Military Review

The “red” level of threat to the Russian videoconferencing system: the result of the unspoken race “tactics” of the Su-34 and F-15E

196

Su-34 of the Russian Aerospace Forces and the multipurpose F-15E “Strike Eagle” fighter of the 48 tactical fighter wing of the United States Air Force deployed at Leikenhes air base (Great Britain)



All those who are at least a little interested in the technical features of modern combat aviation and other military equipment, more than once in runet came across cheers-patriotic comparative reviews of the Su-35C multirole fighter with the inconspicuous fighter for gaining air superiority F-22A Raptor or the high-precision front-line fighter Su-34 fighter-bomber with the tactical fighter F-15E "Strike Eagle." In them one can find both quite adequate comparisons of the individual qualities of one machine with similar parameters of another (for example, with regard to maneuverability and capabilities of close air combat), and absolutely incompatible comparisons of onboard radar systems, as well as strike capabilities. Often the bias of such reviews lies in the fact that the authors operate on outdated information only from Russian-language sources, while the analyzed products (most often applies to Western European and American equipment) have already passed from one to two or more stages of modernization.

GETTING THE OPERATIONAL BATTLE READINESS OF JASSM-ER LONG-TREATED ROCKETS WITH THE F-15E ARMAMENT STRUCTURE IS A SERIOUS CHALLENGE FOR THE RUSSIAN EUROPEAN MILITARY ACTIVITY THEATER. WHAT DOES SU-34 OPPOSITE?

For today's review we were inspired by the information received on 8 in February from the Singapore Airshow-2018 air show. Here, official representatives of the Lockheed Martin military-industrial corporation announced the achievement of operational combat readiness of the AGM-158B JASSM-ER tactical long-range cruise missile as part of the F-15E Strike Eagle multipurpose fighter aircraft. What does this mean?

First, the acquisition of strategic strike qualities by all US Air Force squadrons equipped with Strike Eagle tactical fighters without exception. This will be achieved through a combination of the huge range of the AGM-158B rocket with a solid range of the F-15E. With a mixed flight profile without refueling, the strike range of this missile from the F-15E will approach 2500 km (comparable to the strikes of the Tu-22М3 long-range bomber using airballistic missiles of the X-15 family). Against this background, large air bases located in Western and Eastern Europe begin to pose a great threat at times. Take, for example, the large airbase of the British Air Force "Lakenheath", located in the south-west of Albion.

The tactical F-15E “Strike Eagle” tactical fighters deployed on this site (part of the 48 th tactical fighter air wing of the US Air Force over 25 years) will be able to launch JASSM-ER missiles on strategic military and industrial targets in our Western military district of the state. Without refueling in the air, launches can be carried out at facilities in the Belgorod, Kaluga, Pskov and Leningrad regions (subject to take-off from Avb Leikhenhes). In the case of a single refueling F-15E over the territory of Germany or Eastern Europe, the most important objects of the Kuban, Volga and Western Urals will be within reach. Such a situation cannot fundamentally cause concern, since JASSM-ER have much lower radar visibility than most of the Tomahawk Block III / IV UGM-109D / E strategic cruise missiles of the UGM-0,03D / E family. Effective scattering surface of the first barely comes to 0,05 - 300 square. m, which can cause problems of detection, tracking and capture, even for the C-300PS complex radar equipment. The only anti-aircraft missile system capable of effectively coping with the JASSM-ER is the C-4B9, the ammunition package of which includes 82М9МВ anti-aircraft missiles, capable of operating over-horizon targets due to the presence of active radar targeting heads. Also, the improved Ginger and 32C300М radar stations (of the C-4B30 complex) have significantly reduced lower bounds on the effective reflective target surface than the early 6НXNUMX.

The use of active radar homing in modern air defense systems, in the theaters of military operations of the XXI century, is paramount due to the use of enemy tactical and strategic cruise missiles of complex flight trajectories to the intended targets; these trajectories usually pass outside the radio horizon for covering the airspace of the air defense system. The enemy's air attack means “sneak up” through folds and other natural terrain details. Theoretically, the Triumph anti-aircraft missile systems should also work on over-the-horizon air violators, but in practice this quality has not been implemented due to the shortage (or absence) of 9М96EX2 missiles in the Four-Hundred ammunition.

Secondly, F-15E will have a unique flexibility of use in long-range operations, unlike the same B-1B “Lancer” strategists, which is due to the effect of surprise created. The fact is that the radar signature of the Lancer, as well as the frequency parameters of radio-electronic interference from its on-board EW AN / ALQ-161 complex, are already known to our electronic reconnaissance units, and the detection of B-1B bombers on this or that airway will indicate on the preparing massed missile point JASSM / -ER, while the ESR "Strike Eagle" is almost identical to the reflective surface of the fighters to gain air superiority F-15C "Eagle". Consequently, the inability to clearly distinguish the EPR of the F-15E from the effective reflecting surface of the F-15C does not make it possible to finally determine the modification of the detected enemy fighter, and therefore to determine in advance the likely list of the operations it performs.

At this moment, one “Strike Needles” link is capable of launching AGM-12B JASSM-ER long-range missiles toward the targets of 158 (three missiles on the suspension nodes of each tactical fighter). And this is an extremely significant advantage of the US Air Force over the Russian Aerospace Forces at the current time. Why?

To answer this question, it is necessary to compare in detail the long-range F-15E “Strike Eagle” ammunition with the similar arsenal of the high-precision Su-34 bomber fighter. If the state machine is JASSM-ER, having a range of 1200 km, then our Su-34 main caliber is X-59MK2 Ovod-M with a range of 285 km, which is hardly ahead of the Turkish tactical rocket SOM and noticeably inferior to the first modification of the AGM-158A JASSM. As a result, the maximum “depth” of the Su-34 strike using the “Gadfly-M” is only 1415 km versus 2500 km at F-15E “Strke Eagle”, which does not allow the Russian car to strike at remote objects in Western Europe without refueling the air. However, this is far from the only criterion by which it is necessary to compare the potentials of Su-34 and F-15E.

THE ON-BOARD RADIO-ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT OF THE “FRESH” F-15E IS BUILT AROUND THE FRONT AFAR-RADAR, ENSURED “STRIKE NEEDLES” RADICAL TECHNICAL OPENING FROM SU-34. AN / APG-70 LEAVES PAST


Multipurpose airborne radar with an AN / APG-70 slot antenna array aboard the “early” F-15E (left) and the advanced AFAR-radar AN / APG-63 (V) 3 installed on the last E-F-15C radar. The latter is the basic product for the development of a better AN / APG-82 (V) 1


One of the most significant points is undoubtedly the comparison of the onboard radar systems of both cars. The Su-34 multi-purpose tactical fighter is equipped with an onboard radar system (WRLK) W-141, represented by a radar with a passive phased antenna array B004. The product was created by the Scientific Research Institute of Radioelectronic Complexes (NIREK), which is part of the Leninets holding (formerly SKB Zemlya, TsNPO Leninets). This radar has almost all the qualities characteristic of the more advanced AFAR-radar, designed for fighter jets of the transitional generation “4 ++”. In particular, the following modes are provided: SAR (synthesized aperture + mapping of the terrain with the resolution of the radar image, which allows to classify the object); GMTI (detecting and tracking moving ground / surface targets), identifying a group target and determining its size (with the classification of certain pieces of equipment), as well as detecting, tracking and capturing air targets.

Nevertheless, the W-141 also has a lot of disadvantages associated with far from the best range capabilities, depending on the power of the radiator and the sensitivity of the receiver. In particular, the pulse power of the B004 is 14 kW, which is almost 3 times less than that of the most long-range H035 “Irbis-E” radar. In this regard, the range of detection of various types of targets in W-141 is almost 3 times smaller than in "Irbis". A standard fighter-type air target is detected at a distance of 90 km, a surface corvette target is 120 km, a caravan is about 35 km, and a railway bridge is about 100 km. Similar objects are detected by the Irbis-E on-board radar at 2 times the distance. The bandwidth and target channel of the B004 leave much to be desired and do not even reach the НХNUMXМ “Bars” level (Su-011СМ): the first is able to “tie” 30 routes of air targets in the SNP mode, and also to capture 10 of them, while “Bars” »Accompany 4 air objects. The resolution of B20 in mapping is much lower than that of Irbis and amounts to 004 - 10 meters, which is a very weak indicator for PFAR radar.

Let us turn to the review of the onboard radar complex tactical fighter F-15E "Strike Eagle". Many military-analytical publications, as well as reference resources, erroneously indicate that the Strike Needles airborne radar still remains a multifunctional AN / APG-70. As you know, this product is represented by a flat X-band slot antenna array (8-12 GHz) with mechanical scanning and a beam transfer rate of 140 deg / s. The frequency of the radar control processor is 1,4 MHz, while the signal processor has a frequency of 33 MHz. Despite the introduction of capabilities for detecting and tracking ground / surface targets and even the synthetic aperture mode, the APG-70 is an obsolete radar developed on the AN / APG-63 radar element base (the latter are an integral part of the F-line 15C "Eagle"). The presence of AAR indicates a spectrum of deficiencies characteristic of the H001VEP (Su-30MKK / MK2) and Zhuk-M radars. Thus, the noise immunity of the APG-70 in the early Strike Eagles was ensured only by adapting the received signal processing algorithm by means of the signal processor and the signal converter, while AFAR radars filter the interference using digital control of each receiving-transmitting module. The only advantage can be considered a good range of the APG-70, which for the purpose of the MiG-35 type reached 125 km.

But let us assess the situation more soberly and not be deceived by the moderate technological capabilities of AN / APG-70, because at present most of the F-15E “Strike Eagle” fleet has been updated with brand new on-board radars with an active AN / APG-82 (V ) 1. The modernization is carried out as part of the RMP (“Radar Modernization Program”) program, which was initiated by the US Department of Defense back in 2008, at the time Boeing was allocated to allocate 281 million dollars for RMP research and development.

This advanced radar is a hybrid of an on-board radar with an AFAR AN / APG-63 (V) 3 (adapted according to the requirements of the Saudi Arabian Air Force for F-15SA fighter jets) and an even more advanced on-board radar AN / APG-79, designed for deck multifunctional fighters F / A-18E / F. From the first, the AFAR canvas was borrowed, from the Super X X-NUMX, a promising high-performance processor designed to effectively manage tunable radio-frequency filters (RFTF, Radio Frequency Tunable Filters), through which separate groups of receiving and transmitting modules can be used for setting interference in the direction of the enemy’s radio. Moreover, RFTF filters condition the hardware implementation of the LPI mode (“Low Probability of Intercept”), which consists in the emission of wide-band complex-structure and amplitude-varying electromagnetic pulses by the radar, reducing the likelihood of detection by old means of warning about the type of radiation -79 "Birch" to zero (to detect such a source of radiation can only specialized means of electronic intelligence, for example, the new SPO L-15 "Pastel", ORTR Tu-150P and called RTR "Valeria" emnye stations). About the above qualities of the radar AN / APG-214 (V) 82, the Su-1 pilots can only dream.

To adapt to the new APG-82 radar, all F-15Es get a new multi-frequency radio transparent fairing, as well as a significantly improved cooling system for the antenna array and software-controlled modules with RF generators. The AN / APG-82 (V) 1 active phased array antenna consists of more than 1500 receiving and transmitting modules that, combined with a new on-board computer and highly sensitive receivers, allow you to track 20 airborne 6 for subsequent launch of long-range air combat missiles of the AMRAAM family . Target detection range with EPR 1 square. m is APG-82 about 145 km, which is 60% better than W-141 (B004) installed on the Su-34!

Considering the higher resolution of the first one, the possible LPI mode, the ability to create directed interferences, as well as the ability to form “dips” in the directivity pattern at the source of the REB source, the total potential of the F-15E in air superiority tasks and distances over 50 km 34, and this is a very alarming bell! Here you have the consequences of the slipping AFARization of obsolete generation machines "4 + / ++". And we have not yet considered regularly exaggerated deficiencies in the DVB, which are observed due to the absence in the armament of our tactical aviation of "straight-through" missiles RVV-AE-PD ("Product 180-PD"), while the American long-range AIM-120D sent to high volume production. Note that a similar situation is also observed in the comparative review of the Su-30CM with Strike Eagle. It is extremely important to consider the surviving interceptor qualities of the “Strike Needle” at the level of the advanced F-15C, because the maximum speed of the machine, taking into account the 4 AMRAAMs on the suspension, is kept at the level of 2,2М. The AN / APG-82 (V) 1 AFAR architecture gives the F-15E significant advantages for air-to-surface operations, including anti-ship strikes. The number of AN / APG-82 operating modes corresponds to the best radars for multi-purpose transitional and 5 fighter jets (AN / APG-83 SABR and AN / APG-81).

The identity of the AN / APG-82 (V) 1 and AN / APG-79 onboard radar control processors architecture defines another positive aspect - the unification of the radar software update interfaces and the update packages, which will speed up the F-15E software upgrade several times and deck F / A-18E / F / G in wartime, without the need to create a separate “package” for each type of machine.

As for the use of Su-34 in interception operations, in contrast to the “Strike Eagle”, the maximum speed with suspension in 1,7М does not quite correspond to these tasks. Indicators of survivability in melee air combat are entirely due to such criteria as the thrust-weight of the machine and the aerodynamic characteristics of the airframe. In the first parameter, the American F-15E tactics are noticeably ahead of our Su-34. So, with a normal take-off mass in 20892 kg, the F-15E thrust-to-weight ratio can reach 1,25 kgf / kg, thanks to which the car can realize excellent high-speed "energy" maneuvering both on the horizontal and on the verticals during the afterburner operation. The sufficiently high angular speed of the F-15E “Strike Eagle” steady reversal can be seen in the video footage prepared during numerous aerospace showrooms (including MAX 2000-s). The overclocking qualities of the American car, though insignificantly, are superior to those of the Su-34, which is explained by a slightly higher afterburner thrust per midship (2484 kgf / sq. M versus 2380 kgf / sq. M, respectively).

Let us turn to the maneuverable qualities of the Su-34. Despite the "sharpened" this machine to the shock operations, maneuverability remains at a very decent level. This is achieved through the use of well-proven aerodynamic scheme "integral longitudinal triplane" with all-rotating horizontal tail, which is very related to such machines as the Su-33 and Su-30CM. However, the aerodynamic qualities of the airframe created by the carrier scheme can be realized only in a short period of time, after the “Drying” set speed in 750 - 850 km and rapid deceleration when performing a maneuver. The fact is that the car has an extremely heavy nose, represented by 17-mm armored capsules to protect the crew of two pilots from anti-aircraft artillery and other means of destruction while overcoming the enemy’s air defense in the following terrain mode.


Multi-purpose fighter-bomber Su-34 with under-body container RTR "Sych"


Also Su-34 can boast of reinforced structural elements of the wing, center section, tail section, as well as massive twin chassis, which ultimately led to an increase in the mass of an empty Duckling to 22000 kg. Even with the 50% filling of the fuel system (6050 kg) and the deployment of 4 air strikes RVV-AE (700 kg), the thrust ratio is at the level of 0,94 kgf / kg, which is not enough for "energy" maneuvering; and the maximum operating overload in 7 units. imposes serious restrictions on "aggressive pilotage." Consequently, in a close encounter, the Su-34 pilots must rely on a short-term quick turn towards the target, as well as on the potential of the R-73 rocket RDD-2.

Reservations for the cockpit can be considered the undisputed advantage of the Thirty-Four over the Strike Eagle, because the modern aggressive theater of war, stuffed with a huge range of medium-range and long-range air defense systems, increasingly forces tactical aircraft to “cling” to the earth's surface, which often leads to hot meeting with "Shilkami" and the enemy's ZUk-shki: F-15E, unlike "Duckling", is unlikely to survive a similar meeting. In the same turn, it must be remembered that even the integration of Su-34 radar, electronic and opto-electronic variants of Sych outboard containers for tactical reconnaissance (providing Duck's advantage in reconnaissance capabilities) should not be an occasion for refusal to re-equip with new on-board radars based on active phased arrays, because the latter play the decisive role in combat situations when the crew must be thoroughly informed of the smallest tactical details in the forward hemisphere and at a distance two or three hundred kilometers.

Information sources:
http://forum.militaryparitet.com/viewtopic.php?id=19463
http://airwar.ru/enc/bomber/su34.html
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/agm158/agm158.shtml
Author:
196 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. B-15
    B-15 14 February 2018 07: 03
    +12
    So there is something to work on.
    And Syria has shown that the SU-34 is used under the guise of fighters. But this is in local conflicts.
    In global there will be trouble.
    1. shinobi
      shinobi 14 February 2018 08: 34
      +34
      A bomber should not fly alone, even in theory, especially if the enemy is of equal value.
      1. Bronevick
        Bronevick 14 February 2018 09: 42
        +4
        So he’s a fighter-bomber
        1. figwam
          figwam 14 February 2018 10: 08
          +16
          In the states of the F-15E, this is the strike modification of the F-15 fighter, we have the Su-30 strike modification of the Su-27, and the Su-34 is a replacement for the Su-24.
        2. novel66
          novel66 14 February 2018 10: 09
          +26
          yes no - still a bomber jacket. with some fighter capabilities
          1. kit88
            kit88 14 February 2018 13: 26
            +8
            In my amateurish opinion, the author does not take into account the fact that we do not have 1 airplane (f-15), but 3 different ones - Su-35 - Su-34 - Tu-22m3, for solving all the described problems. And in each case, you need to compare f-15 with one of this three
            1. supertiger21
              supertiger21 16 February 2018 11: 20
              +1
              Quote: kit88
              In my amateurish opinion, the author does not take into account the fact that we do not have 1 airplane (f-15), but 3 different ones - Su-35 - Su-34 - Tu-22m3, for solving all the described problems. And in each case, you need to compare f-15 with one of this three


              That's just the F-15 is not just one plane, but a whole family. Those. it’s not correct on your part to mention only one F-15E, because it is only an attack aircraft based on the training F-15D. But there is still a pure aircraft of gaining air supremacy F15C (analogue of our Su-30), as well as the latest F-15SE (analogue of our Su-35C) with the latest avionics and some stealth.
              1. Conserp
                Conserp 16 February 2018 22: 43
                +3
                Quote: supertiger21
                the latest F-15SE (analogue of our Su-35S)

                You should not call a fighter with aerodynamics of the 3rd generation and without high-speed air-force "an analogue of the Su-35S."
              2. faradien
                faradien 16 February 2018 22: 49
                +3
                All the same, it is obvious that airplanes are made with different emphasis on problem solving. The Su-34 is more of a front-line bomber (reservation, etc.) with interceptor capabilities, and the F-15E is more likely a multi-purpose attack interceptor. And so they have a slightly different composition and design. I read that they want to replace the Su-25 in the future with an aircraft based on the Su-34. So much for the development of the model. winked . The Su-34 is mainly a replacement for the Su-24, but not an interceptor. And for the composition of the armament of the Su-34, and not only it, they are now making the reduced X-101. However, it is not yet known what kind of rocket will be and how many of them can take the 34th. I only agree that the radar would be better for him.
                1. yehat
                  yehat 20 February 2018 12: 18
                  +2
                  I’ll say a few words about radar equipment, because it was a year close to the topic.
                  in our country before it was not very good with radio electronics, but now it’s a complete seam. Chasing the Americans without a dramatic improvement in the state of industry or foreign trade relations is pointless.
                  But this is not all - our engineers are now forced to fight with our own engineers, and not from the latter, because Hundreds of Russian specialists in radio electronics have gone to America to teach and work in America, and they have taken away not only their carcasses, but also many advanced achievements of our science. And they work there and implement, not ours.
                  And the last thing about implementation. I worked on creating an algorithm that calculates the cost of defense projects and saw this kitchen.
                  We have a huge, not even a hole, but an abyss between what needs to be ordered and what is ordered. More than 90% of contracts go to already outdated equipment,
                  moreover, this understanding is available to both the customer and the manufacturer.
                  of those R&D that I saw, more than 60% were essentially crafts
                  at the level of "glue a toy from fir cones",
                  those. at the level of an R&D order already, no attempts are made to at least have modern equipment. This is in fact the case now.
                  Well, what to expect?
                  1. Maverick1812
                    Maverick1812 21 February 2018 15: 20
                    +2
                    But we will wait for the elections and the declared “stability” to us ..... And we will look from the side how top managers of state corporations get “stable good” and not scientists, teachers, doctors and others .....
                  2. faradien
                    faradien 24 February 2018 23: 11
                    0
                    Maybe what you encountered in your work as a result of Serdyukovism and the pre-Derukyuk "peace"? Although the situation in radio electronics and electronics is generally bad and very long ago. However, I hope that the latest events in the world over the past few years have “added to skype_dar” to anyone who needs it. Nevertheless, quickly such changes do not occur in our defense industry, inertia ... We will wait and hope wink

                    Quote: yehat
                    ... More than 90% of contracts go to already outdated equipment,
                    moreover, this understanding is available to both the customer and the manufacturer.
                    of those R&D that I saw, more than 60% were essentially crafts
                    at the level of "glue a toy from fir cones"


                    It’s a little consolation that in the West this is not very straightforward.
                  3. Bad thing
                    Bad thing 11 July 2018 16: 26
                    0
                    Quote: yehat
                    of those R&D that I saw, more than 60% were essentially crafts
                    at the level of "glue a toy from fir cones",
                    those. at the level of an R&D order already, no attempts are made to at least have modern equipment. This is in fact the case now.
                    How right you are, unfortunately.
        3. yehat
          yehat 20 February 2018 12: 11
          0
          and what is the bomber armed against fighters with? usually 2 melee missiles.
          A standard interceptor often carries at least 2-4 medium or long-range missiles,
          making a meeting with a bomber just a beating.
      2. Dante
        Dante 16 February 2018 18: 42
        0
        If, as according to the theory, neither Su24 nor Su25 would fly. It’s expensive for them to send practitioners even su 27 for protection.
        But in vain, the guys are sorry.
    2. Tarpon
      Tarpon 14 February 2018 11: 49
      +18
      Quote: B-15
      So there is something to work on.
      And Syria has shown that the SU-34 is used under the guise of fighters. But this is in local conflicts.
      In global there will be trouble.

      The Su-34 is a front-line bomber that replaced the Su-24 and its functionality is tailored specifically for the tasks of a front-line bomber.
      the maximum “depth” of a Su-34 strike using Ovoda-M is only 1415 km versus 2500 km for the F-15E Strke Eagle, which prevents the Russian aircraft from striking remote targets in Western Europe without refueling in the air.
      And do not, for this is the Tu-22m3, which will cope with a similar task much better than the F-15E, to the edge, we have strategists.
      1. Berber
        Berber 14 February 2018 16: 04
        +4
        Strategists are wonderful, the question here is that everything is brought under the possibility of an unexpected massive strike.
        1. Thor
          Thor 15 February 2018 05: 13
          +4
          This is already an air defense issue. And OTRK. Maybe the Strategic Missile Forces.
          And strike aircraft will work later.
          If it is who and for whom.
          1. Berber
            Berber 15 February 2018 08: 36
            +3
            Therefore, Putin and the doctrine prescribed a nuclear response to any tactical strike.
        2. faradien
          faradien 16 February 2018 23: 05
          0
          Quote: BerBer
          Strategists are wonderful, the question here is that everything is brought under the possibility of an unexpected massive strike.

          ... And an unexpectedly massive response, rather even asymmetric. Disruption of communication, navigation and operation of on-board equipment, as well as racquets, I can start to fall, it is not clear why, like axes in Syria laughing
          1. Berber
            Berber 19 February 2018 08: 46
            0
            This is a perfect picture. In reality, no one knows what will happen. There is a factor, and as the author says, it must be taken into account. And then Syria shows us that we have to fight under different conditions. For example, striking from Lebanon and Israel.
            1. faradien
              faradien 24 February 2018 23: 26
              0
              And what about Syria? Barmalei were interested in us there, they pressed their tail. And we did not intend to get deep into the disassemblies of Iran-Israel-Syria-Turkey and the company from the very beginning. Hence the composition and quantity of ours there, and our actions, respectively.
              1. Berber
                Berber 27 February 2018 08: 38
                0
                Barmalei are not on their own. They have high-tech support from "partners". Divide even if you want to fail.
                1. faradien
                  faradien 27 February 2018 23: 27
                  0
                  You can always divide a barmaley with his barmaley by sending to Allah. There will be a desire, when they ask for it completely, then they will share who is needed. And their owners themselves are timid with pens lol wink
        3. gilec
          gilec 18 February 2018 17: 00
          +2
          June 22, 1941 is an example of a massive and "unexpected" strike.
          1. Mih1974
            Mih1974 18 February 2018 22: 17
            +5
            Piii Piii Piiii. Well, and what ended up for the “wise men” that “unexpected massive blow”?
            If someone does not understand, then this time we will not crawl any four years to the capital of the aggressor. negative An hour later, the capital of the aggressor will cease to exist as a "place of residence of people" for decades to come. For this, we spend such enormous funds on the nuclear Triad. good
            By the way, let the car measure the "super duper American weapon" with S. Korea’s weapon tongue How many mattresses inflated cheeks and scared, and shaw? They thrust their threats into their asses and went up right, disgraced by the weight of the World.
            1. Berber
              Berber 19 February 2018 08: 49
              +2
              Okay for the wise guys. How did it end for us? Is 28 million loss a normal figure? Then they also shouted - The Red Army is all the stronger, and what, and how did it end? Do not cheer patriotism.
              1. Conserp
                Conserp 19 February 2018 09: 20
                +3
                But of these, only 6.5 million were soldiers. And this is less than the military losses of the Germans. The rest are civilians.

                To kill women, children and the elderly a lot of mind and strength is not necessary. The USSR could destroy the German people completely, just did not seize the opportunity.

                The Red Army really turned out to be the strongest.
                1. Berber
                  Berber 19 February 2018 10: 27
                  +1
                  The very fact that they let us into our territory is already bad. This is not about numbers, but about people's lives.
                  1. Conserp
                    Conserp 19 February 2018 14: 56
                    0
                    Quote: BerBer
                    The very fact that they let us into our territory is already bad.

                    In 1941, there was an aggressor with a huge numerical, economic and military-technical superiority.

                    And we did not have ICBMs yet.

                    As you have already been explained, nobody will walk more than 4 years to Berlin.
                    1. Berber
                      Berber 20 February 2018 13: 03
                      0
                      And imagine a situation when you have to fight not in Russia. Well, for example, in the same Syria.
                      1. Conserp
                        Conserp 20 February 2018 18: 26
                        0
                        And let's imagine the war against the Martians!

                        What did you want to say?
                2. Vasil Galiev
                  Vasil Galiev 19 February 2018 12: 00
                  +1
                  I agree, and even if you take into account that a huge number of losses at the beginning of the war, when they retreated, and when the losses came, and we were on the offensive much longer than the Germans, it is not clear who threw corpses there then ....
                3. victor50
                  victor50 2 August 2018 16: 09
                  0
                  Quote: Conserp
                  But of these, only 6.5 million were soldiers. And this is less than the military losses of the Germans. The rest are civilians.

                  To kill women, children and the elderly a lot of mind and strength is not necessary. The USSR could destroy the German people completely, just did not seize the opportunity.

                  The Red Army really turned out to be the strongest.

                  Well, not quite so, firstly. Secondly, what about the casualties of the civilian population? There is no worse thing than jingoism and hatred. And the closest examples of Chechnya in '94. They wanted to take Grozny as one regiment. We need to prepare seriously for the defense of our country, especially in the current conditions, improve the technical equipment, and it is advisable to get ahead of potential “friends” in a very high quality, if we cannot respond adequately with the quantity. And do it methodically and quickly, and not calm down by the cartoons. And remember that if something happens, no matter how much the Kalashnikovs are distributed, the F-15 (at least it) cannot be shot out of it, no matter how many victims it cost. and general mobilization (primarily organizational and labor). Now - it will not work, and general mobilization in the name of victory cannot be organized. Thanks to Kurchatov and the Queen - thanks to them we exist. But you can’t rely on their achievements forever.
              2. stanislavname
                stanislavname 27 February 2018 05: 08
                0
                it is all the stronger than you gurgle here ... WE won and we should not have the illusion that if it weren’t for the second front everything would have been bad ... Moreover, there were so many forces that the Americans and the Angles did not dare to attack the war-weary I will unite. The second front was opened when it was clear that Hitler was not a tenant
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
    3. Mih1974
      Mih1974 18 February 2018 22: 03
      +2
      Do not want to decrypt
      In global there will be trouble.

      Many times, and different people say, they write, “Americans have better aircraft carriers,” “Americans have better tanks,” “Americans have more planes.” Well, SHO? "Oh, they will bomb us and we can’t" !! fool Well, he believes in this nonsense. How many times you can write and say that the “wet balls” of the United States defeat Russia in the conventional war - IDIOT. Because WE are considering only ONE varinat of the war against the United States - Nuclear with the full use of ALL available weapons am soldier
      Yes, a mattress was adopted at the mattresses very efficiently and poorly manned, but this does not make the Su-34 worse.
      Well, good - smart and cunning Americans launch a missile strike on these areas. What objects? Well, let's say - for the military, for power plants and water supply without a direct blow to the residential sector. What's next? am fool What will they require surrender from Russia, territorial claims rolled out? And what the leadership in the Kremlin will do - I suppose with a high degree of probability that even during the raid missiles will still be discovered even after the strike on our territory is confirmed - our missile will fly to America, only the Nuclear ones !! negative And THERE - comes zizdets and "light and heat." Unlike Hollywood, nuclear missiles do not have recall or self-undermining systems, and Trump or any other US condom will call the Kremlin late — scream, threaten, or plead. They come - the "tip".
      1. victor50
        victor50 2 August 2018 16: 14
        0
        Quote: Mih1974
        Many times, and different people say, they write, “Americans have better aircraft carriers,” “Americans have better tanks,” “Americans have more planes.” Well, SHO? "Oh, they will bomb us and we can’t" !! Well, he believes in this nonsense. How many times you can write and say that the “wet balls” of the United States defeat Russia in the conventional war - IDIOT. Because WE are considering only ONE varinat of the war against the United States - Nuclear with the full use of ALL available weapons

        Well, that’s it! Reassured! And then I started to think, maybe something needs to be done, maybe something is wrong with us ?! No, thanks! You can drink beer! drinks
  2. tchoni
    tchoni 14 February 2018 07: 04
    +39
    What can I say, the article is not controversial, but for HE, undoubtedly, useful. For it allows readers to look at the world on top of the “pink glasses of jingoistic patriotism” and thereby avoid turning into Orwell’s “piols”. hi
    1. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 14 February 2018 13: 57
      +21
      "pink glasses of cheers-patriotism" .. honestly I didn’t see them. I constantly see articles in the style of "Russians with their cheers-patriotism, see how cool it is done at NATO, get on your knees!" One article on what has been done in Russia will be typed with 10 articles, where the same moment is actively interfere with dirt
      1. aws4
        aws4 15 February 2018 04: 45
        +1
        what are you saying ??? but in my opinion it’s just the opposite as races)))) and by the way at the expense of points it’s very strange that you don’t see them on your ava they are apparently on you too laughing
        1. Boris Chernikov
          Boris Chernikov 20 February 2018 19: 31
          +1
          I have glasses on, it remains to deal with your color blindness to understand where you saw pink bully
      2. Grigory_78
        Grigory_78 15 February 2018 18: 12
        +4
        Moreover, such “revelations” are very actively published by Kommersant, RBC, FBK, Rambler, the Russian Planet and other media almost completely independent of state power in Russia, but very ready for the flow of donations from USAID, the Soros Foundation and other NGOs with disinterested democratic funding from the CIA and the State Department.
        Nobody even wants to notice that the comparison is with the latest US missile developments with the developments of the USSR in the early 90s - regardless of the success of the tests and the presence of troops. This is called "eye tightening on the ass." And after all successfully, look ...
        When the opponent begins to spread rotten fiercely about and without “cheers-patriotism”, “Kremlin bots”, “zaputintsev” - it immediately becomes clear that the person is working either in a fire or for money. In itself, the presence of problems with armaments certainly takes place to one degree or another (as well as the "probable adversary" / "incredible friend" / "our western partner" - to choose from), but the given nature of the discussion of the dialogue does not imply - only variations in the style of sprinkling ashes on the head. You can immediately see where the financing of "development of democracy in Russia" is going, very clearly. A wave of adherents of "democracy" reached topwar, yes.
        Real analysis and objectivity in the article does not smell. It is a pity that similar on this site is published in principle. This is very sad.
        1. Alexander Borisov
          Alexander Borisov 16 February 2018 10: 55
          +3
          The publication compares the Su-34 and F-15 and not just blah blah, but on the numbers. But in your comment, one blah blah and nothing on the merits of the issue under discussion. Underestimating the enemy is equal to defeat.
          1. Conserp
            Conserp 16 February 2018 22: 46
            +3
            Quote: Alexander Borisov
            The publication compares the Su-34 and F-15 and not just blah blah, but on the numbers ...

            ... sucked from the finger, taken out of context, reprinted from advertising campaigns - without any interpretation or criticism.
          2. Mih1974
            Mih1974 18 February 2018 22: 19
            0
            Compare the T-34, even the T-34-85 with Tiger-2 !! fool "Oh, what a hoot, ok what a good tank and fascist Germany." Well, who stuck someone (his banner in the capital)? negative
          3. Insatiable ascetic
            Insatiable ascetic 19 February 2018 20: 20
            0
            Quote: Alexander Borisov
            The publication compares the Su-34 and F-15 and not just blah blah, but on the numbers. But in your comment, one blah blah and nothing on the merits of the issue under discussion. Underestimating the enemy is equal to defeat.

            Some comparison in an article on a minor note .. the author of those who "lost everything" .. The missile flies on, is hardly noticeable for the S-300 .. One link of 12 missiles can send .. that's where blah blah blah. Air defense will detect a link, such as fighter jets, and the guys will already understand that something is wrong .. they will concentrate to the maximum! Well, if there is an air regiment F-15E .. all the more! Our country is so huge that no mattress aviation is enough to cover it in its entirety. And the answer will not keep you waiting! And the Americans are well aware of this .. They let fear in the hope of Russian Maidan .. and some, with a weak psyche or (and) mind, begin to mumble something about "Katz offers to give up" ..
  3. Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 14 February 2018 07: 15
    +5
    Yes, it’s clearly unreasonable for the creators of the Su-34 to rest on their laurels, all the more so the fleet of our VKS is clearly inferior to the probable enemy. Well, if the plans of the Russian leadership are to maintain the independence and territorial integrity of Russia, is not a priority and is inferior to the commercial interests of a handful of affairs from the military-industrial complex, then probably "it will do so"
    1. freddyk
      freddyk 14 February 2018 10: 50
      +15
      You understand that the territorial integrity of the state only partly depends on the number of aircraft, tanks, ships. The history of the Union clearly showed this. It is also necessary that there would be no internal contradictions, that the people would be full and satisfied. And with this now things are much worse than with airplanes.
      1. Wild ferret
        Wild ferret 15 February 2018 00: 30
        +1
        You will forgive me for my amateurism and reasoning in the style of a sofa expert, but it seems to me that there is another moment, predicted for a long time - "well-fed riots". Essential needs are met, and then? After all, now there is no Idea, it has been replaced by cosmopolitan. This is where the ferment in society begins and jokes: "help! We don`t terrorist" (training and duty flights of aviation in the Barents Sea, and other moments).
        1. Mih1974
          Mih1974 18 February 2018 22: 23
          +1
          Oh, and let's look at the village of Korea - how could the USA not only frighten her and almost immediately bomb them, and in general, the SHO? And the Americans stuck their tongues into their anus and left without salty slurping. And the village of Korea is not Russia tea in terms of military capabilities. So - on flying along our borders - threaten to shoot ALL that is closer than 100 km and really start to shoot. They will lose fagots from a dozen aircraft - they will wipe themselves off and dump them to their shores.
      2. Insatiable ascetic
        Insatiable ascetic 19 February 2018 20: 24
        0
        Quote: freddyk
        You understand that the territorial integrity of the state only partly depends on the number of aircraft, tanks, ships. The history of the Union clearly showed this. It is also necessary that there would be no internal contradictions, that the people would be full and satisfied. And with this now things are much worse than with airplanes.

        Do you think that the Union collapsed due to a shortage of sausages and fashion magazines? ..)) Some would like to believe it .. But, everything is much more commonplace. "Jar of jam and a box of cookies" decided the fate of the Great Country!
  4. shinobi
    shinobi 14 February 2018 08: 23
    +10
    This, like be, I might have misunderstood something, but why is the Su-34 bomber compared to the F-15, which is a fighter for gaining superiority? These are very different products for their intended purpose.
    1. maximghost
      maximghost 14 February 2018 08: 42
      +11
      Compare with the shock modification of the F-15. Although this is still not entirely correct.
      1. Iline
        Iline 14 February 2018 09: 28
        +21
        Right Blue haze. Su-34 was never particularly considered as a fighter. This is only if the author of this "analysis" has an association with the similarity of the Su-34 to the Su-27, which is why some flight characteristics have been acquired.
        But first of all, it is an operational bomber and it is replacing the same Su-24 bomber.
        1. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 14 February 2018 17: 03
          +15
          Moreover, when considering threats, the many-sided and “spherical horse in a vacuum” snapped up again is taken - 1 F-15 versus 1, for some reason Su-34.
          Impact capabilities are higher with the advent of Jassm. Yes, the missile, more dangerous than the Ax, is the latest, with advanced capabilities. But, again, for some reason, it is concluded that only over-the-horizon air defense missiles can bring them down. Why's that? Naturally, if the air defense systems use ONLY their regular reconnaissance assets, it will not be easy. But why aren't RTV funds taken into account? Why is it not considered TSU from AWACS? This will fundamentally change the picture of a defensive battle.
          Can't we fight back? How, how - Point, Iskander, X-101, Onyx ... Only here the level of anti-aircraft defense on the other side of the barricades is incomparable with ours. Anyway, bye. And the probability of a breakthrough of X-101 or Onyx, about which it is written that supposedly it can fly not at 300 km, but at all 800, and maybe further, to targets in ZE or in the same foggy England is much higher than Jassm to Ural.
          Again, while the F-15 is superior in radar capabilities. I dare to think - while surpasses. Everything flows, everything changes. For 10 years, our Army has made a dizzying breakthrough in training and equipment. But at the same time it is impossible to fix all the jambs of the hunchback-Yeltsin debauchery.
          Apparently because it does not wave the GDP checker where one really wants to and sometimes we wipe ourselves off after "spitting". Although the teeth are already showing.
          But, not yet evening.
          Thank God there is a Strategic Missile Forces and so far no one in their right mind will fly to us using JASSM for purposes beyond the Urals. And time will put everything in its place.
          1. Alexander Borisov
            Alexander Borisov 16 February 2018 11: 39
            0
            The Su-34 is compared with the F-15E in that they perform the same tasks, but what does the ONYX have to do with it? all the more in range is it far inferior to the new US cruise missile? Another thing is that the F-15E can only use this missile for stationary targets, and medium-range missiles can cope with this task, but under the INF Treaty we have deprived us of the opportunity to have medium-range ground-based missiles.
            The publication is correct. Along with bragging and hatred, there is only one harm from them.
            Better a bitter truth than a sweet lie.
            1. cdrt
              cdrt 16 February 2018 22: 31
              +1
              And that this is not compared with the Su-30, which certainly performs the same tasks as the Strike Eagle.
            2. Conserp
              Conserp 16 February 2018 23: 08
              +2
              Quote: Alexander Borisov
              Su-34 compared with the F-15E by the fact that they perform the same tasks

              You are mistaken. Su-34 - interdictor, EW aircraft and air defense breakthrough / suppression.
              F-15E cannot perform such tasks. It is an analogue of the Su-30.

              Quote: Alexander Borisov
              What does ONYX have to do with it? all the more in range it is far inferior to the new US cruise missile

              You are mistaken again. "Onyx" in range is not inferior to the "new rocket." The export of Yakhont is losing ground due to the MTCR agreement.

              Quote: Alexander Borisov
              Under the INF Treaty, they deprived us of the opportunity to have ground-based medium-range missiles.

              That is why Caliber with a range of 2500+ km is cunningly shoved even on small river boats (7 pieces already) - and they do not fall under the contract.
        2. aws4
          aws4 15 February 2018 05: 07
          +1
          Yes, you’re right, he is succeeding him precisely because the fighter-bomber did not work out of him ...
    2. tinibar
      tinibar 14 February 2018 17: 54
      +2
      It’s misleading, the “name” of the aircraft, the Americans designate the modification with letters, but with us they are presented as a new type. In fact, all Dryings are derived from the Su-27, and according to the American principle (and indeed), and the 30th, and 34th (by the way, was created under the signature stamp of the Su-27IB, i.e. fighter-bomber ), and the 35th could well be called Su-27xxx
      1. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 15 February 2018 00: 23
        +1
        Those. geometrical dimensions and take-off weight are not taken into account?
        Just an outward resemblance?
        1. aws4
          aws4 15 February 2018 05: 22
          +2
          no, I don’t take it ... if I honestly agree with tinibar ... oh how they strain these Risks with a variety of SU and not only that, remember though our tanks and how the next T72 turned into T90 .. and, due to the geometry of dimensions and take-off weight, compare F / A-18 hornet and F / A-18 super hornet ... it’s just that someone modernizes and processes it like we do, but unlike us it doesn’t show off, it just adds another letter and we immediately have a new plane, a new tank, etc. ..
          1. Conserp
            Conserp 15 February 2018 15: 28
            +2
            Quote: tinibar
            the Americans designate the modification with letters, but with us they present it as a new type.

            Was we like that - Tu-22M.

            You can try to think with your head about the real reasons why they do like this.

            And you can, without including the brain, continue to pathetically flogging illiterate nonsense.
            1. victor50
              victor50 2 August 2018 16: 22
              0
              Quote: Conserp
              Was we like that - Tu-22M.
              You can try to think with your head about the real reasons why they do like this.
              And you can, without including the brain, continue to pathetically flogging illiterate nonsense.

              How are you? without even thinking about the words of opponents?
          2. Vlad.by
            Vlad.by 15 February 2018 17: 04
            +2
            those. 5m difference in size. in your opinion, “about” the same as that of the F-18 (2m), while the maximum take-off mass of the Su-27, 30, 35 is no more than 35 tons, while the Su-34 is already for 45 tons. 10 tons of difference! (while the Hornets have only 5.)
            Or do you think the Su-27 and Su-30 and Su-35 are the same planes, well, maybe "slightly" modernized?
            Then let's go back to La-5 and trace the evolution to La-11. Geometrically, cars of the same order. If possible - heaven and earth!
            And what's the difference how to name new models?
    3. aws4
      aws4 15 February 2018 05: 05
      +1
      so how ???? Su34 is not a bomber, namely a fighter-bomber so ????? Now about the American fighter of gaining dominance, this is a single F-15 Eagle, after which a double training training F-15D was created on its basis, and already on its basis the F-15E fighter-bomber Strike Eagle ... well, you do not need to twist the facts, this is one class of aircraft the fighter-bombers the only difference was that the strike of the needles was more universal and did not lose the qualities of the fighter that he inherited from dad and the su34 lost a bit of what he got from the su27 so that in fact he does not have the right to be called a multi-role fighter ....
    4. Mih1974
      Mih1974 18 February 2018 22: 23
      0
      This is to get the "right results" - you need to take the "right" comparison objects. fool
  5. avia12005
    avia12005 14 February 2018 08: 29
    +7
    In combat operations, not only the performance characteristics of military equipment, but also the tactics of its use have a significant role. For example, in the initial period of the Second World War, the seemingly hopelessly outdated AND-16 with the acquisition of combat experience by their pilots often successfully fought with the much more "advanced" Bf-109. So what should uchgo and this factor.
    1. MoJloT
      MoJloT 14 February 2018 14: 20
      +5
      hopelessly outdated I-16s with their pilots gaining combat experience often successfully fought with the much more "advanced" Bf-109

      This is only possible if it is possible to impose its own battle conditions, but 109 has more options for it, in fact this is possible as a result of 109 pilot errors.
      1. Barbus
        Barbus 20 February 2018 15: 47
        -2
        KBF pilots fought on the I-16 until 1943, when they began to change cars on the La-5. And they fought well, knocking down, among other things, German aces.
        1. MoJloT
          MoJloT 20 February 2018 16: 03
          0
          What do you want to say? 109 and 16 are equal in their capabilities? Absurd! On February 19, 1945, Major I. Kozhedub and Major D. Titarenko shot down a German Me-7 fighter jet on La-262 planes, according to your logic, la 7 is equal in capabilities to me 262?
  6. EvilLion
    EvilLion 14 February 2018 08: 36
    +6
    If the shtatovskogo car is JASSM-ER, with a range of 1200 km


    Really? Well, let's compare with X-101 or something. What is a rocket with a range of a couple of hundred kilometers anyone can figure out by looking at the launch containers of the air defense system. Of course, they will start from the ground, but since we are talking about 1000 + km, this can simply be neglected, the additional energy that the aircraft provides is not comparable with that which is needed for flying at such a distance. And why, at such a range, is a plane generally needed.
    1. Snakebyte
      Snakebyte 14 February 2018 09: 52
      +4
      Quote: EvilLion
      Well, let's compare with the X-101 or something

      Su-34 can drag X-101? And in the amount of 3 pieces?
      Quote: EvilLion
      What is a rocket with a range of a couple of hundred kilometers anyone can figure out by looking at the launch containers of the air defense system. Of course, they will start from the ground, but since we are talking about 1000+ km, this can simply be neglected, the additional energy that the aircraft provides is not comparable with that which is needed for flying at such a distance.

      SAM must rise from the bottom up, overcoming the force of gravity due to engine traction.
      A cruise missile flies horizontally, gravity is compensated by the lifting force of the wing.
      The proof of this has long been actively and successfully applied. The Tomahawk weighing 1300 kg has been flying 2500 km since the 80s.
      Quote: EvilLion
      And why, at such a range, is a plane generally needed.

      An airplane is a mobile launcher that can travel 1000 km to the desired launch point in a couple of hours.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 14 February 2018 15: 51
        +5
        The Tomahawk flies far because it is subsonic, and the X-101 is subsonic, and the rocket from the article can also be only subsonic. So what's the news? And you don’t need to tell tales about carrying tons of rockets in 2 in bundles of tales. As for the maneuver, the tomahawk can fly along any trajectory, just like the caliber.
        1. Snakebyte
          Snakebyte 15 February 2018 10: 02
          +1
          So how many X-101 can lift the Su-34? And what does it have to do with / supersonic?
          JASSM ER weighs a ton with a little. F-16, F / A-18 and even scolded by all F-35 raise two. F-15E - three. And these are not fairy tales. As an example

          I will explain about the maneuver.
          There was a target that must be urgently hit, 2000 km to it. Ground launcher or ship will drag one day to the launch point. Airplane - a couple of hours. This is exactly how the Tu-22 was used by the Kyrgyz Republic in Syria.
      2. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 14 February 2018 17: 12
        +2
        X-101 in the amount of 3 pieces drag Tu-22. Su 34 has other tasks, it is for this and is armored. And the “aggressive” Russians do not set the goals of the first strike on Europe, it seems. This is only "peaceful" NATO of 3 pieces. hangs offensive weapons under the fighter. For guard". yeah.
        And as a mobile launcher, you can use the IL-76. A lot of X-101 will drag. Enough goals.
        Also in a couple of hours it will move to 1000 km.
        1. Snakebyte
          Snakebyte 15 February 2018 10: 12
          +2
          Quote: Vlad.by
          X-101 in the amount of 3 pieces drag Tu-22

          This is a strategic bomber.
          Quote: Vlad.by
          Su 34 has other tasks, it is for this and is armored.

          What other tasks? Multifunctional fighter-bomber. Like the F-15E
          Bullshit about aggressiveness and defense is not a topic at all. Can't NATO use Kyrgyzstan against terrorist bases? Is this just the Russian prerogative?
          Quote: Vlad.by
          And as a mobile launcher, you can use the IL-76. A lot of X-101 will drag. Enough goals.

          And how many suspension points does the IL-76 have? It seems to me that more than the knowledge in the head of some commentators.
          1. Nukesmoke
            Nukesmoke 15 February 2018 10: 55
            0
            T-22 strategist? Oh well. ESPECIALLY Tu-22.
            1. Snakebyte
              Snakebyte 16 February 2018 11: 33
              0
              Excuse me, what is he then? A 100-ton aircraft designed to hit large targets over long distances?
          2. Vlad.by
            Vlad.by 15 February 2018 17: 17
            0
            Why IL-76 suspension points?
            With an open ramp, you can drop missiles in batches, just push. And special knowledge is not necessary - you can teach a monkey.
            If ICBMs can be launched from a transporter, then the Kyrgyz Republic is even more so.
            Do not strain you like that.
            1. Snakebyte
              Snakebyte 16 February 2018 11: 35
              0
              Wow, and in all countries they spend billions on the development and production of special combat aircraft, submarine missile carriers and ground launchers.
              1. Vlad.by
                Vlad.by 16 February 2018 17: 25
                0
                Yes, of course they do. But the old people of the 50s and 60s really fly and bomb. No?
                And what is the same IL 76, or Ruslan as a platform for launching the Kyrgyz Republic worse?
                1. victor50
                  victor50 2 August 2018 16: 29
                  0
                  Quote: Vlad.by
                  Yes, of course they do. But the old people of the 50s and 60s really fly and bomb. No?
                  And what is the same IL 76, or Ruslan as a platform for launching the Kyrgyz Republic worse?

                  And you do not know why they are not used, or similar in the West? And, it’s just that you weren’t so smart on this planet! lol
          3. Barbus
            Barbus 20 February 2018 15: 56
            -1
            Su-34 was never a fighter-bomber. This is a front-line bomber. That is why they are being replaced by other Su-24 front-line bombers. And the F-15 is not a fighter-bomber, but a multi-purpose fighter. It is more correct to compare the Su-34 with the F-111. Or with the B-1B, since he has long been no longer a "strategist"
    2. plotnikov561956
      plotnikov561956 14 February 2018 16: 03
      +2
      It’s very strange, but I haven’t seen mention of the Iskander in any comment ... just don’t have to talk about its range .. you understand, the fact is that it perfectly solves the problems that were raised in the article ... 34 and F-15 .. comparisons are a separate aspect of the topic ... namely, solving problems and methods, this is different
    3. Alexander Borisov
      Alexander Borisov 16 February 2018 11: 54
      0
      I would agree with you if Russia were not deprived of the right to have ground-based medium-range missiles. And it turns out that the United States deployed such missiles on airplanes, and the ability to carry them F-15E increases the possibility of their mass use.
  7. prodi
    prodi 14 February 2018 11: 12
    +4
    but I don’t understand such a moment: for example, due to a more powerful locator, he saw our plane earlier, but couldn’t the fact of exposure recorded by our plane be interpreted into the probable location of the enemy on his radar, except for range? In principle, a rocket can be launched into the "zone" - it will find
  8. Graff77
    Graff77 14 February 2018 11: 49
    +2
    I can’t understand how one can compare a bomber with a fighter of gaining superiority in air, on which long-range missiles hang air to the surface ?! I would understand an article entitled "Why is the Su - 35 worse than the F15E" ... But this ... The description of the TTX is literate, but the Su-34 cannot be compared with the F15. Not with anything.
    1. Winnie76
      Winnie76 14 February 2018 14: 39
      +1
      Quote: Graff77
      I can’t understand how one can compare a bomber with a fighter of gaining superiority in air, on which long-range missiles hang air to the surface?

      F-15 E is a bomber. Key letter - E
      1. maximghost
        maximghost 14 February 2018 15: 09
        +4
        No, he is not a bomber. He is a fighter-bomber. Eoo analo we have a Su-30.
        1. Alexander Borisov
          Alexander Borisov 16 February 2018 11: 59
          0
          In order to decide which Su to compare the F-15E, you need to compare the maximum bomb load of aircraft.
          1. maximghost
            maximghost 16 February 2018 16: 45
            +1
            Firstly, it’s not so simple (under different conditions, the weight of the combat load varies greatly - for example, you can take x bombs to the maximum range with PTBs, 2 bombs to the maximum range without PTBs and 4x if the target is 100 km from the airfield. And most often one or several typical downloads in relation to range).
            Secondly, it will do little. Aviation is not alive with single bombs. For example, take the Su-33. He can’t use guided weapons. If he screwed this opportunity, while maintaining all the other characteristics at the same level, then his tactical niche will change.
            1. Mih1974
              Mih1974 18 February 2018 22: 31
              0
              Yes, stop feeding the troll. You write everything correctly - "for the right" results initially take the "correct comparison objects". And then it went off. Almost at the time, the USSR was bred for an arms race "but here we have what and how much this is." And now, in fact, Rossi has proved that with a smaller number, for many times less money, we achieve greater results than the Americans "Well, who after that is a sucker?"
  9. Old26
    Old26 14 February 2018 12: 19
    +17
    From the first lines it’s clear who the author is. Again, a lot of names, “smart” terms, and in fact the author follows the same path that he condemns at the very beginning of the text. That they begin to compare incorrectly. And his phrase
    This will be achieved by combining the enormous range of the AGM-158B with a solid range of F-15E. With a mixed flight profile without refueling, the range of a given missile strike from the F-15E will approach 2500 km (comparable to the strikes of a long-range Tu-22M3 bomber using aeroballistic missiles of the X-15 family).
    not an example of the same unlawful comparison. Okay, I won’t say that the X-15s have been withdrawn from service and it’s incorrect to compare them. But they were exclusively in the weapons compartment, and not on the external sling. And if already with one X-22 dorsal fuselage in supersonic sound, the TU-22M had an EMNIP combat radius of about 1700 km, then I think about 15 would be with the X-2500 in the supersonic compartment. Plus, the author ignores the X-15 firing range itself. And the F-15E with this missile will go on subsonic or supersonic. In short, the author steps on the same rake in which he blames others.
    No one says that it is worth ignoring these or other new products. But when you read Yevgeny’s comparison of these two machines - the SU-34 and F-15, as a "gaining superiority in the air" one involuntarily wonders. And the author knows that the SU-34 NOT PLANNED as a machine for gaining superiority in the air, but as a replacement for the previously manufactured tactical bomber SU-24 ???
    Everything else, all these “gaps” in the radiation pattern or similar terms are understood exclusively by a specialist. For me personally, all this is a dark forest. But if you write - decipher what it means

    In short, the article has a dual feeling. It seems to be interesting, but it seems that they again compare incomparable parameters
    1. Odysseus
      Odysseus 14 February 2018 15: 55
      +7
      Quote: Old26
      And the author knows that the SU-34 was NOT PLANNED as a machine for gaining superiority in the air, but as a replacement for the previously manufactured tactical bomber SU-24 ???

      Well, actually, the Su-34, or rather the Su-27, the IS was created in the 80s as a replacement for the Su-17 and Mig-27, and not the Su-24.
      They decided to replace the Su-24 after the collapse of the USSR and the collapse of the economy when projects to replace the Su-24 were curtailed, and IS aviation was completely dispersed.
      As for the "gain of domination" -all so. But, as for this article, although the author makes mistakes in private matters, the general conclusion is correct. AGM-158B JASSM-ER is a real threat.
      And the latest modifications of the F-15 E in avionics are very noticeably superior to the Su-34.
      Here, in my opinion, we need to work both on improving the aiming system and on adapting the X-34/101 analogue with reduced dimensions for the Su-102, and the goal is to make it an European strategy.
    2. Lozovik
      Lozovik 14 February 2018 21: 42
      0
      Quote: Old26
      But they were exclusively in the weapons compartment, and not on the external sling.


      6 on MKU-6-1 in the compartment plus 4 on four AKU-1 under the fuselage. The missile was so-so, to be honest. As soon as the shelf life expired, it was immediately removed from service.

      Quote: Old26
      And if already with one X-22 dorsal fuselage in supersonic sound, the TU-22M had an EMNIP combat radius of about 1700 km, then I think about 15 would be with the X-2500 in the supersonic compartment.


      2400 km radius from one X-22 at 850 km / h. I’m better not to say anything about supersonic.
    3. Conserp
      Conserp 16 February 2018 23: 30
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      Everything else, all these “gaps” in the radiation pattern or similar terms are understood exclusively by a specialist. For me personally, all this is a dark forest. But if you write - decipher what it means

      He cannot - he himself does not understand what this means.

      The author does not understand anything in radars, just thoughtlessly copy-paste slogans from advertising Murzilka.

      To make a "blind spot" in the direction of the obstacle in order to remove the "flare", any radar with headlamps can. It does not depend on apharism.

      In the same way, the mega-super-duper "LPI" mode: it can work with any antenna, does not depend on apharism in any way. Moreover, it is in any mobile phone or Wi-Fi router. Stopitsot years used in military communications radios.
  10. Paul zewike
    Paul zewike 14 February 2018 12: 32
    +8
    As soon as the article mentions hurray patriots in a derogatory way, the rest of the article will adjust the material to the idea that everything Russian sucks.
  11. Livonetc
    Livonetc 14 February 2018 13: 07
    +4
    Quote: Paul Zewike
    As soon as the article mentions hurray patriots in a derogatory way, the rest of the article will adjust the material to the idea that everything Russian sucks.

    I consider the term "cheers-patriotism" itself an unacceptable phenomenon.
    The battle cry of many generations of our ancestors and today's Russians, with whom they are going to victory or death, should not be used in such a plan.
    It is especially unpleasant to hear this from the president.
  12. Boris Chernikov
    Boris Chernikov 14 February 2018 13: 54
    +4
    Yes, yes, yes, Americans are cool, Russian suckers. This is Damantsev, this is normal for him .. I was especially pleased that the Su-34 should gain air superiority
    1. MadCat
      MadCat 14 February 2018 18: 07
      +2
      Quote: Boris Chernikov
      Yes, yes, yes, Americans are cool, Russian suckers. This is Damantsev, this is normal for him .. I was especially pleased that the Su-34 should gain air superiority

      and he wrote what should? He wrote about avionics, so what he wrote is true, outdated today.
      1. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov 15 February 2018 01: 06
        +1
        the problem is that the author purposefully pulls a donkey on an elephant ascribing the su-34 the role of a machine that should gain superiority in the air .. But as I wrote, this is Damantsev, nothing surprising
        1. Alexander Borisov
          Alexander Borisov 16 February 2018 12: 09
          0
          The author of the publication compared all the possibilities of solving problems that the F-15E and Su-34 are capable of.
          Why is the Su-34 equipped with air-to-air missiles? So one of his tasks is to destroy air targets.
          1. Conserp
            Conserp 16 February 2018 23: 33
            +1
            Quote: Alexander Borisov
            The author of the publication compared all the possibilities of solving problems that the F-15E and Su-34 are capable of.

            Only for some reason those tasks that the Su-34 can perform, but the F-15E is not - the author forgot to mention.
          2. Mih1974
            Mih1974 18 February 2018 22: 37
            +1
            Ah, here's how, well then we’ll apply your the logic to you
            You are gay!! How why, don’t give up. Here you are - a man (probably) and gays - men, gays have a penis and you have it, gays - have sex with gays, and you can have sex with a gay man. Conclusion - you are GAY !! tongue good
  13. YakimovSS
    YakimovSS 14 February 2018 13: 56
    +9
    on many occasions in runet they came across cheers-patriotic comparative reviews of the high-precision front-line fighter-bomber Su-34 with the tactical fighter F-15E "Strike Eagle".


    Oh, and I’ll take a look, this article is still full of relevant and true comparisons of a fighter with a bomber. Well, at least not with the train.

    PS: In general, the review resembles an old joke:
    - Why do you need hand-to-hand combat techniques for a soldier?
    - Well, imagine this situation: the soldier is left alone, the cartridges are over, the machine gun drowned, the gun is lost, the sapper blade is not picked up, the knife fell out and then he meets face to face with the same moron.
  14. Vadim Sh.
    Vadim Sh. 14 February 2018 14: 14
    +2
    How can they be compared at all? This is for combat purposes completely different planes.
  15. gerkost2012
    gerkost2012 14 February 2018 14: 17
    +4
    Restless, the enemy is not asleep!
  16. Thompson
    Thompson 14 February 2018 14: 20
    +2
    I consider the author a successor of ideas comparing our drying with ... F-35. Or one office writes these insanities (???
  17. The comment was deleted.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 14 February 2018 15: 52
      +3
      You have somewhat inaccurate information (to put it mildly)
    2. GUKTU76
      GUKTU76 14 February 2018 16: 24
      +4
      In Soviet times, there was an expression "There is an opinion." And then his own opinion was expressed. It looks like in your case there was a replacement "There is an opinion" with "There is information". Further, you do not need to bother about confirming its reliability. Especially in matters of military and state secrets. It looks like the statement of the Ukrainian "patriots" that the armor on Armata is cardboard.
  18. yuliatreb
    yuliatreb 14 February 2018 15: 33
    +6
    Useless article, I spent time in vain, gained more and more information in comments, some kindergarten, again not quite correct comparison of the tactical and technical characteristics of two completely different combat missions, “flyers” and excuse already quite long-term phrases hatred and cheers patriotism fed up with the order , broaden your horizons gentlemen liberals.
  19. alexnmv5
    alexnmv5 14 February 2018 15: 37
    0
    Lord, how many such "experts" have you done. One another is more beautiful. Correctly say that tongue slap is not to roll bags. It’s one thing to drag pebbles to the top, completely different to drop them from there. Take care of your frontal muscles gentlemen. There are people who just silently do business, and they know and solve all problems, without your silly conclusions. I believe in them.
    1. Nats
      Nats 14 February 2018 16: 06
      +1
      "I believe in them."
      ---
      The main thing - do not forget to be baptized.
  20. av58
    av58 14 February 2018 15: 56
    +1
    1) They saw what's new in the adversary. 2) appreciated. 3) Developed a solution. 4) Implemented.
    We must work and do everything possible to get better than the Americans.
  21. av58
    av58 14 February 2018 15: 57
    +2
    Funny, topwar is scared and ban the word "pin.os" laughing
  22. sw61
    sw61 14 February 2018 16: 04
    +2
    I don’t understand something about the essence of the article. who is stronger than a whale or an elephant? After all, the Su34 is essentially a bomber designed to replace the Su24 front-line bomber, and the F15 is an aircraft designed to gain air superiority. Naturally, the ability to intercept at f15 higher. I won’t say anything about air rockets. I don’t own the information, but I doubt that they are very different from sou.
    let's compare su57 with B52 and say that su57 is rubbish, not a plane, because it carries 5 times less weapons and has a 3 times smaller range.
    1. shahor
      shahor 15 February 2018 00: 05
      0
      F-15 Strike Eagle, as the name implies, is a strike aircraft created on a successful platform (like a series of aircraft on the Su-27 platform). Its main task is to strike at ground targets, which is ensured by the composition of its avionics. His comparison with the Su-34 is quite legitimate. The American is, in my opinion, a more successful machine - it is stronger than the 34th in an air duel (although it will lose in most cases 35u) and is more effective than 34 in the main quality - a strike aircraft due to more diverse and more modern weapons - smart guided bombs, high-precision rockets. It is more consistent with the modern concept of MF aircraft. With the Su-34, not everything is clear to me. For what purpose was it created? Battlefield airplane with armored cockpit? But there is a magnificent 25th with huge potential for modernization. Replacing the Su-24? It is possible, but such an aircraft does not need excessive capabilities complicating and increasing its cost, such as refueling in the air and the toilet compartment. To solve problems at long ranges there is a Tu-22. The problem in my opinion is that the 34th was developed in the 80s of the last century and its ideology comes from there. I think that the same 35th, having received the same purpose set of avionics and weapons comparable to the F-15, would have surpassed it in efficiency as a strike aircraft.
      1. Falcon5555
        Falcon5555 15 February 2018 16: 37
        +3
        Percussion in Western terminology - for strikes on the ground. F-15 (except mod. E), Su-27, Su-35 - not shock.
  23. Cynic
    Cynic 14 February 2018 16: 09
    +1
    Well, the true face of these two projects, the type of ours, the type of military-patriotic, began to appear ...
    Application in practice of the old principle:
    If you want to break up, head ...
    Interestingly server sites to this day there? It seems the last time the Czechs were ...
    Oppanka States !!!
    1. A. Privalov
      A. Privalov 14 February 2018 16: 56
      +3
      Quote: Cynic
      Well, the true face of these two projects, the type of ours, the type of military-patriotic, began to appear ...
      Application in practice of the old principle:
      If you want to break up, head ...
      Interestingly server sites to this day there? It seems the last time the Czechs were ...
      Oppanka States !!!

      Than you Phoenix did not please? He visited him twice. A good city. About a million and a half people, full of Russian-speaking residents, Russian doctors, lawyers, shops, restaurants ...
      Provider - Cloudflare. Dear San Francisco headquarters, 121 server center worldwide, excellent servers, quality service.

      You see that the site is working steadily, always available, what more could you want?
    2. A. Privalov
      A. Privalov 14 February 2018 18: 21
      0
      Just discovered that this provider hosts 6 000 000 sites. Six million, Max!
    3. Dart
      Dart 14 February 2018 18: 39
      0
      Let's not scream in the area in which you do not cut ....
      IP can be at least Honduran .... real you will not know.
      So the host is hidden from attacks, they just used the services of the Amer’s office to protect against fools ... do you use Google and nothing?))
      1. Cynic
        Cynic 15 February 2018 08: 43
        0
        Quote: Dartys
        you use google

        No
  24. Konstantin Yu
    Konstantin Yu 14 February 2018 16: 38
    +5
    As I understand it, all the noise is because you can launch subtle long-range missiles from the radar F15, but we can’t guess which pa..la and when it launches ... I think after such launches, the F15 will have nowhere to return. It is a pity, of course, that our MiG29s do not fly with Satan or Yars. There is work to do ..
  25. Sukhoi
    Sukhoi 14 February 2018 16: 44
    +5
    Another shkololo comparison, the first paragraph was enough. Well, they have Eagles with a cruise missile, and for example, we have Gauges placed in a standard forty-foot sea container. And now, do you compare the EPR of a road train or a sea container ship with an airplane? It is possible and necessary to compare in this context the complex aircraft + weapons vs air defense. The only plane where both pepelats can be competitors is the arms market. And then only in theory, because their markets do not overlap. With a stretch, the general market for drying only with F-35.
    1. Snakebyte
      Snakebyte 15 February 2018 10: 17
      0
      The "gauge" in the container from Engels to the launch point will crawl for a day or two. Tu-22 turned around for a few hours round-trip. This is the meaning of aviation-based missiles.
      Or do you propose cutting all Tu-22, Tu-95 and Tu-160 into metal, because there are "Gauges in containers"?
      Quote: Sukhoi
      The only plane where both pepelats can be competitors is the arms market. And then only in theory, because their markets do not overlap. With a stretch, the general market for drying only with F-35.

      Those. two multi-functional fighter-bomber market does not intersect?
      1. Sukhoi
        Sukhoi 17 February 2018 18: 00
        0
        I do not propose cutting, I only illustrate the absurdity of this "comparison." And yes, specifically in these two aircraft, in my opinion, the market does not intersect for a number of reasons. New Russian fighter vs second-hand American from availability. Which potential buyer can have this choice? No country comes to my mind. Perhaps you have options.
        As the modern multi-role fighter is offered F-35. Themselves answer the question, 35th competitor 34mu? I don’t think so.
        1. Snakebyte
          Snakebyte 17 February 2018 22: 36
          0
          Quote: Sukhoi
          New Russian fighter vs second-hand American from availability. Which potential buyer can have this choice? No country comes to my mind. Perhaps you have options.

          The Americans may well sell new ones, in the F-15SE variant, to some Arabs they sold not so long ago.
          And for some reason our new ones are taken either at a big discount, or on our own credit, or in exchange for palm oil and the launch of our astronaut at our expense. At best, the minimum batch for the full price to copy at home.
          Quote: Sukhoi
          Themselves answer the question, 35th competitor 34mu? I don’t think so.

          It is a competitor. It is inferior only to the mass of the maximum combat load. At the same time, for example, the discussed long-range missile launchers JASSM can carry 2.
  26. Kir
    Kir 14 February 2018 16: 53
    +3
    After 'achieved thanks huge range ... "I read in order to read it, as already one of the above phrase speaks of the" technical literacy "scribblers.
  27. hetzer250789
    hetzer250789 14 February 2018 17: 11
    +6
    Damantsev in his style. Afar and aim 120d will defeat everyone. But it’s only interesting to know where the author takes the characteristics, especially by the detection range of targets with an epr of 0,05 m, etc., described in the radar article? Even on the manufacturers' websites that ours, that American, these data are not indicated. (Ours only publish technical specifications of export radars). Moreover, in the description of American radars most often a certain instrumental target detection range is indicated (without specifying an epr target). Well, and having written a bunch of any goodness about f 15E, the author completely forgot to mention that the "needles" that have undergone modernization are currently, at best, 20- 25 years (emnip then f15E has been produced since 1995), so our VKS will not have to shoot them down, because the Americans themselves will write them off after 10 years due to wear of the airframe and other units. About thrust-weight ratio, especially with suspended weapons, is also nonsense. Many modern fighters have a thrust-weight ratio of less than 1 and nothing terrible happens to them in close combat. The Argentine mirages shot down the harriers. The author excluded electronic warfare from consideration altogether, and against weakly-protected active homing heads aim-120 it is very effective. In general, as always, a lot of unsupported information and conclusions.
  28. gladcu2
    gladcu2 14 February 2018 17: 53
    0
    Yeah ... hi

    War is a direct competition. And competition is hidden aggression. And the basis of competition is the economic system. The only regulation of liberal capitalism is antitrust laws. Competition must not stop.

    There you have the war.
  29. Dart
    Dart 14 February 2018 18: 28
    0
    Something my uncle was tired, in my opinion, he signed up ..... such nonsense sometimes skips .... it's time to rest.
    1. Fulcrumxnumx
      14 February 2018 22: 11
      0
      Go on not nonsense! Everything is very clearly and arranged on the shelves .. W-141 "Drying" morally and technically obsolete and in need of replacement; Yes, and long-range tactical missiles in ammunition and not in comparison with JASSM-ER .. And this is a noticeable problem .. Who is to blame, that your brain is not capable of covering the whole width of the question ...
  30. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 14 February 2018 18: 50
    0
    Gentlemen, do not worry. Aviation is actively working on AFAR, and there are already samples and production facilities for their implementation.
    Multi-element AFAR has not only advantages. The disadvantages are also noticeably enough. These elements are not eternal, they fail. The computer makes a correction for the "retired" elements, but after some time this COMPLEX device will have to be sorted out and adjusted again ... In those stations that are currently in use, they replace ONE MAGNETRON. And the plane is ready for battle. And this ... Well, it’s expensive to repair and maintain it in working condition.
    1. Snakebyte
      Snakebyte 15 February 2018 10: 22
      0
      Between “work, a network of samples” and serial products installed on an airplane, decades can pass (for which the enemy can also develop something new).
      I immediately recall the Arbalest radar, about which back in 1999 it was said that it was about to appear on the Mi-28N. At the end of 2017, it was just beginning to be tested. For almost 20 years, helicopters flaunted at exhibitions with foam mock-ups of the radar above the rotor hub.
  31. Vladimir SHajkin
    Vladimir SHajkin 14 February 2018 18: 57
    +2
    A lot has been written, but to compare the Su-34 and F-15, the attack aircraft, albeit a fighter, but the multi-purpose and the fighter are not the same
    You can compare the Su 35 and Su 34 with the same quality.
    It was necessary to compare the Su 35 and F-15, then it would be more or less true.
    1. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
      Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 15 February 2018 16: 27
      0
      su-30cm and f-15e, more precisely
  32. Conserp
    Conserp 14 February 2018 20: 20
    +2
    Not an article, but a murky stream of illiterate delirium based on American advertising.
    1. Conserp
      Conserp 14 February 2018 22: 47
      +2
      I wanted to start writing "In order not to be unfounded ..." - but there, almost every paragraph I want to sob. I will note only a few things that emerge in each such "comparison."

      The real reach of the AIM-120D under standard conditions (M = 0.8, H = 11 km) is about 45 km (for a non-maneuverable target). In terms of energy, it is inferior, for example, to the R-27ER.

      Su-34 on one internal fuel flies further than the F-15E with a CTB and three PTBs. With a greater combat load and with armor in addition.

      Tales of magical apharism are designed for children and housewives. AFAR has no particular advantages over hybrid VFAR - no. Better sensitivity (theoretically) than conventional PFAR. Without gallium nitride technology (which the United States does not have yet - and we, by the way, do), the AFAR is fundamentally behind the similar hybrid VFAR.
      1. Ocean's friend
        Ocean's friend 15 February 2018 07: 37
        +1
        Quote: Conserp
        Without gallium nitride technology (which the United States does not have yet - and we, by the way, do)

        Again we made them! What kind of losers are these for such a life ?!
        1. Conserp
          Conserp 15 February 2018 15: 35
          +2
          I see no reason for ernichany.

          In Russia, GaN X-band APMs have been mass-produced since 2013.

          In the USA and Europe, this technology is still not there, while only decimetres have been mastered. All fighter radars are based on a defective GaAs element base, which, in principle, is not even able to catch up with the good old tube transmitter in terms of parameters.

          Alferov is our everything.
          1. Ocean's friend
            Ocean's friend 15 February 2018 23: 33
            +3
            Quote: Conserp
            In Russia, GaN X-band APMs have been mass-produced since 2013.

            Title, please. Especially at the expense of "serially" directly hit.
            1. Conserp
              Conserp 16 February 2018 12: 11
              0
              Istok in Fryazino and NIIPP in Tomsk launched production lines in 2013. See to paralysis do not get amazed.
          2. The comment was deleted.
            1. Conserp
              Conserp 16 February 2018 12: 27
              +1
              Quote: Westfshoke
              for military needs, max. power with minimal heat dissipation at low manufacturing process. This is similar to manufacturing processors.

              Oh, illiterate shkolota strikes back.

              Interestingly, do power transistors for power supplies also grow under Moore’s law?

              Very interesting such "technological processes as processors" when the shutter width is measured in millimeters. Just some "Soviet microprocessors" from an anti-Soviet joke!

              Quote: Westfshoke
              Each year, the power of GaN semiconductors increases and the technology is constantly evolving

              Only for some reason not high-frequency. There, a little non-trivial heterostructures should be able to do.

              Write more.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. Conserp
                  Conserp 20 February 2018 18: 34
                  0
                  Quote: Westfshoke
                  And high-frequency ones too, but where do they come up with new heterostructures if not in the USA and in the West? in Russia chtoli?

                  Exactly. The West is a world leader in the production of consumer goods.

                  Russia, meanwhile, remains the world leader in this field of fundamental physics; this is universally recognized.

                  Quote: Westfshoke
                  If you have knowledge of English read the achievements of Northrop and Rayon.

                  That is what I did first thing, many years ago.

                  Quote: Westfshoke
                  The first who created the GaN APM X, S AFAR-band were Americans from Rayton and Northrop if I am not mistaken in 2011.

                  Raytheon unsuccessfully tested only decimeter prototypes.
                  Northrop was just planning to start research in 2011.

                  Go back to the circus.
        2. Misha bolshoy
          Misha bolshoy 17 February 2018 17: 53
          +1
          By the way, how is the situation in Syria, have the F-15s defeated the S-200 and the “square"? Or are they sitting in that same “square”?
      2. Snakebyte
        Snakebyte 15 February 2018 10: 44
        0
        Quote: Conserp
        The real reach of the AIM-120D under standard conditions (M = 0.8, H = 11 km) is about 45 km (for a non-maneuverable target). In terms of energy, it is inferior, for example, to the R-27ER.

        And at what position of the target is this range? Following up? It may well be. Only in aerial combat medium-range missiles are usually used in oncoming courses.
        I think it’s not worth talking about the difference between ARGSN and PARGSN, because you are extremely polite in the subject.
        Quote: Conserp
        Su-34 on one internal fuel flies further than the F-15E with a CTB and three PTBs. With a greater combat load and with armor in addition.

        And at the same time, he cannot go to supersonic even afterburner. This is probably a unique feature of the 4 ++ generation.
        1. Conserp
          Conserp 15 February 2018 11: 59
          +1
          Quote: Snakebyte
          And at what position of the target is this range?

          This is true range.

          Quote: Snakebyte
          Only in aerial combat medium-range missiles are usually used in oncoming courses.

          Missiles are used in highly maneuverable aerial combat.

          Quote: Snakebyte
          I think it’s not worth talking about the difference between ARGSN and PARGSN

          But it’s worth it, because you don’t understand the difference.

          The capture range (especially stealth) and resistance to electronic warfare at PARSNS are several times higher. That is why we continue to use them and are now focusing on combined GOS.

          The problem of illumination after launch was solved here in the early 80s with the help of datalinks (and later, on the Su-30/35 - and due to the large radar deflection angles).

          Quote: Snakebyte
          And at the same time, he cannot go to supersonic even afterburner.

          Why are you lying?
          1. Snakebyte
            Snakebyte 16 February 2018 14: 05
            0
            Quote: Conserp
            This is true range.

            True range under what starting conditions? It’s one thing to launch a rocket, another to catch up. And if this is the “true” range at the oncoming launch, where did this data come from? Besides your own speculation? And then what is the true range of domestic missiles?
            Quote: Conserp
            Missiles are used in highly maneuverable aerial combat.

            And not only. For example, they are shot down by bombers, AWACS aircraft, transporters. And even other missiles, such as cruise missiles.
            Quote: Conserp
            The capture range (especially stealth) and resistance to electronic warfare at PARSNS are several times higher. That is why we continue to use them and are now focusing on combined GOS.

            All this, of course, is true, only AMRAAM can also be induced from a carrier aircraft. And it can also be aimed at the source of interference, it is enough for the pilot to switch the guidance mode at any moment of the flight of the rocket (the P27 missile is aimed at the source of interference only in the P27P modification, while it only has passive guidance).
            And it can also be guided with the help of ANNs at the calculated point of finding the target (for example, according to the data of the AWACS aircraft or the airborne radar in the tracking mode), with the inclusion of the ARGSN in the final section. It is 15-20 km. The target has 3-5 seconds to react.
            Quote: Conserp
            Why are you lying?

            Unfortunately, this is not a lie. The official characteristics of domestic technology are often overstated. And it’s not the “advertisements,” which overestimate all sides to demonstrate their own coolness, but recorded on the “tests,” when the bomb fell 100 meters from the target (and should not exceed 20), the report indicates that the pilot “made a mistake” and aimed 90 meters from the target. So "the aiming system matches the parameters."
            As an example, from the history of tests of the same Su-34. According to the TTZ (and the same numbers can be found in all sources), an aircraft can carry 30 100-kg class bombs. Given the complexity of such a test, it was prepared for 2 years - pilots, test engineers and aircraft designers considered, simulated at the stand. When the ammunition from the warehouse was brought to the position for suspension on the plane, it turned out that such an amount simply could not be suspended under it ... Simply, if you fill in all the holders provided for by the design, only 25 will fit ... And this 10 years no one, including the designers, has knew !!!
            1. Conserp
              Conserp 20 February 2018 18: 45
              0
              Brehlo tried to fall back and cover up one ridiculous lie with another, equally ridiculous lie.

              Count the bombs in the photo?

              1. Snakebyte
                Snakebyte 21 February 2018 08: 21
                0
                Great proof!
                A shot from the production clip of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, released before (!!!) the start of the tests, when in reality the plane has not yet dropped a single bomb. Slices from this video are regularly found in various videos under the guise of real combat use.
                With AMRAAM, as I understand it, the partiotic cheat check merged.
                1. bane's jacket
                  bane's jacket 21 February 2018 08: 52
                  0
                  Quote: Snakebyte
                  Great proof!
                  A shot from the production clip of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, released before (!!!) the start of the tests, when in reality the plane has not yet dropped a single bomb.

                  Will you show this production movie of Sukhoi Design Bureau?

                  Quote: Snakebyte
                  Slices from this video are regularly found in various videos under the guise of real combat use.

                  Where do they meet? In the "liberal media, repeatedly caught in a lie"? wink


                  PS: Aircraft in the coloring of the Russian Air Force and with tail number. What tests are you talking about in Sukhoi Design Bureau?
                  1. Snakebyte
                    Snakebyte 21 February 2018 13: 15
                    0
                    Quote: bane's jacket
                    Will you show this production movie of Sukhoi Design Bureau?

                    Contact the Sukhoi Design Bureau.
                    Quote: bane's jacket
                    Where do they meet? In the "liberal media, repeatedly caught in a lie"?

                    On official MO resources. In particular, one such video you yourself found. A plane of b / n 05 is taxiing for take-off, and it is bombing a b / n 47. So we come to the question of
                    Quote: bane's jacket
                    Airplane painted Russian Air Force and with tail number. What tests are you talking about in Sukhoi Design Bureau?

                    Enthusiasts are counting serial aircraft. We look at the list:
                    http://forums.airforce.ru/matchast/6898-su-34-ist
                    oriya-serii /
                    01-04 ● 4160664001104 - T10V-7 - Su-34 - w / o No. 47 contour. Camouflage. (p / n 22.12.2000).
                    Fourth pre-production sample. The third flight copy of the installation batch.
                    Collected by NAPO in 2000. Tests in the GLIC (Photo 1 2), in August 2008, participation in a peacekeeping operation in South Ossetia. According to reports, the launch of an anti-radar missile destroyed the Georgian radar. Testing of reconnaissance equipment (including the container "Owl" (Photo 1 2 3).). As of 2015 in flight. (Photo 1 2).
                    Current operator: Design Bureau P.O. Dry.
                    Current Status: Operated.?

                    This board in good resolution:

                    By the way, the video on which this reset is captured is also often found in the media in the form of evidence of accurate and targeted air strikes in Syria.
                    1. bane's jacket
                      bane's jacket 21 February 2018 17: 24
                      0
                      Quote: Snakebyte
                      Quote: bane's jacket
                      Will you show this production movie of Sukhoi Design Bureau?

                      Contact the Sukhoi Design Bureau.

                      What for? They did not declare that this was a "production clip of the Sukhoi Design Bureau".
                      A plane of b / n 05 is taxiing for take-off, and it is bombing a b / n 47.

                      In the video, several planes take off and land. And the announcer says that "Today’s Russian bombers Su-34 ... "
                      Enthusiasts are counting serial aircraft. We look at the list:

                      A post with a list of 2012, a clip of MO 2016. How will the post "airforce.ru" help us?
                      Summarize:
                      1. The clip of the Sukhoi Design Bureau that you can’t find a test flight.
                      2. The video of the Russian Defense Ministry clearly says that this is the bombing in Syria in 2016.
                      2. A post on the Airforce Ru forum in 2012 will not help us in any way, especially since it was stated there that this board took part in the database in 2008.
                      What is the conclusion?
                      1. Snakebyte
                        Snakebyte 22 February 2018 11: 41
                        0
                        1. Roller is the property of Sukhoi Design Bureau. They will post it if they see fit.
                        2. The voice acting of the video says that it is a bombing in Syria. The video sequence is made up of cuts of different clips. Take-off, can be photographed in Syria. Personnel bombing - from the test. There were serial bombers in Syria, their side numbers are red. Contour numbers at the sides of the GLIC.
                        3. The post from which I cited the data (No. 8), indicated below
                        Last edited by Rus_Knights; Yesterday at 17:09.
                        The data is current.
                        Participation in the database, by the way, is not confirmed. This board in 2008 shone in Lipetsk, although it could fly to Georgia.
                        Quote: bane's jacket

                        What is the conclusion?

                        Do not believe the tales of the MO.
                  2. Conserp
                    Conserp 21 February 2018 15: 03
                    0
                    Even under the usual Su-27, 36 bombs are suspended on 6 suspension points, on six-castle holders. And still free nodes remain.

                    No need to feed the troll.
                2. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
        1. Conserp
          Conserp 16 February 2018 11: 56
          +1
          Quote: Westfshoke
          Nobody knows the real range of AIM-120D

          Yeah. No one knows what the aerodynamics of the AIM-120 are, that it weighs 162 kg and that its single-mode solid propellant rocket engine contains 51 kg of rocket fuel, the composition of which is also unknown to anyone for some reason. Wonders!

          Quote: Westfshoke
          you deliberately indicated a height of application of only 11km, and a startup speed of just 0,8M

          For the illiterate: this standard conditionsin which it is customary to compare the performance characteristics of missiles.
          For they differ between large and small heights by 5 or more times.

          In addition, it is in this range that long-range missile combat is predominantly conducted.

          Quote: Westfshoke
          aircraft in air battles reach altitudes above 16km and can launch at speeds of 2M

          F-22, for example, from the compartments at M = 2 cannot. He generally cannot supersonic from the compartments until they begin to fix this bug from 2019.
          F-35 cannot do this in principle.
          F-15E with KTB and missiles to accelerate faster than M = 1.7 also can not.

          In the meantime, the MiG-31 can launch missiles from 30 km on three Machs. What's next? Are you already running to hide under the bench and cry? Or will we still compare under standard conditions?

          Quote: Westfshoke
          Advantages of AFAR perd PFAR is publicly available

          Do you mean advertising campaigns for retarded children?

          Actually, there we always talk about the advantages of a hypothetical ideal (rather than real) AFAR over 40-year-old radars.

          And there are not many advantages over PFAR. Before the hybrid PFAR they simply do not exist. Energy is higher only in GaN technology, which only Russia has so far.

          But what is and what is the difference between AFAR, PFAR and hybrid PFAR - you just don’t know, don’t understand and don’t want to know.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. Conserp
              Conserp 22 February 2018 12: 30
              0
              Quote: Westfshoke
              Air combat aircraft reach maximum heights

              Tell these revelations to the US Air Force Academy, for example.

              Quote: Westfshoke
              I know, it’s better than you that the VFAR differs from the AFAR because I ask questions to American engineers on special resources

              Gee, son, lol. Knowledge is like that. Not otherwise than gleaned on F-16.net and other children's forums, with 12-year-old "engineers."

              Quote: Westfshoke
              English knowledge gives a lot.

              I suspect that I know English better than you do at times.

              Quote: Westfshoke
              Russia has GaN technologies purchased in the West, congratulations!

              Which in the West for some reason are absent.

              In 2013, when GaN anti-missile launchers in Russia already went into production, Reiteon was just trying to develop something, and Northrop was just planning to start developing. This I learned from their documents.

              Or have we specially invented a time machine for this?

              Clown.
  33. Conserp
    Conserp 14 February 2018 20: 38
    +1
    Quote: Westfshoke
    As I understand it, the Su-34 appeared due to the impossibility of Russia to produce modern sighting containers for target designation and high-precision ammunition, which means that it is impossible to work at high altitudes, which is why they armor the hull.

    As I understand it, you are extremely ignorant in this topic.
    1. Conserp
      Conserp 14 February 2018 21: 38
      +1
      Let me explain: S-200, "Circle", "Buk" - for all, the reach in height far exceeds the ceiling of the same F-15. Not to mention more modern and serious complexes.

      It’s only, well, absolutely poor paupers who can be bombed with impunity from a height. There isn’t much intelligence needed, and even fighter jets don’t have to be there - any An-74 is enough.

      As for the non-Poisses, a breakthrough in our air defense is also assumed in the USA at low altitudes. And armor for the interdictor is very useful for health at heights both large and small.
  34. Savignon
    Savignon 14 February 2018 20: 45
    +2
    God, I haven’t read such magnificent nonsense for a long time. Author, a rash of such pills. "Seventeen-millimeter armored capsule." crying
    1. Fulcrumxnumx
      14 February 2018 22: 14
      0
      Go to AIRWAR and carefully read the history of the development and acquisition of combat readiness of the Su-34..or you bypassed the topic of the armored lower projection of the Su-34 cab?
  35. stanislavname
    stanislavname 14 February 2018 21: 41
    +1
    They just can not be compared! The duckling is a change of su-24 and he is a bomber, only now this bomber has the ability to strike air-to-air. And when compared with the su-27. But I refuse to believe that the author does not know this because I am sure that he is not a stupid person ... Why do such comparisons?))) And then someone says here about cheers-patriotism ... This comparison is no better than thoughtless Hooray....
    1. Fulcrumxnumx
      14 February 2018 22: 23
      +1
      You can compare these machines "under any sauce": both the F-15E "Strike Eagle", and the Su-34 were thought of as the tactical strike forces of the aircraft, and both vehicles were able to conduct air combat. And now take a look at the standard Su-34 suspension, and you will pay attention not only to the URVB for self-defense and the P-73 melee, but also to the medium-range missiles P-27Р. Does this mean anything to you? The command of the VKS considers the probability of air combat beyond visual limits and at medium distances for the "Duckling" ..
      1. stanislavname
        stanislavname 27 February 2018 05: 39
        0
        They could think at least for intergalactic flights, but the output turned out to be like this. But a duckling is primarily a bomber and, by the way, an excellent bomber ... Yes, the VKS command can consider long-range combat, but it’s not bad, and it can stand up for itself in the air. But it’s primarily a bomber designed to work as a bomber . But Strike has an emphasis in the direction of the fighter and if you look at the essence of how the Duckling bomber is better, but Strike is more likely to be an underfighter))) HERE and draw conclusions, taking into account the fact that the strikes have already exhausted their resources and will be written off very soon, but the duckling only at the beginning of your journey ... And if you want to compare, then compare them like bombers and not like fighters))) And compare in the sense that two bombers will not conduct an air battle between themselves and that just will have just the load air surface .And at the same time add to the comparison amolety radar, air defense systems and missile defense as well as fighters))) That's funny, and you basically compare the two bomber will fight with each other)))
  36. Alexander Romanov_3
    Alexander Romanov_3 14 February 2018 21: 47
    +2
    Well, what kind of attack, what fighters ??? everyone understands that in the case of the pulling together of aircraft carriers (without them the USA will not fight), the mobilization of Europe, the raising of airplanes in the air - these are the craps to the whole world. they will not discuss over the phone the surrender and so on. The missiles will fly immediately to Europe, so that there are no airdromes for the United States, to South Korea (there it will also blow north), Japan, Australia and, of course, North and South America. Well, there will be no air battles of airplanes, because stupidly we do not have enough airplanes to fight with NATO. the result is only a nuclear war and no other way
  37. sleeve
    sleeve 15 February 2018 06: 27
    +1
    And what is the deep concept of the article? Airplanes from different subgroups. Su-34 as a fighter never (if Dubism does not win) will not go into a duel with modern representatives of the "partners". Fill up somewhere in a local conflict an “old” Mirage or MiG-21-please, fight off in a group with the main violin of escort fighters or provide “heavy” defense for an attacker in an unaccompanied group, please. But this hammer is not for every nail. About EPR ... range-detection efficiency. These positions are important for us only in isolation from the general radar potential. The USA will close this niche of “Senteri” and further, we are ground-based, protected nodes and A-100. Personality with its own radar is still not constant in organized hostilities. Yes, and the effectiveness of SD at long ranges .... The same question has so far come from the area of ​​assumptions in the MODERN realities of electronic warfare and other forms of aircraft protection. Question. Why do the Yankees turn the F-15 into a multi-purpose platform for every occasion that can throw 5 cents? Answer: it’s expensive in their realities to act in the “Russian” concept, when the “Novelties” are like our frigates.
  38. avia12005
    avia12005 15 February 2018 07: 58
    0
    If we draw an analogy with the Second World War, you can find a lot of examples when fighters became bombers, and the latter fighters. All again depends on the set of tactics and purpose. For example, the Germans remade Yu-88 into a heavy fighter for the B-17, Liberator and so on attacks. And they successfully coped with this task. Bf-110 was created as a heavy fighter, then its modifications appeared for action on the ground. The Soviet Pe-2 was originally a very good twin-engined fighter, the VI-100, which was then converted into a dive bomber, and at its base, the fighter-modified Pe-3 was again made. Yak-7 and Yak-9 had bomber modifications with the index "B", the first carried 200 kg bombs, the second - 400, the same as IL-2. And these were very good cars. But ... Both the Pe-3 and Bf-110 could only lead a defensive battle against more maneuverable single-engine fighters. And from the Su-34 more can not be demanded. It would be interesting for the author to ask for the Su-34 link and the Su-35 link (Su-30) to be considered against the two F-15 links or one F-15 link and one F-15 C link. And what happens ???
  39. zak167
    zak167 15 February 2018 08: 48
    0
    The author stupidly copied information from foreign publications. And he wants to show us how bad everything is with this article. And for some reason, the author, speaking of the SU-34, positions it primarily as a fighter. Although the main purpose of the SU-34 is a bomber, it’s work on land / offshore facilities.
    In general, a cheap article. Nothing new.
  40. Rock616
    Rock616 15 February 2018 23: 23
    0
    The author’s request, next time, is to make more paragraphs and insert more red lines, since reading is very difficult for vision (the text is mixed), and even more so if there are so many abbreviations! recourse recourse
  41. Alexander Mage
    Alexander Mage 16 February 2018 06: 12
    0
    It is strange to compare a front-line bomber with a tactical fighter.
  42. Silinvv
    Silinvv 16 February 2018 15: 39
    +3
    It seemed to me alone that the author was clearly smoking something while writing the article?
  43. Dante
    Dante 16 February 2018 19: 11
    0
    Why not leave 4 main planes?
    Su57 as a heavy aircraft of the 5th generation let it be PakFa for all occasions.
    Yak (on it they train on yak130) well or
    MIG (instead of mig35) will also do the same of the 5th generation
    with 1 engine (power plant "Product 30") as cheap for the near radius.
    Mig41 to replace Mig 31.
    Well, PakDa for long-range aviation.

    There transport aircraft, too, such as IL96 + and also in the style of invisibility.
    And to put on everything the latest lacatars and all other equipment.
    So if you order the same lacatars of 100-200 pieces, then of course it will be expensive, but if you put them on all new models?
    SU57 = 1500 aircraft.
    YAK .... / MIG = 2500 aircraft.
    MIG 41 = 250 aircraft.
    PACDA = 250 aircraft.
    Il96 = 500 aircraft.

    5000 planes more than the United States and NATO combined, then AFAR and missiles to them and the planes themselves for half the price will be.
    And pay them 50% for the earlier and 50% after the break-in by the military.
    Yes, and to remove the corruption.
    Then the money for the development of new technologies will remain in the concerns and not at the dachas of deputies, aligarchs or anyone else.
    1. Achtaba1970
      Achtaba1970 17 February 2018 06: 57
      0
      Locator. And the 1500 Su-57 is not realistic, even the United States cannot afford this
  44. Laughtermaster
    Laughtermaster 16 February 2018 21: 58
    0
    Specifications should be read with popcorn.
  45. Vyacheslav Egorov
    Vyacheslav Egorov 17 February 2018 01: 34
    0
    What fright compares the Su-34 with the F-15? Airplanes with different tasks.
  46. corporatex
    corporatex 17 February 2018 16: 35
    0
    The article is interesting in terms of comparing features, but Americans have no advantage.
    After a massive strike, there will be no airfields in Europe where they can return. This is a one-time airplane.
    The second - radar stealth - this is a myth, the aircraft and its missiles are very clearly defined by radars.
    Third - 12 missiles? Are you kidding me? The elephant grains are effective. Or will it be a nuclear strike? In the case of a nuclear strike - generally, comparisons of aircraft performance are inappropriate; after such a strike, the pilots will have no homeland or flag, and in the case of the United States, it can even be without a continent
  47. Misha bolshoy
    Misha bolshoy 17 February 2018 17: 44
    0
    I don’t understand something, will these radar pendants not even notice these mega-missiles? Those. F-15 with missiles and without missiles give the same picture? How then different types of aircraft are distinguished, visually the difference in silhouette can be less.
  48. E.S.
    E.S. 18 February 2018 04: 00
    +2
    I read to "the maximum pulse power is three times less, the detection range is three times less" and threw it.
    The detection range in this case is proportional to the root of the fourth degree of power, if the author was not told this, but he himself does not know this, then this is propaganda, not analysis.
  49. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 18 February 2018 17: 22
    0
    Again Damantsev catches up with horror. It is clear that the mattresses will use the tactics of the Israelis and strike from abroad. only Vovochka need not chew snot, but immediately press the red button! And that’s it! am
    1. stanislavname
      stanislavname 27 February 2018 05: 17
      0
      yeah, and in response, your house with you and the rest of your family will go into a plasma state .. As you already got your childish delirium ... You’ll call your daddy Vovochka.
  50. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 19 February 2018 13: 34
    +3
    F-15E Strike Eagle tactical fighters deployed at this facility


    Do you seriously assume that in the event of a conflict, tactical fighter-bombers will operate from the same remote base? Such naive reasoning is refueling, etc.
    How the level of education of today's couch strategists fell ...
    They courageously operate with the TTX numbers, having no idea how the tactical aviation is relocated in the event of preconditions for a conflict.
    In general, similar considerations on the topic of range should be brought to forward-based airfields.