Bet on fifth-generation stealth technology looks like a mistake

172

One of the main features of the fifth generation aircraft is the "stealth" technology (from the English. Stealth - secretly, stealthily), i.e. property to go unnoticed for enemy aircraft radars, as well as ground installations. At least, this is claimed in the United States, which has two such fighters in service - Lockheed / Boeing F-22 Raptor and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Also, the countries that have developed fifth-generation aircraft today include Russia with the Su-57 being tested and China with the J-20 Chengdu.

Two other signs of the fifth generation are called super-maneuverability and cruising supersonic, but the Americans on their F-35 fighters refused super-maneuverability, replacing it with “stealth”, and there is no cruising supersonic on the F-35, which turned out to be very harmful for expensive coverage. In the absence of these two important criteria, the Americans still call their fighter a new generation. In turn, the F-22, which is the most expensive fighter in the world, has supersonic sound without afterburner, powerful avionics, low visibility, but inferior in maneuverability to many Russian fighters of even the fourth generation.



Bet on stealth is like a mistake


Note that stealth technology is based on reducing visibility in the radar and infrared ranges, which are achieved due to the special coating, the specific shape and materials of the manufacture of the aircraft body.

Bet on fifth-generation stealth technology looks like a mistake

The stealth technology itself is super expensive. In 2019, the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued a report that said the cost of repairing F-35 fighters was significantly exceeded due to peeling of expensive coating. The same problem was identified with the F-22 fighter.

Another problem, in addition to coverage, is that fighters built using stealth technology are designed to solve a very narrow range of tasks, i.e. their use is possible only in a very narrow combat range. Such a fighter can carry weapons only in the internal compartments, since placing it on an external sling immediately removes it from the "invisible" category. The fighter is limited in speed (peeling off the coating at supersonic sound) and must use its radar with caution, since its radiation is easily detected by the radars of enemy aircraft or ground-based air defense systems. You cannot make serious changes to the design of the aircraft, this will also disrupt its disguise.

On the other hand, the rapid development of air defense systems, and in particular radars, led to the fact that the so-called "stealth fighters" are clearly visible, whatever the US military would say. This is especially true for the F-35, which in terms of the effective scattering area (EPR) is much worse than the F-22. The American fighter can see radar S-400, and, accordingly, the promising S-500.

The same can be said about the onboard radar of Russian aircraft. For example, in 2018, Su-30MKI fighters with a Bars phased array antenna H011 radar, which are armed with the Indian Air Force, discovered the so-called Chinese Air Force Chehgdu J-20 invisibles. In the same 2018, the Russian Su-35S fighter photographed an American F-22 in the sky of Syria. Then the American media said that the Raptor is invisible in the infrared "only at a considerable distance", and it is clearly visible near it.



What is the result?


The question arises: is it really necessary to invest huge amounts of money in the development of a fighter called "invisible", but perfectly visible, despite the fact that its combat range is limited by this stealth. Or it’s better to invest in fighters of the previous, fourth generation, which have powerful weapons, over-maneuverability, over-sound, even elements of stealth, but which are not “stealth aircraft”. The use of modern electronic warfare systems with radar suppression on such fighters makes these vehicles as inconspicuous as fifth-generation fighters, without losing other qualities.

As for the fifth-generation Russian fighter Su-57, created using the stealth technology, it will fully comply with the new generation after receiving the engines of the second stage, allowing it to develop after-supersonic speed. At the same time, the fighter already has excellent maneuverability both vertically and horizontally at all speeds. The aircraft is spacious weapons a compartment that allows you to carry a much more "heavy" weapon than the F-35.

However, we can fully judge the Su-57 only after it has been put into service and all the characteristics of the aircraft have been published.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

172 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    April 29 2020 06: 17
    The technology for reducing radar visibility was invented for the warhead of the R-36 rocket in the mid-60s.
    To impart the required properties, a sublayer of rarefied lavsanotextolite RLT, acetylene black, interfering pads made of fiberglass E-0,06, gasified fabric with a certain ohmic resistance were introduced.

    E.A. Fedosov, "Half a Century in Aviation"
    1. +2
      April 29 2020 13: 35
      The author forgot to cite the facts of "easy detection of 5th generation aircraft by modern radars", and without the facts, the article is pshik, and should be in the "opinions" section, and not here. One gets the impression that the author does not understand anything about radar, that he is not familiar with the concept of "target detection range" and that he has not heard anything about lenses either. In other respects, I really have no doubt that any radar will most easily detect an aircraft of any generation, if, for example, it is propped up with this aircraft
  2. +2
    April 29 2020 06: 20
    I thought and still think that stealth is arch-expensive, and at the same time it’s an overrated prismatic prodigy. As far as I remember, even Soviet designers talked about the impasse of this technology.
    The technology "stealth" was invented by our compatriot - Peter Yakovlevich Ufimtsev. At the same time, several Soviet design bureaus announced their experimental developments in this area, and based on the results of the work, they concluded that this direction was not promising.
    1. +1
      April 29 2020 06: 37
      It makes sense to ask Israel. They are perhaps the only ones who have the opportunity to test stealth on combat missions.
      1. -1
        April 29 2020 07: 17
        As far as I understand, they know how to hide behind the natural bumps in the terrain in the form of mountains and hills, well, and other planes. What does not do honor to them
        1. +7
          April 29 2020 09: 35
          Do you need to go in orderly rows at the anti-aircraft guns? We know such an example: the war 08.08.08.
        2. +2
          April 29 2020 13: 12
          Well, do not hide behind?
          1. -2
            April 29 2020 13: 49
            Yesterday I was on IL, tomorrow something Boeing. So of course you need
        3. -1
          April 29 2020 16: 17
          Quote: Stalllker
          As far as I understand, they know how to hide behind the natural bumps in the terrain in the form of mountains and hills, well, and other planes.

          Or maybe you remember who said that.
          In addition to transferring the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) to Damascus, Russian automated control systems will be put at the command posts of the Syrian air defense systems through which the situation will be monitored and target designations will be provided.
          Referring to the order of President Vladimir Putin, he said that the air defense system, capable of intercepting air attack means at a distance over 250 km and hit multiple targets at the same time. To ensure centralized control of all Syrian air defense forces and means, monitoring of the air situation and operational target designation, the command posts of the Syrian air defense units and military units will be equipped with automated control systems.This will ensure that in the areas adjacent to Syria over the Mediterranean Sea will be applied electronic suppression of satellite navigation, airborne radars and communication systems of military aircraft of foreign countries attacking targets in Syrian territory... “We are convinced that the implementation of these measures will cool the“ hot heads ”
          Quote: Stalllker
          What does not do honor to them

          With this I agree, after such a statement about what kind of honor can be discussed.
          1. -1
            April 29 2020 16: 26
            Did you come up with it yourself or did you receive it in the WhatsApp newsletter?
            1. -1
              April 29 2020 19: 09
              Quote: Stalllker
              Itself invented or in whatsap on mailing got?

              GOT

              I remembered the great Pushkin
              "My uncle has the most honest rules,
              When not a joke fell ill,
              He respected himself forced
              And I couldn’t think of it better. "
              Time you you don’t know, maybe you then still not born laughing
      2. +5
        April 29 2020 07: 49
        Well, he already applies it with might and main. He flew up in the sky of Lebanon, fired rockets and again into the bushes.
      3. 0
        1 May 2020 13: 34
        It makes sense to ask the Serbs, whose outdated OVTs radar station found the "Invisible" at a distance of about 25-27 km. The station was not modernized by the way.
        1. +2
          2 May 2020 04: 05
          The key word is at a distance of 25-27 km. This is almost point-blank - the planes are not invisible, but inconspicuous for radars. At this point, the Americans missed the working radar - it was not a hell to go directly to the position of the air defense system. In general, an article about the uselessness of stealth is about as if in 1947-50 some weirdo began to prove that jet fighters are not needed - after all, they are less maneuverable, and their range is shorter, and wildly expensive, and in general Kozhedub shot down the jet Messer, and " SeaFury "shot down the MiG-15.
          P.S.Avtor apparently about Luneberg lenses and the size of the meter range radars are not in the know.
    2. -3
      April 29 2020 07: 06
      This is normal, right now they also talk about the stupidity of the stealth, plus talk was added about the stupidity of shale oil and gas, the stupidity of returning missiles, the bloated US dollar, the inflated US government debt, and the most over-hyped USA, the European Union, NATO, etc. These conversations are endless.
      1. +1
        April 29 2020 08: 14
        Well dumb
      2. -11
        April 29 2020 10: 05
        And all the sentiment. The USSR lost the Cold War, and what do you need? Seek guilty and despise the United States for everything. And about the dollar, Glazyev and Co. became more active, they began to show more often, they say they should abandon the dollar, although if a person understands at least something in his life, he knows that the dollar as a world reserve currency is beneficial to everyone ... except the United States. So I’ll go to the conductor on foot. Just how irrationally it is necessary to hate someone to so stupid? I'm 30 and I'm still surprised at this.
        1. +3
          April 29 2020 11: 20
          You, as I take a look, did not read Nietzsche, but you love beautiful words (although you write them incorrectly). Regarding the loss ... It's one thing to lose, another thing to pass.
          1. -2
            April 29 2020 12: 10
            Resentment - a sense of hostility to the fact that the subject considers the cause of his failures, impotent envy, “The painful awareness of the futility of trying to improve one’s status in life or in society”
            Let's discuss whether the United States is the cause of the failures of the USSR, the modern Russian Federation, and those residents of Russia who the United States blames almost everything and thereby find out who suffers from the sentiment. Congratulations, you found a typo, I have a lot more, look better. I just frankly doubt that you understand the situation correctly with my committees and the situation in the country, so recoup on pranks.
        2. -2
          April 29 2020 12: 02
          With such childish naivety and no wonder, Andrei.
          1. +1
            April 29 2020 12: 11
            What am I naive about, Eugene?
            1. 0
              April 29 2020 12: 25
              Two points, Andrey!
              1. The role of the dollar in US hegemony.
              2. "Defeat" of the USSR (Not defeat, but betrayal of the ruling elite).
              About 40 years ago, I was about your age and no less naive. Life made you grow wiser. Thanks to her and the internet!
              1. -3
                April 29 2020 12: 40
                The role of the dollar in US hegemony
                More details, please. Unless of course there is something new for me. If these are echoes of the Soviet non-critical philosophical school (Kondo Marxism-Leninism) or Wallerstein’s theory of world-system analysis, then spare me this.

                "Defeat" of the USSR (Not defeat, but betrayal of the ruling elite)
                Economists already have a conventional view of the Soviet economy, and socialism in general. You will not like it. The top of the USSR was able to divide the country thanks to the political system, it is not a matter of CIA conspiracies and other things. But the economic situation was such that the collapse / integrity of the USSR did not play a special role.

                Life made you grow wiser. Thanks to her and the internet!
                Strong statement. I would like to check it out.
                1. -1
                  April 29 2020 12: 46
                  Any opinion has an alternative. Time will tell which is right.
                  1. -1
                    April 30 2020 02: 54
                    Yes, time will tell, but there is economics and just empiricism, and my comment without a reason (although I am sure that it is worthy of explanation) was a shame ... insulting. I do not blame you, just noticed 2 minuses. Today at this particular moment in time, I was so excited that I devoted so many letters to this.
                    Let's get back to the conversation. But you did not answer. It’s just interesting for statistics, how did you get inspired, what do you base your judgments on?
                    1. -1
                      April 30 2020 09: 42
                      But the economic situation was such that the collapse / integrity of the USSR did not play a special role.

                      It's a delusion.
                      And the second - I practically do not minus anyone or very rarely, absolutely disgusting.
                      1. 0
                        April 30 2020 12: 16
                        The USSR budget deficit was 30% ... GDP. They don't live with such a deficit. Whereas the United States is on a horse, in the 90s it was generally surplus. Safronov (don't worry, he is a communist, or rather a very leftist, though an economist) spoke well about the problems of the USSR economy, and the fact that it was impossible to solve them by putting a more powerful "calculator" (OGAS). I can refer to comrades more complementary to me, but this is rather unnecessary.
                      2. +2
                        April 30 2020 12: 34
                        Carnifexx, and you are a thimble.
                      3. 0
                        April 30 2020 12: 40
                        And in the USA for comparison and to your words that they don’t live like this:

                      4. 0
                        April 30 2020 20: 00
                        Well, I don’t see the number of 30%, so this does not refute my words, just logically. The largest budget deficit in the US since 48 is 9.8%
                        A deficit leads to an increase in public debt, and a public debt is about a lot of relatively small loans (this is a vulgar example, but it gives intuition), but if a borrower is reliable and has good incomes, then debt service is not a burden for him, that is, payments on these loans Do not hit the wallet.
                      5. 0
                        April 30 2020 21: 04
                        And what are you fixated on 30%? On a blue chart, 30% is already killed by the USSR.
                        And here is another chart - for the USA.

                        No need to distort the facts and draw false conclusions.
                      6. 0
                        April 30 2020 22: 36
                        And here is another chart - for the USA.
                        You still remember about Ireland in 2010.
                        And then the heyday of Keynesianism (New deal), the second world war, where the United States bears material support for the allies and the Bretton Woods agreement. This is REALLY the same as the crumbling Soviet economy in calm times. The leadership of the USSR posed the most serious structural problems of the economy (Kosygin’s reforms were not really carried out, but this would not have been enough), while he still managed to arrange a bickering (GKChP). There are no successful Soviet-style economies in the world.

                        No need to distort the facts and draw false conclusions.
                        I totally agree.
                      7. 0
                        April 30 2020 22: 45
                        Your focus is clear, it makes no sense to argue with a person immediately sweeping the facts.
                      8. 0
                        April 30 2020 19: 48
                        Are you really not confused by the inscription "cash deficit"?
                        The RF budget deficit in 94 was 7% of GDP. In '09 it was 7,9% and this is the minimum figure.
                      9. -1
                        April 30 2020 21: 13
                        Do not bother.
                      10. +1
                        April 30 2020 21: 17
                        That's purely on the budget deficit, is there a difference in grams?

                      11. 0
                        April 30 2020 22: 47
                        This is one of the worst graphs I've seen. The whole point of the columns is to make the proportion better visible.
                      12. 0
                        April 30 2020 22: 50
                        The meaning of the gray stripes below
                      13. 0
                        1 May 2020 10: 53
                        That is, and that is why the schedule is terrible. And you are a lover of bias confirmation.
                      14. -1
                        1 May 2020 10: 57
                        Why is he terrible, Carnifexx? Only by refuting your lies precisely in the style of the semantic Latin letters.
                      15. 0
                        1 May 2020 13: 58
                        My "lie" is that the economy of the USSR had such problems that it makes no sense to explain its collapse by betrayal and conspiracies. Everything was so bad that there was no need to betray. You can read "The Fall of the Empire". There are many reasons for this. The rut effect is especially pronounced when almost the entire economy is subordinated to a handful of party officials (it's just that this aspect amazes me more). Countries either carry out market reforms or live in the 50s as the DPRK.
                      16. -2
                        1 May 2020 15: 02
                        Oh, Andrei, we would have been in the 50s ... For you, they were retouched, but in them I lived, small, really, but I found something when I could understand what was around.
                        And I was born in the Northern Urals, almost nowhere to the north.
                        In the city where the fate of Russians, Germans, Vologda and other citizens of the great country gathered. And it's hard for me to re-hang noodles about the "bloody tyrant" Stalin and the "flawed socialist economy."
                      17. 0
                        1 May 2020 16: 25
                        People like the times of their youth. In what way it can paint any form of household structure I do not understand.
                        I would not want in the 50s if you do not mind. If only because the infant mortality rate at 60 is about 36 (in 54 g there were 68 deaths), and in 95 g it is 18, and further down to 8 per 1000 newborns today.
                      18. -2
                        1 May 2020 17: 33
                        Youth has nothing to do with it, Andrei. I remember the faces of adults in those years and compare with today.
                        About that economy and about what I will not speak now, it is useless.
                        About infant mortality in the 50s. This is a consequence of the tension in the war and the post-war reconstruction of the country. And this must be taken into account.
                        He didn’t immediately answer, he dealt with the issue of infant mortality.
                        Before that I was not interested. And I found a lot of interesting things. And the source, as from one bush, is mostly negative. And even found stunning information linking the jump in child mortality with the case of doctors.
                        But here is the interesting thing. Among my relatives and peers there were no such deaths in infancy, but was born in the 49th, in the Ural city, where schools were crowded.
                        As in the Vologda region, where my mother comes from. They did not have child mortality, all my brothers and sisters lived long and whether they live now. And Great Ustyug is not a resort.
                        The question is dark and controversial.
                        There is only one fact - under Stalin, the people added, in the Russian Federation - it dies and runs away.
                      19. 0
                        1 May 2020 17: 54
                        Youth is very much. People romanticize the past.
                        We need to talk about the economy, even very much.
                        I gave figures for the sixtieth. The point is not Stalin or the fiftieth, but that the past is not so good. Then it was worse with painkillers. Yes, and with antibiotics and other things. Mortality during operations is higher, and fewer diseases have responded to treatment.
                        I will not talk about demographic statistics under Stalin, it makes no sense, it is completely discredited by the efforts of Stalin himself.
                        As for the people running away, there is an interesting fact - leaving the USSR was ... complicated, so the comparison is not correct.
                        With the demography of the Russian Federation, not everything is simple, but the rhetoric "and under Stalin ..." 100% will not help the situation.
                      20. -1
                        1 May 2020 18: 20
                        Okay, we have a conversation about a white bull, Andrei.
                        I do not idealize the time of Stalin, I lived at that time. I’m not saying that his economy was not without flaws.
                        But then the country grew and developed, and now it is rapidly degrading. And in the 91st there were no prerequisites (there were problems,
                        but solved, if the authorities wanted it, but the wishes were different) for the collapse of the Union. And there was the murder of the USSR, carefully and skillfully prepared and executed.
                        Could answer for each item of your answer, but it makes no sense.
                        You are most likely to judge not by personal experience, but by reflected, distorted both by malicious intent and good intentions.
                        After all, in the 80s, I also believed that socialism was the wrong way of development. And how it all turned out - the country was looted and, in fact, a semi-colony subordinate to the United States. Not explicitly, of course, but quite real.
                      21. 0
                        1 May 2020 20: 32
                        But then the country grew and developed, and now it is rapidly degrading.
                        About the Stalinist economy is little interesting. Catching up with development (the purchase of Western machines and technology) and recovery growth (moreover, twice - after the Civil War, Stalin found him, and after the Second World War). Many of the problems that led to the collapse of the Soviet economy were then laid. Russia is not degrading, rather stagnating. 10 years lost due to the collapse of the USSR, and now the 20th year we just stand still.

                        And in the 91st there were no prerequisites (there were problems,
                        but solved, if the authorities wanted it, but the wishes were different) for the collapse of the Union. And there was the murder of the USSR, carefully and skillfully prepared and executed
                        I cannot incriminate this. No measures after the 80th could have avoided social upheaval. Yes, in general, there was no moment when reforms could do without "those who did not fit into the market" after Stalin's death. All intellectual exercises on the reforms of the USSR rest on the structure of power, and after the late Lenin it was quite totalitarian, with a separate nomenclature and a repressive apparatus. The PRC is culturally very different, two and he looked at the example of the USSR, and the USSR had someone to look at?

                        I am opposed to judging by personal experience, and against anecdotal evidence.
                        Did something demonstrate that socialism is the right way?
                        No, the Russian Federation is not a US colony; in the strict sense, they do not have a colony. Countries that they would plunder, too, does not occur. The same RK - I would be glad if I were robbed like that, well, or Japan.
        3. 0
          April 29 2020 15: 13
          Quote: Carnifexx
          Seek guilty and despise the US for everything

          Now you are speaking directly as a communist on a collective farm that went to a conference of the party organization. Only instead of the USSR is the USA. Strong, industry, science, under the wise leadership of the Democratic Party. And they drove the Mexicans out - not a tank to repair, not an F-35 to make. For supply chain is scattered all over the world. And who knows why the USA will be bent. Either China will stop taking dollars, or starving, without Mexicans in the fields, will rest ...
          1. 0
            April 30 2020 06: 07
            Exhalation. Inhale. Do you want to think that the United States can "bend" if the PRC refuses dollars or US residents die of hunger en masse as a result of "whether from hunger, without Mexicans in the fields, they will take a break ...".
            Now, if you calmly judge, then this can be called bias, without exaggeration. After all, everything will be fine with the US labor market in the long run. The United States, on the other hand, is the strongest economy on the continent (American), and everyone is striving there (they will have no end to the Mexicans). I see no reason to believe that in the event of a serious crisis, the United States will feel worse than other countries, especially raw material exporters. As for the refusal of the PRC from the dollar, here I have already noticed that the popularity of the dollar in the world plays against the United States, if you do not agree, you could ask where such conclusions come from. First of all, "Unreasonable advantage". Just great. I enjoyed reading it.
            1. 0
              April 30 2020 10: 09
              Quote: Carnifexx
              After all, with the labor market in the United States, everything will be fine in the long run

              I'm not so sure about that. Yes, World War II made the US a leader in technology and finance. All cream of intelligence gathered under his roof. The competition with the USSR was supported by the United States in uniform - and it turned out that they sometimes were half a step behind.
              Then the USSR was gone. And the United States sent its technology to "rent" to third world countries, swiping colonial rent (called "intellectual property protection"). The service sector and financial speculation began to dominate the United States. Subtract them from the GDP - the United States will equal Brazil and Russia.
              Actually, the world quarantine made such a deduction. And if in October they can’t sell their treasuries for a trillion, the budget will be oo-o-o-oy, because interest payments on previous debts in 2019 amounted to $ 600 billion - 60% of the borrowed funds.
              1. 0
                April 30 2020 12: 33
                The competition with the USSR was supported by the United States in uniform - and it turned out that they sometimes were half a step behind.
                In more detail, about behind.

                Then the USSR was gone. And the United States sent its technology to "rent" to third world countries, swiping colonial rent (called "intellectual property protection"). The service sector and financial speculation began to dominate the United States. Subtract them from the GDP - the United States will equal Brazil and Russia.
                You use a computer (almost all US developments), use the Internet (hello from ARPANET), CISCO network equipment, GPS, etc. And when will this robbery end?

                Actually, the world quarantine made such a deduction. And if in October they can’t sell their treasuries for a trillion, the budget will be oo-o-o-oy, because interest payments on previous debts in 2019 amounted to $ 600 billion - 60% of the borrowed funds.
                Mmm, what are your forecasts?
                1. 0
                  April 30 2020 18: 19
                  Quote: Carnifexx
                  You use a computer (almost all of the development of the United States),

                  Do not be mistaken. In your American computer - if only an Intel processor. AMD, memory, graphics card - Taiwan. Ferrite, key transistors (IRFs), powder, electrolytes - Taiwan and China, printed circuit boards - China. Hard drives - Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China. Flash drives - Taiwan and China. The servers through which the Internet works are Taiwan (processors) and China (servers). There is nothing American.
                  (hello from ARPANET) ... CISCO, GPS

                  That is why I say - the technology was released for "rent", and the colonial rent is being collected.
                  The fact that the Russian mathematician has found a solution to the equations of the minimum scattering of radio waves in a nonlinear medium does not make the "stealth" Soviet.
                  Mmm, what are your forecasts?

                  Without a good war war, which will allow to clear the US public debt - disappointing.
                  1. 0
                    April 30 2020 20: 15
                    There is nothing american
                    Strong statement.

                    That is why I say - the technology was released for "rent", and the colonial rent is being collected.
                    Let's say in order to develop this thread of discussion. What kind of "rent"? It's just that this "rent" creates millions of jobs and competencies. The same Taiwan has learned to make iron for American companies - this makes up a significant part of their economy and welfare. So far it looks like I would like more of this.

                    Without a good war war, which will allow to clear the US public debt - disappointing.
                    What do you mean?
        4. +4
          April 29 2020 20: 54
          The article is not about the United States, much less about relations between our countries. But still I’ll answer.
          1. As for the inferiority complex, yes, here you are right, we all have it. And this is normal. The British and Turks to this day have not got rid of him, although they got injured much earlier than us. I do not see any humiliation here, complexes are a natural reaction, a defense of the psyche. It’s hard for me to believe that you are not concerned with the fact that not so long ago we were competing on equal terms with the United States, and now we are forced to look upward.
          2. Glazyev, yes, he had a peculiar view of the economy, which had not so far gone by the same late Gaidar.
          3. At the expense of the dollar - at least debatable, but in principle absurd, especially the passage on account of the lack of US benefits.
          4. The United States is a state hostile to us, it is obvious to everyone except people with a strange outlook on a world in which there is no concept of practicality. But I am not inclined to demonize them in the United States, as any empire must constantly put pressure on the environment, if they do not do this, then the end will come, leadership must be confirmed by force, this is obvious.
          I understand that our propaganda is annoying you, and in many ways the exaggerated view of our potential adversary, believe me, everything is exactly the same in the USA. There, the layman is mistaken at the expense of Russia in a similar way, and there is a state program to denigrate the enemy, read the opinions of ordinary Americans about our country and our citizens, at least get ridiculous from such a reading. We are also aggressive towards the outside world and are devouring the weakest, they took Crimea - they did it right, they shot the Poles near Katyn - they did it right, they were potentially hostile, further confirmed this when on June 22, former Polish soldiers killed civilians - military families trying to leave the rear . But again, I think all this is normal, and it should be so, if we don’t press, they will crush us.
          If someone doesn’t like this logic, then I suggest crying over zebras and wildebeests, which are eaten by lions.
          1. 0
            April 30 2020 13: 06
            An article as well as articles about Khibiny and Cook about resentment.
            1 Erm, and therefore people believe that their problems are the intrigues of the insidious NATO, evil CIA, etc. And so hope and believe in the collapse of the dollar. In the US, conspiracy theories are not like the Dulles plan, but about Satanists with barcodes and stuff like that. A significant part of the agenda is not based on powerless resentment ... resentment in front of whom?
            2 Not far gone, but somewhere in the wrong place. Although Gaidar himself does not inspire me, he is a shitty economist, although which ones could have been in a country that for decades has denied the economy.
            3 There is a benefit, but there are also costs. So with everything complicated in our world. The popularity of the dollar overestimates its exchange rate, and this beats US exports. ALL countries seek to underestimate the exchange rate of the national currency. The trade war with China just because of the devaluation of the renminbi. Before proceeding with this, check your arguments, since they almost never argue with this absurdity.
            4 Well, some countries are not in conflict with the United States and they feel good. The same Japanese piled on the US auto industry, but they did not bomb Tokyo ... again. The problems of Russia and many other countries (Venezuela, Iran and Afghanistan, for example) are not in the United States. The matter is in the institutional environment.

            I don't believe it, there Fox and Shienen are the same shit, but different shit. They pour slop on each other, and not compete who hates America more. So there are "right things" already ...
            It's funny that your logic leads again to institutions. The Russian Federation is a natural state, and not developed according to North, just because the rights are strong, and only strong. In a country of open access, an ordinary person can win the trial of a huge corporation, without risks, he (she) will not do anything, because the rule of law. Ask how Lee Kuan Yew defeated corruption in Singapore.
            1. 0
              April 30 2020 23: 04
              Everywhere everything is the same, there people are also from Earth, not from Mars. Millions of years of evolution act on them like they do on us, instincts and desires are the same as ours. They just live richer. Why richer? Yes, you can write more than one book, but the reason is always the same - robbery by the weak. They are more fortunate with geography than we are.
              1. 0
                1 May 2020 10: 58
                That is, South Korea is more fortunate with geography than the DPRK, and SO SO that they live dozens of times richer, even in PPP ?? Or did they rob someone? Hmm, oh, these Koreans, occupied the floor of Africa ... probably. Just RK 70 years ago, in terms of living, they were like Somalia (then), and inferior to their resource-rich neighbor, DPRK (they also received enormous help from the USSR in terms of volume, much more free payments from the USA) ... and now South Korea is such as we know it, and no one will compare them with Somalia.
                Whom did they rob?
                You just have to know, because "They just live richer. Why richer? Yes, you can write more than one book, but the reason is always the same - the robbery of the weak by the strong."
                1. 0
                  3 May 2020 03: 15
                  For a long time I was not there, I will answer with pleasure. Everything is simple with Korea, war is a source of wealth, while I do not blame anyone, neither Americans nor Koreans, some successfully sold, others successfully invested.
                  I list the factors that influenced economic growth, everything is in open sources.
                  I separately mention the same factor that the USSR had in the 20s and 30s, the predominant transition of the economy from an agrarian economic form of economy to an industrial one, and the influx of cheap labor from villages to cities to production. And now others:
                  1. Relations with Japan have been established, which pays multimillion-dollar compensation payments.
                  2. Until 1961, the United States invested $ 1,5 billion in subsidies (then the dollar and the dollar now are different in value, so the amount is very significant). 70% of imports were funded by the United States.
                  3. US annual humanitarian aid, estimated at 3% of GDP.
                  4. The main trigger for economic growth was the war in Vietnam. Direct benefit + 4% of GDP, the United States allowed Korea to contracts for the supply of troops. This period can be called the birth of "chabols", contracts were distributed by corrupt methods, the main players were determined at the same time. the reserve of financial stability for the chabols was given.
                  5. Indirect financing of the economy. After the outbreak of the Vietnam War, banks and financial companies are "suspiciously willing" to invest large sums in the Korean economy, often for dubious business, but the project of the Korean economy is tied to the war, so it is primarily political. Thoughtless lending has led to a financial crisis.
                  6. The structure of the Korean economy proves its politicization, 50% tied to the United States, 30% to Japan.
                  1. 0
                    3 May 2020 15: 51
                    1. Relations with Japan have been established, which pays multimillion-dollar compensation payments.
                    Please provide at least one source.
                    2. Until 1961, the United States invested $ 1,5 billion in subsidies (then the dollar and the dollar now are different in value, so the amount is very significant). 70% of imports were funded by the United States.
                    This is a huge amount of 13 billion (I can use the inflation calculator), according to your figures. Just see how much help their northern twin brother received. Incomparably more.
                    3. US annual humanitarian aid, estimated at 3% of GDP.
                    Against the background of the DPRK, this is nothing. And the DPRK does not colonize the moons of Jupiter ... why?
                    4. The main trigger for economic growth was the war in Vietnam.
                    It’s also debatable, many who received money from the USA or the IMF, a lot of money, and the economic miracle is still not visible, maybe this is a bad explanation? Maybe there are other factors besides location and external support? Just if, as you say, it doesn’t become more clear why Japan, Korea, etc.
                    5. Indirect financing of the economy. After the outbreak of the Vietnam War, banks and financial companies are "suspiciously willing" to invest large sums in the Korean economy, often for dubious business, but the project of the Korean economy is tied to the war, so it is primarily political. Thoughtless lending has led to a financial crisis.
                    I am becoming more and more interested in your sources. Maybe the West and the USSR suspiciously willingly invested? Maybe Stalin and Roosevelt were lovers? But seriously, they invest money when there is where, there is income and there is a guarantee to return this money. Korea was able to do this, and there is no need to invent conspiracy theories from the head.
                    6. The economic structure of Korea proves its politicization, 50% tied to the United States, 30% to Japan
                    The structure of the PRC economy proves its politicization ... but in general there is nothing surprising - the USA is the largest market in the world. So the export structure does not prove any politicization.
        5. 0
          April 30 2020 06: 32
          Good afternoon! I have two questions for you:
          - Why do you think that the United States is not profitable for the dollar as a world currency?
          - What exactly do you dislike about Glazyev’s proposals?
          1. 0
            April 30 2020 20: 56
            Why do you think that the US dollar is unprofitable as a world currency?
            It is beneficial for the United States to be the issuer of only the cash part, it is at most $ 70 billion. At the same time, the demand for the dollar in the world is very high (after all, the dollar is very stable - about 3.15% inflation on average for the last 100 years), since a stable currency is excellent for international deals. Increased demand => higher prices ... for all American products, and higher prices for products => lower demand for them. It’s quite simple.
            https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp140/
            https://www.economist.com/leaders/2004/02/05/let-the-dollar-drop

            What exactly do you dislike about Glazyev’s proposals?
            Perhaps I'll start with the part where he wants to make a printing press for a state corporation out of the Central Bank. He refers as usual to QE, although they are very different. Glazyev should be sent as finance minister to Zimbabwe. Not a subtle hint that the "genius" will achieve nothing but exorbitant inflation.
            1. 0
              1 May 2020 08: 02
              1. Wait. If there is increased demand for the dollar, that means you can print more dollars, right? Those. this is very good for America (money appears as if from nothing). How does this lead to higher prices for American goods?

              2. Glazyev is not talking about this. He says that the possibility of obtaining loans at a low rate is very important for business. In Europe and the USA, enterprises have the opportunity to borrow money at 2-3% per annum, while in Russia similar enterprises have to borrow at 15-18%. Is this abnormal? How can one compete in such a situation? So he offers to create an opportunity for Russian enterprises, especially those associated with industry and high-tech, to receive loans at 2-3%. If you have to print a certain amount of money for this - well, you can go for it, there is nothing particularly terrible about this. But printing money in his proposals is not a goal, but a means. Rather, one of the possible answers to the question of where to get the money to provide the industry with cheap loans. Well, it will increase inflation by a couple of percent a year, but the economy will work.
              1. -2
                1 May 2020 11: 05
                How does this lead to higher prices for American goods?
                Alexander, are you serious? It is strange for me to see such questions, because it is intuitively clear. The national currency rises in price against the rest, production in national currency, goods produced in the United States will be more expensive compared to the rest. You can cite the Big Mac index as an example (very simplified, but good at that). I do not know how to answer such questions, read the textbook on economics. This is all my authority.

                Glazyev is not talking about this
                About it. There is a key rate, there is inflation, there is instability of the national currency, all this is included in these percentages, they are objective, and if you give a cheaper loan, you need to subsidize it. Subsidize with what? Print money. It’s just not convenient for me to explain very simple things. Listen to him carefully. And yes, Glazyev is the perfect finance minister for Zimbabwe just because his plan will not increase inflation by a couple percent ...
                1. 0
                  2 May 2020 09: 42
                  Well, think for yourself ... When the national currency rises in price in relation to other currencies, there is always a simple way to get rid of it. To do this, you just need to print extra money. By the way, this is exactly what the author of the article in The Economist calls for, the link to which you for some reason threw off to me. And look what happens - America prints additional money, and the dollar remains stable. Those. the United States has the ability to receive money from nothing, simply due to the fact that the dollar is the world currency. And you say that this is not profitable for them ??

                  About Glazyev. Again. Enterprises receiving loans at 15 - 18% cannot compete with enterprises receiving loans at 2 - 3%. That is, this situation needs to be somehow corrected. There are different ways to fix it, but let's imagine that the only way is to print money. Why are you so afraid of this? Do you have quantitative calculations, how much money needs to be printed for this, and what specific jump in inflation will it lead to? Glazyev has them, and you?
                  1. 0
                    2 May 2020 10: 27
                    there is always a simple way to get rid of it
                    I’ll call the Fed, tell them that they’re fools, because the situation with the overvalued dollar is not being corrected. I will also tell Paul Krugman that he (and the fat one) and the Nobel Prize were just given to him, but Alexander Korovkin and Glazyev ...
                    The US dollar is the reserve currency in the world, with about 60%, what foreign exchange interventions are needed to resolve with an overvalued rate? Maybe the Fed is not without reason to believe that such a decision is unacceptable? You are too simplistic, too.

                    To do this, you just need to print extra money. By the way, this is exactly what the author of the article in The Economist calls for, the link to which you for some reason threw off to me.
                    Where did you read it? The article condemns that the US does not fight the fall of the dollar.

                    Those. the US has the opportunity to receive money from nothing, simply due to the fact that the dollar is the world currency. And you say that this is unprofitable for them ??
                    Well, not only me, but rather, I agree with the arguments of those who think so.

                    Enterprises receiving loans at 15 - 18% cannot compete with enterprises receiving loans at 2 - 3%.
                    Is this a problem? It’s easy to check whether this is the problem - for some reason it’s not you, I don’t run to take loans from Western banks, does something stop you? Well, some took a mortgage in foreign currency, at a low interest rate, ask how they are.
                    The situation is more complicated, but look at a couple of numbers. Russia can work for export. The national currency of the Russian Federation is weak, it is easy to keep it underestimated in relation to others. The ruble has higher inflation and is depreciating in relation to others. Accordingly, Russian products are getting cheaper compared to other countries. Loan rates are not the biggest problem, but the institutional environment is, yes, problematic. So the person started the business, he is doing well, where is the guarantee that tomorrow he will not be asked to sell the company to Usmanov? How is it with countless checks? Where are the guarantees that the state will hold honest tenders, and will not throw all enterprises except the Rotenbergs out of them? Well, really, back to Glazyev. His plan creates an excellent tool for nomenclature to help their own people and drown everyone else through inflation, but they wisely do not follow it because they know that this will undermine the situation as it was in Zimbabwe. There, a very popular leader was forced to leave, and Putin is not so popular. It is partly good that they do not start the mechanism of self-destruction, which means that prudence is enough.
                    1. 0
                      2 May 2020 14: 58
                      I have no idea whether this is your Paul Krugman or a smart person, but I’m more than sure that he thinks very little about Russia's problems, so it’s hardly worth relying on him in questions about how Russia should build its economic policy.
                      Quote: Carnifexx
                      Where did you read it? The article condemns that the US does not fight the fall of the dollar.

                      Well, you give :)) But in these quotes from there, what do you think is said?
                      "Some think the dollar has fallen too far. On the contrary, it has not fallen by enough"

                      "And yet the real problem facing the world economy is not a suddenly weak dollar, but a dollar which remains, even after its recent decline, too strong. The drop in the greenback was inevitable and should benefit both America and other countries, because it will help to reduce America's vast current-account deficit, which is arguably one of the biggest threats to the global recovery. For the same reason the dollar should, and almost certainly will, fall further. "

                      Quote: Carnifexx
                      Is this a problem? It’s easy to check whether this is the problem - for some reason it’s not you, I don’t run to take loans from Western banks, does something stop you? Well, some took a mortgage in foreign currency, at a low interest rate, ask how they are.

                      And where are you or I? We are individuals, and I'm talking about loans for legal entities. This is a little different. If Western legal entities charge at 2-3%, and ours at 15 - 18% - this is a huge problem, just a huge one.

                      Quote: Carnifexx
                      but the institutional environment, yes, is problematic. So the person started the business, he is doing well, where is the guarantee that tomorrow he will not be asked to sell the company to Usmanov? How is it with countless checks? Where are the guarantees that the state will hold honest tenders, and will not throw all enterprises except the Rotenbergs out of them?

                      Yes, I do not argue with all this. Our institutional environment is terrible, and of course, this is indeed the main problem. But why do you think that if problem number 1 in the country is not being solved, then it is still possible not to solve problem number 2? Some kind of very bizarre logic ... Glazyev offers a quite sensible way to solve problem number 2, which is also very important. Another question is how these "cheap loans" would be distributed in practice, and there would be no outrageous corruption here (well, of course, in this situation, we would have it). But that is exactly what is another question. With a sincere desire, it is quite possible to develop a set of measures that would make it possible to distribute these loans fairly. You can start (as suggested by Glazyev) with enterprises that are trying to do something in industry and high-tech. The benefits would be enormous, despite a minor spike in inflation. There is no need to make a fetish of low inflation, there are more important things.
                      1. 0
                        2 May 2020 15: 20
                        I have no idea whether this is your Paul Krugman or a smart person, but I’m more than sure that he thinks very little about Russia's problems, so it’s hardly worth relying on him in questions about how Russia should build its economic policy.
                        It was about the United States and the benefits / costs of the dominant position of their currency.

                        Have you read this article? Retell what it is about, in your own words.

                        Glazyev offers a very efficient way to solve problem number 2
                        You do not believe in inflation, as I understand it. OK.

                        But that’s exactly what the other question is.
                        According to Glazyev’s plan, money will go primarily to state-owned corporations and quasi-gos to corporations, while the rest will go to crumbs.
                        You (and Glazyev) suggest not deciding (and not to mention even the most important problems of the country) to distribute money to corrupt officials, while multiplying inflation. You wonder why I do not agree with you?

                        The benefits would be enormous, despite a slight surge in inflation. No need to make a fetish out of low inflation, there are things more important.
                        Where to begin? Due to primitive institutions, there is absolutely no chance that the money will go evenly. This is excluded, and absolutely excluded. The plan is simply brilliant, give money, but at the same time this money depreciates, and you need to give more and more.
                        I understand your logic, but you very diligently wishful thinking. I also mentioned an important fact - the authorities do not. If this is as good as you say, then it makes sense for the authorities to follow the advice of a genius, because it will increase its popularity and shake the technology ... In fact, this is not so, and many who spoke out against Glazyev, you would just get acquainted with alternative points of view .
                        I repeat, Glazyev does not understand what QE is, how can it be considered for credibility after this?
                      2. +1
                        3 May 2020 19: 41
                        Quote: Carnifexx
                        It was about the United States and the benefits / costs of the dominant position of their currency.

                        And please share the link where this Paul Krugman claims that the US dominates the dollar? It just seems to me that a person with such views will not be held in a leadership position in the financial system, it is better for him to work as a janitor or taxi driver)
                        Quote: Carnifexx
                        Have you read this article? Retell what it is about, in your own words.

                        The point is that there is nothing wrong with the fall of the dollar, and America is even profitable from this fall. The very title of the article "Let the dollar drop." it seems to be hinting at it. That is, the content of this article directly contradicts how you characterized this article:
                        Quote: Carnifexx
                        The article condemns that the US does not fight the fall of the dollar.


                        Quote: Carnifexx
                        You do not believe in inflation, as I understand it. OK.

                        No, such a thing as inflation, of course, exists. I just do not believe that smart subsidizing of the Russian economy by printing a certain amount of money will lead to big inflation. I asked you if you have specific calculations on this topic. You did not answer, from which I conclude that you do not have them. Therefore, there is nothing left but to trust in Glazyev’s calculations. And they say that nothing terrible will happen. And in my opinion, this is close to the truth. Well, the maximum, inflation from this will increase by 2-3 percent. But the benefits will be huge.
                      3. 0
                        3 May 2020 22: 46
                        Krugman:
                        https://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/seignor.html
                        https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/opinion/13krugman.html?_r=2
                        https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/the-role-of-the-dollar-who-cares
                        And others:
                        https://www.ft.com/content/365e772e-6605-11e0-9d40-00144feab49a#axzz1JMxwNmoc
                        https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/overview/in-the-news/dollar-as-reserve-currency
                        https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp140/
                        https://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/world/g-7-statement-signals-worry-about-dollar.html
                        In a word, not many people like the US falling over the dollar, especially Europeans. The growth of the Euro against the dollar is hitting the competitiveness of their products. There are no obvious benefits from the position of the dollar as a reserve currency, at least for now.

                        For specific calculations, specific numbers are needed. From Glazyev I heard only words, and that he has calculations (I did not see them). But it’s not convincing, especially if you listen to what he says about hyperinflation in the USA in connection with incentive measures or (again, I recall) about QE.
                        How do I conclude that his proposal will destroy the economy? So already done. And they also thought that everything would be fine.
                        Some countries received big money from outside (this did not cause inflation), and nothing, apparently just pumping up companies with money does not work.
                        There are also "works" like this:
                        https://glazev.ru/articles/6-jekonomika/73176-kul-t-zolotogo-tel-tsa-i-rossija
                        Here: https://glazev.ru/articles/6-jekonomika
                        Scary to read lol
                        https://glazev.ru/articles/6-jekonomika/54308-jekonomika-kak-vo-na
                        https://glazev.ru/articles/6-jekonomika/54258-ugrozy-rossii-i-protivode-stvie-im

                        The man says that ALL economists in the WORLD are wrong, and he is right.
                        Probably they should not prove that it is not camels, but the burden of proof lies with the subject.
        6. +1
          April 30 2020 08: 04
          We lost the Cold War on our own, and no one else. If you do not understand this, then you are either not yet born, or you have problems with the conceptual apparatus.
      3. 0
        April 29 2020 11: 08
        Well, the printing press allowed us not to think about what was economically viable. Actually, the coming crisis will send most of these bubbles into oblivion.
        1. +2
          April 29 2020 12: 13
          My question is not whether you are right or not (no, of course), but where did you get your "competence" in macroeconomics? Starikov, Khazin, Fedorov, Glazyev ... I'm just curious, I'm interested in statistics.
    3. 0
      April 29 2020 09: 24
      Quote: Mitroha
      I thought and still think that stealth is arch-expensive, and at the same time it’s an overrated prismatic prodigy.

      Many people think that stealth technology does not seem to be the first to notice the enemy, which means you have the advantage of the first shot. But ... these citizens forget that war implies maximum information content from all types of radars of different ranges. That is, with real databases, the same pilot or air defense nickname will receive data not only from its radar and from various other radars. Accordingly, stealth technology really does not make life much easier for a combat pilot.
      1. -2
        April 29 2020 12: 26
        But as it simplifies for the military-industrial complex, NEXUS!
      2. 0
        April 30 2020 16: 16
        Quote: NEXUS
        Quote: Mitroha
        I thought and still think that stealth is arch-expensive, and at the same time it’s an overrated prismatic prodigy.

        Many people think that stealth technology does not seem to be the first to notice the enemy, which means you have the advantage of the first shot. But ... these citizens forget that war implies maximum information content from all types of radars of different ranges. That is, with real databases, the same pilot or air defense nickname will receive data not only from its radar and from various other radars. Accordingly, stealth technology really does not make life much easier for a combat pilot.

        We won’t have it, we don’t have the technology that allows us to take the fighter’s target for escorting according to data from the ground-based radar, the maximum that they say that there is an enemy there (if this is not so and there is someone who knows, then correct it with links to the source). But the whole thing is that in similar or better conditions your opponent will be, and you will be noticed first by 4+.
    4. 0
      April 29 2020 09: 57
      ETERNAL battle of the sword and shield.
    5. +4
      April 29 2020 13: 42
      Quote: Mitroha
      I thought and still think that stealth is arch-expensive, and at the same time it’s an overrated prismatic prodigy. As far as I remember, even Soviet designers talked about the impasse of this technology.
      The technology "stealth" was invented by our compatriot - Peter Yakovlevich Ufimtsev. At the same time, several Soviet design bureaus announced their experimental developments in this area, and based on the results of the work, they concluded that this direction was not promising.

      Suggest abandoning the rubber coating on submarines? Modern gas companies also easily find them, but we will quickly swim and maneuver under water ... And the Americans will not feed us, they will simply hear us from bases in the Pacific Ocean. I get the impression that the problem is not in technology, but in its absence, in particular with us, which causes a fierce anal pain in some part of the population of HE and similar articles
      1. DDT
        0
        April 30 2020 14: 05
        Volchara, I’m just doing the thing that I’m plus you ... it's nice to read an adequate commentator. hi hi
  3. +6
    April 29 2020 06: 20
    Countries design airplanes in accordance with their military doctrine.
  4. +4
    April 29 2020 06: 23
    Thanks to the author for the article.
    And the truth is, there are doubts about this "stealth".
    A powerful radar with AFAR, long-range missiles, an economical and durable engine with OBE, an electronic warfare system - this is perhaps the most important thing for a modern fighter.
    1. +4
      April 29 2020 07: 41
      The author just fell a little short of the logical conclusion from the conflicting requirements for the 5th generation aircraft. Requirements for stealth, power-to-weight ratio, speed, maneuverability, etc. certainly important, but when performing different tactical tasks. The mistake was to create a universal aircraft when it was necessary to create 2-3 specialized ones. Even a person who is not familiar with technology understands that any specialized equipment is several times cheaper and more efficient when performing a limited range of tasks. This is why, in the F-35, J-20 and Su-57 projects, the engineers had to make compromise technical solutions despite significant budget increases. So not "workhorses" for the front and fashion aircraft are obtained.
      1. +3
        April 29 2020 08: 30
        Quote: Vita VKO
        So not "workhorses" for the front and fashion aircraft are obtained.

        With "workhorses" the problem is seen even in something else. "Stealths" were conceived as machines for classic wars - with an equal or comparable enemy in terms of level (the United States against the USSR as an example). But now such wars are not fought; most conflicts take place under conditions of overwhelming technological superiority of one side over the other. And when the enemy does not have its own modern fighters and air defense systems, it suddenly turns out that there is no benefit from "stealth", and the existing tasks are quite successfully solved by aircraft of previous generations.
        1. 0
          April 29 2020 13: 50
          Quote: Kalmar
          Quote: Vita VKO
          So not "workhorses" for the front and fashion aircraft are obtained.

          With "workhorses" the problem is seen even in something else. "Stealths" were conceived as machines for classic wars - with an equal or comparable enemy in terms of level (the United States against the USSR as an example). But now such wars are not fought; most conflicts take place under conditions of overwhelming technological superiority of one side over the other. And when the enemy does not have its own modern fighters and air defense systems, it suddenly turns out that there is no benefit from "stealth", and the existing tasks are quite successfully solved by aircraft of previous generations.

          So maybe we will give up nuclear weapons? Now, you know, nuclear wars are not waged and it suddenly turns out that in modern wars it is also not needed :(
          1. 0
            April 29 2020 15: 53
            Quote: Vol4ara
            So maybe we will give up nuclear weapons?

            Nuclear weapons is a separate issue. It exists for this purpose now, so as not to be used)

            And so, the time of the arms race (I hope) for the most part has passed, so it makes sense to carefully consider investments in the defense industry from the point of view of real expediency. It is no coincidence that the Americans once curtailed the B-2 and F-22 programs: fashionable, stylish, but expensive and impractical, because after the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, this technique simply could not be found worthy of use. But the old people like A-10 and B-52 are still in service, because the most popular tasks - unwinding barmalei in deserts - they solve quite productively.
            1. 0
              April 29 2020 16: 44
              Quote: Kalmar
              Quote: Vol4ara
              So maybe we will give up nuclear weapons?

              Nuclear weapons is a separate issue. It exists for this purpose now, so as not to be used)

              And so, the time of the arms race (I hope) for the most part has passed, so it makes sense to carefully consider investments in the defense industry from the point of view of real expediency. It is no coincidence that the Americans once curtailed the B-2 and F-22 programs: fashionable, stylish, but expensive and impractical, because after the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, this technique simply could not be found worthy of use. But the old people like A-10 and B-52 are still in service, because the most popular tasks - unwinding barmalei in deserts - they solve quite productively.

              F35 was probably drawn by mistake. Do you really not understand that if you have to unwind not the barmaley, but the countries included in the top 10, then you can crap without a trump card in your sleeve or is it patriotic bravado? Poland at 39 also thought that no one would attack it because France, Great Britain and America were "with us" and spending on a strong army was unnecessary, as a result it was publicly raped.
              1. -1
                April 29 2020 17: 18
                Quote: Vol4ara
                You really don’t understand that if you don’t have to unwind, but the countries included in the top 10, you can crap without a trump card in your sleeve or is it a patriotic bravado?

                Breathe in, breathe out, relax. I did not even say that the aforementioned "trump card" is not needed at all. The question of quantity: the same Americans are in no hurry to replace their entire fleet with F-35s. Some of the weapons are developed with the expectation of containing a (more) powerful adversary, some - with a view to current tasks. So my point is clearer?
  5. +14
    April 29 2020 06: 37
    I think that the stealth bet is not wrong in principle. Of course, these planes are visible both on the radar and in the infrared range. But the detection range is important here, and it is noticeably lower than that of 4th and 4 ++ generation aircraft. This is the advantage of stealth. The Americans do not plan to use their fighters in maneuverable close combat, they follow the first-see-first-kill tactics. Plus very advanced radars with LPI function, which reduces the likelihood of detecting a working radar. The 5th generation is not just stealth - it is a complex of technologies and here Americans are now out of competition. Separately, it must be said about the afterburner supersonic: the Su-57 has it with a stage 1 engine, as is the case with the Su-35. The second stage engine assumes a decrease in the thermal signature of the Su-57.
    1. 0
      April 29 2020 07: 14
      Launching a rocket from a long distance eliminates this "stealth" (rocket launch), plus the inverse trail of the rocket itself. The presence of electronic warfare equipment and the technique of maneuverable missile evasion at the very target. The rocket will be 100% spotted, and then this "stealth" woodwave is worth a penny. After all, they were warned about a waste of funds. The Su-57 took a different path, stealth is solved by using combined electronic warfare.
      1. 0
        April 29 2020 07: 48
        And how does a missile launch level this stealth?
        If the airplane is not visible before launch, then after launch too.
        1. -3
          April 29 2020 12: 25
          Can you tell me how stealth missiles are shot down in Syria? By the way, they are shot down by our samuli and air-to-air missiles. Moreover, the Americans do not have missiles operating for more than 200 km, and closer they are already completely visible in the optical range. They have already crumpled with this ideology more than once: Phantoms in Vietnam also did not have weapons for close combat and were not intended for close combat, their MIGs snapped like nuts. I am silent about the Fu-35 with their new coating - in general, our last radars "Struna" and "Sky" can be seen from 1000 km away. My son, an aircraft designer, says that the Fu-35 is a wonderful almost stationary target at any distance. , in other words "cocoa" in a beautiful wrapper and promoted by overseas swindlers.
          1. +3
            April 29 2020 13: 37
            Quote: Spectrum
            How are stealth missiles shot down in Syria?

            Do not shoot down. They are practically not used there. Will the answer go?
            Quote: Spectrum
            there are no missiles operating more than 200 km, and closer they are already quite visible in the optical range.

            Who is visible in the optical range beyond 200 km? Fighter? Good luck.
            Quote: Spectrum
            More than once they crap around with this ideology: the Phantoms in Vietnam

            Yes, the fact that 60 years ago the bet on the DVB did not work out is the only rational argument against the G5.
            However, so far no bolts have been known for this tricky nut.
            Quote: Spectrum
            My son, an aircraft designer, says the Fu-35 is a wonderful, almost motionless target at any distance.

            )))
            To speak - do not toss bags.
            1. 0
              April 29 2020 14: 22
              Okay, since your fu-shki are so sophisticated and invulnerable, as in the joke: - "... yes, your deer, yours! Let me just take off the saddle.", Then let it be yours.
          2. -1
            April 29 2020 14: 52
            Can you tell me how stealth missiles are shot down in Syria?

            if you give a decent link to such a fact, I’m happy to read
            in general, our last radars "Struna" and "Sky" can be seen 1000 km away.

            There is such a thing- the range of radio visibility
            For a range of 1000 km, the target should fly at an altitude of about 60 km.
            Fu-35 wonderful almost motionless target at any distance

            Fu-35, probably this is a balloon like that?
      2. 0
        April 29 2020 09: 27
        Quote: Spectrum
        The presence of EW means at the very goal and the technique of maneuvering missile evasion.

        While the aircraft will perform a maneuverable dance with a tambourine, moving away from missiles, then there is no question of any fulfillment of a combat mission, which, in principle, is required. At the same time, it becomes as noticeable as possible, burns fuel, in general, deals with the only thing - trying to survive. So, for these reasons, the American version of air combat seems more correct and effective to me. Not everyone will be able to reach the BVB, and besides, it will still be necessary to find an opponent who wants to stir up this action with you.
        1. -2
          April 29 2020 12: 28
          So who is the hunter and who is the victim? Do you think there will be no answers?
          1. 0
            April 30 2020 09: 09
            Quote: Spectrum
            So who is the hunter and who is the victim? Do you think there will be no answers?

            And whoever will give an answer, everyone will perform maneuvers, moving away from missiles, and when it comes to it, not everyone will be able to live up to it, i.e. the one who first attacked has an undeniable advantage. Unfortunately, in my opinion, all our talk about BVB is from hopelessness.
            1. -1
              April 30 2020 09: 17
              What is your hit rate? Over in Syria, the Su-35 attached itself to the F-22 from behind, and he was only able to see it visually and immediately gave a drapery with dirty diapers.
              1. 0
                April 30 2020 09: 26
                Once again, it’s not about hitting (whatever the percentage, but it is still there), the task is to force the enemy to maneuver intensively, while the aircraft becomes more noticeable, increased fuel consumption, which reduces the time of active databases, loads the pilot, etc. ., is not up to the task. At this time, the enemy may well approach a more lethal distance and make more than one launch. Whoever saw and fired first is disproportionately more likely to win.
                1. -1
                  April 30 2020 09: 34
                  And the onboard electronic warfare (the most advanced in the world, according to the jackals themselves) does not tell you anything. I understand that you are a patriot of penguinostan weapons, but so far these self-praises of fu-shki have not shown themselves in any way. And they are very much, even manic, afraid of the S-400 air defense system. They know that these complexes can be seen 400 km away. Yes, and fu-shki, in order to see at a great distance, you must turn on the onboard radar and then all the "stealth" down the drain. Ground-based air defense systems will give target designation to our samuli, or do you think that the fu-shkam will be allowed to get closer to the firing range. Aha! Right now!
                  1. DDT
                    +1
                    April 30 2020 14: 19
                    Quote: Spectrum
                    And the onboard electronic warfare (the most advanced in the world, according to the jackals themselves) does not tell you anything. I understand that you are a patriot of penguinostan weapons, but so far these self-praises of fu-shki have not shown themselves in any way. And they are very much, even manic, afraid of the S-400 air defense system. They know that these complexes can be seen 400 km away. Yes, and fu-shki, in order to see at a great distance, you must turn on the onboard radar and then all the "stealth" down the drain. Ground-based air defense systems will give target designation to our samuli, or do you think that the fu-shkam will be allowed to get closer to the firing range. Aha! Right now!

                    You listen too much to your son, the aircraft designer ... At the moment, the easy and the dodiks are sending fiery greetings and insolently flying over simple Arab huts, very unnerving these same Arabs, Russians and Persians. The fact that they do it sometimes from Lebanese airspace, because the S-300 are long-range carriers, they should also detect over Lebanon. And about Ufimtsev, I will be extremely brief. The KGB banally "asked for" its publication in Western magazines, and then came up with a legend that it was necessary. Ufimtsev himself got a lot of nuts, moreover, the scientist was urged to find an opportunity to fight these stealths. "Fu" -111 bombed with impunity in Iraq, Yugoslavia and went so far that they even forgot to change the route regularly. Tell your son, an aircraft designer, to construct analogs of these very "Fu", which do not have in the world, instead of undermining the fringes with you and bringing the brain to VO for specialists. hi
                    1. -1
                      April 30 2020 15: 13
                      And you hung on the Israeli media. Yes, and the clever ones know that they will not be shot down over Lebanon (for now), only rockets are shot down. So the favorites play the trick. The S-400 in full takes the signature off them and let it be a surprise for you at hour X. Looks like Israeli bots are watching opponents. So, it’s not for you to decide who to talk with. Israel behaves like the meanest scumbag off the highway. You see, someone said (or said) or imagined that he would destroy them, like schizovrenics, Jews begin to bomb the wounded bleeding sovereign country on a far-fetched pretext. Only the fascists and jackals did this.
                      Here is evidence of your meanness:
                      https://riafan.ru/1271710-perendzhiev-sravnil-ataku-izrailya-na-siriyu-s-ukusom-shakala

                      Ah, I see you are a regular Israeli minuser, t.b. server-bot ..
                      1. DDT
                        0
                        April 30 2020 16: 40
                        Quote: Spectrum
                        And you hung on the Israeli media. Yes, and the clever ones know that they will not be shot down over Lebanon (for now), only rockets are shot down. So the favorites play the trick. The S-400 in full takes the signature off them and let it be a surprise for you at hour X. Looks like Israeli bots are watching opponents. So, it’s not for you to decide who to talk with. Israel behaves like the meanest scumbag off the highway. You see, someone said (or said) or imagined that he would destroy them, like schizovrenics, Jews begin to bomb the wounded bleeding sovereign country on a far-fetched pretext. Only the fascists and jackals did this.
                        Here is evidence of your meanness:
                        https://riafan.ru/1271710-perendzhiev-sravnil-ataku-izrailya-na-siriyu-s-ukusom-shakala

                        Ah, I see you are a regular Israeli minuser, t.b. server-bot ..

                        Dear, where does the Israeli media and jackals? You need to chat less with your son, an aircraft designer and read less the statements of the paranjeev, and more to delve into the meanings of articles and comments, then there will be less minus.
                        For the gifted I will explain, an article about "invisible" planes, their use, their pros, cons, and in general about their existence. I gave you an example of how they are used and how our authors and commentators are banished with the theme that "we see them, we can." Why, for some reason, as in a fable, the eye sees, but the teeth do not. Therefore, as a responsible citizen, I believe that it is time for my sons, aircraft designers, to stop talking about what invisibility is, and it is banal to design, build and use such a device.
                  2. 0
                    1 May 2020 08: 52
                    Quote: Spectrum
                    I understand that you are a patriot of the penguinostan weapons, but so far these foo shih self-praises have not shown themselves in any way.

                    I’m not a patriot at all, I’m a supporter of objectivity, and remembering the historical experience, I don’t support a lot of patriots and haters. Here and again you, having no arguments, "drove" the air defense system to the DB zone, but what if they are not there? And if we evaluate it completely objectively, then neither the s-300 nor the s-400 have combat experience and no one knows yet how effective they are. And regarding the included onboard radar, as a rule, all their flights are accompanied by AWACS, unfortunately they have a lot of them, and they are well equipped.
                    1. 0
                      2 May 2020 14: 16
                      For Israeli bots, this link is like a drum, but for those who think, I think there will be an addition to the treasury of knowledge. And this is what the Yankees themselves say about their miraculous judo.
                      https://topcor.ru/14034-military-watch-rossijskij-mig-31-ne-ostavit-shansa-amerikanskomu-22.html?yrwinfo=1588417390619884-1373884448028598587200299-production-app-host-sas-web-yp-42
    2. +7
      April 29 2020 07: 29
      I completely agree with you. The most useful and competent comment.
      All talk about the need for stealth for aircraft can be completed in one sentence.
      Why do soldiers need camouflage uniforms? Let's sew them from red and white fabric.
      All things being equal, if you were the first to see the enemy, that’s the same, you killed him.
      1. 0
        April 29 2020 09: 10
        Quote: Alexey Sommer
        Why do soldiers need camouflage uniforms? Let's sew them from red and white fabric.

        If a soldier has a camouflage uniform, but he can only crawl and shoot at the target designation of the commander, will it help him much to survive? Especially if the enemy is massively armed with thermal imagers.
        1. +1
          April 29 2020 10: 01
          and that camouflage is not needed?
          all the more advanced, which reduces the effectiveness of the television?
          1. -1
            April 29 2020 10: 13
            Quote: Avior
            and that camouflage is not needed?

            It is necessary, but not to the detriment of other functional characteristics.
            1. 0
              April 29 2020 10: 26
              and this is always a compromise
              1. -1
                April 29 2020 10: 53
                A "good" compromise. For the fact that it will become somewhat more difficult to aim at a fighter, deprive him of mobility and normal breathing.
                1. 0
                  April 29 2020 11: 08
                  well, it’s you yourself who set the boundaries of compromise
                  and they are counted for tactics of use.
                  here, for example, because the probability of a fighter’s death is somewhat reduced, they give a bulletproof vest, they deprive him of mobility and normal breathing much more than a camouflage.
                  1. -2
                    April 29 2020 11: 16
                    Quote: Avior
                    here, for example, because the probability of a fighter’s death is somewhat reduced, they give a bulletproof vest, deprive him of his mobility and normal breathing.

                    Well then, fighters need to be dressed in space suits - everything will be very technological, advanced and very expensive (all like Fu 35). And the enemies will surrender only from one species.
                    1. +1
                      April 29 2020 11: 30
                      it is probably very convenient to put forward a grotesque statement for the opponent, and thereby show in a dispute that he is wrong.
                      Can I take advantage of your experience?
                      and you are in favor of not being technologically advanced in any way, but cheaply, with an ax and without a single nail?
                      Then you need to return with the red-blue uniform from your home cloth, biplanes and bombs from tin cans with dynamite.
                      You can still set fire to the wick before resetting, so that fuses are not wasted.
                      Did it work for me? smile
                      1. -2
                        April 29 2020 12: 03
                        Quote: Avior
                        and you are in favor of not being technologically advanced in any way, but cheaply, with an ax and without a single nail?

                        I am for technology, but in the case of F 35, it was more likely a regression. I brought the spacesuits for the fighters by analogy (and not for trolling). The fighter was dressed in a spacesuit and sent to battle, he says that I don’t see much in the helmet, you fight in response, and we will quickly fix it; I can’t breathe - you fight, and we will fix it; I can’t run - and here the trouble is, we can’t fix it, but it’s alright, you’re fighting the main thing, etc., but no one sees you (probably).
                        Quote: Avior
                        biplanes and bombs from cans with dynamite.

                        So a wooden slow-moving biplane will be the most "invisible". From the point of view of the F 35 concept, this is a return to this "airplane", if only "invisibility" is put in the head of the corner, to the detriment of the rest of the characteristics.
                      2. 0
                        April 29 2020 14: 58
                        the subtlety of the analogies is that they, as a rule, do not reflect objective reality, but the view of the author of the analogy on it.
                        Americans made compromises for the concept of application, and pulling out individual elements from them is an ungrateful task smile
                        Returning to body armor, do you not agree that it affects the mobility of a fighter?
                        But they do it.
                        You just need to consider the problem comprehensively.
                        For their tactics of application, stealth is needed, and they provided for it.
                        and it’s not clear, by the way, what do you think they sacrificed for this?
                      3. -2
                        April 29 2020 15: 19
                        Quote: Avior
                        Americans made compromises for the concept of application, and pulling out individual elements from them is an ungrateful task

                        The American concept is a type of concept for the use of Po-2 during WWII.
                        Quote: Avior
                        Returning to body armor, do you not agree that it affects the mobility of a fighter?

                        I agree. But in my opinion, the comparison of an incorrect body armor is something like the Su 25, and the F 35 is a "super-duper" spacesuit.
                        Quote: Avior
                        For their tactics of application, stealth is needed, and they provided for it.

                        May be needed in some cases. But the F 35 is positioned as the main US military aircraft, which sooner or later will replace all the others.
                        Quote: Avior
                        and it’s not clear, by the way, what do you think they sacrificed for this?

                        Speed, maneuverability, altitude, weapons.
                      4. 0
                        April 29 2020 16: 11
                        The American concept is a type of concept for the use of Po-2 during WWII.

                        grotesque analogy again
                        Speed, maneuverability, altitude, weapons.

                        and you can show the connection with stealth
                        if, for example, you remove stealth, what height, speed, maneuverability and so on should be?
                        about weapons in general in a stupor, single-engine destroy with an allowable load of 9 tons, much more?
                      5. -1
                        April 29 2020 16: 43
                        Quote: Avior
                        if, for example, you remove stealth, what height, speed, maneuverability and so on should be?

                        And here it should or should not be. In F 35, even the declared characteristics are not confirmed in practice. If you have read the article, then F35 cannot fly in supersonic mode. peels off the "stealth" coating (as in rain, snow, dust), and in addition the rear-view radar flies off. Armament 9 tons is for 10 hangers (4 inside, 6 outside). The use of internal compartments is limited by their size, and with external suspension, "stealth" is lost. The flight altitude is limited to 7 because of problems with oxygen equipment, the helmet "floods" with green, etc. (only about 900 drawbacks, both removable and not).
                      6. 0
                        April 29 2020 16: 47
                        If you have read the article, then F35 cannot fly in supersonic mode. the "stealth" coating peels off (as in rain, snow, dust), and in addition the rear-view radar flies off.

                        I read, it’s not written at all there, and he doesn’t have a radar there
                        in fact, what you listed is a long-resolved problem.
                        but I'm talking about something else.
                        to say that the characteristics were sacrificed for the sake of stealth can be compared by an imperceptible option, for example F-16 or F-18 - otherwise how can one show that they donated?
      2. DDT
        0
        April 30 2020 21: 30
        Quote: Alexey Sommer
        I completely agree with you. The most useful and competent comment.
        All talk about the need for stealth for aircraft can be completed in one sentence.
        Why do soldiers need camouflage uniforms? Let's sew them from red and white fabric.
        All things being equal, if you were the first to see the enemy, that’s the same, you killed him.

        And you can't explain it to them. Well, no way, despite the fact that they have already written that for a target caught on the radar, you still need to have time to give target designation to planes in the sky, accompany all this so that the target does not fall off the homing head of the rocket. That's how the peas are against the wall. To all the iron answer, - "no one is invisible now" hi
    3. +2
      April 29 2020 08: 34
      To the one, that
      I think that the bet on stealth is not wrong in principle.
      I must add that the Americans do not fully rely on the good radars available in F22 and F35, but rather rely on a single information network of radars, both ground and air, for example AWACS, and then the main battlefield becomes battle from long distances, without turning on radar, when the enemy (it’s a pity that this is us) will detect not F ... but only a missile (missiles) flying at him and he will be busy not with a mission, but with anti-ballistic maneuvers.
      1. 0
        April 29 2020 14: 50
        In this way of posing the question, other circumstances should be taken into account: since Avax is in the air, this New Year tree is conducting reconnaissance for a stealth fighter, at the launch range of the S-400 missile it will not conduct an effective opening of enemy targets, it’s far, therefore it needs to get closer. accordingly, it will become vulnerable to air defense. and by and large all this whistle-blowing with stealth characteristics only works under ideal conditions for a stealth object. it is possible that at a long range the stealth plane will be very difficult to detect the radar, but the world is not perfect, and where is the guarantee that the stealth object will not turn sideways (top to bottom) to the radar, making it easier to detect
      2. +1
        April 29 2020 19: 47
        Peter. Avax - a system of long-range radar detection and control (physics of radio wave propagation). This system is based on the operation of a powerful radar, auxiliary equipment and communication systems. With the help of electronic warfare systems, this system can be leveled. And for air defense systems, this goal will be a priority (their range is comparable to the range of AWACS). hi
    4. +2
      April 29 2020 09: 33
      I think that the bet on stealth is not wrong in principle.

      Yes. Stealth appeared after an in-depth analysis of the factors affecting the combat effectiveness of the aircraft.
    5. kpd
      0
      April 29 2020 10: 00
      Stealth is not even important so much in the detection range as in the distance of a stable target capture by an aircraft’s armament, if a rocket is not capable of capturing a target it doesn’t matter what is visible on the radar.
    6. 0
      April 29 2020 15: 21
      Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
      This is the advantage of stealth.

      You contradict yourself. Stealth in stealth mode - blind. If you receive target designation on the "military Internet" - you already glow with hundreds of watts of radiation.
      Yes, and electron-optical locators that catch the ultraviolet luminescence of oxygen, excited by a shock wave, find the plane in a clear sky for 80 km. And it doesn’t matter what the plane is covered with: you move - you shine.
      1. 0
        April 29 2020 20: 50
        Yes, an aircraft with stealth technology should be blind with its detection means, at least the F-22, which does not have an optical station, but nothing prevents it from receiving information from other participants in the operation via Link 16. Be in the mode of receiving information, and then in this mode it will be invisible to radar detection equipment and invisible to electro-optical locators at a distance of more than 80 km, as you wrote. And from a distance of more than 80 km, he will already be able to launch the AIM-120 AMRAAM.
        And by the way, the F-35 has an EOS, and therefore it will not be blind anyway.
        1. 0
          April 29 2020 22: 02
          You see, monitoring the accuracy of receiving information requires two-way communication. This is not analog amplitude modulation, with huge redundancy. And the reception of digital packets is confirmed by the transmitting side. both upon admission and on the correctness of admission.
  6. +1
    April 29 2020 06: 50
    Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
    The 5th generation is not just stealth - it is a complex of technologies and here the Americans are now out of competition.

    Dmitry, this is what the Americans are now out of competition, so is to impose their not-so-perfect weapons on the whole world, as a result of which the development of the same weapons in other countries is carried out on a residual basis or minimized altogether. Such actions, among other things, undermine the design school in these countries with a long-range aim in the interests of the American military-industrial complex
    1. +5
      April 29 2020 06: 59
      In general, I agree. The American military-industrial complex seeks to crush its "partners". It's okay for them - nothing personal, just business. However, those who have at least a drop of brains understand this and strive for the independence of their military-industrial complex. For example, the French with their Rafal and not only. At the same time, as far as stealth is concerned, here the Americans have the richest experience, like no one else. Therefore, I would not conclude that they are doing nonsense. Another thing is, maybe there are cheaper alternatives to stealth, for example, electronic warfare.
      1. -1
        April 29 2020 07: 10
        Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
        However, those who have at least a drop of brains understand this and strive for the independence of their defense industry. For example, the French with their Rafale and not only.

        Purely theoretically yes, but on the other hand, how many Europeans are pushing for the 5th generation? It’s necessary, it’s not necessary, but what, etc. As a result, there is no alternative to the Americans, for ours are not considered for political reasons, and we will have to take what we have. And the military-industrial complex of European countries suffered in this situation. If you continue in the same vein, you yourself understand that this is unambiguously to the detriment of the quality of your defense industry
        1. +5
          April 29 2020 07: 35
          In general, if Europe had set a goal, then the 5th generation would have mastered without any problems. They have all or almost all of the technologies: radar with AFAR, and high-quality engines, and OLS and EW and sighting containers, and radar absorbing coatings. In short, the whole question is only in desire and organization. But this is the problem: Western Europe is not going to seriously fight, but this is good, we have enough Americans. And I don’t worry about the European military-industrial complex: it will lose its competence, it will go extinct - that’s where it belongs to it.
      2. +3
        April 29 2020 13: 49
        Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
        In general, I agree. American military-industrial complex seeks to crush "partners"

        People who believe that LM is simply selling out F-35s to everyone instead of his own F-16, will never end.
        These same people are sure that choosing between F-35, F-15, F-16, F-18, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, JAS 39 Gripen more and more new governments are acting to their own detriment.
        Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
        Another thing, maybe there are cheaper alternatives to stealth, for example, electronic warfare.

        And why do you think that when creating the raptor with the penguin, the partners did not know something or did not understand about EW? Before the appearance of the Khibin witness sect in Runet, many knew that the EW partners were very interested and understood something about it. Already 80 years old.
  7. +1
    April 29 2020 06: 57
    Invisibility is needed, but not to the detriment of combat properties, I am so clumsy about the "golden mean" ..
    1. -4
      April 29 2020 07: 12
      With such restrictions and at such a price as the f-35, the most competent tactic is not to roll out of the bunded hangar ... better somewhere in the central states. And of course sell, sell, sell
      1. +1
        April 29 2020 07: 25
        Airplanes in general are more expensive with each generation.
        At a price of f-35 is much cheaper than European Rafal and Eurofighter
      2. -1
        April 29 2020 09: 54
        The catalog price of the F-35A is lower than that of the Su-35, and in terms of the cost of maintenance it is not so expensive in comparison with the same Su-35.
  8. +2
    April 29 2020 07: 02
    The Yankees are developing a concept of network interaction of all elements of air combat, with significant automation of the control process, interaction.
    This is a step forward in the organization of the combat process.
    It is not far from him to fully automate combat systems.
    This is an experiment, research .... expensive, but the only way to create something new.
    While it’s too early to put absolute estimates, the process is still in progress.
  9. +1
    April 29 2020 07: 09
    The author forgets that the Americans use the inconspicuous F35 in conjunction with the time-tested 4 ++ generation fighters. Used for early detection of the enemy and subsequent target designation.
    1. -1
      April 29 2020 07: 22
      And what's the point? I can’t catch something?
  10. -6
    April 29 2020 07: 33
    The American fighter can see radar S-400, and, accordingly, the promising S-500.

    With 600 they also see
    1. 0
      April 29 2020 07: 39
      The leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, let loose on the S-700 anti-aircraft missile system, which supposedly "closes the entire planet" so that no military aircraft of another country's army will fly into the air. The conversation took place on the air of the show “Evening with Vladimir Solovyov” on the TV channel “Russia 1”.
      Missile "Prometheus"
      The production of a new missile defense system has begun in Russia
      During the conversation, the politician noted that the country also has S-400, S-500, S-600 and S-700 and added that the S-700 will be the last air defense system, since there will be no more missiles for take-off in the world
      Solovyov reacted with humor to the statements of the LDPR leader, asking him not to accidentally reveal all the secrets and not accidentally let out a word about the S-1500. Zhirinovsky answered that the S-700 is still the latest such development.
      1. +2
        April 29 2020 09: 28
        closes of course, after we wash our boots in the Indian Ocean and Saddam defeats Bush laughing
  11. -1
    April 29 2020 08: 14
    As for the Russian fifth-generation fighter Su-57, created using stealth technology, it will fully correspond to the new generation after the second stage engines are received, allowing it to develop non-afterburning supersonic speed.


    Lol In fact, with 117 it develops. And quicker than Khryapa
  12. +2
    April 29 2020 08: 47
    It's like the old fox and grapes story
    Who can do and does stealth. Those who cannot write accusatory notes. How many "derogatory" articles have already been ...
  13. 0
    April 29 2020 09: 09
    Quote: Mitroha
    Purely theoretically yes, but on the other hand, how many Europeans are pushing for the 5th generation?

    Yes, they just do not need, because no real danger is visible.
  14. -1
    April 29 2020 09: 26
    Well, he won’t fly on top of that, what’s like, he won’t stop being a stealth. But the fact that he was sold in large quantities and earned a lot of dollars and will continue to earn, this is important. The article is not about anything.
  15. -1
    April 29 2020 09: 33
    The Su-35, as it were, has an OLS. He can lead the target secretly near, but she does not see through the clouds and the range is less than that of radars. In general, against the background of the same Rafale, even the 5th generation is not too expensive, and from the GOS, a decrease in visibility still helps, more chances to survive. Therefore, noticeability will reasonably be reduced by all.
  16. -3
    April 29 2020 09: 50
    It's time for an entertaining story.
    How I love stories about the special radars that stealth sees, about silly ... everyone who develops them and so on. Continue in the same spirit. Well, continue to consider the technology dead-end, but why didn’t the Su-57 go? If you criticize the concept itself, then be consistent - no double standards.
  17. 0
    April 29 2020 09: 58
    > Such a fighter can only carry weapons in its internal compartments
    can not read further
  18. +1
    April 29 2020 10: 08
    "stealth fighters" are clearly visible, whatever the US military says. This is especially true of the F-35, which is much worse than the F-22 in terms of the effective scattering area (ESR). The American fighter perfectly sees the radars of the S-400 air defense systems, and, accordingly, the promising S-500. The same can be said about the airborne radars of Russian aircraft.
    again 25, where did the firewood come from? how can the author confirm these words? and what does "see perfectly" mean? perfectly see from what distance, when they have already been destroyed by the same F-35? perfectly see and perfectly direct missiles? in short, hurray, the Americans are stupid, we'll fill them with f-35 hats
  19. +1
    April 29 2020 10: 17
    but inferior in maneuverability to many Russian fighters even of the fourth generation

    in the sense of EVEN? Not even, but naturally.
  20. 0
    April 29 2020 12: 31
    The bet is on coronavirus.
  21. +3
    April 29 2020 13: 56
    Some kind of schedule, apparently, to write another meaningless text that the penguin is not true G5.

    1. The cost of the F-35 is adequate to the cost of other modern cars.
    2. Countries that have the opportunity to choose between a penguin and other modern Western fighters, American and non-American, choose a penguin.

    There seems to be nothing more to talk about.
    1. -1
      April 29 2020 14: 51
      objectively, its radar invisibility, in terms of aerial combat, can only matter when the target is illuminated from the ground or AWACS, then, with comparable passive optical and thermal target detectors for air opponents, there is no difference
      1. +2
        April 29 2020 16: 08
        1. Yes, the American understanding of the G5 implies a light-damage scheme. Yes AWACS, they have a lot of that. Moreover, in recent years they have been working on this scheme with a group of fighters (one shines for everyone).
        2. No, not necessarily. The essence of stealth is not invisibility from large radars, with a house the size of a locomotive and a power locomotive, but a failure to transmit the target to the GOS missile. The well-known downed in Yugoslavia F-117 was shot down using infrared guidance. Yes, of course, you can shoot down an airplane. But much more complicated, especially considering the presence of electronic warfare. And Penguin EW pumped up very well.
        1. 0
          April 30 2020 01: 12
          The F-117 is just unknown. This is the level of speculation. The fact that the OVC P-18 radar (from memory) discovered Stealth kilometers with 25 more than real
          1. +2
            April 30 2020 01: 34
            Quote: Cyril G ...
            OVC P-18

            Meter radar and missile defense with radio command guidance? Yes it is possible. If the stealth operator is too relaxed.
            1. +1
              April 30 2020 08: 32
              All right. Anyway, it’s war for that.
  22. 0
    April 30 2020 08: 31
    the author is worried about amers and their money? let the flag be in their hands and let them go this way!
  23. DDT
    0
    April 30 2020 13: 59
    "... but inferior in maneuverability to many Russian fighters even of the fourth generation."
    Where did the author get such nonsense? This statement has long been outdated. It turned out not inferior.
    Here is my purely personal opinion, for example, STELS was worth doing on the basis of the MiG-25. As a shock multipurpose carrier of missiles and bombs, relatively speaking. He flew quietly to 3M, fired his rockets, dropped bombs and flew away just as quietly. And all kinds of Raptor, Lightning, Su-57, it’s about nothing.
  24. +1
    April 30 2020 16: 22
    As far as I know the history of this case, P. Ya. Ufimtsev did not invent the "stealth technology".
    He is a radio physicist scientist. In his works published in the open press (!), He showed how to use complex-element problems of reflection, absorption, and scattering of radio waves as finite-element methods.
    And the Americans, who wanted to reduce the radar sensibility of their aircraft, seized on these calculation methods.
    The American engineer recalled that they had difficulty in understanding Ufimtsev's “matan” (then there was still a very large gap in the mathematical culture of engineers and physicists).

    As for the stealth bet, imho (with a little such letter "i") today it is no longer possible to exaggerate its significance. If we are talking about a collision with an equal enemy, that fighters operate in almost 100% space, but covered by highly integrated observation means (in all accessible physical fields), their own and the enemy. The fighter is not a single "deep penetration" type B-2 or F-117, which appear "without warning" (to destroy point strategic targets, open and / or suppress air defense). When fighters are raised into the air, this is a rather noisy event. It is preceded by the transfer of aircraft closer to the area of ​​action.
    Accompanied by a multiple increase in the "radio telephone" (communications workers, satellites, AWACS radars, air defense systems ...). And, if the "swarm hummed", such preparations cannot be overlooked.
    Or, on the contrary, if fighters are used to protect their skies, then they work illuminated by their radars (reflecting their powerful signal and "in the eyes" of the enemy).
    And it turns out that one can forget about the "stealth" of fighters in the air.

    Then the thought arises of turning the fighter into a "gun with wings". Having transferred all reconnaissance, processing and target designation to the distributed Observation, Control and Target Designation System (SNUTS), and leave on board the ister:
    - Highly stable (multi-channel, encrypted, ultra-wideband) communication for data exchange with this SSC).
    At the same time, the Istr-l receives only a significant "squeeze" for him (updates about the environment, target designation, recommended trajectory beams, etc.)
    - Passive sensors that allow collecting data on perturbations of the surrounding physical. fields (like the "lateral line" in fish).
    - Weapons (and it can also be controlled not from the istr launcher, but from the SSC)

    Istr-l can not carry a heavy, energy-intensive (and very expensive) radar complex.
    This will make it easier and more maneuverable. Such a "passive radar" ister will not unmask itself by the radiation of its radar. Such machines will be easier and cheaper to produce in order to make up for those leaving.

    But, a significant disadvantage of "network centricity" is the critical dependence on the stability of data exchange channels and SNTC nodes. What outweighs? - a systemic question.
  25. DDT
    0
    April 30 2020 16: 47
    Quote: grumbler
    As far as I know the history of this case, P. Ya. Ufimtsev did not invent the "stealth technology".
    He is a radio physicist scientist. In his works published in the open press (!), He showed how to use complex-element problems of reflection, absorption, and scattering of radio waves as finite-element methods.
    And the Americans, who wanted to reduce the radar sensibility of their aircraft, seized on these calculation methods.
    The American engineer recalled that they had difficulty in understanding Ufimtsev's “matan” (then there was still a very large gap in the mathematical culture of engineers and physicists).

    As for the stealth bet, imho (with a little such letter "i") today it is no longer possible to exaggerate its significance. If we are talking about a collision with an equal enemy, that fighters operate in almost 100% space, but covered by highly integrated observation means (in all accessible physical fields), their own and the enemy. The fighter is not a single "deep penetration" type B-2 or F-117, which appear "without warning" (to destroy point strategic targets, open and / or suppress air defense). When fighters are raised into the air, this is a rather noisy event. It is preceded by the transfer of aircraft closer to the area of ​​action.
    Accompanied by a multiple increase in the "radio telephone" (communications workers, satellites, AWACS radars, air defense systems ...). And, if the "swarm hummed", such preparations cannot be overlooked.
    Or, on the contrary, if fighters are used to protect their skies, then they work illuminated by their radars (reflecting their powerful signal and "in the eyes" of the enemy).
    And it turns out that one can forget about the "stealth" of fighters in the air.

    Then the thought arises of turning the fighter into a "gun with wings". Having transferred all reconnaissance, processing and target designation to the distributed Observation, Control and Target Designation System (SNUTS), and leave on board the ister:
    - Highly stable (multi-channel, encrypted, ultra-wideband) communication for data exchange with this SSC).
    At the same time, the Istr-l receives only a significant "squeeze" for him (updates about the environment, target designation, recommended trajectory beams, etc.)
    - Passive sensors that allow collecting data on perturbations of the surrounding physical. fields (like the "lateral line" in fish).
    - Weapons (and it can also be controlled not from the istr launcher, but from the SSC)

    Istr-l can not carry a heavy, energy-intensive (and very expensive) radar complex.
    This will make it easier and more maneuverable. Such a "passive radar" ister will not unmask itself by the radiation of its radar. Such machines will be easier and cheaper to produce in order to make up for those leaving.

    But, a significant disadvantage of "network centricity" is the critical dependence on the stability of data exchange channels and SNTC nodes. What outweighs? - a systemic question.

    Ufimtsev did not invent. He is a theoretical mathematician. Just his calculations gave a theoretical justification for the possibility of a conditionally invisible aircraft for radars. Here, specialists have already repeatedly touted that it was to direct the radar, to catch the target and not allow the homing head to get off the target, it wasn’t to drive teas with the son-aircraft designer. Unfortunately, many people imagine this process too simplified.
    1. 0
      April 30 2020 18: 38
      Ufimtsev is not a "theoretical mathematician". He is a physicist by education and worked precisely as a radio physicist at TsNIRTI (Central Scientific Research Radio Engineering Institute), IRE (Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics, USSR Academy of Sciences). See for example https://rusplt.ru/sdelano-russkimi/vot-takoy-rasseyannyiy-17067.html
      1. DDT
        0
        April 30 2020 21: 32
        Quote: grumbler
        Ufimtsev is not a "theoretical mathematician". He is a physicist by education and worked precisely as a radio physicist at TsNIRTI (Central Scientific Research Radio Engineering Institute), IRE (Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics, USSR Academy of Sciences). See for example https://rusplt.ru/sdelano-russkimi/vot-takoy-rasseyannyiy-17067.html

        In invisibility, his work is theoretical. Do you agree with this statement? Or not?
        1. 0
          1 May 2020 08: 31
          I agree with you that his work is theoretical. But again, he theoretical physicistAnd not theoretical mathematicianas you wrote. Classification is a thankless task; sometimes a theoretical physicist is difficult to distinguish from a mathematician. But, nevertheless, the difference between a theoretical physicist and a theoretical mathematician is very large. My clarification related to this.
          1. DDT
            0
            4 May 2020 21: 09
            Quote: grumbler
            I agree with you that his work is theoretical. But again, he theoretical physicistAnd not theoretical mathematicianas you wrote. Classification is a thankless task; sometimes a theoretical physicist is difficult to distinguish from a mathematician. But, nevertheless, the difference between a theoretical physicist and a theoretical mathematician is very large. My clarification related to this.

            Thanks for the educational program :)
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. +1
    1 May 2020 00: 50
    The author is mistaken, collected all the errors and amateurish conclusions. "Stealth" or stealth is a working technology that allows you to get a significant if not decisive advantage in battle. In aviation, it is used with the F-117 that appeared back in the early 80s (then developed in B-2, F-22, F-35). Currently, all combat aircraft are created or modernized (if they were not originally “stealth” ) using this technology. Not only airplanes, but also missiles and PSA. Of course, the stealth is not invisible in the full sense of the word, but it is found at a much shorter distance than the aircraft of the previous types (especially if it flies at low altitude), that is, there may not be enough time to repel the threat from such an aircraft. In addition, the stealth "sees" an ordinary fighter before it is seen by its counterpart. That is, an ordinary fighter, figuratively speaking, will not understand at all who shot him down. Who and where did the rocket strike. About the "tender" coverage is an outdated delusion, the modern coating is very persistent and it is easy to find photos of the F-22 covered with ice and snow standing on the runway in Alaska. Price? F-22 for 2009 cost 150 million per unit, while Rafal and Eurofighter 123-124 million. The numbers are comparable. Visibility during radar operation? There are stealth LPI modes for this. In short, it is impossible now without using this technology.
    1. -1
      1 May 2020 08: 35
      Calm down ok! In the other world, stealth and su35 are definitely not useful to you!
      1. 0
        1 May 2020 12: 09
        I’m calm. And someone clearly burns.
  28. 0
    1 May 2020 08: 34
    Lord, it’s already 2020, and these schizophrenics still continue to measure who has the most scribble: the inconspicuous or the super-maneuverable? Are you going to write this nonsense before losing your pulse?
    Nothing, coronovirus will clean cyberspace from this madness! The military is coming to an end!
  29. 0
    3 May 2020 09: 36
    Quote: Carnifexx
    It was about the United States and the benefits / costs of the dominant position of their currency.

    In fact, you mentioned this Paul Krugman in the context of "and Glazyev, then, thinks differently." But if it was about the benefits / costs of the United States, then please provide a link to Krugman's statement that the dollar as the world's dominant currency is not beneficial to the United States. I do not believe that a person who believes that it is unprofitable for the United States will be kept in a leading position in the financial system, he needs to go to work as a loader or a taxi driver)

    You asked me to retell you the meaning of the article in The Economist - approx. Its meaning is that the fall in the dollar exchange rate is not something terrible and beneficial to America. This can already be seen from the heading "Let the dollar drop". That is, the entire content of the article directly contradicts what you characterized it:
    Quote: Carnifexx
    The article condemns that the US does not fight the fall of the dollar.


    Quote: Carnifexx
    You do not believe in inflation, as I understand it.

    I believe in inflation. I do not believe that printing a certain amount of money to smartly subsidize the Russian economy will significantly increase inflation. I asked you about your quantitative calculations, you did not answer. Thus, it remains only to believe the calculations made by Glazyev, for lack of others. And those calculations say that nothing terrible will happen. In my (amateurish) opinion, an additional inflation growth of 2-3% is possible. It doesn’t scare me.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"