What will happen when the F-35 and J-20 stealth fighters “meet”: the role of EPR parameters


What will happen if fifth-generation fighters of the Chinese Air Force and the US Air Force "meet" in the area of ​​a military operation or patrol? This question only at first glance seems somewhat strange. But, by and large, it has relevance due to the fact that American aircraft carriers with an aircraft wing from the F-35B are frequent guests in the waters adjacent to the sea borders of China. Moreover, fifth-generation F-35 aircraft are at the disposal of the regional neighbors of the PRC - Japan and South Korea. Soon they can become the basis of the Singapore military fleet.


The likelihood of a “meeting" F-35 and J-20 during patrols increases. And given that in the United States and China they like to put the "stealth" characteristics of their fighters in the first place, then it is worth considering such a meeting from the point of view of which of them will be the first to find the enemy.

For the Chinese fighter J-20 at frequencies of about 10 GHz, the EPR (effective scattering area) in the bow is in the range of 0,01-0,1 sq.m. In China, it is claimed that such indicators were obtained during testing in the BEC (anechoic chamber). In this situation, we are talking about a radio frequency BEC - one where there is no radio wave reflection from the walls of an enclosed space.

For the American F-35, taking into account the same angle, the EPR is estimated in thousandths of a square meter.

What will happen when the F-35 and J-20 stealth fighters “meet”: the role of EPR parameters

An approximate schematic EPR diagram for F-35, where the circle of the minimum radius corresponds to the declared 0,001 sq.m.


However, this, as in the Chinese case, is the data presented by the local media. How things really are with the J-20 and F-35 EPRs is an open question. But based on the data that is publicly available, the stealth of an American fighter is still higher than the stealth parameters of the brainchild of the Chinese military aircraft industry. That is, the "American" has an advantage in detecting, and therefore in the primacy of the attack (if we consider just such an option of "meeting" opponents in the air).

That's just all these calculations are ineffective in the case of a real air battle. After all, a situation in which the J-20 and F-35 will go one on another "nose to nose" has an extremely low probability. Accordingly, the detection (non-detection) parameters do not even depend so much on the capabilities of the radars (although, of course, also on them), but on the angle at which fighters will turn out to be at one time or another. The thing is quite obvious.

In other words, a possible meeting between the American and Chinese “invisibles” is not even “about invisibility” as such, but about who of the pilots will be lucky in the “X-hour”. Unless, of course, ignore individual skill, as well as additional means of assistance in the form of environmental monitoring tools that are not related to the avionics of the fifth generation fighter itself.

It turns out that even in the case of a “meeting” of two stealth aircraft (and with a hypothetical need to take the fight), the stealth of the fighter can hardly be put in the first place. Much more important is maneuverability and armament, its speed characteristics and the mentioned skill of a military pilot. Even the banal number of flying hours can play a role more important than the one that was determined when applying the stealth coating. First of all, this coverage can be important for overcoming ground-based air defense lines, but when entering a potential air battle, its importance is clearly reduced.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Antokha 18 May 2020 16: 04 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    But, by and large, it has relevance due to the fact that Chinese aircraft carriers with an air wing from F-35B are frequent guests in the waters adjacent to the sea borders of China.

    It would be necessary to correct.
    1. Sky strike fighter 18 May 2020 16: 53 New
      • 6
      • 9
      -3
      An approximate schematic EPR diagram for F-35, where the circle of the minimum radius corresponds to the declared 0,001 sq.m.

      Really need to fix. Bullshit in the above quote. That's how the PR people overclocked.
      Here are the real numbers.
      with fifth-generation “invisibles” F-22 and F-35, in which the EPR (contrary to advertising information from manufacturers) is within 0,05–0,2 square meters.


      Opportunities radar N035 "Irbis" with HEADLIGHTS.
      In the N035 Irbis radar with a phased array installed on the Su-35S, the designers managed to obtain a record output peak radiation power of 20 kilowatts. In this connection, Irbis has become the most powerful airborne radar in the world.
      The targets with an EPR of 0,01 square meters are detected at a distance of up to 100 kilometers, 0,1 square meters - 160 kilometers, 1 square meter - 270 kilometers, 3 square meters - 400 kilometers. The resolution when mapping the terrain is not more than 1 meter.
      Irbis simultaneously accompanies up to 30 air targets and fires up to eight. When working with ground targets, four are accompanied at the same time, two are fired upon.
      The viewing angle in azimuth during electronic scanning is plus or minus 60 degrees. When using the hydraulic drive of the antenna - plus or minus 120 degrees.
      The station operates in the X-band. The headlamp with a diameter of 900 millimeters includes 1779 transceiver elements.

      1. Jack O'Neill 18 May 2020 17: 20 New
        • 7
        • 9
        -2
        And where did you get that the characteristics of the Irbis are not advertising, like the EPR of Lightning?
        1. Sky strike fighter 18 May 2020 17: 29 New
          • 9
          • 8
          +1
          We don’t have companies like Lockheed Martin focused on PR and global sales. However, the main thing for Sukhoi is to create a reliable car efficiently and cheaply. We have a slightly different situation than the Americans. And Thank God.
          1. Jack O'Neill 18 May 2020 18: 49 New
            • 8
            • 8
            0
            You want to say that Sukhoi climbs the market without advertising its products? Seriously?
            Any company will be promoting its product, that Sukhoi, that Lockheed Martin. This is the market - this is the basis!
      2. Grigory_45 18 May 2020 19: 06 New
        • 7
        • 6
        +1
        Quote: Sky Strike fighter
        Here are the real numbers.
        with fifth-generation “invisibles” F-22 and F-35, in which the EPR (contrary to advertising information from manufacturers) is within 0,05–0,2 square meters.

        didn’t you get Lightning somewhere, and “chased” him to BEC? wassat I wouldn’t use the word “real” in your place, because it could just as well be a lie. You do not know the real EPR and the radiation pattern, and you cannot know.

        Quote: Sky Strike fighter
        Opportunities radar N035 "Irbis"

        "Irbis" is a good radar, but ... you are disingenuous again.
        Quote: Sky Strike fighter
        The targets with an EPR of 0,01 square meters are detected at a distance of up to 100 kilometers, 0,1 square meters - 160 kilometers, 1 square meter - 270 kilometers, 3 square meters - 400 kilometers

        When citing data, why not cite the conditions under which these indicators are provided? Max. The radar gives its characteristics only in a very narrow scanning angle, it is simply impossible to search for a target in this mode.
        See how the detection range of the same target depends on the conditions:
        Detection range:
        - targets with an EPR of 3 square meters on the opposite courses - 350-400 km (in the field of view 10 x 10 degrees)
        - targets with an EPR of 3 square meters on the opposite courses - 200 km (in the field of view 17,3 x 17,3 degrees)
        - targets with an EPR of 3 square meters at heading courses on the background of the earth - 170 km (in the field of view 17,3 x 17,3 degrees)
        - targets with an EPR of 3 sq. m at catch-up courses - 80 km (in the field of view 17,3 x 17,3 degrees)
        - targets with an EPR of 3 square meters at catch-up courses on the background of the earth - 50 km (in the field of view 17,3 x 17,3 degrees)

        total: the detection range can vary 8 (!) times - from 400 to 50 km
        Well, again, the Irbis data can also be advertising, as well as the Lightning data - didn’t you think of such an option?
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Sky strike fighter 18 May 2020 19: 46 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          didn’t you get Lightning somewhere, and “chased” him to BEC? wassat

          I took the data from the link.
          https://vpk-news.ru/articles/55597
          1. Grigory_45 18 May 2020 19: 49 New
            • 6
            • 5
            +1
            Quote: Sky Strike fighter
            I took the data from the link.
            https://vpk-news.ru/articles/55597

            Wow! Those. Lockheed Martin is lying godlessly, and a certain Vladimir Tuchkov, without citing where he got the numbers, brought liars to the clear! Bravo! wassat
            1. Sky strike fighter 18 May 2020 19: 53 New
              • 7
              • 6
              +1
              The fact that Lockheed Martin is lying without any options. They simply clarified, adjusted the advertising data on the stealth of the F-35 closer to the real ones in this article. There is not such a big discrepancy. The Americans simply embellished a little. As always.
              1. Grigory_45 18 May 2020 20: 01 New
                • 5
                • 4
                +1
                Quote: Sky Strike fighter
                The fact that Lockheed Martin is lying without options

                naturally. This is an American corporation, therefore lies by definition)

                Quote: Sky Strike fighter
                We just clarified, adjusted advertising data on stealth F-35 closer to real

                Yes, how do they know the real, if they are classified ??? Or just multiplied the numbers from the handout by the number taken from the ceiling? And these are true figures, in your opinion?

                In my opinion, Lockheed Martin is not lying. Just telling only part of the truth. EPR Lightning can actually be in hundredths of a percent, the whole question - from what angle? In order to evaluate the stealth apparatus, you need to know not only the absolute numbers of the EPR, but the radiation pattern. From one angle, the plane is more noticeable, from another - less. Just brought the minimum measured value. When you trumped Irbis, too, the numbers were taken to the maximum. Those. stand next to Lockheed Martin)
                1. Ka-52 19 May 2020 04: 24 New
                  • 1
                  • 5
                  -4
                  Gregory_45 (Gregory) Yesterday, 20:01

                  the defenders of American weapons its manufacturers never lie. They only:
                  ... just speaks only part of the truth

                  ... How cute. Not enough luminous halo and flying angels laughing
                2. Hexenmeister 19 May 2020 09: 44 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  When you trumped Irbis, too, the numbers were taken to the maximum. Those. stand next to Lockheed Martin)
                  Well, for starters, your numbers for the “catch-up” battle are out of place, since the start of the battle will be on the opposite courses. Further, and where did you get the idea that the 10-by-10-degree zone is very narrow ??? On the front at 400 km range it will be more than 60 kilometers, there will be much more aircraft on such a front than missiles in a fighter! Further, zone 17 by 17 degrees is about the same 60 km along the front at a range of 200 km, that is, in fact, these are zones for different phases of the battle!
                  1. Grigory_45 19 May 2020 15: 39 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Hexenmeister
                    Well, for starters, your numbers for the “catch-up” battle are out of place, since the start of the battle will be on the opposite courses

                    very out of place.
                    firstly, the air battle is not in your written textbook, and the initial disposition of opponents can be unpredictable
                    secondly, you do not consider the option of interception
                    thirdly, and most importantly, the differences in the characteristics of the radar depending on conditions are very clearly shown

                    Quote: Hexenmeister
                    Further, and where did you get the idea that the 10-by-10-degree zone is very narrow ??? On the front at 400 km range it will be more than 60 kilometers, there will be much more aircraft on such a front than missiles in a fighter!

                    do you think wide? Is it possible to independently search for a goal? In my opinion, only when hovering from the ground, another side, or rather accurately knowing the whereabouts of the enemy. What is 60 km for a modern airplane ??? 10x10 - it's like poking a needle, hoping to get

                    Quote: Hexenmeister
                    Further, zone 17 by 17 degrees is about the same 60 km along the front at a range of 200 km, that is, in fact, these are zones for different phases of the battle!

                    and again to the first paragraph. Target detection with a given probability at a range of 350-400 and 17x17 is not provided. It is provided only in the 10x10 zone. Or only to a range of 200. Which again indicates the differences in the characteristics of the radar depending on the conditions.
                    Our people, as a rule, are not very familiar with the nuances of the radar system and believe that the radar shines at 400 in any conditions and for any purpose
                    1. Hexenmeister 19 May 2020 16: 45 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      you do not consider an interception option

                      I do not consider this option, since I consider it irrelevant for the situation of protecting one’s own territory from the intrigues of enemies in the conditions of layered ground air defense and supporting this air defense
                      and most importantly, the differences in the characteristics of the radar depending on conditions are very clearly shown

                      I will not argue, but then indicate this data for other systems, otherwise it’s somehow completely empty on American radars
                      10h10

                      I didn’t specifically focus on this, well, since you are “touching” these numbers again, please provide the information correctly (for example, from the site of the developer Irbis), and not in the “translation for ...” !!!
                      And so: on the site is indicated a zone of "one hundred square degrees" for a detection range of 350 ... 400 km. If we allow a fighter flying at an altitude of 10 km, then the radio horizon for it will be at the same 400 km (low-altitude targets). Accordingly, if you set the field of view in elevation of only 3 degrees, then at a distance of 400 km the altitude range of 20 km will overlap, more than enough! Thus, in this “distant” search, “one hundred square degrees” turn into a “33x3” zone, that is, more than two hundred along the front and 20 km in height !!! I do not think that this is a needle !!!
                      and again to the first paragraph. Target detection with a given probability at a range of 350-400 and 17x17 is not provided. It is provided only in the 10x10 zone. Or just to a range of 200.

                      Well, before rushing between the sizes of the viewing areas, it would not be bad to understand due to what suddenly a decrease in range occurs ??? Why do not your numbers fit in with the simplest explanations for this ??? Apparently there are some other parameters that "forgot" to inform the experts! And finally, and what prevents the use of "narrow" methods in the "right" places of the "wide" viewing area, and thereby having the "good" detection range at the right places? Nothing prevents how to do this a separate question ...
                      1. Grigory_45 19 May 2020 17: 24 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Hexenmeister
                        I consider it irrelevant for the situation of protecting one’s territory from the intrigues of enemies in the conditions of layered ground air defense and supporting this air defense

                        too many conditions, or rather, you create an almost perfect situation. The ideal you know where you spent the night. I can give no less than possible situations where everything will be in the exact opposite way. In no way can you exclude goals that are attacked in the ZPS or going with belittling (against the ground)

                        Quote: Hexenmeister
                        but then indicate this data for other systems, otherwise it’s somehow completely empty on American radars

                        and there was no speech for American radars. A very reasonable refinement was made to the words of my counterpart, which leads poppy. characteristics of the radar, without worrying about indicating the conditions, thereby creating the myth that the radar is able to demonstrate its maximum characteristics in any conditions.
                        If you are so happy for the American radar, then they also have a decrease in performance in conditions other than ideal (the target in the teaching staff at high altitude in the absence of organized and natural interference) For example, max. the passport detection range of the radar with the Gripen AFAR is 180 km for a fighter type target - but again, you will hardly find a reservation anywhere that this is true only for a narrow "field of view". This is an axiom: the wider the scanning beam, the shorter the detection range. Because max. the passport range of almost any aircraft radar can be safely divided in two to operate in a mode sufficient to detect the target independently, and not when hovering from the outside (in this case, the radar can be turned off altogether)
                      2. Hexenmeister 19 May 2020 17: 50 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        In no way can you exclude goals that are attacked in the ZPS or going with belittling (against the ground)

                        It is impossible to exclude anything, only you yourself admitted that for Doppler radars the “type of rapprochement” will be a decisive factor, namely, to meet or catch up. And the option "towards" against the background of the underlying surface by me was not excluded.
                        not caring about specifying conditions, thereby creating a myth

                        I do not argue, only in the absence of information any "information" will become a myth.
                        This is an axiom: the wider the scanning beam, the shorter the detection range.

                        This is not an axiom, do not confuse the width of the bottom of the radar antenna, and the size of the search area, and the detection range depends not only on the antenna gain, transmitter power, but ... in general, the textbook "Theoretical Basics of Radar" is all about it, but experts don’t know about it ...
                        And so I offer "Peace, friendship, chewing gum!"
      3. BREAKTHROUGH READY 18 May 2020 22: 32 New
        • 0
        • 4
        -4
        didn’t you get Lightning somewhere, and “chased” him to BEC?
        there is so much information on airplanes in the public domain that without problems you can simulate (even physically building and testing a copy, even a digital 3D model) and calculate the EPR with accuracy close to reality.
        1. Grigory_45 18 May 2020 22: 39 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
          there is so much information on airplanes in the public domain that without problems you can simulate (even physically building and testing a copy, at least a digital 3D model) and calculate the EPR with accuracy close to reality

          count)) And we will appreciate the results of your work. For example, the EPR of the Su-57 and F-35?
          After all, do you own all the nuances of the design of aircraft and the characteristics of stealth coatings?
          1. BREAKTHROUGH READY 18 May 2020 23: 02 New
            • 0
            • 3
            -3
            count)) And we will appreciate it
            Why do I need this? For that there are specialists.
            You know all the nuances of the design of aircraft
            the nuances of interest to us are in the public domain (a bunch of photo-video material with literally millimeter resolution, both of the finished aircraft, and at the assembly stage
            stealth coatings
            There are no supertechnologies in radar absorbing coatings, for example, the downed U-2, F-117 and D-21 did not open anything new for our designers, for sure, the characteristics of the penguin paint are also well known.
      4. avg
        avg 18 May 2020 22: 41 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        didn’t you get Lightning somewhere, and “chased” him to BEC? wassat I wouldn’t use the word “real” in your place, because it could just as well be a lie. You do not know the real EPR and the radiation pattern, and you cannot know.

        I won’t take any figures at all. I’ll only recall the complaints of American pilots about the violation of stealth coverage after flights, that it literally flies when the storage conditions of the aircraft are violated, weather, etc. Now imagine a warring aircraft carrier and stealth conditions covering aircraft on it. What remains of tabular EPR?
        1. Grigory_45 18 May 2020 22: 59 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: avg
          I won’t take any figures at all. I’ll only recall the complaints of American pilots about the violation of stealth coverage after flights, that it literally flies when the storage conditions of the aircraft are violated, weather, etc. Now imagine a warring aircraft carrier and stealth conditions covering aircraft on it. What remains of tabular EPR?

          specifications are always indicated for a fully technically sound apparatus. With the same success, it will be possible to doubt the speed, range, operation of avionics, etc. participated in the device database. And to doubt that the skin doesn’t come off the Chinese crafts (though we don’t know about it, because the PLA is extremely unlikely to talk about the problems of its technology)
  • This question only at first glance seems somewhat strange.
    This question from the series "Who is stronger than a whale or an elephant" seems already boring ...
    1. Vasyan1971 18 May 2020 16: 50 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      This question is from the series "who is stronger than a whale or an elephant"

      Not not not ... The whale and the elephant will not be able to meet for “fighting on equal terms” by definition. But litaki - easily. hi
      1. Simargl 21 May 2020 17: 47 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Vasyan1971
        Keith and the elephant will not be able to meet for “fighting on equal terms” by definition.
        On an equal footing - no. But if an elephant flops into the water, even dolphins will "be able to". Not to mention killer whales.
        1. Vasyan1971 21 May 2020 18: 01 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Let me remind you: initially it was:
          What will happen if fifth-generation fighters of the Chinese Air Force and the US Air Force "meet" in the area of ​​a military operation or patrol?

          Later:
          Quote: Leader of the Redskins
          This question from the series "Who is stronger than a whale or an elephant" seems already boring ...

          With all due respect, the fifth generation fighters of the Chinese Air Force and the US Air Force are not a whale or an elephant. Therefore, dolphins and killer whales are also off topic. Then dolphins and sharks. hi
  • Barmaleyka 18 May 2020 16: 10 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    What will happen when the F-35 and J-20 stealth fighters meet
    we will find out
  • alone 18 May 2020 16: 12 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    But nothing .. they wave each other’s hands and disperse .. If they were to destroy each other at every meeting, then in the Globe everyone had been running in skins and with sticks for a long time
    1. Eroma 18 May 2020 20: 00 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      In hides and with sticks, but without a caronavirus! wassat
      1. alone 18 May 2020 21: 28 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: Eroma
        In hides and with sticks, but without a caronavirus!

        wassat And without masks wassat
  • mark1 18 May 2020 16: 14 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    They will disperse in opposite courses, pretending that they did not notice each other (- we are invisible ...)
    1. orionvitt 18 May 2020 16: 41 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      No, then on the pages of various publications, they will prove for a long time that it was their fighter that was the first to notice the enemy.
  • Prahlad 18 May 2020 16: 16 New
    • 4
    • 14
    -10
    And what can I think, f-35 will easily take this likeness to the 5th generation and bring it down
  • knn54 18 May 2020 16: 20 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    At “20”, the range of the air-to-air missile is less than at “35”.
  • Sergei 777 18 May 2020 16: 32 New
    • 9
    • 3
    +6
    I'm not a fan of the American VPK, but I'm sure that the F-35 EPR is less than that of the Chinese. Why?
    To create a relatively “invisible” aircraft, you need a very strong school of aircraft manufacturing, with a rich history and generations of engineers. And of course, we need experience in creating such machines. In the USA it is more than in China. Of course, now everyone will remember the F117 and its Yugoslav "everyday life." And yet this is an experience, albeit a sad one.
    And what about China? And China just buys technology from the former USSR. And often just steals them. Well, it steals Western developments. FC-31 is an external copy of F-22. J-20 in the drawings of the MiG 1.44. J-11 is our Su-27. J-10 is f-16. J-15 is a Su-33 purchased from Euro-integrators. So I do not believe that the Chinese are ahead of the Americans. To steal fragments of development add your "thoughts" and effectively decorate the plane is not all that is needed. They’ve been stealing someone else’s whole life and now they have suddenly taken and surpassed their “Masters”. Nonsense.
  • voyaka uh 18 May 2020 16: 33 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    "but about the side on which side of the pilots will be in the" hour X "luck" ///
    ---
    Luck has nothing to do with it. And the skill of the pilots is of secondary importance.
    The main thing: the right collective tactics.
    The Americans and the Norwegians conducted a training aerial battle: a pair of F-22s against a group of F-35s. The results are classified. But there is an indirect conclusion that the Norwegians won.
    They had a numerical advantage, and they correctly "placed" the aircraft in the air.
    1. orionvitt 18 May 2020 16: 55 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: voyaka uh
      The main thing: the right collective tactics.

      Yes, that’s the main thing. But by no means is "building airplanes in air." Nowadays, a fighter pilot is not alone in the air. He is accompanied, patronized, dozens, if not hundreds, of people from various ground services work for him. Which have the most powerful radars, and the means of space detection, and intelligence, and God knows how many things. They give target designation, prompt, direct, warn and so on. There is only one conclusion, not the one whose plane is “better” will win, but the one who has a more developed and more perfect structure in general. As in the field of data exchange, and in the field of the general interaction of the military branches. And this is rather a question for command and control.
      1. Ka-52 19 May 2020 05: 11 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Which have the most powerful radars, and the means of space detection, and intelligence, and God knows how many things. They give target designation, prompt, direct, warn and so on. There is only one conclusion, not the one whose plane is “better” will win, but the one who has a more developed and more perfect structure in general.

        well then on paper, but forgot about the ravines .... in fact, not so long ago (in the early 2000s), American planes had problems with target recognition in the air. Reconnaissance more than once plastered focal air defense, which led to the loss of aircraft flying to bombard objects. So in reality, everything is much less fantastic than what is written in the booklet strategies
    2. Simargl 21 May 2020 17: 52 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      And the skill of the pilots is of secondary importance.
      Yeah! Learned to take off / land and okay ...
  • Andrei Gurov 18 May 2020 16: 41 New
    • 18
    • 1
    +17
    What the hell are the f-35s and j-20s invisible, Russia has a stealth army with which Ukraine has been fighting for six years, but no one has ever seen this army. This is stealth, and you are talking about some sort of aircraft.
  • rocket757 18 May 2020 16: 47 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Good luck will "smile" to someone whose support infrastructure will be better! But how the pilot will be able to use this advantage, even guessing nothing.
  • Alex flanker 18 May 2020 16: 49 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Sample Schematic Diagram


    Fire Chart! What did the author want to show on it? What does baby paint own?
    1. Grigory_45 18 May 2020 21: 31 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Alex Flanker
      Fire Chart! What did the author want to show on it? What does baby paint own?

      the author could lead such

      all the same they would say: in a paint is drawn)
      1. Avior 18 May 2020 22: 29 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        all the same they would say: in a paint is drawn)

        Think in Matkada? smile
        This chapter is for reference only. The results of mathematical
        modeling of radar dispersion characteristics
        samples of air and ground equipment

        Please note, even for such an obviously not the newest and most secret aircraft, as the F-16, the authors give only theoretical calculations according to a simplified model.
        For calculations, a perfectly conducting model was used.
        the surface of the fighter (Fig. 3.139).

        Model parameters
        aircraft surface

        Number of plots
        ellipsoids model 42
        Number of straight edging
        plots in model 20

        what can we say about more modern aircraft.
        hi
      2. Alex flanker 19 May 2020 07: 41 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The network has a simulation of the Chinese (one institute), where there are normal diagrams. Yes, they, of course, are not true either, but they give an overall picture.
        The author did not even try, he respects his readers so much that he was too lazy to spend a couple of minutes on a Google request and copying a picture.
  • 123456789 18 May 2020 17: 02 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Sergey 777
    So I do not believe that the Chinese are ahead of the Americans.

    the ark was built by an amateur, - professionals built the Titanic
    Aphorism
    1. Simargl 21 May 2020 17: 37 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: 123456789
      the ark was built by an amateur, - professionals built the Titanic
      The problem is that no one has seen the creations of lovers.
      You know that in almost every culture close geographically to the interfluve there is an ark (of its own construction)?
  • Dzafdet 18 May 2020 17: 19 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    Already got these storytellers. EPR F-22 = 0,2 sq. m. EPR F-35 = 0,3-0,4 sq.m. DOT...
    1. Avior 18 May 2020 20: 55 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      wrote a DOT, but they themselves put an ellipsis smile
  • Maks1995 18 May 2020 17: 56 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    In fact, logically, what the author describes - maneuverability, experience, etc., is primarily for close combat.
    And at medium and long distances: EPR and the ability to fool a rocket - again EPR ..
    And where there is in theory a more proven strategy and flown: with 500 pcs F35 or 15 pcs J-20

    Here I recall Krylov's fable about grapes with a fox ....
  • svp67 18 May 2020 18: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    What will happen when the F-35 stealth fighter encounters and ...
    J-31?
  • Viktor Sergeev 18 May 2020 18: 36 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    There is also such a magical thing: EW, which reduces stealth to a meaningless parameter.
  • vkd.dvk 18 May 2020 18: 43 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    Quote: Jack O'Neill
    And where did you get that the characteristics of the Irbis are not advertising, like the EPR of Lightning?

    Ask the penguins why they removed their invisibility when our SU-35 appeared in Syria? Well, not in order not to disappoint their customers?
    1. voyaka uh 18 May 2020 18: 52 New
      • 7
      • 5
      +2
      Just the other day, F-35s successfully bombed Iranian bases in Aleppo.
      And no one bothered them: neither the S-300, nor the Su-35.
  • vkd.dvk 18 May 2020 18: 59 New
    • 1
    • 6
    -5
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Just the other day, F-35s successfully bombed Iranian bases in Aleppo.
    And no one bothered them: neither the S-300, nor the Su-35.

    Explain? Iranian bases in Syria are now hindering not only the Syrians, but also ours. Helped destroy ISIS, thanks, time to go home. Neither Assad needs them anymore, nor we. Drive you up? Not pretty. Therefore, they were given the opportunity to smash them to the Jews. What, in fact, believe that you did not see them with locators? And could not knock down?
    1. vkd.dvk 18 May 2020 19: 13 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Continue.
      An organization such as Hezbollah is best kept away from our borders, weakened, and busy dismantling with you.
    2. Vitaly gusin 18 May 2020 19: 59 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Quote: vkd.dvk
      What, in fact, believe that you did not see them with locators? And could not knock down?

      Seeing and knocking it down are two arias, but from different operas.
    3. vadim dok 18 May 2020 21: 05 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Good excuse! Keep up the good work!
  • vkd.dvk 18 May 2020 19: 04 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: Victor Sergeev
    There is also such a magical thing: EW, which reduces stealth to a meaningless parameter.

    Everything is much simpler. Invisibility is not visible (?) While he observes complete radio silence. Including locators should only work in passive mode.
    Any radio signal makes it glow like a Christmas tree.
    1. Vitaly gusin 18 May 2020 21: 00 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Quote: vkd.dvk
      Any radio signal makes it glow like a Christmas tree.

      You read about MALD-J, it shines on the screens like a New Year tree and where the combat plane is, and where the operator doesn’t know the snag and they shoot at the snag, and the plane is on target. And then SANA writes that the attack is repelled.
    2. voyaka uh 18 May 2020 21: 11 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      "Including locators should only work in passive mode" ///
      -----
      They thought about it. smile So the F-35 locator also works the entire flight to the target. Special mode, not illuminating stealth. And when the bombs are dropped, he does not turn on the active mode. Active radar is only needed in aerial combat.
  • vkd.dvk 19 May 2020 00: 14 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    "Including locators should only work in passive mode" ///
    -----
    They thought about it. smile So the F-35 locator also works the entire flight to the target. Special mode, not illuminating stealth. And when the bombs are dropped, he does not turn on the active mode. Active radar is only needed in aerial combat.

    Come on, tell me. Special mode, not illuminating stealth. It is not possible to determine only what is not. If there is radiation, you can see it.
    Moreover. the direct signal from the locator is better visible than reflected from the target, and returning back. If you studied at school, you simply must know that the dispersion (attenuation) of the signal is proportional to the square of the distance. So, with the same sensitivity of the receiving equipment, the direct signal squared from the distance is stronger than the reflected one.
  • vkd.dvk 19 May 2020 00: 21 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Vitaly Gusin
    Quote: vkd.dvk
    Any radio signal makes it glow like a Christmas tree.

    You read about MALD-J, it shines on the screens like a New Year tree and where the combat plane is, and where the operator doesn’t know the snag and they shoot at the snag, and the plane is on target. And then SANA writes that the attack is repelled.

    You do not deny that the airplane is visible? And the question is not to see it, but to weed out the interference. Then, if I am right, then what the hell to trump billions on stealth technology, if you can cheat with false lights? And make a car:
    1- not able to fly,
    2- lightly armed (only there is not much to cram in the belly, there are no suspensions),
    3- slightly inflated fuel,
    4- weakly maneuvering,
    5- three times more expensive.
  • vkd.dvk 19 May 2020 00: 30 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    "Including locators should only work in passive mode" ///
    -----
    They thought about it. smile So the F-35 locator also works the entire flight to the target. Special mode, not illuminating stealth. And when the bombs are dropped, he does not turn on the active mode. Active radar is only needed in aerial combat.

    Have a good laugh together. Active locator mode during aerial combat. That is, when they grappled at a fairly short distance? But then the active mode is completely unnecessary, then, at short distances rather passive. Active very long-range mode. When the battle is not there, the search for the target.
    As far as you do not know the subject, I am surprised.
  • yfast 19 May 2020 00: 44 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Are ESRs from the rear in F22 and F35 very equally low? Well then, the Su-35 has nothing to worry about.
  • Wasilii 19 May 2020 01: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Over and over, people who understand radar as a cow in ballet post some garbage.
  • Shahno 19 May 2020 09: 47 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Hexenmeister
    When you trumped Irbis, too, the numbers were taken to the maximum. Those. stand next to Lockheed Martin)
    Well, for starters, your numbers for the “catch-up” battle are out of place, since the start of the battle will be on the opposite courses. Further, and where did you get the idea that the 10-by-10-degree zone is very narrow ??? On the front at 400 km range it will be more than 60 kilometers, there will be much more aircraft on such a front than missiles in a fighter! Further, zone 17 by 17 degrees is about the same 60 km along the front at a range of 200 km, that is, in fact, these are zones for different phases of the battle!

    Well done. I feel 20 years younger ... laughing
  • Nadrub 19 May 2020 10: 19 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    There will be nothing, they are invisible :) will fly apart in different directions without having seen each other :)
  • vkd.dvk 19 May 2020 18: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: vadim dok
    Good excuse! Keep up the good work!

    Your version?
  • Oyo Sarkazmi 19 May 2020 19: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Gee-gee-s !!! You can three times.
    A plane with a working radar is visible over 400 km. And two bright radio flashlights will look for each other in complete radio darkness!
    Considering that there is an all-round radiation detection system on airplanes, a more vigilant pilot will have priority of detection. Well, and the sensitivity of the electron-optical indicator that responds to ultraviolet luminescence of molecular oxygen from a shock wave in air.
    1. 3danimal 21 May 2020 00: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      False: in passive mode, the enemy’s active flashlight is visible from a multiple of a greater distance. And quite precisely, the 35th can work in the passive, relying on stealth (its detection range is several times less).
      1. Oyo Sarkazmi 21 May 2020 14: 11 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, what prevents the enemy, not even the "stealth", from working in passive mode, or by scanning the front sphere only with an electron-optical device?
        In addition, the eFKs 22 and 35 are networked, which continuously exchange information with AWACS, a satellite, and another aircraft, which is why they “glow”, which can even be caught by the MiG-21. And if the F-35 is detected by the Mig-21, eFki has no chance to leave.
        1. 3danimal 21 May 2020 19: 16 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Did you personally catch the F-ok connection on the Mig-21? Why not the MiG-15?
          Does an aircraft with maneuverability of the 4th generation have no chance to get away from the 2nd?
        2. 3danimal 21 May 2020 19: 39 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          A separate topic is the enormous difference in radar and armament of these aircraft from different eras. (You don’t expect the 35th to start looping from the 21st using only a cannon?)
          In reality, the pilot of the old plane finds out that it is attacked, it is too late.
          1. Oyo Sarkazmi 21 May 2020 21: 47 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Do you remember the radio silence mode? Turned on the radar - lit up. Turned on the network - lit up. And without a MiG-21 radar, it’s harder to detect, and a MiG flies faster.
            1. 3danimal 21 May 2020 22: 05 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Then the question is: how does the MiG-21 without connection find the 35th ??
              In addition, the connection at Lightning2 is made according to modern standards and is not a (tangible) unmasking factor. Do you understand that the power of a radar and a radio transmitter differs by orders of magnitude?
              Further: the radar of the 21st cannot operate in the RTR mode and has a short range. On the F-35 there is a comprehensive OLS.
              Not that the 35th, F-16 of modern modifications will detect an outdated aircraft in advance and send it a pair of AIM-120. Take a look at the history of air battles in the Middle East since the 80s: a one-goal game.
              1. Oyo Sarkazmi 22 May 2020 20: 43 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: 3danimal
                Take a look at the history of air battles in the Middle East since the 80s: a one-goal game.

                Ah, we did not understand each other ... no I mean the modern MiG-21, with the Israeli “pumping” —AFAR locator, weapon control flight computer, modern detectors, electronic countermeasures systems. These are in service with Bulgaria and Croatia. There instead of stopudovy lamp blocks there are payments in the size of a palm.
                As for the "network" transceivers, their power is tens of watts, and due to maneuvering, the radiation is unfocused in the beam. The horizontal component has power in watts. And to understand how easy it is to find, look at the satellite dish - it catches a reliable signal at 12 GHz from a transponder of 500 W at a distance of 36 thousand km. Watts at a distance of hundreds of kilometers will be noticed by a fist-sized antenna - we do not need information, we only need the phase difference of the carrier frequency to determine the direction.
                1. 3danimal 23 May 2020 00: 08 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  A radar with a power like that of the F-35 does not fit in the Mig-21, I'm not talking about the design subtleties.
                  MiG-21 will also exchange data with external sources (which direct it) and will be detected earlier.
  • Dzafdet 20 May 2020 18: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Gregory_45
    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    Here are the real numbers.
    with fifth-generation “invisibles” F-22 and F-35, in which the EPR (contrary to advertising information from manufacturers) is within 0,05–0,2 square meters.

    didn’t you get Lightning somewhere, and “chased” him to BEC? wassat I wouldn’t use the word “real” in your place, because it could just as well be a lie. You do not know the real EPR and the radiation pattern, and you cannot know.

    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    Opportunities radar N035 "Irbis"

    "Irbis" is a good radar, but ... you are disingenuous again.
    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    The targets with an EPR of 0,01 square meters are detected at a distance of up to 100 kilometers, 0,1 square meters - 160 kilometers, 1 square meter - 270 kilometers, 3 square meters - 400 kilometers

    When citing data, why not cite the conditions under which these indicators are provided? Max. The radar gives its characteristics only in a very narrow scanning angle, it is simply impossible to search for a target in this mode.
    See how the detection range of the same target depends on the conditions:
    Detection range:
    - targets with an EPR of 3 square meters on the opposite courses - 350-400 km (in the field of view 10 x 10 degrees)
    - targets with an EPR of 3 square meters on the opposite courses - 200 km (in the field of view 17,3 x 17,3 degrees)
    - targets with an EPR of 3 square meters at heading courses on the background of the earth - 170 km (in the field of view 17,3 x 17,3 degrees)
    - targets with an EPR of 3 sq. m at catch-up courses - 80 km (in the field of view 17,3 x 17,3 degrees)
    - targets with an EPR of 3 square meters at catch-up courses on the background of the earth - 50 km (in the field of view 17,3 x 17,3 degrees)

    total: the detection range can vary 8 (!) times - from 400 to 50 km
    Well, again, the Irbis data can also be advertising, as well as the Lightning data - didn’t you think of such an option?


    In Syria, ours were captured by two invisible men and taken to Moscow.
    To have an advertising EPR F-22 or F-35, you must have a coating thickness of at least 10 centimeters. And this fact is undeniable. So the real invisibility is only the F-117. He has just such a coating thickness.
    1. 3danimal 21 May 2020 00: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Is this a joke? You still say that the brave special forces captured a couple of American F-22 laughing
  • Dzafdet 21 May 2020 15: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    Is this a joke? You still say that the brave special forces captured a couple of American F-22 laughing


    No, it was the F-35 .... drinks