Bet on fifth-generation stealth technology looks like a mistake


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.
Author:
Photos used:
Fighter_bomber
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

172 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Amateur April 29 2020 06: 17 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    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. Vol4ara April 29 2020 13: 35 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      The author forgot to cite the facts of "easy detection of 5th generation aircraft by modern radars", and without facts, the article is zilch and should be in the "opinions" section, and not here. It seems that the author does not understand anything in radar, that he is not familiar with the concept of "target detection range" and he also did not hear anything about lenses. In other matters, I really have no doubt that any radar will easily detect a plane of any generation if, for example, it is supported by this plane
  2. Mitroha April 29 2020 06: 20 New
    • 7
    • 5
    +2
    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. military_cat April 29 2020 06: 37 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      It makes sense to ask Israel. They are perhaps the only ones who have the opportunity to test stealth on combat missions.
      1. Stalllker April 29 2020 07: 17 New
        • 10
        • 11
        -1
        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. Zaurbek April 29 2020 09: 35 New
          • 11
          • 4
          +7
          Do you need to go in orderly rows at the anti-aircraft guns? We know such an example: the war 08.08.08.
        2. Sergej1972 April 29 2020 13: 12 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Well, do not hide behind?
          1. Stalllker April 29 2020 13: 49 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -2
            Yesterday I was on IL, tomorrow something Boeing. So of course you need
        3. Vitaly gusin April 29 2020 16: 17 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          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“ hotheads ”
          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. Stalllker April 29 2020 16: 26 New
            • 2
            • 3
            -1
            Did you come up with it yourself or did you receive it in the WhatsApp newsletter?
            1. Vitaly gusin April 29 2020 19: 09 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              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 have better
              Time you you don’t know, maybe you then still not born laughing
      2. Svetlana April 29 2020 07: 49 New
        • 9
        • 4
        +5
        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. Cyril G ... 1 May 2020 13: 34 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        It makes sense to ask the Serbs, whose obsolete DEC radar has detected the Invisible at a distance of about 25-27 km. The station not modernized was by the way.
        1. Sergey Sfiedu 2 May 2020 04: 05 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          The key word is at a distance of 25-27km. It’s practically point blank - planes are not invisible, but inconspicuous for radars. Here the Americans slammed a working radar - it was not hell to go directly to the position of the air defense system. In general, an article about the uselessness of stealth is approximately as if in 1947-50 some kind of weirdo began to prove that jet fighters are not needed - because they are manoeuvrable, and their range is less, and wildly expensive, and in general Kozhedub shot down a 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. pru-pavel April 29 2020 07: 06 New
      • 8
      • 11
      -3
      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. rotkiv04 April 29 2020 08: 14 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Well dumb
      2. Carnifexx April 29 2020 10: 05 New
        • 3
        • 14
        -11
        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. Filosoff April 29 2020 11: 20 New
          • 5
          • 2
          +3
          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. Carnifexx April 29 2020 12: 10 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -2
            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. NordUral April 29 2020 12: 02 New
          • 2
          • 4
          -2
          With such childish naivety and no wonder, Andrei.
          1. Carnifexx April 29 2020 12: 11 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            What am I naive about, Eugene?
            1. NordUral April 29 2020 12: 25 New
              • 3
              • 3
              0
              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. Carnifexx April 29 2020 12: 40 New
                • 1
                • 4
                -3
                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. NordUral April 29 2020 12: 46 New
                  • 2
                  • 3
                  -1
                  Any opinion has an alternative. Time will tell which is right.
                  1. Carnifexx April 30 2020 02: 54 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    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. NordUral April 30 2020 09: 42 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      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. Carnifexx April 30 2020 12: 16 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        The budget deficit of the USSR was 30% ... GDP. They do not live with such a deficit. Whereas the United States is on horseback, in the 90s it is generally surplus. Safronov (do not worry, he is a communist, or rather a very left-wing one, albeit an economist) spoke well about the problems of the USSR economy, and the fact that it was impossible to solve them by putting a “calculator” in a more powerful way (OGAS). I can refer to comrades who are more complementary to me, but this is rather superfluous.
                      2. NordUral April 30 2020 12: 34 New
                        • 3
                        • 1
                        +2
                        Carnifexx, and you are a thimble.
                      3. NordUral April 30 2020 12: 40 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        And in the USA for comparison and to your words that they don’t live like this:

                      4. Carnifexx April 30 2020 20: 00 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        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. NordUral April 30 2020 21: 04 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        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. Carnifexx April 30 2020 22: 36 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        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. NordUral April 30 2020 22: 45 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Your focus is clear, it makes no sense to argue with a person immediately sweeping the facts.
              2. Carnifexx April 30 2020 19: 48 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Are you really not confused by the inscription "cash deficit"?
                The budget deficit of the Russian Federation in 94 was 7% of GDP. In '09 it was 7,9% and this is the minimum indicator.
              3. NordUral April 30 2020 21: 13 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Do not bother.
              4. NordUral April 30 2020 21: 17 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                That's purely on the budget deficit, is there a difference in grams?

              5. Carnifexx April 30 2020 22: 47 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                This is one of the worst graphs I've seen. The whole point of the columns is to make the proportion better visible.
              6. NordUral April 30 2020 22: 50 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                The meaning of the gray stripes below
              7. Carnifexx 1 May 2020 10: 53 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                That is, and that is why the schedule is terrible. And you are a lover of bias confirmation.
              8. NordUral 1 May 2020 10: 57 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                Why is he terrible, Carnifexx? Only by refuting your lies precisely in the style of the semantic Latin letters.
              9. Carnifexx 1 May 2020 13: 58 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                My "lie" is that the USSR economy had such problems that it makes no sense to explain its collapse by betrayals and conspiracies. Everything was so bad that it was not necessary to betray. You can read the "Doom of the Empire." There are many reasons for this. The gauge effect manifests itself most vividly when almost the entire economy is subordinated to a handful of party functionaries (this aspect just strikes me more). Countries either carry out market reforms or live in the 50s as DPRK.
              10. NordUral 1 May 2020 15: 02 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                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 the 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”.
              11. Carnifexx 1 May 2020 16: 25 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                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.
              12. NordUral 1 May 2020 17: 33 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                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.
              13. Carnifexx 1 May 2020 17: 54 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                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 demographics of the Russian Federation, not everything is simple, but the rhetoric “and under Stalin ...” 100% will not help the situation.
              14. NordUral 1 May 2020 18: 20 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                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.
              15. Carnifexx 1 May 2020 20: 32 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                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 such. No measures after the 80th could not escape social shock. Yes, there wasn’t a moment when reforms could do without “not fit into the market” after Stalin’s death. All intellectual exercises on USSR reforms rested on the structure of power, and after 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 was who 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.
  • Oyo Sarkazmi April 29 2020 15: 13 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    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. Carnifexx April 30 2020 06: 07 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Exhale. Take a breath You want to think that the United States may “bend” if the PRC refuses dollars or the residents of the United States die en masse from the famine as a result of “either starving, without Mexicans in the fields, resting ...”.
      Now, if you calmly judge, then this can be called bias, without stretch. Indeed, with the US labor market, everything will be fine in the long run. The USA 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 the United States in the event of a serious crisis will feel worse than other countries, especially exporters of raw materials. 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, then we could ask where such conclusions came from. First of all, "Unreasonable advantage." Just great. I enjoyed reading it.
      1. Oyo Sarkazmi April 30 2020 10: 09 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        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 the “dues” in third world countries, cutting colonial rents (called “intellectual property protection”). The dominance in the United States has become the sphere of services and financial speculation. Subtract them from 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. Carnifexx April 30 2020 12: 33 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          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 the “dues” in third world countries, cutting colonial rents (called “intellectual property protection”). The dominance in the United States has become the sphere of services and financial speculation. Subtract them from 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. Oyo Sarkazmi April 30 2020 18: 19 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            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’s why I’m saying - technology has been released to the “quitrent” and they are collecting colonial rent.
            The fact that the Russian mathematician has found a solution to the equations of minimal 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. Carnifexx April 30 2020 20: 15 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              There is nothing american
              Strong statement.

              That’s why I’m saying - technology has been released to the “quitrent” and they are collecting colonial rent.
              Suppose in order to develop this thread of discussion. What kind of "dues"? Just this “quitrent” creates millions of jobs and competencies. Taiwan, too, learned how to make iron for American companies - this is 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?
  • Denis Ck April 29 2020 20: 54 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    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. Carnifexx April 30 2020 13: 06 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      An article as well as articles about Khibiny and Cook about resentment.
      1 Umm, and therefore people believe that their problems are the machinations of insidious NATO, the 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 such. A significant part of the agenda is not based on a powerless insult ... an insult to 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 there Fox and Sienen are also shit, but other shit. They pour slop on each other, and do not compete who hates America more. So there goes the "right thing" 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. Denis Ck April 30 2020 23: 04 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        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. Carnifexx 1 May 2020 10: 58 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          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 - robbery by the strong weak."
          1. Denis Ck 3 May 2020 03: 15 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            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 the economic growth was the war in Vietnam. Direct benefit + 4% of GDP, the United States allowed Korea to supply troops. This period can be called the birth of "chabol", the contracts were distributed through corruption methods, the main players were determined at the same time, the backlog of financial stability for the "chabol" is given.
            5. Indirect financing of the economy. Banks and financial companies, after the outbreak of the Vietnam War, “suspiciously willingly” invest large sums in the Korean economy, often under dubious business, but the Korean economy’s project is tied to war, so it’s primarily political. Unreasonable lending resulted in a financial crisis.
            6. The structure of the Korean economy proves its politicization, 50% tied to the United States, 30% to Japan.
            1. Carnifexx 3 May 2020 15: 51 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              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. Banks and financial companies, after the outbreak of the Vietnam War, “suspiciously willingly” invest large sums in the Korean economy, often under dubious business, but the Korean economy’s project is tied to war, so it’s primarily political. Unreasonable lending resulted in 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.
  • Alexander Korovkin April 30 2020 06: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    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. Carnifexx April 30 2020 20: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Why do you think that the US dollar is unprofitable as a world currency?
      It’s profitable for the United States to be the issuer of cash only, this is $ 70 billion in strength. 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% of inflation on average over the past 100 years), since a stable currency is great for international deals. Increased demand => higher prices ... for all American products, and higher prices for products => lower demand. This is if it is 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?
      I’ll probably start with the part where he wants to make a printing press for the state corporation out of the Central Bank. It is referred to as usual on QE, although they are very different. Glazyev should be sent by the Minister of Finance in Zimbabwe. Not a subtle hint that the "genius" will not achieve anything other than prohibitive inflation.
      1. Alexander Korovkin 1 May 2020 08: 02 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        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. Carnifexx 1 May 2020 11: 05 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          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. Alexander Korovkin 2 May 2020 09: 42 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well, you yourself think ... 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, just print the extra money. By the way, this is precisely what the author of the article in "The Economist" calls for, for some reason you dropped a link to it. And look what happens - America prints extra money, and the dollar remains stable. 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 ??

            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. Carnifexx 2 May 2020 10: 27 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              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, just print the extra money. By the way, this is precisely what the author of the article in "The Economist" calls for, for some reason you dropped a link to it.
              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. Alexander Korovkin 2 May 2020 14: 58 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                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?

                I don’t 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 resolved, then you can still not solve problem number 2? Some kind of very bizarre logic ... Glazyev offers a very efficient 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 prohibitive corruption here (well, of course, in this situation, we would have it). But that is exactly what the other question is. With a sincere desire, it is quite possible to develop a set of measures that would allow distributing these loans honestly. You can start (as Glazyev suggests) with enterprises that are trying to do something in industry and high-tech. 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.
                1. Carnifexx 2 May 2020 15: 20 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  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. Alexander Korovkin 3 May 2020 19: 41 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  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 for this fall. The title of the article "Let the dollar drop." it, as it were, hints 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. Carnifexx 3 May 2020 22: 46 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  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 still "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.
  • dmitriygorshkov April 30 2020 08: 04 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    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.
  • Filosoff April 29 2020 11: 08 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    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. Carnifexx April 29 2020 12: 13 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      My question is not whether you are right or wrong (no, of course), but where did you get your “competencies” in macroeconomics? Starikov, Khazin, Fedorov, Glazyev ... I'm just curious, I'm interested in statistics.
  • NEXUS April 29 2020 09: 24 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    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. NordUral April 29 2020 12: 26 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      But as it simplifies for the military-industrial complex, NEXUS!
    2. Vol4ara April 30 2020 16: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      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+.
  • knn54 April 29 2020 09: 57 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    ETERNAL battle of the sword and shield.
  • Vol4ara April 29 2020 13: 42 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    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
      DDT April 30 2020 14: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Volchara, I’m just doing the thing that I’m plus you ... it's nice to read an adequate commentator. hi hi
  • Pessimist22 April 29 2020 06: 20 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Countries design airplanes in accordance with their military doctrine.
  • Doccor18 April 29 2020 06: 23 New
    • 8
    • 4
    +4
    Thanks to the author for the article.
    And the truth is 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. Vita vko April 29 2020 07: 41 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      The author just didn’t reach a bit, it was logical to deduce from the conflicting requirements for the 5th generation aircraft. Requirements for stealth, power, 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 little familiar with technology understands that any specialized equipment is several times cheaper and more effective when performing a limited range of tasks. That is why the engineers had to compromise on technical solutions in the F-35, J-20, and Su-57 projects despite significant budget increases. So it turns out not "workhorses" for the front and image aircraft.
      1. Kalmar April 29 2020 08: 30 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Quote: Vita VKO
        So it turns out not "workhorses" for the front and image aircraft.

        With "workhorses" the problem is seen even in another. "Stealth" was conceived as a machine for classic wars - with an equal or comparable enemy (USA versus the USSR as an example). But now such wars are not waged; most conflicts take place in the face of the overwhelming technological superiority of one side over the other. And when the enemy does not have his own modern fighter and air defense systems, it suddenly turns out that there is no use for stealth, and the existing tasks are quite successfully solved by aircraft of previous generations.
        1. Vol4ara April 29 2020 13: 50 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Kalmar
          Quote: Vita VKO
          So it turns out not "workhorses" for the front and image aircraft.

          With "workhorses" the problem is seen even in another. "Stealth" was conceived as a machine for classic wars - with an equal or comparable enemy (USA versus the USSR as an example). But now such wars are not waged; most conflicts take place in the face of the overwhelming technological superiority of one side over the other. And when the enemy does not have his own modern fighter and air defense systems, it suddenly turns out that there is no use for 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. Kalmar April 29 2020 15: 53 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            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. Vol4ara April 29 2020 16: 44 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              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 probably mistakenly drew. 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? Poland at 39 also thought that no one would attack it because France, Britain and America are “with us” and spending on a strong army is unnecessary, as a result it was publicly raped.
              1. Kalmar April 29 2020 17: 18 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                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?

                Inhale, exhale, relax. I did not say that the aforementioned "trump card in the sleeve" is not needed at all. Question of quantity: the same Americans are in no hurry to replace their entire fleet with the F-35. Some of the weapons are being developed with the intention of deterring a (more) strong enemy, while others are being designed for current tasks. So is my idea clearer?
  • Dmitry from Voronezh April 29 2020 06: 37 New
    • 16
    • 2
    +14
    I think that the bet on stealth is not wrong in principle. Of course, these aircraft are noticeable on the radar and in the infrared. But here the detection range is important, and it is noticeably lower than that of aircraft of 4 and 4 ++ generations. This is the advantage of stealth. The Americans do not plan to use their fighters in maneuverable close combat, they follow the tactics of "first saw - first killed." Plus, very advanced radars with an LPI function that reduces the likelihood of detecting a working radar. The 5th generation is not just stealth - it is a complex of technologies and here the Americans are now out of competition. Separately, it must be said about the afterburner supersonic: the Su-57 has it with the engine of the 1st stage, as is the case with the Su-35. The engine of the second stage involves reducing the thermal visibility of the Su-57.
    1. Range April 29 2020 07: 14 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      Launching a rocket from a long distance eliminates this “stealth” (rocket launch), plus the inverse trace of the rocket itself. The presence of EW means at the very goal and the technique of maneuvering missile evasion. 100% rocket will be detected and worthless then this "stealth" woodwaffle. After all, they were warned about a waste of money. The Su-57 went the other way, stealth is solved by using means of combined electronic warfare.
      1. Avior April 29 2020 07: 48 New
        • 4
        • 4
        0
        And how does a missile launch level this stealth?
        If the airplane is not visible before launch, then after launch too.
        1. Range April 29 2020 12: 25 New
          • 0
          • 3
          -3
          Can you tell me how in Syria they shoot down rockets made by stealth technology? By the way, they are shot down by our samuli and air-to-air missiles. All the more so, the Americans have no missiles operating more than 200 km, and closer they are already completely visible in the optical range. More than once they crap around with this ideology: the Phantoms in Vietnam also did not have weapons for close combat and were not intended for close combat, their MIGs clicked like nuts. I am silent about the Fu-35 with their new coating - in general, our last radar stations “Struna” and “Sky” can see them for 1000 km. My son, an aircraft designer, says that the Fu-35 is a wonderful, almost motionless target at any distance. , in other words, “kaka” in a beautiful wrap and spread by overseas scammers.
          1. Octopus April 29 2020 13: 37 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Spectrum
            How do stealth-launched rockets hit 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. Range April 29 2020 14: 22 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Okay, since your tricks are so sophisticated and invulnerable as in a joke: - "... yes, your deer, yours! Let me just take off my saddle.", Then let it be your way.
          2. Avior April 29 2020 14: 52 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Can you tell me how in Syria they shoot down rockets made by stealth technology?

            if you give a decent link to such a fact, I’m happy to read
            in general, our last radar stations “Struna” and “Sky” are seen for 1000 km.

            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. qQQQ April 29 2020 09: 27 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        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. Range April 29 2020 12: 28 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          So who is the hunter and who is the victim? Do you think there will be no answers?
          1. qQQQ April 30 2020 09: 09 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            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. Range April 30 2020 09: 17 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              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. qQQQ April 30 2020 09: 26 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                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. Range April 30 2020 09: 34 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  And the airborne 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 the penguinostan weapons, but so far these foo shih self-praises have not shown themselves in any way. And very much, even manic, they are afraid of the S-400 air defense system. They know that these complexes see them for 400 km. Yes, and guns, to see at a great distance, you need to turn on the airborne radar and then the whole "stealth" down the drain. Our SAMs ground-based air defense systems will give target designation, or do you think that the guns are allowed to approach the distance of the shot. Yeah! Right now!
                  1. DDT
                    DDT April 30 2020 14: 19 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Spectrum
                    And the airborne 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 the penguinostan weapons, but so far these foo shih self-praises have not shown themselves in any way. And very much, even manic, they are afraid of the S-400 air defense system. They know that these complexes see them for 400 km. Yes, and guns, to see at a great distance, you need to turn on the airborne radar and then the whole "stealth" down the drain. Our SAMs ground-based air defense systems will give target designation, or do you think that the guns are allowed to approach the distance of the shot. Yeah! Right now!

                    You listen too much to your son, an aircraft designer ... At the moment, Easy and Dodiks send fiery greetings and insolently fly over simple Arab huts, very unnerving these very Arabs, Russians and Persians. The fact that they sometimes do this from the airspace of Lebanon, so the S-300s are truckers, should be found over Lebanon. And about Ufimtsev, I will be extremely brief. The KGB tritely “slipped through” its publication in Western magazines, and then it came up with the legend that it was supposed to be so. Ufimtsev himself decently got on the nuts, moreover, the scientist was urgently asked to find an opportunity to deal with his stealth. “Fu” -111 was bombed with impunity in Iraq, Yugoslavia and were so overwhelmed that they even forgot to change the route regularly. Tell your son, an aircraft designer, let him construct the analogues of these “Fu” that have no world-wide instead of grind with you laces and take out the brain for specialists in VO. hi
                    1. Range April 30 2020 15: 13 New
                      • 1
                      • 2
                      -1
                      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
                        DDT April 30 2020 16: 40 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        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 explain an article about invisible aircraft, their use, their pluses, minuses, and generally about their existence. I gave you an example of how they are used and how our authors and commentators are hungry on the topic that "we see them, we can them." Yes, for some reason, as in a fable, and the eye sees, but it doesn’t. Therefore, as a responsible citizen, I think that it’s time for the sons of aircraft designers to stop discussing what is invisibility, and to banally design, build and use such a device.
                  2. qQQQ 1 May 2020 08: 52 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    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.

                    That’s not a patriot at all, I’m a supporter of objectivity, and remembering historical experience, I don’t support the patriots and haters at all. So again, without any arguments, you “drove” them into the zone of the air defense database, and what if there are none? And if you evaluate it quite objectively, then neither the s-300 nor the s-400 have combat experience and no one knows how effective they are. And as for the included on-board radar, as a rule, all flights with them are accompanied by AWACS, unfortunately they have a lot of them, and they are well equipped.
                    1. Range 2 May 2020 14: 16 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      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. Alexey Sommer April 29 2020 07: 29 New
      • 9
      • 2
      +7
      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. vvvjak April 29 2020 09: 10 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        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. Avior April 29 2020 10: 01 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          and that camouflage is not needed?
          all the more advanced, which reduces the effectiveness of the television?
          1. vvvjak April 29 2020 10: 13 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: Avior
            and that camouflage is not needed?

            It is necessary, but not to the detriment of other functional characteristics.
            1. Avior April 29 2020 10: 26 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              and this is always a compromise
              1. vvvjak April 29 2020 10: 53 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                "Good" is such a compromise. Because it will become somewhat more difficult to aim at a fighter, deprive him of mobility and normal breathing.
                1. Avior April 29 2020 11: 08 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  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. vvvjak April 29 2020 11: 16 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2
                    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. Avior April 29 2020 11: 30 New
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      +1
                      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. vvvjak April 29 2020 12: 03 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        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 the wooden low-speed 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 at the head of the angle, to the detriment of other characteristics.
                      2. Avior April 29 2020 14: 58 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        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. vvvjak April 29 2020 15: 19 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        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, a comparison of incorrect body armor is something like the Su 25, and the F 35 is exactly the “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. Avior April 29 2020 16: 11 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        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. vvvjak April 29 2020 16: 43 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        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 claimed characteristics are not confirmed in practice. If you read the article, then the F35 cannot fly on supersonic sound. “stealth” coating exfoliates (as in rain, snow, dust), and in addition, a rear-view radar flies. Armament 9 t. This is 10 pendants (4 inside, 6 outdoor). The use of internal compartments is limited by their size, and with external suspension, the "stealth" is lost. The flight altitude is limited to 7 thousand due to problems with oxygen equipment, the helmet "fills" with green, etc. (a total of about 900 deficiencies as removable and not).
                      6. Avior April 29 2020 16: 47 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        If you read the article, then the F35 cannot fly on supersonic sound. “stealth” coating exfoliates (as in rain, snow, dust), and in addition, a rear-view radar flies.

                        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?
  • DDT
    DDT April 30 2020 21: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    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 to them. Well, in any case, despite the fact that they already wrote about the fact that the target caught on the radar, you still need to have time to give target designation to the planes in the sky, and accompany all this so that the target does not slip from the homing missile. That's how peas are against the wall. To all the iron answer - "no one is invisible nonche" hi
  • Peter is not the first April 29 2020 08: 34 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    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. vadson April 29 2020 14: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      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. Kasym April 29 2020 19: 47 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      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
  • Doctor April 29 2020 09: 33 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    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.
  • kpd
    kpd April 29 2020 10: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    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.
  • Oyo Sarkazmi April 29 2020 15: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
    This is the advantage of stealth.

    You contradict yourself. Stealth in stealth mode - blind. If you get target designation on the "military Internet" - you are already shining 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. Peter is not the first April 29 2020 20: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Yes, an airplane with stealth technology must be blind with its detection tools, at least F-22, which does not have an optical station, but nothing prevents it from receiving information from other participants of the Link 16 operation. To be in information reception mode, and then in this mode it will be hardly noticeable for radar detection devices and invisible to electron-optical locators at a distance of more than 80 km, as you wrote. And already from a distance of more than 80 km he will 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. Oyo Sarkazmi April 29 2020 22: 02 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        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.
  • Mitroha April 29 2020 06: 50 New
    • 8
    • 7
    +1
    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. Dmitry from Voronezh April 29 2020 06: 59 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      In general, I agree. The American military-industrial complex seeks to bend "partners" under it. For them, this is normal - nothing personal, just business. 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. At the same time, with regard to stealth, here the Americans have a wealth of experience, like no other. Therefore, I would not conclude that they are doing nonsense. Another thing, maybe there are cheaper alternatives to stealth, for example, electronic warfare.
      1. Mitroha April 29 2020 07: 10 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        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. Dmitry from Voronezh April 29 2020 07: 35 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          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. Octopus April 29 2020 13: 49 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
        In general, I agree. The US 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.
  • Siberian54 April 29 2020 06: 57 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Invisibility is needed, but not to the detriment of combat properties, it's me so clumsy about the "golden mean" ..
    1. NDR-791 April 29 2020 07: 12 New
      • 0
      • 4
      -4
      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. Avior April 29 2020 07: 25 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Airplanes in general are more expensive with each generation.
        At a price of f-35 is much cheaper than European Rafal and Eurofighter
      2. Carnifexx April 29 2020 09: 54 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        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.
  • rocket757 April 29 2020 07: 02 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    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.
  • Normal ok April 29 2020 07: 09 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    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. Stalllker April 29 2020 07: 22 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      And what's the point? I can’t catch something?
  • Courier April 29 2020 07: 33 New
    • 0
    • 6
    -6
    The American fighter can see radar S-400, and, accordingly, the promising S-500.

    With 600 they also see
    1. pru-pavel April 29 2020 07: 39 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      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. smaug78 April 29 2020 09: 28 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        closes of course, after we wash our boots in the Indian Ocean and Saddam defeats Bush laughing
  • Hermit21 April 29 2020 08: 14 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    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 afterburning supersonic speed


    Lol In fact, with 117 it develops. And quicker than Khryapa
  • Maks1995 April 29 2020 08: 47 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    It's like the old fox and grape story
    Who can do that and do stealth. Who can not - writes accusatory. How many "derogatory" articles have already been .....
  • SVD68 April 29 2020 09: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    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.
  • smaug78 April 29 2020 09: 26 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    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.
  • EvilLion April 29 2020 09: 33 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    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.
  • Carnifexx April 29 2020 09: 50 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    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.
  • Vasily Ponomarev April 29 2020 09: 58 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    > Such a fighter can carry weapons only in the internal compartments
    can not read further
  • _Ugene_ April 29 2020 10: 08 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    "stealth fighters" is clearly visible, no matter what the US military would say. This is especially true for F-35, which in terms of effective area of ​​scattering (EPR) is much worse than 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.
    25 again, where did the firewood come from? how can the author confirm these words? and what does it mean to "see perfectly"? perfectly see from what distance when they are already destroyed by the same f-35? perfectly see and perfectly direct missiles? shorter than cheers, Americans are stupid, throw their hats f-35
  • Usher April 29 2020 10: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    but inferior in maneuverability to many Russian fighters even of the fourth generation

    in the sense of EVEN? Not even, but naturally.
  • iouris April 29 2020 12: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The bet is on coronavirus.
  • Octopus April 29 2020 13: 56 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    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. prodi April 29 2020 14: 51 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      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. Octopus April 29 2020 16: 08 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        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. Cyril G ... April 30 2020 01: 12 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          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. Octopus April 30 2020 01: 34 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            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. Cyril G ... April 30 2020 08: 32 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              All right. Anyway, it’s war for that.
  • madjik April 30 2020 08: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    the author is worried about amers and their money? let the flag be in their hands and let them go this way!
  • DDT
    DDT April 30 2020 13: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "... 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.
  • grumbler April 30 2020 16: 22 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    As far as I know the history of this case, P. Ya. Ufimtsev did not invent "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 understanding Ufimtsev’s “matan” (at that time there was still a wide gap in the mathematical culture of engineers and physicists).

    As for the bet on stealth, imho (with such a small letter "i") today to exaggerate its value is no longer possible. If it comes to a collision with an equal enemy, that the fighters operate in a space of almost 100% but covered by highly-integrated means of observation (in all accessible physical fields), by their own and the enemy. A fighter is not a single “deep penetration tool” like B-2 or F-117, which appear “without warning” (to destroy point strategic objects, to open and / or suppress air defense). When fighters fly into the air, this is a rather noisy event. It is preceded by the transfer of aircraft closer to the area of ​​operation.
    It is accompanied by a multiple increase in the "radio background" (signalmen, satellites, AWACS radars, air defense covering systems ...). And, if the "swarm buzzed", such preparations can not be overlooked.
    Or, on the contrary, if fighters are used to protect their sky, then they work, illuminated by their radars (reflecting their powerful signal and “into the eyes” of the enemy).
    And it turns out that about the "inconspicuousness" of fighters in the air in general, you can completely forget.

    Then the idea arises of turning the fighter into a "gun with wings." Having transferred all the reconnaissance, processing and target designation to the distributed Monitoring, Control and Targeting System (SSC), and leave on board the ship:
    - Highly stable (multi-channel, encrypted, ultra-wideband) communication for data exchange with this SSC).
    At the same time, the ister receives only a “squeeze” that is essential for it (updates about the environment, target designation, recommended bundles of trajectories, etc.)
    - Passive sensors that allow you to collect data on the disturbances of the surrounding physical. fields (as a "sideline" 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, more maneuverable. Such a “radar-passive” aircraft 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 who are leaving.

    But, a significant minus of "network-centricity" is a critical dependence on the stability of data exchange channels and nodes of the SECC. What outweighs? - a systemic question.
  • DDT
    DDT April 30 2020 16: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: grumbler
    As far as I know the history of this case, P. Ya. Ufimtsev did not invent "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 understanding Ufimtsev’s “matan” (at that time there was still a wide gap in the mathematical culture of engineers and physicists).

    As for the bet on stealth, imho (with such a small letter "i") today to exaggerate its value is no longer possible. If it comes to a collision with an equal enemy, that the fighters operate in a space of almost 100% but covered by highly-integrated means of observation (in all accessible physical fields), by their own and the enemy. A fighter is not a single “deep penetration tool” like B-2 or F-117, which appear “without warning” (to destroy point strategic objects, to open and / or suppress air defense). When fighters fly into the air, this is a rather noisy event. It is preceded by the transfer of aircraft closer to the area of ​​operation.
    It is accompanied by a multiple increase in the "radio background" (signalmen, satellites, AWACS radars, air defense covering systems ...). And, if the "swarm buzzed", such preparations can not be overlooked.
    Or, on the contrary, if fighters are used to protect their sky, then they work, illuminated by their radars (reflecting their powerful signal and “into the eyes” of the enemy).
    And it turns out that about the "inconspicuousness" of fighters in the air in general, you can completely forget.

    Then the idea arises of turning the fighter into a "gun with wings." Having transferred all the reconnaissance, processing and target designation to the distributed Monitoring, Control and Targeting System (SSC), and leave on board the ship:
    - Highly stable (multi-channel, encrypted, ultra-wideband) communication for data exchange with this SSC).
    At the same time, the ister receives only a “squeeze” that is essential for it (updates about the environment, target designation, recommended bundles of trajectories, etc.)
    - Passive sensors that allow you to collect data on the disturbances of the surrounding physical. fields (as a "sideline" 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, more maneuverable. Such a “radar-passive” aircraft 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 who are leaving.

    But, a significant minus of "network-centricity" is a critical dependence on the stability of data exchange channels and nodes of the SECC. 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. grumbler April 30 2020 18: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Ufimtsev, not a "mathematician-theorist." He is a physicist by training and worked precisely as a radio physicist at the Central Research Institute of Radio Engineering (Central Scientific Research Institute of Radio Engineering), 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
        DDT April 30 2020 21: 32 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: grumbler
        Ufimtsev, not a "mathematician-theorist." He is a physicist by training and worked precisely as a radio physicist at the Central Research Institute of Radio Engineering (Central Scientific Research Institute of Radio Engineering), 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. grumbler 1 May 2020 08: 31 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          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
            DDT 4 May 2020 21: 09 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            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 :)
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Maksim_ok 1 May 2020 00: 50 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    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. KOLORADO73 1 May 2020 08: 35 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Calm down ok! In the other world, stealth and su35 are definitely not useful to you!
      1. Maksim_ok 1 May 2020 12: 09 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I’m calm. And someone clearly burns.
  • KOLORADO73 1 May 2020 08: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    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!
  • Alexander Korovkin 3 May 2020 09: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Carnifexx
    It was about the United States and the benefits / costs of the dominant position of their currency.

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

    You asked me to retell the meaning of the article in The Economist - approx. Its meaning is that the depreciation of the dollar is not something terrible and beneficial to America. This is already apparent from the "Let the dollar drop" header. 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.