Military Gear & Army Surplus Gear Blog

Long range bombers: Russia vs USA (Russian military expert) (Eng. subtitles)

Long range bombers: Russia vs USA (Russian military expert) (Eng. subtitles)


-Mikhail Mikhailovich Khodaryonok in the studio. Our military
expert. A person with a great experience in the army.
-Greetings, Mikhail Mikhailovich.
-Good day.
-You can have the word. -And, well, now, we are going to talk about our strategic
aviation. We can even say – bomber aviation. -What is our situation with it. What is the situation with it
at our, so to say, potential partner, in stratgic aviation.
-Potential…
-Yeah. -Let’s put it this way – very few countries can afford
to have strategic aviation. -And the number of such countries have been reduced to 2. -It’s used to be 3. Great Britain was a participant of
this competition, with their bombers ‘Vulcan’, ‘Victor’ and
‘Valiant’. -But, it forfeit the race. Why? Because this is
an expensive luxury. -And although British machines, to be honest, were very
attractive from the outside, they had good aerodynamic
qualities. -But, ‘Queen of the Seas’ didn’t had enough
strength to have strategic air fleet, among other. -Bomber ‘Mirage-4’, of the company ‘Marcel Dassault’, well,
it is not a strategic bomber, we should just say it. -Who can be listed in this privileged club in near future?
Well, I think, with time, China. -Is China working on it?
-China is decisively working on everything. -One should not have doubts, that Under Heaven has plans.
They have plans to become a member of this privileged club. -At the moment, they don’t have strategic bombers, but I think,
that in Chinese DB’s, paper drawings are more than enough. -Regarding our aviation… Its history was quite winding,
serrated. It had inflows and outflows. -And our country was basically the first to form airborne
armies. Which consisted of, at that time, strategic bombers. -Because in the middle of 1930’s, we produced almost 800+
TB-3 bombers. And a special purpose army was formed with them. -It was a positive step. Nobody had started to form rapid
deployment airborne forces yet, in strategic aviation
particularly. -And in this department, we were traditionally ahead, starting
from WW1, when we had first squadrons of ‘Ilya Muromets’
planes. -But, unfortunately, the Great October Socialist Revolution
destroyed our long range aviation to the foundation back then. -And we returned to these problems only by 1930’s. -A disadvantage was, our whole aviation back then had this
disadvantage, that in the mid 1930’s, we were a little
over-mobilized. -In the sense that, there were no war seen in the horizon yet,
but such formations were already created. -Our air forces grew out of proportions.
-It was expensive to maintain. This is what you are
trying to say? -Not that it was expensive. The thing is, that back then,
aviation machinery was getting outdated very quickly. -Because in 1930’s, aviation science was advancing with
7 mile long steps. -And whatever was created in the mid 1930’s, and after 3-4
years, they already could not keep up with the needed
requirements. -It was not like today. Today they are holding for longer.
-Depends. -Today, bomber’s lifespan is 40-50 years. 40-50 years.
And back then – only a few years. -And our potential partners, and future allies in anti-Hitler
coalition, back then, and United States in particular,
had no aviation whatsoever. -Except for some experimental prototypes, some developments. -Their air force, bck then, was a part of the army!
It was not even a type of armed forces. -And it was in rudimentary state. But… -When it was needed, American industry capabilities allowed to
unfold production of strategic bombers in such numbers, that we
can hardly imagine even now. -All the more so, they were created for differrent types of
warfare. -For example, B-17 and B-24 were for European warfare.
B-29 – for Pacific. -And what was their difference? Can’t just 1 plane be suitable
for everything? It is strategic after all. -Well, there were no any significant differences between them,
with the exception, that B-29 was probably the most advanced
plane of WW2. -But they originally intended to use in for warfare in the
Pacific, and they didn’t had them in Europe. -Our long range aviation was reduced to dust in first months
of WW2, when they started to set tasks it was not capable to
perform. -In particular, for example – destruction of tank convoys. -And these slow machines, poorly protected, in brought
daylight, at low altitude, were trying to attack these
mechanized convoys of Wehrmacht. -And basically in a few weeks, our whole long range aviation
was lost, as the result of completely dumb use.
Absolutely dumb. -Maybe they didn’t had another choice?
-There is always a choice! There is always a choice. -Not only effectiveness of long range aviation against tank
mechanized convoys of Wehrmacht was basically zero,
there were great losses of very valuable piloting personnel,
in addition to that. -How you going to replenish all that? -And, in any case, when you are watching the movie ‘The Alive
and the Dead’ and it shows how German fighters are destroying
absolutely defenceless TB-3… -By the way, there were almost none of TB-3’s in long range
aviation by that time. -And maybe this was the only case, which was described in
great detail by Simonov, and was advertised so much in our
movies. -But again, ones must not use a heavy and slow bomber in
daylight, without fighters covering. And second, it must be
used at night. -Americans and British made it clear, that the British are
bombing Reich only at night, on their bombers. -They had 3 types of them back then: ‘Avro Lancaster’,
‘Handley Page Halifax’, and ‘Short Stirling’.
They had this triad of strategic bombers. -And Americans were mostly bombing Reich during the day.
With bombers B-17 and B-24. -And by the way, ‘the fathers of western democracy’, very often
are blaming us in disproportionate use of force in certain conflicts. -Comrades, gentlemen, and what were you doing back in the day? -Well, who’s gonna turn anything against himself?
-Yeah, and you were not bombing any military facilities
on German territory. -You were mostly bombing cities, civilian population.
And even devloped methods to do it. -Oh, yeah. Carpet bombings with firebombs. -So, for the first time, in West Germany’s cities, back then
it was just Germany, they mostly bombed western part of
Germany. Well, whatever was within reaching distance. -First terms as ‘firestorm’ and ‘tornado’ appeared. -And to create them, a whole methods were developed.
-God forbids. -And what were ‘fathers of democracy’ doing in the beginning? -First, they were opening tile roofs of German cities with
small caliber bombs. What for? To have better ventilation. -Such scientific approach.
-Yeah. So it woud burn till there’s nothing left. -Then, heavy high explosive bombs, then firebombs. -And what firestorm means? First of all, fire is expanding with
incredible speed, completely burns the oxygen, -And people are often dying not from explosives, but
from lack of oxygen.
-And there was zero purpose, from military point of view,
in reality. -Essentially – yes. But all the more so, after such ‘dmocracy’
attacks, Germany has no more historical cities. -Because everything was flattened, everything was burned to the
ground, everything was bombed. -And everything they have restored, it is basically replicas. -Cities that were mostly bombed, had infrastructure and
buildings that were forming for 1.500 years. -But, everything was bombed to the ground. -Germans restored everything, of course, after the war.
But these cities are not historical anymore. -They are replicas.
-Yes, they are replicas. -Yes, and these guys are blaming us on Syria somehow.
-Yes, and now are teaching us about irrational use of force. -Well, that was regarding historical part. And now, let’s
talk about condition of our modern aviation. -Right now, we basically have 3 types of bombers in our long
range aviation. -Tu-160, but there’s only 16 of them, Tu-95, 60 items,
and Tu-22M3, but it is not considered a strategic bomber,
but only a long range bomber. -And there is, according to various sources, 40-50 of them. -And, generally, there aren’t that many machines left. -And we should start thinking about increasing
combat ready personnel. -But first, what should we do? First, we should modernize
the remaining Tu-160. -Why? Because these machines were made based on developments
of 1970’s – 1980’s. And many of them still have Ukrainian parts. -And since we don’t have any cooperation in military machines
anymore, and we have problems with documents,
and with maintenance… -And the insights of these Tu-160, that are present in our
air force, must of course be fundamentaly modernized. -And all the more so, we need to fully make it with our own
machinery, and fully equip them with domestic electronic
components. -But this is one side of the matter. -This also concerns Tu-95, for the most part, and Tu-22M3. -All these planes need to be fundamentally modernized. -And it is being done, in certain degrees. There are machines
that are done already. Some of them are on various stages. -Well, this is regarding planes, that are active in our long
range aviation. -But we must also think about perspectives. And how
should we describe perspectives of our long range aviation? -Our Perspective Complex of Long Range Aviation (PAK-DA)
is in development. -But nobody have seen it, and it is difficult to say what it
is going to look like. -I think, that it is still on draft stage, and the outside looks of
this machine hasn’t been determined yet. In my opinion. -And there are still debates about who is going to develop it,
in the end. -And a more real thing – is resuming serial production of
Tu-160 planes. -This is more applicable thing, and it is going to be
implemented in the next decade. -And there are such problems with it, that nobody could
even think of, before. -First of all, what kind of idea is layed in the foundation
of Tu-160M2 plane? -That is – to create a completely new strategic missile carrier
within the old blueprints. Think kind of general idea. -It is going to have aerodynamic qualities and flying
characteristics of its predecessor, but basically a new
multi-fuctional complex is being created. -It is compatible with our modern technical and technological
equipment. -With facilities, that are producing weaponary today, radio
electronics, computers, various devices, electric equipment. -And what kind of problems do we meet, when we are starting to
implement the realization of this problem? -First of all, Tu-160 was created in 1970’s – 1980’s. -And all of its blueprints back then were made on paper.
That is – on paper carriers. -Back then, it was only like that. How would you imagine
a designing bureau back then? -People are sitting behind drawing desks, drawing something.
Then, all that is reaching completion, handed to production
facilities, -And according to these blueprints, certain parts for this
bomber are being built. -And today, it is unacceptable to repeat these outdated
technologies of development, and work documentation
dublication. -And we should have transferred all blueprints of Tu-160…
Convert into digits, to put is simply. -And this is gigantic amount of work. Because there are several
hundreds of thousands of working sheets of these blueprints. -And after that, like we say, we must build it based on the new
technological basis. -And today we already have paper free development. -For example, plane MC-21 is made without a single
working sheet. -That is, it is developed directly in digits. -And what kind of quality it has?
-And basically, if we simplify the situation, then one of
parts made in digits, -They are uploaded to the new equipment, and according to
digital model of that part, the machine is making the needed
element of the plane. -The level of defects is high?
-You know…
-What is the quality of such technology in real life use? -Well, answering this question…
-A provocative one.
-Whatever. I’m a design engineer. -There are no provocative questions. There aren’t. There are
questions and answers. -And in particular, answering the question of Evgeniy Yanovich,
I can say only 1 thing. -That using such technologies, while making PD-14 engine… -Before, to start serial production, you should have made
about 40 of these engines, to fix all the issues in
technological chains, etcetera, etcetera. -That is, install and remove 30-40 engines, before starting
serial production.
-How expensive…
-Expensive. Expensive. -And now, using these new technologies, they started
production from already 7th engine. -And this is very representative.
-Yes. I think there can’t be a more representative example. -But again, what kind of problem appeared? -Why ‘Boeing’ is making advanced bombers, civilian airliners,
etcetera. -Well, it appears to be one of leaders of world’s aviation
building. Why? Because this process never stops there. -They finish making 1 plane, and immediately starting
making another. -Like a production line.
-That is, people are constantly working. -They are not wasting any highly qualified personnel
left and right, like we were doing during the 1990’s.
They have no gap in generations. -And the wing… Well, a bomber has a wing, and ‘Boeing-777’
has a wing all the same. And in Africa it’s still gonna
be a wing. -Our viewers are asking whats going to happen to our An-124
‘Ruslan’, and what is our opinion on this question. -They mean the plane. Not Ruslan from that comedy show.
-Yes. Exactly like this. -Well, first of all, we don’t have many of them – only 9 items. -We urgently need a heavy intercontinental military
transport plane. And we need not 9, but 90 of them, at least. -Wow.
-And even better 100. -But what kind of obstacles do we have? The rights owner
of An-124 is still the Ukrainian side. -And it has the engine D-18T, and it is developed and
produced in Zhaporozhie. -That’s why, we must not only start making our own heavy
military transport plane, but engines as well. -This means, we either need our own engine,
or our own Zhaporozhie.
-Yes. one of the 2. -And still, everything as critical as military equipment,
weaponary, must be developed and produced on the
territory of Russian Federation. -This matter is a little off our topic, of strategic aviation
we are talking about right now. -But since people are asking questions, we should clarify
this. -By the way, there’s this funny thing that characterizes the
condition of our machine-tool park. -You wouldn’t believe it, but until basically 2000, some of
elements of fuselage, wings, of modern planes,
IL-76 and An-124, -Were made on press, that was bought in 1938 in USA,
assembled on a factory in Khimki, then transferred it to
Tashkent, to make DC-3 planes there, after buying licence. -What about it? It is good equipment. If it works – don’t
touch it.
-It was working until early 2000’s. -So, it’s like that. That’s why, we urgently need to start
making our own mahine-tools, with processors, with operating
systems. -And generally, in this sense, this program Tu-160M2, it should
give a great boost to our whole aviation building industry, and
machinery building. -Because there are so many problems when you try to resume
production of a plane again. Including rivets. -And again, since we talked a little about history of long
range aviation, during WW2 we fell far behind world leaders. -Because of obvious reasons. War was raging, there was little
money, it was important to win with current planes. -And when we saw American B-29, which made a necessary landing
in our Far East, it was an extremely unpleasant suprise for
our developers.
-Why? -Well, the plane was such well made, and had such
technical perfection…
-They went far ahead. -And how did they realized it?
-Visually. It was obvious.
-Oh, visually, or they took a look inside? -Well, since they made a necessary landing in our Far East,
and 3 of these planes fell in our hands – B-29. -And after comrade Stalin was informed about its qualities,
and with alternative projects of our developers, -Comrade Stalin said: ‘Throw your projects as far as possible.
Here is a plane for you. Make the exact same one.’ -And so, they made an exact copy. And by the way, this program,
initiating B-29 production, helped our aviation industry a lot. -Essentially, it was this dash in quality back then. -Because, yesterday they were flying on ‘plywood’,
with open cockpit, and suddenly, such plane arrives
to the armed forces. -Like, for example, Myasishchev’s bomber. Back then it
looked like a spaceship from Mars. -Because there were still people alive who flew on R-5,
walking on wings of TB-3. -And suddenly, such machine as Myasishchev’s long range
bomber. -That is, at that point, there was a great dash ahead
in quality. -And generally speaking, Americans unwillingly helped us
in this sense. -Because without their plane, it was unclear what to do
next, and how to eliminate this gap in very short period
of time. -So then, not only we should resume production of Tu-160,
with a completely new technological basis, -But we should also modernize the main volume of our strategic
bombers, but long range bombers as well. -And, another problem we must overcome, is that in past years,
because of all the wealth we had, our strategic and long range
bombers were oriented on relatively narrow fields of use. -For example, Tu-95MS planes. It’s a reserve plane of nuclear
strike. -Back then it was not intended for anything else, other than
launching a cruise missile with a nuclear warhead. -That is, it was impossible to use it in a regular conflict,
as means of destruction. -That is, its possible field of use was very narrow. -And what does this mean – to launch a cruise missile
with a nuclear warhead?
-That’s it. A world war. -Yes. And the whole plane should be oriented for this.
The whole on board equipment, the crew, etcetera, etcetera. -Now we have this problem – to widen the field of combat
use of long range aviation. -To the point so it would be like if some kind of arnament is
attached to it, then the bomber, on its own, would recognize
this arnament, certain software is created for its use,
the crew is well trained to operate them, etcetera. -That is – depending on the situation: no matter what we mount
on it, we must complete our combat mission. -If you don’t mind, we will not talk about problems of our
potential ‘partners’. What are they planning regarding
their strategic aviation. -They are planning something?
-Yes. And we will say a few things to describe the situation. -But before this, as a small lyrical deviation, we will inform
about terminology of long range aviation pilots. -What does this phrase mean: ‘Takeoff of a long range bomber to
perfom a combat task’? -Like some say: ’12 hours of boredom, and 2 minutes of
horror within target area’. -This is how it sounds among strategic aviation pilots.
-The guys have a good sense of humor. -So then, on February 26, 2016, Americans had a conference
on combat aviation. This year that is. -And on this conference, as we call them ministers of navy,
ministers of AF, minister of the army… -They call them ‘secretary’. At the moment the position of
secretary of their AF is occupied by a woman.
-So she’s a secretary.
-Deborah Lee James. -So then, for he first time, she showed the picture of a new
American strategic bomber B-21. (NOTE-1) -What did she said about it? Well she said a lot of things,
of course, but there is one quote…
-But did she greased her speech at all? I wonder. -Well, this question in particular requres further
investigation.
-Gentlemen officers, silence.
-Yeah. -Well, regarding B-21 she said the following… -‘That having this bomber will allow American air force to fight
in the most serious future threats, and give them extreme
flexibility, by allowing them to perform airstrikes in any
point of the globe, while taking off from the continental
part of the USA.’ -This bomber looks pretty, by the way.
-Yes. So then, they set the task for themselves to reach any
adversary from the continental part of the USA. -It must also be stealthy, right? It is not easy to spot by a
radar that is.
-We will talk about this in a moment. -Well anyway, they set this kind of task. -And this proves once more, that… What is strategic
aviation? People don’t like this phrase too much. -‘It is the best way to project war efforts in any place on the
Earth’s sphere.’ -For example, if you need to wake some people up a little,
then strategic long range aviation is best suitable for this
task. -Because, you basically don’t have any other means to do it.
-‘Wake some people up’… So correctly put. -Yes, and Americans are setting this task for themselves.
What could be said about this bomber? -It’s approximately going to look like B-2 ‘Spirit’. -That is, it is going to be a flying wing, developed by
‘Northrop Grumman Corporation’. -In large degree, it will repeat their already active B-2. -And, well, again, Americans are very practical people. -They are going the way of using the best existing,
already well tested technologies. -In this sense, they are not starting to make this bomber
from scratch, but going this way. They think, that it’s
going to be the best option. -Again, regarding low radar visibility of this plane, it’s
going to be less that 0,05 meters. And it’s very low.
Very low. -For example, strategic bomber B-52, of Vietnam conflict
times…
-The ‘Flying Fortress’ like they say?
-Um… Yeah… -All the more so… ‘Stratofortress’ rather.
-Oh. -And it had radar cross-section of 100-120 meters. -And now imagine 0,05 square meters!
So much lower! -This is not even tenfold difference. -And this basically allows it to perform its combat task
within zones of active anti-air systems, while remaining
undetected, to certain degree. -Because with such RCS it is only possible to see it on the
distance of a few dozens kilometers from where anti-air
system is located. -And if you take into account, that anti-air systems are
going to be under intensive radio-electronic suppression,
then we can suggest, that you are not going to see it at all. -It is suggested, that this bomber is going to serve no less
than 50 years. -And again, it is stated, that it’s going to be built with
open architecture. -We have already used this phrase in previous shows.
It means, that a base is created for it, which allows mount
and unmount everything else on it, like a motherboard. -All kinds of arnament, military equipment, upgrades,
ectetera. -What else is characteristic for this bomber? -Again, it is not going to be an independent combat unit,
but it’s going to operate in a certain environment. -Like we said about F-35, that it is only an element of
conducting network-centric warfare. -And it operates the best way as an element of a system,
and not as a single independent combat unit. -And B-21 is going to be built with exactly this approach. -What else is interesting? Well, it is highly likely this
bomber is going to be equipped with… -Rather, combat subdivisions are going to be equipped
with unmanned aerial vehicles, in addition. -UAV’s with 14-15 tons takeoff weight, which are comparable
with our fighters in size. -And these UAV’s are going to remain in the air for up to
24 hours, they will have a very long range, and they are
going to be controlled from the board of this B-21. -That is, there’s systematic approach to this, once again. -When for each bomber there are 3 UAV’s, for example. -And of such scale and size, that they carry a very large
payload. This is how they are planning it. It’s planned
this way. -And of course, a very important thing is to pick a name for
this new bomber. -And so they came up with 5 versions. 5 versions.
-Yeah. The way you name your ship will be the way it’s
going to sail. -Yes. You can’t escape it. And so, 5 names have been suggested
so far. -They conducted a whole survey about this!
-You don’t say! An open survey?
-Yes. Yes. -And so far, 5 name versions are leading. Those are:
Ghost, Valkyre, Specter, Shadow, Crow. -Well, it seems what difference between ghost and specter?
In Russian language they mean basically the same.
But in English they are called differently. -And at the moment the name ‘Ghost’ is leading.
‘Ghost’. -So then, they are even concerned with a danger of some
kind of ridiculous name sticking on to it. -Sometimes it hapens, when some totally unofficial name
is sticking on to a plane better, than its official one. -Like ‘Hunchback’, or ‘Rook’. -I imagine our missiles are called ‘Wooden Stake’,
or ‘Holy Water’…
-Yeah, something like that. -Therefore, they approached this matter with the
utmost seriousness. -And again, what should we do, so the gap between us would not
become, God forbids, catastrophic? -And how should we develop our own long range aviation, as
the means of influence on a potential adversary in any corner
of the Earth’s sphere? -It is really very interesting, that saving money,
in this case, is inappropriate, so to speak. -Either you have it, and when you need it you going to have it,
or you might not need it. -But we must have what we need, when we need it. -But this is uncountable amount of money, to build these.
-Well… Countable, countable, countable. We must do this. -Well, again, I totally support what Yevgeniy Yanovich
said, that saving money here is inappropriate. -Here, you either you match the status of a great aviation
superpower…
-Or you will ceasse to exist.
-…Or you will cease to exist. -Or like the British – simply exit this competition.
-Yeah, they quit the competition.
-Britain has stopped being a superpower. -Britain has become some kind of, excuse me,
addition to the United States in politics.
And this is a fact. -It simply does not need it anymore. It’s not an independent
player. Empire of Winston Churchill time has e-n-d-e-d. -And it has ended after the end of WW2. Quite long time ago.
And everything else is – meh… Whipped cream on a cake. -Well then… Michail Michailovich. Thank you very much. -As always on Thursdays, we had Michail Michailovich as
our guest. -Michail Khodaryonok – our military expert.
Yevgeniy Yanovich, we’ll see you at Tuesday? -Um, yeah, I apologize very much to all those, whose questions
we didn’t answered, because there are simply too many questions
and comments.
-Thank you, and goodbye.


Reader Comments

  1. Russians should find a replacement for TU-95 as early as possible. I heard TU-160 will undergo heavy upgrades and will be able to serve 20-30 years more. It will help Russian Aerospace Force a lot.

  2. To be fair, the drawing of the B-21 released by Northrop-Grumman looks an awful lot like the B-2 anyways. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2016/03/b-21/

  3. This paints Russia to be in a very bad place regarding heavy aviation. These guys were actually arguing the merits of digital CAD models and CNC machines! Such things like that are basic equipment in the west. Also the CAD software and CNC machines are western made to start with, looks like Russia needs to re-invent the wheel before they even start work on the planes.

    Converting paper TU-160 drawings to CAD files will take years, I wonder if they would actually be better off just starting a new bomber design?

  4. Serbs shot down "Spirit of Missouri", tracked with 1940s long wave radar. Opposing side should always have the most expensive white elephants and overinflated sense of invincibility. Especially ones who haven't won a war in living memory.

  5. Why does Russia constantly compare what they plan to do which hardly ever works out to western tech that is already fielded. Do they not realise how stupid it makes them look. All they do is upgrade regurgitated airframe. Like they have a right to talk about indiscriminate bombing. Who bombs schools and hospitals intentionally Russia does.

  6. Wait, I was just reading last night that the Russian Air Force in WWII was a part of the army in WWII, like the US but here this guy makes it sound as if this was some surprising thing that the US air service was part of the army. At best he is talking about the Soviet Long Range Bomber force. Maybe that wasn't a prt of the army, and tactical aviation was…but then it still wouldn't make sense that he makes it sound so unbelievable that the US air force/bomber force was part of the army.

  7. LOL, by "we either need our own engine, or our own Zaporozhie" is he suggesting they invade and take over the Ukraine? Otherwise that's kind of redundant. The only reason you would need your "own Zaporozhie" is to make your own jet engine. I can't quite figure out what he means by that.

  8. By "Myasishcev's Bomber" I suspect he means the M-4, not the M-55. The M-4 would have been plenty futuristic to people in that era.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *