In the United States will create a fighter to intercept cruise missiles


The United States intends to create a new fighter to intercept cruise missiles from North Korea or Iran. According to information from the American agency Bloomberg, the Pentagon plans to allocate about $ 18 billion for the development of a promising aircraft.


Two leading military-industrial companies, Northrop Grumman Corp and Lockheed Martin Corp, will compete for a lucrative contract, which will receive $ 13,1 billion during the development phase. The winner is expected to be determined by 2026.

Then the construction of interceptors will begin. According to the announced information, the Pentagon plans to create 31 fighters, 10 of which will be used for testing.

The US missile defense agency reports that the new generation aircraft should be ready no later than 2028. The cruise vehicles are planned to be deployed in Alaska and used to intercept ballistic missiles from Iran or North Korea.

It is estimated that the production phase of the new interceptor fighters will cost $ 2,3 billion. The same amount will be allocated for long-term additional costs. According to preliminary calculations, the cost of one such aircraft could reach a whopping $ 500 million.
  • Photos used: Alan Wilson / flickr.com
Ad
We are open to cooperation with authors in the news and analytical departments. A prerequisite is the ability to quickly analyze the text and check the facts, to write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. We offer flexible working hours and regular payments. Please send your responses with examples of work to [email protected]
20 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. zzdimk Offline zzdimk
    zzdimk April 28 2021 13: 34
    0
    31 - 10 = 21 pieces. 18 + 2.3x2 = 22.6 mln. 22.6 / 21 is more than a billion for one unit in service in the unit. If we take into account that 18 billion will not fit, then wangyu: the real cost will be at least 3 billion per piece and ~ 15-25% of what will be done will fly, and what will be done will be similar to the MiG 31.
  2. And we will create a cruise missile to intercept cruise missile interceptor fighters, and at the same time scare away crows over the airfield
  3. 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) April 29 2021 18: 38
    +1
    What for? belay There is the unrivaled, best in the world super-duper F-35 fellow
    Or not already? smile
    Fighters in Alaska over Iran? Air defense was already being built in Romania. Oh, those storytellers winked
    1. Cyril Online Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) April 29 2021 23: 05
      -5
      There is the unrivaled, best in the world super-duper F-35

      Have you completely forgotten how to read? A specialized missile defense aircraft is being developed. The F-35 was never positioned as such.
      1. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) April 30 2021 00: 17
        +2
        Have you completely forgotten how to read? A specialized missile defense aircraft is being developed. The F-35 was never positioned as such.

        Specialized missile defense aircraft? belay Completely off the coils? We read the article ....

        The United States intends to create a new fighter to intercept cruise missiles from North Korea or Iran.

        Cruise missiles are shot down by conventional fighters and air defense systems.
        https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4512018

        Missile defense is being created for several different purposes.

        National Missile Defense (NMD) - complex system detection, tracking and intercept ballistic missiles different classes. The stated purpose is to protect the entire territory of the United States, as well as its allies, friendly states and forward military bases from missile strikes of limited power (cursed Wikipedia)

        If they needed a "specialized" fighter to intercept cruise missiles, that means exactly one thing, the F-35 is good for nothing. This is not a fighter. However, everyone has known this for a long time.
        1. Cyril Online Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) April 30 2021 00: 26
          -5
          We read the definition of missile defense:

          Anti-missile defense (ABM) is a complex of reconnaissance, radio-technical and fire or any other measures (balloon anti-missile defense, etc.), designed to protect (defend) guarded objects from missile weapons. Missile defense is very closely related to air defense and is often carried out by the same systems.

          The concept of "missile defense" includes protection against a missile threat of any plan and all means that carry it out (including active protection of tanks, air defense systems, fighting cruise missiles, etc.), however, at the everyday level, speaking of missile defense, they usually mean "strategic missile defense" - protection from the ballistic missile component of strategic nuclear forces (ICBMs and SLBMs).

          Thus, the term ABM means defense against any missiles. For example, the Israeli "Iron Dome" unguided rockets from the tubeis also a missile defense system.

          Your definition refers to a specific system strategic missile defense.

          Now regarding the topic of the article:

          If they needed a "specialized" fighter to intercept cruise missiles, that means exactly one thing, the F-35 is good for nothing.

          Well, and the logic :) That is, taking into account the fact that in the USSR / Russia there is a specialized MIG-31 interceptor aircraft, the rest of the aircraft are not capable of intercepting?)
          1. 123 Offline 123
            123 (123) April 30 2021 01: 32
            +1
            Read yes Quote your quote laughing

            Missile defense is very closely related to air defense and is often carried out by the same systems.

            If we are talking about missile defense in the sense of protection against conventional missiles, then why did you need a specialized fighter? Need a fighter jet in Alaska to defend against conventional Iranian missiles? Look at the globe. From Iran to Alaska 8 thousand km., In a straight line, through Russia. What is it that the Iranians have for such cruise missiles? From the DPRK 4600 km. to the coast of Alaska, which is also not small and also through us.

            Thus, the term ABM means defense against any missiles. For example, the Israeli "Iron Dome", which is used to shoot down unguided rockets from a tube, is also a missile defense system.

            I am happy for Israel and its wonderful iron dome, although it allows some S-200 missiles to pass through, but that is. This has nothing to do with our question.

            Well, and the logic :) That is, taking into account the fact that in the USSR / Russia there is a specialized MIG-31 interceptor aircraft, the rest of the aircraft are not capable of intercepting?)

            What does the specialization of the MiG-31 have to do with it? It is designed to shoot down everything that flies, our other fighters are capable of shooting down cruise missiles. I left there for you a special link as the Su-30 did it. Let's do without reasoning about logic, this is not your strong point.
            1. Cyril Online Cyril
              Cyril (Kirill) April 30 2021 02: 01
              -5
              Need a fighter jet in Alaska to defend against conventional Iranian missiles? Look at the globe. From Iran to Alaska 8 thousand km., In a straight line, through Russia. What is it that the Iranians have for such cruise missiles? From the DPRK 4600 km. to the coast of Alaska, which is also not small and also through us.

              Ask this question not to me, but to the authors of the article, who confused ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as to yourself, since they could not read to the end and did not immediately realize that we are talking about ballistic missiles.

              What does the specialization of the MiG-31 have to do with it? It is designed to shoot down everything that flies, our other fighters are capable of shooting down cruise missiles. I left there for you a special link as the Su-30 did it. Let's do without reasoning about logic, this is not your strong point.

              Well, according to your logic, the presence of the MIG-31, which is a specialized fighter-interceptor designed to intercept bombers and cruise missiles, means that other Russian fighters are not capable of this :)

              After all, this is exactly the conclusion you made with regard to American aircraft:

              If they needed a "specialized" fighter to intercept cruise missiles, that means exactly one thing, the F-35 is good for nothing. This is not a fighter.

              Or will you now turn around and claim that this is not what they mean? :)

              Let's do without reasoning about logic, this is not your strong point.

              It's funny to hear this from a person who does not read the article beyond its beginning, and even contradicts himself :)
              1. 123 Offline 123
                123 (123) April 30 2021 05: 06
                +1
                Ask this question not to me, but to the authors of the article, who confused ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as to yourself, since they could not read to the end and did not immediately realize that we are talking about ballistic missiles.

                It was you who decided that the authors were confused. You should ask a question. What kind of missiles we are talking about in this case is not important. Don't you get it? However, it is not surprising.
                Iran and the DPRK will not be able to launch any missiles through our territory in Alaska. The aircraft is being created to intercept Russian missiles.

                Well, according to your logic, the presence of the MIG-31, which is a specialized fighter-interceptor designed to intercept bombers and cruise missiles, means that other Russian fighters are not capable of this :)

                The MiG-31 is not designed to intercept bombers and cruise missiles, and its capabilities and tasks are not limited to this. It is versatile, knocks down everything that flies in the sky and near space. The aircraft was designed to cover the endless Russian expanses. He is able to fly farther and faster, climb higher, control large areas.

                The MiG-31 is designed to intercept and destroy air targets at extremely low, medium and high altitudes, day and night, in simple and difficult weather conditions, when the enemy uses active and passive radar jamming, as well as false heat targets. (damn Wikipedia)

                So you came up with it yourself. Moreover, I twice pointed out to you the Su-30, which shot down cruise missiles, because of their own stupidity they did not understand, and now they pretend that this was not the case.

                After all, this is exactly the conclusion you made about American aircraft.

                And where am I wrong? It really is not suitable for intercepting cruise missiles, let alone ballistic missiles. The F-35 is indeed a rare turd as a fighter, but you, as the American six, should not admit this in any case, here you go. What's with his production? Will they continue to produce? Or just for export?

                Or will you now turn around and claim that this is not what they mean? :)

                You are a strange person. You there with your cranial cockroaches make strange conclusions, but I must agree with this, but if not, then I'm spinning? belay
                Well then, catch it. smile
                You are a flawed and stupid American lackey. Your favorite pastime is licking boots? Or will you turn around and play around and pretend that this is not so and did not mean it?

                It's funny to hear this from a person who does not read the article beyond its beginning, and even contradicts himself :)

                You didn't bother to read the beginning. laughing
                Be there. There is nothing to talk with you about, one hopeless dullness.
                1. Cyril Online Cyril
                  Cyril (Kirill) April 30 2021 10: 17
                  -5
                  It was you who decided that the authors were confused. You should ask a question. What kind of missiles we are talking about in this case is not important. Don't you get it? However, it is not surprising.

                  laughing well, of course, when you get dipped in a pug, it becomes "unimportant". Cruise missiles are exactly the same as ballistic missiles, right? Absolutely the same speed and flight profile :)

                  Iran and the DPRK will not be able to launch any missiles through our territory in Alaska. The aircraft is being created to intercept Russian missiles.

                  But the ownership of the missiles really does not matter, because we are talking about technical issues, not political ones.

                  The MiG-31 is not designed to intercept bombers and cruise missiles, and its capabilities and tasks are not limited to this. It is versatile, knocks down everything that flies in the sky and near space. The aircraft was designed to cover the endless Russian expanses. He is able to fly farther and faster, climb higher, control large areas.

                  MIG-31 is an interceptor aircraft. It can shoot down any targets, but it was primarily created to intercept bombers and cruise missiles. This is his specialization.

                  Interceptor, Fighter-interceptor - military aircraft designed primarily to destroy enemy bombers and cruise missiles.

                  It was created because other Soviet aircraft, although they could intercept, still did it worse than a specialized interceptor.

                  So you came up with it yourself. Moreover, I twice pointed out to you the Su-30, which shot down cruise missiles, because of their own stupidity they did not understand, and now they pretend that this was not the case.

                  Yes, I read your link, do not worry :) It just has zero evidentiary value.

                  To shoot down the cruise missile of the Utes DBK of the 70s, whose maximum speed reaches 1,8 M, is a trivial task. The plane only launches an explosive missile, which shoots down the target. Thus, the possibility of hitting a cruise missile is determined by the technical data of the aircraft missile. Or do planes shoot down cruise missiles in your pink world?)

                  The F-35 is armed with AIM-120 missiles, including those designed to destroy cruise missiles.

                  And where am I wrong? It really is not suitable for intercepting cruise missiles, let alone ballistic missiles.

                  https://eadaily.com/ru/news/2020/02/02/istrebiteli-f-35-prikroyut-izrail-ot-krylatyh-raket-irana-ekspert

                  What's with his production? Will they continue to produce? Or just for export?

                  First, you will bring the number of Su-57 to the same number, then you will ask :)

                  You are a strange person. You there with your cranial cockroaches make strange conclusions, but I must agree with this, but if not, then I'm spinning?

                  It's strange, you use double standards in similar situations, but for some reason I have cockroaches?)

                  You are a flawed and stupid American lackey. Your favorite pastime is licking boots? Or will you turn around and play around and pretend that this is not so and did not mean it?

                  Oh, how much pathos :) But your attempts to hide your embarrassment behind him can only have an effect on Isophat :)

                  You didn't bother to read the beginning.

                  I read it all, unlike you :)

                  There is nothing to talk with you about, one hopeless dullness.

                  You described yourself correctly :)
                  1. 123 Offline 123
                    123 (123) April 30 2021 13: 08
                    +1
                    well, of course, when you get dipped in a pug, it becomes "unimportant". Cruise missiles are exactly the same as ballistic missiles, right? Absolutely the same speed and flight profile :)

                    Grow the sponge first. Ballistic missiles and cruise missiles are different, but in this case it doesn't matter. You can't even explain why you need to specify the type of missile in this case. Just start talking nonsense again.

                    But the ownership of the missiles really does not matter, because we are talking about technical issues, not political ones.

                    You shouldn't have written this. The owner will not be happy. After all, for some reason they pretend that it is from Iran and the DPRK, and you cut the truth out of your own stupidity. They will deprive you of your rations.

                    MIG-31 is an interceptor aircraft. It can shoot down any targets, but was primarily designed to intercept bombers and cruise missiles. This is his specialization.

                    What's the difference in what his specialization is? He knocks down everything that flies and falls within the radius of the weapon's reach. But the much-vaunted F-35 is not, otherwise they would not need a new fighter.

                    It was created because other Soviet aircraft, although they could intercept, still did it worse than a specialized interceptor.

                    How stubborn you are. The aircraft was created taking into account the long length of our borders and the poorly developed network of airfields in the north. It has more range, speed, altitude, detection range. As for the interceptors, I have to quote the damned Wikipedia again.

                    The term "interceptor" appeared in Soviet military literature in the early 1950s in connection with the equipping of some types of fighters with airborne radar stations, which made it possible to detect and engage air targets in the absence of visual contact.
                    Among the models listed are the MiG-31 and Su-27, and therefore its further development of the Su-30 and Su-35. They are all interceptors.

                    Yes, I read your link, do not worry :) It just has zero evidentiary value.
                    To shoot down the cruise missile of the Utes DBK of the 70s, whose maximum speed reaches 1,8 M, is a trivial task. The plane only launches an explosive missile, which shoots down the target. Thus, the possibility of hitting a cruise missile is determined by the technical data of the aircraft missile. Or do planes shoot down cruise missiles in your pink world?)

                    Zero value? That is why you pretended that it was not there, although I stubbornly poked you at it, and now you decided to refute it?
                    A trivial task? It depends on who. For the Su-30, yes, for the F-35 and it looks like the F-22 (after all, they are also based in Alaska) it turns out to be non-trivial. Otherwise, they would not need a new plane. 1,8M is 2205 km / h, your owners have a Tamogavk flying at a speed of 885 km / h, maximum 1200 km / h laughing So it is more difficult to shoot down our rockets of the 70s. Your nonsense about rockets and pink little worlds does not even want to comment on. If it's all about missiles, why would they need a new fighter?

                    What an interesting link. Will he cover Israel from cruise missiles? However, with Israel it is clear, it is easy to hide from missiles that do not fly in their direction. how much did he intercept them? smile For some reason, he did not intercept the S-200 missile. winked
                    And what prevents him from covering Alaska in that case?

                    It's strange, you apply double standards in similar situations, but for some reason I have cockroaches?

                    And really, why do you have cockroaches? However, these are your problems with them yourself and sort it out. You can discuss double standards with them.

                    Oh, how much pathos :) But your attempts to hide your embarrassment behind him can only have an effect on Isophat :)

                    Are you trying to turn your attention back to the other person? A petty trick. You are also trying to distort the nickname, Ashamed Krivoril, ashamed negative

                    That's all, I'm tired of disassembling your nonsense, I consider the correspondence closed. Go wash your face.
                    1. Cyril Online Cyril
                      Cyril (Kirill) April 30 2021 21: 28
                      -4
                      Ballistic missiles and cruise missiles are different, but in this case it doesn't matter.

                      Ah, well, yes, well, yes :) We are talking about creating a specialized aircraft for combating ballistic missiles, in the article (and you) made a mistake, confusing ballistic with cruise missiles - and all at once "in this case it became unimportant" :)

                      This is important for a simple reason - an aircraft must have different characteristics to intercept ballistic missiles than to intercept cruise missiles.

                      But you can continue to play around, saying that there is no difference :)

                      You shouldn't have written this. The owner will not be happy. After all, for some reason they pretend that it is from Iran and the DPRK, and you cut the truth out of your own stupidity. They will deprive you of your rations.

                      Are you so jealous of my hypothetical rations that you mention them in every case?) Are you tight with finances? Well, go and work on a normal job, you don't need to envy.

                      What's the difference in what his specialization is? He knocks down everything that flies and falls within the radius of the weapon's reach. The same can't be said for the vaunted F-35, otherwise they would not need a new fighter.

                      So, once again, for the gifted ones like you.

                      MIG-31 is a specialized fighter-interceptor, created for It is not very suitable for air combat due to its low aerodynamics (maximum overloads - 5G, versus 8-9 for the F-35). But due to the high speed of 3M and the high altitude and flight range, it is very well suited for intercepting cruise missiles and bombers. It was created in the first place to intercept them.

                      Does the presence of the MiG-31 mean that other Soviet / Russian aircraft could not shoot down bombers and cruise missiles? No, it doesn't. It's just that the MIG-31 will do it better.

                      Likewise, the F-35 can shoot down both cruise missiles and bombers - that is, work as an interceptor fighter. But a specialized interceptor will do it better.

                      All of the above, of course, applies to the situation if we are talking about cruise missiles. Although the article is not about them. This I just chew on you, where you have double standards in reasoning.

                      Zero value? That is why you pretended that it was not there, although I stubbornly poked you at it, and now you decided to refute it?

                      Firstly, I have not refuted the information in this link. I refuted its probative value of this information in the context of the dispute.

                      Secondly, I decided to "refute" it simply because you stubbornly poke at the information where a modern plane is shooting down a missile of the 70s with the stubbornness of a donkey. What an achievement.

                      A trivial task? It depends on who. For the Su-30, yes, for the F-35 and it looks like the F-22 (after all, they are also based in Alaska) it turns out to be non-trivial. Otherwise, they would not need a new plane.

                      If it's all about missiles, why would they need a new fighter?

                      Do you want to repeat it again? Doesn't get it right the first time? Okay, I quote:

                      The US missile defense agency reports that the new generation aircraft should be ready no later than 2028. Winged vehicles are planned to be deployed in Alaska and used to intercept ballistic missiles from Iran or North Korea.

                      I repeat once again - the new aircraft is being designed to intercept ballistic missiles, not cruise missiles. Cruise missiles, even supersonic ones, can be shot down by any modern fighter, even without being a specialized interceptor. But ballistic missiles, which have a completely different profile and flight speed, are at least a very difficult target for non-specialized aircraft, and in fact, almost impossible.

                      What an interesting link. Will he cover Israel from cruise missiles? However, with Israel it is clear, it is easy to hide from missiles that do not fly in their direction. how much did he intercept them? smile For some reason, he didn't intercept the S-200 missile winked
                      And what prevents him from covering Alaska in that case?

                      Because - I repeat for the third time - the article is about intercepting ballistic missiles, not cruise missiles. Repeat 5 times?)

                      That's all, I'm tired of disassembling your nonsense, I consider the correspondence closed. Go wash your face.

                      Why should I wash your face? You are kind of like a grown boy, you can handle it yourself. Well, you can probably handle it :)
        2. Cyril Online Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) April 30 2021 00: 33
          -4
          Oh, and yes. Read the article carefully next time:

          The US missile defense agency reports that the new generation aircraft should be ready no later than 2028. Winged vehicles are planned to be located in Alaska and used to intercept ballistic missiles from Iran or North Korea.

          And at the same time tell the authors of VO to decide what kind of missiles they are talking about.
          1. 123 Offline 123
            123 (123) April 30 2021 01: 34
            0
            And at the same time tell the authors of VO to decide what kind of missiles they are talking about.

            Is it you who are giving out instructions here? smile Didn't the young man swell up for an hour? lol
            1. Cyril Online Cyril
              Cyril (Kirill) April 30 2021 01: 54
              -4
              Is it you who are giving out instructions here?

              Well, if you don't read the name further, then you have to be kicked off :)
              1. 123 Offline 123
                123 (123) April 30 2021 05: 10
                -1
                Well, if you don't read the name further, then you have to be kicked off :)

                A lackey who talks about kicks is funny lol I dare not distract from kissing the owner's shoes, enjoy. For sim let me take my leave.
                1. Cyril Online Cyril
                  Cyril (Kirill) April 30 2021 10: 21
                  -4
                  Whether I am a lackey or not a lackey - the fact that you need kicks does not cancel
                  1. 123 Offline 123
                    123 (123) April 30 2021 13: 09
                    0
                    Whether I am a lackey or not a lackey - the fact that you need kicks does not cancel

                    Not any or. Do not even hesitate, until resignation is still far away.
                    Goodbye, tired of your nonsense.
                    1. Cyril Online Cyril
                      Cyril (Kirill) April 30 2021 14: 02
                      -4
                      Not any or. Do not even hesitate, until resignation is still far away.

                      Some kind of incoherent delirium began. Breathe in, calm down, don't worry so much :)
        3. chemyurij Offline chemyurij
          chemyurij (chemyurij) April 30 2021 15: 41
          0
          Quote: 123
          If they needed a "specialized" fighter to intercept cruise missiles, that means exactly one thing, the F-35 is good for nothing. This is not a fighter. However, everyone has known this for a long time.

          good Moreover, this new development program will finally and completely discredit the programs for the FF-22 and F-35, so to speak, the last nail in the lid ...