Military Review

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

80

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Antokha
    Antokha 18 May 2020 16: 04 New
    +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
      Sky strike fighter 18 May 2020 16: 53 New
      -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
        Jack O'Neill 18 May 2020 17: 20 New
        -2
        And where did you get the idea that the characteristics of the Irbis are not advertising, like the EPR of Lightning?
        1. Sky strike fighter
          Sky strike fighter 18 May 2020 17: 29 New
          +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
            Jack O'Neill 18 May 2020 18: 49 New
            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
        Grigory_45 18 May 2020 19: 06 New
        +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.

        you somehow got hold of "Lightning" somewhere, and "drove" it to the BEC? wassat If I were you, I would not use the word "real", for that could just as well be a lie. You do not know the actual RCS and radiation pattern, and you cannot know.

        Quote: Sky Strike fighter
        Opportunities radar N035 "Irbis"

        "Irbis" is a good radar, but ... you are cunning 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, Irbis data can also be advertising, as well as Lightning data - did you ever think of that option?
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Sky strike fighter
          Sky strike fighter 18 May 2020 19: 46 New
          +1
          you somehow got hold of "Lightning" somewhere, and "drove" it to the BEC? wassat

          I took the data from the link.
          https://vpk-news.ru/articles/55597
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 18 May 2020 19: 49 New
            +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
              Sky strike fighter 18 May 2020 19: 53 New
              +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
                Grigory_45 18 May 2020 20: 01 New
                +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
                  Ka-52 19 May 2020 04: 24 New
                  -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
                  Hexenmeister 19 May 2020 09: 44 New
                  0
                  When you trumped Irbis, too, the numbers were taken to the maximum. Those. stand next to Lockheed Martin)
                  Well, to begin with, your numbers for the "catch-up" battle are out of place, since the beginning of the battle will be on a collision course. Further, where did you get the idea that the zone 10 by 10 degrees is very narrow ??? On a 400 km front, it will be more than 60 kilometers, there will be much more aircraft on such a front than missiles on a fighter! Further, zone 17 by 17 degrees is about the same 60 km along the front with a range of 200 km, that is, in fact, these are zones for different phases of the battle!
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 19 May 2020 15: 39 New
                    0
                    Quote: Hexenmeister
                    Well, for starters, your numbers for the "catch-up" battle are out of place, since the beginning of the battle will be on a collision course

                    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
                      Hexenmeister 19 May 2020 16: 45 New
                      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 did not specifically focus on this, well, since you are "touching" these numbers again, please provide the information correctly (for example, from the Irbis developer's website), and not in "translation for ..." !!!
                      And so: the site indicates a zone of "one hundred square degrees" for a detection range of 350 ... 400 km. If a fighter is flying at an altitude of 10 km, then the radio horizon for it will be at the level of the same 400 km (low-altitude targets). Accordingly, if you set the viewing area in elevation angle of only 3 degrees, then at a distance of 400 km, an 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 don’t think 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 you rush between the sizes of the viewing areas, it would not be bad to understand why suddenly there is a decrease in the range ??? Why don't your numbers fit with the simplest explanations for this ??? Apparently there are some more parameters that they "forgot" to tell the experts! And finally, what prevents the use of "narrow" methods in the "right" places of the "wide" field of view, and thus have a "good" detection range at the right points? Nothing stands in the way of how to make this a separate question ...
                      1. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 19 May 2020 17: 24 New
                        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 concerned about American radars, then they also have a decrease in performance in conditions other than ideal (target in the PTS at high altitude in the absence of organized and natural interference) For example, max. the passport detection range of the Gripena radar with AFAR is 180 km for a fighter-type target - but, again, you can hardly find a reservation that this is true only for a narrow "field of view". It is an axiom: the wider the scanning beam, the shorter the detection range. Therefore the max. the passport range of almost any aircraft radar can be safely divided in two in order to work in a mode sufficient to detect the target on its own, and not when pointing from the outside (in this case, the radar can be temporarily turned off altogether)
                      2. Hexenmeister
                        Hexenmeister 19 May 2020 17: 50 New
                        0
                        In no way can you exclude goals that are attacked in the ZPS or going with belittling (against the ground)

                        Nothing can be ruled out, only you yourself have admitted that for Doppler radars the "type of convergence" will be the decisive factor, namely for a meeting or in pursuit. And the option "towards" against the background of the underlying surface was not excluded by me.
                        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, one should not confuse the width of the radar antenna pattern, and the size of the search area and the detection range depends not only on the directivity of the antenna, the transmitter power, but also ... but experts don't know about it ...
                        And so I suggest "Peace, friendship, chewing gum!"
      3. BREAKTHROUGH READY
        BREAKTHROUGH READY 18 May 2020 22: 32 New
        -4
        you somehow got hold of "Lightning" somewhere, and "drove" it to the 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
          Grigory_45 18 May 2020 22: 39 New
          +2
          Quote: READY FOR BREAKTHROUGH
          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
            BREAKTHROUGH READY 18 May 2020 23: 02 New
            -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
        -1
        you somehow got hold of "Lightning" somewhere, and "drove" it to the BEC? wassat If I were you, I would not use the word "real", for that could just as well be a lie. You do not know the actual RCS and 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
          Grigory_45 18 May 2020 22: 59 New
          +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)
  • The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 18 May 2020 16: 06 New
    0
    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
      Vasyan1971 18 May 2020 16: 50 New
      +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 "fight on equal terms" by definition. But litaki is easy. hi
      1. Simargl
        Simargl 21 May 2020 17: 47 New
        0
        Quote: Vasyan1971
        By definition, the whale and the elephant will not be able to meet for "fight on equal terms".
        "On an equal footing" - no. But if an elephant flops into the water, even the dolphins "can". Not to mention the killer whales.
        1. Vasyan1971
          Vasyan1971 21 May 2020 18: 01 New
          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
    Barmaleyka 18 May 2020 16: 10 New
    -3
    What will happen when the F-35 and J-20 stealth fighters meet
    we will find out
  • alone
    alone 18 May 2020 16: 12 New
    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
      Eroma 18 May 2020 20: 00 New
      -1
      In hides and with sticks, but without a caronavirus! wassat
      1. alone
        alone 18 May 2020 21: 28 New
        -1
        Quote: Eroma
        In hides and with sticks, but without a caronavirus!

        wassat And without masks wassat
  • mark1
    mark1 18 May 2020 16: 14 New
    +8
    They will disperse in opposite courses, pretending that they did not notice each other (- we are invisible ...)
    1. orionvitt
      orionvitt 18 May 2020 16: 41 New
      +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
    Prahlad 18 May 2020 16: 16 New
    -10
    And what can I think, f-35 will easily take this likeness to the 5th generation and bring it down
  • knn54
    knn54 18 May 2020 16: 20 New
    0
    The 20 has a shorter range of the air-to-air missile than the 35.
  • Sergei 777
    Sergei 777 18 May 2020 16: 32 New
    +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 construction, with a rich history and generations of engineers. And of course you need experience in creating such machines. The US has more than China. Of course, now everyone will remember F117 and its Yugoslavian "everyday life". And yet it is an experience, albeit a sad one.
    What about China? And China is simply buying technology from the former USSR. And often he just steals them. Well, he steals Western developments. FC-31 is an external copy of the F-22. J-20 in the drawings of the MiG 1.44. The J-11 is our Su-27. J-10 is f-16. J-15 is a Su-33 bought from Eurointegrators. So I don't believe that the Chinese are ahead of the Americans. Stealing fragments of developments, adding your own "thoughts" and effectively decorating the plane is not all that is needed. All their life they have been stealing someone else's, and now they have suddenly taken and surpassed their "Teachers". Nonsense.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 18 May 2020 16: 33 New
    +1
    "but about which of the pilots will be on the side of the" x-hour "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 placed their planes in the air correctly.
    1. orionvitt
      orionvitt 18 May 2020 16: 55 New
      +5
      Quote: voyaka uh
      The main thing: the right collective tactics.

      Yes, this is the main thing. But by no means "building airplanes in the air". Nowadays, the fighter pilot is not alone in the air. He is accompanied, looked after, dozens or even hundreds of people from various ground services work for him. Which have the most powerful radars, space detection equipment, reconnaissance and God knows how much more. They give target designation, prompt, direct, warn, and so on. There is only one conclusion: the winner is not the one with the "better" aircraft, but the one with a more developed and more perfect structure in general. As in the field of data exchange, and in the field of general interaction of the branches of the armed forces. And this is more a matter of command and control.
      1. Ka-52
        Ka-52 19 May 2020 05: 11 New
        -1
        Which have the most powerful radars, space detection equipment, reconnaissance and God knows how much more. They give target designation, prompt, direct, warn, and so on. There is only one conclusion: the winner is not the one with the "better" aircraft, but the one with 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
      Simargl 21 May 2020 17: 52 New
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      And the skill of the pilots is of secondary importance.
      Yeah! Learned to take off / land and okay ...
  • Andrei Gurov
    Andrei Gurov 18 May 2020 16: 41 New
    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
    rocket757 18 May 2020 16: 47 New
    +2
    Luck will "smile" on the one who has a better support infrastructure! But how the pilot will be able to use this advantage, even guessing.
  • Alex flanker
    Alex flanker 18 May 2020 16: 49 New
    +1
    Sample Schematic Diagram


    Fire Chart! What did the author want to show on it? What does baby paint own?
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 18 May 2020 21: 31 New
      +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
        Avior 18 May 2020 22: 29 New
        -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
        Alex flanker 19 May 2020 07: 41 New
        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
    123456789 18 May 2020 17: 02 New
    -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
      Simargl 21 May 2020 17: 37 New
      -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
    Dzafdet 18 May 2020 17: 19 New
    -3
    Already got these storytellers. EPR F-22 = 0,2 sq. m. EPR F-35 = 0,3-0,4 sq.m. DOT...
    1. Avior
      Avior 18 May 2020 20: 55 New
      +2
      wrote a DOT, but they themselves put an ellipsis smile
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 18 May 2020 17: 56 New
    +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
    svp67 18 May 2020 18: 17 New
    +1
    What will happen when the F-35 stealth fighter encounters and ...
    J-31?
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 18 May 2020 18: 36 New
    -1
    There is also such a magical thing: EW, which reduces stealth to a meaningless parameter.
  • vkd.dvk
    vkd.dvk 18 May 2020 18: 43 New
    -2
    Quote: Jack O'Neill
    And where did you get the idea 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
      voyaka uh 18 May 2020 18: 52 New
      +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
    vkd.dvk 18 May 2020 18: 59 New
    -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
      vkd.dvk 18 May 2020 19: 13 New
      -1
      Continue.
      An organization such as Hezbollah is best kept away from our borders, weakened, and busy dismantling with you.
    2. Vitaly gusin
      Vitaly gusin 18 May 2020 19: 59 New
      -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
      vadim dok 18 May 2020 21: 05 New
      +1
      Good excuse! Keep up the good work!
  • vkd.dvk
    vkd.dvk 18 May 2020 19: 04 New
    +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
      Vitaly gusin 18 May 2020 21: 00 New
      -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
      voyaka uh 18 May 2020 21: 11 New
      +1
      "Including locators should work only 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
    vkd.dvk 19 May 2020 00: 14 New
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    "Including locators should work only 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
    vkd.dvk 19 May 2020 00: 21 New
    -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
    vkd.dvk 19 May 2020 00: 30 New
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    "Including locators should work only 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
    yfast 19 May 2020 00: 44 New
    0
    Are ESRs from the rear in F22 and F35 very equally low? Well then, the Su-35 has nothing to worry about.
  • Wasilii
    Wasilii 19 May 2020 01: 54 New
    0
    Over and over, people who understand radar as a cow in ballet post some garbage.
  • Shahno
    Shahno 19 May 2020 09: 47 New
    0
    Quote: Hexenmeister
    When you trumped Irbis, too, the numbers were taken to the maximum. Those. stand next to Lockheed Martin)
    Well, to begin with, your numbers for the "catch-up" battle are out of place, since the beginning of the battle will be on a collision course. Further, where did you get the idea that the zone 10 by 10 degrees is very narrow ??? On a 400 km front, it will be more than 60 kilometers, there will be much more aircraft on such a front than missiles on a fighter! Further, zone 17 by 17 degrees is about the same 60 km along the front with 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
    Nadrub 19 May 2020 10: 19 New
    -1
    There will be nothing, they are invisible :) will fly apart in different directions without having seen each other :)
  • vkd.dvk
    vkd.dvk 19 May 2020 18: 29 New
    0
    Quote: vadim dok
    Good excuse! Keep up the good work!

    Your version?
  • Oyo Sarkazmi
    Oyo Sarkazmi 19 May 2020 19: 37 New
    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
      3danimal 21 May 2020 00: 01 New
      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
        Oyo Sarkazmi 21 May 2020 14: 11 New
        0
        Well, what prevents the enemy, not even "stealth", to work in passive mode, or by scanning the front sphere only with an electro-optical device?
        In addition, eFKs 22 and 35 are networked, which continuously exchange information with AWACS, a satellite, another aircraft, which is why they "glow" that even the MiG-21 can be caught. And if the F-35 is discovered by the MiG-21, the eFki has no chance of leaving.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 21 May 2020 19: 16 New
          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
          3danimal 21 May 2020 19: 39 New
          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
            Oyo Sarkazmi 21 May 2020 21: 47 New
            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
              3danimal 21 May 2020 22: 05 New
              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
                Oyo Sarkazmi 22 May 2020 20: 43 New
                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 modern MiG-21s, with Israeli "pumping" - an AFAR locator, an onboard computer for controlling weapons, modern detectors, electronic countermeasures systems. These are in service with Bulgaria and Croatia. There, instead of one hundred percent lamp blocks, there are palm-sized boards.
                As for the "network" transceivers, their power is tens of watts, and due to maneuvering, the radiation is not focused into the beam. The horizontal component has power in watts. And to understand how easy it is to detect, take a look at a satellite dish - it picks up a reliable 12 GHz signal from a 500 W transponder 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
                  3danimal 23 May 2020 00: 08 New
                  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
    Dzafdet 20 May 2020 18: 11 New
    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.

    you somehow got hold of "Lightning" somewhere, and "drove" it to the BEC? wassat If I were you, I would not use the word "real", for that could just as well be a lie. You do not know the actual RCS and radiation pattern, and you cannot know.

    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    Opportunities radar N035 "Irbis"

    "Irbis" is a good radar, but ... you are cunning 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, Irbis data can also be advertising, as well as Lightning data - did you ever think of that 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
      3danimal 21 May 2020 00: 03 New
      0
      Is this a joke? You still say that the brave special forces captured a couple of American F-22 laughing
  • Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 21 May 2020 15: 33 New
    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