of debt is debt to US funds. In short, they take it from the left pocket and put it in the right one.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 31 July 2016 11: 20
        -1
        The time will come and they will restructure the debt to zero and none of the investors will refuse them.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 31 July 2016 11: 15
      +5
      "No, no, I guessed it! Musk will make the rocket!" ////

      May be. Musk is rapidly entering the space sector of rocket science,
      but he will not refuse from the military.
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 31 July 2016 11: 18
      -3
      Musk, together with Russian Railways, began to promote HYPERLOOP in Russia.
    4. corporal
      corporal 31 July 2016 11: 46
      +3
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Although theirs "Minutemans" on floppy disks are not impressive.

      Their Minutemans are still superior in performance characteristics of our "Poplar"
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Tusv
        Tusv 31 July 2016 12: 28
        0
        Quote: Corporal
        Their Minutemans are still superior in performance characteristics of our "Poplar"

        I repeat I should not compare mine sentries with mobile Topol. TTX lose by default. Here a comparison with Satan is appropriate.
      3. dvina71
        dvina71 31 July 2016 12: 34
        +1
        Quote: Corporal

        Their Minutemans are still superior in performance characteristics of our "Poplar"

        And with the tsifirki, the same thing ... please?
        1. Muvka
          Muvka 31 July 2016 13: 19
          +3
          Quote: dvina71
          Quote: Corporal

          Their Minutemans are still superior in performance characteristics of our "Poplar"

          And with the tsifirki, the same thing ... please?

          Well, the numbers will bring you dry. But the fact that in a poplar there are better and more anti-missile defense systems, a small booster section, there is the possibility of maneuvering, no one will tell you. But they will say about the maximum range, modestly ignoring at what load it is achieved ...
          And I still didn’t understand the comment above that their minutimes are still superior to poplars ... Do you know that in 1998 minutans completely replaced engines? And in 1997, the guidance system? Those. roughly speaking - this is a rocket of the late 90s.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 31 July 2016 13: 26
            +2
            Quote: Muvka
            small acceleration section

            If you’re talking about Topol, it was precisely because of the size of the acceleration section that this ICBM ceased to suit us, because the IJIS specifically intercepts the ICBMs in the acceleration section, so we adopted Topol-M, with a smaller acceleration section. In 2011, our Defense Ministry refused further procurement of Topol-M in favor of Yars.
            1. Muvka
              Muvka 31 July 2016 13: 35
              0
              Quote: NEXUS
              Quote: Muvka
              small acceleration section

              If you’re talking about Topol, it was precisely because of the size of the acceleration section that this ICBM ceased to suit us, because the IJIS specifically intercepts the ICBMs in the acceleration section, so we adopted Topol-M, with a smaller acceleration section. In 2011, our Defense Ministry refused further procurement of Topol-M in favor of Yars.

              Well, I meant Topol-M. Sense to compare with the very outdated Topol?
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 31 July 2016 13: 43
                +2
                Quote: Muvka
                Well, I meant Topol-M

                Even Topol-M is no longer being procured either. I think in the near future Yarsi, if they are being purchased, will not be long, since the ICBM Rubezh (RS-26) is on the turn, which is even easier -80 tons against 120 at Yars, and the system to overcome ABOUT adversary, more perfect.
                1. Muvka
                  Muvka 31 July 2016 13: 57
                  0
                  Is it. It seemed to me that this year I was reading the news about the entry into the service of some Yars and some Topol M ...
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 31 July 2016 14: 07
                    +1
                    Quote: Muvka
                    Is it. It seemed to me that this year I was reading the news about the entry into the service of some Yars and some Topol M ...

                    Yars are still being purchased and will be purchased in the near future, but Topolya-M has not been purchasing MO since 11.
                    1. Muvka
                      Muvka 31 July 2016 14: 21
                      0
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      Quote: Muvka
                      Is it. It seemed to me that this year I was reading the news about the entry into the service of some Yars and some Topol M ...

                      Yars are still being purchased and will be purchased in the near future, but Topolya-M has not been purchasing MO since 11.

                      Am I misunderstanding something?) Https://topwar.ru/79276-do-konca-goda-v-rvsn-postupyat-tri-polka-topoley-mi-yar
                      sov.html
                      1. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 31 July 2016 14: 26
                        +2
                        Quote: Muvka
                        Am I misunderstanding something?) Https://topwar.ru/79276-do-konca-goda-v-rvsn-postupyat-tri-polka-topoley-mi-yar


                        sov.html

                        And what's not clear then? I repeat, Topol-M complexes have not been purchased by our Ministry of Defense since 2011! When re-equipping a regiment, it receives a set of equipment from another regiment, which it handed over upon receiving the same Yars.
                        As a result of the "chain" rearmament, parts of the first line will receive new complexes, and parts of the second line will receive used equipment, which is still newer than what they had before.
                      2. Muvka
                        Muvka 31 July 2016 14: 30
                        0
                        Well, we have one Strategic Missile Forces. And it is written that the Strategic Missile Forces will receive.
          2. dvina71
            dvina71 1 August 2016 01: 36
            0
            Quote: NEXUS
            TC IJIS precisely at the booster section effectively intercepts ICBMs

            In principle, IJIS cannot intercept anything; it is a management system, in short.
            Intercepted missile defense. Their radius will not yet allow any successful interception of ICBMs launching from the territory of Russia.
    5. Army1
      Army1 31 July 2016 13: 27
      0
      Quote: Corporal
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Although theirs "Minutemans" on floppy disks are not impressive.

      Their Minutemans are still superior in performance characteristics of our "Poplar"

      I don't know about rockets, but education apparently yes. How many people WRITTEN "THEIR". "RIGHT THEM!"
  8. Verdun
    Verdun 31 July 2016 17: 29
    0
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    Does the printing press not overheat? The national debt will soon be 20 trillion! but for some reason this does not bother Matrasia.

    The United States has long forgiven everyone its debts. In the old days, monarchs often borrowed. But they dared to recall this only to those who, for whatever reason, began to lose their influence. In addition, in the modern world economy, US debt is a kind of ballast. Many would like to get rid of this ballast, but no one knows what will happen to the boat in this case. Fearfully!
  • ser-pov
    ser-pov 31 July 2016 11: 08
    +2
    Let's hope that our scientists will create such a weapon or an umbrella by 2027 that we don’t care about their missiles ...
    1. PKK
      PKK 31 July 2016 11: 28
      -1
      The Americans, like air, need a Bogomolov emitter to neutralize the landmines laid along the coast, and by that time the rockets would become hyper, ordinary MKR, will no longer be so effective.
  • Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 31 July 2016 11: 10
    +1
    Will it not be "Star Wars" 2? To drag Russia into a new arms race in which the USSR collapsed? We don't need to chase them - we need to follow alternative paths.
    1. Khariton
      Khariton 31 July 2016 11: 14
      -2
      Quote: Expelling Liberoids
      Will it not be "Star Wars" 2? To drag Russia into a new arms race in which the USSR collapsed? We don't need to chase them - we need to follow alternative paths.

      And we don’t chase .... In Russia, everything is simple and reliable, as always! : bully
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 31 July 2016 11: 15
    +2
    Minuteman-3 on alert since 1970, will soon be 50 years old.
    It’s time to replace it with something newer.
    1. Khariton
      Khariton 31 July 2016 11: 20
      -3
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Minuteman-3 on alert since 1970, will soon be 50 years old.
      It’s time to replace it with something newer.

      Are you suddenly so worried about the USA? laughing They are far away ... Or do I not know something?
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 31 July 2016 11: 28
      -6
      In general, they can refuse from the Minutemans, simply rearrange the warheads to the Tridents, and all 450 Minuteman ICBMs will be converted into GBI missiles.
      1. DenZ
        DenZ 31 July 2016 11: 51
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        and all 450 Minuteman ICBMs will be converted into GBI missiles.

        How simple it is for you - they will remake ballistic missiles into anti-missiles and that’s all. IMHO complete nonsense.
        1. sabakina
          sabakina 31 July 2016 12: 47
          +1
          I don’t know the habitat of this Vadim237, but in Kostroma + 26 in the shade, the wind is 0 ... He overheated to see a guy ...
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 31 July 2016 13: 25
          -1
          There will be no problems exchanging the warhead for kinetic interceptors with an accelerator - in ten years they will be able to remake all the missiles, the rocket will remain so, its function is simple - to put a payload into orbit.
    3. Alexander 3
      Alexander 3 31 July 2016 11: 37
      -1
      They need to exchange for an inflatable rocket, you can scare and then take the money and change to a newer one and so on forever.
  • Old26
    Old26 31 July 2016 11: 24
    +6
    Quote: s30461
    The key word in the message is "expensive." Balm for the soul of the US arms tycoons ...

    "expensive" weapons are a balm for the souls of not only US gunsmiths, but also any other ... laughing

    the "novelty" of this news is not entirely clear. They have been talking about replacing Minutemans-3 for at least 8-10 years. So far this program is conventionally called "Minuteman-4". About the same amount of time there is talk about the creation of the Trident E-6 to replace the Trident D-5.

    Quote: Vadim237
    35 billion a year with a budget of 600 - they’ll loose, and the United States turns out to do the best bombs and missiles, for example, the AGM 154 and AGM 158 have no analogues in the world, even in Russia.

    You are not quite right in saying that no one has analogues to these products. I really have not heard about the planning bomb of the AGM 154 type. In principle, our new X-1xx missiles are similar to the AGM 158.

    And guys !!! There is no need to hope that the Americans have "fucked up all the polymers" and cannot do anything on their own. this delusion usually ends in a lot of blood. Do not underestimate the enemy based on the message that since they have not been making new missiles for 25-30 years, then all the technologies are lost. Should not be underestimated. In principle, the American ICBM Minuteman-3 has only the name of the missiles currently on the DB. Everything else, all the filling is new. They have been running the LEP program for 15-20 years. In translation - the extension of the life of products. Under this program, they changed everything on the same Minutemans: the aiming system, control system, combat stages, changed the BG, changed the engines. But so far, no one else has been able to change the bonded solid-fuel engines. As a result, their solid-fuel ICBMs have been on alert for 40 years, while we have 18-20. If we could do the same, it would significantly improve our situation. The lifespan of the missiles would be doubled and the money that goes to create new missiles could be used for other purposes.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 31 July 2016 11: 41
      -1
      "In principle, our new X-1xx missiles are similar to the AGM 158." But in terms of range, they are significantly inferior, the longest-range missile for fighter bombers X 59MK2, but we have not heard of its adoption and mass production.
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 31 July 2016 12: 45
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        But the range is significantly inferior,

        So like the aviation version of the Caliber missiles is not inferior, or even surpasses the AGM 158.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 31 July 2016 13: 45
          0
          All Caliber missiles are manufactured and will be produced for the fleet, the joint development of Russia and India - the Hyperbromos missile, is more promising for air based.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 31 July 2016 14: 05
            +2
            Quote: Vadim237
            All Caliber missiles are and will be launched for the Navy.

            Sure? There is such a rocket as Caliber-A.
            air-launched cruise missiles "Club-A" (Caliber-A) to destroy surface and ground targets (3M-14AE, 3M-54AE and 3M-54AE1). Unlike the basic sea and land-based options, airborne missiles will not be equipped starting solid fuel engines. As propulsion engines, the turbojet engine, manufactured by NPO Saturn, and supplied for all missile variants, will remain modified for the operating conditions. The onboard control complex for all missiles is based on the AB-40E autonomous inertial navigation system (developed by the State Research Institute of Instrument Engineering). Guidance on the final section of the trajectory is carried out with the help of anti-jamming active radar homing heads, created at JSC "Radar-MMS". The missile control complex includes a radio altimeter of the RVE-B type, and a receiver for signals from a space navigation system is additionally installed on the 3M-14AE. All missiles are equipped with high-explosive warheads, with contact and non-contact warheads.

            And then what?
        2. Operator
          Operator 31 July 2016 14: 35
          +2
          At the moment, the Caliber-A medium-range cruise missile of the air-to-surface class is the best in the world - the closest rival of the JASSM-ER CRSD flies a distance that is 1,7 times less.
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 31 July 2016 14: 02
        +5
        Quote: Vadim237
        "In principle, our new X-1xx missiles are similar to the AGM 158." But in terms of range they are significantly inferior,

        Are you serious?
        At the AGM 158
        Maximum range 980 km
        X-101
        Launch range-5500 km.
        And what are you going to compare, dear?
  • Abbra
    Abbra 31 July 2016 11: 26
    +3
    What can I say here? For some reason I remembered "saw, Shura, saw ..."
    1. Khariton
      Khariton 31 July 2016 11: 36
      -2
      Quote: Abbra
      What can I say here? For some reason I remembered "saw, Shura, saw ..."

      Exactly !!!! bully On the aircraft carriers, the United States got burned ... We thought after the collapse of the USSR, they would drive such a huge head to each country and they would give everything to them! But Russia survived! And the ears are an excellent target .... But the printing press still works ...! I think it’s not long ...
  • Old26
    Old26 31 July 2016 11: 47
    +2
    Quote: ser-pov
    Let's hope that our scientists will create such a weapon or an umbrella by 2027 that we don’t care about their missiles ...

    There is no hope. There is no way to create an umbrella so we don't care about their missiles. It is only theoretically possible to create an impenetrable missile defense system. Practically such an ABM system will ruin any country. And at the same time initiates an arms race. At one time, when concluding an ABM Treaty, both sides understood this perfectly and agreed to restrictions.
    And now it's the same. For any interceptor, the probability of hitting a target (HCV) will never reach unity. This means that to hit one target, depending on the HCV, 2-3 or more interceptors may be needed. Several years ago, there was infa on the network that in order to defeat the combat equipment of one of our Voevoda-type missiles, the Americans would need from 14 to 17 GBI interceptors.
    And this means that any missile defense based on interceptors is countered by an increase in the number of APs or false targets. Agree that deploying additional BGs or LCs is somewhat easier than deploying an additional number of interceptors.
    so you should not hope that our scientists will create something like this that neutralizes American missiles. In response, they will create something that neutralizes our weapons. And so, to infinity - this is the arms race. The one whose economy is stronger will survive
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 31 July 2016 12: 40
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Agree that deploying additional BGs or LCs is somewhat easier than deploying an additional number of interceptors.
      so you should not hope that our scientists will create something like this that neutralizes American missiles. In response, they will create something that neutralizes our weapons. And so, to infinity - this is the arms race. The one whose economy is stronger will survive

      And it is regrettable, but a lot of our scientists are working on their defense industry.
      https://topwar.ru/98655-rossiyskie-uchenye-nauchilis-sozdavat-mikrorezanatory-s-
      vysokoy-tochnostyu.html
      Pay attention to where he works, and not just Russian. Patriotism here would be useful if these developments were carried out in Russia, and not in England.
    2. Operator
      Operator 31 July 2016 14: 43
      +2
      "Sarmat" and "Rubezh" with maneuvering warheads are the cheapest and most effective answer to all American programs of modernization of ICBMs, KRSD and missile defense in addition.
  • Pitot
    Pitot 31 July 2016 11: 53
    0
    Intention - intention, and what will happen in fact? Again the fact ....
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 31 July 2016 13: 48
      0
      They will definitely not have problems with missiles and new nuclear submarines - all the more so in production.
  • viktor.
    viktor. 31 July 2016 12: 08
    +2
    Pentagon photo is beautiful, thinking immediately slipped one warhead for example YaRSA enough for this structure to fly apart in 5 parts laughing
  • Berkut24
    Berkut24 31 July 2016 12: 43
    +3
    Corporations in the United States mostly make money not from contracts for the manufacture of something, but from overcoming "unexpected difficulties" and technological problems that arise like a snowball in the implementation of the contract. I get the impression that the initial billion-dollar contract cost only includes a piece of whatman paper for the generals and a congressional promotional video outlining how cool it will be. And here congressmen and lobbyists are already involved, whose task is to make the process of allocating finances for revisions unmanageable and uncontrollable.
    I don't understand what the Americans are going to build. Russia does not have a global missile defense system. Those. to overcome something with some unimaginable system to overcome the missile defense system is not required. This question is relevant for Russia, but not so important for the Americans. In other words, if they repeated the current "Minuteman" with minimal costs only for production, then the renewal of the missile fleet would take place with minimal costs. "Minuteman" reketa is not bad with sufficient energy. KVO she is also normal. Therefore, I cannot name the current movements other than preparation for the next cut.
    In general, the current system of ordering, developing and financing and testing US military equipment has long been a fact that has been working for the benefit of the Russian defense industry. The Americans would work differently, now we would have more problems.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 1 August 2016 00: 32
      0
      "In other words, if they repeated the current" Minuteman "with minimal costs only for production" ////

      Over 50 years, structural materials have changed dramatically. They’ll make a rocket body out of some special
      plastics, it will become lighter, less with the same head part. Again, space maneuvering modules with gas
      rudders can be attached. Just in case.
  • viktor.
    viktor. 31 July 2016 12: 46
    0
    Quote: Berkut24
    Corporations in the United States mostly make money not from contracts for the manufacture of something, but from overcoming "unexpected difficulties" and technological problems that arise like a snowball in the implementation of the contract. I get the impression that the initial billion-dollar contract cost only includes a piece of whatman paper for the generals and a congressional promotional video outlining how cool it will be. And here congressmen and lobbyists are already involved, whose task is to make the process of allocating finances for revisions unmanageable and uncontrollable.
    I don't understand what the Americans are going to build. Russia does not have a global missile defense system. Those. to overcome something with some unimaginable system to overcome the missile defense system is not required. This question is relevant for Russia, but not so important for the Americans. In other words, if they repeated the current "Minuteman" with minimal costs only for production, then the renewal of the missile fleet would take place with minimal costs. "Minuteman" reketa is not bad with sufficient energy. KVO she is also normal. Therefore, I cannot name the current movements other than preparation for the next cut.
    In general, the current system of ordering, developing and financing and testing US military equipment has long been a fact that has been working for the benefit of the Russian defense industry. The Americans would work differently, now we would have more problems.

    Is this a tip?
  • Old26
    Old26 31 July 2016 12: 51
    +3
    Quote: Vadim237
    And we have what X 101 and 102 missiles can carry fighters?

    Have you set such conditions? You said that there are no analogues to AGM-154 and AGM-158, not even Russia. I replied that I didn’t really hear about the analogs of the AGM-154, but the analogs of the AGM-158 are our X-1xx. Since the main difference between the ALCM AGM-158 is its stealth. Our X-1xx are also created using these technologies. Not?

    Quote: Tusv
    On pylons, these birds are forbidden to carry by contract, and so under the belly they can.

    Not prohibited. TU-95MSM are carried. The contracts are simply limited in quantity.

    Quote: Vadim237
    "In principle, our new X-1xx missiles are similar to the AGM 158." But in terms of range, they are significantly inferior, the longest-range missile for fighter bombers X 59MK2, but we have not heard of its adoption and mass production.

    Vadim! You again, I'm sorry to distort. In your post on American missiles, there was not a word said that fighters could carry them. And you perfectly understand that the article is about strategic weapons, about the ALCM for strategic US bombers, and not for fighters

    Quote: sabakina
    Comrade, if Poplars and Yarses were worse than the Minitmenevs, they would not be accepted into service. I think so!

    And if, nevertheless, according to their performance characteristics, they were accepted worse, then how? If there is simply no other? At least in terms of weight characteristics, they lose to the "Minuteman"

    Quote: sabakina
    And do not say that this is red propaganda ...

    This is not red propaganda. This is outright nonsense and sheer distortion.

    Quote: 222222
    So they already tried to change them for Peacemaker. Pshik and left

    And what exchange for this zilch, as you say, became our "Well done", is that nothing?

    Quote: Vadim237
    I consider all the years of testing - not a single accident in 16 years.

    The fact that not a single accident - I agree. I agree with the fact that among Americans this is already the 4th type of aircraft built using stealth technology (we have not a single one yet). But comrades are also right when they say that the machine is still ready for combat. Full readiness in the Air Force is planned for August 2016, in the ILC - for 2017, and in the Navy - for 2018. In addition, they were made by EMNIP about 180 pieces. And the plans were for more than 2 thousand. Americans are generally pragmatists, if a car has problems, albeit solvable, they will not buy until they eliminate the problem
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 31 July 2016 13: 34
      0
      The AGM 158, like the AGM 154, is part of the armament of all US strategic bombers. But the plans for the production of 3000 F 35 remained, no one did not reduce them - they will do it by 2040.
      1. Tusv
        Tusv 31 July 2016 14: 37
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        The AGM 158, like the AGM 154, is part of the armament of all US strategic bombers. But the plans for the production of 3000 F 35 remained, no one did not reduce them - they will do it by 2040.

        Vadik. Enough to advertise outdated American missiles. Our minds in America no longer flow. And in 2040, options for fifti fifti. Either bomb America or don't bomb
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 31 July 2016 17: 07
          0
          "Stop advertising obsolete American missiles already." - If these missiles are outdated, then ours are generally ancient.
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 31 July 2016 17: 10
          0
          Most likely we will bomb each other, but we will get more, since the US has more cruise missiles than we do every 10 times.
  • Old26
    Old26 31 July 2016 12: 52
    +1
    Quote: Vadim237
    And we have what X 101 and 102 missiles can carry fighters?

    Have you set such conditions? You said that there are no analogues to AGM-154 and AGM-158, not even Russia. I replied that I didn’t really hear about the analogs of the AGM-154, but the analogs of the AGM-158 are our X-1xx. Since the main difference between the ALCM AGM-158 is its stealth. Our X-1xx are also created using these technologies. Not?

    Quote: Tusv
    On pylons, these birds are forbidden to carry by contract, and so under the belly they can.

    Not prohibited. TU-95MSM are carried. The contracts are simply limited in quantity.

    Quote: Vadim237
    "In principle, our new X-1xx missiles are similar to the AGM 158." But in terms of range, they are significantly inferior, the longest-range missile for fighter bombers X 59MK2, but we have not heard of its adoption and mass production.

    Vadim! You again, I'm sorry to distort. In your post on American missiles, there was not a word said that fighters could carry them. And you perfectly understand that the article is about strategic weapons, about the ALCM for strategic US bombers, and not for fighters

    Quote: sabakina
    Comrade, if Poplars and Yarses were worse than the Minitmenevs, they would not be accepted into service. I think so!

    And if, nevertheless, according to their performance characteristics, they were accepted worse, then how? If there is simply no other? At least in terms of weight characteristics, they lose to the "Minuteman"

    Quote: sabakina
    And do not say that this is red propaganda ...

    This is not red propaganda. This is outright nonsense and sheer distortion.

    Quote: 222222
    So they already tried to change them for Peacemaker. Pshik and left

    And what exchange for this zilch, as you say, became our "Well done", is that nothing?

    Quote: Vadim237
    I consider all the years of testing - not a single accident in 16 years.

    The fact that not a single accident - I agree. I agree with the fact that among Americans this is already the 4th type of aircraft built using stealth technology (we have not a single one yet). But comrades are also right when they say that the machine is still ready for combat. Full readiness in the Air Force is planned for August 2016, in the ILC - for 2017, and in the Navy - for 2018. In addition, they were made by EMNIP about 180 pieces. And the plans were for more than 2 thousand. Americans are generally pragmatists, if a car has problems, albeit solvable, they will not buy until they eliminate the problem
    1. Tusv
      Tusv 31 July 2016 15: 14
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Not prohibited. TU-95MSM are carried. The contracts are simply limited in quantity.

      Provided, but not carried, but can bear. There is some circumvention of the agreement "One carrier is equal to one unit"
  • xant
    xant 31 July 2016 13: 14
    0
    Elon Max, the most advanced rocket builder, will win the contract for this upgrade laughing
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 31 July 2016 14: 14
      0
      The new ICBMs will be made by those companies that created Minuteman and Trident.
  • Old26
    Old26 31 July 2016 14: 27
    0
    Quote: Berkut24
    Corporations in the United States mostly make money not from contracts for the manufacture of something, but from overcoming "unexpected difficulties" and technological problems that arise like a snowball in the implementation of the contract.

    Nothing will change at all if Russia or any other state (with the possible exception of China) is put in place of the United States. Same. Take the same "Angara" Development has been going on since the late 90s, all the time they postponed and postponed the launches, launched two pieces and so far there is silence. They are already talking out loud about the dead end of development (they used to say in an undertone). We have already spent about 150 billion, and by and large the result is not yet visible. and others. When the final cost of the product has already been announced during production, there is not much to cut, but during research and development and development, there are opportunities

    Quote: Berkut24
    I get the impression that the initial value of the billions of dollars includes only a piece of whatman paper for generals and a commercial for Congress, which describes how cool it will be. And here, congressmen and lobbyists are already joining, whose task is to make the process of allocating finance for improvements uncontrollable and uncontrolled.

    Everywhere the project begins and presentations and cartoons ...

    Quote: Berkut24
    I don't understand what the Americans are going to build. Russia does not have a global missile defense system. Those. to overcome something with some unimaginable system to overcome the missile defense system is not required. This question is relevant for Russia, but not so important for the Americans. In other words, if they repeated the current "Minuteman" with minimal costs only for production, then the renewal of the missile fleet would take place with minimal costs. "Minuteman" reketa is not bad with sufficient energy. KVO she is also normal. Therefore, I cannot name the current movements other than preparation for the next cut.

    What are they going to build? A new rocket (rockets) to replace the existing one. There is nothing unusual about this. Instead of the old missile, albeit a modernized one, they are going to create a new one, which will stand on alert for another 40-50 years. We are replacing old missiles with new ones. This does not raise any questions: why? After all, there are old "poplars", old "weave-OU", old "Voyevods". Why change them to new "Yars", "Sarmatians" and so on. Or is it also a cut, but this time ours? To drink on "Sarmat", "Barguzin" and others?

    The Americans also do not have a global missile defense system. This statement was born in the media - a global missile defense. In fact, the current strategic missile defense program is called the US NMD - the US national missile defense. Although tactical systems are developing more dynamically than strategic missile defense is again not global. But counting that Russia will not create anything from a missile defense system is stupid enough. And you can't call Americans fools.

    Quote: Berkut24
    In general, the current system of ordering, developing and financing and testing US military equipment has long been a fact that has been working for the benefit of the Russian defense industry. The Americans would work differently, now we would have more problems.

    And what, previously the system for ordering military equipment in the USA was different? How is the current one different from what it was?
    1. Muvka
      Muvka 31 July 2016 19: 14
      0
      In fairness, we are updating the nuclear arsenal in order not to make thousands of cruise missiles and many carriers of these missiles. And the Americans wanted the opposite. Apparently it didn’t work out.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 1 August 2016 00: 49
      +1
      "Absolutely nothing will change if Russia or any other state is substituted for the United States" ////

      There is still a difference. Private traders in the US when they go to the state. tender defense are required
      to spend on research and development and part of their hard-earned money. And a part - to receive from the state budget.
      Someone wins the tender. Losers incur losses.
      Therefore, military orders for manufacturers are considered high-risk. Civilians are much
      more reliable. Boeing often flew at military tenders, but its civilian department - liners -
      gives a stable profit.

      For interest, compare. Net profit of defense giant Lockheed Martin about $ 4 billion
      in 2015, and civilian Apple - 230 billion. Gadgets are many times more profitable than military missiles and aircraft.
      Therefore, budget "saws" are not very profitable for contractors.
  • Idi
    Idi 31 July 2016 14: 29
    0
    With their scale, cutting 350 lard can be easily multiplied by 10. And if you take into account the experience of developing the F-35, then by 2050, maybe something will be bungled, but not the fact that it will be better than the old Minuteman.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Old26
    Old26 31 July 2016 15: 12
    +1
    Quote: NEXUS
    And what's not clear then? I repeat, Topol-M complexes have not been purchased by our Ministry of Defense since 2011! When re-equipping a regiment, it receives a set of equipment from another regiment, which it handed over upon receiving the same Yars.
    As a result of the "chain" rearmament, parts of the first line will receive new complexes, and parts of the second line will receive used equipment, which is still newer than what they had before.

    You are wrong, speaking about the transfer of "Poplar-M" to other regiments. By and large, this information is on Yesin's conscience, and he sometimes does not teach that.
    We deployed only two regiments of mobile "Poplar-M" (in the Teikovo division) and six in the Tatishchevskaya (mine). Neither division changed its weapons. But according to the text ... Apparently Yesin meant that Yars and Yars-M would receive, and not Topol-M
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 31 July 2016 15: 14
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      But according to the text ... Apparently Yesin meant that Yars and Yars-M would receive, and not Topol-M

      This does not contradict my post that Topol-M is no longer being purchased.
    2. Amurets
      Amurets 31 July 2016 15: 25
      0
      Quote: Old26
      You are wrong, speaking about the transfer of "Poplar-M" to other regiments. By and large, this information is on Yesin's conscience, and he sometimes does not teach that.

      And we have that the fuel does not crack from old age and the control system is self-renewing?
  • Evil 55
    Evil 55 31 July 2016 15: 58
    +1
    It makes no sense to feed the American military .. Give Russia 360 lard tanks for agriculture and innovation at 1% per annum and Russian engineers will shake Mother Earth better than a nuclear bomb ..
  • Old26
    Old26 31 July 2016 18: 41
    +1
    Quote: Tusv
    Provided, but not carried, but can bear. There is some circumvention of the agreement "One carrier is equal to one unit"

    That's what MSM from ordinary MS differs precisely in pylons for 8 CR. Carry, if necessary. And the offset is really one carrier, one unit. But the protocols specify specific numbers

    Quote: NEXUS
    This does not contradict my post that Topol-M is no longer being purchased.

    The fact that they are not purchased does not contradict. It contradicts in the sense that Topol-M are transferred to other regiments, and those from which they were equipped with Yars

    Quote: Amurets
    And we have that the fuel does not crack from old age and the control system is self-renewing?

    And fuel cracks over time, and control systems don't self-renew. But in this case, "Topol-M" was not transferred to anyone for service and Yesin's statement does not correspond to reality
  • cedar
    cedar 31 July 2016 19: 56
    0
    The Americans are betting on supremacy in outer space. Their unmanned X-37B mini shuttle looks very much like the head of an ICBM, which after launch can spin in low orbits for months. Equipped with high-precision weapons, at the command of the Earth, he can reach the vital centers of the enemy almost from a distance of not just a thousand, like the Minitmen - 3, but only a hundred km., Almost instantly. Everything else to cover and divert eyes and for the sake of his military-industrial complex, which also wants to eat ...
  • Old26
    Old26 31 July 2016 21: 43
    +1
    Quote: Tusv
    Provided, but not carried, but can bear. There is some circumvention of the agreement "One carrier is equal to one unit"

    Unfortunately, we agreed with this interpretation. Although under the previous agreement, the number of CDs was still limited. In the United States - 10 units in the first 150 and 12 in TB, which exceed the amount of 150. We have 8 in the first 180 and 10 in the following. Therefore, on TU-95MS16 the number of CR was limited.

    Quote: Muvka
    In fairness, we are updating the nuclear arsenal in order not to make thousands of cruise missiles and many carriers of these missiles. And the Americans wanted the opposite. Apparently it didn’t work out.

    In fairness, the Americans are also updating their missile arsenal. about not making thousands of cruise missiles - so unfortunately we have no reason to launch them. The Americans did. They have both land and sea ICBMs, and there are dozens of CD carriers, moreover, in excess of what is on our ships.