Military Review

Why maneuverability is not the main thing for a fighter. Our days

466
In the previous article, the author tried to evaluate the role of maneuvering qualities for a World War II fighter, having come to the conclusion that maneuverability is an important but far from the most important quality for vehicles of that era. Why, then, with such vehemence discuss the maneuverability of modern combat aircraft?


The reasons for this are several and the main one seems to be an incorrect interpretation of the experience of the Cold War. Apologists of the church "dogfight of the XXI century" like to remember not so much the Second World War and not even the Korean conflict, where the MiG-15 and Saber were approximately equal in flight performance. No, the basis of the estimates is another conflict. The need for high maneuverability (and so-called super-maneuverability) amateurs aviation for some reason, they are considering with an eye on the war in Vietnam.

The argument is the loss of McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II aircraft. Indeed, the United States, according to various estimates, lost such fighters in Vietnam before 900. However, you need to understand that most of the cars died not in air battles, but as a result of non-combat incidents, or from the fire of Vietnamese field artillery. According to the US Air Force, 67 lost all types of planes in air battles, having shot down about the same or more enemy planes, while (again, according to US data) more than a hundred enemy vehicles were shot down specifically by F-4.



Be that as it may, only a few Phantoms became victims of the MiGs, who preferred to use the “hit and run” tactics against F-4-loaded bombs and missiles. And this was quite reasonable, taking into account the dominance of American aviation in the sky and the presence of albeit very imperfect, but still representing a considerable danger, medium-range air-to-air missiles. That is, talking about “dogfight” in this case is inappropriate at all. The experience of using missiles in Arab-Israeli conflicts is a separate issue. Perhaps we will someday examine it in one of the future materials.



Rocket revolution


Now the effectiveness of medium-range air-to-air missiles is constantly growing: modern products have incomparably higher potential than modifications of the AIM-7 during the Vietnam War. So planes armed with old Soviet P-27P missiles or American Sparrow missiles with semi-active homing radars run the risk of encountering big problems if they use more advanced missiles against them, such as RVV-AE, AIM-120 or MBDA Meteor. Not requiring radar "illumination" of the target until it is defeated, and not constraining a fighter pilot in a maneuver after launching a rocket.

The effectiveness of new missiles with an active homing radar is demonstrated, in particular, by the destruction of the Indian MiG-21 by the Pakistani F-16 fighter (shot down 27 of February 2019 by AIM-120C rocket), as well as the downing of the Syrian Su-22 by AIM-120 rocket by June XIMUM ( of the year). These results are not enough to compile a full-fledged statistical base, but they also show that an enemy aircraft can be hit with even a single medium-range missile, which was unattainable for products of past times of confrontation between the USSR and the United States. At least in combat conditions.



To understand the difference: during the war years in Vietnam, only ten percent of AIM-7 hit the target. That is, we can talk about a manifold increase in the effectiveness of medium-range air-to-air missiles over the past half century. Modern electronic warfare systems in theory can affect the accuracy of missiles, however, the ability of new (and even old) products to induce interference significantly eliminates this trump card of a potential victim.

Now experts agree that in a modern air battle, things may not even come to close air combat. In this case, an average fighter will need from two to five medium-range missiles per fighter. And the air battle itself can last not even minutes, but seconds.

Summarize. In the 20th century, the role of maneuverability in air warfare continuously decreased, starting at least from the first half of World War II. Some surge of interest in this topic was observed in 60 and 70. The reason is trivial: for the effective use of early melee missiles with an infrared homing head, it was desirable to attack the enemy from the rear hemisphere, otherwise the homing head might simply not “catch” the target.

Now new short-range missiles, such as RVV-MD and AIM-9X no longer require a "carousel": they can be safely launched into the enemy's forehead with a high chance of defeating him. Thus, even the familiar close air combat has undergone changes, becoming de facto not quite close: a missile with an infrared homing head can effectively hit targets far beyond direct line of sight, allowing the carrier to turn around after attacking 180 degrees and calmly retreat to your airfield. Without getting involved in unnecessary risky close battles in the spirit of the First World Knights.



Generals always prepare for last war


In this situation, a simple question can be posed: what should a modern fighter do in conditions when rocket weapons have reached such heights? Simply put, how can he survive? There is an opportunity for this, but it requires large financial costs and faces considerable technical risks associated with a decrease in the effective dispersion area, and, more simply, an improvement in stealth indicators.

There is something to strive for. According to a reputable publication by The Aviationist, at the U.S. Air Force Red Flag 17-01 exercises held in 2017, the latest fifth-generation American fighter F-35 (probably not without the help of F-22) defeated the enemy simulating F-16 with an 15 score of 1 . “I didn’t even know that the enemy was nearby and didn’t understand who shot me down,” the American pilots who piloted in the F-35 exercises, which, incidentally, had completely modern radar stations, described their collisions with F-16.

The data from the previous Red Flag exercises allow us to draw very specific conclusions: while in World War II maneuverability replaced the speed, now the speed itself has been replaced by stealth radar. It was she who lay at the forefront of a modern fighter aircraft. No one intends to change the current course of development of military aviation equipment, which is confirmed by new and promising fighters of the USA, Russia, China and Europe, built around the principle of stealth, which often runs counter to the requirements for improving maneuverability.



But this sacrifice is completely justified. Otherwise, we would not have examples of J-20 or F-35: in fact, the only mass fighters of the fifth generation of the foreseeable future, and possibly the entire first half of the 21st century. If there is an alternative to stealth, then we do not see it.

In this regard, the refusal to increase speeds is completely justified. In modern realities, this is simply not necessary, since high speed is no longer a guarantee of survival. Over-maneuverability - and even more so. In fact, it did not even recede into the background, but into the background, becoming purely optional.

A modern fighter should generally avoid abrupt maneuvering in combat conditions, since this threatens with a sharp loss of energy, as well as huge overloads that will prevent the pilot from responding effectively to threats. That is, if in a normal situation the fighter still has at least some chances to get away from the enemy’s missile, then when performing aerobatic maneuvers it turns into an “ideal” target. And it will be destroyed if not the first missile, then the second - for sure. We can say even more simply: aerial stunts have little to do with war, as such. Unless, of course, modern generals are preparing for the First World War or for repeating the experience of 1941.



To summarize. The requirements for a modern fighter can be arranged in descending order of importance in this way:

1. Stealth;
2. Airborne electronic equipment and network-centricity;
3. Armament;
4. Speed;
5. Maneuverability.

There is a possibility that in the future hypersound may influence the prioritization, but a full-fledged hypersonic fighter may appear only many decades later.
Author:
466 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. New Year day
    New Year day 27 August 2019 18: 10
    +7
    those. Is the maneuverability of our fighters, like everyone else, not so important?
    1. shahor
      shahor 27 August 2019 18: 29
      +4
      Quote: Silvestr
      .e. Is the maneuverability of our fighters, like everyone else, not so important?

      It seems so. A couple of years ago I read an article by physicians at the St. Petersburg Military Medical Academy. They came to the conclusion that the capabilities of super-maneuverability inherent in fighters can be used in practice for XNUMX percent — the pilot cannot withstand constantly arising overloads. Just faints or goes blind for a while. In battle, that's ... that's it.
      1. Ingenegr
        Ingenegr 28 August 2019 18: 28
        +11
        "Super maneuverability" does not imply obligatory high values ​​of overloads. In the framework of classical aerobatic maneuvers, the g-force value "n" in the first approximation is defined as n = V ^ 2 / R, where V is the tangential velocity component and R is the instantaneous turning radius. Hence the conclusion that the overload value is the greater, the higher the speed and the smaller the turning radius. Based on the classical concepts of aircraft maneuvering, of course, the overloads should increase. However, in the "super-maneuverability" modes due to the large angles of attack, it is the tangential component of the velocity that is relatively low. In this regard, when "supermaneuvering" the value of the overload is even lower than when performing classical maneuvers. More serious requirements in this case are put forward for the operation of the pilot's vestibular apparatus.
        1. Lucy
          Lucy 11 September 2019 22: 50
          0
          And at what speeds are BVB? How to get the target to conduct BVB at low speeds? Maybe you need to return DOSAAF, buy sports Su, call athletes ...... Or the Yankees loshi? Hooray....
        2. iouris
          iouris 5 November 2019 21: 45
          +1
          1) The formula given by you is wrong. This is the formula for centripetal acceleration. "Overload" is a "normalized" acceleration, so add g = 9.81 m / (c * c) to the denominator. 2) Maneuverability is the ability to change the speed vector (i.e. change the speed in magnitude and (or) change the direction of movement).
          3) "Super-maneuverability", "non-standard maneuver" are strange terms, because almost all maneuverable aircraft have a thrust-to-weight ratio above 1.
          An airplane is a "complex system", and the properties of a system are not determined by the sum of properties, therefore, the absolutization of any one property means a "departure" from reality, in which the designers manage to provide a specific level of each property. The problem is not to degrade so much that the lag behind the likely partner becomes critical and then hopeless.
      2. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 29 August 2019 20: 29
        0
        Quote: shahor
        They came to the conclusion that the capabilities of super-maneuverability inherent in fighters can be used in practice for XNUMX percent — the pilot cannot withstand constantly arising overloads. Just faints or goes blind for a while. In battle, that's ... all .....

        Sports aircraft Su-31 made in the calculation of overload up to 12G. Before that, athletes performed on Yakovlev airplanes where the permissible overloads on the glider were up to 9G. But there were cases when the Yak planes in training or competition fell apart from overload, so 31G was set in the TK on the Su-12. A modern fighter, usually up to 9G. Only the Su-37 was indicated to 12. In general, made according to the capabilities of the pilot.
      3. asr55
        asr55 25 January 2020 23: 37
        0
        Why write nonsense.
    2. Proxima
      Proxima 27 August 2019 18: 44
      +38
      Maneuverability (even super maneuverability) modern fighter needs (!!!)) for three reasons. First, in close combat. The angular velocity of a passing target can be high, which makes special demands on the maneuverability of an attacking aircraft. He must have time to turn on the target to carry out a successful attack. The situation is similar with protection: a more maneuverable aircraft will be able to "twist" the enemy and escape from the attack, including the transition to a counterattack. Second, in the conditions of long-range missile combat over-maneuverability can be used to increase the effectiveness of missile defense. And finally, third, under various conditions, some characteristic aerobatics can apply to counter enemy radar systems. In particular, the figures "cobra" and "bell", providing for a sharp drop in speed, can interfere with the operation of Doppler radars. Simply, all aircraft designers in the world are sleeping and see how to make a fighter even more maneuverable, and here the author claims this .. request
      1. New Year day
        New Year day 27 August 2019 19: 17
        +2
        Quote: Proxima
        and here the author claims this ..

        Thanks for clarifying hi
      2. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 27 August 2019 19: 42
        0
        Quote: Proxima
        Simply, all aircraft designers in the world are sleeping and see how to make a fighter even more maneuverable

        I don’t know what the aircraft designers see, but I believe that stealth is much more important for promising fighters, as is the presence of a radar to detect the enemy and his attacking missile. In addition, it should have a variety of ammunition.
        In the future, the role of manned fighters (undoubtedly) will be taken by AI-controlled drones, which will allow them to use their 100% maneuverability and exclude the direct death of the pilot ...
        However, this time will not come soon (within the limits of human life). And the development of missile weapons can fundamentally change the tactics of aviation. So, for example, the appearance of long-range hypersonic missiles in air defense and new methods of early warning can put an end to aviation activity by the type of its use from neutral (or other countries) airspace ...
        Purely own opinion, I can not guarantee its infallibility ...
        hi
        1. PilotS37
          PilotS37 27 August 2019 23: 42
          +11
          Quote: ROSS 42
          I don’t know what the aircraft designers see, but I believe that stealth is much more important for promising fighters, as is the presence of a radar to detect the enemy and his attacking missile.

          Either snipers or deserters (these are not visible there by definition) can be invisible on the battlefield: if you want to win, go on the attack! Open up. But open up wisely. Supermaneuverability is "intelligence" and stealth is "cowardice."
          If you look closely at the history of the United States, then if the guys always wanted to solve their problems, sitting in the bars and drinking cheap beer from cans. And all their weapons concepts are based on this: how could we get it so that we can fuck the enemy straight from here, from the bar ... With all kinds of marginals like Saddam, it rolls, but even with Ho Chi Minh they got a bummer.
          But money is made on this, and where money is, there is PR. And now our respected author - voluntarily or involuntarily - is now promoting Lockheed's interests.
          1. WapentakeLokki
            WapentakeLokki 28 August 2019 19: 36
            +9
            Maybe the whole point is that there was NEVER a BURNING SKY over America and ... there was no question OR - OR. That is the most when there is no choice and you stupidly go forward to the VICTORY believing that when you die (and preferably take a little more with you of those with .. crosses or with a swastika) someone else will sign on the Reichstag wall .. ruins .. satisfied .... and ... Maybe this is very pathos but on the case, but the thing is like; mattresses have never waged war for their country for only $$$
            1. SovAr238A
              SovAr238A 29 August 2019 01: 48
              -15
              Quote: WapentakeLokki
              Maybe the whole point is that there was NEVER a BURNING SKY over America and ... there was no question OR - OR. That is the most when there is no choice and you stupidly go forward to the VICTORY believing that when you die (and preferably take a little more with you of those with .. crosses or with a swastika) someone else will sign on the Reichstag wall .. ruins .. satisfied .... and ... Maybe this is very pathos but on the case, but the thing is like; mattresses have never waged war for their country for only $$$


              Enough to carry the populist propaganda - a lie ...
              the sky lit up over America in December 1941.
              and they fought not only in Europe. but also in Southeast Asia, where they really fought to the death ...

              And you, like you, stupid urya propagandists, do not know military history.
              Underestimate and humiliate the enemy.
              And the enemy never forgave such things ...

              Just like you are the enemy of Russia - not the American.
              You are worse. you are an internal enemy and a liar.
              1. PilotS37
                PilotS37 29 August 2019 09: 19
                +12
                Quote: SovAr238A
                the sky lit up over America in December 1941.
                and they fought not only in Europe. but also in southeast asia

                Did you understand what you wrote?
                You also say that during the Vietnam War, "the sky caught fire over America" ​​...
                1. SovAr238A
                  SovAr238A 29 August 2019 09: 20
                  -8
                  Quote: PilotS37
                  Quote: SovAr238A
                  the sky lit up over America in December 1941.
                  and they fought not only in Europe. but also in southeast asia

                  Did you understand what you wrote?
                  You also say that during the Vietnam War, "the sky caught fire over America" ​​...


                  Learn materiel. When and what and where exactly "happened" in December 1941 ...
                  1. PilotS37
                    PilotS37 29 August 2019 09: 42
                    +11
                    Quote: SovAr238A
                    Learn materiel. When and what and where exactly "happened" in December 1941 ...

                    WapentakeLokki I had in mind our experience of war on our territory, when fights were on the approaches to Moscow, in Stalingrad ... And the experience of war in Europe, when the Americans wiped entire cities off the face of the earth (Dresden, for example).
                    And you are talking about the bombing of a single naval base, located on a small island in the middle of the ocean - thousands of miles from the US coast (as they say, "compared @ # with a finger"!).
                    Well, how are you going to stretch the American sky to "Southeast Asia" - it's a mystery to me in general - it will probably be easier for an owl on a globe ...
                    1. SovAr238A
                      SovAr238A 29 August 2019 10: 00
                      -11
                      Quote: PilotS37
                      Quote: SovAr238A
                      Learn materiel. When and what and where exactly "happened" in December 1941 ...

                      WapentakeLokki I had in mind our experience of war on our territory, when fights were on the approaches to Moscow, in Stalingrad ... And the experience of war in Europe, when the Americans wiped entire cities off the face of the earth (Dresden, for example).
                      And you are talking about the bombing of a single naval base, located on a small island in the middle of the ocean - thousands of miles from the US coast (as they say, "compared @ # with a finger"!).
                      Well, how are you going to stretch the American sky to "Southeast Asia" - it's a mystery to me in general - it will probably be easier for an owl on a globe ...


                      Who cares?
                      American territory? Yes!
                      Did Americans die in the thousands? Yes!

                      A huge base was destroyed, most of the battleships.
                      the sky was burning real!

                      Huge forces fought in Southeast Asia.
                      Huge.
                      Huge battles took place.
                      But you never studied it.
                      The schools did not talk about this.
                      And you never read military history.
                      1. PilotS37
                        PilotS37 29 August 2019 10: 57
                        +12
                        Quote: SovAr238A
                        Huge forces fought in Southeast Asia.
                        Huge.
                        Huge battles took place.
                        But you never studied it.
                        The schools did not talk about this.
                        And you never read military history.

                        Yes you, my friend, - Patriot! .. United States of America
                        And the story is that the USSR in WWII lost - according to official estimates - 26,6 million people, of which somewhere 8,5 ... 11 million (according to various estimates) - military losses, and the rest are civilians . Germany had about 5,5 million fighting + 1,5 ... 3 million civilians. ... USA (ta da da da dam !!!): 0,4 million combat and ... 0,012 million civilians.
                        Of course, the sky over America blazed from December 1941 to September 1945 ... ... and they filled it with "pies, pancakes, and dried mushrooms - [the sky] began to fade and went out ..."
                        (Here you can see, if that: [media = https: //ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_the_World_World_World]
                      2. Arkon
                        Arkon 1 September 2019 10: 12
                        +3
                        Quote: SovAr238A
                        Did Americans die in the thousands? Yes!


                        In the entire history of the United States, combat losses amount to less than 500 thousand people. In all wars. Will we continue to compare?
                      3. Vlad.by
                        Vlad.by 18 November 2019 23: 28
                        0
                        Huge forces fought in Southeast Asia.
                        Huge

                        Well, yes, huge forces fought!
                        The greatest battle of Iwo Jima !!!! And what losses did the mattresses have there?
                        20 thousand people. The universal battle!
                        The Germans near Stalingrad only captured 300 thousand.
                        Do not compare your finger with the anus.
              2. brat07
                brat07 29 August 2019 22: 56
                +2
                the sky lit up over America in December 1941.

                I still do not understand where the "sky" over America caught fire? But!
                1. PilotS37
                  PilotS37 4 September 2019 17: 56
                  +1
                  Quote: brat07

                  the sky lit up over America in December 1941.

                  I still do not understand where the "sky" over America caught fire? But!

                  Yes, it’s on his own somewhere burning ...
              3. caiman
                caiman 30 August 2019 08: 44
                0
                Well, you and the clown))), do you know the military history? Sacrifice of the Unified State Examination)))))), DO NOT LAUGH PEOPLE AND SIT IN THE ASS
              4. mister-red
                mister-red 2 September 2019 17: 21
                +2
                the sky lit up over America in December 1941.

                That is, a blow to a military base, even in the distant territory of the United States, did it catch fire on the sky over America ?! Cool. And what was then over the Sovetsky cities?
                In fact, several small bombs launched by the Japanese in balloons fell into the United States. And it's all. No harm done. Do not collapse at home, people did not die under the bombing. Factories, factories, infrastructure, etc. were not destroyed. This is what is meant. 300 thousand soldiers and 15 million civilians are slightly different numbers, do not you think?
              5. Vlad.by
                Vlad.by 18 November 2019 23: 18
                0
                Tell us about the losses of those who fought to the death.
                The Germans and Russians fought to death, because almost all of Europe was destroyed and only combatants under 20 million were killed
                And how many, excuse me, perished in Asia, and even taking into account the losses of the second front?
          2. goose
            goose 29 August 2019 11: 58
            +1
            Quote: PilotS37
            Either snipers or deserters (these are not visible there by definition) can be invisible on the battlefield: if you want to win, go on the attack! Open up. But open up wisely. Supermaneuverability is "intelligence" and stealth is "cowardice."

            Stealth has always been. It is still very important to fly against the background of the earth, because the detection range of even modern conventional aircraft radars is relatively small. At the same time, the range of your radar on a high flying airplane is unlimited. A plane at low altitude can easily exit the BV at a transonic speed, because the approach time is about 10 seconds in opposite directions from the detection range.
            1. Sanichsan
              Sanichsan 2 September 2019 16: 10
              0
              Quote: goose
              It is still very important to fly against the background of the earth, because the detection range of even modern conventional aircraft radars is relatively small.

              I’m very upset you, it’s not at all. most radars, including aviation and over-the-horizon, perfectly see moving objects and it does not matter at all against the background of what.
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 8 September 2019 16: 12
                +1
                ZGRLS have their problems. In particular, low detection accuracy, dependence on the state of the atmosphere, etc.
                At low altitudes they fly primarily to avoid detection by ground-based radars. No matter how powerful the C-400 or Patriot PAC-3 radar, it cannot bypass the curvature of the Earth.
                1. Sanichsan
                  Sanichsan 9 September 2019 16: 14
                  0
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  ZGRLS have their problems. In particular, low detection accuracy, dependence on the state of the atmosphere, etc.

                  today is the year 2019. 1980 was a very long time.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  At low altitudes they fly primarily to avoid detection by ground-based radars. No matter how powerful the C-400 or Patriot PAC-3 radar, it cannot bypass the curvature of the Earth.

                  absolutely right. For this, they build ZGRLS and AWACS.
                  1. 3danimal
                    3danimal 9 September 2019 17: 00
                    0
                    Everything is simple: ZGRLS “Container” (the most advanced) operates on decameter waves. Such stations can detect mass missile launches, etc.
                    Look a little better at the question: the frequencies of modern air defense systems are 1-10cm. It is they who are able to accurately determine the position of the target and direct a missile at it, highlight the target for PARLS. Active GOS missiles also work in the centimeter range. And against them, a radical decrease in visibility is achieved.
                    At a wavelength of 10m, you determine that something is moving in a 500x500m square. The number of targets, their exact height, no. And the anti-aircraft missile launcher is now out of fashion))
                    1. Sanichsan
                      Sanichsan 10 September 2019 16: 33
                      -1
                      Quote: 3danimal
                      Everything is simple: ZGRLS “Container” (the most advanced) operates on decameter waves. Such stations can detect mass missile launches, etc.

                      rave. yes
                      Quote: 3danimal
                      At a wavelength of 10m, you determine that something is moving in a 500x500m square. The number of targets, their exact height, no. And the anti-aircraft missile launcher is now out of fashion))

                      Hmm ... I think there is nothing further to discuss. hi
                      1. 3danimal
                        3danimal 11 September 2019 14: 46
                        0
                        Give arguments. I found information on the container, its wavelength. Suggest your version.
                      2. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 11 September 2019 15: 03
                        -1
                        https://dfnc.ru/katalog-vooruzhenij/rls-sprn-i-pvo/29b6-kontejner/
                        "Quantity at the same time tracked goals - not less than 500"
                        for me the difference between target tracking and "at a wavelength of 10m you determine that something is moving in a 500x500m square", very tangible. Your theses say that you are stuck in the era of the origin of over-the-horizon radars and apparently do not plan to lick out of there.
                        I am curious winked within the framework of your theses, formulate why over-the-horizon radars are being built if they are not able to detect and track targets? Let me remind you that the flight range of ICBMs significantly exceeds the range of over-the-horizon radars, and the launchers are beyond their range. what "mass launch" should they define? request
                      3. 3danimal
                        3danimal 11 September 2019 17: 31
                        -1
                        https://studfiles.net/preview/1430471/page:2/
                        To help you. The basics of radar cannot be avoided.
                        500 targets can be at a decent distance. When moving in tight formation - you will not be able to distinguish how many of them.
                      4. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 12 September 2019 15: 21
                        0
                        you still haven't answered the question "why are they building over-the-horizon radars?" if you are deprived of elementary logic, then further conversation is meaningless.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        500 targets can be at a decent distance. When moving in tight formation - you will not be able to distinguish how many of them.

                        Yeah .. I personally saw, held a candle. yes
                        just because you don’t know how it works does not mean that it is impossible. tell me, did you happen to assure you that the radar combat with IJIS is impossible because there is nothing to drown it? the level of judgment is very similar ...
                      5. 3danimal
                        3danimal 12 September 2019 18: 01
                        -1
                        ZGRLS allow you to see the fact of approximation of goals, multiple, above all. Massive launch of cruise missiles at a distance of 500-1000km, for example. Aegis is limited by the curvature of the Earth.
                        Fighting him (with the goal of drowning out) with stations like Khibin is impossible. It is only difficult to determine the location of the aircraft and take on escort. Self defense tool that allows you to win seconds / minutes.
                        On the ships, by the way, are their megawatt “jammers”.
                        There are EW, EA-18G aircraft, but there is equipment of a different level, functionality and power. Khibiny, I repeat, is a self-defense station.
                      6. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 13 September 2019 14: 25
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        ZGRLS allow you to see the fact of approximation of goals, multiple, above all. Massive launch of cruise missiles at a distance of 500-1000km, for example.

                        Congratulations! good you are stuck in 1975. what you are describing is the Doug station. The Volga and Voronezh have already seen individual cruise missiles. A container accompanies 500 targets. do you yourself understand how far behind reality you are ??? bully
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Fighting him (with the goal of drowning out) with stations like Khibin is impossible. It is only difficult to determine the location of the aircraft and take on escort. Self defense tool that allows you to win seconds / minutes.

                        that is, you declare that the signal cannot be distorted so that it does not allow to determine the coordinates of the target? well for your 1975 probably so laughing
                      7. 3danimal
                        3danimal 13 September 2019 16: 15
                        0
                        You forget about the possibility of detuning from interference / guidance on the interference.
                        Khibiny will give a gain in time, until the CIU / operators will deal with the interference.
                      8. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 13 September 2019 17: 44
                        0
                        will they figure it out? in a few seconds or minutes?
                        I probably need to answer in your style ...
                        operators will not be able to deal with the interference. if the signal is distorted according to a complex algorithm, then the operator will constantly change the coordinates of the target and it will not work to set a static correction. for the dynamic one needs to know the noise algorithm of which the operator does not know. then the operator suffers and panics "for a few seconds / minutes" and after being hit by a rocket he is sent to the best world together with IJIS.
                      9. 3danimal
                        3danimal 13 September 2019 18: 34
                        0
                        IJIS will not stop conducting PRR, targets will be able to attack automatically.
                        Detuning from interference is carried out by the developed CIUS, which does not know how to panic. The operator only controls her work. A radar with a phased array is more difficult to confuse, there is also the opportunity to direct missiles at an obstacle that will not last long in this case.
                        The main thing here you know what, IMHO? Both our military and many civilians would gladly accept the fact of owning a fleet of at least 10 ships of the Burke type (or a close analogue). And excitedly talked about their capabilities of attack and defense, proud. And since they are not there, they say that I didn’t really want to)
                      10. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 16 September 2019 15: 21
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        The main thing here you know what, IMHO? Both our military and many civilians would gladly accept the fact of owning a fleet of at least 10 ships of the Burke type (or a close analogue).

                        Do you mean retired military men planning to write off Sharks 200 KR to shove fans of I. Mask? so they squeak with delight. for example, you laughing
                        PS
                        even the United States is going to give up Berkov and Ticonderoga. The concept of a "small fleet" adopted in Russia seems to the Americans to be much more promising, primarily due to funding.
                      11. 3danimal
                        3danimal 16 September 2019 17: 00
                        0
                        Therefore, they apparently continue to build Burke? )))
                        One person earns 250 thousand p. per year, another 3,6 million. The first purchase of a car for 1,5 million seems unjustified luxury, for the second - in the order of things. (Analogy)
                        Incidentally, I believe that it would be more convenient to place the stuffing of our "rammed" frigates in 7-8 thousand tons of hulls with displacement (like the BOD 1155).
                      12. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 16 September 2019 17: 17
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Therefore, they apparently continue to build Burke? )))

                        Of course continue. the money is already paid. wink but they are seriously thinking about how to change them. all the same, both Burke and IJES are already over 30. technologies of the last century wink and their ultimativity can be affirmed only by a very stubborn person. yes
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        One person earns 250 thousand p. per year, another 3,6 million. The first purchase of a car for 1,5 million seems unjustified luxury, for the second - in the order of things. (Analogy)

                        to your deep regret, the analogy does not apply to the situation at all. negative I’ll write you a more suitable one. wink
                        in Hong Kong, the bus driver receives, in terms of rubles, about 250000 a month, in Chelyabinsk about 10000. For this money, in Hong Kong, the bus driver can afford housing at the rate of 3 sq / m per person and a combined bathroom, in Chelyabinsk, the bus driver has two-room Khrushchev.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Incidentally, I believe that it would be more convenient to place the stuffing of our "rammed" frigates in 7-8 thousand tons of hulls with displacement (like the BOD 1155).

                        the question arises why?
                      13. 3danimal
                        3danimal 16 September 2019 17: 24
                        0
                        About money is not comparable: compare prices for air defense systems, cruise missiles, ships. In $ they are completely correlated.
                      14. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 16 September 2019 17: 33
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        About money is not comparable: compare prices for air defense systems, cruise missiles, ships. In $ they are completely correlated.

                        for export, yes, they do not correspond at all to the domestic market. wink
                      15. 3danimal
                        3danimal 16 September 2019 17: 28
                        0
                        About IJIS: then give an example of a serial model of the ultimate marine complex of the 21st century)
                        I’ll tell you a secret: there is a difference, it is in generations, equipment upgrades.
                        Like AIM-9b and AIM-9x. Sidewinder, according to your logic - “mammoth”) Go this is not so.
                      16. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 16 September 2019 17: 44
                        0
                        when it comes to modernization, I immediately remember the story of the modernization of the American nuclear weapons wassat there are still start keys stored on floppy disks.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        I’ll tell you a secret: there is a difference, it is in generations, equipment upgrades.

                        Yeah. equipment upgrades ... what? From generation to generation, the rocket is changing. this, the campaign, is the only thing that can be replaced in the complex.
                        the same radar, the same CIUS, and they cannot be replaced because the electronics of the 20th century are almost incompatible with the latest samples of the 21st century. request
                      17. 3danimal
                        3danimal 16 September 2019 17: 48
                        0
                        Code, instructions are changing. In general, what OS do you write this from: Google or Microsoft (hint)?
                        You never gave an example of an exemplary system and complex.
                      18. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 16 September 2019 17: 56
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Code, instructions are changing.

                        again. iron 30 years! what code? What is Google and Small Soft ??? belay come back to reality laughing
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        You never gave an example of an exemplary system and complex.
                        below.
                      19. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 16 September 2019 17: 48
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        About IJIS: then give an example of a serial model of the ultimate marine complex of the 21st century)

                        "Fort". at least it is built on a modern element base, unlike IJIS.
                      20. 3danimal
                        3danimal 16 September 2019 17: 56
                        0
                        Fort put on the first cruiser 1144 and 1164, the year of adoption in service - 1984. Here it is, a complex of the 21st century. There is a super-modern BIOS. In the form of distributed posts with operators))
                      21. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 17 September 2019 14: 18
                        0
                        and it’s better than IJESA, which still has problems with low-flying goals. wink
                      22. 3danimal
                        3danimal 17 September 2019 16: 23
                        0
                        But he does not experience Daring. Here, by the way, is an exemplary highly automated naval air defense system.
                        And Americans are constantly conjuring with the settings of their (unparalleled) SPY radars. There are more advanced versions (put on Ford AV), with a better signal to noise ratio.
                        The fort is outdated, constructively, conceptually. Pay attention to what systems are planned for installation on the frigate-destroyers of the Russian Federation: the structure is similar precisely to Burke.
                      23. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 17 September 2019 17: 54
                        0
                        in which place? "Redoubt" and Pantsir-M "is, in your opinion, a copy of what is from Burke?
                      24. 3danimal
                        3danimal 17 September 2019 18: 30
                        0
                        Polement-Redoubt uses a similar layout: fixed panels FAR, BIUS, UVP. And that set of rotating metal on the Fort is outdated at the end of the last century.
                      25. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 18 September 2019 13: 46
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Polement-Redoubt uses a similar layout: fixed panels FAR, BIUS, UVP.

                        you are sure? of course "fixed panels" are present, but "rotating metal" has not gone anywhere and is presented in large numbers.
                        again not the most successful attempt to pull "Arleigh Burke" on the globe ... wink
                      26. 3danimal
                        3danimal 18 September 2019 14: 13
                        0
                        It Poliment consists of 4 fixed panels. The rotating part is a surveillance radar, such as the Furke.
                      27. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 18 September 2019 14: 53
                        0
                        excellent! and where does Burke? a very sluggish attempt to declare that "on Burke there is, it means they ripped it off", don't you think? wink
                      28. 3danimal
                        3danimal 20 November 2019 05: 05
                        0
                        It's about laying down layout trends. First, the United States with Burke, then the British with Daring.
                      29. 3danimal
                        3danimal 20 November 2019 05: 03
                        0
                        We are talking about the layout of the ships: one or two multifunctional radars, airborne landing gears. Redoubt, UKKS - rather closer to the British (separate UVP for anti-aircraft missiles and cruise missiles). The shell is our local flavor. The Americans are now setting up a short-range air defense system on a phalanx carriage.
                      30. Vlad.by
                        Vlad.by 18 November 2019 23: 53
                        0
                        I’ll tell you so, if the conversation about the signal-to-noise ratio has already begun:
                        Fort has tens of kilowatts of power per pulse
                        Any headlamp has a pulse power of one mono-frequency cell - from 3 to 7 watts. (Watt Carl !!!)
                        What signal / noise advantage are you writing about ???
                        The advantage of the PAR is the multi-frequency, in expanding the spectrum of the emitted signal and in the complication of clogging it with interference. Well, of course, the possibility of obtaining a large number of rays to accompany a large number of targets. But due to a sharp drop in power in the beam, and even more so an incomparable signal level in the pulse. Of course, the signal processing algorithms pull the signal / noise up, but the Fort work no less, and perhaps more efficient algorithms and with an initial power of 100 kW, it is much easier to increase the signal / noise than with 7 watts.
                        In addition, the Fort antennas are raised to the top of the masts (these are almost twice as high as the Aegis canvases). The radio horizon is commonplace 10-15 km further along MV targets.
                        This is so, "popular mechanics"
                      31. 3danimal
                        3danimal 20 November 2019 05: 09
                        0
                        Compare the public characteristics of SPY (up to 7 MW per pulse, try to rotate such a colossus) and Fort. Given that the first also works with the unifying protective resources of the BIUS ship, there is a clear advantage. The proof of the fidelity of the concept is our Polement (although it has passed a difficult path in development).
                      32. 3danimal
                        3danimal 16 September 2019 17: 03
                        0
                        About Sharks: you make hasty conclusions and obviously confuse me with someone.
                      33. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 16 September 2019 17: 20
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        About Sharks: you make hasty conclusions and obviously confuse me with someone.

                        Well, you mentioned the military, I just gave you an example of such a military wink
                      34. 3danimal
                        3danimal 16 September 2019 17: 11
                        -1
                        About Mask Rogozin said that he is not an expert, so you need to believe in this sacredly)
                      35. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 16 September 2019 17: 22
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        About Mask Rogozin said that he is not an expert, so you need to believe in this sacredly)

                        of course Musk is a specialist! probably on the heights of Rogozin! true experts in the field drank goszabla ... laughing
                      36. 3danimal
                        3danimal 20 November 2019 05: 11
                        0
                        Nobody will get around Rogozin here, as well as in “unsinkability”)
                        Everything is determined by the results, their compliance with previously made statements and stated goals.
                      37. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 22 November 2019 15: 28
                        0
                        I wrote about this wink Electrification of Tau and the state in Australia; Hyperloop Hygrofactory. laughing and what about Ragozin ... he is still far from the Mask. Musk cuts down budgets on a large scale internationally and unlike Rogozin, he has such a roof that he is admired for his robbery as a great scientific achievement laughing does Ragozin have a fanclub of ragosinophil hamsters who will admire any of his sneezes? no. and the mask has bully
                      38. 3danimal
                        3danimal 22 November 2019 20: 00
                        +1
                        Mask has quite definite results. Did he take first place in commercial launches? - Yes.
                        Did the steps return (when we had him spinning at the temple)? - Done.
                        Tesla has occupied a market segment, cars are being sold, its Shares can be bought, and earned in a year or two on the growth of value.
                        Well, and Spaceship, finally. What will our skeptics say when in 3-5-10 years he will land on Mars?
                        Summing up: it is obvious that an effective model of personnel management, research, production and fundraising is used.
                      39. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 27 November 2019 13: 32
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Mask has some definite results.

                        yes you?
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Did he take first place in commercial launches? - Yes.

                        no.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Did the steps return (when we had him spinning at the temple)? - Done.

                        again no. the steps returned were up to the Mask. Musk organized drank dough on the most difficult option to return.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Tesla has occupied a market segment, cars are being sold, its Shares can be bought, and earned in a year or two on the growth of value.

                        yep .. a great plan for masked hamsters bully have you already made millions with the "Powerwall" Mask?
                        For reference, the first batches of Maska Tesla in Europe already have problems with disposal. Do you remember the story with German diesels? What do you think they will do with the "American" company Musk in the EU for non-ecological batteries? wink
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Well, and Spaceship, finally. What will our skeptics say when in 3-5-10 years he will land on Mars?

                        3-5-10-15-20-25-30-35-40-45-50-55-60-65 -... hmm .. no, then he will most likely die. but Americans are likely to really land on Mars, but not in the foreseeable future. in the meantime, they haven’t been able to put astronauts into Dragon-2 for 3-2 years so that they can fly to the ISS themselves ... and for 2020 they are again buying seats on Russian rockets.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Summing up: it is obvious that an effective model of personnel management, research, production and fundraising is used.

                        ha ha ha laughing no, not like that.
                        Summing up: it is obvious that an effective marketing and advertising model is used, as well as wide contacts among Democratic senators, which allows receiving colossal tax breaks and embezzlement from municipal budgets on such a scale that the builders of the Vostochny cosmodrome could not even dream of.
                      40. 3danimal
                        3danimal 28 November 2019 19: 54
                        0
                        About Shares: I have friends who have earned on Tesla's shares.
                        About commercial launches: provide your statistics for 2017-2018-2019. In the one that is in the public domain, they have first place. And the accident rate is lower, although the priests do not spray rockets with "holy water".
                        Who did the return steps have? And in what quantity? On serial products, you still say. There is a difference with a failed prototype. It can be noted that they reduced the price of launches and competitors (including Roscosmos) had to follow suit.
                        About Spaceship: you know, when it does happen (in the foreseeable future), someone will say “so what is it?” we too could easily, just reluctance ... ".
                        About the model: I met several interviews with Roskosmos employees, where they pointed to excessive delays in work and research due to the queue for signature to the "secretary" (up to 1-2 months). Something tells us that there is no such problem in a private company.
                        About "drank everything dough, etc.": in my opinion, these accusations are pointless and saturated with ideology (well, "they" can not be better organized than ours, they are "inferior").
                      41. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 4 December 2019 17: 10
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        About Shares: I have friends who have earned on Tesla's shares.

                        What do you want to say? I have a lot of examples of people who made a fortune on the shares of Soviet factories. these plants went bankrupt wink I’ll tell you a terrible secret, they earn money on the stock market both on the rise and the decline. heard about bulls and bears?
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        About commercial launches: provide your statistics for 2017-2018-2019. In the one that is in the public domain, they have first place.

                        in which place? Do they launch Chinese satellites? maybe Russian? indian? no. Do they launch more than China? no. all they have is a long-term contract with a major American telecommunication company. I understand that your logic boils down to the fact that it is a commercial company and that means all of its launches are commercial? hmm ... keep up the good work yes
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        And the accident rate is lower, although the priests do not spray rockets with "holy water".

                        than with unions? why lie so rude bully
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Who did the return steps have? And in what quantity? On serial products, you still say.

                        shuttle boosters. or is it in your opinion not serial? laughing
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        About Spaceship: you know, when it does happen (in the foreseeable future), someone will say “so what is it?” we too could easily, just reluctance ... ".

                        this is the maskophile mantra yes your sect also has a list that you yourself compose and wave it yourself like a dirty diaper laughing
                        you and others like you have already been told a hundred times that dragon2 will someday reach the ISS. most likely in 2021, for 2020, the United States is already purchasing seats on unions. and I guarantee that in 2021 you will come running here so that in the news that the United States was still able to deliver its astronaut to the ISS by itself, write something like "aha! but you said that they could not!" laughing your sect is incorrigible yes
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        About the model: I met several interviews with Roskosmos employees, where they pointed to excessive delays in work and research due to the queue for signature to the "secretary" (up to 1-2 months). Something tells us that there is no such problem in a private company.
                        woo! I have such interviews with "developers", "experts", "historians" and so on, that what you write is not at all scary laughing
                        and nothing tells you that the exchange of technologies between Boeing and Lockheed Maritin is generally impossible? have you heard about trade secrets? wink hmmm ... what's worse? a myth about some "secret" or a complete impossibility of working together?
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        About "drank everything dough, etc.": in my opinion, these accusations are pointless and saturated with ideology (well, "they" can not be better organized than ours, they are "inferior").
                        uh huh. sure. there is no corruption in the United States. on the island of Tau, 25% of the forest was cut out as part of the "ecological project" of the Mask, and they continue to carry diz. fuel for generators, but it certainly didn't drink the dough!
                        but you continue to believe! yes
                      42. 3danimal
                        3danimal 4 December 2019 21: 37
                        0
                        About corruption: in a healthy person and in a patient with pneumonia there are corresponding pathogenic microbes. In different quantities. And corruption, it can occur in China and Singapore. But do not be a form of organization, IMHO.
                        About sects. This is such a demagogic trick: to pull an opponent to a certain fictitious group, after indulgently shaking hands “well, what to take from you”. It's not gonna go.
                        Provide statistics on commercial launches (for private companies).
                      43. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 9 December 2019 18: 22
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        About corruption: in a healthy person and in a patient with pneumonia there are corresponding pathogenic microbes. In different quantities. And corruption, it can occur in China and Singapore. But do not be a form of organization, IMHO.

                        truth? France? Germany? USA? how are they different from us? today, nothing.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        About sects. This is such a demagogic trick: to pull an opponent to a certain fictitious group, after indulgently shaking hands “well, what to take from you”.

                        But how should I feel about you when you ignore the obvious facts?
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Provide statistics on commercial launches (for private companies).

                        that is, you still mean that SpaceX is a private commercial company? so what is the achievement? only that it is a private company? pff ... they have more subsidies from the US budget than Roskosmos. money laundering counter.
                        in 2015, Mask adherents promised me that by 2016 SpaceX will take over the global satellite launch market, but this did not happen either in 2016, 2017, nor in 2018, nor in 2019 and will not happen in 2020. It is interesting that SpaceX has not changed much since 2015, all the same big contract with a large telecommunications American company, all the same pair of launches of foreign satellites, all the same few satellites from the Pentagon or NASA. where is genius then? launching a gutted machine, it is not known where ??? laughing
                      44. 3danimal
                        3danimal 10 December 2019 04: 18
                        -1
                        In 2010, the majority of commercial launches were at Roscosmos, 2017 and still today at SpaceX. But they don’t have Rogozin (
                        A comparison with us of Britain, the United States is indicative of a reaction to a number of high-profile incidents.
                      45. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 10 December 2019 14: 33
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        In 2010, the majority of commercial launches were at Roscosmos, 2017 and still today at SpaceX.

                        Hmm .. a bad case ... well then, Roscosmos in second place on state launches, losing first place to China. SpaceX is generally in flight, the office is commercial ... even the Indians were leaked to the Indians wassat
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        A comparison with us of Britain, the United States is indicative of a reaction to a number of high-profile incidents.

                        Yeah. really. for example, a Scam with Skripals worked so clumsy that only the mentally retarded can believe in this nonsense, but in the USA and England they believe laughing or the case of the Boeing shot down by Ukraine in which the "authoritative commission" was building proof of Russia's guilt on the basis of a crookedly glued video fake wassat scream laughing
            2. 3danimal
              3danimal 8 September 2019 16: 09
              -1
              Therefore, they are switching to radars with AFAR (aviation) - they have a significantly greater vigilance, including on the background of the earth.
              1. Vlad.by
                Vlad.by 19 November 2019 00: 03
                0
                Yes, they don’t cross over.
                All PFAR, yes PFAR. And why? Yes, all of that pulsed power. That’s why it’s “harsher" than Su35 than Penguin.
                Yes, it accompanies fewer goals, but further. Enough for him
                As for the Su57, so there, in addition to the Squirrel, there are still long-wave radars for early warning.
                In general, our work on ROFAR
                This is better than AFAR in all respects.
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 20 November 2019 05: 17
                  0
                  Then you should write letters asking you to think better of the non-prodigious designers of Su-57, Rafal, Eurofighter, F-22 and F-35)
                  They will talk about Rofar for another 10-15 years (which will appear on all planes tomorrow). The development was still at the very beginning, due to our problems with the optimization of the research process (like a month of waiting for a signature from "Comrade Major" to continue work).
          3. Nikolai Fomochkin
            Nikolai Fomochkin 4 September 2019 17: 39
            0
            Only suicides want to be visible on the battlefield. "If you want to win, go on the attack! Open up." - what nonsense. Opened, then died. It's like with a baton against a machine gun, a machine gunner with a baton will not let the natives approach him. At the beginning of the 20th century, our generals condemned the British mowing down blacks from a machine gun, which did not prevent everyone from then fighting in the First World War with machine guns, otherwise they would not survive. The era of honest attacks is long gone.
          4. Dimid
            Dimid 10 September 2019 11: 08
            +1
            Quote: PilotS37

            Supermaneuverability is "intelligence" and stealth is "cowardice."

            Stunning logic! Well, then with "checkers on tanks" - this is cowardice (tanks) against the mind (cavalry with checkers).
          5. kuz363
            kuz363 13 November 2019 08: 36
            0
            However, snipers in real combat brought more success than a head-on attack shouting "Hurray! And useless losses
        2. svp67
          svp67 28 August 2019 01: 46
          +3
          Quote: ROSS 42
          I don’t know what the aircraft designers see, but I believe that stealth is much more important for promising fighters, as is the presence of a radar to detect the enemy and his attacking missile.

          And what is more important to have stealth or the ability to detect and engage the enemy at a distance that is not accessible to the enemy? And in general, it's time to get away from the name "fighter", "bomber", it's time to introduce the concepts of "strike aircraft", "light", "medium", "heavy"
          1. PilotS37
            PilotS37 29 August 2019 09: 20
            +2
            Quote: svp67
            But what is more important to have stealth or the ability to detect and hit the enemy at a distance not accessible to the enemy?

            Of course stealth! - The elusive Indian Joe proved it perfectly ... wassat
            1. svp67
              svp67 29 August 2019 16: 14
              +2
              Quote: PilotS37
              The elusive Native American Joe proved it perfectly.

              The fact that he is in FIG no one needs
        3. 3danimal
          3danimal 28 August 2019 14: 44
          -7
          And the first places in unmanned systems will take the United States, Israel and, probably, China (based on current positions).
          Long-range hypersonic missiles (300-400km, 6-7M) are already there. The problem is with the detection of an inconspicuous target at such a range, the ability to hold it with a backlight radar (works in the centimeter range), and a radio horizon (partly solved by the ARLGSN). As well as the maneuverability of a heavy rocket (with solid propellant rocket propulsion), which generated fuel when flying at a longer range and flying by inertia and maneuvering with aerodynamic planes. Against the AWACS plane or bomber is still enough, and against the fighter 20-30t? The question is rhetorical.
          (Probably the solution is in the MBDA Meteor concept)
        4. ser56
          ser56 28 August 2019 18: 08
          +4
          Quote: ROSS 42
          but I believe that stealth is much more important for promising fighters, as is the presence of a radar to detect the enemy and his attacking missile

          If the radar is on - then what can be stealth? request Now, if a fighter is flying an AWACS aircraft - then yes ...
        5. purple
          purple 28 August 2019 19: 22
          +3
          so-called "stealth" is nothing ... with the advent of a new generation of radars, so the F-35 is a deliberate dead end
          1. goose
            goose 29 August 2019 12: 01
            0
            Quote: purple
            so-called "stealth" is nothing ... with the advent of a new generation of radars

            Well, not zilch, if the detection range of the MiG-29 near the ground with AN APG -68 is about 40 km, then the F-35 will be detected at a distance of about 25-30 km. And this is an extra 1-2 seconds.
            The capture of medium-range missiles by the ARGSN is not the work of an airborne radar at all, it’s also a plus.
            1. Sanichsan
              Sanichsan 2 September 2019 16: 13
              0
              we are talking about photon radars. for photon radar, radar absorbing coatings and artful forms are not an obstacle.
              1. goose
                goose 2 September 2019 16: 29
                -1
                Quote: SanichSan
                we are talking about photon radars. for photon radar, radar absorbing coatings and artful forms are not an obstacle.

                Who told you that?
                1. Sanichsan
                  Sanichsan 2 September 2019 16: 53
                  -1
                  Quote: goose
                  Who told you that?

                  read about photon radars. we are in tyrnet wink
                  here at a glance:
                  https://naukatehnika.com/fotonnye-radary-fotonika-stels-texnologii.html
                  1. goose
                    goose 3 September 2019 11: 01
                    -1
                    Quote: SanichSan
                    read about photon radars. we are in tyrnet
                    here at a glance:

                    I wrote a scientific work on this subject in '98, I do not need to read. All theoretical prerequisites were then available; these were theoretical works of the late 60s and early 70s. I did not catch up with the technological base.
                    Believe me, there are problems for such radars, and for them there is stealth technology, only they are different. Another thing is that the Americans haven’t invested anything in them yet - this is a race. Radars are cheaper than protection systems against them.
                    1. Sanichsan
                      Sanichsan 3 September 2019 14: 53
                      -1
                      Quote: goose
                      Believe me, there are problems for such radars, and for them there is stealth technology, only they are different.

                      no doubt ... but still I advise you to read the article wink there, at least, it is written about the state program on this topic. it is written that the result is planned for 2019.
                  2. 3danimal
                    3danimal 13 September 2019 05: 50
                    0
                    Reasoning for the poor. Having no serial equipment capable of effectively resisting stealth aircraft - we’ll say that it doesn’t matter, because after a number of years “breakthrough” radars will appear (of course, we will be the first).
            2. 3danimal
              3danimal 12 September 2019 21: 48
              0
              The F35 from the front of the EPR is 100 times smaller than the MIG-35. Therefore, the detection range (for APG-68 and analogs) is reduced by 3,16 times and is 12,6 km. There is very little time for reaction.
              If we recall that the EPR of the 1st quarter of the radar of the 35th is seen 100+ km, then woe to the lagging behind in long-range missile combat.
              1. Grigory Gromov
                Grigory Gromov 24 October 2019 17: 44
                0
                Quote: 3danimal
                The F35 from the front of the EPR in 100 times lessthan the MIG-35. Therefore, the detection range (for APG-68 and analogs) is reduced by 3,16 times and is 12,6 km. There is very little time for reaction.

                3danimal! The F-35 image intensifier tube is 5 times smaller than that of the Mig-35, and not 100 times, as you write. This means the detection range of the F-35 will be reduced by 1,495 times.
                For Mig-35 EOP = 1,5 m2, and for F-35 EOP = 0,3 m2. The image intensifier in all cases is average and should not be confused with the instant advertising firm Lockheed Martin. Therefore, your calculations are generally incorrect. In addition, you absolutely do not know the parameters of the radar ... Do not confuse the American radar with the Russian, where the US radar is inferior to the Russian radar in detection range.
                Quote: 3danimal
                If we recall that the EPR of the 1st quarter of the radar of the 35th is seen 100+ km, then woe to the lagging behind in long-range missile combat.

                BRLS N035 "Irbis" Su-35S discovers a target with image intensifier = 1 m2 on distance D = 304 km.
                1. Grigory Gromov
                  Grigory Gromov 24 October 2019 17: 55
                  0
                  Quote: Grigory Gromov
                  BRLS N035 "Irbis" Su-35S discovers a target with image intensifier = 1 m2 on distance D = 304 km.

                  And all this, of course, in free space ...
                2. 3danimal
                  3danimal 24 October 2019 21: 08
                  0
                  Lockheed provides other data on the EPR F-35. About 0,01 square meters from the front. Where did 0,3 come from? From what angle?
        6. Mainbeam
          Mainbeam 14 September 2019 16: 30
          0
          Quote: ROSS 42
          the appearance of long-range hypersonic missiles in air defense and new methods of early warning can put an end to aviation


          I totally agree.

          A bunch of aircraft carrier + aircraft will be delayed a little longer, because, as modern politics shows, the war is being fought against banana republics that do not have promising air defense. In fact, now we can consider several sovereign states that in the future will scare each other at a distance - the United States, Russia, China, India, Iran. All the rest will fall under the states. And the states will not jerk sovereign countries.

          Quote: ROSS 42
          AI-controlled drones will take on the role of manned fighters in the future

          This will happen faster than we can imagine. I think AI will be tightened over the next 5 years. I don’t know how long it will take to re-equip existing fighters with replacing the man on the computer, but, I think, such work is already underway. And since on modern aircraft all control is electronic, not mechanical, re-equipment will be structurally simple - the only question is the adequacy of AI algorithms.

          Fighter jets and bombers will disappear like a class - only strike drones (controlled from the ground or AI) will remain. And all the same, the sovereignty of sovereigns will remain, because one rocket will cost less than a strike aircraft.

        7. asr55
          asr55 25 January 2020 23: 49
          0
          You are fundamentally wrong. Stealth has a certain range and angle .. You are not suggestive of a message that Russian radar surveillance systems from their territory recorded the activity of the United States Air Force F-35 fighters near Iran’s borders at the time of the accident with the Ukrainian plane.
      3. Zeev Zeev
        Zeev Zeev 27 August 2019 20: 05
        +1
        The first one. Modern missiles on modern planes can hit targets without turning the plane. They turn themselves on a combat course, even if the enemy’s aircraft is not in the front hemisphere. Moreover, as correctly noted in the article, the melee range now begins outside of visual detection.
        The second one. Anti-aircraft maneuver, even in the case of visual detection of an approaching missile, will cause the aircraft to receive more damage. Missiles today do not explode in a collision, detonation occurs at a distance, and the fragments go just to the sides, and not forward.
        The third. Modern military radars do not care about the sudden change in aircraft speed. Their antenna does not rotate, they have a headlamp and lose their target during antenna rotation, as they were in the 1960s.
        Therefore, despite the fact that aircraft maneuvers at different shows look spectacular (which greatly contributes to sales), nobody really bothers with over-maneuverability.
        1. PilotS37
          PilotS37 27 August 2019 23: 50
          +8
          Quote: Zeev Zeev
          Missiles today do not explode in a collision, detonation occurs at a distance, and the fragments go just to the sides, and not forward.

          Interestingly, when was it different?
          Well, Side or there the R-73, for example, can just stick into the nozzle (full of examples), but a medium-range missile with an RL head ... They were always designed taking into account the low probability of a direct hit.
          And "splinters" - it is poorly said! (Looks like Zeev Zeev, knows little about the device of real rockets ...)
        2. Ka-52
          Ka-52 28 August 2019 04: 49
          +10
          Zeev Zeev (Zeev Zeev)
          The first one. Modern missiles on modern planes can hit targets without turning the plane. They turn themselves on a combat course, even if the enemy’s aircraft is not in the front hemisphere. Moreover, as correctly noted in the article, the melee range now begins outside of visual detection.
          The second one. Anti-aircraft maneuver, even in the case of visual detection of an approaching missile, will cause the aircraft to receive more damage. Missiles today do not explode in a collision, detonation occurs at a distance, and the fragments go just to the sides, and not forward.
          The third. Modern military radars do not care about the sudden change in aircraft speed. Their antenna does not rotate, they have a headlamp and lose their target during antenna rotation, as they were in the 1960s.
          Therefore, despite the fact that aircraft maneuvers at different shows look spectacular (which greatly contributes to sales), nobody really bothers with over-maneuverability.

          no need to describe your fantasies and pass off as facts. I won’t even answer on points, you turned everything upside down, absurdity on absurdity.
          1. Zeev Zeev
            Zeev Zeev 28 August 2019 12: 25
            -9
            This is reality. The same "Python-5" has been able to hit targets in the rear hemisphere for fifteen years.
            1. Ka-52
              Ka-52 28 August 2019 12: 43
              +7
              This is reality

              purely yours reality created on the basis of advertising brochures and "analytics" of pseudo-experts, such as the respected author of this article. It has nothing to do with the reality of the mechanics of air combat.
              The same "Python-5" for fifteen years has been able to hit targets in the rear hemisphere

              Yes, in any hemisphere.
              1. Zeev Zeev
                Zeev Zeev 28 August 2019 13: 11
                -8
                You can find out how many planes shot down in an air battle at the USSR / Russia Air Force after the Korean War? Or even with pilots trained in Soviet flight schools. Only really downed, not fairy tales of the Arabian night.
                1. Ka-52
                  Ka-52 28 August 2019 13: 28
                  +8
                  You can find out how many planes shot down in an air battle at the USSR / Russia Air Force after the Korean War?

                  oooh, do not go from afar - let's go straight to comparing the size of pensions in Israel (USA, Germany) and in the USSR / RF. Everything is clear, you can do writing with others. Just for starters, comrade expert, at least learn that

                  Anti-aircraft maneuver, even in the case of visual detection of an approaching missile, will lead to


                  anti-zenith maneuvering is performed against MZA. And against a missile attack - anti-missile. Hardly anyone tried to dodge the rocket with a "snake" laughing
                  1. Zeev Zeev
                    Zeev Zeev 28 August 2019 13: 53
                    -7
                    Are we discussing air combat here? How can we talk about the technique of air combat from the point of view of the Air Force, which has not participated in air battles for more than 40 years? That is, everything is in theory, but without practice, all these techniques are worth little.
                    And about maneuvers. You can change the word "anti-aircraft" to anti-missile, if that is clearer.
                    1. Red_Baron
                      Red_Baron 28 August 2019 16: 33
                      +5
                      But Israel does not produce combat aircraft at all, is it then possible to say that its pilots cannot fully use their capabilities in battle, since they do not understand the principles of work, if they do not. I just continued your logic.
                      1. Zeev Zeev
                        Zeev Zeev 28 August 2019 18: 56
                        -6
                        Israel has good experience developing and producing its own fighter jets. Avionics and electronics on its own Israeli fighter jets.
                    2. Constructor68
                      Constructor68 28 August 2019 17: 01
                      +7
                      And about maneuvers. You can change the word "anti-aircraft" to anti-missile, if that is clearer.

                      If you confuse anti-aircraft and anti-missile maneuvers, what else are you going to judge in the specifics of air combat?
                      How can we talk about the technique of air combat from the point of view of the Air Force, which has not participated in air battles for more than 40 years?

                      And about participation or non-participation - here you are, for example, how many enemy planes were shot down personally? I think that you are not even a pilot. But you try to judge
                      How many planes were shot down by pilots F35 and F22? No one. But you are trying to clog our brain here with an idea based precisely on the superiority concepts of the performance characteristics of precisely these machines
                      1. Zeev Zeev
                        Zeev Zeev 28 August 2019 18: 59
                        -4
                        I never mentioned fifth-generation fighters anywhere.
                      2. Constructor68
                        Constructor68 28 August 2019 19: 04
                        +5
                        Ahh, I'm sorry, I thought your words
                        Modern rockets on modern airplanes

                        Modern military radars do not care

                        relate specifically to F22 / 35. It seems much more modern, but you can see you know even more modern lol
                      3. Zeev Zeev
                        Zeev Zeev 28 August 2019 19: 24
                        -8
                        Modern machines are the development of 70-80 years. Modernized
                      4. Constructor68
                        Constructor68 29 August 2019 02: 51
                        +4
                        Then what is arguing against the F-22, his program started in 85-87gg? lol Everything fits into your own ideas yes
                    3. ser56
                      ser56 28 August 2019 18: 11
                      +3
                      Quote: Zeev Zeev
                      How can we talk about the technique of air combat from the point of view of the Air Force, which has not participated in air battles for more than 40 years? T

                      Do you know how to build airplanes? feel
        3. Proxima
          Proxima 28 August 2019 10: 12
          +3
          Quote: Zeev Zeev
          Moreover, as correctly noted in the article, the melee range now begins outside of visual detection.

          Wow! belay And then what is the distance of ranged combat !? When are fighters in different hemispheres? fellow
          1. Zeev Zeev
            Zeev Zeev 28 August 2019 12: 21
            -2
            A long-range battle is tens of kilometers.
          2. Barmal
            Barmal 29 August 2019 22: 49
            +1
            and automatic cannons are put on these "modern aircraft" (c) just as a tribute to tradition, nothing more than, yeah.
            1. Bratkov Oleg
              Bratkov Oleg 3 September 2019 14: 07
              0
              And in the future aerial battle no one will shoot down Avaxa! They are not touched! Therefore, US fighters will fly with the radars turned off, and inconspicuous, on a tip from the Avaxes, and dominate the sky.
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 11 September 2019 14: 55
                0
                Naivety ... AWACKS, in your opinion, no one guards? We'll have to gnaw at the defense, bearing considerable losses. FDI worse overall aircraft condition and less pilots flying.
        4. Eduard Egorov
          Eduard Egorov 6 September 2019 23: 35
          0
          To your comments, I concluded that to equip a plywood maize with advanced electronics, and do not give a shit about all these super-maneuverability, it never occurred to you why the Americans chose the more maneuverable f 22 than the more secretive f 23, and also look at those who participated into the contest, why did they again choose not the secretive one, but that one somehow flew, and the f 35 in secrecy will be much better than the f117 and fNNXX. So sometimes you need to enable logic.
      4. AUL
        AUL 27 August 2019 20: 30
        +2
        Quote: Proxima
        The maneuverability (even over-maneuverability) of a modern fighter is needed (!!!)) for three reasons.

        1. Melee in our time is already such an exotic thing that spending machine resources on it, IMHO, is an inadmissible luxury.
        2. Do you think that a manned aircraft can "twist" a missile in-to or to-in? Well, let's even assume that the plane itself could. But the missiles are designed for overloads when maneuvering 20 - 25 g. And what will happen to the pilot even with a short-term single exposure to an overload of at least 10g?
        3. I admit that the Doppler radars during the execution of the "cobra" or "bell" during the execution of the figure may lose sight of the plane. But these are some moments, and then they will pick it up again. And not Doppler is on the drum.
        1. Red_Baron
          Red_Baron 27 August 2019 22: 38
          +9
          And how many missiles can maneuver in this way and after what distance?
          1. AUL
            AUL 27 August 2019 22: 40
            -2
            Quote: Red_Baron
            And how many missiles can maneuver in this way and after what distance?

            While the engine is running.
            1. Red_Baron
              Red_Baron 27 August 2019 22: 41
              0
              I understand. But the fighter’s fuel supply is much greater, as well as the ability to leave or maneuver.
              1. AUL
                AUL 27 August 2019 22: 44
                +3
                Neither at speed, nor maneuver can you get away from a modern rocket. You can only bring down the capture using EW or heat traps.
                1. Red_Baron
                  Red_Baron 27 August 2019 22: 49
                  0
                  But the posts below write that you will leave.
                2. Errr
                  Errr 28 August 2019 06: 06
                  +2
                  Quote: AUL
                  Neither at speed, nor maneuver can you get away from a modern rocket. You can only bring down the capture using EW or heat traps.
                  Well, is the opinion of the test pilot suitable as an argument? smile
                  1. LastPS
                    LastPS 28 August 2019 10: 07
                    -4
                    Seriously? Video from the TV channel "Star", ahaha.
                  2. Alexey G
                    Alexey G 29 August 2019 01: 32
                    -3
                    Beautiful, especially on a toy airplane. I really got the impression that the rocket that flew so close to the SU 35 from behind should have already detonated remotely, and the test pilot apparently wanted her to kiss the plane's ass and leaves it like a heifer from her lover, but the fuse is remote !! !
                    At drying before the maneuver, a half-tail was already chopped off, but the test pilot believes that he, as the hero of the film, dodged !!! Handsomely.
                3. 3danimal
                  3danimal 28 August 2019 15: 17
                  +5
                  At maximum range, a rocket with solid propellant rocket launcher has a completely burnt out powder bomb (“fuel tank”) and flies by inertia. Each maneuver entails an irrevocable loss of speed.
                  Here, the rocket to the ramjet is the winner, like the MBDA Meteor.
            2. Monar
              Monar 28 August 2019 03: 53
              +2
              Does dvigalovo missiles work before undermining?
            3. Alex_59
              Alex_59 28 August 2019 07: 23
              +4
              Quote: AUL
              While the engine is running.

              For modern rockets, the engine runs less than a match burns. 3-5 seconds. Further inertial flight with a constant loss of energy.
            4. goose
              goose 29 August 2019 12: 06
              0
              Quote: AUL
              While the engine is running.

              The last 40-50km at AIM-120C-D it does not work.
          2. Errr
            Errr 28 August 2019 05: 46
            +11
            Quote: Red_Baron
            And how many missiles can maneuver in this way and after what distance?
            The rocket will be able to maneuver, apparently, until it completely dries out, but the point is that the RVV has a fuel supply designed for a limited engine operating time. Usually this time is from 2 to 20 seconds depending on the type of rocket. During this time, the rocket accelerates to maximum flight speed and then moves by inertia with a constant decrease in its flight speed due to air resistance.
          3. Bratkov Oleg
            Bratkov Oleg 3 September 2019 14: 09
            +2
            Quote: Red_Baron
            And how many missiles can maneuver in this way and after what distance?

            American missiles can fly around the Earth two times, and then shoot down the gigantic MiG-29.
            1. Barmal
              Barmal 4 September 2019 11: 10
              0
              Quote: Bratkov Oleg
              Quote: Red_Baron
              And how many missiles can maneuver in this way and after what distance?

              American missiles can fly around the Earth two times, and then shoot down the gigantic MiG-29.

              not only that, the American missile, after it beats off a moment or drying up, flies in search of new targets with the help of Avax, catches up with a new target, knocks it down, and after that it goes to land on Ilona Mask on the offshore platform. The only way. And no other way. What are the doubts about the excellent athletic form of American missiles and weapons. No dope or drugs. The net result.
        2. Ka-52
          Ka-52 28 August 2019 08: 50
          +6
          1. Melee in our time is already such an exotic thing that spending machine resources on it, IMHO, is an inadmissible luxury.
          2. Do you think that a manned aircraft can "twist" a missile in-to or to-in? Well, let's even assume that the plane itself could. But the missiles are designed for overloads when maneuvering 20 - 25 g. And what will happen to the pilot even with a short-term single exposure to an overload of at least 10g?
          3. I admit that the Doppler radars during the execution of the "cobra" or "bell" during the execution of the figure may lose sight of the plane. But these are some moments, and then they will pick it up again. And not Doppler is on the drum.

          do not repeat after others the same misconceptions about exotics, overloads, cobras and Doppler shift)
        3. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 30 August 2019 11: 42
          +3
          Quote: AUL
          And what will happen to the pilot even with short-term single exposure to an overload of at least 10g?

          "..... David Purley (Formula 1 pilot),
          after braking at a speed of 173 km / h to a complete stop at a distance of 66 cm in the accident at Silverstone, Northens, UK, July 13, 1977
          He survived by experiencing overload 179,8 G and suffered 29 fractures, 3 displacements and 6 cardiac arrests. He is alive and still racing ...... "
      5. Simargl
        Simargl 27 August 2019 20: 51
        +8
        Quote: Proxima
        and here the author claims this ..
        Give him a "penguin" to feel - he will lose consciousness from happiness, and only from FU-22 - full pants.
        The question remains: what will happen if two subtle, but one maneuverable, collide. And not in the sea, but in the mountains ...
        1. dauria
          dauria 28 August 2019 00: 27
          +6
          The question remains: what will happen if two subtle, but one maneuverable, collide


          Nonsense. And the author of the article is wrong. None of the designers (ours, Americans, Chinese) specifically sets themselves the task of "super maneuverability". It itself is obtained from a high thrust-to-weight ratio and a relatively low wing load.
          These figures are approximately the same for the fourth and fifth generation.
          And they are dictated by the required speed, rate of climb, combat radius, combat load and takeoff and landing characteristics. A modern fighter that meets these requirements simply cannot be non-maneuverable. And to get away even from the "ancient" R-60 with its probability 0,9, overload 40g, all-aspect, with proportional aiming at the anticipated meeting point if it is launched within acceptable limits - well, miracles do happen.
          He let him go first and managed to get away before they answered - these are modern realities.
          And for those who talk about "high angular velocities", which do not allow aiming, have everyone seen the liner in the sky? The distance to it (inclined) is no more than 15 km, the speed is 900. So what? crawling like a fly on glass. An attempt to "sharp" maneuvering from the launch range will look exactly the same - well, the point crawled away by a couple of degrees in a second.
          1. Ka-52
            Ka-52 28 August 2019 05: 06
            +12
            well, miracles do happen.

            it’s not a matter of miracles, but how much reaction and self-control you have. As well as how quickly you know how to work RUS, ORE and pedals.
            not giving aim.

            not such a thing. There is maneuvering to disrupt guidance. There are several tactics both alone and in groups.
            An attempt to "sharp" maneuvering from the launch range will look exactly the same - well, the point crawled away by a couple of degrees in a second.

            wrong, any maneuvering leads to the need to perform maneuvers for the rocket. With a corresponding loss of energy.
            1. dauria
              dauria 28 August 2019 05: 45
              +3
              any maneuvering leads to the need to perform maneuvers for the rocket.


              The method of "direct aiming" and "chase" (when the axis or the vector of the missile's velocity is directed to the target) are a thing of the past in the 70s. For a long time only proportional guidance has been used. Only the coordinator (head) is directed to the target. Velocity vector - to the meeting point. And the overload of the rocket at long ranges is scanty, no matter how spinning the plane, and at the last kilometer it slips in 2 seconds. Moreover, the remaining 300 meters, it is not controlled, but flies like a blank (all the same, the target will not jump out of the zone of the radio or optical fuse). This was done on purpose due to signal fluctuations at short ranges and inadmissible rocket swing. Permissible overload R-60 40g with a maneuvering target up to 12g. From this condition, the launch zones were determined from different angles. If the launch is "in the zone," only a prayer for missile failure with a probability of 1 out of 10 will help. No maneuvers such as "turn to a missile with a descent" and shoot LTZ will help, as in Vietnam.
              1. Ka-52
                Ka-52 28 August 2019 06: 08
                +3
                The method of "direct aiming" and "chase" (when the axis or the vector of the missile's velocity is directed to the target) are a thing of the past in the 70s. For a long time only proportional guidance has been used. Only the coordinator (head) is directed to the target. Velocity vector - to the meeting point. And the overload of the rocket at long ranges is scanty, no matter how spinning the plane, and at the last kilometer it slips in 2 seconds. Moreover, the remaining 300 meters, it is not controlled, but flies like a blank (all the same, the target will not jump out of the zone of the radio or optical fuse). This was done on purpose due to signal fluctuations at short ranges and inadmissible rocket swing.

                oh sorry no time to argue with you. The question is interesting and difficult. If only later, in a couple of hours :)
              2. Ka-52
                Ka-52 28 August 2019 08: 40
                +4
                The method of "direct guidance" and "chase" (when the axis or velocity vector of the missile is directed to the target) are a thing of the past in the 70s. For a long time only proportional guidance has been used. Only the coordinator (head) is directed to the target. Velocity vector - to the meeting point

                certainly no one denies. Just what does it change in modern realities? If earlier GOS RVV had poor noise immunity, a narrow coordinator target, a simple algorithm, but their goals in Vietnam also had low flight characteristics (F-4: TV - 0,7, UNK - 450; Su-35: TV - 1,1 , UNK - 410), and counter-reaction systems were either low-power or absent altogether, then with the growth of weapons capabilities the technical capabilities of aircraft and their defense systems also increase. Therefore, each war has its own weapon.
                And overloading the missile at long ranges is scanty, no matter how the plane turns, and at the last kilometer it skips in 2 seconds

                let's talk about either one thing, or RVV DB or RVV SD and DB. Otherwise, confusion arises. In one place you write about long-range overloads, in another place about the R-60 and the LPC firing. At different distances, various tactics are followed for evading an attacking missile.
                And overloading the missile at long range is scanty, no matter how the plane turns, and at the last kilometer it skips in 2 seconds.

                missile maneuvering over the entire flight path of an attacking missile can be different. For example, if at the beginning of this flight it is purely trajectory with the production of information interference, then on the last 1/3 of the trajectory it can be active with the shooting of dipoles. Perhaps the use of their own weapons. In general, the tactics of air combat on SD and DB can be different: intercept or duel. Accordingly, even duel tactics are divided into options / stages:
                - occupation of a tactically advantageous position;
                - pre-emptive missile launch on the enemy;
                - protection against an attacking rocket of the enemy using it
                their missiles;
                - protection from an attacking enemy rocket with evasion from battle;
                - exit from air combat.
                The most interesting thing is that during the semi-natural simulation of battles of equal opponents, the plane that was the first to leave the battle was losing.
                From this condition, the launch zones were determined from different angles. If the launch is "in the zone," only a prayer for missile failure with a probability of 1 out of 10 will help. No maneuvers such as "turn to a missile with a descent" and shoot LTZ will help, as in Vietnam.

                if we are talking about missiles RVV DB with AGSN (IK) and generally about melee, then the situation is different. The task will be to first go out the viewing angles, allowing you to launch a rocket. And here begin to play the aircraft's ability to energetically maneuver without loss (or with minimal) energy. For example, a coup, with a quick change of direction of flight by 180 ° with a simultaneous decrease in altitude and increase (or preservation) of flight speed. The hill you mentioned with LPC firing has a chance to thwart a rocket attack from the AGSN (whatever you say), but it all depends on the spatial position of the aircraft, their speeds relative to each other and the launch range.
                1. dauria
                  dauria 28 August 2019 13: 16
                  +3
                  The hill you mentioned with the LPC firing has a chance to thwart a rocket attack from the AGSN (so you don't say),


                  Who argues. Keeping the trajectory of the aircraft perpendicular to the rocket's velocity vector is the only way to make the "proportional" rocket maneuver. But the rocket scientists know it too. Roughly speaking, acceleration is proportional to the square of the speed divided by the turning radius. ... The rocket's speed is on average 2 times higher. With the same radius, the overload is 4 times higher. Hence the numbers 47g at 12g for the target. From the same considerations, the area of ​​the rocket wing is also chosen. Well, the fighter will not "twist" the missile. And electronics is even sadder. After all, I brought the BB rockets of the late 70s. But even then they were "probing" the idea of ​​additional channels (ultraviolet contrast against the sky). And now, with a video and a submillimeter location, a computer with brains on board, what the adversaries have done there, you can't even imagine.
                  And not for dog fighting or dodging missiles, this fighter maneuverability. Just with a thrust-weight ratio of about 1, the wing load is on average 375 kg per square meter. m and a glider strength of 9 g, even a stupa of a woman’s yaga will perfectly maneuver. This is a consequence of the requirements of range, speed, rate of climb and landing speeds, and not an end in itself.
                  1. Ka-52
                    Ka-52 28 August 2019 13: 41
                    +4
                    And not for dog fighting or dodging missiles, this fighter maneuverability. Just with a thrust-weight ratio of about 1, the wing load is on average 375 kg per square meter. m and a glider strength of 9 g, even a stupa of a woman’s yaga will perfectly maneuver.

                    laughing laughing laughing I wonder how to calculate the load on the wing at the stupa of Baba Yaga :))) although in general here you are right. For Baba Yaga a separate plus +))
                    but I still do not agree with this.
                    And not for dog fighting or dodging missiles, this fighter maneuverability.

                    because at close range, the aircraft with better maneuverability will sooner reach the attack position and launch will perform from a better position. Accordingly, he has more chances to defeat the enemy. And so that the chorus of bunny boys with songs about the all-angle shelling that puts a bullet in the BB is not performed, we think both understand that this is not so
                    1. Alexey G
                      Alexey G 29 August 2019 02: 02
                      +1
                      Thanks for the nice argument. I read with attention, as if watching the battle of an airplane with a rocket. The plane is a pity. But that’s the rocket, it’s his fate and death, although it is still necessary to fight.
                    2. Mainbeam
                      Mainbeam 14 September 2019 17: 29
                      0
                      Quote: Ka-52
                      at close range, the aircraft with better maneuverability will sooner reach the attack position and launch will perform from a better position

                      I think close combat maneuvers (with such a progressive development of missiles, radars and stealth) in the foreseeable future will die like a class

          2. Simargl
            Simargl 28 August 2019 07: 20
            0
            Quote: dauria
            None of the designers (ours, Americans, Chinese) specifically sets themselves the task of "super maneuverability".
            OBT for what?
            Quote: dauria
            have you seen a liner in the sky? The range to it (inclined) is not more than 15 km, speed 900. So what? crawling like a fly on glass.
            You also need to take into account the size, radar visibility, speed, the ability to hide in the folds of the terrain (well, if only Tu-160 / PAK YES are not accompanied) ...
          3. Bratkov Oleg
            Bratkov Oleg 3 September 2019 14: 13
            0
            Quote: dauria
            And to get away even from the "ancient" R-60 with its probability 0,9, overload 40g, all-aspect, with proportional aiming at the anticipated meeting point if it is launched within acceptable limits - well, miracles happen.

            But here's the weirdness. There is only one case in history when a helicopter was shot down by a fighter, and although the helicopters are armed with Air-to-Air missiles, in other cases the shooting at the fighter was at the level of a "miracle", that is, they never got hit. And there the rocket overloads 40, and there ... but they didn't hit it anymore, the fighter, it turns out, dodges quite normally.
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal 28 August 2019 15: 20
          0
          It depends on how subtle. Say, the characteristics of the Sud-57 and F-35 (not even the F-22) in the faculty are very different. And even visually clear why.
      6. FRoman1984
        FRoman1984 28 August 2019 07: 29
        +1
        You still have to live to close combat. Who will let such a distance in modern warfare.
        I agree with the author of the article - maneuverability, if needed, will be in rare cases.
        A crooked analogy - in 1991, the Abrams, as in dashes, shot all the tanks of Saddam for one simple reason - they had thermal imagers, and the T-72 and the rest did not.
        First saw, first shot.
        1. Ka-52
          Ka-52 28 August 2019 10: 23
          +8
          FRoman1984 (novel)
          A crooked analogy - in 1991, the Abrams, as in dashes, shot all the tanks of Saddam for one simple reason - they had thermal imagers, and the T-72 and the rest did not.

          I’ll give the same Iraqi example for these couch analysts:
          On January 5, 1999, during Operation Southern Observation, there was an air battle (if you can call it that) between 2 F-15Cs and 2 Iraqi MiG-25s that flew into the restricted area. The Americans released 3 AIM-7 and 1 AIM-120. All missiles pass by. Then 2 Kota joined the Needles and fired 2 AIM-54 Phoenix missiles. Past again. as a result, the 25s went into their zone without losses. Therefore, I want to say this - to declare "they will knock everyone down for 100 km, close combat is anachranism" is utter nonsense and a marker for experts from the couch. There is always the possibility of events developing differently from what everyone thinks.
          1. FRoman1984
            FRoman1984 28 August 2019 18: 31
            -4
            I saw that some "experts" also gathered. And that the MiG-25 went away due to its maneuverability? Or is it due to the speed, as it was in Egypt, for example? Did you study the details of that fight?
            It's funny when a subject like you hangs up labels so easily, being essentially no one. They participated in aerial combat and left missiles? Kindergarten, not even a sofa expert.
            1. Ka-52
              Ka-52 29 August 2019 05: 10
              +6
              I saw that some "experts" also gathered. And that the MiG-25 went away due to its maneuverability? Or is it due to the speed, as it was in Egypt, for example?

              and what are you excited? First, he gave an "analogy" comparing air combat with a tank one, pointed out long-range missile combat as the only possible one, and then took offense at the title of sofa analyst when I cited a real case (unlike your finger-in-the-sky analysis), showing that in all cases and by no means all missiles launched at different distances (including long-range ones) reach the target. It's bad that you don't even understand this
              It's funny when a subject like you hangs up labels so easily, being essentially no one. They participated in aerial combat and left missiles?

              this subject has completed the Tambov VVAUL and has a track record. And what is your soul? Can you distinguish the B-36 from the A-711?
              1. FRoman1984
                FRoman1984 29 August 2019 19: 14
                -3
                Yes, "offended" that the words "sofa" and "stupidity" should not be applied to the opinions of other forum participants. An opinion is an opinion that is wrong, or simply does not coincide with yours. Subjective, in short.
                An example of a tank battle - I called it "crooked" initially, if you read it above.
                The point was that those who have technical capabilities higher / better in terms of target formation will win in the end. No, really? Speaking generally, and not with exceptions to operate.
                Of course, missiles do not always achieve their goal, many factors. What kind of finger-to-sky analysis are you talking about? And where is there any kind of analysis on my part?
                Okay, apparently, your mother and father did not teach you politeness in general and tolerance towards other people's opinions in particular, there is no sense in communicating further, pass by.
                1. Bratkov Oleg
                  Bratkov Oleg 3 September 2019 14: 19
                  0
                  Helicopters are armed with Air-to-Air missiles, and the helicopters shoot them ... But there is only one case in history when a helicopter was shot down by a fighter.
      7. dmmyak40
        dmmyak40 28 August 2019 22: 30
        0
        Speaking about "twisting the enemy" do not forget about the helmet-mounted target designation system: it is enough to turn the head with the imposition of a mark on the target, confirm the capture of the target by the head, launch. Before the helmet-mounted system, maneuverability mattered more.
      8. Lucy
        Lucy 11 September 2019 22: 55
        0
        Did you fly to IA? With a tactical unit unit, a couple familiar? Defensively - did you study offensive maneuvers while conducting the BVB?
    3. Ka-52
      Ka-52 28 August 2019 04: 55
      +3
      The author is an amateur, juggling greasy speculations that are very distant from the realities of air combat. Why do such articles even appear on VO? Dear Ilya, do not meddle in similar subjects anymore
      1. Bratkov Oleg
        Bratkov Oleg 3 September 2019 14: 21
        0
        Amateur articles appear on the site from time to time. What grenades are cheaper, defensive, or offensive, and the author has never heard of these terms, then something else ...)))
    4. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 29 August 2019 09: 11
      +4
      Judging by the article of respected Ilya, you need to quit the production of fighters in general!
      The Tu-160 carries much more missiles, has a huge range, has sufficient speed for the speed of the reaction, and with its energy and dimensions it can provide an on-board radar with a long-range view of the space. This is in case of war.
      And in Peacetime, there’s no reason at all to bother - there is an ZRV, and “corncuts” are quite enough to control the space
      They can also be screwed into a powerful radar and take on board a couple of dozen missiles.
      What about fighters? This is a cut!
      Brand the MO!
    5. Bratkov Oleg
      Bratkov Oleg 3 September 2019 14: 05
      +1
      Before the Vietnam War, the Americans made exactly such arguments, one to one. Well, rockets are more accurate now than they were then. but then the missiles were much more accurate than cannon-machine-gun fire ... The commentators completely forgot about the cannons, and the missiles "beat" them in all respects, exceeding them many times in efficiency ... And then came the day of shame.
      And now they again smoothly lay that F-35 didn’t throw money away, that he was the fifth generation plane, the future sovereign of the sky. And then, you need to buy it.
    6. zenion
      zenion 4 September 2019 15: 57
      0
      Something everyone wants the plane to fly like a hummingbird. But they do not understand that aircraft do not collect nectar. The most important thing is to get off the ground and the second most important thing is to get to the ground. If someone is watching cartoons, no matter whose country - the main thing is to sit down, it's hard to catch your breath and pretend to be a piece of stone.
    7. Sevastiec
      Sevastiec 4 September 2019 18: 22
      0
      In this situation, a simple question can be posed: what should a modern fighter do in conditions when rocket weapons have reached such heights? Simply put, how can he survive? There is an opportunity for this, but it requires large financial costs and faces considerable technical risks associated with a decrease in the effective dispersion area, and, more simply, an improvement in stealth indicators.



      Incorrectly posed question and half correct conclusion. Supermaneuverability is also a means of invisibility, as well as a means of evading missiles. If the American "invisible", new radars are seen at a distance of 100 km. It turns out that this is no longer an average distance. That is, the Russian plane, theoretically, can evade the missile, or, having made a sharp maneuver with an almost one hundred percent drop in speed, the GB will be lost altogether, but the American plane will most likely be destroyed?
  2. prodi
    prodi 27 August 2019 18: 16
    -1
    in my opinion, maneuverability remains a fundamental quality, even if only in the quality of dodging a missile (coupled with some kind of blende)
    1. Nycomed
      Nycomed 27 August 2019 18: 32
      -4
      Only if you saw a rocket flying at you
      1. prodi
        prodi 27 August 2019 18: 38
        -24
        those. even this is beyond the power of soviet technology?
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 28 August 2019 15: 24
        -1
        You can see the attacking missile from afar, if you have a sensor system (like DAS in the F-35).
    2. 210ox
      210ox 27 August 2019 18: 57
      +12
      I partially agree with you. However, as mentioned above, what kind of overload will the human body withstand and what kind of rocket construct? Here is the answer. With modern technology, maneuverability goes by the wayside. The main thing is to first detect the enemy and strike.
      1. prodi
        prodi 27 August 2019 19: 26
        +1
        about overloading is a crafty parameter, even a simple acceleration at the right time towards the rocket (with the barrel) can work, the main thing is the right moment. As for the attack first, it will most likely be on the opposite course
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 28 August 2019 15: 29
        -2
        It is necessary to clarify: there is practically no chance of a maneuver of a fighter from a modern BVB missile, with a maximum overload of 50-60g, with an engine with OBT.
        Against the “medium” (AIM-120, up to 180km) and long-range missiles (400km, low maneuverability), when fired at the maximum distance, they are significantly larger.
        1. purple
          purple 28 August 2019 19: 30
          +5
          that then it would be so 1 rocket - 1 downed plane ... but this is far from the case, so the sofa theorists are better silent.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 28 August 2019 19: 47
            -2
            There is always a small statistical probability. Therefore, they release a couple of rockets.
            In the vast majority of episodes, this is enough.
            And in the case of AIM-9x (or RVV-MD) - even more so.
  3. paul3390
    paul3390 27 August 2019 18: 19
    +29
    The author somehow especially voluptuously believes all American propaganda ... Besides, the plane doesn’t just maneuver, but he also actively uses electronic warfare. Is it easier to get away from the capture and maneuver the rocket than flying in a straight line? I don’t think that our designers and warriors are just so dumber as opponents that they insist on the implementation of super-maneuverability .. Probably - they still have good arguments for this .. And so - the Americans have declared the same thing for the umpteenth time - such as maneuverability , everything will be decided by long-range combat and advanced electronics. And each time they are liquidly trimmed ..
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 27 August 2019 20: 08
      -3
      Quote: paul3390
      And each time they are liquidly trimmed ..

      I understand you perfectly - the honor of a uniform is above all. Then, sorry for the immodest question:
      Tell us about the cases of cropping when applying, at least F-35i? Let's put the caps in place, especially since there simply will not be enough for all of them, and we will tell people about their own victories in the sky against an equal enemy.
      Quote: paul3390
      I do not think that our designers ...

      Good luck to our designers in creating aircraft engines large and small, good and different ...
      Quote: paul3390
      Is it easier to get away from the capture and maneuver from the rocket than flying in a straight line?

      Yes, there were cases when, while looping, the hare left the shot from the AK (even the lineup) - there is a witness (Yasha Polunin from 2 MSB 272 MSP). But another thing is when a high-speed rocket catches up with an aircraft with a high degree of target retention. The surviving guys after the duel: the stinger against the helicopter, can confirm.
      An adversary revealing your mistakes is much more useful than a friend concealing them.
      Leonardo da Vinci.

      Underestimating the enemy is reckless (see. Six Day War).
      Zhukov also understood the enemy when he planned front-line operations, for:
      May my enemy be strong and terrible. If I overcome it, I will not feel shame.
      But the Americans are simply obliged to constantly feel shame. All countries against which they started a war opposed the svor and were much weaker in economic terms.
      This American feature of warfare guarantees Russia a relative period of calm from "partner military harassment", although attacks from satellites are possible.
      hi
      1. Ramzaj99
        Ramzaj99 27 August 2019 20: 35
        +6
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Tell us about the cases of cropping when applying, at least F-35i?

        And where have they at least once fought against a fighter? at least the previous generation ??))
      2. Alexey G
        Alexey G 29 August 2019 02: 28
        0
        An adversary revealing your mistakes is much more useful than a friend concealing them.
        Leonardo da Vinci.
        There are no words. Quote SUPER. Thank you
    2. FRoman1984
      FRoman1984 28 August 2019 07: 50
      -1
      For example?
      Where did they manage in modern wars? In Iraq in 1991, Saddam was rolled to zero, if not sadly, but also the brothers of the Serbs, then again the Iraqis.
      I do not support them, I try to analyze and understand why they believe that the future lies in long-range combat and means of detection. Why don't they prioritize maneuverability in our realities?
      Maybe because if you were found first, but you couldn’t, and they shot at you with two AIM-120Ds, then maneuverability will not help and you won’t get away from them? "Bell", "barrels" and cobras "twist? Does this really help?

      After all, the United States is not fools to design weapons, and they are developing concepts with strategies. It is a mistake to consider the “partners” as fools, and themselves as those who really fumble in the subject ...
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 28 August 2019 15: 37
        0
        I transmit a similar position, often receiving reproaches for the citizenship of Israel or the United States) And after clarifying that they are not there - in the work for the State Department;)
      2. goose
        goose 29 August 2019 12: 19
        +1
        Quote: FRoman1984
        Maybe because if you were found first, but you couldn’t, and they shot at you with two AIM-120Ds, then maneuverability will not help and you won’t get away from them? "Bell", "barrels" and cobras "twist? Does this really help?

        The main thing is to detect the attacking rocket on time, and there are problems with this.
        The dual-mode AIM-120 engine gives a chance to leave the affected area when a start is detected.
        OLS is able to detect a working rocket engine at a distance of at least 60 km.
        Maneuvers when starting at a distance of 60 km - yes, it will help. Well, ground level - will help disrupt the capture of the ARGSN.
        With a meteor, it’s much more complicated and with other forward-flow guns when shooting at a long range, everything is much more complicated.
    3. Alexey G
      Alexey G 29 August 2019 02: 20
      -4
      Here you see all the time that these are suckers of suckers, and thoughts such that dry ones play in your favorite theme of dancing in the air in the absence of serious opponents in the domestic military-industrial complex, you don’t want to admit with a weak Mig. What kind of belief in own infallibility ???
      Like my corruption doesn’t smell like that ??
    4. Alexey G
      Alexey G 29 August 2019 02: 22
      0
      Do you believe only in your agitation ?? Is not it?
  4. Amateur
    Amateur 27 August 2019 18: 21
    +4
    The United States, according to various estimates, lost up to 900 such fighters in Vietnam. However, you need to understand that most of the cars died not in air battles, but as a result of non-combat incidents, or from the fire of Vietnamese field artillery.
    1. Sergey-8848
      Sergey-8848 27 August 2019 19: 27
      +13
      Also drew attention to this paragraph. If there were so many "non-combat incidents", that means training the pilots is not in the arc. If Vietnamese field artillery knocked a certain number of "Phantoms", then honor and praise. Both the first and the second are not entirely true, because the pilots were sufficiently trained, this time. And second, if an anti-aircraft gun is in a rice field, it does not become a field artillery.
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 27 August 2019 22: 22
        0
        Probably meant in the parking lot artillery beaten. But this is also strange.
        1. Mooh
          Mooh 27 August 2019 22: 58
          +7
          Take it cooler, then on an aircraft carrier, field artillery.
          Oh, I get it, John McCain is Vietnamese field artillery!
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 28 August 2019 15: 45
            -4
            Take an interest in a person’s biography, using not only the first channel as a source.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Barmal
              Barmal 4 September 2019 12: 49
              0
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 4 September 2019 19: 11
                0
                An interesting point: McCain was offered to be exchanged (father admiral) separately from those who sat with him, but he refused. Having lost, as a result, a lot of health, disability, etc. (could not raise his arms above his shoulders). Freed up with everyone. Many here are ready to repeat ??
                And the story about the fire on the aircraft carrier is the result of the negligence of the aircraft carrier (maintenance).
                1. Barmal
                  Barmal 6 September 2019 00: 37
                  0
                  I'll tell you about the smoke from a Russian aircraft carrier: no matter how much they say about this smoke for granted, no one in the West takes it seriously, they laugh. Do not find that the story on the aircraft carrier and other exploits of McCain do not cause anything but a smile and skepticism when they mention anything. Especially when dad wanted to redeem his son (or dad wanted to exchange his son in some other way?) Dad was just ready to pay for his son, but he was not ready to "buy" freedom for the entire captive American kagal. Many there in the blessed States were ready to do it at their own expense (if funds were available, essno)?
                  1. 3danimal
                    3danimal 6 September 2019 04: 27
                    0
                    What is your comment about? They are all bad and greedy, and we are all saints ??
                    Comparing the charity expenses of their billionaires and ours, the result is in their favor. And more likely that Gates will pay the ransom than any Timchenko. It’s better to add a new yacht;)
                    And in that story, it was the stubborn young idealist who refused to go out alone, without comrades.
                    1. Barmal
                      Barmal 6 September 2019 10: 59
                      0
                      was a young idealist shot down in the sky of blessed America? Why would I (obscenities) understand Go_na McCain? Do not think that mister. The fact that this Mr. was severely beaten and tortured in captivity - is he the only one in the history of mankind?
                      1. 3danimal
                        3danimal 6 September 2019 20: 26
                        0
                        They performed an international duty, as we do in Afghanistan)
                        It is not a matter of torture (what to expect from enough "wild" people), but that few would refuse a ransom without comrades in service and captivity.
  5. Pivot
    Pivot 27 August 2019 18: 30
    +15
    Well then, why do you need fighters, you can supply TU160 and 22 with an unlimited number of air-to-air missiles and bombard enemy fighter squadrons with these missiles. But it seems to me that this is very primitive and the author pulls a toad onto the globe in this article.
    1. Corn
      Corn 27 August 2019 19: 29
      0
      Well then, why do you need fighters, you can supply the TU160 and 22 with an unreasonable number of air-to-air missiles and bombard the enemy fighter squadrons with these missiles.
      the problem is invisibility, survival and effectiveness, as a result. A lot of missiles is good, but you also need to be able to detect the target before it does, and it would be very nice to get away from the retaliatory strike (with a thrust-weight ratio of 0.4 like the Tu160 and Tu22 would have problems with this)
      1. Mooh
        Mooh 27 August 2019 23: 00
        +1
        On the A-50 hang a bunch of RVV. Well, he surely will see it sooner. The king fighter will succeed.
        1. Zeev Zeev
          Zeev Zeev 28 August 2019 00: 04
          -4
          A-50 is too big and fat. Yes, it radiates like Ostankino.
          1. Mooh
            Mooh 28 August 2019 00: 39
            +2
            Sarkaaazm !!! Do you know such a word comrade Zeev?
            1. Zeev Zeev
              Zeev Zeev 28 August 2019 12: 28
              0
              But the control point of a UAV group with air-to-air missiles, an AWACS aircraft, may well be.
              1. Barmal
                Barmal 4 September 2019 11: 32
                0
                ohh, control hub !! unshakable from the word at all! a dream, not an aircraft.
                1. Zeev Zeev
                  Zeev Zeev 4 September 2019 11: 59
                  0
                  As close as any other AWACS aircraft or flying control center.
                  1. Barmal
                    Barmal 4 September 2019 12: 08
                    0
                    then everything is in order - first we look at maneuverability as an extra element in the presence of avacs and methods of aiming stealth aircraft at enemy aircraft and no maneuvers will save the enemy from missiles launched from over the horizon, but after half an hour of waging a war, "everything money "all of a sudden it turns out that, without avacs and the help of control points, to complete a combat mission and have a chance in a battle with an actively maneuvering enemy is reduced to zero, because it is not a problem to overwhelm a cow with a tiger - just give the opportunity to do it. That is, all the talk about irrelevance and excess on Russian planes is talk in favor of the poor.
                    1. Zeev Zeev
                      Zeev Zeev 4 September 2019 12: 25
                      0
                      During World War II, almost the most honorable trophy for Soviet pilots was not the "Messers" and "Fokkers", but the "frame" FW-189. And not at all due to its outstanding maneuverability, but because the spotters were very well guarded. And AWACS is just as guarded.
                      1. Barmal
                        Barmal 4 September 2019 12: 42
                        0
                        These are all words, but in war it is like in war. And everyone will have their trump cards in their hands, which they have collected by the hour of X. And today these conversations about "excesses" are empty pounding of water in a mortar. When there is a small advantage in some property on the scales, then it will become known what exactly is important.
                      2. 3danimal
                        3danimal 6 September 2019 05: 18
                        0
                        IMHO, our main trump card today is the willingness to "spend" personnel, compensating for the shortcomings in high-precision weapons, UAVs, guidance systems and the overall training of this personnel.
                      3. Barmal
                        Barmal 6 September 2019 11: 04
                        0
                        do you have something with memory? didn’t it occur to you what to say in this vein about the Russian Army and Navy after the withdrawal of the contingent of SA from Eastern Europe and the entire bacchanalia in the country (obscenities), is the current state of affairs never comparable with that (obscenities)?
                      4. 3danimal
                        3danimal 6 September 2019 20: 31
                        0
                        The history of the Chechen wars confirms my words.
                        The withdrawal of troops has nothing to do with this. In addition, there was an urgent need to cut costs. Including, ceasing to support financially the Communist Party in Western countries (parasites).
                        Dogmatists brought the economy.
          2. purple
            purple 28 August 2019 19: 32
            +2
            quite expensive confused ... the main thing is to launch first, right? And already no plane will leave a rocket, 1 rocket - 1 plane laughing laughing
            Something I am laughing with you from the sect
        2. Pivot
          Pivot 28 August 2019 08: 32
          +6
          I liked the lines in the article about how as soon as the pilot begins to carry out a missile maneuver, the author called him a figure of aerobatics, he will immediately be hit by a second missile. The fighters should now have an inscription as soon as you were irradiated, immediately eject, otherwise they will be knocked down with a second missile.
  6. yehat
    yehat 27 August 2019 18: 34
    +17
    According to the US Air Force, they lost 67 aircraft of all types in air battles, having shot down about the same or more enemy aircraft, while (again, according to the US), more than a hundred enemy vehicles were shot down specifically by the F-4.

    and here I heard other data from the US Air Force that the coefficient killed / lost in the phantom is noticeably lower than unity.
    and the record holder for efficiency was the deck-mounted just maneuverable fighter crusader.
    and he overtook the phantom almost 3 times (it seems 2.4 or 2.6). These are official US statistics,
    which discourages themselves.
    the author, where do you get the data ???
    1. Mooh
      Mooh 27 August 2019 23: 01
      +1
      the author, where do you get the data ???

      Perhaps National Interest?
    2. Bratkov Oleg
      Bratkov Oleg 3 September 2019 14: 31
      +2
      And I read a book about the combat use of aircraft carriers, there is one article about the battle of the American, and the second Japanese. In the first case, all the Japanese were killed, and the Yankees scratched their cheek, in the second case, nothing remained of the Yankees ... At the same time, each side recorded the bombing of enemy ships.
  7. lucul
    lucul 27 August 2019 18: 37
    +4
    To summarize. The requirements for a modern fighter can be arranged in descending order of importance in this way:

    1. Stealth;
    2. Airborne electronic equipment and network-centricity;
    3. Armament;
    4. Speed;
    5. Maneuverability.

    With the introduction of ROFAR, you can forget about stealth. You can delete from the list.
    With the rest ...... - I would put the speed higher on the list
    1. zombee
      zombee 27 August 2019 18: 58
      0
      well, and you are strange people .. speed will not help to get away from the URV or from Zur, only a sharp maneuver
    2. Ka-52
      Ka-52 28 August 2019 05: 18
      +2
      With the introduction of ROFAR, you can forget about stealth. You can delete from the list.
      With the rest ...... - I would put the speed higher on the list

      ROFAR is still a cat in a poke.
      Speed ​​is of course an important factor, but far from the most. Much more important are characteristics such as thrust-to-weight ratio and wing load. Because it is from them that all the capabilities of a combat aircraft dance.
      And the author wrote a list of stupidity, made up of his amateurish idea of ​​what is needed and what can be thrown away. This does not happen, always the characteristics of the aircraft is a compromise between-between. Take the F-35. He has a little bit of everything and nothing is in the first place.
    3. Ehanatone
      Ehanatone 28 August 2019 06: 22
      -1
      "With the introduction of ROFAR, you can forget about stealth"
      Only before the introduction, not everyone will survive, ...
      At least in our hardware so far only a technology demonstrator ...
    4. InfernalAbyss
      InfernalAbyss 28 August 2019 10: 52
      +1
      Well this is a photon radar ... the stealth technology for it consists, in essence, in creating an paintwork with the qualities of a completely black body like the same Vantablack coating
    5. 3danimal
      3danimal 28 August 2019 15: 51
      0
      More years will pass before its appearance on military equipment.
      In addition, it is most likely that countries leading in radio engineering (the first to mass-produce and operate radars with AFAR) will be the first to develop and operate ROFAR.
  8. wow
    wow 27 August 2019 18: 47
    0
    If I have a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.2-1.5 "under my ass", plus some semblance of "stealth" (whose effectiveness I very much doubt), then let the F-35 and hedgehogs fly with it better over Texas.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 28 August 2019 15: 56
      0
      Will a meeting over the Pacific suit you? ) In the amount of 1 to 5 (if you're lucky).
      And it all comes down to the very possibility of seeing and pointing a missile at a target.
      Thrust-to-weight ratio will not help much against RVV-MD or AIM-9x. Max overload 50-60g and engine with OVT. Yes, even starting 2-3 is the finish. It’s better to “hide” with the modern development of technology
      1. Barmal
        Barmal 6 September 2019 11: 24
        0
        why not 1 to 20? And exactly the Pacific Ocean? Other TVD simply can not be? Are you not a fan of the history of the victory of American weapons over fascist Germany in the war for the Pacific Islands?
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 6 September 2019 20: 41
          0
          Ocean - there are no airdromes and air defense systems (ships too) in the vicinity. A sort of analogue of a spherical vacuum.
          1 to 5 - what do you think will be the ratio of 5 generation aircraft in 5-10 years? (After the Indians left the FGFA project, they had to seriously reduce the procurement program of the 57s.)
          Do not make hasty conclusions, carefully consider the arguments. Be mature in general.
          1. Barmal
            Barmal 8 September 2019 03: 15
            0
            I think that in a long conflict and almost immediately after the use of nuclear weapons by two or three sides of the confrontation, all variations of generations that can fly into the air will fly and cause damage. And in a flash, 21 will go in line with 4 ++ dryers due to the fact that the more indestructible iron is, the more often it will take off from airfields. And all other arguments about invisibility and other candy wrappers in a beautiful wrapper will go to the landfill, to spare parts and just to trash. The main thing is not what tank you drive on the highway, but whether your tank drives at all with the fuel that you have today. Does the dviglo keep revolutions, transmission and other tracks work? And so it will be in everything. For everything will turn into one Somalia. And that’s why they are in no hurry to build armats if there are a sufficient number of spare parts and tanks for them in storage. It is in this order - spare parts, and tanks to them. Spare parts, and to them planes and helicopters. Let your opinion win on the divan battlefields. But at the headquarters there are people who understand that there is no army without rear support. And that sometimes decommissioned guns can, with a proper approach to knowledge of calibers, stop the Germans near Moscow. Problems in the absence of competent and intelligent staff. And not in the absence of something from Indian buyers.
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 8 September 2019 07: 11
              0
              Then the T-34 is ours all)))
              A lot of emotions, few real arguments.
              After exchanging blows, the survivors will have a lot to do. (Only the USA will help a lot. And us? ..)
              But such a scenario will be preceded by conventional clashes (and you, in fact, admit that in this format the Russian Federation is not able to win). And during the battles for supremacy in the air, invisibility will cause great damage to fighter aircraft (including). We don’t do airplanes “like sausages”, especially pilots of modern aviation.
              Absolutely all meetings of the Mig-21 / Su-22 and other old types with the F-16 / F-14 / F-15 ended with unilateral losses of "veterans". So, they are suitable only for extras, covering with bodies 4/4 +.
              We have a lot of people of the “lower classes” and their willingness to not spend them (he’s not talking about the children of generals / officials and themselves, these are first-class people). But enough skilled pilots can’t prepare “on the knee”. And in aircraft of the 5th generation, we are far behind. Consequently, the main part will be mostly knocked out during the ongoing air battles.
              1. Barmal
                Barmal 8 September 2019 21: 11
                0
                emotions? you have emotions - again about --- are all polymers !!
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 9 September 2019 17: 05
                  0
                  Was there no more serious counterargument?
                  According to the “score” of the Mig-21 against the F-16/15?
                  By the ratio of 5 generation aircraft?
                  And due to greater losses, where to get the pilots? ..
  9. Ros 56
    Ros 56 27 August 2019 18: 52
    +11
    either from the fire of the Vietnamese field artillery.

    The death of an aircraft from field artillery is how? Ilyusha, before writing such crap, I would familiarize myself with what kind of field artillery the Vietnamese had. I can still understand from anti-aircraft artillery. But what about our anti-aircraft missile divisions, or is it also field artillery? Well, plus everything, our MiGs worked from 15 to 21.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 27 August 2019 19: 52
      +6
      Quote: Ros 56
      I can still understand from anti-aircraft artillery

      Ah, the author’s thought is about Phantoms,loaded bombs and missiles, this is a primitive, only an amateur can put it this way, and reasoning - who and how did you shoot down? and stories about overload? This is a laugh.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 27 August 2019 23: 37
        +2
        "about Phantoms loaded with bombs and missiles, it's a primitive" ///
        ----
        Phantom had a phenomenal payload: he took more bombs
        own weight. Because of this feature, they began to use them.
        as bombers. And with the bombs he couldn’t get away from the attacking lungs.
        fighter jets. And during the raids they suffered losses.
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 28 August 2019 07: 05
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          loaded with bombs and rockets

          A cart may be loaded, but not a plane.
          Quote: voyaka uh
          phenomenal payload

          Here, already with you, it also turned out unsuccessfully - not the carrying capacity, but the combat load.
    2. PilotS37
      PilotS37 27 August 2019 23: 59
      +2
      Quote: Ros 56
      The death of an aircraft from field artillery is how? Ilyusha, before writing such crap, I would familiarize myself with what kind of field artillery the Vietnamese had. I can still understand from anti-aircraft artillery. But what about our anti-aircraft missile divisions, or is it also field artillery? Well, plus everything, our MiGs worked from 15 to 21.

      And it would be nice to read the history of the air war in Vietnam ...
      Tear off ## y from the sofa, go to the store, buy - and read!
  10. colotun
    colotun 27 August 2019 19: 00
    +7
    This author’s article causes me great distrust due to the apparent lack of evidence for the author’s hypothesis = assumptions.
  11. Eug
    Eug 27 August 2019 19: 05
    +2
    As for me, over-maneuverability is needed, first of all, as a means of giving confidence to the pilot when piloting in critical and unsteady modes - firstly, secondly - not to allow critical loss of that very energy, i.e. provide overclocking performance. But - only in combination with the information awareness of his pilot and ensuring maximum misrepresentation of the enemy. So super-maneuverability + avionics!
    1. Eug
      Eug 29 August 2019 12: 28
      0
      There is a third point - providing Takeoff - Landing-Characteristics (shortened takeoff and landing).
  12. Corn
    Corn 27 August 2019 19: 15
    +6
    The author is trying to push too revolutionary ideas, the local target audience perceives such information as a godless heresy.
    1. prodi
      prodi 27 August 2019 20: 03
      +2
      radar invisibility is leveled by ground-based radars, and in the absence of these it is worth working on the collective power of the group's radars (well, aren't modern fighter jets flying alone?)
      1. Corn
        Corn 27 August 2019 20: 46
        0
        radar stealth is leveled by ground-based radars
        extremely doubtful statement. Firstly, ground-based radars all operate on the same “old physical principles” as airborne radars, and secondly, the same ill-fated (in this contest) “curvature of the earth” has not disappeared.
        and in the absence of these, it’s worth working on the collective power of the group’s radar
        to work on this topic is in any case, however, even in this case, stealth is a fairly effective countermeasure.
        1. prodi
          prodi 27 August 2019 20: 49
          +2
          terrestrial is much more flexible in terms of operating frequency and much more powerful
          1. Avior
            Avior 27 August 2019 21: 36
            +3
            The frequency depends on the destination.
            The meter-wide general detection will see something, while the decimeter-tracking will not see anything.
            And what to do next?
            In addition, the inconspicuous one is also easier to disrupt the capture of the missile's seeker.
    2. Olezhek
      Olezhek 27 August 2019 20: 50
      0
      Chatted, I'll put you a minus. am
      1. Corn
        Corn 27 August 2019 20: 53
        -2
        Yes, health, I do not mind.
        You can also run through all the comments to put down, as many here like wink
      2. Mooh
        Mooh 27 August 2019 23: 09
        0
        Fu Fu Fu. Can not be so. For sane comments decent people do not minus. Cons only for trolls. You can refute - refute, and put a minus and knock down - the classic behavior of an insecure teenager.
    3. Ka-52
      Ka-52 28 August 2019 05: 24
      +1
      Corn (Carl)
      The author is trying to push too revolutionary ideas, the local target audience perceives such information as a godless heresy.

      these "revolutionary" ideas are obtained through finger-nose scanning. However, as well as your conclusions about the need for OVT for a fighter.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Big Cat
      Big Cat 28 August 2019 12: 09
      +1
      Well, finally, at least someone wrote a sensible thing. Only here you need to add effective radar and electronic warfare. If we are talking about an airplane, not an UAV, then speed will be useful, the time of entry and departure from the air defense detection sphere is also important. See Israel’s tactics in Syria.
  13. Thrifty
    Thrifty 27 August 2019 19: 23
    +1
    Ilya! I read the article, but apart from reasoning, I did not see the main facts! I will give you a couple of examples offhand, during the aggression of the United States in Iraq, only the maneuverability of the aircraft saved the pilots f16 and f15 from missiles launched by MiG25 on them! The Yankees even posted this video on the Internet about it! So, maneuverability of the aircraft will be a trump card for experienced pilots for a long time!
    1. Zeev Zeev
      Zeev Zeev 27 August 2019 20: 16
      +2
      Almost 30 years have passed since the Gulf War. EW went far forward.
    2. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 27 August 2019 20: 18
      -2
      Quote: Thrifty
      So, maneuverability of the aircraft will be a trump card for experienced pilots for a long time!

      High speed aircraft maneuverability yes
      It remains to be determined whether the pilot will survive under such overloads ...
      1. PilotS37
        PilotS37 28 August 2019 00: 09
        +2
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Quote: Thrifty
        So, maneuverability of the aircraft will be a trump card for experienced pilots for a long time!

        High speed aircraft maneuverability yes
        It remains to be determined whether the pilot will survive under such overloads ...

        And what kind of overload are there - you know?
        Any energetic maneuver occurs with a loss of speed, and overload, ceteris paribus, is proportional to the square of the speed: as soon as the plane begins an energetic maneuver, it immediately begins to lose speed - the overload immediately drops.
        In reality, steady maneuvers with overloads above 4 ... 5g are very rare.
        Over-maneuverability is, rather, the presence of simultaneously a whole spectrum of overloads (both vertical, horizontal, and lateral (which is very unpleasant!)). This is new. And the pilot must be prepared for this. (By the way, back in Vietnam, the Americans began to panic that the "Russian" pilots were better able to withstand overloads. And what has changed since then?)
        1. Big Cat
          Big Cat 28 August 2019 12: 12
          +2
          Air combat tactics have completely changed. The tactics of attacking ground targets have completely changed. Air defense tactics have completely changed. Once again - see how the Israeli Air Force works in Syria. Why do they need super maneuverability? We quickly went into the affected area - shot back - quickly left. There is a risk that the air defense will get them - they covered themselves with someone else's side, interfered, etc.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 28 August 2019 16: 16
            0
            Well, how much can you repeat this duck about "hiding behind our plane"? After all, it is trite is an attempt (clumsy) to cover in the eyes of the public dumb "allies" who have beaten everything that flies (in order to report to no less gifted bosses - that's how many missiles we transferred)
          2. PilotS37
            PilotS37 29 August 2019 09: 14
            +1
            Quote: Big Cat
            Air combat tactics have completely changed. The tactics of attacking ground targets have completely changed. Air defense tactics have completely changed. Once again - see how the Israeli Air Force works in Syria. Why do they need super maneuverability? We quickly went into the affected area - shot back - quickly left. There is a risk that the air defense will get them - they covered themselves with someone else's side, interfered, etc.

            Very convincing example! Who are you going to fight with? - With Israel or with Syria?
            There is a specific theater of military operations. And this is not even a war, but a gangster showdown - and therefore "hide behind other people's sides."
            Take any other potential theater of operations - and see how all this will happen there (and forget about "foreign sides" - in a real war there are only "ours" and "enemies").
    3. Ka-52
      Ka-52 28 August 2019 05: 31
      +4
      Lean Yesterday
      Ilya! I read the article, but apart from reasoning, I did not see the main facts! I will give you a couple of examples offhand, during the aggression of the United States in Iraq, only the maneuverability of the aircraft saved the pilots f16 and f15 from missiles launched by MiG25 on them! The Yankees even posted this video on the Internet about it! So, maneuverability of the aircraft will be a trump card for experienced pilots for a long time!

      I will tell you even more. Many raving about the impossibility of fighting in the middle and near range do not even know that in Iraq and Yugoslavia:
      1. Most fights took place at distances up to 25 miles!
      2. Americans, in spite of the great saturation of AWACS aircraft over the theater of operations and friend-or-foe identification systems, sometimes resorted to visual (!) Target recognition.
  14. Pavel57
    Pavel57 27 August 2019 19: 34
    +1
    The findings are controversial. It is necessary to look in which conflict, with the use of what forces and means, including radio countermeasures. An example that the AIM-120 shot down a Su-22 is not indicative.

    If you follow the logic of the author, then a flying cruiser with a hundred missiles and an anti-rocket is the future of fighter aircraft. Or a cruiser and a swarm of UAVs with a pair of AIM-120-type missiles each.
    1. Olezhek
      Olezhek 27 August 2019 20: 52
      +2
      Well then, why do you need fighters, you can supply the TU160 and 22 with an unreasonable number of air-to-air missiles and bombard the enemy fighter squadrons with these missiles.


      If you follow the logic of the author, then a flying cruiser with a hundred missiles and an anti-rocket is the future of fighter aircraft. Or a cruiser and a swarm of UAVs with a pair of AIM-120-type missiles each.


      Yes, you will reveal all our military secrets ... belay
  15. Astronaut
    Astronaut 27 August 2019 20: 24
    +4
    We can say even more simply: aerial stunts have little to do with war, as such.

    This opinion is exclusively the author of the article.
  16. paul3390
    paul3390 27 August 2019 20: 43
    +2
    Quote: ROSS 42
    when applying, at least F-35i?

    And what their - somewhere already used ??? And so - they sang exactly the same thing about Phantom II, and about Starfighter and about a bunch of other Amerian eroplans. And each time - they were forced to replace them with the same maneuverable aircraft. So that...
    1. Zeev Zeev
      Zeev Zeev 28 August 2019 00: 06
      -1
      F-35 is constantly used. In Syria. There is still aviation there (for now), and anti-aircraft missiles fly in all directions.
  17. Rust0626
    Rust0626 27 August 2019 20: 58
    +4
    The feeling that I read an article from an American magazine. Phrases are rotated so that drying and twinkling are called enemy planes
  18. Nycomed
    Nycomed 27 August 2019 20: 59
    -4
    Why don't we show up for the Red Flag exercise too? It seems to me that the benefit would be unambiguous.
  19. bk0010
    bk0010 27 August 2019 21: 05
    +1

    1. Stealth;
    2. On-board electronic equipment and network-centricity;
    These two points do not fit together well.
    You can get away from a long-range missile by simply changing the meeting point so that the fuel is not enough. Or organize a breakdown of escort (electronic warfare or descent to the ground). In addition, the ability of the rocket to overload should be five times higher than that of the target; in the RVV database, this is usually a problem.
    Disruption of escort (EW or descent to the ground) will help from a medium-range missile.
    Melee remains, where over-maneuverability is quite useful.
    1. Avior
      Avior 27 August 2019 21: 33
      -1
      the ability of the rocket to overload should be five times higher than that of the target,

      Twice is enough.
      And you must perform the maneuver at a certain range to the rocket and strictly in a certain direction.
      If you perform unsuccessfully in time or direction, you simply lose speed and energy and the rocket will bring you down easier. If you succeed, the missile will miss, but you still lose speed and energy, and if the missiles are launched in pairs, then the second will get you after your maneuver.
      1. Town Hall
        Town Hall 27 August 2019 21: 37
        +2
        But the rocket does not lose speed and energy during maneuvers?
        1. Avior
          Avior 27 August 2019 21: 59
          +2
          Loses, of course.
          If at the moment the missile maneuver begins, the rocket does not have enough energy to reload twice as much as yours, then it is quite likely that it will miss, if, of course, you started the maneuver exactly at the right time and in the right, worst for the rocket - direction.
          Only now, if there were two, then the second one flies a little behind and will get you at the end of the maneuver.
          Not everything is as simple and easy as in a movie show.
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall 27 August 2019 22: 33
            +1
            How quickly does a rocket lose its energy if the plane goes "vertically" upward? .. without accurate data on these characteristics, ALL theories are nothing more than circles in the water.
            1. Avior
              Avior 27 August 2019 22: 41
              0
              It is clear that in each case everything is individual, and we are talking about general rules.
              Threat and with the speed of the aircraft what will happen, in your opinion, with such a maneuver?
              1. Town Hall
                Town Hall 27 August 2019 22: 52
                +1
                The aircraft has a constant thrust from the engines. The rocket has only inertia.
                1. Avior
                  Avior 27 August 2019 23: 03
                  0
                  A lot of factors.
                  If this is aim-120 American, then it is on top - it will fly up to the side, and you will substitute for it, that's all
                  The maneuver should be performed in such a way as to force the missile to maneuver with maximum overload
                  1. Town Hall
                    Town Hall 27 August 2019 23: 28
                    +1
                    Even too many factors are actually and therefore I say that our discussions have little to do with reality. Moreover, it is not known how effective the AGSN missiles are against stealth aircraft. In terms of how far they can capture and how reliable
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 28 August 2019 00: 27
                      0
                      Actually, this is not about missiles, but about maneuverability and its necessity for a modern fighter
                      1. free
                        free 28 August 2019 08: 00
                        +1
                        Quote: Avior
                        Actually, this is not about missiles, but about maneuverability and its necessity for a modern fighter


                        But is there any point in discussing the maneuverability of an airplane in isolation from the capabilities of missiles? After all, it is precisely from missiles that one needs to dodge with the help of maneuverability.
                      2. Avior
                        Avior 28 August 2019 08: 08
                        0
                        Dodge missiles effectively at long range when the missile has lost energy.
                        The speed of the aircraft in this case, as a rule, is high enough so that maneuverability is limited by permissible overload.
  20. Avior
    Avior 27 August 2019 21: 11
    +3
    Interesting look.
    What to add
    1. Maneuverability at any high speeds is limited by the permissible overload of the pilot and aircraft — theoretically a maximum of 9.5 g, actually a maximum of 7.5 g.
    And although you're thrice super-maneuverable, already at medium speeds there will be a restriction on overload.
    2. The missile defense maneuver is far from being as simple as it seems to some. It should be coordinated in range to the rocket and direction, if you make a mistake, just help her bring down herself. The problem is that the overload capacity of modern 25-50 missiles far exceeds that of an airplane.
    Some of the missiles after the engine burns out by inertia, losing energy, speed and maneuverability, in which case you can get away from it by maneuver. Only they are often allowed in pairs with a short pause, and if you dodge the first, the second will fall. And modern missiles began to make the engine work continuously, and they retain high energy throughout the flight range.
    3. Melee combat within the limits of visual visibility is 2-5 km, while the pilot is forced to reduce speed to reduce the turning radius, and here maneuverability manifests itself.
    4. The situation is such that for aiming a modern rocket in close combat it is not necessary to aim the nose of the aircraft at the enemy already for aiming - there are helmet-mounted targeting systems of the NSC that allow aiming by turning the head, and there are missiles with a target capture after launch. Modern missiles can be launched at all 360 degrees, that is, they can be launched on airplanes flying behind you, but NSCs are usually limited in aiming angles, so it’s really difficult to apply.
    5. Of n3 and 4 there is an exception.
    This is an aircraft equipped with a full-spherical optical-location system with the image displayed on the helmet shield, which allows close visual combat at long distances and high speeds, where maneuverability is limited by point 1, and the same NSC system. Thus, for close combat, this aircraft does not need high maneuverability.
    As far as I know, there is one so far and he is still damp and a little expensive.
    This is f-35.
  21. Pavlov Sergey Alexandrovich
    Pavlov Sergey Alexandrovich 27 August 2019 21: 16
    0
    Of course, the author turned down be healthy))) field artillery))) prankster damn)) well, let’s say, the Americans suffered huge losses on airplanes mainly from air defense, in particular from the S-75, S-125 air defense system. This is at medium and high altitude and from anti-aircraft artillery at low altitude when, in an attempt to break through the air defense, fighters were reduced to a couple of hundred meters and lower and used the dead zone of the air defense radar, often using riverbeds and other lowlands of the landscape in order not to fall under the fire of air defense. But the hooks also provided for this and to the maximum such areas covered all kinds of anti-aircraft guns. Let’s say for 3U-23 a target flying at an altitude of 50-100 meters at a speed of 500-600 km / h at a range of 0.5 -2 km is quite a target for itself if it is expected in advance. Well, of course, the planes also contributed to the team account. In general, with all their efforts, the Americans did not have total superiority in the air, but they had large losses in aircraft. As everyone knows, the war in Vietnam was lost by the Americans and the fact that they could not keep the sky above it was one of the reasons for their defeat. And no matter how much they downplay their losses, the fact is, the war is lost, and therefore, after 10 years of fighting, a lot of planes of all classes were probably lost.
    1. Avior
      Avior 27 August 2019 21: 43
      0
      As everyone knows and most likely, these are, of course, weighty arguments, but the numbers are better smile
      In water battles, the confirmed losses of phantoms were not very high.
      In addition, there were two important political factors that leveled the advantages of phantoms - the requirement of visual identification of the enemy, which negated all the advantages of phantoms in electronics, and the areas prohibited by airstrikes, where the Vietnamese set their sight.
      hi
  22. Operator
    Operator 27 August 2019 21: 17
    -1
    Maneuverability is at the forefront in the LTH of modern fighters, since it is precisely it that is needed to carry out an anti-ballistic maneuver.

    Therefore, F-35 are penguins, and Su-35 are fighters, despite the wishes of IDF fans laughing
    1. Nestorovich
      Nestorovich 27 August 2019 22: 18
      -2
      Quote: Operator
      since it is she who is needed to perform the missile defense

      it is very effective to commit suicide, to start dancing in maneuvers in front of a modern rocket capable of overloads of 20 or more G. laughing
      1. Operator
        Operator 27 August 2019 22: 28
        0
        See my comment below.
  23. TochkaY
    TochkaY 27 August 2019 21: 18
    +2
    Does someone believe in stealth? A NATO-made American-made aircraft will not notice an American-made aircraft again.
    And to cite as an argument the words of the same Amerov pilot is stupidity.
    The best argument is With 400 and sanctions for it.
    All that needs to be noticed is noticeable. There is a radar on stealth technology, and a missile on a rocket. What do we have, what do they have. So, quite possibly, over-maneuverability will be the last trump card. While he is in our hands.
    1. PilotS37
      PilotS37 28 August 2019 00: 18
      +1
      Quote: TochkaY
      All that needs to be noticed is noticeable. There is a radar on stealth technology

      By the way, following the results of the "War in the Gulf" there was information that the French Naval Crotale (with a maximum detection range of 10 km) very confidently spotted the super-silly F-117 at that time. The scandal was decent ...
      1. Avior
        Avior 28 August 2019 00: 40
        +1
        For air defense systems with a range of 10 km and the presence of an optical channel, this is not a problem.
        Because of what the scandal is difficult to understand ...
        1. g1washntwn
          g1washntwn 28 August 2019 07: 00
          +2
          Because optics, as it were, have nothing to do with it. For the principle of guidance of Navalny Krotal - from the ship's CIR or from its own detection radar... Optics are activated only when the target drops below 50 m, so that SEID filters out interference from the surface. Detection by an optical channel at a specified range is possible, I do not deny, but then there would be no scandal, and once the waves rose, it means that the ship's CIUS or crotal radar saw the "invisible". I would put it differently, the closer the missile's ARLGSN is to the "stealth", the less "invisible" it is for the ARLGSN. And here it is only to pray for your electronic warfare and maneuver if the rocket is "gasping for breath."
          1. Avior
            Avior 28 August 2019 07: 09
            -1
            Was there a scandal?
            Throw a link, if not difficult.
            Does Krotal have ARLGSN?
            1. g1washntwn
              g1washntwn 28 August 2019 07: 31
              +1
              When you ask for a reference, you have no idea why all the information on this technology immediately falls under the stamp? smile Add 2 + 2 - LOFAADS and stealth, but you will hardly find it in the public domain.
              In bulk moleholes, radio command guidance, optics only for tracking the target and IR rocket tracer, detection - pure radar. About ARLGSN + stealth is written for V-V rockets.
              1. Avior
                Avior 28 August 2019 07: 39
                0
                So I ask, was there a boy? Or is it a figment of someone’s imagination?
                What did the f-117 generally do less than 10 kilometers from the ship, why exactly did the marine version supposedly see it, but the land version didn’t?
                1. g1washntwn
                  g1washntwn 28 August 2019 08: 25
                  +2
                  I personally will not say anything. Let's go back to the purely theoretical plane of discussion.
                  Stealth is a technology that is effective only at a considerable distance from detection means, which is why ranged tactics and the futility of maneuverability look so delicious. It seems that he launched missiles with impunity and returned home unnoticed and unharmed. And here counterarguments begin to pour in in the form of mandatory third-party detection and guidance, developed network centrics and the presence of missiles that can not only fly over 100 km, but also have a reserve for active maneuvering at the final stage of interception. But it was not in vain that I pointed out that the closer the radar - the less the effect of "invisibility". Yes, now the radar station against stealth is "short-sighted", like a half-sighted dog, but if he "sniffs out" and catches a silhouette close, then the integrity of the pants is not at all guaranteed. The task of "bringing the rocket by the handle" to the distance when ARLGS confidently captures the stealth is solved, incl. and a combination of guidance methods where even the onboard electronic warfare is far from omnipotent.
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 28 August 2019 08: 31
                    +1
                    In principle, the closer the GOS, the better the probability of detection.
                    And the lower the target’s EPR, the higher the probability of a capture failure and the less the probability of a target capture - this applies to the GPS.
                    Given that the GOS is much weaker and more primitive than the ground or airborne radar.
                    1. g1washntwn
                      g1washntwn 28 August 2019 09: 20
                      +1
                      Quote: Avior
                      In principle, the closer the GOS, the better the probability of detection.

                      Already closer to the meaning of the "uselessness of maneuvers." The closer the missile with the radar seeker or the enemy aircraft, the better the stealth is visible. And here we are suddenly told that at a short distance maneuverability is not needed at all, you can fly like an iron in a straight line ... and how does this stealth camper-sniper F-35 tactic differ from the hope that F-4 missiles will defeat everyone on distance?
                      1. Avior
                        Avior 28 August 2019 09: 57
                        0
                        I do not understand you, who was standing on whom?
                        GOS target capture is a statistical parameter.
                        The smaller the target’s EPR, the smaller the capture range, the less likely it is, and the higher the likelihood of a capture failure.
                        That is, the probability that the missile hits the target is much lower.
                        As for maneuverability - at medium speeds and above, the overload restriction will not allow taking advantage of the maneuverability of a particular aircraft, and the restriction is slightly different for different aircraft of the same purpose.
                        In general, see my post above, there point by point
                      2. PilotS37
                        PilotS37 29 August 2019 09: 06
                        0
                        Quote: Avior
                        As for maneuverability - at medium speeds and above, the overload restriction will not allow taking advantage of the maneuverability of a particular aircraft, and the restriction is slightly different for different aircraft of the same purpose.

                        No, no!
                        The F-15 has much stricter angles of attack than the modern Su-27. Therefore, at the same speed, the Eagle's maneuvering capabilities are worse than those of the 27th. The results of training battles have clearly demonstrated this.
                        With increasing speed, of course, both aircraft will run into restrictions on the glider and the capabilities of the pilot, but this with increasing speed ...
                        It should be remembered that the battle is not on marginal overloads, and overloads bendswhich are significantly lower than the notorious 9g. And on such modes just maneuverability is what affects it.
                        In this sense, the F-22 is doing better than the Eagle: there is an OVT.
                        But the F-35, apparently, is an iron: if he lets someone in, he will not get out.
                      3. telobezumnoe
                        telobezumnoe 5 September 2019 22: 33
                        0
                        judging by what it is an iron? I've seen quite good maneuverability, all sorts of dog runs, why did he suddenly use an iron? here, as was noted above, maneuverability is only a consequence of the thrust-weight ratio, rate of climb, etc. Of course, all the characteristics he has are not the most, but quite on the level. at this level of automation, decision-making assistance to the pilot, and generally the combat capabilities, albeit with a small combat radius, should not be underestimated, out of competition of potential opponents, and of course it is better to learn from the mistakes of others, as well as to use other people's experience
                      4. PilotS37
                        PilotS37 5 September 2019 23: 15
                        0
                        Quote: telobezumnoe
                        here, as was noted above, maneuverability is only a consequence of the thrust-weight ratio, rate of climb, etc.

                        Well, I love you all who put the thrust-weight ratio with rate of climb in one row: the integrity of your conception is felt ... Well, this is in terms of aviation, of course ...
                      5. PilotS37
                        PilotS37 5 September 2019 23: 17
                        0
                        Quote: telobezumnoe
                        Of course, all the characteristics he has are not the most, but quite on the level. at this level of automation, decision-making assistance to the pilot, and generally the combat capabilities, albeit with a small combat radius, so far, do not underestimate potential opponents out of competition

                        And you, that piloted the F-35 "in an environment as close as possible to combat"? Or so, sitting on the couch? ..
                      6. telobezumnoe
                        telobezumnoe 6 September 2019 11: 08
                        0
                        sitting on the couch aerobatics are not clearly visible, which show the same f35, throttle rate of climb, these are the characteristics of a glider with engines on which maneuverability also depends, and yes, I’m a couch expert, and I don’t belong to cheers who are not patriots flew on f35 but talk about its inferiority
                      7. PilotS37
                        PilotS37 29 August 2019 08: 58
                        +1
                        Quote: g1washntwn
                        and how does this F-35 stealth camper sniper tactic differ from the hope that F-4 rockets will defeat everyone from a distance?

                        So the same idea! The same rake ...
                        But now they are not even gold, but platinum-ruthenium ...
            2. PilotS37
              PilotS37 29 August 2019 08: 53
              0
              Quote: Avior
              Was there a scandal?
              Throw a link, if not difficult.

              It will be difficult! It was some TsAGI bulletin or something like that in 1991 or 1992.
              There was a scandal, but then we had no time for it ...
              1. Avior
                Avior 29 August 2019 09: 10
                0
                And in 30 years no one knows about this anymore?
                With increasing speed, of course, both aircraft will run into restrictions on the glider and the capabilities of the pilot, but this with increasing speed ...

                What I wrote about.
                I described close combat separately. Including the features of the f-35.
                1. PilotS37
                  PilotS37 29 August 2019 09: 35
                  0
                  Quote: Avior
                  And in 30 years no one knows about this anymore?

                  Who do you mean by "nobody"?
        2. PilotS37
          PilotS37 29 August 2019 08: 51
          0
          Quote: Avior
          Because of what the scandal is difficult to understand ...

          The United States then promoted the F-117 as a machine that you can’t detect at all. But then it turned out that it is possible and even very easy ...
    2. free
      free 28 August 2019 08: 13
      0
      Quote: TochkaY
      Does someone believe in stealth? A NATO-made American-made aircraft will not notice an American-made aircraft again.
      And to cite as an argument the words of the same Amerov pilot is stupidity.
      The best argument is With 400 and sanctions for it.
      All that needs to be noticed is noticeable. There is a radar on stealth technology, and a missile on a rocket. What do we have, what do they have. So, quite possibly, over-maneuverability will be the last trump card. While he is in our hands.

      What does it change?
      He shot and run anyway. It’s just instead of stealth, speed, missile capabilities, range of the radar.
    3. 3danimal
      3danimal 28 August 2019 17: 50
      0
      About the radar: he will see the meter range far, but he will not be able to direct the rocket, deci and centimeter - they will, but there will be shortsightedness. The laws of physics cannot be fooled.
    4. Alexey G
      Alexey G 29 August 2019 02: 54
      0
      Our believe, once made SU57
  24. Operator
    Operator 27 August 2019 21: 32
    0
    Quote: Avior
    really maximum 7.5ж

    When a rocket flies at you, “you’re not so hot yet” (C).

    The available missile overload is 40g at the first quarter of the maximum shooting distance (flight with the engine running), 20g at half the distance (inertia flight) and 10g at the last quarter of the distance.

    In order to guarantee a downing of the aircraft, the available load of the rocket should be twice the available load of the aircraft (for Su-35 / 57 ~ 10 g, for F-35 ~ 7 g).

    Therefore, when conducting air combat in the second half of the firing range, the Su-35 / 57 will leave the rocket of any enemy fighter, but the F-35 will not.
    1. Avior
      Avior 27 August 2019 21: 48
      -1
      Real overload 7.5g.
      For many, including for f-35, su-35 indicate 9.5, but with suspended weapons it will be limited.
      Again, this does not save you from the second, if they were allowed to pair
      1. Operator
        Operator 27 August 2019 22: 32
        -2
        There is no "real overload" in LTH.

        The Su-35 / 57 missile defense will be carried out after launching its missiles at the enemy.
        1. Avior
          Avior 27 August 2019 22: 46
          -3
          If ltx from wikipedia is missing. Only pilots do not take this data from Wikipedia, and there it takes into account the permissible overload for a specific aircraft load.
          Threat as if for the past, how many su-35 missiles and what range?
          Release everything in one gulp into the white light?
    2. Nestorovich
      Nestorovich 27 August 2019 22: 19
      0
      Quote: Operator
      for Su-35/57 ~ 10 g, for F-35 ~ 7 g).

      when you lie do it more believable.
      1. PilotS37
        PilotS37 28 August 2019 00: 22
        +4
        Quote: Nestorovich
        when you lie do it more believable.

        And you think that you write ...
        You provide information on as much as possible overloads. Mack-si-mal-but d-pus-ti-mum ...
        In reality, established maneuvers (that is, performed without loss of speed) are possible only with significantly less overload - there 7 will be a dream.
    3. 3danimal
      3danimal 28 August 2019 17: 58
      -1
      7g - for F-35B. The most massive (most likely meeting) - F-35A (or its version of F-35I) has a permissible overload of 9g.
      And yes, 10 maneuverability for the Su-35 - with only two BB missiles. Suspend 10 and it will drop to 4-5 (or have to drop most of the weapons).
  25. E.S.
    E.S. 27 August 2019 22: 00
    -2
    What kind of "stealth" can be at the megawatt peak power of the probing pulse?
    Yes, of course, the AFAR is not violent, but the light did not converge on them like a wedge.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 28 August 2019 18: 03
      0
      Peak has a peak power of 4-6 MW, but the principle also works here.
      Visibility decreases in proportion to the root of the 4th degree from the reduction of the EPR. For example, by reducing the EPR by 4096 times, the detection range will become less than 8 times. In addition, the radar characteristics indicate the minimum EPR of the target, of the order of 0,1-0,5 square meters.
  26. E.S.
    E.S. 27 August 2019 22: 04
    -1
    Quote: Zeev Zeev
    Almost 30 years have passed since the Gulf War. EW went far forward.

    All went ahead, and EW and GOS
    1. Zeev Zeev
      Zeev Zeev 28 August 2019 00: 08
      0
      Watching who the GOS went forward.
  27. E.S.
    E.S. 27 August 2019 22: 05
    0
    Quote: Avior
    Real overload 7.5g.
    For many, including for f-35, su-35 indicate 9.5, but with suspended weapons it will be limited.
    Again, this does not save you from the second, if they were allowed to pair
  28. D16
    D16 27 August 2019 22: 08
    +1
    Otherwise, we would not have examples of the J-20 or F-35: in fact, the only mass fifth-generation fighter planes for the foreseeable future, and possibly the entire first half of the XNUMXst century. If there is an alternative to stealth, then we do not see it.

    Okay, the bengal penguin, how did the J-20 with its PGO and lower keels turn out to be the embodiment of the 5th generation?
    1. PilotS37
      PilotS37 28 August 2019 00: 25
      0
      Quote: D16
      Okay, the bengal penguin, how did the J-20 with its PGO and lower keels turn out to be the embodiment of the 5th generation?

      This is the Chinese 5th ...
      Who, in fact, decides what is modern and what is not? What is fashionable and what is not? Which kid is cool, and which one is a goat bogeyman? ...
      The Chinese decided that the 5th generation should be like that. There are 1,3 billion of them. They have a right!
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 28 August 2019 18: 07
      -1
      “Penguin” has a lower EPR in the teaching staff than the Su-57, which is noticeable to a rather careful observer.
      The J-20 lacks the disadvantage of a Russian aircraft, but it is true that the abundance of aerodynamic planes also increase visibility well.
      1. D16
        D16 28 August 2019 18: 30
        0
        A sufficiently attentive observer measures the EPR in PPP from photographs or personally participated in the measurements? laughing
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 28 August 2019 19: 11
          0
          You better tell me whether the half-open compressor blades of the Su-57 TRDDF compressors will be clearly visible in the PPS?
          laughing
          1. D16
            D16 28 August 2019 19: 14
            0
            The radar blockers will deliver and nothing will glow. Or maybe already set.
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 28 August 2019 19: 21
              0
              A forced solution, a priori less effective than S-shaped air intakes.
              1. D16
                D16 28 August 2019 19: 28
                0
                S-shaped air intakes probably contribute to the placement of integrated weapons bays laughing .
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 28 August 2019 19: 30
                  0
                  It's all about priorities: stealth or more bombs laughing
                  1. D16
                    D16 28 August 2019 19: 48
                    0
                    Not only. The wider the engines are bred, the less likely they are to lose both. A-10 in this regard is the coolest of all. In addition, S-shaped air intakes are also a necessary solution. And it’s not at all a fact that nothing flies back from them, reflecting off from the inner walls.
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 28 August 2019 19: 54
                      0
                      Pull by the ears. Definitely “flies back” less than from compressor blades, albeit covered. Forced decision ?? As well as the same angles of the profiles of the planes, as well as the camber of the keels. Minimize EPR, including from the front.
                      That's right, priority was given to the location of the bomb bay.
                      In addition, with the loss / failure of one of the widely located engines, the resulting moment will greatly complicate the piloting to the airfield.
                      1. D16
                        D16 28 August 2019 20: 04
                        +1
                        They themselves measured, or again carefully observe the photographs laughing ? With OBT problems
                        when landing will not be. At least not more than any other aircraft. But the vitality is higher.
                      2. 3danimal
                        3danimal 28 August 2019 20: 21
                        0
                        No need to measure, just know the basic principles. Radio waves, they are cosmopolitan (mess!), You know. Everywhere they work the same way.
                        By the way, a two-part flashlight also does not help to reduce the EPR.
                        Objectively, in faculty it is more than both F-ok.
                        The availability of technologies, the creation of a large number of inconspicuous devices and the experience of their application will always give advantages. This is normal.
                        And it doesn’t mean that you don’t have to work in this direction.
                      3. D16
                        D16 28 August 2019 21: 22
                        0
                        Just need to measure. Without measurements, these arguments are not worth a damn. I don’t have the results and test methods, and you most likely do the same. So do not be clever about cosmopolitan radio waves. Although they work the same, the results are different depending on the power of the emitter and its own length.
                      4. 3danimal
                        3danimal 29 August 2019 13: 11
                        0
                        There are basics of radar. According to which, the decrease in the detection range is proportional to the root of the 4th degree from the reduction of the EPR. By reducing this parameter, say, 4096 times, we will reduce the detection range (for the same radar) by 8 times.
                        As an example, the parameters H035 Irbis:
                        Detection range
                        with EPR of 0.01 m² at opposite angles - 100 km
                        with an EPR of 1 m² in the opposite angles of 270 km.
                        EPR F-22 in the teaching staff is 0,0001 m², therefore, the detection range will be about 32 km.
                        Despite the fact that he sees the Su-35 in LPI mode from 180km.
                        This is the difference between generations of aircraft. When 5 can destroy 20 without loss, or with minimal.
                      5. Grigory Gromov
                        Grigory Gromov 24 October 2019 19: 10
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        ... As an example, the parameters H035 Irbis:
                        Detection range
                        with EPR of 0.01 m² at opposite angles - 100 km
                        with an EPR of 1 m² in the opposite angles of 270 km.
                        EPR F-22 in the teaching staff is 0,0001 m², therefore, the detection range will be about 32 km ...

                        3danimal, image intensifier F-22 (for F-35 will be slightly larger) is 0,3 m2. Do not write nonsense with Lockheed Martin advertising. Target detection range with image intensifier = 3 m2 of Irbis Su-35S radar is 400 km, With F-22 will be detected at range D = 225 km
                        in free space! Do not write lies from advertising without knowing it yourself.
                      6. 3danimal
                        3danimal 24 October 2019 21: 11
                        0
                        And in the previous post, you called the EPR of the 35th 0,3) You will decide already.
                        The manufacturer declared a value of 0,001. Where did your data come from?
                      7. D16
                        D16 28 August 2019 21: 33
                        0
                        And it doesn’t mean that you don’t have to work in this direction

                        This direction should be in balance with other characteristics of the aircraft, depending on the concept. Without measurements, all these discussions about the cosmopolitanism of radio waves are just blah blah blah. In general, the war will show whose concept is more correct.laughing
                      8. 3danimal
                        3danimal 29 August 2019 13: 24
                        0
                        So there are measurements, there are declared characteristics from manufacturers, on the basis of which sofa analysts, like us hi may reason.
                      9. D16
                        D16 29 August 2019 22: 45
                        0
                        So the measurers shared with you the measurement methodology? What was irradiated with, what wavelength, at what distance, in what angle? Something tells me that this ideal result was obtained in a very narrow range of these conditions. And if even one parameter changes slightly, the angle is there or the wavelength, the Cinderella’s carriage will turn into a pumpkin. laughing If these 0 ..... 01 are generally true, and are not advertising the achievements of the national economy.
                        Py.sy. I have not seen in the open sources the EPR of the Su-57 in the teaching staff.
                      10. 3danimal
                        3danimal 30 August 2019 15: 43
                        0
                        I found such data http://www.fips.ru/cdfi/fips.dll/ru?ty=29&docid=2502643.
                        There was a statement by Poghosyan that the EPR of the 57th, "like that of the F-22," was 0,1-0,3 square meters.
                        This is smaller than the Su-27, but very different from the declared Lockheed characteristics of the 22nd.
                        Considering the solutions described earlier, which go against the maximum stealth, it is obvious that it has been neglected to increase the bomb bay (air intakes and engines) and technological simplicity (separate flashlight).
                        By the way, about radar blockers. They reduce the throughput of the air intake and are not suitable for the current design.
                      11. D16
                        D16 30 August 2019 20: 59
                        0
                        I found such data

                        What does this patent specification have to do with Raptor’s EPR measurement technique? request ?
                        There was a statement by Poghosyan that the EPR of the 57th, "like the F-22"

                        Poghosyan, I suspect it is better that you and I can evaluate Raptor's EPR from photographs laughing .
                        By the way, about radar blockers. They reduce the throughput of the air intake and are not suitable for the current design.

                        Did you determine this yourself?
                      12. 3danimal
                        3danimal 31 August 2019 08: 33
                        0
                        Patent description related to EPR assessment of Su-57 yes
                        From the photographs you can see the design features of the aircraft. Namely, the presence / absence of a separate flashlight and open compressor blades. Which are the most visible elements in faculty.
                        The current size of the air intake channels is designed for a certain throughput. And where are you going to shove blockers? Do you know a lot of airplanes with them ??
                        - The most famous and typical - Ф-117. His blockers are initially (and should be) part of the design. They can not be "brought" after, like a mosquito net on the window.
                        I am sure the glider will not be changed, respectively, and the compressor blades will remain open.
  29. Alexey from Perm
    Alexey from Perm 27 August 2019 22: 31
    -2
    Well, for example, consider the situation: a super-maneuverable aircraft, our Su 57, flies towards a low-visibility aircraft F22 or F 35, behind the stealth and our aircraft DRLO planes, the DRLO plane detects our plane, gives target designation to a missile with f35 or F22, and does launch, our plane, detecting an enemy missile, begins to maneuver or launch traps, and F22, observing this, again launches. The initiative in such a battle will always belong to the more inconspicuous aircraft, it will choose the time and moment of the attack. Yes, over-maneuverability will allow you to defend actively by maneuvering, but it will be a defense. And only closer to visual contact, the advantage will go to the side of our aircraft. Over-maneuverability is cool, but in modern combat there are currently stealth advantages.
    1. Operator
      Operator 27 August 2019 23: 14
      -3
      The flight time of the AIM-120D rocket for the maximum range is 5 (five) minutes - during this time, the Su-35 pilot can fly to his airfield, smoke and return laughing
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 28 August 2019 18: 11
        -1
        Nothing like this. Unless, if it will be Ferret E with its 3-5M)
    2. Ehanatone
      Ehanatone 28 August 2019 06: 37
      +3
      "And only after getting close to visual contact, the advantage will go to the side of our aircraft."
      Something you generally took off radars from our aircraft or something ...
    3. alstr
      alstr 28 August 2019 21: 52
      -1
      Having fired a rocket, the plane discovers itself (especially if there is behind the AWACS).

      This is the first.

      And secondly, the detection of an inconspicuous aircraft will occur far beyond sight.

      Thirdly, if the F-35 flies stealth mode, then its ammunition TOTAL 4 missiles.
      Su-57 (in stealth mode) - 8. Feel the difference. And the Su-35 (without stealth) - 12. That is. it turns out that even the Su-35 can afford to fight off 2 F-35s in stealth mode (i.e. stupidly knocking out fired missiles) and then shoot them down (8 missiles to defeat fired missiles and two missiles for each aircraft).
      And if the missiles are fired from a long distance, then there is a chance of getting away from the missiles by maneuvering and electronic warfare.

      Here is such an interesting math.

      And if the F-35 will carry full ammunition, then nothing will remain of its stealth.

      Fourth, With increasing launch distance, the probability of hitting a target decreases. And there is always such a concept - a zone of guaranteed defeat. And here are completely different numbers.
      In addition, it still depends on the altitude of the target and the rocket. It’s enough to look at any schedule for the zone of destruction of the air defense systems and everything will become clear. Air-to-air missiles are slightly different from ground-to-air missiles in this sense.
  30. Operator
    Operator 27 August 2019 22: 33
    +1
    Quote: Nestorovich
    lying

    No need to be rude - you are not in the IDF.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 28 August 2019 18: 16
      0
      Phrases such as "chock", "muzzle ..dovskaya" completely Russian origin ..
      Surprisingly, in our country, unlike the IDF (and others), all polls are gentlemen and never are rude))
  31. E.S.
    E.S. 27 August 2019 22: 34
    -1
    Quote: shahor
    Quote: Silvestr
    .e. Is the maneuverability of our fighters, like everyone else, not so important?

    It seems so. A couple of years ago I read an article by physicians at the St. Petersburg Military Medical Academy. They came to the conclusion that the capabilities of super-maneuverability inherent in fighters can be used in practice for XNUMX percent — the pilot cannot withstand constantly arising overloads. Just faints or goes blind for a while. In battle, that's ... that's it.

    In battle, this is a transition to automatic control. A long time ago
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 28 August 2019 18: 18
      0
      Which consists in entering the return course, or simply stabilization with zero pitch from and roll.
  32. E.S.
    E.S. 27 August 2019 22: 36
    -1
    Quote: Alexey from Perm
    Well, for example, consider the situation: a super-maneuverable aircraft, our Su 57, flies towards a low-visibility aircraft F22 or F 35, behind the stealth and our aircraft DRLO planes, the DRLO plane detects our plane, gives target designation to a missile with f35 or F22, and does launch, our plane, detecting an enemy missile, begins to maneuver or launch traps, and F22, observing this, again launches. The initiative in such a battle will always belong to the more inconspicuous aircraft, it will choose the time and moment of the attack. Yes, over-maneuverability will allow you to defend actively by maneuvering, but it will be a defense. And only closer to visual contact, the advantage will go to the side of our aircraft. Over-maneuverability is cool, but in modern combat there are currently stealth advantages.

    As soon as the DRLO behind the enemy began to shine, the URVD DD flew into it, the launch range of which is commensurate with the detection range of the onboard of the DRLO
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 28 August 2019 18: 19
      0
      Such missiles are not particularly maneuverable and can be attacked by the F-22/35 side of the opponent. Again, without revealing yourself.
  33. Eroma
    Eroma 27 August 2019 22: 37
    0
    In theory, missiles are aimed at the tail, according to the pilots' view, and then maneuverability is not clear why they are needed, but looking at the rollers where Rafal is sweating trying to catch the F22 in the sight, I am tormented by vague doubts that the maneuverability is garbage
    1. nks
      nks 28 August 2019 01: 13
      -1
      Maneuverability is needed for various things, including missile defense maneuvers. Dogfight in exercises is a big convention with certain limitations. Rafal then won the EMNIP at f-22 with a score of 4: 1, but in reality, rafal is the only MFI that showed defeat in the back hemisphere through its own command center (he was the first to do this from an external control center, but then it was already repeated some other types). So in reality, the odds of the F-22 are even lower. NSCs work quite well, and not only in theory, but they have their own limitations, plus the limitations of the actual specific EWWM
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 28 August 2019 18: 21
        0
        What about? The maneuverability of the F-22 is higher, at least due to the presence of ATS and greater specific thrust.
        1. nks
          nks 28 August 2019 21: 09
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          What about?

          hm?

          Quote: 3danimal
          The maneuverability of the F-22 is higher, at least due to the presence of ATS and greater specific thrust.

          Sorry, but you do not own the materiel. The specific thrust is for the engine, and the airplane has the thrust-weight ratio. The maximum traction thing, of course, is good, but in itself it does not add maneuverability. OBT on airplanes is effective at low speeds, and some developers use it to compensate for gaps in other design aspects. And in this case, idle theoretical reasoning is useless (all the more so at that level) - there are enough facts, those videos. Both the dogfight itself and the demo of the rafal. If we are talking specifically about the combat component of aerobatics, and not pure aerobatics.
  34. karpusha
    karpusha 27 August 2019 22: 39
    -7
    The author writes everything correctly. In modern aerial combat, maneuverability is not needed. The aircraft essentially turns into an inconspicuous platform for detecting enemy aircraft and launching modern missiles. Watch online videos on what aim9x rockets are capable of

    https://youtu.be/6YMSfg26YSQ

    No maneuver will save from such missiles.
    Russia, as always, is very far behind in high technology. Therefore, the su57 did not go into production, and it launched an air-to-air rocket operating on the principle and forgot not either. The logical result of the development of education and thought.
    1. nks
      nks 28 August 2019 01: 19
      0
      Not so long ago in Syria, these missiles (aim9x) could not get into su-22. In general, it still depends on the range - the air-blast missile system loses energy, increasing the chances of the target in the missile defense.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 28 August 2019 18: 25
      0
      Now they will recline with comments in the style of “one grandmother said that these missiles didn’t hit somewhere, which means that it completely sucks”))
      1. nks
        nks 28 August 2019 21: 10
        0
        This is actually the pilot himself said SH - he then had to use aim-120, despite the short distance. Another question, why didn’t get there - maybe the malfunction was
  35. Red_Baron
    Red_Baron 27 August 2019 22: 46
    0
    That it seems to me that the author is trying to deceive himself. At first he says that stealth is at the forefront, and then does not explain why then the aircraft of the "correct" countries do not look like B-2 or something similar subtle. And after various F-117s, airplanes began to be made a little differently.
    “I didn’t even know that the enemy was nearby and didn’t understand who shot me down,” the American pilots who piloted in the F-35 exercises, which, incidentally, had completely modern radar stations, described their collisions with F-16.

    Wow, wow, please. As I understand it, the author believes in the sincerity of these words. I feel like crying a little. This is just an advertisement for new aircraft and that’s it. what kind of F-16 did not notice the plane and the rocket flying into it. But the pilot generally smoked and then bang, already knocked out.
    It even at first glance looks insanity. But it means marketers are great, since someone buys it.
    1. Avior
      Avior 27 August 2019 23: 14
      -2
      Even the second half of the flight of the V-V rockets goes above the speed of sound, this is about 400 m per second, the speed of a pistol bullet.
      If the launch was outside of visual visibility, and the infrared tracking head, then it is not easy to detect an attack
      1. Red_Baron
        Red_Baron 27 August 2019 23: 17
        0
        So you visually decided to detect it? Visually, you may not notice.
        1. Avior
          Avior 27 August 2019 23: 20
          -2
          What am I writing to you about?
          If it flies up, let’s say from the side, behind, and the SPR did not find it, it is highly likely that this will happen.
          However, I do not think that the exercises were real launches
          1. Red_Baron
            Red_Baron 27 August 2019 23: 23
            -1
            So this would be true in the opposite direction. In order to launch a rocket, all the more because of the radius of visibility it is necessary to detect the target, no one noticed the radiation, is the working radar also?
            1. Avior
              Avior 27 August 2019 23: 56
              -3
              A working radar and a flying rocket are not one and so on.
            2. 3danimal
              3danimal 28 August 2019 18: 27
              0
              Recall the LPI mode on the F-22. No one noticed the radar, and after 2 120s suddenly arrive.
    2. TARSUS
      TARSUS 28 August 2019 02: 03
      0
      If you were just a little mate. some knew: the F-117 had such "chopped" shapes, due to the fact that computers at that time could not calculate the EPR from rounded surfaces, only from straight lines. And only with an increase in computing capabilities, we have inconspicuous aircraft of our usual appearance. As for the B-2, the funny thing is that the Russian PAKDA is suddenly being developed on a "flying wing" principle like the Spirit.
      1. Red_Baron
        Red_Baron 28 August 2019 02: 18
        -1
        Quote: TARS
        And only with an increase in computational capabilities do we have stealth aircraft of our usual shape.

        Through ,,, a bunch of years. 1983 and 2012
        31 years in operation without stealth. The most important characteristic you say?
        1. TARSUS
          TARSUS 28 August 2019 02: 45
          -2
          I see you are completely in the history of aviation are not strong? And here is 2012?
          First flight of F-117 1981
          First flight of the B-2 1989
          First flight of F-22 1990
          As you can see, it took only about 10 years.
          1. Red_Baron
            Red_Baron 28 August 2019 02: 53
            0
            Well, you are strong in the history of Wikipedia, congratulations, you can be proud even here.
            only the F-35 forgot something, which by the way became more or less massive after the first inconspicuous F-117
            And all this time, the main fighters were slightly different. Remind me or look at the wiki yourself? You would have brought something from the museum as evidence.
            F-15 1500 pieces
            F-16 almost 5000 pieces
            F-18 over 2000
            Now attention
            F-117 64 pieces
            B-2 21 pieces: D
            F-22 190 pieces
            I carefully take you to the occasion of the era of inconspicuous fighters: D: D: D: D what a disgrace.
            1. TARSUS
              TARSUS 28 August 2019 03: 06
              -4
              And you are not strong in this. Yes, and did not deign to explain where you got the figure of 31 years.
              As for the number of 4th generation aircraft, you clearly forgot in what years they were created, namely during the Cold War, when the war between America and the USSR could be more likely. After the collapse of the USSR, and it was at this time that new "invisible" planes were created, a huge number of VERY EXPENSIVE aircraft disappeared. Even without aircraft of low visibility, the number of aircraft of the United States and NATO makes it possible to roll out any country, even Russia. Yes, their losses will be simply enormous, but none with 400, shells and tori will not save, enough to fly in the clouds.
              1. Red_Baron
                Red_Baron 28 August 2019 03: 17
                -1
                Quote: TARS
                And you are not strong in this.

                : D: D: D where am I
                Quote: TARS
                Yes, and did not deign to explain where you got the figure of 31 years.

                This is the first time you asked about this. I indirectly wrote about this. This is the difference between the beginning of the release of the first inconspicuous and modern inconspicuous. It’s not serious at all to talk seriously about some sort of 21 or 190 aircraft.
                Quote: TARS
                Necessity in a huge number of VERY EXPENSIVE aircraft disappeared.
                And did these very expensive ones have more efficiency than inexpensive ones?
                Compare F-117 and F-16. :)))))

                Quote: TARS
                Yes, not having low-visibility aircraft

                What I said that invisibility has never been an important characteristic.
                Quote: TARS
                allows you to roll out any country, and even Russia. Yes, their losses will be huge, but no losses from 400, shells and tori will save, enough to fly in the clouds.

                And what does this have to do with it? Will they pay you more for that, like a product placemount?
                1. TARSUS
                  TARSUS 28 August 2019 03: 28
                  -4
                  It is such a feeling that you are being paid, it is so biased to take and call the SU-57 a "modern inconspicuous", when even Russian experts estimate the EPR of Sushka and the F-22 to be the same. Only the F-22 is 20 years older if that.
                  As for the effectiveness of the F-117, only 1 combat loss per hundreds, if not thousands of sorties and then, in a rather specific situation. I hope I do not need to say how the F-117 was shot down?
                  1. Red_Baron
                    Red_Baron 28 August 2019 03: 34
                    -1
                    Quote: TARS
                    It feels like you are being paid, so biased to take and call the "perfect, inconspicuous" SU-57,

                    And you can quote where I said that. You lie again.

                    Quote: TARS
                    As for the effectiveness of the F-117, only 1 combat loss per hundreds, if not thousands of sorties and then, in a rather specific situation.

                    End these nonsense. And how many sorties were, what conditions, in which conflicts participated, what opportunities in general, and so on. I remember very well the time that they would not be dishonored with the F-117 at all, they used only guided bombs, actually there was at least some kind of efficiency. But they didn’t fly to no purpose.
                    1. TARSUS
                      TARSUS 28 August 2019 03: 37
                      -3
                      I corrected my post before yours, it was a typo. 117 Like a bomber, if anything, what other weapons should he use?
                    2. Avior
                      Avior 28 August 2019 08: 34
                      -1
                      In fact, the f-117 was made under guided bombs, and not for carpet bombing.
                      In Iraq, used for the most complex tasks.
                      1. Red_Baron
                        Red_Baron 28 August 2019 12: 27
                        0
                        The first time I hear that a plane would be developed for a certain type of bomb only.
                        Which are the most difficult? Against a country far from the most advanced, which did not have the means to detect and was unable to organize an interception. The most difficult is when they are essentially little threatened at all. And when they, unlike other aircraft, were armed with guided bombs. And the accuracy was much higher. Well, great, and it is necessary to compare. As it turned out, it was all such a not-so-long triumph.
                      2. Avior
                        Avior 28 August 2019 14: 28
                        +1
                        F-117 in Iraq assigned tasks to strike at the most protected and important targets. Actually, it was developed for this.
                        A small number of these planes defeated 40 percent of Iraq’s strategic goals in 1991.
                        Lockheed Martin single-seat tactical subtle tactical attack aircraft, designed to covertly penetrate the enemy’s air defense system and attack strategically important ground-based military infrastructure objects (missile bases, airfields, command and communications centers, etc.).

                        Actually, this is clear from the list of weapons
                        Armaments

                        2 × internal weapons bays with one hardpoint each (total of two weapons) equipped to carry:
                        Bombs:
                        GBU-10 Paveway II laser-guided bomb with 2,000 lb Mk84 blast / fragmentation or BLU-109 or BLU-116 Penetrator warhead
                        GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb with 500 lb Mk82 blast / fragmentation warhead
                        GBU-27 Paveway III laser-guided bomb with 2,000 lb Mk84 blast-fragmentation or BLU-109 or BLU-116 Penetrator warhead
                        GBU-31 JDAM INS / GPS guided munition with 2,000 lb Mk84 blast-frag or BLU-109 Penetrator warhead
                        B61 nuclear bomb [102]
                      3. Red_Baron
                        Red_Baron 28 August 2019 16: 27
                        -1
                        Quote: Avior
                        F-117 in Iraq assigned tasks to strike at the most protected and important targets. Actually, it was developed for this.
                        A small number of these planes defeated 40 percent of Iraq’s strategic goals in 1991.

                        No, a little bit wrong. These planes dealt the first blow to the most important targets and bombed them successfully. Actually, the Iraqi air defense not only had little idea of ​​what it would have to face. It still had no normal means of detection. Well, they used the F-117 usually at night, so that it was also visually impossible to detect. After that, the work was carried out by ordinary non-invisible aircraft. A few times when the ordinary could not cope, they sent F-117s, these were their significant victories. But these were relatively rare raids.
                        Quote: Avior
                        A small number of these planes defeated 40 percent of Iraq’s strategic goals in 1991.

                        At the same time, 85% of finances were spent on them.
                        And the slightest change in the balance of the F-117 would be completely useless. If Iraq had more modern equipment or surveillance and reconnaissance in the air, satellite reconnaissance.
                        And you create the conditions for the F-15 and the same bombs. and they will provide 35%. It’s just that it’s more difficult to arrange conditions for them.
                        What do you want to tell me about? I was written above by an unhealthy little American fanatic who does not recognize arguments at all, told some moments about the plane, but there was no essence.
                        F-117 is absolutely what the author of the article writes about. That's almost the quintessence. A flying platform to launch or reset something. She has an extremely narrow specialization. For its effective use, a bunch of conditions must be met. The overwhelming superiority in general in the army, the overwhelming superiority in the air, the weak technical level of the country. Weak capabilities of air defense organization. Without it, he cannot do anything or his effectiveness tends to zero. It takes off with difficulty, flies with difficulty and electronically. His era was all at that time. They were written off not only by the time of operation. But because they were not needed. a normal country could arrange intercepts and much better detect targets, even a weak air defense Yugoslavia could determine flight routes and shoot down one. And he was spotted by a radar station. Yes, at short range. Just the factor of secrecy and surprise cannot last forever. And in other conditions, F-117 can not be used. It’s not even Zamwalt. that even without the alleged weapons can be useful as a ship. But F-117 is not.
                        Here it is stealth without anything. I do not agree with the author. There should be some kind of aircraft that has minimum characteristics comparable with the enemy, and stealth only against them.
                      4. Avior
                        Avior 28 August 2019 16: 34
                        +1
                        At the same time, 85% of finances were spent on them.

                        I doubt it very much. The peculiarity of f-117 is that they struck alone.
                        That is, where the task was solved by a group of dozens of conventional aircraft, instead of it, they sent 1 (one) f-117 with two bombs to the interior of the suspensions.
                        And no radar stations saw him, unless by accident, as in Yugoslavia due to the negligence of the Americans themselves. After that, for three months of flights to Yugoslavia they could not bring down a single one.
                      5. Red_Baron
                        Red_Baron 28 August 2019 16: 53
                        -1
                        Quote: Avior
                        I doubt it very much. The peculiarity of f-117 is that they struck alone.

                        “For example, some sources claim that only one of several KABs hit the target, and the real effectiveness of the stealth did not exceed 30%. With the cost of one GBU-27 bomb at 175000 USD, this made the use of precision weapons very burdensome. According to official statistics, In the Persian Gulf, smart weapons accounted for less than 8% of all aviation ammunition used by the Allies, but their cost was 85% of the cost of all missiles and bombs dropped on the enemy. "
                        At 8 percent of ammunition, 85% of all finances spent on the bombing.
                        Quote: Avior
                        That is, where the task was solved by a group of dozens of conventional aircraft, instead of it, they sent 1 (one) f-117 with two bombs to the interior of the suspensions.

                        Q & a You read it wrong. All serious operations were performed in groups. And instead of a few dozen F-16s and F-15s, 8 F-117s were sent. And the usual nightly bombardment - yes, one or two.
                        Quote: Avior
                        And no radar stations saw him, unless by accident, as in Yugoslavia due to the negligence of the Americans themselves. After that, for three months of flights to Yugoslavia they could not bring down a single one.

                        And they couldn’t shoot down at all because they were so stupid and could not organize an interception. If the aggressors had no superiority both in the air and on the ground, it would be possible to undertake a search upon the fact of the attack. With the maximum speed of the F-117, there could probably be a chance.
                  2. 3danimal
                    3danimal 28 August 2019 18: 31
                    0
                    Su-57 has a much larger EPR than the F-22. Russian designers neglected S-shaped air intakes.
            2. TARSUS
              TARSUS 28 August 2019 03: 14
              -4
              By the way, you already disgraced yourself in our last dispute about OBPS, rejecting the developer's data and putting up the authority of the article of the "sofa expert" who took his numbers from the ceiling.
              1. Red_Baron
                Red_Baron 28 August 2019 03: 21
                0
                As far as I remember, you're lying now. You responded to the article with the news. In this news, it was written that for new shells there will be such difficult goals as self-propelled guns: D: D: D and similar nonsense.
                You also stupid when I told you that for different guns the shells are different. For more modern they are more powerful, which was described in the article.
                And so on and so forth. As soon as I nosed you into your mistakes or the mistakes of your news that you gave out as an article, you simply kept silent or shouted that America would bomb everyone without it and that it was impossible to beat Abrams. But however, the developer said that the whole spectrum is amazing. You even managed to stupid :)
                1. TARSUS
                  TARSUS 28 August 2019 03: 32
                  -4
                  Comfort yourself further.
                  1. Red_Baron
                    Red_Baron 28 August 2019 03: 36
                    0
                    It is so easy to raise both the argument and your news, which is located in the news section and read what is written there. Do you think that everyone is fooled or me. I assure you, this is completely impossible. All moves are recorded. Cut better on the shape of the caps, oh invisible fighters.
                    1. TARSUS
                      TARSUS 28 August 2019 03: 45
                      -2
                      Who wants to, he will raise and understand who is lying and who is not.
                      As for the "invisible", you have already shown a complete lack of knowledge in this topic, from the beginning of the operation of aircraft, the reasons for the chopped forms of the F-117, about the number of aircraft of this type and ending with the uselessness of these aircraft, when ATTENTION: Russia itself has developed an aircraft of low visibility similar to F-22 and saws bomber like the Americans, flying like already 30 years. Curtain.
  36. Operator
    Operator 27 August 2019 22: 59
    -2
    Quote: Avior
    If ltx from wikipedia is missing

    Give a link to the RLE Su-35С laughing
  37. E.S.
    E.S. 27 August 2019 23: 04
    +3
    Fizikts anyone taught at school?
    On a subsonic of the MiG-29, for example, at 6g, the turning radius (in any plane) is 700 meters, and for a rocket with an available overload of 40g, the bend radius is more than a kilometer for speed and physics.
    To the maneuver was timely and correct, there are various useful things.
    In addition, not only the overload as such is important, but also the rate of increase of the overload, and here the plane greatly benefits for obvious reasons.
    In addition, the combination of proper vigorous maneuvering and the use of other means of counteraction leads to a disruption in the capture of both the radar and the infrared seeker.
    All this has been calculated and modeled many years ago and is constantly modeled to this day. Based on this, TK is written on aircraft and products are built on the basis of these TK.
    Therefore, accustomed conclusions based on emotional assessments look .... let's say "unconvincing"
    1. Avior
      Avior 27 August 2019 23: 23
      -4
      The turning radius at a given overload depends on the speed.
      "On the subsonic side of the MiG-29, for example at 6g, the turning radius (in any plane) is 700 meters,"
  38. E.S.
    E.S. 27 August 2019 23: 08
    -1
    Quote: Nycomed
    Only if you saw a rocket flying at you

    That's why planes are stuck on all sides with appropriate devices
    1. Avior
      Avior 27 August 2019 23: 28
      -4
      Spa and spr.
      It’s not a fact that a missile will be discovered, let alone a range to it.
  39. E.S.
    E.S. 27 August 2019 23: 14
    +3
    Quote: karpusha
    The author writes everything correctly. In modern aerial combat, maneuverability is not needed. The aircraft essentially turns into an inconspicuous platform for detecting enemy aircraft and launching modern missiles. Watch online videos on what aim9x rockets are capable of

    https://youtu.be/6YMSfg26YSQ

    No maneuver will save from such missiles.
    Russia, as always, is very far behind in high technology. Therefore, the su57 did not go into production, and it launched an air-to-air rocket operating on the principle and forgot not either. The logical result of the development of education and thought.


    And what's wrong with the video? GOS captured an almost non-maneuvering target on a collision course and hit it. Moreover, the carrier is clearly exceeding the target, so everyone can. And if the goal is exceeded, then what did you think of the energy supply of the air-blast equipment?
    The maxim about the lack of "fire and forget" on the Su-57 is simply incomparable! And how do you think rockets with IR seeker of times of Glory of the CPSU work ???!
    1. karpusha
      karpusha 27 August 2019 23: 27
      -6
      Look for videos with the latest modification of this rocket. The maneuver is already powerless. But this is a short-range missile. And what is aim120 that works on the principle of letting and forgetting. While the American pilot fired and makes a missile defense missile maneuver, ours is forced to fly towards the target and illuminate it with the airborne radar.
      About the absence of rockets I shot and forgot, I had in mind medium-range missiles, and not near missiles with infrared seekers.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 28 August 2019 18: 40
        0
        AIM-120 does not have OBT, maneuver only due to planes.
        A promising small-sized (due to light inert warhead) and super-maneuverable analogue are under development. Strongly change the balance of power at the "medium" (up to 120km) distances.
  40. slowpokemonkey
    slowpokemonkey 27 August 2019 23: 24
    -5
    I liked the article.
    went into comments, and there belay

    it is possible to state the need for over-maneuverability
    but only, at least, after demonstrating the successful departure of the Su35 from the P77 maneuver.

    The very idea of ​​air combat between 5th generation aircraft at speeds less than 0,9max seems somewhat dubious.

    I would like someone to help find and compare information on the maneuverability of the su27 \ f15 at speeds above 1max.

    gas-dynamic controls can help at heights 20+ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnFK50x9L5w) but is it necessary?
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 27 August 2019 23: 52
      0
      "The very idea of ​​air combat between 5th generation aircraft
      at speeds less than 0,9max seems somewhat dubious. "////
      ------
      Recently, such exercises have been held.
      Two American F-22s against a group of Norwegian F-35s.
      The results are not disclosed. Norwegians only sparingly said:
      "The F-22 is a very serious opponent."
      Usually, against a pair of F-22, Americans put up for training
      12 pieces F-15. One to six to beat off the F-22 attack.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  41. tomket
    tomket 27 August 2019 23: 27
    +6
    So, let's take a look at the "bones"
    1.
    The argument is the loss of McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II aircraft.
    Dear author, As arguments, in general, they cite the loss of ALL TYPES OF AIRCRAFT. On the Phantom, the light did not converge like a white wedge. And there were about 3500 thousand of all types.
    but nevertheless representing a considerable danger of medium-range air-to-air missiles. That is, talking about “dogfight” in this case is inappropriate at all.
    Well, of course. Apparently due to the lack of "dogfight" the Americans in a hurry began to fasten guns in any form to the "Phantoms". And the pilots nicknamed "Cruiseider" - "The Last Normal Fighter", implying the presence of powerful cannon armament, which allowed them to continue spinning the merry-go-round with MiGs after the missiles went into "milk". By the way, on "Discovery" I saw a documentary film, where the pilot of that very "Cruiseider" told how he twisted turns with the MiG-17, shooting from cannons. And such episodes were by no means rare
    In general, the topic of "dogfight" is very broad. It is from Vietnam that the legs of the fighters of the 4th generation grow, and the famous Top Gun school and Pugachev's Cobra, in fact, are the legacy of Vietnam, the answer to the F-15, which was supposed to maneuver the MiG-21.
    but nevertheless representing a considerable danger of medium-range air-to-air missiles. That is, talking about “dogfight” in this case is inappropriate at all.
    Vobbsche very interesting why the author ignores the Arab-Israeli conflicts? Probably because there are "dogfights" well, just a wagon and a small cart? Starting from the "six-day" war and ending with the battles in the Bekaa river valley, where the F-16's maneuverability said its weighty word.
    Anyway, has the author heard anything about the Iran-Iraq war? Where the f-5 was outplayed in close combat by the MiG-25s, and the MiG-21s were fought in the tail of the “Ali Ketov” f-14s, with the same maneuverability. The Falklands War, where the Harriers' pilots got the hang of controlling the nozzles, laying the prototype for a variable thrust vector. No? Did not hear? The Gulf War. And what does the author ask there? And there modern AIM-120 went into "milk" when firing at the maneuvering MiG-25. And the last conflict, between India and Pakistan, with a missile that went into "milk", when firing at a maneuvering Su-30.
    Now new short-range missiles, such as RVV-MD and AIM-9X no longer require a "carousel": they can be safely launched into the enemy's forehead with a high chance of defeating him. That's just the launch range on an ACTIVELY MANEUVERING target can drop to 60% and the all-aspect "Sidewidder" stupidly will not reach the target.
    According to a reputable publication by The Aviationist, at the U.S. Air Force Red Flag 17-01 exercises held in 2017, the latest fifth-generation American fighter F-35 (perhaps not without the help of F-22) defeated the enemy simulating the F-16 with an 15 score of 1 . “I didn’t even know that the enemy was nearby and didn’t understand who shot me down,” the American pilots who piloted in the F-35 exercises, which, incidentally, had completely modern radar stations, described their collisions with F-16.
    Of course he didn't know. And if you read the Indians, they "tore" the "Raptors" to shreds.
    [iYou can say even more simply: aerial stunts have little to do with war, as such. ] [/ i]
    Along the way, the author does not understand the difference between aerobatics and combat aerobatics. I remember Zimin, where in an air battle, either with the Romanians, or the Italians, the enemy began to write pirouettes in the air from the category of aerial acrobatics. Our pilot was surprised to observe the actions of the enemy, noting that he saw such a thing in battle for the first time. I wish the author not to be such an "Italian" writing a "pretzel" with a pen on a piece of paper.
    1. Red_Baron
      Red_Baron 28 August 2019 02: 34
      +1
      That is, it turns out in the article that most of the fact is far-fetched, just for the sake of confirming their conclusions?
      1. tomket
        tomket 28 August 2019 12: 42
        +2
        Quote: Red_Baron
        That is, it turns out in the article that most of the fact is far-fetched, just for the sake of confirming their conclusions?

        The author sees this. In my opinion, they did not even bother to provide any convincing statistics.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 28 August 2019 18: 47
      0
      Here is a fragment about the Persian Gulf is interesting. So in the end, did the Coalition succeed in gaining superiority in the air, or not? And why did Hussein drive the surviving planes to neighboring countries (with a return later)?
      1. tomket
        tomket 28 August 2019 19: 00
        0
        Quote: 3danimal
        Here is a fragment about the Persian Gulf is interesting. So in the end, did the Coalition succeed in gaining superiority in the air, or not?

        The use of aviation by Iraq was episodic and for the most part unsystematic. In fact, they refused to fight in the air. At the same time, a few episodes of its application show that it would bring a lot of coalition problems with skillful and decisive use.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 28 August 2019 19: 15
          0
          And it seems that, having suffered high losses, the Hussein generals wanted to save the remaining aircraft.
          Refused to fight in the air? Having given infantry and armored vehicles to the devastation of enemy aircraft? Such actions are only forced.
          P.S. I brought alongside the composition of the Air Force and Air Defense of Iraq in 1991, the strongest in the region.
  42. rubin6286
    rubin6286 27 August 2019 23: 38
    0
    The future war, if unleashed, will be nuclear missile and will lead to the global destruction of all life on the planet. There will be no winners in it, because the aggressor and the victim will not survive much each other. In any case, the war, especially the world war, is a carefully planned event, the preparation of which will not be completely concealed. The blow must be delivered by all available means. With regard to aviation, this means that the maximum number of nuclear carriers (bombers) and fighters covering themselves must be lifted into the air. During their flight to the targets, a nuclear missile strike by land-based and sea-based ballistic missiles of the aggressor and a retaliatory strike by similar means of the victim follow.
    We all know the influence of the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion and it is reasonable to assume that in this case all electronic warfare equipment, air defense and aircraft avionics will be “cut down”, some of the aircraft will go off course or be destroyed and although the surviving pilots will nevertheless fulfill the task, they’ll be back no. In a word, almost like in a joke:

    “The captain of the nuclear submarine calls the start-up:
    - that it shocked us so sharply two minutes ago?
    - Yes, this ... a radiogram came to our old fellow Kovbasyuk that his wife had gone to Naples to rest with some kind of scumbag ..
    - Well?
    “So he is not there, Naples is now ... ..”

    Hence the conclusions:

    No. 1: In the event of a nuclear missile war, neither speed nor maneuverability will help planes. Those that were not in the air will burn in a nuclear flame on earth.

    No. 2. Fighter aircraft, as an effective means of armed struggle, can be used in local conflicts without the use of WMD. Perhaps that is why the number of fighters in the United States, Russia, and a number of European states is much less today than in the past war.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 28 August 2019 18: 51
      0
      Air wings in the sea survive.
      Fortunately, Homo doesn’t have enough strength for “all living things”. It’s impossible to destroy everyone like himself. Another thing is that there will be victims of hunger and disease.
      1. rubin6286
        rubin6286 28 August 2019 21: 09
        0
        Famine is not a damaging factor in a nuclear explosion, but penetrating radiation, radioactive contamination of the area (including the water surface). and radiation sickness is a reality. Why are you so bad at school?
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 28 August 2019 21: 56
          0
          I finished it 18 years ago.
          Did you have a favorite subject? )))
          I repeat: after all the “charms” of nuclear explosions that you have listed, a new state (reality) will come in which hunger and disease (including radiation) will be the norm, and in the conditions of destroyed infrastructure, they can take the lives of a significant number of survivors.
          1. rubin6286
            rubin6286 29 August 2019 09: 15
            0
            You didn’t understand anything. There will be no survivors in a nuclear war. There will be survivors of a nuclear strike who will die a painful death.
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 29 August 2019 12: 30
              0
              There are different versions. That, which is based on the radius of the defeat, deduces that there will be many survivors.
  43. pepel
    pepel 27 August 2019 23: 42
    0
    Allegedly "stealth" of fighters, which the Americans advertise for their aircraft, is beginning to turn into a "diagnosis" for everyone who writes about modern aviation. The statements of specialists about the impossibility of building such an aircraft in principle are completely ignored. The aircraft is invisible on the radar only in the water case, when it is parked in the hangar.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 28 August 2019 18: 54
      -1
      There is reason to believe that the "experts" are engaged (or are not) and manipulate the data.
      Subtle samples are possible (and created) in a certain range of wavelengths (working for modern radars).
  44. E.S.
    E.S. 27 August 2019 23: 59
    0
    Quote: Avior
    Spa and spr.
    It’s not a fact that a missile will be discovered, let alone a range to it.

    In that, they do a rear-view radar and many other useful things
  45. E.S.
    E.S. 28 August 2019 00: 05
    0
    Quote: karpusha
    Look for videos with the latest modification of this rocket. The maneuver is already powerless. But this is a short-range missile. And what is aim120 that works on the principle of letting and forgetting. While the American pilot fired and makes a missile defense missile maneuver, ours is forced to fly towards the target and illuminate it with the airborne radar.
    About the absence of rockets I shot and forgot, I had in mind medium-range missiles, and not near missiles with infrared seekers.

    Yeah, "let it go and forgot why you fired", you will shoot at the transports like that, but at the fighter you will have to accompany the target and adjust the airborne missile system nv trajectory until it reaches (if it does) the capture zone of the seeker, and this is not a fact that the communication channel will work as it should
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 28 August 2019 18: 57
      -1
      The attacked fighter will not be notified of the attack. It is necessary to correct the trajectory slightly, this is feasible for AFAR radars in LPI mode.
  46. Fitter65
    Fitter65 28 August 2019 00: 28
    +1
    cars died not in air battles, but as a result of non-combat incidents, or from Vietnamese field artillery fire.

    I did not even read further.
    1. tomket
      tomket 28 August 2019 00: 49
      0
      [
      Quote: Fitter65
      about from the fire of Vietnamese field artillery.

      I did not even read further.

      There, detachments of Vietnamese girls showed "miracles of performance" when shooting from "mosinki" at planes in the weekly counts of Vietnamese workers' parties, who strengthened the morale of the people, so to speak.
      1. Fitter65
        Fitter65 28 August 2019 06: 18
        -1
        Quote: tomket
        There, detachments of Vietnamese girls showed "miracles of performance" when shooting from "mosinki" at planes in the weekly counts of Vietnamese workers' parties, who strengthened the morale of the people, so to speak.
        Well, if the above article was written by a Vietnamese party worker, then it’s another matter, only why is it in Russian and Isal, it seems that not all Vietnamese speak fluent Russian, not to mention Russian grammar.
  47. E.S.
    E.S. 28 August 2019 00: 43
    +2
    Quote: Zeev Zeev
    Watching who the GOS went forward.

    Are you hinting at a miss of the first AIM-9X on the Syrian Su-22?
    Well, you shouldn’t be so critical in vain, the Americans also tried as best they could, who knew that Drying would shoot the infrared trap from the time of the CPSU Glory!
  48. E.S.
    E.S. 28 August 2019 00: 45
    -2
    Quote: karpusha
    Look for videos with the latest modification of this rocket. The maneuver is already powerless. But this is a short-range missile. And what is aim120 that works on the principle of letting and forgetting. While the American pilot fired and makes a missile defense missile maneuver, ours is forced to fly towards the target and illuminate it with the airborne radar.
    About the absence of rockets I shot and forgot, I had in mind medium-range missiles, and not near missiles with infrared seekers.

    Ah, are you AIM-9X? Yes, in Syria it turned out funny with her, the maneuver is powerless, yeah, on a straight-flown plane from the back hemisphere from a pair of launched ones, it’ll certainly fly
    1. karpusha
      karpusha 28 August 2019 08: 10
      +1
      Who made the launch for whom? Where did the information from what modification the rocket was and how much was released? Or, again, tales from the category of the retiring crew of Donald Cook?
  49. Alex_59
    Alex_59 28 August 2019 08: 06
    +6
    So planes armed with old Soviet P-27P missiles or American Sparrow missiles with semi-active homing radars run the risk of encountering more problems if they use more advanced missiles against them, such as RVV-AE, AIM-120 or MBDA Meteor. Not requiring radar "illumination" of the target until it is defeated, and not constraining a fighter pilot in a maneuver after launching a rocket.
    AGSN missiles do not require illumination only when firing at non-maneuvering targets. For some reason, everyone believes that the AGSN is such magic, missile-robot with AI. Nothing like this. AGSN is involved in the work at a distance of 5-10 km from the target, but at this point (which is 5-10 km from the target), the missile with AGSN still needs to be withdrawn. If shooting is carried out at a range of, for example, 50 km on a maneuvering target, then the lead point at which the AGSN is able to independently start work is constantly shifting - the target maneuvers. And to adjust the flight of the rocket, you need to highlight the target, continuously recalculate the flight parameters and transmit them to the rocket - which is exactly what the onboard radar of the attacking fighter does.
    We can say even more simply: aerial stunts have little to do with war, as such.
    If the author imagines maneuvering as aerial stunts, then this is lovely. You don't need to be a physicist to understand how a modern rocket is controlled and guided. Management is the constant correction of the error of aiming at the point of the intended meeting with the target. It is good when the target flies straight at the same altitude with a constant speed - in this case, the lead point calculated once does not need to be recalculated, and control is reduced to a single data entry into the rocket. And if the target maneuvers? No, he does not perform tricks and not with an overload of 10g, but performs turns in height and direction - what will happen to the lead point? This point will rush across the sky with a completely wild angular velocity relative to the attacking missile and the missile will appear and accumulate guidance errors. And if the rocket still needs to be driven into the target, then the attacker will have to constantly adjust the rocket's flight mission. And since no one knows how to predict the future, the correction of guidance errors always occurs with a lag (albeit in a split second). Physically correcting a missile guidance error is constant maneuvering that results in a loss of scarce energy that the missile never has in excess. Solid propellant rocket engines of modern missiles work for 3-5 seconds, and then by inertia - any extra maneuver is bad for the missile. And the loss of energy on the route is a decrease in speed and available congestion. The rocket may not reach the target at all. Especially if the shooting was carried out from a maximum distance at a non-maneuvering target, and then the target began to maneuver. Or if it does, then, as a result of energy consumption, it will not be able to properly screw onto the target already at the very end of the flight and will pass from the target further than the radio fuse will go off. And in this regard, literally at the very end of the missile's flight at the target, the target's ability to briefly turn a steep "super-maneuverable" bend may decide the matter not in favor of the missile.
    So maneuverability in any form will not be superfluous for the fighter. Dog fights just now are not fighter-fighter, but fighter-rocket. And it is not a fact that each rocket will always twist a fighter, especially if it will lose energy when firing at a long distance.
    1. E.S.
      E.S. 28 August 2019 08: 53
      -2
      Alex_59 gave an exhaustively correct description.
      I really wanted to dig in - I found only a single word to find fault with: instead of "radio fuse" "proximity fuse", but these are such trifles that it is even a shame to find fault
    2. alstr
      alstr 28 August 2019 22: 16
      0
      Add.
      Over a long distance, it may well do the trick by shooting traps. Those. the algorithm is something like this: a rocket flies at us. The aircraft abruptly changes direction, and it is desirable as far as possible from the predicted (with a controlled thrust vector this is possible) and at the same time shoot the trap. As a result, as Since the rocket cannot calculate all possible changes in the flight (only the trajectory is extrapolated), the rocket switches to a trap (because it sees something at the supposed point).
      It should be borne in mind that the missile (and any air defense system) has its own scanning cycle. From here there are always moments when the missile actually does not see the target and in order to find it, it searches for the target along the calculated path.
      So it turns out that leaving the trap there we can (and go aside) confuse the rocket. And even if the rocket realizes that it was slipped into a trap, it will be too late, because the target will already go beyond the AGN review.


      The conclusion can be drawn as follows: Any characteristic of the aircraft, whether stealth or over-maneuverability - this is just an additional chance to survive the pilot. But how to take this chance is already a matter of pilot skill and luck.
  50. E.S.
    E.S. 28 August 2019 08: 49
    -1
    Quote: karpusha
    Who made the launch for whom? Where did the information from what modification the rocket was and how much was released? Or, again, tales from the category of the retiring crew of Donald Cook?

    The USAF fired at the Syrian Su-22 after the Euphrates, which nightmare pro-American Kurds.
    They had a scandal there, the USAF got excited because in the adoption process, the AIM-9X showed insensitivity to infrared traps. But it turned out that this is insensitive to American infrared traps, which made the customer excited.
    Look in the American near-air sources, including the official one and a half to two years ago