Military Review

XQ-58A Valkyrie: robots in the air!

100

US Air Force Newest Hope



The struggle for air superiority over the western part of the Pacific Ocean adjacent to the coast of China has definitely reached a new technological level.

В previous article on this topic I already wrote that the United States was faced with two factors that significantly weaken their military power in the region. Firstly, they began to be inferior in the number of PLA air forces both in the total number of aircraft and in the number of aircraft of the latest types. Americans can exhibit 200-250 aircraft of the latest types, or up to 300, if together with allies. According to the Pentagon, China can exhibit up to 600 aircraft of the latest types. Secondly, American aviation It is based on islands and has few airfields, and therefore it is very crowded and vulnerable to a missile strike. China has many more airfields, and it also has the ability to use many recently built freeways as runways to disperse its aircraft.

These two factors, combined with the fact that in the event of a military conflict the Americans will have to act offensively, try to suppress Chinese aircraft, that is, fly over Chinese territory in the area of ​​Chinese air defense, will lead to the likely defeat of American aviation. For each American aircraft - two Chinese latest types, two or three more aircraft of the previous types, ground-based air defense systems.

The American command is practicing various methods of breaking this situation in its favor, not excluding unmanned aircraft.

Small and cheap


It has recently been announced that the XQ-58A Valkyrie unmanned aircraft, which has already completed three test flights, will be tested with suspended weapons in the 2020 year. These tests, if successful, will open up this development path to adoption.

XQ-58A Valkyrie - one of the latest aviation developments, conducted by Kratos Defense & Security Solutions for the US Air Force. The XQ-58A Valkyrie is a small and cheap drone. Its length is 8,8 meters, wingspan - 6,7 meters. The cost of serial samples is determined in the range of 2-3 million dollars apiece. For comparison: F-35 has a length of 15,4 meters, wingspan - 11 meters, and its cost ranges from 82,4 to 108 million dollars, depending on version. How inexpensive the drone can be judged even by the fact that its cost roughly corresponds to seven AIM-120C missiles, that is, half of the F-35 ammunition.

From a military-economic point of view, the advantages are more than obvious. For the cost of one F-35, you can build about 30 units of XQ-58A. But the point is not only and not so much in cost, but in the fact that drones can obviously be built faster than airplanes. That is, having launched the series, the Americans in a few years will have several hundred such unmanned aircraft.

Combat capabilities


The XQ-58A Valkyrie is a carrier of weapons, such as the GPS-controlled JDAM bombs or the GBU-39 guided bombs. Now, judging by the known data, the use of unmanned aircraft as part of a mixed unit consisting of F-35 or F-22 (there are also opinions that F-15 can also be used as the core of the link), and five to six unmanned aircraft are being worked out.


XQ-58A Valkyrie upper left


As far as one can judge, this is only a concept so far, since real tests and exercises of the mixed level have not yet been carried out, and they can probably pass no earlier than 2021 of the year if the test program for an unmanned aerial vehicle with weapons is successful. Moreover, the concept is clearly far from complete.

In this composition, the mixed unit will be extremely vulnerable to an attack by enemy (that is, primarily Chinese) aircraft. The pilot of the aircraft will be overloaded with tasks, including the tasks of controlling and guiding the drones to the target. Attention is scattered, there is a situation of "yawn", which can be used by the enemy. Another point is that the pilot will have to drop drones to conduct an air battle with the enemy that appears, and they will be easily destroyed by other enemy aircraft or air defense.

It can hardly be assumed that the Americans would have made such an elementary tactical mistake. Most likely, the real concept of using combat robots comes from the fact that they can also be used as interceptors.

The XQ-58A Valkyrie is likely to carry air-to-air missiles, such as the AIM-120 AMRAAM. Such a rocket weighs 152 kg and can be placed on the external suspension of an unmanned aircraft. UAVs may not have their own radar (although this cannot be completely ruled out) and receive guidance commands from the pilot.

If the XQ-58A can at least have the ability to intercept enemy aircraft, then you can already create a mixed unit with much broader combat capabilities. Say, the 2-3 fighter drone and the 3-4 drone drone (they will most likely be of the same type and differ only in the set of suspended weapons). Having separated the fighters in height and having distributed them over a certain area, the pilot can already create a fairly reliable cover for the strike group. When enemy aircraft appear, the pilot first attacks them with unmanned fighters, and then he enters the battle himself.


One of the options for such an attack. The strike group indicated in the diagram may be unmanned


From the appearance of the enemy on the radar before the pilot enters the battle, quite a lot of time can pass, during which you can manage to reach the target, assign tasks to attack drones, give them commands to complete the mission and return, that is, to complete the combat mission.

So, most likely, the XQ-58A is designed and tested primarily as fighter robots, and strike functions are secondary.

In a large-scale air battle, such unmanned aerial vehicles can be a compelling argument. If each manned aircraft can take off with five drones accompanying it, then ten aircraft with such an escort will make up 60 combat units. One hundred aircraft - 600 combat units. If so, then there is already a fundamental technical opportunity to equalize forces with China, and in some areas even achieve an advantage in numbers.

A combat unmanned aircraft may seem like an inferior combat unit. However, it also has compelling advantages. Firstly, a much higher resistance to overloads, and, therefore, much greater maneuverability than that of a manned aircraft. It is easier for a drone to dodge a missile and easier to take a favorable position for a shot. Secondly, the software of robots can be constantly upgraded, replenished with new piloting algorithms, all the latest developments in air combat tactics and the experience of the best pilots. Gradually, unmanned aircraft will reach the level of aces in air combat, which will significantly improve the effectiveness of their use.

All in all, the XQ-58A Valkyrie is a good response to Chinese numerical superiority in the air. It does not guarantee anything at 100%, but the Americans have a serious chance to regain their dominance in aviation weapons and reinforce their military power.
Author:
100 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. OlezhkaKravchenko
    OlezhkaKravchenko 11 November 2019 18: 06 New
    -32
    The United States is now in third place in military power, after Russia and China
    1. Crash_117
      Crash_117 11 November 2019 18: 19 New
      +10
      According to VO and Military Acceptance - YES, Russia and China are ahead of the rest.
    2. svp67
      svp67 11 November 2019 18: 28 New
      +14
      Quote: OlezhkaKravchenko
      The United States is now in third place in military power, after Russia and China

      Very controversial statement. The US Air Force, if they lose to someone in a quantity on some theater, then they have many opportunities to quickly fix this, both by transferring aircraft from the Metropolis and deploying their AUGs in threatened directions. So Americans are a very dangerous adversary
    3. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 11 November 2019 19: 58 New
      +11
      Quote: OlezhkaKravchenko
      The United States is now in third place in military power, after Russia and China

      Oh Lord, what can I say? request
    4. Nenie Lynn
      Nenie Lynn 12 November 2019 03: 24 New
      +1
      Quote: OlezhkaKravchenko
      The United States is now in third place in military power, after Russia and China

      but it is not exactly... laughing
  2. rocket757
    rocket757 11 November 2019 18: 22 New
    +1
    The next stage on the path of attempts to transfer the war to another plane .... we will also hear assurances that other wars can be waged ... as in shooting games.
    1. Sauron80
      Sauron80 12 November 2019 15: 01 New
      +2
      For a long time, we would have agreed to arrange wars in the form of a counter championship - whose team won, he won the war))
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 12 November 2019 15: 09 New
        0
        How many watched such films in the subject, do not count!
  3. Corn
    Corn 11 November 2019 18: 31 New
    -29
    3,14ndosiya again unsuccessfully trying to catch up with Russia, in whose aviation the UAV “hunter” had long been created and went into technological hypersonic separation, creating weapons on new physical principles.
    1. Crash_117
      Crash_117 11 November 2019 20: 27 New
      +3
      3,14ndosiya again unsuccessfully trying to catch up with Russia, in whose aviation the UAV “hunter” had long been created and went into technological hypersonic separation, creating weapons on new physical principles.
      I hope this is a thick trolling. belay
    2. smart ass
      smart ass 11 November 2019 22: 41 New
      +5
      Stop watching ren tv
    3. Nenie Lynn
      Nenie Lynn 12 November 2019 03: 32 New
      +3
      Quote: Corn
      creating weapons on new physical principles.

      every alcoholic can carry nonsense, you better think with your head what you grind. What other "new" ones? Who received the Nobel Prize for these new principles, do not know by chance? lol
      even for troll weak agitation.
    4. Sauron80
      Sauron80 12 November 2019 15: 02 New
      0
      Pour it, eh?)))
    5. NEXUS
      NEXUS 12 November 2019 16: 45 New
      +1
      Quote: Corn
      which has long been created UAV “hunter”

      Hunter ONLY create. What is "long", a freak? The hunter exists today only in the prototype.
      Quote: Corn
      and went into technological hypersonic separation

      Where have you gone? fool While the gap is not even close. The dagger is a tactical weapon that, today, can only work on stationary targets at long ranges, but not on naval moving targets.
      RCC Zircon is also not yet. Where did you have a gap in reality, dear?
      Quote: Corn
      creating weapons on new physical principles.

      And with the old physical principles, what happened? wassat Or, to create the same combat laser, invented some new physical principle? wassat
  4. K-50
    K-50 11 November 2019 18: 36 New
    -1
    As I understand it, “floundering strategists” do not consider options for supporting enemy fighters either from airborne radars or from land / sea from the word at all. Apparently from here their terrible pictures also flow. lol
    Oh, they’ll get burned if the “shores lose” from their own exclusiveness. fellow laughing
  5. Sergey39
    Sergey39 11 November 2019 18: 39 New
    +7
    This Valkyrie should not be compared with F35, but with the Tomahawk.
    1. Avior
      Avior 12 November 2019 00: 32 New
      0
      For the price not far gone.
  6. looker-on
    looker-on 11 November 2019 19: 04 New
    +1
    Quote: Corn
    principle

    The whole comment is nonsense, but highlighted is the edge. There is no way to win the war. The face-face is damn and certainly not a typo. It’s a shame for my native language.
  7. Shahno
    Shahno 11 November 2019 19: 06 New
    +6
    Quote: OlezhkaKravchenko
    The United States is now in third place in military power, after Russia and China

    Quote: OlezhkaKravchenko
    The United States is now in third place in military power, after Russia and China

    Lord have mercy
  8. Shahno
    Shahno 11 November 2019 19: 08 New
    0
    Quote: svp67
    Quote: OlezhkaKravchenko
    The United States is now in third place in military power, after Russia and China

    Very controversial statement. The US Air Force, if they lose to someone in a quantity on some theater, then they have many opportunities to quickly fix this, both by transferring aircraft from the Metropolis and deploying their AUGs in threatened directions. So Americans are a very dangerous adversary

    You must understand now they will drag you into a technology war.
  9. bars1
    bars1 11 November 2019 19: 14 New
    0
    Quote: Corn
    3,14ndosiya again unsuccessfully trying to catch up with Russia, in whose aviation the UAV “hunter” was created long ago

    Or maybe Russia followed a dead end by creating a monstrous, expensive, poorly maneuverable (hi air battle) S-70? While the Americans created a relatively cheap, more maneuverable Valkyrie. For some reason, amers have much more experience with the use of the Air Force over the past 70 years.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 11 November 2019 20: 11 New
      +3
      Quote: bars1
      Or maybe Russia followed the dead end by creating a monstrous, expensive, poorly maneuverable (hi air battle) C-70? While the Americans created a relatively cheap, more maneuverable Valkyrie.

      Exactly.
      Or maybe Russia followed a dead end, using shovels instead of watering cans?
      Do you realize that the “Hunter" and the "Valkyrie" have a different purpose?
      1. Alex_You
        Alex_You 11 November 2019 21: 33 New
        0
        Well, and what purpose do these two pepelats have?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 11 November 2019 21: 40 New
          +2
          "Hunter" for striking previously explored targets. Or for conflicts of low intensity. "Valkyrie" means of breaking through layered air defense, or as it is now fashionable to say, A2 / AD
          1. Avior
            Avior 12 November 2019 00: 34 New
            +1
            and what prevents the Valkyrie from striking at previously explored targets?
            In conflicts of any intensity?
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 12 November 2019 10: 28 New
              0
              Quote: Avior
              and what prevents the Valkyrie from striking at previously explored targets?

              Nothing interferes.
              But nothing bothers you with your phone to hammer a nail.
              It doesn't bother you either, does it?
              1. Avior
                Avior 12 November 2019 22: 58 New
                0
                and why is this a strange comparison?
                Valkyrie - an inexpensive UAV comparable to the cost of Tomahawk
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 13 November 2019 10: 30 New
                  0
                  Quote: Avior
                  and why is this a strange comparison?

                  I will answer. After you answer the following question. Why did the Americans make the B-2? They are so stupid that they do not understand that the confrontation, even with the old MiG-21, will end badly for him?
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 11 November 2019 21: 46 New
      -1
      Quote: bars1
      Or maybe Russia followed the dead end by creating a monstrous, expensive, poorly maneuverable (hi air battle) C-70? While the Americans created a relatively cheap, more maneuverable Valkyrie.

      Have you decided to compare Hunter weighing 25 tons with Valkyrie? Seriously? Valkyrie can be compared with Corsair, or Orion, and that is very conditional.
      Here are some examples of our UAVs and decide for yourself where to place the Valkyrie ..
      1. Voyager
        Voyager 12 November 2019 12: 33 New
        +2
        The author writes about the cost of the Valkyrie in 2-3 million for one device. Does it seem to me alone that this is total nonsense?
        1. Passing
          Passing 1 February 2020 18: 23 New
          0
          Quote: Voyager
          Valkyries of 2-3 million for one unit. Does it seem to me alone that this is total nonsense?

          Think of it as a reusable cruise missile, with a warhead in the form of gliding bombs. What surprises you in the price of 2-3 million for a cruise missile? What does it cost more there?
          1. Voyager
            Voyager 2 February 2020 00: 55 New
            0
            Well, for example, the Tomahawk rocket in the modern version of Block 4 costs $ 2 million, and this is a one-time consumable. Here the device is bigger, fundamentally more complicated and with many times more technologies on board. This surprises me ..
            1. Passing
              Passing 2 February 2020 12: 50 New
              -1
              But why did you decide what is fundamentally more difficult, and what are such technologies? Stealth? Well, JASSM-ER is also stealth, and it costs no more than Tomahawk. What is there, "many times more"? TV camera? Chassis? Is the processor more modern? And it's all? There are no numerous systems for the pilot, there is no radar, all kinds of electronic warfare systems, warning about radiation, emission of traps, etc. no, the engine is probably the simplest, and he basically doesn’t need the other, it’s not the fighter in the slightest degree, the design of the airframe is probably the simplest, it doesn’t need openwork structures that can withstand 9 times overload, it's just a big, load-lifting, simple, technological, cheap UAV designed strictly for one purpose - cheap, much cheaper than cruise missiles or aircraft, to destroy ground targets. His motto is to convey to the target cheap planning bombs, drop them, return to the airfield, repeat the cycle, and so on until they knock down.
              1. Voyager
                Voyager 2 February 2020 16: 16 New
                0
                Since there are no miracles. Look at the cost of their MQ series UAVs and figure out how much a new, more advanced one will cost. The price tags of the old start at 4 million for the simplest and go up to several tens of millions. Communication and control systems, protection, and yes: stealth, yes: radars, at least for guidance - all this will cost a lot of money.

                By the way, I was not too lazy and looked for the source of this rumor about the cost. It turned out to be the magazine Popular Mechanics. It was written by a pitchfork on water, just as the raptor 0.000000000001 epr. It was also written in a magazine, and is quoted to this day.
                1. Passing
                  Passing 2 February 2020 16: 43 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Voyager
                  radars, at least for guidance

                  Bombs with GPS or laser guidance, no radar needed.
                  Quote: Voyager
                  of protection

                  Why do they need him? In theory, he should not enter the air defense visibility range for stealth, he has no chance of an attacking fighter, he will take missiles away, so they’ll shoot him from the cannon.
                  Quote: Voyager
                  It is written with a pitchfork on water

                  I still think this is an optimistic assessment of the developer. Another thing is that almost always in the USA the real figure sometimes grows twice as well. So I agree, it is quite possible the final price will be under ten lyam.
    3. Passing
      Passing 1 February 2020 18: 20 New
      -1
      Quote: bars1
      monstrous, dear ... (hi air combat) S-70?

      The fact that it is heavy and expensive indicates the presence of a powerful radar, which means the possibility of long-range / medium air combat. And vice versa, the easy cheap Valkyrie unequivocally indicates that there cannot be a full-fledged radar in principle, so "hello to the air battle." specifically for the Valkyrie.
      Quote: bars1
      more maneuverable Valkyrie.

      Why is she more maneuverable? The upper position of the air intake clearly indicates that maneuverability is not his thing. The same is true for the Hunter.
  10. Tsoy
    Tsoy 11 November 2019 19: 28 New
    +9
    First, they began to be inferior to the PLA Air Force in terms of both the total number of aircraft and the number of aircraft of the latest types. Americans can exhibit 200-250 aircraft of the latest types or up to 300, if together with allies. According to the Pentagon, China may exhibit up to 600 aircraft of the latest types.


    As they say began to read, choked, closed the article ... laughing

    Apparently, the author believes that the war between China and the United States will take place in a vacuum and no one will transfer forces from other parts of the world. And what are the latest types of China? Clones of the Su-27? In China, at least one type of their technology went through a military conflict for at least a theoretical contrast between the F-15, 16, 18 that skid more than one conflict? The horse is spherical, ordinary.
    1. Eroma
      Eroma 11 November 2019 20: 07 New
      +8
      I also did not quite understand in which the latest types of China surpasses the United States, the Yankees of the 5th generation already have 5 hundred aircraft! What about China? fool
      Valkyrie supersonic or what? Then a dangerous thing, will be able to drive with a swarm of fighters! belay
      And why did the US military force suddenly slip to 3rd place? The United States can do something that China and Russia, in principle, are not possible, both in military logistics, and in air offensive power, in the control of okenans no
      Land groups, the strengths of China and the Russian Federation, but the United States, including the national guard on land, has an army of 1,5 million with 10000 Abrams! China has so many tanks!
      In short, the woes about America’s weakness, we will defeat them in our land, but in other parts of the world, figs, the same is China! Moreover, without the ICBMs, we will not even be able to threaten the continental United States even with China!
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 11 November 2019 20: 08 New
      0
      Quote: Choi
      and no one will transfer forces from other parts of the world.

      And when?
      They will begin to collect aviation in advance; they will run into a preemptive strike at the bases on which these aircraft will be located.

      So all the same, you have to start aggression precisely by the means that are available.

      Quote: Choi
      skated more than one conflict F-15, 16, 18?

      Have they participated in at least one US-China conflict?
      1. maden.usmanow
        maden.usmanow 11 November 2019 21: 00 New
        +5
        Have they participated in at least one US-China conflict?


        But Chinese planes, of course, participated in such conflicts.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 11 November 2019 21: 42 New
          +1
          Also did not participate. Therefore, here the conditions are almost equal. But on the Chinese side, it is defending itself and it can rely on its own territory.
          1. Avior
            Avior 12 November 2019 00: 36 New
            +4
            what are they almost equal if Americans have been involved in battles for decades and have experience?
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 12 November 2019 10: 25 New
              0
              Quote: Avior
              if Americans have been involved in battles for decades and have experience?

              Did you go in a circle?
              Quote: Spade
              Have they participated in at least one US-China conflict?
              1. Avior
                Avior 13 November 2019 00: 43 New
                +1
                and what is this level?
                when it comes to the Korean War, they participated.
                but there the opponents were Soviet aircraft. Led by Kozhedub.
                If the Second World War, too.
                If the war in Vietnam, also participated.
                If the war in the Gulf, also participated.
                Do the Chinese themselves know their level?
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 13 November 2019 10: 16 New
                  0
                  Quote: Avior
                  when it comes to the Korean War, they participated.

                  Uh ... are you sure? And I thought that during the Korean War they did not even begin to develop them.
                  Tin ... F-15, 16, 18 in the sky of the Korean War. And Kozhedub cowardly dances from them ... Are you fond of science fiction with "fellow villagers"?


                  Quote: Avior
                  If about the Gulf War

                  Do you really think that the Gulf War, with its overwhelming numerical and technical superiority, is at least a bit like a hypothetical clash between the US and China? Or just an argument for the sake of argument?

                  What really could give such an experience is a full-scale clash with the USSR, which fortunately did not happen. Therefore, from experience they are on an equal footing.
                  If a dozen Gopniks learned to effectively kick one nerd in the gateway of their feet, this does not mean that their vast combat experience will effectively defeat a dozen of these Gopniks from a neighboring yard.
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 13 November 2019 10: 23 New
                    +1
                    I meant the Americans in general.
                    If we consider specific types of aircraft only by participation in hostilities, then the Chinese have no aviation from the word at all, with the exception of a certain number of old Su-27s.
                    Similarly with air defense.
                    their vast combat experience will effectively defeat a dozen of these same gopniks from a neighboring yard.

                    according to your classification, in the neighboring yard there are gopniks from among the nerds who have never participated in fights.
                    Yes, classic gopniks from the first yard will have a huge advantage in this case.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 13 November 2019 10: 37 New
                      0
                      Quote: Avior
                      I meant the Americans in general.

                      In general, the inhabitants of Rome at one time were incredibly steep. The sex of Europe was controlled ...

                      Quote: Avior
                      according to your classification, in the neighboring yard there are gopniks from among the nerds who have never participated in fights.

                      Not botanists, but members of the w-shu section. Regularly practice receptions and conduct training sparring, but do not beat ten with ten, because they formally have no “combat experience”
                      1. Avior
                        Avior 13 November 2019 11: 03 New
                        +1
                        Well, yes, the Americans do not conduct exercises.
                        by your analogy, these are two sections of the shu — one never left the gym, and all their training is taolu.
                        And the second, not only has much more experience in training at the gym, but also participates not in training, but in real battles regularly and with a variety of opponents.
                        And you do not see the difference between them.
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 13 November 2019 11: 07 New
                        0
                        Quote: Avior
                        Well, yes, the Americans do not conduct exercises.

                        I agree, they are also conducting. Two sections of ushuists, one of which sometimes in a crowd scores a knowingly weaker passer-by, and therefore "has a gigantic combat experience"
                        Quote: Avior
                        And you do not see the difference between them.

                        I absolutely do not see. Rather, on the contrary, scumbags, accustomed by the crowd to beat the weak, tend to overestimate themselves, which, when confronted with an equal opponent, ends in disastrousness.
                      3. Avior
                        Avior 13 November 2019 11: 25 New
                        0
                        start by determining where you got the idea that the Chinese level is now higher than Hussein had.
                        and even more so, where did you get the idea that they are an equal adversary to the States.
                      4. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 13 November 2019 11: 26 New
                        0
                        Quote: Avior
                        where did you get that the Chinese level is now higher than that of Hussein was.

                        Open "The Military Balance", there is everything.
                      5. Avior
                        Avior 13 November 2019 11: 28 New
                        0
                        He discovered that there is nothing about a level allegedly equal to the United States, confirmed by reality.
                        however, you can correct me, give a quote with a link, suddenly I did not find.
                      6. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 13 November 2019 11: 31 New
                        0
                        Quote: Avior
                        He discovered that there is nothing about a level allegedly equal to the United States, confirmed by reality.

                        You do not take the entire number of US aircraft fleet, the Americans will not be able to use all their aircraft.
                        For aggression, they will be able to use only what is at bases in the Pacific and on the West Coast.
                      7. Avior
                        Avior 13 November 2019 11: 38 New
                        0
                        The Chinese will not be able either.
                        And the Americans in the Gulf, not only theirs, but also allies pulled up.
                        You justify your statement. Why did they think that the Chinese are equal opponents of the United States?
                      8. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 13 November 2019 11: 42 New
                        0
                        Quote: Avior
                        The Chinese will not be able either.

                        They already could. Chinese aircraft are not scattered around military bases around the world.

                        Quote: Avior
                        And the Americans in the Gulf, not only theirs, but also allies pulled up.

                        China is not Iraq. So impudence will not allow. It will strike a preemptive strike on the bases, and will receive absolute superiority in the number of aircraft

                        So again, aggression only with the forces and means that are available in the Pacific Ocean.
                      9. Avior
                        Avior 13 November 2019 11: 49 New
                        0
                        They already could. Chinese aircraft are not scattered around military bases around the world.

                        China has its own territory is not small.
                        And the plane simply moves around the world.
                        not to mention the fact that they flew against Iraq from Europe.
                        China is not Iraq. So impudence will not allow. It will strike a preemptive strike on the bases, and will receive absolute superiority in the number of aircraft

                        Yeah. China lives off trade with the States, and your version will start a war with them.
                        And if the Americans themselves can hinder or severely restrict the American leadership from starting a war against China, as it was in Vietnam, then in the event of a Chinese attack, this problem will disappear.
                        So again, aggression only with the forces and means that are available in the Pacific Ocean.

                        why's that? Did you decide so?
                      10. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 13 November 2019 11: 59 New
                        0
                        Quote: Avior
                        China has its own territory is not small.

                        Not little. But the whole world is bigger.

                        Quote: Avior
                        And the plane simply moves around the world.

                        Yes. But if, for example, planes located in Europe try to strike at China, they simply do not have enough tanker planes.

                        Quote: Avior
                        Yeah. China lives off trade with the States, and your version will start a war with them.

                        Well yes. This is the Americans no later than since 1992 preparing for aggression against China. This is a reinforced concrete fact, it was then that the name of the new concept "Air-Sea Battle" was first voiced

                        Quote: Avior
                        to prevent or severely limit the Americans themselves

                        Who will ask them?
                        They will be brainwashed and driven by machine guns. Since the Vietnam War, American propaganda has reached a qualitatively new level of fooling.
                        As practice shows, statements about the "proletariat after the attack on the USSR will arrange a revolution" turned out to be bullshit.


                        Quote: Avior
                        why's that? Did you decide so?

                        I already wrote, read above.
                      11. Avior
                        Avior 13 November 2019 12: 09 New
                        0
                        Not little. But the whole world is bigger.

                        And what from this?
                        For airplanes, this is not distance.
                        Yes. But if, for example, planes located in Europe try to strike at China, they simply do not have enough tanker planes.

                        and if, for example, not from Europe, enough?
                        Now even fighters are capable of operating from great distances, and the Chinese have enough enemies.
                        Well yes. This is the Americans no later than since 1992 preparing for aggression against China. This is a reinforced concrete fact, it was then that the name of the new concept "Air-Sea Battle" was first voiced

                        The troops of all any large states are preparing to act, including in the spirit of "the best way of defense is attack."
                        This does not mean that they are preparing for aggression.
                        And your "reinforced concrete fact" is purely your interpretation.
                        Who will ask them?
                        They will be brainwashed and driven by machine guns. Since the Vietnam War, American propaganda has reached a qualitatively new level of fooling.
                        As practice shows, statements about the "proletariat after the attack on the USSR will arrange a revolution" turned out to be bullshit.

                        As practice has shown, the American leadership is forced to take this into account.
                        statements of the Soviet agitprop are not relevant.
                        I already wrote, read above.

                        exactly what they wrote, but take your time to prove it.
                        I don’t think it makes sense to discuss unfounded allegations.
                        Will there be evidence, there will be a subject for discussion
                        hi
                      12. Avior
                        Avior 13 November 2019 12: 14 New
                        0
                        By the way, looked AirSea Battle. not a word about 1992; adopted in 2010, updated in 2015.
                        about aggression there is not a word
                      13. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 13 November 2019 12: 43 New
                        0
                        Quote: Avior
                        By the way, looked AirSea Battle. not a word about 1992; adopted in 2010, updated in 2015.

                        For the first time, the very name of the concept was voiced by Commander James Stavridis in 1992, immediately after the victory over the USSR in the Cold War jointly with China.
                        That is, plans for aggression against the former ally absolutely certainly existed.
                        The concept of an "air-ground operation" created under the USSR was put aside, they began to prepare to attack China. True, bursting in its "exclusivity", China refused to be a whipping boy. Now they whine about A2 / AD, the presence of which, to them, not at all aggressive guys, seems unacceptable

                        Quote: Avior
                        about aggression there is not a word

                        Under the table.
                        How can one not “notice” aggression in a concept that envisages striking first.
  • Good_Anonymous
    Good_Anonymous 12 November 2019 00: 55 New
    -4
    Quote: Spade
    Also did not participate. Therefore, here the conditions are almost equal.


    Not even close equal. Chinese aircraft did not participate in the conflict with aircraft of the same or similar classes (did he participate in any conflicts at all?). F-15 and F-16 participated at least twice - in Lebanon and Iraq.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 12 November 2019 10: 27 New
      -1
      Quote: Good_Anonymous
      F-15 and F-16 participated at least twice - in Lebanon and Iraq.

      Neither in Lebanon, nor in Iraq did American aircraft encounter a Chinese-level air defense system.
      Therefore, the experience of the two sides is absolutely identical and equal to zero.
      1. Good_Anonymous
        Good_Anonymous 12 November 2019 20: 58 New
        -3
        Quote: Spade

        Neither in Lebanon, nor in Iraq did American aircraft encounter a Chinese-level air defense system.


        Maybe. We know little about the level of Chinese air defense.

        Quote: Spade
        Therefore, the experience of the two sides is absolutely identical and equal to zero.


        No. Because it was not a question of "who has more experience in countering Chinese-level air defense." What was she talking about - see above.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 13 November 2019 10: 19 New
          0
          Quote: Good_Anonymous
          Because it was not a question of "who has more experience in counteracting Chinese-level air defense"

          Sorry, but this should not be implied.
          If you get behind the wheel of a truck and say that you have a lot of experience, it is understood that this is the experience of driving a truck, not a "bumper car"
          1. Good_Anonymous
            Good_Anonymous 13 November 2019 10: 24 New
            -2
            Quote: Spade
            Because it was not a question of "who has more experience in counteracting Chinese-level air defense"

            Sorry, but this should not be implied.


            This should not be implied:

            Quote: Spade
            here the conditions are almost equal


            Because the conditions are not nearly equal.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 13 November 2019 10: 32 New
              0
              Quote: Good_Anonymous
              Because the conditions are not nearly equal.

              Both Chinese and Americans equally have no experience of full-scale military operations against a strong enemy in the absence of numerical superiority. It is a fact
              1. Good_Anonymous
                Good_Anonymous 13 November 2019 22: 28 New
                -2
                Why did you talk about "American planes" before, and now about "Americans" (the American Air Force, probably)?

                And the fact is that the Chinese do not have any combat experience at all.
              2. Lopatov
                Lopatov 14 November 2019 11: 46 New
                0
                Quote: Good_Anonymous
                Why did you talk about "American planes" before, and now about "Americans" (the American Air Force, probably)?

                Because airplanes cannot have experience. Reinforced concrete fact.
              3. Good_Anonymous
                Good_Anonymous 14 November 2019 11: 58 New
                -2
                Quote: Spade
                airplanes cannot have experience.


                Cut off.
  • Tsoy
    Tsoy 12 November 2019 07: 13 New
    0
    Have they participated in at least one US-China conflict?


    Following your logic, Su-30, Su-35, MiG-35 of incomprehensible quality aircraft because they also did not participate in conflicts at the level of the US-RF.
  • kdale1980
    kdale1980 11 November 2019 23: 39 New
    0
    Recently, more and more often it seems that comments are written after reading the article diagonally.
    In it, no one says that the US Air Force is smaller than China in terms of the number of aircraft in total. It says that the United States has fewer planes than China has at the theoretical theater of operations, i.e. in areas around China. Yes, the United States can dramatically increase the number of aircraft there, but this is fraught with misunderstanding from the side of China and a preemptive strike, SD missiles, for example, at state airports on islands and bases around China. And if the build-up will occur after the start of the database, then the planes will simply have nowhere to base ... So it is with the AUG. Somehow they forget that China has anti-ship BR. No one knows their effectiveness, but their TTX range is greater than the combat radius of the AUG air wing.
    But in general, if a meat grinder starts between China and the USA, I’m afraid that aviation will no longer be especially needed ... There another will fly to each other ..
  • mvg
    mvg 17 November 2019 00: 35 New
    -4
    What else do you know for China? Can you tell us what we are ahead of China now? Well, except, as they made an assumption in the atom today? Well, at least one industry.
    PS: It is possible without spherical horses.
  • Curly-haired
    Curly-haired 11 November 2019 19: 41 New
    +11
    How many Hurray are fools ... Why so?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 11 November 2019 20: 03 New
      -4
      All propaleschiki access blocked?
  • looker-on
    looker-on 11 November 2019 19: 42 New
    0
    Quote: Curly
    How many Hurray are fools ... Why so?

    The Valkyrie reminds them of the Terminator.
  • ares1988
    ares1988 11 November 2019 19: 58 New
    +5
    Whence the figure of 600 modern aircraft from China, and 300 modern from the United States - the question. What types and why are considered modern by the author is a question. And this question last time remained unanswered. Maybe: this time the author will comment on the calculation method? Well, or at least give a link to the source.
    1. Avior
      Avior 12 November 2019 00: 38 New
      +5
      the Chinese copy of the Su-27 is the newest aircraft, and the F-15, hung with missiles so that the aircraft is not visible and with AFAR, is the author's obsolete aircraft, it seems ....
      1. Good_Anonymous
        Good_Anonymous 12 November 2019 01: 18 New
        -3
        Quote: Avior
        F-15, hung with missiles so that the aircraft is not visible with AFAR


        If this is about the F-15X, then the United States does not have them yet.
        1. Avior
          Avior 12 November 2019 01: 31 New
          +1
          In a budget published March 12, 2019, the Department of Defense requested $ 1,1 billion. USA to purchase eight F-15EX fighters from the total planned procurement volume of 144 F-15EX.

          on the way.
        2. kdale1980
          kdale1980 12 November 2019 01: 44 New
          0
          I don’t understand why to argue about whose planes are cooler - China or the USA. Especially relying on participation in wars with obviously unequal rivals.
          If one of them hits the second plane, then most likely the second side will swallow an insult .. They will fight with sanctions, accusations, threats ... And swallow. But if there will be a full-fledged war, then as Einstein said: “I don’t know what weapons they will fight in the third world war, but in the fourth they will fight with sticks and stones.” And it will not matter who the planes are cooler. They simply will not be. Like those who could fly on them. In wars of equal rivals, such as Russia, China or the United States, everything will be decided by a simple switch or, as I hope more, common sense.
          1. Good_Anonymous
            Good_Anonymous 12 November 2019 10: 37 New
            -3
            Quote: kdale1980
            I don’t understand why to argue about whose planes are cooler - China or the USA.


            I do not see such a dispute.

            Quote: kdale1980
            In wars of equal rivals, such as Russia, China or the United States, everything will be decided by a simple switch or, as I hope more, common sense.


            I hope that common sense will not even start a war.
    2. mvg
      mvg 17 November 2019 00: 48 New
      -4
      300+ J-10B / C / D, 300+ J-11B / C, J-20 pieces 20-30. And much more, from the MiG-21 to the analogue of the Jaguar. There are thousands. Hundreds and a half Tu-16 in a modern incarnation. They will destroy airfields on Guam.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • bars1
    bars1 11 November 2019 21: 38 New
    +2
    Quote: Spade
    Do you realize that the “Hunter" and the "Valkyrie" have a different purpose?
    Reply

    So enlighten me. Oh please!
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 11 November 2019 22: 24 New
      0
      Quote: bars1
      So enlighten me. Oh please!

      And think for yourself?
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 11 November 2019 22: 50 New
    0
    Down with your dreams. Down with the dream
    Tighten bolts as much as possible
    She and he and I and you
    We are robots ...
  • Jurgens
    Jurgens 11 November 2019 22: 59 New
    -1
    Where there Damantsev, Sivkov and others). The boy pulled facts from the Internet, supplemented with his own crazy delirium - that’s the "article". Review, where are you going?
  • Ezekiel 25-17
    Ezekiel 25-17 11 November 2019 22: 59 New
    0
    A simple question: how many qualified operators do you need to control 600 drones?
    1. Dym71
      Dym71 11 November 2019 23: 21 New
      0
      Quote: Ezekiel 25-17
      How many qualified operators do you need to control 600 drones?

      Why do you perceive this device as a combat unit, IMHO this weapon, according to their principle of "shot - forgot," he will return to the base. hi
  • bars1
    bars1 11 November 2019 23: 34 New
    0
    Quote: Spade
    And think for yourself?

    Clearly, there is nothing to tell you.
  • Avior
    Avior 12 November 2019 00: 30 New
    0
    For the cost of one F-35, you can build about 30 units of the XQ-58A. But the point is not only and not so much in cost, but in the fact that drones can obviously be built faster than airplanes.

    Such drones will be cheaper in the production, operation and training of operators and personnel.
    Many functions, such as striking at previously explored targets, or even striking at ground targets, are much more convenient to strike from an unmanned aerial vehicle, leaving air combat and special cases of striking the ground behind manned aircraft.
    Only here is how the basis of the F-35 and F-22 drones are poorly suited - they are exclusively single.
    We need to add a two-seater version of the F-15 or F-18 to the bunch, which will be held in the back and control both drones and, in general, the battle that will be conducted by drones and F-35.
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 12 November 2019 00: 52 New
    +3
    The first mention of the "air battle" between a manned fighter ("Phantom" ...) and a drone (possibly `` Firebee '' ...) occurred, if I remember correctly, in the 60 years of the last century in the USA! Even then, the US was thinking about replacing manned fighters with drones ... In that "experiment", the Phantom attacked the drone with air-to-air missiles; but the drone was able to evade missiles and went “Phantom” in the “tail” ... conditionally, “Phantom” was shot down!
    1. Good_Anonymous
      Good_Anonymous 12 November 2019 01: 00 New
      -3
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      In that “experiment,” the Phantom attacked the drone with air-to-air missiles; but the drone was able to dodge missiles and went “Phantom” in the “tail”.


      Firebee didn’t. In general, the then drones did not know how.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 12 November 2019 10: 21 New
        +2
        Quote: Good_Anonymous
        Firebee didn’t. In general, the then drones did not know how.

        About “Firebee '' 'I said:“ maybe ”... I did not hide that I was not sure about it ... But the article about the experiment involving drones was published at the time and I read it ... I recall that the drone denoted by "abbreviation"; but I don’t remember it specifically ...
        1. Good_Anonymous
          Good_Anonymous 12 November 2019 10: 35 New
          -3
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          About Firebee, I said, "maybe."


          And I said that this is impossible.
  • Good_Anonymous
    Good_Anonymous 12 November 2019 00: 59 New
    -3
    All in all, the XQ-58A Valkyrie is a good response to Chinese numerical superiority in the air.


    I think it is useless to compete with China in who builds more and cheaper ... but anything. And they’ll steal software for the plane.
  • Karaul14
    Karaul14 12 November 2019 02: 48 New
    +1
    The author, apparently, has in mind the numerical superiority off the coast of China, because in general the U.S. Air Force is much more numerous than the PLA Air Force, and the Chinese have not yet reached the volume of orders and the speed of construction of fighters that the States have today.
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 12 November 2019 11: 01 New
    +4
    An interesting article, in a nutshell, a fighter can have an almost unlimited number of missiles, and even push the launch line forward relative to itself, as I understand the material.
  • SovietUnit
    SovietUnit 14 November 2019 02: 51 New
    0
    1) Since when has the US lost its leading position in military aviation?
    By the ratio of strength, striking power and manufacturability, the tan is in 1st place with a wide margin from its closest competitors.
    2) When developing the F35, the "feature" was originally laid about powerful digital interaction with other platforms, including unmanned ones. Therefore, the concept of a smart aircraft with drones for many years, and they gradually implement it.
    PS: Dear employees of the troll factory, I understand that you will sell your mother for 15p, but at least before you work on the VO branch, gain knowledge in the field of military discussions so as not to look like really idiots.
  • Rvlad
    Rvlad 24 November 2019 23: 41 New
    0
    Completely illiterate article. I recommend the author to find, read and learn book B. Ponomarenko "Aviation - White and Black". Today, the degree of information load of a combat aviation pilot for a 4th generation aircraft (Su-27, -35, -34, F-15, -16, -18, Rafal, etc.) is 7-8. Those. For the full use of all that provides the pilot with an on-board interface in a particular aircraft, a crew of 7-8 people is needed. And the pilot sits alone. On the so-called the fifth generation, this figure reaches 9. So far, not a single on-board decision support system has been able to replace the pilot, with the exception of the automation of the ISR and the choice of scenario option. In other words, either a pilot with 15% unloading due to automation or a full automatic. Decision making is left to the pilot and only to the pilot. And here he needs to add another 4-5 units that need to be managed, to distribute goals, make a decision for them, etc. Total load factor more than 45 !!! There are no artificial intelligence yet (the game of chess also has nothing to do with artificial intelligence: ordinary algorithmization). And in the near future, provided that we still have digital computing technology, there will NOT be full-fledged decision-making systems. Decision making is a complex task that requires huge information flows, specific knowledge bases (these are not databases), simultaneous solution of operations research tasks, involvement of game theory and much more. For example, a high-performance computing machine solves a system of nonlinear differential equations (depending on the conditions, there can be up to 30 equations or more) for one point with receiving data from airborne meters, sensors, radar, ECO, etc. up to 10 minutes. And we have not yet learned on board to automatically determine the technical condition of equipment, predict its change and give the pilot a guaranteed solution - can we fly or not, and how and how much we can fly. This is not to play toys on the computer. The decision time in simple conditions is no more than 10 seconds for the use of airborne weapons after and <1 s on the opposite courses, 0.25 s for maneuver, etc. What kind of UAV group management can we talk about? Today, everyone is PR, godlessly lying, trying to scare the enemy. But in fact, everything is very, very complicated. And in fact, the increase in combat effectiveness in modern aviation is completely insignificant, more than once some ignoramuses write, and in the best case, tenths for 10 years. Yes, it became more comfortable to fly, but there are a lot of tips, and aerodynamics have become better. But when the real fighting is taking place, clues sometimes begin to interfere, distract ... And if in the algorithms another "Indian programmer" messed up? Progress will continue, but there will be no qualitative breakthrough. Name at least one source: book, article, etc. where the data on the real combat effectiveness of unmanned vehicles would be given in the form of the actual probability of completing a combat mission, mean time between failures in the air, survival in hostilities, etc. You will not find ... Articles on such topics should be written by a qualified specialist.
    1. Good_Anonymous
      Good_Anonymous 24 December 2019 20: 59 New
      0
      Quote: RVlad
      And in the near future, provided that we still have digital computing technology, there will NOT be full-fledged decision-making systems. Decision making is a complex task that requires huge information flows, specific knowledge bases (these are not databases), simultaneous solution of operations research tasks, involvement of game theory and much more. For example, a high-performance computing machine solves a system of nonlinear differential equations (depending on the conditions, there can be up to 30 equations or more) for one point with receiving data from airborne meters, sensors, radar, ECO, etc. up to 10 minutes.


      Are you aware that there are already very real planes that fly (land, refuel) automatically? smile And at least there are prototypes of air combat algorithms too.