Military Review

“EPR by eye”: on attempts at a “visual” comparison of Su-57 and F-35 fighters

94

In the article "Pilots explained the reason for the deadline of the Su-57 program" on Utro.ru portal, a comparison was made of the Russian Su-57 and the American F-35, including such an indicator as the effective dispersion area (EPR). At the same time, the material indicates that "visually the Su-57 has more EPR than American fifth-generation fighters."


It is possible to really evaluate the EPR only when conducting special studies, and as you know, this information is strictly secret. However, is it worth comparing these aircraft in appearance and EPR? Let's try to figure it out.

The visibility of the aircraft for the radar depends on which side the radiation is coming from. Talking about visual assessment is somewhat strange - "EPR by eye" ...

1. Non-flat nozzles will only matter if the F-35 is in the rear hemisphere. When is this possible? When the fighter leaves the battle. Which is better in this case? A little less noticeability or maneuverability and efficiency? Our military thinks differently than the Americans, because a round or flat nozzle is the result of research based on the terms of reference, and you can only check who is right in battle.

2. Optical location station protruding from the housing. Such a placement can affect aerodynamics, but in any way on the EPR. To avoid reflection of the radio signal from the OLS, it must be covered with radar absorbing material. And how will the optical sensors work?

You can argue about the correctness of technical solutions for a long time, but it is worth remembering that the characteristics of the aircraft are determined by the tasks that they face. For a correct comparison, you must clearly understand the tactics of using the Su-57.

Maybe he just doesn't need flat nozzles. But on the "Hunter" they should appear.

In order to roughly imagine what role is intended for the Su-57, let's reflect on what we know about its capabilities.

1. Radars. We have a wide range of radars in the bow, two side-scan radars, plus L-band radars in slats. The presence of the L-band can only be explained by the fact that so-called "stealth" is visible in it. Yes, it’s practically DRLOU! With cruising supersonic speed and artificial intelligence (BOSES) instead of a team of operators.
2. Optical location station. Covert surveillance and attack of air targets.
3. Over-maneuverability. Best in close combat.
4. The ability to work in a team with shock drones.

Based on these characteristics, we can conclude that the main role of the Su-57 is not reduced to an unobtrusive strike aircraft, like the F-35, and it is hardly correct to compare them, too different roles. This is the center of the combat control system, protected by speed and sufficient stealth. And the enemy will attack aviation simpler.
Author:
Photos used:
Sukhoi Corporation
94 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 11 June 2020 14: 02 New
    +8
    Strange article. First, the author concludes that it is not possible to calculate the EPR of an airplane without special studies, and then begins to perform an analysis using indirect calculations!
    1. Alex777
      Alex777 11 June 2020 14: 21 New
      12
      The Military Review website requires authors in the news department. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, capacity for work, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze the text and verify facts, write concisely and interestingly. The work is paid.
      1. _Ugene_
        _Ugene_ 11 June 2020 15: 29 New
        +9
        Military Review website requires authors
        it is clearly visible in such "articles"
        1. Piramidon
          Piramidon 11 June 2020 16: 29 New
          +8
          Quote: _Ugene_
          Military Review website requires authors
          it is clearly visible in such "articles"

          Meehan got a job. laughing
      2. alexmach
        alexmach 11 June 2020 17: 40 New
        +3
        Well done! Corrected, because the editorials that they roll out mostly garbage.
      3. VO3A
        VO3A 11 June 2020 23: 01 New
        -1
        This is the center of the combat control system, protected by speed and sufficient stealth. And attacking the enemy will be easier aircraft.

        Everything in one heap ... With the centers of the system, we are very bad ... And how can it be the center if the pilot is alone? Yes, aviation can attack easier, but to detect the enemy and highlight the target if necessary, who will be? Especially when meeting with a high-tech enemy ... Here the F35 is imprisoned for this, but from the point of view of the strike functions, it is rather weak and is not needed in such numbers ... It turns out that they have a bigger strike reconnaissance, and our scout is not a scout at all, but rather a more universal percussion ... But which still does not exist ..... Armless drew a dagger and ran for a footless, a blind man saw this thing and told the deaf everything ...
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 12 June 2020 18: 53 New
          0
          Judging by the latest trends, the USA wants each F-35 to attach a pair of shock drones. Which will not be a pity to exchange with enemy aircraft. And the F-35 will be such a headquarters.
          1. VO3A
            VO3A 12 June 2020 21: 43 New
            -2
            They have a network and a control center for a long time, and they all exchange information within this network. They don’t need to put anything anywhere, it’s our clowns who supposedly put everything everywhere, or rather sculpt .. Because of the absence and impossibility of working within the framework of network-centric systems ... We have everything new in the framework of air defense ... Although it is new old with a new sticky name ...
            1. Kleon
              Kleon 13 June 2020 15: 42 New
              0
              Network-centric warfare, of course, is remarkable. But there is a danger of piercing the battle of Kursk because your servers have fallen. And they can fall because in turn the UBC fell on them.
              1. VO3A
                VO3A 13 June 2020 22: 25 New
                +1
                In Syria and Libya, and in many places, nothing falls .. but there are no special achievements ... Yes, and there are different designs, and the servers will not particularly hinder, the Amer’s model is not the only one ... And they lay their people in the old way, but they say that they are fighting in a new way ...
                1. Vlad.by
                  Vlad.by 15 June 2020 22: 26 New
                  -1
                  And what about network-centric exceptional ones in Syria and Iraq?
                  Or in hexagonal successes in bombing Syrian territory are determined by the superpowers of the penguins, and not by the tactics of a massive missile launch during a slide due to the Lebanese ridge and rapid stall in radio shadow?
                  It was the staff that screamed about the “opaque” dome built by the Krauchs, Leers, and God also knows what electronic warfare systems.
                  And what is it, excuse me, is the penguin stronger than Drying in detection systems, especially the Su-57?
                  The Su-57 has a minimum of 5 channels for detecting any target in the front hemisphere versus 3 for a penguin, with at least 3 out of 5 being as good as a penguin, and 4 out of 5 work in different ranges. Try to hide behind a stealth or hammer in obstacles.
                  1. VO3A
                    VO3A 16 June 2020 00: 35 New
                    -1
                    Penguin is, and where did you see the Su-57? Tales for children, also with such pathos ...
                  2. Outsider
                    Outsider 17 June 2020 02: 10 New
                    0
                    And what about network-centric exceptional ones in Syria and Iraq?

                    - Of course! You did not pay attention: the territory to the east of the tiger and the Euphrates - it does not belong to Assad. Yes, and Idlib for some reason is still not taken. wink That's all she is, network-centricity! laughing
                    Or in hexagonal successes in bombing Syrian territory are determined by the superpowers of penguins

                    “And them, too.”
                    ... and not the tactics of mass launching missiles during a slide because of the Lebanese ridge and rapid stall into radio shadow?

                    - Have you paid attention to the geography of the area for a long time? For example: why does Israeli aviation need to launch missiles (why not bombs ?!) in order to bomb the targets near Damascus according to your route and methodology ?? Where is Damsk - and where is Lebanon, with its ridges and the sea?
                    It was the staff that screamed about the “opaque” dome built by the Krauchs, Leers, and God also knows what electronic warfare systems.

                    - It’s some kind of near-minded journalist who squealed, was it not from the committee of chiefs of staff that they informed you?
                    And what is it, excuse me, is the penguin stronger than Drying in detection systems, especially the Su-57?

                    1. APG-81 radar with LPI (low probability of intercept) modes and a lot of bells and whistles:
                    https://youtu.be/wIwAOupjMeM
                    2. DAS full-spherical situational awareness system:
                    https://youtu.be/e1NrFZddihQ
                    3. The radio intelligence station ASQ-239:
                    https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/an-asq-239-f-35-ew-countermeasure-system
                    4. The extremely small EPR, according to some American statements, its frontal EPR is even smaller than that of the F-22, at least 1000 times less than that of the Su-57. Those. its detection range of the same radar / radar will be √√1000 = 5.62 times less.
                    5. Secretive tactical information exchange system with the F-22 and AWACS.
                    6. EOTS - electron-optical aiming system:
                    https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/mfc/pc/f-35-lightning-ll-eots/mfc-f-35-eots-pc-001.pdf
                    The Su-57 has a minimum of 5 channels for detecting any target in the front hemisphere versus 3 for a penguin, with at least 3 out of 5 being as good as a penguin, and 4 out of 5 work in different ranges. Try to hide behind a stealth or hammer in obstacles.

                    - All these channels will be in varying degrees, but all very bad to detect the F-35.
    2. Civil
      Civil 11 June 2020 14: 21 New
      -5
      “EPR by eye”: on attempts at a “visual” comparison of Su-57 and F-35 fighters

      The author, you are like that Dutch Boeing judge, everything is about and how convenient)))
    3. Sky strike fighter
      Sky strike fighter 11 June 2020 16: 09 New
      0
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      Strange article. First, the author concludes that it is not possible to calculate the EPR of an airplane without special studies, and then begins to perform an analysis using indirect calculations!


      Everyone says stealth, EPR. But somehow the Tu-95 was deceived by American air defense. So there are options. wink good
      A Russian bomber from the 50s managed to escape from American radars.

      Russian strategic Tu-95 bombers turned out to be too inconspicuous targets for American air defense systems, as evidenced by the fact that F-22 fighters had to be lifted to escort these Russian airborne planes, moreover, almost at the very American borders.
      According to official figures, a few hours ago, Russian Tu-95 strategic bombers worked out a nuclear strike on the territory of the United States, making a return visit to the American borders, amid a provocation arranged by the American B-52 near the Russian Arctic.


      How exactly the Russian Tu-95 managed to avoid detection by American radars is still unknown, however, experts do not exclude two main versions - the low efficiency of US air defense systems and the use of certain special technologies by Russian aircraft, which made it possible to hide the presence of radar.

      https://avia.pro/news/drevnie-rossiyskie-tu-95-skrylis-ot-amerikanskih-radarov-i-byli-zamecheny-tolko-u-granic-ssha
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 11 June 2020 17: 15 New
        -10
        You can’t believe everything that our media publish!
        There are no options, our Tu-95 will always be on time
        discovered, if necessary - destroyed. With this you need
        just put up, and not invent fairy tales about "special
        technologies".
        1. Herman 4223
          Herman 4223 11 June 2020 21: 26 New
          +2
          They do not need to go into the air defense zone or fly directly to the US border, they have cruise missiles in the fuzz with a range of several thousand km.
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 11 June 2020 21: 56 New
            -5
            Yes, I heard about it.
            But I wrote an answer to those who believe that the Tu-95 allegedly could
            sneak up on enemy territory.
            1. Herman 4223
              Herman 4223 11 June 2020 21: 59 New
              +1
              Maybe it was, the radar operator could go for a burger and black water, came back and there ...
            2. Herman 4223
              Herman 4223 11 June 2020 21: 59 New
              -1
              Maybe it was, the radar operator could go for a burger and black water, came back and there ...
            3. Herman 4223
              Herman 4223 11 June 2020 22: 02 New
              +1
              In general, the earth is round and could come from low altitudes or from a place where the radar is not working or is absent for some reason.
        2. DVR
          DVR 11 June 2020 22: 19 New
          +4
          Our Tu-95 will always be on time
          detected

          Even at a distance of 2000 km, when will the X-101 (102) be used with a range of 5000-5500 km?
        3. Kleon
          Kleon 13 June 2020 15: 10 New
          0
          But you must always believe the American media, colorfully painting the virtues of network-centric miracles of invisibility.
        4. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 15 June 2020 22: 44 New
          0
          There are no options, our Tu-95 will always be on time
          discovered, if necessary - destroyed. With this you need
          just put up, and not invent fairy tales about "special
          technologies"


          The simplest way is to use low altitudes to approach the line of the task. The earth, you see, is round and the radars of Norad and the like have a well-defined theoretical maximum detection range even for mastodons like Tu-95.
          And the fact that the carcasses on the last kilometers are able to go even at an altitude of 15-25 m has been proved many times over the American AUG
          It is impossible to provide everything available to our YES DRLO coast in 24/365 mode.
          If the task is set, a sufficient part of the carriers will reach the line. Moreover, by the time of their approach, the US detection systems will definitely be significantly thinned out by the first wave impacts.
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 16 June 2020 08: 14 New
            -1
            Let's stop this conversation, you can’t even explain
            why and where do some "Carcasses" need to "go at an altitude of 15-25 m."
            1. Vlad.by
              Vlad.by 13 July 2020 01: 48 New
              0
              15-25 m is figurative. Although the scouts approached the AUG at precisely 25-50 meters. And, yes, one of them hit the water with a wing and ditched it.
              And you can approach the launch line of the X-101/102 at 3000m and this will also be low altitudes for the Tu-95
              1. Bez 310
                Bez 310 13 July 2020 07: 26 New
                -1
                Enough!
                Aircraft carriers flew around?
                No need to rave!
      2. The comment was deleted.
    4. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 16 June 2020 23: 14 New
      0
      1. Non-flat nozzles will only matter if the F-35 is in the rear hemisphere.
      And where is the flat nozzle here? and how the F-35 nozzle is fundamentally different from the nozzle of the Su-57 engine
      [Center]
  2. Alien From
    Alien From 11 June 2020 14: 10 New
    +1
    People like to share the skin of a dead bear, even though you crack !!!!!!
  3. Keyser soze
    Keyser soze 11 June 2020 14: 13 New
    -11
    A visual comparison only shows me that the F35 has already riveted more than 1000 ...
    1. Alex777
      Alex777 11 June 2020 14: 23 New
      +9
      2 times less. So do not la la. hi
      https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3951852.html
      1. Keyser soze
        Keyser soze 11 June 2020 16: 03 New
        +1
        2 times less. So do not la la


        Yes, good, 520 - mea culpa .... I wanted to say that - with such a quantitative difference, the F35 can be even with an octagonal nozzle or with traction on the pedals, anyway .... laughing
        1. Alex777
          Alex777 11 June 2020 16: 27 New
          10
          Funny eccentric that ears on their sides. wink
          Now ask how many of them are ready (can fly if necessary) and at what speed can they fly? Many wonderful discoveries await you.
          How much is an hour of flight?
          How many sorties per day can they make?
          Why did the A-10s, which the F-35 should have been replaced for a long time (old age of the A-10), the States changed their minds about disarming.
          Usefully spend time. hi
          1. Alexander Mironovsky
            Alexander Mironovsky 12 June 2020 15: 25 New
            -4
            They fly, not only the Air Force, but also the sea-based ones and even the VTOL aircraft, and there is only one advice about any leaks - do not read the Russian press ..
            1. Alex777
              Alex777 12 June 2020 19: 46 New
              +1
              I have lived in the States for almost 10 years.
              I calmly read the source.
              What to read is not for you to advise me. wink
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 11 June 2020 15: 23 New
      +5
      Quote: Keyser Soze
      A visual comparison only shows me that the F35 has already riveted more than 1000 ...

      Trim the sturgeon, a Bulgarian friend))) And the second ... but I'm sorry, your opinion is interesting, but against whom are all these F-35s, what should we worry about this very much?
      1. Linxs
        Linxs 11 June 2020 18: 06 New
        -2
        The question is not against anyone ...
        The guys developed, created, assembled, put on stream.
        But the worst part is that during the development, construction, operation, they gained invaluable experience and knowledge.
        Not counting 10000 hours of raid, software updates and improvements.

        By your logic, the Su-57 can not be released. Against whom to create them and why should someone worry about them?
        Created 3pcs and nice. You can start developing the Su-67, right?
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 11 June 2020 18: 32 New
          +4
          Quote: LinxS
          By your logic, the Su-57 can not be released.

          By my logic, dear, they are there over the hill, and overseas, they can rivet F-35 even before diarrhea. As long as there is a strategic nuclear forces, those countries that do not have strategic nuclear forces should survive.
          As for the SU-57 ... so you miss one small aspect. We are not attacking anyone. Unlike the United States, which needs hordes of UAVs, F-35s and so on. And the SU-57 FOR PROTECTION is being created, this is what concerns our VKS. If in some future, the SU-57 will be exported and aggressors will use it, then I'm sorry, this is not our hemorrhoids.
          1. Linxs
            Linxs 11 June 2020 20: 33 New
            -6
            Well, yes ... We have a peaceful atom, and in the United States a military atom.
            We have a SU-57 for aeration of fields in the spring during sowing, and in the USA it is purely for war.

            I understood you.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 11 June 2020 20: 42 New
              +2
              Quote: LinxS
              We have a peaceful atom, and in the United States a military atom.

              And forgive me over the past 75 years, how many times the United States unleashed a war, invading foreign territory, do not remind?
          2. Alexander Mironovsky
            Alexander Mironovsky 12 June 2020 15: 26 New
            -3
            We are not cheating on anyone ?! Others don’t think so, for some reason ..
    3. Sky strike fighter
      Sky strike fighter 11 June 2020 15: 58 New
      +5
      The other day another fell. yes Stability is a sign of class.wink
      “The US Air Force F-35 fighter crashed while landing on June 8th. This was the third accident with testing fifth-generation fighters in the United States in less than a month. According to reports, the F-35 fighter, which was associated with the 388th fighter wing, completed the training task. According to the command of the base, the pilot quickly left the fighter after the landing of the fighter and is currently undergoing a planned medical examination. Due to a breakdown in the fighter’s chassis, the runway at Hill Air Force Base was closed, and the fighters, which were still training in the air, were transferred to other bases. It is reported that a committee will be formed to conduct an investigation into the accident, "Huan Qiu reports.

      Thus, this is the third "stealth" fighter in service with the United States, with which the incident occurred.

      https://avia.pro/news/stelsopad-v-ssha-razbilsya-tretiy-istrebitel-f-35
      1. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 11 June 2020 21: 34 New
        +1
        The third one, but they are still new, but when cars start knocking down for ten years more often, smartphones begin to fail after a few years, simply because many years and the time has come. And this is sort of a flying smartphone.
      2. mvg
        mvg 12 June 2020 11: 41 New
        -3
        From 500 ++ aircraft, 3-4 fell. Remind me how many Su-34 crashed? From what quantity? And the epoch-making visit of our “aircraft carrier” to Syria, I will not be mistaken if I say a masterpiece
  4. K-50
    K-50 11 June 2020 14: 18 New
    +5
    Maybe he just doesn't need flat nozzles. But on the Hunter they should appear.

    When, after the first publication of the photo of "The Hunter", I expressed such an idea, they zipped me on the site here. lol
    1. 5-9
      5-9 11 June 2020 14: 45 New
      11
      Flat nozzles are a significant minus in traction and the lack of a full-fledged UVT ... this is neither good nor bad, not progressive and not outdated - it all depends on what we want to achieve
      1. K-50
        K-50 11 June 2020 15: 03 New
        +6
        Quote: 5-9
        Flat nozzles are a significant minus in thrust and the lack of a full-fledged UVT ...

        Why is the “Hunter” UAV an all-round OBE? belay
        The flat nozzle is designed for the quickest cooling of the satellite jet of a jet engine, reducing thermal visibility !!!!
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. Kleon
          Kleon 13 June 2020 15: 26 New
          0
          Zamanuha is a flat nozzle, which by the way on the FY-35 is not, it gives a percentage reduction in engine thrust slightly less than a decrease in the level of thermal signature. But about the need for ATS tell pilots flying at low angles of attack. And then go where they send you.
  5. Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 11 June 2020 14: 20 New
    +2
    No offense to the author, but I describe some comments more colorfully.
  6. Maks1995
    Maks1995 11 June 2020 14: 21 New
    +2
    Yes, the article is hurt.
    First about comparison, then "and comparing them is hardly correct."
    And the fig?

    As if, the famous "did not read, but condemn."
  7. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 11 June 2020 14: 21 New
    10
    The article is generally superficial, but the question is posed - it is pointless to discuss EPR without the results of irradiating the aircraft from different angles and in different ranges. And to compare the effectiveness of different aircraft without taking into account the tactics of application, too. Again, it should be remembered that in battle, almost everything is decided by an outfit of forces and means allocated to solve the problem.
    1. Kleon
      Kleon 13 June 2020 15: 48 New
      0
      To determine the ESR of an aircraft, it is not necessary to irradiate it with radio waves. You take a photo, irradiate your eyes. Similar to Fy-22 or Fy-35 means hardly noticeable. It’s a little like to use it because you don’t.
  8. 5-9
    5-9 11 June 2020 14: 44 New
    0
    What to compare him with the Penguin? With wretched a priori dishonest ....
    About the F-22 ... it is less visible from the frontal projection, and the Su-57 is less visible from the side .... but this is not so important.
  9. KJIETyc
    KJIETyc 11 June 2020 14: 46 New
    +7
    Quote: Keyser Soze
    A visual comparison only shows me that the F35 has already riveted more than 1000 ...

    ~ 1939 I-2700 aircraft were produced in the USSR in 15, does this mean that they were better than Nazi messers? You have some kind of logic distorted, replace the concept of "quality" with the concept of "quantity".
    1. The comment was deleted.
  10. TatarinSSSR
    TatarinSSSR 11 June 2020 14: 52 New
    -8
    Oh how, everything was just chewing us stupid. And at the same time he explained why they were ordered so little. Because it’s not for them to fight. They only lead
  11. d4rkmesa
    d4rkmesa 11 June 2020 14: 52 New
    +2
    EPR can be "visually" evaluated in special packages; pie charts sometimes pop up on the network, although this is also written with pitchfork on water.
    1. Avior
      Avior 11 June 2020 15: 04 New
      +3
      Do not take it seriously, usually very simplified models are used there, they do not convey real values.
  12. Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 11 June 2020 16: 08 New
    +3
    I recalled a joke!
    The bear opened a trading tent in the forest. The first visitor came, the Hare, and ask him to sell him five grams of salt. To which the bear replied that it was not possible on its scales for technical reasons, but, as the first buyer, it could be "poured into his eyes." The hare replied, instantly, "mound itself on."
    Judging about high-tech technology, by "peephole", is comparable to ordinary verbiage.
  13. Prahlad
    Prahlad 11 June 2020 16: 57 New
    -6
    Nonsense is all this ... melee will go down in history, who will be the first to notice and win. So the Americans have a more correct concept, unfortunately for us.
    1. Marconi41
      Marconi41 11 June 2020 17: 31 New
      +7
      Quote: Prahlad
      Nonsense is all this ... melee will go down in history, who will be the first to notice and win.

      Your words exactly repeat the words of the American military of the pre-war period in Vietnam. In fact, it was after that war that artillery was returned to planes. Moreover, with the modern development of electronic warfare, a shot from far away may not be very effective.
      1. Avior
        Avior 11 June 2020 17: 56 New
        -9
        Politics intervened in Vietnam - the pilots were required to visually identify the target, which negated the advantages of the Phantom in long-range combat
        1. Alexander Seklitsky
          Alexander Seklitsky 12 June 2020 06: 14 New
          0
          Quote: Avior
          pilots were required to visually identify the target

          I'm sorry, what??? laughing where did you read such nonsense?
          1. Avior
            Avior 12 June 2020 07: 17 New
            -3
            . Although the first air-to-air missiles were used by Chiang Kai-shek fighters in the battles over the Taiwan Strait, their use was truly massive during the Vietnam War. However, in Indochina, missile weapons still did not become a decisive force in air battles.

            In conditions of dense saturation of airspace by aviation on both sides in almost all directions, the task of determining the state of a particular aircraft using on-board radio-technical identification systems "friend or foe" has become almost impossible. Reliable visual recognition was carried out at a distance of, at best, several kilometers, often less than the near boundary of the launch zones of US medium-range Sperrow missiles.

            Even the short-range missiles of the opposing sides - the Sidewinder and the Soviet K-13A - proved to be of little use in conditions of maneuverable combat, according to Western terminology, a "dog dump". The limitation on carrier overload during missile launch of the order of two units did not allow to fully realize the maneuvering capabilities of fighters. And after the launch, the missiles did not differ much in flight and could not overtake energetically maneuvering targets.

            After the cases of "friendly fire" against the background of the anti-war movement against the Vietnam War, the Phantom crew was obliged to conduct visual identification in order to exclude fire on their own.
            1. Alexander Seklitsky
              Alexander Seklitsky 12 June 2020 08: 40 New
              +2
              Quote: Avior
              In conditions of dense airspace saturation by aviation on both sides in almost all directions, the task of determining the nationality of a particular aircraft using on-board radio-technical identification systems "friend or foe" has become almost impossible.

              And where is the political moment, when from a long distance the vaunted tactics of “first saw and first shot” well, it doesn’t work at all with saturated sky. It works in banana countries, but not with a serious adversary. In a serious war, they won’t fight with one plane. And with long-range launches, you can crush your own equipment, which will spin on the battlefield. Those same scouts, attack aircraft and drones. Again, from a long range the attacked plane has a chance to detect a missile and perform a missile defense or attack it in the opposite direction.
              1. Liam
                Liam 12 June 2020 08: 42 New
                +2
                Quote: Alexander Seklitsky
                In a serious war, they won’t fight with one plane. And with long-range launches, you can crush your own equipment, which will spin on the battlefield. The same scouts, attack aircraft and drones.

                You have never heard anything about the "friend / foe" system and network centric?
                1. Alexander Seklitsky
                  Alexander Seklitsky 12 June 2020 19: 11 New
                  0
                  Quote: Liam
                  You have never heard anything about the "friend / foe" system and network centric?

                  You have already been quoted as saying that your stranger doesn’t roll with a large concentration of troops. Moreover, nobody will put them on the panel. all this net ... you’ll break the pah tongue, just verbal diarrhea. With a big kneading, God grant the usual connection between the units. It's not for you to fight with the baboons. All these newfangled little things are all cool, but in case of some planned operations with a weak opponent
              2. Avior
                Avior 12 June 2020 08: 46 New
                -2
                You write about what you have a vague idea of.
                Opponents of the war in Vietnam fanned the skies of the United States, isolated cases of their own, without which no war is complete, so politicians didn’t come up with anything more stupid to require visual identification, even when there was no need for it, which fundamentally contradicted the whole phantom application concepts.
                it is clear that nowhere else do they suffer from such stupidity.
                1. Alexander Seklitsky
                  Alexander Seklitsky 12 June 2020 19: 03 New
                  +2
                  you read more tales from the losing side. fool You broadcast real nonsense. What is visual detection? You can see the outline of the aircraft for 500 meters. Moreover, the saber is similar in silhouette to the instant 17. Yes, and losses from friendly fire can not be compared to losses from Vietnamese fire. And all these anti-war actions began after the flood of zinc coffins. And that means the effectiveness of the Amer’s troops in Vietnam was not very good. And the bombers dropped them with enviable constancy
                  1. Bad_gr
                    Bad_gr 16 June 2020 23: 59 New
                    0
                    Since the Second World War, it is practiced by the Americans to shoot first, and then they were strangers or their own. Even the bombing of Berlin at that time went with the same principle: bombers bombed simultaneously from all heights, despite the fact that the bombs could hit (and hit) their own planes, which flew lower. But according to the estimates of their analysts, the losses were acceptable.


      2. Prahlad
        Prahlad 11 June 2020 17: 58 New
        -6
        Well, this is not very correct, then there was no such level of digitalization. Now there is a rapid development of neural networks, AI, microelectronics. And here really comes to the fore, the speed of detection and processing of information .. But to bet on over-maneuverability and close combat is like cavalry against machine guns. From this we must go and focus on something else.
        1. Marconi41
          Marconi41 11 June 2020 19: 43 New
          +3
          Quote: Prahlad
          Well, this is not very correct, then there was no such level of digitalization. Now there is a rapid development of neural networks, AI, microelectronics. And here really comes to the fore, the speed of detection and information processing

          Even with all this, no one is safe from missed conditions of electronic warfare.
          1. poquello
            poquello 12 June 2020 02: 07 New
            +1
            Quote: Marconi41
            Quote: Prahlad
            Well, this is not very correct, then there was no such level of digitalization. Now there is a rapid development of neural networks, AI, microelectronics. And here really comes to the fore, the speed of detection and information processing

            Even with all this, no one is safe from missed conditions of electronic warfare.

            yes what a miss! people got out of the lair, meditated on this issue for about ten years in a cave and then gave it to the mountain, the only trouble is that during this time, both effectiveness, and maneuvers, and missile defense have demonstrated their effectiveness))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))))))
        2. Herman 4223
          Herman 4223 11 June 2020 21: 56 New
          -1
          The Su-57 has a radar of the decameter range, which can detect the aircraft stealth far, and high speed so that if something catches up and gives the adversary a soft spot. In general, it is very difficult to hit a modern fighter from large distances. Damage ranges over a hundred km will be only on the opposite courses, but on the opposite courses of the radar or OLS of a fighter, a missile launch can be detected from a great distance and the missile will simply not catch up with it. In pursuit, the firing range for the fighter drops at times and there is close at hand.
          1. Alexander Mironovsky
            Alexander Mironovsky 12 June 2020 15: 35 New
            0
            Well, he’ll notice that let me just a little while ago - this is the first, well, and in terms of speed the 22nd is not inferior to anyone
            1. Herman 4223
              Herman 4223 12 June 2020 15: 45 New
              -1
              Why do you think that is not far? And it is inferior in speed (F22), in theory it can accelerate to 2500 km but the maximum speed is limited to 2100 km due to S-shaped unregulated air intakes, the engines choke from the oncoming air stream.
              Su-57 can accelerate to 2600 and it has no speed limits.
              1. nks
                nks 12 June 2020 16: 27 New
                +1
                Quote: Herman 4223
                engines choking on the oncoming air stream.


                The raptor has a truly unregulated airspace, but it does have an exhaust system in front of the engines.



                Quote: Herman 4223
                Su-57 can accelerate to 2600 and it has no speed limits.

                To what speed the su-57 will be able to accelerate and what restrictions it will have, it will become clear when it will be taken into operation.
                1. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 17 June 2020 00: 49 New
                  0
                  Quote: Herman 4223
                  in theory, it can accelerate to 2500 km but the maximum speed is limited to 2100 km due to S-shaped unregulated air intakes

                  I met another figure at a maximum speed of 1900 km / h, the reason is the lack of adjusting wedges in the air intakes.
                  Quote: nks
                  The raptor has a truly unregulated airspace, but it does have an exhaust system in front of the engines.

                  But this is not a substitute for wedges. On our planes, there are the same bypass windows, both on planes with wedges in the duct (for example, Su-35) and those where there are no wedges (for example, Su-34)
                  [Center]

                  1. nks
                    nks 18 June 2020 09: 33 New
                    0
                    Quote: Bad_gr
                    I met another figure at a maximum speed of 1900 km / h, the reason is the lack of adjusting wedges in the air intakes.

                    where did you meet?

                    To regulate the flow in the airspace various solutions can be applied both individually and in combination. And the flaps on the SU are not "bypass", but the inlets - on the contrary, for recharge. By the way, on the Su-34 unregulated airplanes - it is quite possible the flaps there work a little differently than on fighter variants.
                    Another thing is that speeds greater than> 2M are not particularly needed. It is important to achieve optimal turbojet operation under various conditions
    2. Monter
      Monter 11 June 2020 19: 25 New
      +7
      A strange concept, what do you have, what do Americans have - whoever first noticed he won. Oh well. I remember that one, already a middle-aged hunter, while on the hunt, was the first to see a boar that came out on him, the first to shoot him. Even twice. And missed both times. The boar sharply changed the direction of running and transferred the battle to the “close” phase, i.e. at full speed rushed straight to the hunter. Like this. No, the hunter was awarded the victory in the “battle”, because he was able to climb a tree, but there wasn’t a boar.
    3. poquello
      poquello 12 June 2020 02: 01 New
      0
      Quote: Prahlad
      Nonsense is all this ... melee will go down in history, who will be the first to notice and win.

      I haven’t heard such stupidity here for a long time, and how will it win?
    4. nks
      nks 12 June 2020 16: 31 New
      0
      As practice and speculative analysis show, even if it goes down in history, it will not be soon.
      In the American exercises, the raptor regularly knocks down various types up to the growler - this means that group the battle went into the BVB phase and tactical mistakes were made (and they can always happen) and probably not in vain the LM nevertheless made the raptor optimized (by glider and remote control), including for the BVB.
    5. Kleon
      Kleon 13 June 2020 16: 18 New
      0
      The concept of Americans is the same as always - to kill a Papuan with a long-range shot. But if the Papuan is subtle and intensely maneuvering and carries the station of setting correct interference on the hump, then it is not a fact that they will get into it. It was already in Vietnam, there, without any electronic warfare and stealth in the distance, they fell very badly. Now they seem to have learned (I drank billions of budgets for forty years), but without EWs and stealth. So, it’s not a fact that it will often hit planes covered by “Khibiny”. Packs on the SU-30MKI so far failed to get.
  14. Hexenmeister
    Hexenmeister 11 June 2020 17: 33 New
    +2
    It is possible to really evaluate the EPR only when conducting special studies,
    In addition to this method, you can also use the relative method, on the same radar to determine the detection range of a target with a known EPR and the desired "object", the ratio of the detection ranges will give the EPR ratio. And such “contacts” most likely were, but after this a howl will begin that all the “invisibles” had “lenses” and so on ...
  15. Undecim
    Undecim 11 June 2020 17: 45 New
    +2
    Visually, the Su-57 has more EPR than American fifth-generation fighters.
    A note was written by a person who had no idea what he was writing about.
    There is such a characteristic as the layout indicator of the aircraft, characterizing the ratio of the areas of the side and frontal projections of the aircraft to the area of ​​the bearing surface.
    Km = H (D + L) / Scr
    where H, D, L - respectively, height, length, span
    airplane wings (for standard - diameter); Skr - wing area
    And there is an indicator of radar visibility
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 11 June 2020 18: 02 New
      +2

      And so it looks like the dependence of the value of the indicator of radar visibility Z on the value of the layout indicator Km.
      That is, a specialist can nevertheless evaluate radar visibility visually, although quite approximately.
      In addition, there are a number of structural and layout solutions that can also be visually evaluated by a specialist.
      1. Eug
        Eug 12 June 2020 07: 20 New
        0
        It is somehow strange to see the relatively low visibility of Eurofighter with its PGO .. It seems to have always been believed that the PGO very well increases the EPR.
        1. Herman 4223
          Herman 4223 12 June 2020 12: 29 New
          -1
          Rear horizontal tail also increases the EPR, and and no worse. F22 does not have PGO, but there is a PGO, despite this it is considered to be inconspicuous.
    2. nks
      nks 12 June 2020 16: 14 New
      0
      You can come up with any indicators within the framework of the chosen model, but this one was probably invented (as I understand it, a certain Anipko O.B. did it, whose competence is in a completely different field) in order to write more articles on a variety of topics. The rudeness and poor applicability to the real creation of airplanes is obvious already according to the schedule that you posted below.
  16. Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 11 June 2020 23: 49 New
    0
    What to compare? Everything is classified.
    Just speculate - they say, the F35 has 1n engine, the Su 2 has more. Yes, the Indians refused, but the cabin one time forgot to oversel ...
    A blank article.
  17. Eug
    Eug 12 June 2020 07: 17 New
    +2
    Flat nozzle on the F-35? On the F-22 - yes, but to the 35th? As I understand it, there are several complaints about the Su-57 - the lack of compressor vane blockers (but the whole inlet “assembly” with air intakes and their slots is important here), the lack of flat nozzles and poor thermal insulation of the engines. It seems that all the decisions made are a conscious choice in favor of LTH. Here the customer determines the priorities ...
    1. Kleon
      Kleon 13 June 2020 23: 10 New
      0
      Where does such hysterical confidence in the absence of a blade blocker come from? If it has not been officially reported, then it does not follow from this that it is absent or will not be soon. The thermal insulation of the casing does not give anything in terms of thermal visibility, since the temperature of the exhaust stream in the nozzle region is an order of magnitude higher than the temperature of the casing and TGSN is induced there, and not on the casing. But it will add unnecessary weight. From a square nozzle, too, more harm than good. 15% reduction in engine thrust. And it cannot radically cool anything. This is not air conditioning. The length of the hot part of the jet decreases somewhat, but what remains for the TGSN is quite enough. Therefore, there is no square nozzle on the FY-35, but a more effective solution has been applied - screening the hot part with glider elements into which the nozzle is recessed. But it’s also not an absolute panacea, and the angles in which such a solution works are limited, and, in general, at the present stage of development of infrared optics, attempts to heat-shield an airplane engine are nothing more than pampering aimed at cutting OCR budgets. We have such pampering, due to limited funds, thank God is stopped.
  18. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 12 June 2020 12: 38 New
    -1
    The Chinese view of "stealth" coincides with the American - both countries are considering the massive use of "stealth" in offensive and sabotage operations. Our approach due to geopolitical and economic reasons is different - we are making a more “defensive” aircraft. So far I have the impression ..
    "Hunter" is a kind of compromise product that meets the offensive implementation of the concept on the one hand, and much more budget than a full-fledged aircraft on the other.
    1. Kleon
      Kleon 13 June 2020 23: 18 New
      0
      You won’t believe it, but the Chinese view of some technical problem always coincides with someone’s view of solving this problem. No other is given to them.
      And the "Hunter" in the conditions of the NATO air defense proliferated may well do business on the collapse of network-centric war servers.
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 13 June 2020 23: 35 New
        0
        Well, in nature, this is called "convergence" as I recall - when creatures of different types occupying one niche begin to resemble each other. China is trying on the skin of the US approach because it is a very successful approach to manning the mobile armed forces of attack, supported by a strong economy. Given the number of claims to the territories of neighbors and the proximity to the beloved Japan, it is not surprising that China chooses this ..

        I can’t look at the “Hunter” as some effective product - so far everything that I saw and heard about it fits into a compromise between a technology demonstrator for a real stealth plane and an expensive drone, which is much more expensive and complicated than our aircraft need ( necessary from the point of view of a serial product, and not just another record-breaking thing like "Lyra")
        I also think that this product is probably useful for a real test of the capabilities of our air defense and its latest models to combat "stealth" (to a large extent) and from UAVs with low ESR (to a lesser extent).
        As a pure drone - “Hunter" has excessive characteristics in everything, including price. Its ability to carry a large assortment and load of weapons does not compensate for the fact that they will have to control remotely, which our satellite constellation is not quite ready for. If you rely on some kind of AI solutions, then I have more doubts that our industry would draw on the digital stuffing of this product, given our modest successes in processors (and their price) and also under what cap of sanctions in this area we are.

        Of course, wait and see, but so far I have such a picture.