Military Review

Sohu: Russian theory of super maneuverability is not suitable for future air combat

335

The Chinese media are trying to figure out what concept a fifth-generation fighter is being created in Russia. The author on the pages of the Sohu portal writes that this concept is significantly different from that implemented in the United States on F-22 fighter jets.


From an article on a Chinese resource:

The difference between Russian fighters and American fighters lies in two completely different theories of air combat and an understanding of the future of such a battle. Compared to American fighters, Russian fighters usually have a higher traction coefficient and excellent maneuverability.

The author writes the following:

Russians still consider air combat at short and medium distances relevant. That is why the Russian concept is based mainly on super-maneuverability.

According to the author in Sohu, in an environment where airplanes have similar electronic warfare capabilities and weaponsover-maneuverability can indeed play an important role, but this role, according to the author, is not too great:

Outside of line of sight, use over-maneuverability to avoid an attack from the enemy, and then take countermeasures. Russia has always believed that it has an advantage in the field of aerodynamics of fighters, and it continues to go the same way.

It is precisely on this theory and on this concept that the new-generation Russian fighter Su-57 appeared, according to the author of the Chinese resource.

At the same time, it is stated that if the Russian Su-57 is detected by American radars before the pilot understands this, "super-maneuverability will not help him anymore."

From the article - peremptorily:

The Russian theory of super-maneuverability is not suitable for future air combat.

According to him, the American F-22 is “completely different,” since the American concept of the development of combat aviation based on stealth technology and early detection.
Photos used:
Sukhoi Corporation
335 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. 501Legion
    501Legion 11 July 2020 07: 35 New
    42
    Time will tell, and now these are the next empty words from the Chinese
    1. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 11 July 2020 07: 54 New
      -33
      Quote: 501Legion
      Time will tell, and now these are the next empty words from the Chinese

      They are not so empty. It’s time for us psychologically to switch from Suvorovsky - a bullet-fool, a bayonet-well done, i.e. melee, to combat at great distances. And this applies to all military branches. If at the adversary an on-board locator detects our Sushka for 500 km. and his long-range missile went to the target, it is very rare for anyone to save over-maneuverability.
      The Germans during the Second World War even put optics on their MG. We tried to fight in the distance. Therefore, we have more losses.
      So, relying on over-maneuverability is stupid. The fact that she is is good. But she still needs a powerful locator and long-range weapons of high accuracy.
      1. KCA
        KCA 11 July 2020 08: 06 New
        38
        Missile defense maneuvers, especially when the enemy launches a long-range missile, are not needed at all, the rocket has infinite fuel and a handbrake, flew past the plane, missed, police turn and attack
        1. Avior
          Avior 11 July 2020 08: 39 New
          +3
          Are needed. Only the launch of two missiles in one gulp sharply reduces the capabilities of the anti-ballistic maneuver.
          1. KCA
            KCA 11 July 2020 08: 56 New
            12
            It reduces, but not sharply, because the second rocket will fly to the point where the plane is no longer there, the range of the GOS barely exceeds 30-40 km, which means it will either go on the heels, or you can forget about the “let it go and forget it” principle (oops) and the stealth will need to conduct the RVVBD until it captures the target, the SU-57, as shown recently, can launch missiles when maneuvering, at least in vertical flight, when maneuvering the first missile, if the second is escorted, the response will fly
            1. Avior
              Avior 11 July 2020 09: 03 New
              +1
              If the missiles are launched in one gulp with a certain delay in time, the second will hit the plane at the exit of the anti-missile maneuver against the first, when the aircraft’s energy is lost. At that moment, the second one will capture the goal of the GOS for a long time.
              And with a missile defense there will be no time for return fire.
              1. Thunderbringer
                Thunderbringer 11 July 2020 12: 30 New
                -4
                If the computer is engaged in shooting, then he does not care what kind of maneuver there is, it will just be taken into account.
              2. Afotin
                Afotin 12 July 2020 15: 34 New
                +2
                This is true when the thrust ratio is less than unity. The Su-57 imposes limitations on maneuverability in the first place, what kind of overload the pilot can withstand. And with existing missiles of a likely enemy of a long-range air-to-air class with agility, on the contrary, things are quite sad.
            2. 3danimal
              3danimal 11 July 2020 15: 01 New
              -3
              Launch missiles with infrared seeker? smile
              Maybe, like many others.
              Already being attacked, it will be forced to “twist” maneuvers (when it receives a warning) and will be limited in its response against the opponent (inconspicuous) at a long / medium distance.
          2. user1212
            user1212 11 July 2020 08: 58 New
            +2
            Quote: Avior
            Only the launch of two missiles in one gulp sharply reduces the capabilities of the anti-ballistic maneuver.

            Generally not affected
        2. Romario_R
          Romario_R 11 July 2020 11: 15 New
          -8
          I am also for ours, but the fact that we have su35 and su57 are "blind" is a fact ...
        3. Krasnoyarsk
          Krasnoyarsk 11 July 2020 17: 56 New
          -3
          Quote: KCA
          Missile defense maneuvers, especially when the enemy launches a long-range missile, are not needed at all,

          I understood your irony. Those. Do you continue to rely on our all-super-maneuverability?

          Quote: KCA
          the rocket has the same fuel infinite and the handbrake, flew past the plane, rrraz, police U-turn and attack

          A bit wrong. GOS missiles begin to respond simultaneously with a change in the aircraft's motion vector. So, no "rrraz and police reversal."
          And also, do not forget that the time of aerial combat is seconds.
          The I-16, at one time, possessed super-maneuverability, and what, did it help him greatly?
          1. poquello
            poquello 11 July 2020 18: 17 New
            12
            Quote: Krasnoyarsk
            The I-16, at one time, possessed super-maneuverability, and what, did it help him greatly?

            and what is wrong with the I-16?
            Today it’s worth finally declaring the opposite, for it was the I-16 fighters, together with Polikarpov’s other brainchild, the I-153 biplane, that defended their native country in the early days of the war. Despite the surprise of the attack and heavy losses on the ground, the pilots of these aircraft had the most severe resistance to German aviation on the first day of the summer crash. Already at 3.30 in the morning of I-16 of the 33rd IAP of the Western Military Intelligence Directorate based in Pruzhany they shot down the first German aircraft over Brest. After about an hour, another five enemy vehicles attacking the airfield of this regiment fall to the ground. In the Baltic Military District, under similar circumstances, I-16 of the 21st IAP killed 9 Germans, the same victories in the 15th IAP and 7 shot down in the 10th IAP. In the Odessa military district, the 55th IAP, based in Balti, had 10 victories by the end of the day, the 67th IAP in Belgrade had even more victories - 15. In general, the first day of the war was not so simple for the German Air Force - on this day they lost 300 aircraft.
            1. Krasnoyarsk
              Krasnoyarsk 12 July 2020 07: 31 New
              -7
              Quote: poquello
              In general, the first day of the war was not so simple for the German Air Force - on this day they lost 300 aircraft.

              Only the Germans for some reason did not know.
              If the I-16 mod.24 is so good, why is it discontinued? Because besides maneuverability, he had nothing more to boast about.
              1. poquello
                poquello 12 July 2020 14: 02 New
                +3
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                If the I-16 mod.24 is so good, why is it discontinued?

                then first you need to clarify the first question
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                The I-16, at one time, possessed super-maneuverability, and what, did it help him greatly?

                what helped? Germans didn’t take heaven because I-16
                1. Krasnoyarsk
                  Krasnoyarsk 12 July 2020 17: 55 New
                  -7
                  Quote: poquello

                  what helped? Germans didn’t take heaven because I-16

                  But because ME-109
                  1. poquello
                    poquello 12 July 2020 18: 14 New
                    +4
                    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                    Quote: poquello

                    what helped? Germans didn’t take heaven because I-16

                    But because ME-109

                    not tired of stupidity to write? Messer did not have serious superiority to clearly influence the position in the sky
                    1. Krasnoyarsk
                      Krasnoyarsk 12 July 2020 18: 25 New
                      -4
                      Quote: poquello

                      Messer did not have serious superiority to clearly influence the position in the sky

                      Do not languish the soul, discover the secret of German supremacy in the sky of 41, 42 and 43
                      1. poquello
                        poquello 12 July 2020 19: 50 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        Quote: poquello

                        Messer did not have serious superiority to clearly influence the position in the sky

                        Do not languish the soul, discover the secret of German supremacy in the sky of 41, 42 and 43

                        what 41,42,43? 41 years old, everything, further variable ownership of quantity (well, if you still haven’t guessed repeat - from quantity)
                      2. Krasnoyarsk
                        Krasnoyarsk 12 July 2020 22: 01 New
                        -5
                        Quote: poquello

                        what 41,42,43? 41 years old, everything, further variable ownership of quantity (well, if you still haven’t guessed repeat - from quantity)

                        = Thus, by the beginning of the war, the new type of combat aircraft in the combat units of the air force of the spacecraft was not 2739 units, as "officially" is considered, but 706, which is 3,8 times less. And in the five Western border districts there were only 377, not 1540, as it is also “officially” considered, that is, 4 times less, which is only 5,5% of the total number of combat aircraft of these districts (6781 units), and not 20%, as "officially" is considered now. =
                        The number of Wehrmacht aircraft in June 41g on the eastern front - 3909
                        Based on your logic, we always had an advantage in the sky.
                        But in reality, everything was exactly the opposite. Until the middle of 43 years.
                      3. poquello
                        poquello 12 July 2020 23: 26 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        of the total number of combat aircraft in these districts (6781 units),

                        ) But what is so small? in the Soviet Union type 17tysch was, all on a call from a cell border guards as one rose to smash the enemy
                      4. Krasnoyarsk
                        Krasnoyarsk 13 July 2020 07: 32 New
                        -3
                        Quote: poquello
                        ) But what is so small?

                        The question is not for me. For what I bought, for what I sold.
                        So Cho from the topic then sailed away?
                      5. poquello
                        poquello 13 July 2020 14: 15 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        For what I bought, for what I sold

                        where did you buy? )))))))
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        The number of Wehrmacht aircraft in June 41g on the eastern front - 3909
                        ))
                        the advantage in the sky is in the sky, in view of the sudden thoughtful attack of the Germans and its consequences, the USSR was not able to provide a sufficient number of sorties
                      6. Miron
                        Miron 13 July 2020 14: 43 New
                        +2
                        Quote: poquello
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        For what I bought, for what I sold

                        where did you buy? )))))))
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        The number of Wehrmacht aircraft in June 41g on the eastern front - 3909
                        ))
                        the advantage in the sky is in the sky, in view of the sudden thoughtful attack of the Germans and its consequences, the USSR was not able to provide a sufficient number of sorties

                        You are right in everything. In almost everything.
                        But, besides the shots that were, and which were a terrible war, there were other components of the global strategy. Which, like a gun, hung on the wall. And in their own way they shot, only very quietly, with very powerful silencers.
                        ***
                        Take a look around. The mind of the collective West, if you allow an artistic metaphor, is now engulfed in flames. He is looking for any clue to accuse the USSR of unleashing the war of 1941 against the USSR. In which the whole of today's European Union fought, and if you move away the screen of words, the United States and England, and with them their African and Asian colonies.
                        They are ready to disguise themselves as communists and friends of the USSR. Anything, just to find at least one shot in the direction of Germany to justify not only the war, but also the genocide, which was diligently dealt with by the billion people allegedly brought up on the ideals of Beethoven and Goethe.
                        I don’t think that the people of today's Russia will like what I say. This is a very difficult thing, which will require them to also believe that the war was the result of bestial hatred brought up not by Hitler and not Himmler, but by the mothers of the West, who nurtured their children with hatred of Russian people. Not Germans and not some not too socially secure young people who walked the streets with swastikas.
                        The war with the Russians is their hope of capturing the treasures of the Russian land into undivided and complete plunder, the wild hope with which they are born and die.
                        Stalin made it impossible for them to find a rational reason to start a war. The country paid for this decision with huge sacrifices.
                        But if the Russian people had heard this, if he had given them a reason, they would have destroyed our country.
                        If not in a war, then in the wild judges that today's life is so full of, where they cover up the same acts of destruction of our country with a fig leaf of laws. Only now the guns of the police apparatus. In which all their residents take part, from the janitor to the president.
                      7. poquello
                        poquello 13 July 2020 15: 19 New
                        0
                        Quote: Miron
                        Stalin made it impossible for them to find a rational reason to start a war. The country paid for this decision with huge sacrifices.
                        But if the Russian people had heard this, if he had given them a reason, they would have destroyed our country.

                        You heroize him too much, the Germans were well aware of the structure of the armed forces of the USSR and they played it corny.
                      8. Miron
                        Miron 29 July 2020 17: 02 New
                        0
                        Quote: poquello
                        Quote: Miron
                        Stalin made it impossible for them to find a rational reason to start a war. The country paid for this decision with huge sacrifices.
                        But if the Russian people had heard this, if he had given them a reason, they would have destroyed our country.

                        You heroize him too much, the Germans were well aware of the structure of the armed forces of the USSR and they played it corny.

                        Is Stalin the case.
                        I am trying to say that, in the language of those who hated Stalin, he is the cause of great losses, because he tied his own hands from inflicting deep wounds on the peoples of the West at the moment when the war began.
                        Indeed, in order to immediately stop it, the USSR had to strike at Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and if the wagon train was destroyed, all other European countries.
                        Forget about the world that we love, and are used to evaluating from the standpoint of the common good, and think about the gigantic provocation of the Western countries against the USSR on June 22, 1941.
                        After all, today, even after everything, they no longer hesitate to accuse the USSR of aggression and the seizure of their countries.
                        Can you imagine what would have happened if retaliatory strikes had been inflicted on June 22, 1941.
                        Today everyone called the USSR an aggressor. And our country would have been destroyed long ago by the fosterlings of the very United States back in 1953, when they managed to somehow bribe the scum Zhukov.
                      9. poquello
                        poquello 29 July 2020 21: 02 New
                        0
                        Quote: Miron
                        Can you imagine what would have happened if retaliatory strikes had been inflicted on June 22, 1941.

                        ) Can you imagine, retaliatory strikes were delivered where they could inflict them, but the speed of advance of the German columns was high.
                        Tch blame Stalin, and she really was, let's leave it on some other time.
                      10. Miron
                        Miron 24 August 2020 10: 42 New
                        0
                        The USSR did not deliver a single oncoming strike on the territory of the above-named countries, this is the greatest lie.
                        The USSR regarded the first hours of strikes against the USSR as a massive provocation, and took a wait and see attitude.
                        Only at 6 am, 4 hours after the start of massive attacks on their country, Soviet aviation received the order to destroy the enemy on the spot.
                        You are already lying about this little thing.
                        Until the last moment, the USSR and Stalin personally gave Western countries a chance to abandon the horrors of war and stop aggression. They didn't just choose war. They deliberately went to the genocide of our people using the army of their united Western countries. Destroying a country that, in the first hours of their bloody horror, abandoned counter-fatal blows in the hope that the peoples of the West would come to their senses and prefer peace to the horrors of war. Already experiencing bloody wounds.
                        Why dare you lie about it !?
                        And having already lied about this, you immediately spit the poison of lies at Stalin, in his non-existent guilt for something else.
                        Who are you and who gave you the right to slander our country and its leaders?
                      11. poquello
                        poquello 26 August 2020 17: 27 New
                        0
                        Quote: Miron
                        and the USSR did not deliver one counter strike on the territory of the above-named countries, this is the greatest lie.

                        ), Danube landing
                        Quote: Miron
                        The USSR regarded the first hours of strikes against the USSR as a massive provocation, and took a wait and see attitude.

                        "first" two, three, four? ))))))))))))))))
                        uhahatal
                        "5:30. On German radio, the Reich propaganda minister Goebbels reads out Adolf Hitler's appeal to the German people in connection with the outbreak of the war against the Soviet Union: Moscow ... At the moment, the greatest in its length and volume of military action that the world has ever seen ... The task of this front is no longer to protect individual countries, but to ensure the security of Europe and thereby save everyone. "

                        7:00. Reich Foreign Minister Ribbentrop begins a press conference at which he announces the beginning of hostilities against the USSR: "The German army has invaded the territory of Bolshevik Russia!"
                        oh, this unknown))))))))))))))))))))))))))
            2. Krasnoyarsk
              Krasnoyarsk 13 July 2020 15: 03 New
              -1
              Quote: poquello
              where did you buy? )))))))

              In google, where else.
              https://rg.ru/2016/06/16/rodina-sssr-germaniya.html
              Quote: poquello
              ensure a sufficient number of sorties

              Because there was nothing to provide.
            3. poquello
              poquello 13 July 2020 15: 43 New
              +2
              Quote: Krasnoyarsk
              In google, where else.
              https://rg.ru/2016/06/16/rodina-sssr-germaniya.html

              As of June 22, 1941, the Air Force of the Western border districts totaled 4226 fighter aircraft. There were 16 I-1635 fighters of all types along the border line.
              https://airpages.ru/ru/i16bp.shtml
              Quote: Krasnoyarsk
              Because there was nothing to provide.

              As a result of the stubborn and active struggle that has been waged in the Moscow direction for more than three months, the German air forces lost about 1600 aircraft in the air and at airfields. The activity of enemy aircraft decreased sharply. By the end of November 1941, our Air Force gained operational air supremacy in this most important area and held it until the end of the battle of Moscow.

              Timokhovich I.V. Operational art of the Soviet Air Force in the Great Patriotic War. - M., Military Publishing, 1976.
            4. The comment was deleted.
            5. poquello
              poquello 13 July 2020 17: 44 New
              +2
              Quote: Krasnoyarsk
              Here are just other authors claim that air supremacy passed to the Soviet Air Force only after the most difficult battles for the Kuban. And this is the second half of 43 years.

              43 year is the final stage of strategic domination, i.e. the Germans have not recovered
  • Yuriy Filatov
    Yuriy Filatov 14 July 2020 00: 38 New
    +1
    In fact, the Germans not only knew about the advantages of the I-16, but also suffered rather large losses in Spain. Ishaki entered the battle with the Mesers a little earlier than in the confrontation between Germany and the USSR. And the first Mesers didn’t put much of a moth against Ishak, but Meser had a reserve for modernization, and having received new engines and weapons he was able to get indisputable advantages, but the design of the biplane does not allow to boil the high speeds characteristic of combat aviation of the 40s
  • kzgobi
    kzgobi 15 July 2020 09: 56 New
    0
    Well, yes ... Goebbels didn’t tell you about this either ...
  • Bogatyrev
    Bogatyrev 12 July 2020 10: 48 New
    +1
    But Yak helped and how. So, it was not a matter of super-maneuverability))
  • VyacheSeymour
    VyacheSeymour 11 July 2020 21: 04 New
    0
    .... the rocket has the same fuel infinite and the handbrake, flew past the plane, rrraz, police U-turn and attack

    ... and overloading air-to-air missiles in 70G is not a handbrake And a police U-turn? And not a contact fuse will allow you to fly past an airplane?
  • Charik
    Charik 11 July 2020 21: 23 New
    +2
    maneuvering horizontally and sucking rocket energy
  • Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 11 July 2020 23: 39 New
    -1
    Quote: KCA
    Missile defense maneuvers, especially when the enemy launches a long-range missile, are not needed at all, the rocket has infinite fuel and a handbrake, flew past the plane, missed, police turn and attack

    Especially smart, hoping for the benefit of missile defense maneuvers, I really want to advise you to check it for yourself. In attack. A bullet is slower than a rocket, so try it, dodge bullets while running laughing

    And for those who are not shy to watch the numbers, let me remind you that the rocket is three to five times stronger in the turn to overload. Do not dodge without scattering ...
    1. poquello
      poquello 12 July 2020 04: 12 New
      +8
      Quote: Saxahorse
      Especially smart, hoping for the benefit of missile defense maneuvers, I really want to advise you to check it for yourself.

      especially gifted I highly recommend smoking what is a Morshevsky pendulum
      Quote: Saxahorse
      And for those who are not shy to watch the numbers, let me remind you that the rocket is three to five times stronger in the turn to overload.

      you need to look not at numbers, but about the results, about brakes, drift, skidding, do not forget to write
  • Galiets
    Galiets 12 July 2020 07: 42 New
    -3
    For a rocket with a speed of 3-4M, the plane is a standing target.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 12 July 2020 10: 02 New
      +8
      Quote: GALliets
      For a rocket with a speed of 3-4M, the plane is a standing target.

      A target with electronic warfare equipment, heat traps, a pulsed infrared noise generator (the probability of disruption of an MANPADS missile attack when using pulsed infrared jammers is from 0,5 to 0,7-0,8). On some aircraft, they also put on-board laser jamming station.
      Here is such a target.
  • Hermit21
    Hermit21 11 July 2020 08: 24 New
    38
    The URVV launch range for a highly maneuverable target is 40-50 km due to the need to save the rocket a sufficient supply of energy. And there, even before close combat, a stone's throw. An exception is rockets with ramjet, but they have their drawbacks. For some reason, the theses “Once the missile’s range is 150 kilometers, you can launch it for 150 for any purpose” and “Let it go - flew about my business” rooted in the minds of the layman. But this is far from the case.
    1. Avior
      Avior 11 July 2020 08: 40 New
      -15
      When paired starts, this distance is much greater
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 11 July 2020 08: 31 New
    32
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    It’s time for us psychologically to switch from Suvorovsky - a bullet-fool, a bayonet-well done, i.e. melee, to combat at great distances.

    Dear, in order to no longer write such a game, take a look at what missiles are in the arsenal of the SU-57. By the way, the fact that the mattress is a long-range missile is, according to our classification, just a medium-range missile.
    Now, regarding super-maneuverability ... super-maneuverability gives increased fighter stability in transcendent flight modes. This is what gives an undeniable advantage in the dog dump. And on the opposite courses, the battle very easily passes into the stage of a close duel, where our fighters have no equal.
    1. NIKN
      NIKN 11 July 2020 11: 21 New
      30
      It’s just that the Chinese have no opportunities to create a super-maneuverable apparatus, and the thesis that it is not needed appears, otherwise they would have pushed super-maneuverability as the only one necessary for the 5th generation.
    2. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 11 July 2020 18: 50 New
      -5
      Quote: NEXUS

      Dear, in order to no longer write such a game, take a look at what missiles are in the arsenal of the SU-57.

      Dear, the SU-59 missiles are even cooler. So what?
      How many 57s are in the IAP?
      This is where we start.
      Quote: NEXUS
      By the way, the fact that the mattress is a long-range missile is, according to our classification, just a medium-range missile.

      Come on.
      Quote: NEXUS
      This is what gives an undeniable advantage in the dog dump.

      There will be no "dog dumps". Forget it.
      "Dog dump" is only possible with mutual desire. Mattresses will do this with the best radar and the best GOS missiles VV? Do not forget that to help them AWACS. How many mattresses do they have? And we have?
      Throw out the tactics of air battles of the past war.
      On the opposite courses, the Su-35 and F-22 approach speed at 5000 km / h. add the speed of the mattress rocket 4M (4200 km / h) (AIM-120D) launch range of 180 km.
      The speed of approach of the mattress rocket and SU-35 = 9000 km / h.
      How many seconds does our pilot have for reaction? Well, to "wag its tail" in front of the nose of the rocket? That's your whole "dog dump".
      In the air battle, the one who first noticed wins, and this is the radar, who has a long-range V-V missile, and who has the best seeker.
      1. poquello
        poquello 12 July 2020 04: 49 New
        +5
        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
        Do not forget that to help them AWACS.

        But what about Avaxs? - a good goal, big)))))
      2. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 12 July 2020 11: 55 New
        +6
        Everything is beautifully written but not correct. There is an article on the Internet about an American lieutenant colonel on the account of long-range combat beyond visual visibility. It addresses three Cold War conflicts and a desert storm operation. In the three Cold War conflicts, nearly 700 medium and long-range missiles were fired, and only 61 of them were outside visual visibility and only four aircraft were shot down.
        During the operation, a desert storm as many as 16, the farthest from a distance of as much as 20 miles. The downed Iraqi pilots did not react when their planes took to escort, did not take evasion maneuvers. The author concluded either about the malfunction of warning systems or the poor training of Iraqi pilots.
        Long-range combat does not work in practice.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 12 July 2020 12: 25 New
          +1
          Higby author.
        2. Krasnoyarsk
          Krasnoyarsk 12 July 2020 18: 02 New
          -2
          Quote: Herman 4223
          Long-range combat does not work in practice.

          I’m trying to imagine a close combat, a “dog dump” at both 2000 km / h.
          1. Herman 4223
            Herman 4223 13 July 2020 06: 55 New
            +1
            At this speed, planes do not fly for long, and some do not fly at all. Rapprochement can occur at high speed, but rockets are launched already at subsonic speed, only fifth-generation aircraft and our mig25 / 31 can do launch at supersonic. After several evolutions in the air, aircraft speeds fall even more strongly, and here the super-maneuverability of our machines is manifested. As it turns out the main problem of long-range combat is an unreliable friend or foe system. For fifth-generation aircraft, this will generally be a problem, as soon as the defendant begins to send signals that he is his own, this signal will almost immediately give out the aircraft. Therefore, the identification system is sometimes turned off, sometimes it may not work, and planes are afraid to bring down their own. By the way, one of four Americans shot down outside of visual visibility was his plane.
            The Syrians during the war in Lebanon, their air defense counted as many as 12 of their machines.
          2. Nosgoth
            Nosgoth 13 July 2020 12: 53 New
            0
            Track the speed of the vaunted F-35 at least on the fly if it doesn’t fall apart (and you don’t need a rocket for it)
          3. Yuriy Filatov
            Yuriy Filatov 14 July 2020 00: 41 New
            0
            And what bothers you at such speeds ?! The autopilot itself will drive the car to the target and open fire from the cannon at the fleeing target
      3. chingachguc
        chingachguc 30 July 2020 09: 00 New
        0
        laugh, thanks)))
  • BLOND
    BLOND 11 July 2020 10: 37 New
    -1
    The first time the attendants noticed Rust on the radar screen at about 14:10. On-duty duty units Mig-23. Then one of the Soviet pilots discovered a "sports plane like the Yak-12" in the lumen of the clouds and asked what to do with it, but did not receive a clear answer from the ground. Soviet pilots could not accompany Rust's small plane on fighters due to the difference in speed

    Need over maneuverability
    1. KCA
      KCA 12 July 2020 04: 13 New
      +3
      And the fact that he drove, again, without an order, didn’t you hear to shoot down MI-24? Isolate one part of the epic with the MIG-23, and everything else? "Crocodile", without using weapons, could just blow Tsesna away, flying about 20 meters, or flying from above, push him to the ground
  • chingachguc
    chingachguc 11 July 2020 11: 43 New
    +2
    dear, have you heard of such a thing as a missile defense maneuver? looks like no.
  • inpu
    inpu 11 July 2020 11: 49 New
    +2
    EW both sides will apply. From afar, you still need to aim. I admit that both sides will be guided to a greater extent by visual contact in such conditions.
  • Magog_
    Magog_ 11 July 2020 11: 50 New
    +9
    WWII experience is, of course, important. Although, losses in air battles are determined, first of all, by the experience of pilots: at the beginning of the war, the lack of training of our airborne fighters affected - at the end, on the contrary, the Germans had problems with preparing new fighters to replace the dead and departed, and the statistics of losses changed. As for maneuverability, another example is clearer. In the course of the Vietnam War, the Americans largely put on their Phantoms ... as a result, they began to urgently develop the F-16 - this is the answer to the question: who turned out to be right?
  • Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 11 July 2020 12: 54 New
    12
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    it's time to move from Suvorov - bullet-fool, bayonet-well done, i.e. melee, to combat at great distances.

    And the option that our Su-57, due to the complex of locators, will see the F-22 earlier, and launch a long-range missile before the Su-57 is detected, do you not allow in principle?
    1. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 11 July 2020 15: 15 New
      +2
      Especially when we have locators with ROFAR. Mattresses and similar technologies do not have.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 11 July 2020 16: 31 New
        +2
        Quote: Narak-zempo
        Especially when we have locators with ROFAR

        I don’t know about ROFAR, but from what they’re putting now:
        But with the hanging container, there were some problems. I wonder at what stage this business is, does anyone know?
    2. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 12 July 2020 18: 05 New
      -1
      Quote: Bad_gr
      You do not admit in principle?

      So what am I writing about?
      Quote: Bad_gr
      Quote: Krasnoyarsk
      it's time to move from Suvorov - bullet-fool, bayonet-well done, i.e. melee, to combat at great distances.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 12 July 2020 21: 03 New
        +1
        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
        So what am I writing about?

        I apologize if I did not understand correctly. For some, the axiom is that the F-22 is invisible, and he sees far and shoots first. But this is not a fact: we do not know the true capabilities of the F-22 and Su-57, and the true picture can be completely opposite.
  • Subtext
    Subtext 11 July 2020 13: 32 New
    +2
    But she still needs a powerful locator and long-range weapons of high accuracy.

    Support.
    I recall an old article on this topic (perhaps relevant today). Complicated jamming conditions, detection ranges are reduced, airplanes fly quickly to meet them, and here they are
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 11 July 2020 14: 55 New
    -1
    Still to drive stealth ..
    Radar power has limits, and RP coverage and glider geometry will always work.
    In addition, the number of modern aircraft and the training of pilots is important (“raid” and tactical features).
    1. forpost
      forpost 12 July 2020 16: 58 New
      0
      glider geometry also has its limitations
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 12 July 2020 19: 42 New
        -1
        And the optimal compromise in geometry is in F-22/35 (from serial aircraft).
  • BastaKarapuzik And
    BastaKarapuzik And 11 July 2020 16: 40 New
    16
    You can detect someone at a great distance with the help of a locator, only, oops, the included locator with a stealth does not harmonize, as well as outboard fuel tanks and weapons on the external suspension. America does not need stealth for air combat, but for the first strike on ground targets, sneak up on foreign borders and so on. We do not seem to have a preemptive strike in the concept, hence the defensive tactics and obviously a slightly different approach to the design of aviation and air defense.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 12 July 2020 19: 44 New
      -1
      You are mistaken: for an air battle there is an LPI mode. With the range of modern missiles, there is no need to creep up to the borders.
      1. forpost
        forpost 12 July 2020 22: 49 New
        +1
        For example, according to the military reference "Jane", the Reptor radar has a working detection range of 193 km, which provides 86% of the probability of detecting a target with an EPR = 1 sq. m. in one pass of the antenna beam.
        Emnip, the quiet mode of operation of the radar scout of the Danish frigate Absalon provided a detection range for sea targets at a distance of only 40 km.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 13 July 2020 01: 23 New
          -1
          It's time to give developers bonuses smile
          1. forpost
            forpost 13 July 2020 08: 59 New
            0
            It’s not clear why
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 13 July 2020 12: 25 New
              -1
              For his age, a completely unique and unparalleled technique request
  • VyacheSeymour
    VyacheSeymour 11 July 2020 18: 29 New
    +1
    Krasnoyarsk, I’ll put you a well-deserved minus ...- because you probably never tried to fight on computer simulations of air combat. I read your comment and realized, -You are out of reluctance to litter the spaces of the degraded VO with your “stupidity”
    (pluses are all) did not openly deny the teleportation of the fighter during a dodge.
    If at the adversary an on-board locator detects our Sushka for 500 km. and his long-range missile went to the target, it is very rare for anyone to save over-maneuverability.

    You dare to claim that the kinetic energy of the apparatus cannot instantly go into potential (and in fact it
    more-who weighs more) and vice versa ...? You claim (this is clear from the meaning of your comment) that a 30-ton, twin-engine, with a deflected thrust vector fighter cannot evade a single-engine with a controlled thrust vector, with aerodynamic and gas-dynamic rudders rockets? - having only (minimum) 30G overloads? - burdened with a non-contact fuse? ...- Well, you obviously didn’t pass the Unified State Examination, but you did just take some “EXAMS” in PHYSICS !!!
    Minus for some reason the hand did not rise to put? - Strange ... No?
    1. muham
      muham 11 July 2020 19: 00 New
      0
      Quote: VyacheSeymour
      Well, you obviously didn’t pass the Unified State Examination, but you just did it, some “EXAMS” in PHYSICS !!!
      Don’t worry, it won’t last long, because if the star has already started talking about the dominance of the Russian Academy of Sciences, then the polar fox runs around.
      https://zvezdaweekly.ru/news/t/2020731321-PlBFs.html
      1. VyacheSeymour
        VyacheSeymour 11 July 2020 21: 31 New
        0
        I completely agree with you ...- the search for the philosopher's stone has long been recognized as pseudoscience (this is today from our educated bell tower) ...- But, to how many side-effect, great discoveries this search
        brought ...
    2. KCA
      KCA 12 July 2020 04: 20 New
      +3
      I remember the simulators at the dawn of their appearance, the F-19, always knocked down the Foxhounds, Comanche - the hinds, but the M1 Abrams in general is everything that moves, both on the earth and in the sky
    3. Egorovich_2
      Egorovich_2 12 July 2020 09: 54 New
      +3
      Passing the exam in physics, rather than classical exams, did not prevent us from finding out that physics is an empirical science in which experience rules, not reasoning.
      American experiments https://defenseissues.net/2013/04/27/usefulness-of-bvr-combat/ showed that firing at long range (outside the visual definition) was not effective enough.
      1. VyacheSeymour
        VyacheSeymour 13 July 2020 07: 45 New
        0
        American experiments https://defenseissues.net/2013/04/27/usefulness-of-bvr-combat/ showed that firing at long range (outside the visual definition) was not effective enough.

        That's right, but the range of the same "Meteor" is indicated at 100km + (for engine operation) with the possibility of defeat up to 150 km.
        At high altitudes, not only missiles lose their maneuverability, only the difference is that the inefficiency of aerodynamic rudders is covered by gas-dynamic ones. Like it or not, but a body with a larger mass and dimensions, albeit at a lower speed, has a longer reaction time and turning radii.
        Air-to-air missiles were discussed here .... But therefore, everything is true for ground-to-air .. - what is the point of producing S-300, S-400, S-500 ???
        Your link (based on outdated samples) proves the superiority of melee missiles over long-range missiles ... And so everyone knows that firing at short range is more effective than long-range, but the ability to start defeating the enemy at long-range (albeit not so efficient) distance allows achieve advantages already in close combat - the enemy’s strength and fuel reserves for maneuverable combat are reduced.
        In addition, the author gives calculations without taking into account the actions of the ground air defense forces of opponents - after all, they will converge in no ring.
        Passing the exam in physics, rather than classical exams, did not prevent us from finding out that physics is an empirical science in which experience rules, not reasoning.

        The fact that physics is an applied science is known oh how long before the appearance of the exam ...
    4. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 12 July 2020 18: 16 New
      0
      Quote: VyacheSeymour
      For some reason, the hand didn’t rise.

      And they were going! But in general - thanks. hi
      1. VyacheSeymour
        VyacheSeymour 13 July 2020 09: 11 New
        -1
        And they were going!

        Initially, it was noted as a plus, But ... - Well, I could not resist and did not play on the feelings of advanced "gamers" promoted so much that they despised all the laws of materialism, evaded everything and everyone, fighters who believing in the existence of a secret technique of evading bullets ... why secret? - Because apparently there is no one (from the ones who tested it on myself) to talk about its effectiveness ... ⚰
  • AndreyM
    AndreyM 12 July 2020 06: 44 New
    +4
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    If at the adversary an on-board locator detects our Sushka for 500 km. and his long-range missile went toward the target,

    Does the adversary have such missiles?
    In the F-35 arsenal, the long-range long-range air-to-air missile is the AIM-120D AMRAAM with a launch range of 180 km and a target capture range of 16 km. Moreover, this rocket is very old (developed in 1988) and well known to the designers of the Su-57
    1. Charik
      Charik 12 July 2020 10: 54 New
      +2
      yes, some pray on super120
    2. Herman 4223
      Herman 4223 12 July 2020 12: 20 New
      +3
      Yes, for it to fly 180 km, it must be launched from a height of 17 km and a speed of 1,5 m. This range is achieved from the board f22. At the 35th range will immediately subside. And if the plane cannot make supersonic launches, and these are all fourth-generation fighters in the USA, then there will be little left of the range.
    3. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 13 July 2020 07: 34 New
      0
      Quote: AndreyM
      Moreover, this rocket is very old (developed in 1988) and well known to the designers of the Su-57

      So who will tell you something new? Or is the privacy mode only with us?
  • Egorovich_2
    Egorovich_2 12 July 2020 09: 46 New
    +3
    The Americans, relying on the statistics of their air battles https://defenseissues.net/2013/04/27/usefulness-of-bvr-combat/, believe that long-range shooting is not effective - 25% of hits, up to 50% of misses associated with maneuvering the target.
    1. Herman 4223
      Herman 4223 12 July 2020 13: 14 New
      0
      6% efficiency during the Cold War.
  • Archon
    Archon 12 July 2020 13: 45 New
    +1
    we shifted long distances to air defense
  • Shurik_2
    Shurik_2 12 July 2020 23: 41 New
    +1
    And their planes and tanks were better and optics and communications. And we won anyway. Remember once and for all, it is not technology that wins, but the man and the main struggle if it will be 4-generation airplanes. And invisible, they are that capricious young lady, do not give them what they want and this pepelats will not fly up. It’s enough to break the training support hangar, this “wonderful” bird will be fun. Well, then, as always in a war, losses experienced and prepared for consumption, and ignoramuses, to replace them. And quickly this bird cannot be mastered. I do not urge to throw hats but they are also afraid of their cool.
    1. Willywonka
      Willywonka 15 July 2020 03: 43 New
      0
      Because, "in a war, the party with large human and economic resources wins" (Clausewitz). The resources of the AGC countries were greater than those of the OSI countries.
  • mister-red
    mister-red 13 July 2020 00: 40 New
    0
    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
    If at the adversary an on-board locator detects our Drying for 500 km.

    And where are such radars? Well, except for AWACS of course.
  • A1845
    A1845 13 July 2020 11: 20 New
    +1
    The difference between Russian fighters and American fighters lies in two completely different theories of air combat and an understanding of the future of such a battle
    it's not new
    back in WWII, they were not keen on maneuvering battles; they preferred to “hit and run”
  • Starley.ura
    Starley.ura 29 July 2020 02: 28 New
    0
    What do you have to do with aviation? Any working radar is detected at a distance greater than it sees. Everything is quite simple: you spotted the fu-22 radar, you move towards it in a "passive", an alert is triggered that he saw you, passive interference + electronic warfare + maneuver (you can approach, you can leave the visibility zone) and he loses me, su -57 is an all-aspect passive antenna integrated into the glider, and there are blind spots on the fu-22. Plus an ultra-long-range missile with an active seeker, that with IR is very "myopic" and most of the trajectory is guided from the aircraft and, if the capture is disrupted, it flies to the intended point, three times ha, but guess the point at which the super-maneuverable aircraft will be.
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 11 July 2020 08: 16 New
    16
    Admins, you quote better Bulletin of Mordovia, otherwise the Chinese are raving, it is clear that there are their experts there, their number of primary school students!
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 12 July 2020 12: 27 New
      +2
      I support - idiocy is tiresome.
  • iouris
    iouris 11 July 2020 11: 39 New
    -4
    Quote: 501Legion
    Time will tell

    "Time is an unusually long thing" ... (In Mayakovsky)
    Over-maneuverability is perfectly visible in demonstrations to any layman, and the magnitude of the EPR is not visible to a layman, he does not know what it is and for what. Strategy.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 11 July 2020 14: 52 New
    -2
    Question: But can there be empty words from our officials (with the usual cut of eyes)?
    1. iouris
      iouris 11 July 2020 18: 23 New
      0
      Quote: 3danimal
      But can there be empty words from our officials (with the usual cut of eyes)?

      The eye is narrow, the nose is plus, the Russian itself. There are still other “Russians,” but they do not live in Russia.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 11 July 2020 18: 52 New
        -3
        So is the fault of the wrong racial correspondence?
        1. iouris
          iouris 12 July 2020 14: 21 New
          0
          Che'et 'for "racial match," and even "wrong"? Russian is fate (not race).
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 12 July 2020 19: 35 New
            -1
            But what about the "narrow eye"? Russian - nationality, as well as German, hollow, Chinese. At various times, everyone was told that it was fate smile
  • the Saint
    the Saint 11 July 2020 19: 20 New
    +2
    Will show the number of aircraft, and not the time, also working on the quantity with quality.
    The US Air Force in March received the 500th fifth-generation fighter F-35 Lightning II.
    December 13, 2011 the assembly shop left the last serial F-22A fighter with tail number 10-4195. He became the 195th F-22A, launched since 1997, and became the last, 187th serial fighter, handed over to the US Air Force.
    1. forpost
      forpost 12 July 2020 17: 08 New
      0
      According to the Australian analytical center Air Power Australia, the F-35 does not meet the requirements for a fifth-generation fighter due to the inability to fly at supersonic speed without the use of afterburner, low thrust ratio, relatively high ESR, as well as low survivability and maneuverability
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 12 July 2020 19: 40 New
        -1
        EPR is high, 10 times more than that of F-22 smile
        Australians are picky, they want to get the 22nd, which the Americans do not sell to anyone.
        But the Israelis (with extensive experience in air battles and the use of aviation) F-35 are quite satisfied.
        1. forpost
          forpost 12 July 2020 22: 43 New
          0
          But in Australia there is no saving ridge of antilivan
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 13 July 2020 01: 21 New
            -1
            The Israelis and the F-16mi coped.
            1. forpost
              forpost 13 July 2020 08: 57 New
              0
              Antilivan - a mountain range stretching from southwest to northeast between Lebanon and Syria. The border of Syria and Lebanon runs mainly along the top of the mountain range. The southern tip of the mountains is located in the Golan Heights
            2. forpost
              forpost 13 July 2020 09: 09 New
              0
              there you can on the old airship - no one will notice
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 13 July 2020 12: 27 New
                -1
                The F-35 has more features, much.
                By the way, it has a shorter flight range than the 22nd, Perhaps this is the case.
      2. Willywonka
        Willywonka 15 July 2020 03: 45 New
        0
        You still could not find button accordion from Kopp?
  • Revolver
    Revolver 12 July 2020 00: 26 New
    +1
    Quote: 501Legion
    another empty words from the Chinese

    SchA kitophiles attack. Well, offended China, our main ally! Not an ally? Well, companion. Ah, and not a fellow traveler? Anyway, they are against amers, and this is important. As the saying goes, let my pig die, if only with a neighbor through the street puddle house burned down.
  • Galiets
    Galiets 12 July 2020 07: 31 New
    +1
    And if you are right? Then we’ll quickly redo everything, right?
  • shonsu
    shonsu 13 July 2020 00: 22 New
    0
    good exactly!
    But still it seems to me that our theory is more correct. Let's just say that they fly towards f-22 and Su-57. Let's say f-22 was the first to be discovered and, at a distance of 120 km, it was fired from a maximum distance, turned and flew away. What are the chances of rockets knocking out a su-57, super maneuverable, with electronic warfare and electronic warfare systems, and various traps? Moreover, having a small area of ​​reflective surface. No matter how you twist the radar, the GOS missiles are orders of magnitude less powerful than the radar of an airplane. I think that the probability of hitting is not great. Moreover, the su-57 has a meter range radar, which means that it will be aware of the presence of the f-22, and will expect an attack. We get the result, f-22 firing off empty to the base and, with a high degree of probability, hanging on its tail Su-57 with full ammunition. Even if another plane rises towards the base, close combat cannot be avoided.
    I deliberately do not mention Avax and other radars, a purely duel.
  • Indifferent
    Indifferent 13 July 2020 07: 59 New
    +1
    I agree! All wrote the same in the era of the Vietnam War. Everything is decided by rockets "on far approaches" Then the Americans developed Sidewinder rockets. And still, "dog dumps" were not uncommon and weak Vietnamese won.
  • Mwg
    Mwg 13 July 2020 09: 45 New
    0
    Truly, only aerial combat can show who was right and who was wrong in their concepts.
    So far, behind the words of the Chinese is their desire to justify the slowness of their technology
  • The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 11 July 2020 07: 36 New
    +4
    And the Chinese "maneuverability", according to ancient manuscripts? To expect when the corpse of an enemy flies past the river (in this case, heavenly)?
    1. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 11 July 2020 15: 17 New
      +3
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      And the Chinese "maneuverability", according to ancient manuscripts? To expect when the corpse of an enemy flies past the river (in this case, heavenly)?

      They so bequeathed to Sasun-in-Laozi laughing
  • Poetry
    Poetry 11 July 2020 07: 39 New
    +4
    Why should they know this? Also, I found "warriors". Forgot how Japanese cut them with katanas so as not to spend bullets?
    1. Alexey Sommer
      Alexey Sommer 11 July 2020 08: 05 New
      -2
      Quote: Poetiszaugla
      Was it like the Japanese cut them with katanas so as not to waste bullets?

      What does it have to do with it?
      1. Poetry
        Poetry 11 July 2020 08: 11 New
        +5
        This despite the fact that combat experience is different. It would be better if they tried to develop something of their own, and not repeat it like monkeys.
        1. Alexey Sommer
          Alexey Sommer 11 July 2020 08: 12 New
          -14
          Have you at least developed a potty of the night to express opinions on serious issues?
          Or just go into it?
          1. Poetry
            Poetry 11 July 2020 08: 22 New
            10
            I go to the toilet designed before me.
            1. Alexey Sommer
              Alexey Sommer 11 July 2020 08: 23 New
              -19
              So you haven’t developed anything at all?
              And why then such conceit? Once you allow yourself to judge serious things, and even with sadistic inclinations?
              1. Poetry
                Poetry 11 July 2020 08: 30 New
                10
                Calm down, otherwise the pressure will rise.
          2. snake
            snake 11 July 2020 11: 10 New
            -9
            Quote: Alexey Sommer
            Have you ever developed a pot at night?

            He is not a techie to develop something. He is a "poet"! The intelligentsia shuffles ... He likes to compose poems about excrement. The pot was not invented, but it is inspired by the pot.
      2. Piramidon
        Piramidon 11 July 2020 10: 02 New
        +6
        Quote: Alexey Sommer
        What does it have to do with it?

        Remind significant victories in the history of the Chinese armed forces. Basically, they defeated them.
        1. poquello
          poquello 11 July 2020 14: 08 New
          -1
          Quote: Piramidon
          Quote: Alexey Sommer
          What does it have to do with it?

          Remind significant victories in the history of the Chinese armed forces. Basically, they defeated them.

          if the air force wrote, and the sun please - korean, drove the Americans with a speed of run
          1. Piramidon
            Piramidon 11 July 2020 15: 44 New
            0
            Quote: poquello
            drove the Americans with running speed

            If the Soviet Union did not support equipment, weapons and specialists, then where would this Chinese army be?
            1. poquello
              poquello 11 July 2020 18: 09 New
              0
              Quote: Piramidon
              Quote: poquello
              drove the Americans with running speed

              If the Soviet Union did not support equipment, weapons and specialists, then where would this Chinese army be?

              would the Chinese be?
        2. VyacheSeymour
          VyacheSeymour 11 July 2020 21: 39 New
          -1
          Remind significant victories in the history of the Chinese armed forces. Basically, they defeated them.

          Why remind victory? ...- It is enough to compare the number of losers and winners of all taken together ...
      3. the Saint
        the Saint 11 July 2020 19: 22 New
        0
        Well, like, the Japanese with katanas are now for us and against NATO and China. )
    2. snake
      snake 11 July 2020 11: 10 New
      -11
      Quote: Poetiszaugla
      Forgot how Japanese cut them with katanas so as not to spend bullets?

      This is where and when it happened?
      1. Poetry
        Poetry 11 July 2020 12: 28 New
        +3
        In Nanjing, for example. Half a million.
        1. snake
          snake 11 July 2020 13: 25 New
          -3
          Mirnyak and unarmed soldiers were cut. This still does not say anything about the "fighting" of Chinese soldiers. This speaks of the brutality of the Japanese. Serbs, for example, Ustashi also massively killed a cold. Would anyone say that Serbs are bad warriors?
          1. Poetry
            Poetry 11 July 2020 13: 29 New
            +9
            They do not have the combat experience of victorious wars, which I spoke of. And they also have warriors. Jackie Chan, for example.
            1. snake
              snake 11 July 2020 13: 39 New
              -6
              Quote: Poetiszaugla
              They have no combat experience of victorious wars.

              Did the experience of the victorious wars of the Russian army in Chechnya really help? Any experience can be nullified if the commanders are traitors and fools, and the soldiers are intimidated and not motivated.
              1. Poetry
                Poetry 11 July 2020 13: 51 New
                +4
                It was a bad war (First). Our "king" was drunk, and there was also a war on the streets of our cities. And there they died more than in Afghanistan.
                1. snake
                  snake 11 July 2020 13: 58 New
                  0
                  Well, what am I talking about? But after Afghanistan only 5 years have passed. Do not underestimate the Chinese and throw their hats. And experience in military affairs tends to quickly become obsolete and lose relevance.
                  1. Poetry
                    Poetry 11 July 2020 14: 07 New
                    +2
                    No, their drill training is on the level. Now they, for the first time in many years, have had enough of their fill and armed themselves well. But they are not friends to us. Therefore, we do not need to relax.
                    By the way, I’m writing for some 5 years since Mom left the world of living people. And so, an ordinary person. He was wounded, that is, he will kill.
                    Peace to you.
                  2. Charik
                    Charik 11 July 2020 22: 53 New
                    0
                    Would read the article, there was about Amerik Amer’s near China, there the "warriors" tore the Chinese tightly laughing
              2. poquello
                poquello 11 July 2020 14: 15 New
                +1
                Quote: serpent
                Quote: Poetiszaugla
                They have no combat experience of victorious wars.

                Did the experience of the victorious wars of the Russian army in Chechnya really help? Any experience can be nullified if the commanders are traitors and fools, and the soldiers are intimidated and not motivated.

                Well, firstly, the terrorists were destroyed there, and secondly, this bastard was not without experience
                1. snake
                  snake 11 July 2020 14: 18 New
                  -2
                  Quote: poquello
                  Well, firstly, the terrorists were destroyed there

                  They destroyed it, but it turns out that they began to comprehend the art of war as if from scratch. Paying for it with a lot of blood, health and lives ...
                  1. poquello
                    poquello 11 July 2020 14: 26 New
                    +1
                    Quote: serpent
                    They destroyed it, but it turns out that they began to comprehend the art of war as if from scratch.

                    ) ISIS also from scratch?
                    1. snake
                      snake 11 July 2020 14: 45 New
                      -3
                      From scratch, not from scratch, but there was also something to learn. After all:
                      Not a single plan can withstand a meeting with an adversary. (from)
                2. Revolver
                  Revolver 12 July 2020 00: 33 New
                  -1
                  Quote: poquello
                  Well, firstly, the terrorists were destroyed there

                  Rather paid off, and continue to pay. Does the name "Kadyrov" say nothing? Not like an elbow, ears in Russian blood, an Oberterrorist. For the loot that suits him, the whole of Chechnya could be resettled many times in the Kazakhstan steppes, Stalin managed in a matter of days.
                  1. poquello
                    poquello 12 July 2020 03: 58 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Nagan
                    Quote: poquello
                    Well, firstly, the terrorists were destroyed there

                    Rather paid off, and continue to pay. Does the name "Kadyrov" say nothing? Not like an elbow, ears in Russian blood, an Oberterrorist. For the loot that suits him, the whole of Chechnya could be resettled many times in the Kazakhstan steppes, Stalin managed in a matter of days.

                    Yes, Akhmad Kadyrov, the Mufti of Ichkeria, that is, bandits came to the federal TV channel and said that all this struggle for the independence of the crap organized by bandits and terrorists, from the inside it turned out to be more visible. On October 5, 2003, Akhmat Kadyrov was elected president of the Chechen Republic. 80,84% ​​of the total number of registered voters voted for him. On May 9, 2004, Akhmat Kadyrov died as a result of a terrorist act.
                    The names "Khattab, Abu al-Walid, Abu Zayt" do not say anything?
                    our American partners are verbally speaking about Russia's support, they are talking about their willingness to cooperate, including in the fight against terrorism, but in fact they are using these terrorists to rock the domestic political situation in Russia, ”Vladimir Putin said. - Speaking of political support, this does not need proof. This was done publicly, openly. As for operational support, financial support, we have such evidence and, moreover, we even presented some of it to our American colleagues
                    1. Revolver
                      Revolver 12 July 2020 18: 02 New
                      0
                      Quote: poquello
                      The names "Khattab, Abu al-Walid, Abu Zayt" do not say anything?

                      Representatives of the same fraternal Arab people that you so sincerely support against the "Zionist aggressors."
  • Svarog
    Svarog 11 July 2020 07: 41 New
    17
    It’s just that both Americans and Chinese do not possess super-maneuverable fighters and are trying to convince themselves that this option is not needed. But this is just one of the options that is an advantage.
    1. SAG
      SAG 11 July 2020 11: 08 New
      +5
      Russian theory of super maneuverability is not suitable for future air combat

      Translation from Chinese: "We are not able to make such fighters even after 50-70 years. Therefore, we choose tyranny and self-conviction." wassat
    2. Simargl
      Simargl 12 July 2020 05: 45 New
      -1
      Quote: Svarog
      trying to convince themselves that this option is not needed.
      So she is not needed until they noticed wassat
  • Observer2014
    Observer2014 11 July 2020 07: 41 New
    14
    According to him, the American F-22 is “completely different,” since the American concept of the development of combat aircraft is based on stealth technologies and early detection.
    And what makes it difficult to make the plane inconspicuous. And super maneuverable with the same concept of early detection? Do super-maneuverable that there absorbing paint flies off or what? wassat And who bothers for early detection of modern sensors and radars in a super maneuverable set? But it will reach small and medium distances and happiness will be super-maneuverable. And just the "stealth" as it flew like a "log", so it will be a log further laughing
    1. Alexey Sommer
      Alexey Sommer 11 July 2020 08: 08 New
      -24
      Quote: Observer2014
      But it will reach small and medium distances and happiness will be super-maneuverable

      That's just the point that will not reach.
    2. Klingon
      Klingon 11 July 2020 08: 39 New
      10
      their paint on the F-22 just flies off and even without super maneuverability wassat
    3. Wowka
      Wowka 11 July 2020 11: 03 New
      -6
      Quote: Observer2014
      Who prevents modern sensors in the ultra-maneuverable set for early detection?

      laughing Uncle! If everything was so simple - to instruct sensors and radars - then everyone would always be in chocolate and no one would have advantages in armaments. They made fun, however .. although your epaulettes are steeper than Shoigu’s, did they rise to “patriotism”? (nothing personal, but write about what you understand)
      Quote: Observer2014
      what makes it difficult to make the plane invisible. And super maneuverable with the same concept of early detection

      Well, if you understand the philosophy of your question, then the answer suggests itself: it interferes to different degrees at different stages:
      1. lack of finance
      2. lack of technology
      3. lack of brains
      and to some extent the lack of time sometimes interferes (for example, as it was in Nazi Germany).
      About the "log" I just keep silent.
      Otherwise you are right wassat
      1. VO3A
        VO3A 11 July 2020 13: 33 New
        +1
        You are right in many ways ... A lot of things are connected with technologies, access to which we will be limited and will be limited ... For the radar of light we need energy on board and highly efficient equipment .. We lose in the dimensions and energy efficiency of the equipment ... We have generators and electronic components are almost 2 times larger than theirs .. and yet, in power they are almost 2 times inferior ... Do you think why foreign equipment is being put on our civilian aircraft? Forced !!! And shouting about yours, about import substitution is easy ... It’s good that everything is in order with our brains, and we have money ... We need to use these brains and money more efficiently ... Fat-faced problems with this ... But it’s easy to praise maneuverability ... only until close combat, which the pyndos are trying to eliminate, still need to fly ...
    4. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 11 July 2020 11: 14 New
      +4
      "And what prevents to make the plane invisible.
      And super maneuverable with the same concept of early detection? "////
      ----
      Design features interfere:
      full angle rotary nozzles fully
      open and worsen stealth.
      Direct air intakes that increase traction also greatly reduce stealth.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 11 July 2020 11: 37 New
        +8
        Quote: voyaka uh
        full angle rotary nozzles fully
        open and worsen stealth.

        And in the opposite direction, how sideways will this help the enemy’s radar?
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Direct air intakes that increase traction also greatly reduce stealth.

        You yourself are not tired of this mantra about stealth technology then? Stealth technology is not a panacea in real air combat from the word at all. This technology may and partly works against weak radars, but for 50 years everything has been known about it. And do you really get the idea that this is not taken into account when creating new radars?
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 11 July 2020 12: 35 New
          0
          Is there a mysterious Rofar? belay
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 11 July 2020 13: 38 New
            +1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Is there a mysterious Rofar? belay

            Can you talk about the possibilities of Squirrel? repeat
          2. Alex777
            Alex777 11 July 2020 14: 12 New
            0
            Rofar on the way. wink
            Tell me, what are the nozzles of the Su-57 on the engines of the second stage?
            And the Hunter in the second stage? It's definitely flat here.
            And what is stopping you? bully
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 11 July 2020 14: 36 New
              -2
              Rofar will appear in a year on all Russian fighters! The main thing is to believe .. drinks
              1. Alex777
                Alex777 11 July 2020 16: 37 New
                -1
                The man had fun, I supported .. drinks
            2. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 12 July 2020 12: 56 New
              0
              And why then on the F-35 is not flat? How so!?
              1. Alex777
                Alex777 12 July 2020 13: 06 New
                -1
                Goodbye forever. lol
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal 11 July 2020 14: 43 New
          -1
          Stealth technology works against all centimeter and decimeter radars, reducing the detection range by several times. The strong, the weak, 2-4-8 times, depends on the EPR in this perspective.
          Which gives a noticeable tactical advantage.
          With a “meter” radar (against which the radio-absorbing COATINGS are ineffective, but special geometry still works), you will not be able to direct a rocket, only airplanes. And you can’t put such a fighter.
  • A. Privalov
    A. Privalov 11 July 2020 07: 44 New
    -5
    The tactics of aerial combat over the past 40 years have changed significantly. Especially, this became evident with the appearance in the mid-70s of air-to-air missiles such as “shot and forgot”, serious homing systems with object recognition, etc.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 11 July 2020 08: 19 New
      10
      Quote: A. Privalov
      Especially, this became evident with the appearance in the mid-70s of air-to-air missiles such as “shot and forgot”, serious homing systems with object recognition, etc.


      No, it’s just that the fights are much smaller. Yes, but I shot and forgot that it doesn’t work as a rule, well, except for melee missiles like R-73, American Sidewinder and Israeli Python .. For an AiM-120 missile to hit at least somewhere it needs to be pulled to the target by radio correction and figuratively poked at her nose.
      1. A. Privalov
        A. Privalov 11 July 2020 12: 33 New
        0
        Quote: Cyril G ...
        No, it’s just that the fights are much smaller. Yes, but I shot and forgot that it doesn’t work as a rule, well, except for melee missiles like R-73, American Sidewinder and Israeli Python .. For an AiM-120 missile to hit at least somewhere it needs to be pulled to the target by radio correction and figuratively poked at her nose.

        In the 1960s and 80s, fighter tactics were built on the desire to detect the enemy as early as possible and launch missiles before enemy aircraft could do this. The determining factors in this case were the capabilities of the on-board electronic complex of the fighter, its interaction with other ground and air means of long-range detection and control, as well as the presence of long-range missiles in the arsenal of the fighter. However, the appearance of stealth combat aircraft shifted emphasis.

        Up to this point, everything seems to be normal.
        But in the following quote, contains a system error.
        If both warring parties use stealth fighters, long-range aerial combat may become impossible in principle. The supersonic cruising speed of fifth-generation fighters combined with reduced radar visibility will make long-range combat too transient and ineffective, opponents simply will not have time to use medium-range missiles. The only form of armed confrontation in the air will remain close air combat.
        1. GELEZNII_KAPUT
          GELEZNII_KAPUT 11 July 2020 19: 08 New
          0
          The most sensible thought! good
        2. dali
          dali 11 July 2020 19: 39 New
          +1
          Quote: A. Privalov
          But in the following quote, contains a system error.

          Without a specific analysis, these are just your words ...

          Although what I ... think so on ... hi
        3. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 12 July 2020 09: 53 New
          +1
          Tell me, where do you see a system error?

          If, for example, both of our opponents already have stealth fighters, how do you imagine the Far Eastern Military District?
          1. A. Privalov
            A. Privalov 12 July 2020 10: 49 New
            0
            Quote: Cyril G ...
            Tell me, where do you see a system error?

            The mistake is that most of those present imagine an invisible plane like this:
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 12 July 2020 12: 58 New
              +2
              You are self-critical today ....
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 11 July 2020 21: 59 New
        -1
        Captures the target from 20-30km.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 12 July 2020 09: 58 New
          0
          In the absence of interference, and for the MiG-31 type target
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 12 July 2020 11: 44 New
            -2
            No, for a 4+ fighter with an ESR of 1m2. The "mastodon" of the 31st will see yeshe sooner.
            In the presence of interference, it is induced at their source. Am I right here too lazy to shovel technical literature? Is it easier for you to use stamps?
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 12 July 2020 12: 24 New
              +2
              Quote: 3danimal
              In the presence of interference, it is induced at their source.

              Disturbances are different.
              Quote: 3danimal
              No, for a 4+ fighter with an ESR of 1m2.

              Link will be?
              1. Herman 4223
                Herman 4223 12 July 2020 15: 52 New
                +1
                A little more modest
                The radiation power is 0,5 square meters. X range. 16 km on target 3m2.
                https://missilery.info/missile/aim120
                1. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 12 July 2020 15: 56 New
                  +2
                  So I saw about the same figure. If there was a real figure of 30 km / 1 sq.m., there it would be possible even for the Republic of Kazakhstan to not particularly bother ..
                  1. 3danimal
                    3danimal 12 July 2020 19: 21 New
                    -3
                    The MiG-31 EPR 20-25m2, about 8 times more than the "standard" 3m2. So the GOS will see him just from 30km. A very convenient, low-maneuverable target.
                    1. Cyril G ...
                      Cyril G ... 12 July 2020 20: 58 New
                      +1
                      Quote: 3danimal
                      EPR 20-25m2,

                      And who told you that there is such a figure?
                      1. 3danimal
                        3danimal 13 July 2020 01: 17 New
                        -1
                        Found such data. In general - look at its huge .. air intakes with open compressor blades smile
                      2. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 13 July 2020 02: 40 New
                        0
                        And where? It makes no sense to peer anywhere. They have been sitting at our airport for a long time.
                      3. 3danimal
                        3danimal 13 July 2020 04: 48 New
                        -1
                        Good sit smile
                        Aircraft of large size, larger than F-15 (it has about 15 m2, without RPM)
          2. 3danimal
            3danimal 12 July 2020 18: 40 New
            -1
            Wrong: 16-18km for 3m2 EPR, which, however, also applies to the generation of 4+ fighters smile
            https://missilery.info/missile/aim120
  • maksbazhin
    maksbazhin 11 July 2020 07: 46 New
    +5
    So far, as I understand it, there are no ways to counter a missile attacking you, but sooner or later there will be, for example, missiles or something like that. And then super-maneuverability will come in handy - turned to the side of the rocket, fired at it, blinded it, whatever it was and dumped to the side. Is such a battle scenario possible?
    1. qQQQ
      qQQQ 11 July 2020 08: 09 New
      -12
      Quote: maksbazhin
      Is such a battle scenario possible?

      It is possible only while you are dancing with a tambourine, moving away from the rocket, while spending fuel and doing only your own survival, there is no longer any talk about the implementation of the task. Well, then there are even more options, either the enemy will take a more advantageous position and finish off, or he will go to the object you are guarding, etc. In general, in this vein, I see American tactics as more productive and correct. Our concept of super-maneuverability, in my opinion, is a necessary measure because of the lag in electronics. And you do not forget that in order to conduct a BVB, the desire of both parties is nevertheless necessary, and with DVB no one will ask permission.
      1. maksbazhin
        maksbazhin 11 July 2020 09: 23 New
        +1
        So I write, first of all, about a counterattack, and not about evasion.
        1. qQQQ
          qQQQ 11 July 2020 10: 50 New
          +1
          Quote: maksbazhin
          So I write, first of all, about a counterattack, and not about evasion.

          Your scenario, all the same, foresees, first of all, a maneuver for a turn in the direction of the rocket, and this is almost the scenario described above, with the only difference being that you launch missile defense.
      2. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 12 July 2020 12: 39 New
        +1
        So with DVB and the enemy it’s easier to break the contact ... Yes, and judging by the real battles during the Storm in the Desert, they were hit by medium-range missiles uhhh.
    2. Klingon
      Klingon 11 July 2020 08: 45 New
      -1
      why complicate things, make a U-turn to launch anti-missiles against missiles, ... a rotary turret laser will work against missiles in the foreseeable future and will work like: as soon as the sensors detect radar irradiation, the shutters open, the turret extends and laser shoots at the approaching missiles , that’s all that a garden to fence,
      1. maksbazhin
        maksbazhin 11 July 2020 10: 22 New
        +1
        The laser then needs to be aimed at the target, and here the narrowly focused AFAR is good.
        1. Klingon
          Klingon 11 July 2020 19: 18 New
          +1
          and how are missiles aimed at the plane? a rocket or its own radar or infrared head or laser highlights or more often the combination. So, can't a laser be aimed at missile radar? It seems to me that the future coverage of airplanes will be "smart" and will determine many parameters. A kind of "skin." and these parameters are transferred to the LMS with an AI that will analyze the information and direct the laser ...
          In addition, you can equip all aircraft with an additional radar in the tail as on the Su-34
    3. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 11 July 2020 09: 22 New
      +1
      Currently, UAV escorts are being tested, XQ58 for example. Three UAVs fly with one F35 manned aircraft. One has a radar to detect enemy aircraft, if an attack is launched on it, 3 other UAVs open fire on the attackers. F2, as it flew in stealth mode, so it flies, it only controls the UAV, as a result, relatively cheap pieces of iron are lost on the one hand, and expensive fighters and people on the other.
      1. Klingon
        Klingon 11 July 2020 19: 20 New
        -4
        Urikaly with this concept will not agree. they all think that airplane battles will happen as in War Thunder wassat
      2. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 12 July 2020 09: 56 New
        -1
        Quote: Grazdanin
        relatively cheap pieces of iron,


        Such pieces of iron will cost more than a manned fighter ...
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 12 July 2020 10: 26 New
          +1
          No, of course, at times they will be cheaper than existing 4oks. I’m talking about the Low Cost Attritable Aviation Technologies program, they want to achieve a product price of $ 2-3 million in mass production. What of course I doubt smile But UTAP-22 Mako can come close to this figure, without additional equipment.
          In this concept, all the main equipment remains in the fighter, on the UAV weapons and auxiliary. In the example, I indicated the radar, but it is enough to install the emitter, and not a full-fledged radar.
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 12 July 2020 10: 33 New
            0
            Let's see how it ends
      3. Charik
        Charik 12 July 2020 11: 06 New
        +1
        then Dryings operate under the cover of S400 air defense and radar Sky, in the end someone lost expensive glands, and the planes and pilots are intact
    4. Piramidon
      Piramidon 11 July 2020 10: 07 New
      +4
      Quote: maksbazhin
      there is no way to counter a rocket attacking you

      There are many examples of avoiding an attacking rocket, even before the advent of engines with high-voltage weapons and the presence of super-maneuverability.
      1. maksbazhin
        maksbazhin 11 July 2020 10: 23 New
        0
        They write a lot about good things and not much good, it is necessary to counterattack.
        1. dali
          dali 11 July 2020 19: 42 New
          +2
          Quote: maksbazhin

          They write a lot about good things and not much good, it is necessary to counterattack.

          Care is needed to effectively counterattack!
        2. Piramidon
          Piramidon 12 July 2020 11: 05 New
          0
          Quote: maksbazhin
          They write a lot about good things and not much good, it is necessary to counterattack.

          Before counterattacking, you need to get out of the attack on yourself. Or do you think that it is necessary, in spite of the rockets flying at you, to shove on them for the sake of a counterattack?
    5. 3danimal
      3danimal 11 July 2020 22: 00 New
      -1
      For super-maneuvers, you will have to slow down and lose energy.
    6. 3danimal
      3danimal 12 July 2020 11: 46 New
      0
      When the lasers become powerful enough and compact, it will be possible to defend and attack them (from fighters).
      And now options are being worked out for intercepting missiles using modern short-range missile systems.
    7. 3danimal
      3danimal 12 July 2020 19: 26 New
      -1
      You can shoot (with a rocket at a rocket) without over maneuverability. Blind (with the help of a jamming protection station) - too. But ARL GOS have a pointing mode at the source of interference.
  • Eug
    Eug 11 July 2020 07: 47 New
    +9
    In addition to evasion opportunities, over-maneuverability gives the pilot confidence in any mode that the pilot will apply in battle. In addition, as I understand it, no one is going to deprive the Su-57 of the ability to detect an enemy sufficiently early, at least by the radiation of an enemy radar. There is probably an SPO-cabinet on the Su-57, and direct radiation in any case (even from AFAR in LPI mode, at least in any other version) is easier to detect and isolate than reflected.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 11 July 2020 22: 02 New
      -2
      How do you get such confidence that a plane with a radar in LPI mode is easy to detect? In addition, the Su-35/57 will fly blindly, with the radar turned off?
      1. Charik
        Charik 11 July 2020 23: 08 New
        0
        Open source software and OLS-suitable?
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 11 July 2020 23: 11 New
          -1
          The range is many times less. You are attacked from a distance of 100 kilometers (with a maximum range of AIM-120 d7 - 180 km). And the OLS sees a maximum of 50 km .. And the STR will warn you after the capture of the GOS, when the missiles are 20 km from you.
          (The detection range in LPI mode is 160-190 km).
          1. Charik
            Charik 11 July 2020 23: 39 New
            0
            Max range is at what altitude -km 20? And doesn’t it inherit at this altitude — the inversion there or the afterburner to keep it — but where are the ranges of the 180-yas from? 100km doesn’t sit in place - and isn’t there any means of detecting missile launch? As long as 20 km before the operation of the target, the missile flies, you can turn it away?
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 11 July 2020 23: 49 New
              -1
              There are launch detection tools (may try to detect an OLS with an appropriate range).
              All explosive missiles with solid propellant rocket engines first gain altitude of the order of 30 + km, where there is minimal air resistance and fly most of the route there. Hence, such a range (180km maximum).
              Starting from 100km - for energy reserves in case of protective maneuvers.
              You will not see the inversion at such a range.
              Fighters of 4-5 generations do not need the fast and the furious to fly 20km.
              Optimal for counteraction - to have low visibility like an opponent and radar with LPI mode.
              Otherwise - multiple superior losses, with equal strengths of the parties.
              1. Charik
                Charik 12 July 2020 00: 04 New
                +1
                30 km? Dagger or SM-? One on one and the ols and the supermaneuver and the stealth cover-roll-well, and the pilot’s training will decide the battle as always, and if the UAV is screwed to the F35 like some then it will defend itself under cover and not attack the invisible “invisible” technique with superfood rockets
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 12 July 2020 00: 31 New
                  -1
                  In the considered embodiment, the collision occurs without covering ground-based radars / AWACS aircraft. Who have the same problems against inconspicuous targets.
                  At 30 km, the same Amraam takes off (all modern explosive missiles with long-range solid propellant rocket engines), when launched over a long distance.
                  OLS-35 sees the target at a maximum of 40km in the teaching staff. You will have to turn on your radars and look for the enemy, which will interfere with the implementation of protective maneuvers. (Which do not give any guarantees, especially when launching 2 missiles at a target. Let me remind you, it’s enough to fly 5-7 meters to successfully defeat.)
                  1. Charik
                    Charik 12 July 2020 01: 06 New
                    +1
                    But the enemy will not turn on the radar - do you need to escort the missile? Until the capture of the GSN-if for PMV and hide-and-seek behind the terrain, what is the chance of a sso 100km to hit
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 12 July 2020 06: 48 New
                      -1
                      The rocket is escorted without any illumination, it is not possible to detect this (as well as with our P-77 counterpart). For hide and seek behind the relief you need to know that you are attacked and the direction of the attack.
                      In this case, the range is half less than the maximum and the rocket has a lot of energy left for maneuvers. As I said, it’s enough to blow up 5-7 meters (the laser proximity sensor is triggered) to damage / remove the fighter from the battle.
                      Such opportunities and the tactics used are extremely dangerous, you can try to “shove the numbers”, but the ranks of the attackers will be greatly thinned out. We need a reduction in visibility and equipping AFAR radars with LPI mode, we need purchases (to replace old missiles with a semi-active seeker and the first modifications of the R-77) of a significant number of AIM-120D analogs.
                      1. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 13 July 2020 00: 01 New
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        The rocket is escorted without any illumination, it is not possible to detect this (as well as with our P-77 counterpart).


                        Again crap, a colleague, study the materiel. If you are irradiating your enemy with your radar no matter how, then the target is identified by the STR with a high probability
                      2. 3danimal
                        3danimal 13 July 2020 01: 27 New
                        -1
                        STR reliably detects operation in LPI mode? It does not even stand next to the backlight power of the RVV with a semi-active GOS. And the distance is great, in the region of 100km (in this example)
                      3. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 13 July 2020 02: 38 New
                        0
                        Of course, this mode is being discovered.
      2. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 12 July 2020 21: 04 New
        0
        I repeat - it doesn’t matter anymore that you are irradiated with EPI or in normal mode - after the 14th year, Pastel finds this mode without problems.
        1. telobezumnoe
          telobezumnoe 12 July 2020 22: 40 New
          0
          both dlro and others can irradiate and direct missiles into the proposed square .. the plane just goes to the launch site and that’s all, it doesn’t need to turn on even lpi .. and it sees well everything that any other plane sees in the common information space
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 12 July 2020 23: 50 New
            0
            Quote: telobezumnoe
            both dlro and others can irradiate and induce missiles into the proposed square.


            Cannot from the word at all
            1. telobezumnoe
              telobezumnoe 17 July 2020 22: 19 New
              0
              our a50 can give target designation, as well as provide illumination for guiding the rocket, and in this regard, we can modestly keep silent about their dlro f35 capabilities in this regard, we will not have such a thing soon. in general, such non-peremptory statements ..
              1. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 17 July 2020 22: 26 New
                0
                What are you talking about now? Be so kind as to explain what you wanted to say on each item, otherwise you somehow mixed everything together.
  • Eug
    Eug 12 July 2020 09: 38 New
    0
    I have no such confidence. I’m saying that a DIRECT signal is easier to distinguish because it is much more powerful than the reflected one. But the radar of the irradiated plane is turned off or on, and it’s all the same if I’m not talking about the range of mutual detection, but only about highlighting a direct signal.
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 12 July 2020 12: 32 New
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    t with radar in lpi mode easy to detect?


    From the age of 14, we learned how to recognize LPI, since there’s nothing supernatural there,
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 13 July 2020 01: 30 New
      -1
      Interestingly, this miracle open source system is on all aircraft? I doubt it. Again, LPI settings could tweak.
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 13 July 2020 02: 36 New
        0
        Pastel .... And there was a question, not even in hardware, but in software. You would dear, you would understand before making statements about the miracle radar working on the study but why it is "invisible" for the RTR stations. How does entpO most EPI work and at the same time about the essence of the radar equation. A twist is useless.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 13 July 2020 04: 46 New
          -1
          At present, the scenario I have proposed is more than realistic. The “appearance” of STRs perceiving radiation in the LPI mode in 2014 does not mean their spread. We presented KAZ for tanks in general 20 years ago, and where are they? The Israelis developed and used in the army for 10+ years, and we only have conversations.
          Similarly, on how many fighters (in%) are the same P-77s (at least), instead of the obsolete P-27s? (About the distribution of new systems)
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 13 July 2020 10: 32 New
            0
            Quote: 3danimal
            The “appearance” of STRs perceiving radiation in the LPI mode in 2014 does not mean their spread.


            Once again, you do not understand how it works. You do not want to understand how the radar equation works. There was no new iron there. Enough software refinement.

            Quote: 3danimal
            in%) are the same R-77s (at least), instead of the obsolete R-27s?


            Also a Newton’s binom for me - About 20-25 Su-27S / P naval and 12 Su-33 can not use the R-77 and the old MiG-29 in Eribuni. The R-77s are capable of being used and recorded in the photo with the AKU-170 MiG-31BSM (approx. 120-130 units), Su-34 (approx. 120 units), Su-27cm / cm3 (approx. 70 units), Su- 35 (approx. 100 units) Su-30cm (approx. 100 units), MiG-29SMT (approx. 50), MiG-29K (22 units)
            And another moment, the target illumination for the R-27R / ER is needed at the final stage of the flight, before that it is also pulled by radio corrections
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 12 July 2020 19: 33 New
    -1
    Su-57 needs LPI mode and a greater reduction in ESR. By the way, the declared target tracking characteristics n036 are inferior to AN / APG-77 and APG-82: 64 targets versus 100.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 12 July 2020 21: 06 New
      0
      Quote: 3danimal
      64 goals against 100.

      This is scholasticism
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 13 July 2020 01: 20 New
        -1
        On the contrary, the specifics. Data claimed by manufacturers.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 13 July 2020 02: 42 New
          0
          Scholasticism. What will this figure give you? what's the difference 100 goals followed or 30 for your pathetic 8 missiles?
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 13 July 2020 04: 50 New
            0
            The ability for the aircraft to direct allies and control a large area of ​​the sky.
  • SVD68
    SVD68 11 July 2020 07: 48 New
    10
    Maybe it's time to stop retelling Chinese articles? They carry nothing but rampant fantasies.
    1. GELEZNII_KAPUT
      GELEZNII_KAPUT 11 July 2020 19: 12 New
      +2
      Quote: SVD68
      Maybe it's time to stop retelling Chinese articles? They carry nothing but rampant fantasies.

      But what a massive srach in the comments! bully
  • sleeve
    sleeve 11 July 2020 07: 51 New
    +3
    Something like a ship's ideology. The “fast” ships were less armed and weaker armored, but possessed the distance and battlefield. And the heavy turtles remained so, and the artillery adapted and eventually pierced them.
    "Miracle" stealth is a matter of technological development of the already launched standard line of detection tools.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 11 July 2020 23: 21 New
      -1
      So you can not do without the use of centimeter and decimeter frequencies. They give both range and accuracy. And against them, the most effective measures to reduce visibility.
  • Junior Warrant Officer
    Junior Warrant Officer 11 July 2020 07: 55 New
    +4
    And why are articles being discussed all the time from the Chinese counterpart of Yandex Zen? In the Russian segment of the Internet, you can’t read anything like that. We can say that the land of Russia has not yet become idiotic, it is not necessary to feed nonsense in China.
  • Private-K
    Private-K 11 July 2020 07: 57 New
    11
    This apparently very young Chinese “expert” did not even bother with a superficial study of American publications of the years when the F22 was created and built. And there it is precisely that which means “over-maneuverability” (tm), “cruising supersonic without afterburner” (tm) in combination with reduced radar signature.
    F22 was created in order to guaranteefully surpass the performance characteristics of the Su-27 - precisely and, above all, the performance characteristics.
    Those. "young Chinese expert" - hit the sky with a finger.
  • Kapkan
    Kapkan 11 July 2020 08: 02 New
    +9
    As soon as the "experts" cease to consider the Su-57 in isolation from ground-based air defense with the doctrine of "denying access", new horizons of knowledge will immediately open for them.
    Well, as my acquaintance pilot said, “We will always be forced to fight them. They just don’t understand this yet.”
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 11 July 2020 22: 05 New
      -1
      Ok, but you have to live to close combat. And if the enemy is training hard and hard to avoid close combat, then such a “breakthrough” will certainly not be simple, as well as the number of losses will increase.
      1. Kapkan
        Kapkan 13 July 2020 06: 03 New
        0
        Yes, here you are right. Very few of them will survive. And as regards melee, as such, it is not meant over the territory of Russia. Well it is, note.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 13 July 2020 12: 24 New
          -1
          I did not consider such an option (over the territory).
          But listen, if from the initial 10 to 10 2-4 to 10 will remain - this is a loss. Maneuvers against melee missiles with UVT will not help much when they shoot at you from different directions. Then what's the point?
          Let me remind you that the number of pilots and planes is limited, the ability to reproduce them is inferior to the conditional enemy. Su-30/35 do not “rivet” fast.
          I wonder what territories you mean melee fights over.
  • Alexey Sommer
    Alexey Sommer 11 July 2020 08: 11 New
    -6
    The Chinese, of course, are still experts. But there is some truth in the words of this Ketai expert.
  • alstr
    alstr 11 July 2020 08: 15 New
    +2
    In fact, at least one aerobatics figure can drop missile guidance - this is a bell.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 11 July 2020 22: 09 New
      -1
      Against modern GOS missiles will no longer work. The target has lost energy and is inactive - everything is only being simplified.
      1. alstr
        alstr 12 July 2020 22: 37 New
        +1
        Actually, on the contrary. All GOS and even radar air defense systems are based on extrapolation of the trajectory based on previous data. Plus a time lag between sensor polls.
        And the bell is such a not so pleasant figure for the radar and the seeker. Because extrapolation of the trajectory goes up, and the plane itself moves down (after the highest point). And it is at this moment that a breakdown of escort can occur. Moreover, if the radar uses only the Doppler effect, then the tracking failure can occur for reasons of speed 0.
        And if the radar has the opportunity to work out such a maneuver by the operator (and even with appropriate training), then such a zigzag is hardly registered in the GOS.
  • jovanni
    jovanni 11 July 2020 08: 27 New
    +4
    No, well, if the Chinese say, then of course! These are famous masters of air combat! They have repeatedly shown the superiority of their strategy in severe air battles. True, speculatively basically ...
  • Free wind
    Free wind 11 July 2020 08: 36 New
    0
    Subtle planes, they are frontal and smaller in lateral projection, when maneuvering, it will sparkle with the entire plane on any radar. Therefore, he noticed the enemy’s plane, launched a rocket, and carefully, gas to the floor, ditch everyone from the traffic light.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 11 July 2020 22: 11 New
      -1
      So the fact of the matter is that the inconspicuous you will see (and attack) earlier. Just out of the blue, you will find out that 2 missiles are flying at you from the ARL GSN ..
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 11 July 2020 08: 40 New
    +6
    The "stealth" turning on the locator was no longer a stealth, but a clearly distinguishable target. He is Invisible until he sees nothing, but only receives information on communication channels from all AWACs and ground posts ... Via satellite or something else ... This is a difficult thing - modern air combat ... using everything and all ... and the suppression of everything and everything, the massive use of electronic warfare, the suppression or destruction of satellites, and AWACs are generally the most delicious goals! For long-range air defense missiles. How do you protect huge planes from them, shining in the radio range like a Christmas tree!
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 11 July 2020 09: 25 New
      -5
      Quote: Mountain Shooter

      "Stealth" turning on the locator, not stealth, but a clearly distinguishable target

      He does not have to turn on the radar himself. In the near future, the radar will use an accompanying UAV.
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      AWACs are generally the most delicious goals! For long-range air defense missiles

      In advance, you do not need to enter the air defense zone. To bring him down need fighters.
      1. Catsoi
        Catsoi 11 July 2020 13: 42 New
        +2
        Quote: Grazdanin
        In advance, you do not need to enter the air defense zone. To bring him down need fighters.

        Any ground-based air defense is an order of magnitude POWERFUL, FAREST, WIDE-RANGE :), and besides, it is geographically more distributed. To shoot down an advance, you just need a ground or air launcher, not necessarily the nearest one. Avax will be spotted even at the start from airfields, and they can be shot down there already ...
        1. telobezumnoe
          telobezumnoe 12 July 2020 22: 50 New
          0
          you probably don’t know what a radio horizon is and why do the Avaks still see further, and how were you going to shoot it down and generally see the starts from airfields?
    2. Avior
      Avior 11 July 2020 09: 42 New
      +1
      They limit the ability to detect
      On f-22 is a very developed RTR intelligence station with 30 sensors.
      The radar turns on only for a short time before launch, using the lpi mode.
      On f-35 in addition there is also a full-sphere viewing system
      1. Catsoi
        Catsoi 11 July 2020 13: 47 New
        +2
        Quote: Avior
        The radar turns on only for a short time before launch, using the lpi mode.
        As soon as the AFAR turned towards the front, and not towards the ground - consider it INCLUDED !!! And do not care what kind of regimes this MIRROR uses with a 0,8m diameter, covered by a radio-transparent cap.
        1. Avior
          Avior 11 July 2020 14: 04 New
          -2
          It does not turn at all, it has electronic control.
          And he has no mirror, only PMM, which have a very low reflectivity.
          1. dali
            dali 11 July 2020 19: 47 New
            0
            Quote: Avior
            It does not turn at all, it has electronic control.

            And how does this electronic control work ... haven't the radio waves taught the teams how to perform? belay
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 11 July 2020 22: 13 New
              -2
              Learn materiel good
    3. 3danimal
      3danimal 11 July 2020 22: 12 New
      -1
      Forget about LPI mode (which is the highlight of AFAR). Nothing “glows”, all within the background.
      1. telobezumnoe
        telobezumnoe 12 July 2020 22: 57 New
        0
        glowing .. this is an analogue of PPCh in a wide range, hence the difficulty to notice, since the power is spread out over the range and you need sensitive equipment to distinguish these bursts from white noise, and mathematically attach them to the course, there is more mathematics of signal processing.
      2. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 12 July 2020 23: 55 New
        0
        Crap. Alpai does not work like that. And you will not deceive the basic equation of radar with this spell.
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 11 July 2020 09: 01 New
    +4
    Better to be super-manoeuvrable stelss than awkward ..
    1. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov 11 July 2020 09: 22 New
      0
      Better not to fight.
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 11 July 2020 09: 54 New
        -2
        Quote: Sergey Valov
        Better not to fight.

        Nah, it's better not to write stupidity. fool
  • rocket757
    rocket757 11 July 2020 09: 31 New
    +5
    The theory should be confirmed by practice, that's right, but who said / came up with that our air systems are designed only to dodge ???
    Some kind of amateurish statement.
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 11 July 2020 09: 34 New
    0
    According to him, the American F-22 is “completely different,” since the American concept of the development of combat aircraft is based on stealth technologies and early detection.
    -Dear Chinese! You are so smart. Stomp along the path you have drawn. You won’t be able to come up with anything yourself fool Or are you again, as the Indians fell into a stupor, and you can’t make a choice yourself? Need to drag us into controversy? Go through the forest, wise guys. fool
  • Sergey Valov
    Sergey Valov 11 July 2020 09: 38 New
    +5
    Over-maneuverability is possible only at low speeds, I think it’s not necessary to explain why. This is no longer a fountain. Second, the use of super-maneuverability leads to an additional loss of speed, which is also critical for aerial combat - while the super-maneuverable aircraft will spin at a scanty speed in the dog dump, the enemy will either easily knock it down.
    Another caveat - our aircraft with super-maneuverability are heavy fighters, clearly losing the light in maneuverable combat.
    The cruising speed of fighters in principle does not allow the use of super-maneuverability, what is the tactics of the combat use of aircraft with this possibility is a mystery to me.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 11 July 2020 11: 23 New
      +8
      It's right. To use the maneuver with rotary nozzles, Dryers must be reset
      speed up to 0.5-0.6 MAX. Americans know that. And in their tactics planes are provided -
      beaters and arrow planes. Some twist loops with the enemy, forcing them to maneuver,
      while others are looking from favorable angles to slow down before or after a sharp maneuver with nozzles
      Dry and shoot them at these moments.
      Tactics were tested in the Red Flag exercises against the Indian Su-30.
      1. Charik
        Charik 11 July 2020 21: 21 New
        0
        I think the Americans there made a blowjob to the Indians laughing -and back in the last century, people flew to America in the 27th, so compete, and some not-so-small American aviator himself spoke to the camera but not much but oh-oh-ah
    2. sp77ark
      sp77ark 11 July 2020 14: 16 New
      0
      I agree. Plus, a side-view radar with a helmet-mounted target designation system for an all-perspective rocket withstanding 40G or more can negate all the advantage of super maneuverability in the BVB. And all this is already there.
  • bars1
    bars1 11 July 2020 09: 46 New
    +1
    Yeah, the Americans are so hoping "for long-range aerial combat that they paint their" aggressors "under Russian fighters - recently they began to paint in the colors of the Su-57 F-16. Explicitly practice melee battles
  • Whirlwind
    Whirlwind 11 July 2020 10: 01 New
    +4
    That's right, right ... Why do you need this super-maneuverability and finally maneuverability ... The main thing is that the locator would early, early detect a target for 500, or better for 1000 km. and to him still in excess of super long-range missiles for the same 500-1000 km. battlefield. Why then can I fly somewhere? As a result, the locator and missiles will be grounded and the S-400 will turn out, and soon the S-500 (only for some reason not in the USA ...), then you can safely save on fighter interceptors.
    Now it’s clear why the Americans have a tendency to not have Mig-31 type interceptors, which haven't existed for a long time, and C-400 type systems are still missing.
    However, the trend according to Zadornov ...
    1. Mikle2000
      Mikle2000 11 July 2020 11: 44 New
      0
      And what would they intercept with their interceptors and shoot down their S-500 in this of their America? What rare bird will fly there and where?
  • Vestovoi
    Vestovoi 11 July 2020 10: 05 New
    -4
    Russians still consider air combat at short and medium distances relevant.

    That's right, we prefer to see the enemy, rather than quietly bomb and shoot ..
  • JD1979
    JD1979 11 July 2020 10: 15 New
    +5
    It seems that either the Chinese write specifically for VO, or someone specifically selects such articles)). For they cause the effect of yeast in one place in the comments among the adherents of super-maneuverability and long-range combat, and 99% are a little better versed in this topic than the theory of relativity)
  • Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 11 July 2020 10: 30 New
    +1
    Ah, what a dispute over the Chinese.
    But in fact - already discussed earlier - over-maneuverability works up to 800 km an hour, best - 400 km an hour, that is, it’s the most for parades, and for pointing a rocket so that it doesn’t take a steam ....
    Above - with sharp maneuvers, everything will supposedly be demolished by the air and fall off ...

    At high speed, they wrote, the most ordinary things are important - the speed of rotation and rotation. And this is better for light single-engine aircraft ... by appearances at an air show it is clearly visible ...
    1. dali
      dali 11 July 2020 19: 59 New
      -1
      Quote: Alex2000
      At high speed, they wrote, the most ordinary things are important - the speed of rotation and rotation. And this is better for light single-engine aircraft ... by appearances at an air show it is clearly visible ...

      Interesting, interesting, and what do you think affects the speed of a turn, etc. Or do you think the swivel nozzle does not affect the turning speed ?! belay

      Well, and links to the studio where it is clearly visible that "And this is better for light single-engine planes ... you can clearly see the speeches at the air show ..." Yes, yes - give a video. where is the NATO single-engine fighter turning faster at a speed of say 1700 km / h?
      1. Aleks2000
        Aleks2000 12 July 2020 00: 31 New
        -1
        And at a speed of 2500 you can not bring? ))) Lip no fool)))
        You need, you are looking for))).
  • storm
    storm 11 July 2020 11: 21 New
    0
    And how much are the Chinese great experts ???
    If not for the USSR and Russia, they would still fly kites ...
  • Fedorovich
    Fedorovich 11 July 2020 11: 25 New
    +1
    Disruption of capture? No, not heard ...
  • Desert Battleship
    Desert Battleship 11 July 2020 11: 26 New
    0
    It may very well happen that EW means will leave opponents without missiles, here super-maneuverability with guns will come in handy!
    1. Catsoi
      Catsoi 11 July 2020 13: 55 New
      -1
      Yes, and rockets in this stealth breaks with Uglkin nose :)
  • pepel
    pepel 11 July 2020 11: 40 New
    -1
    There is no fifth generation; alien haut. J20 is not the fifth generation, on 4+ engines. They are worn with this invisibility like Americans, although this concept did not manifest itself in any way in reality, but only in advertising booklets. It’s like the children closed their eyes: “I don’t see, so they don’t see me either”.
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 11 July 2020 11: 47 New
    +2
    We probably assume that progress on radars and detection tools is easier to achieve than progress on coatings and an effective compromise between aerodynamics and the stealth design.
  • chingachguc
    chingachguc 11 July 2020 11: 54 New
    +7
    over-maneuverability requires, on the one hand, outstanding engines, and, on the other, excellent aerodynamics and materials. If you have neither one nor the other, you can simply declare the super maneuverability obsolete. Neither China nor the United States have this, so they rely on stealth, which in fact can realize its advantages in certain ideal conditions: 1. the enemy does not have space reconnaissance equipment. 2. the enemy does not have means of a long-range meter radar and a centimeter-range radar, there are no quantum radars. 3. The enemy does not have EW facilities 4. The weather should be cloudy 5. The enemy has no advantage in speed or maneuverability 6. The enemy is not able to conduct a network-centric war and exchange data in real time 7. The enemy has only weak air defense means 8 The first attack with long-range missiles should destroy the enemy, because if it fails, the stealth loses all the advantages
    1. Crash
      Crash 11 July 2020 12: 59 New
      0
      That's what they are designed for. laughing Slowly shoot on the ground and quickly wash off. On the enemy’s plane is fraught - God forbid you miss, but at subsonic speed (they are no longer allowed) and with little maneuverability try still to escape wink
    2. Catsoi
      Catsoi 11 July 2020 14: 00 New
      0
      No, well, the USA, why did you fasten to China? :)
      They do not have outstanding engines, excellent aerodynamics (we are not talking about F22 / 35 in principle) and materials? Outdated, the United States declared them to everyone else, so as not to rock the boat to pump them :)
      1. chingachguc
        chingachguc 11 July 2020 15: 17 New
        -2
        Yes, the USA has composite materials. On engines they lag behind. Aerodynamics has never been a strong point of US aviation, and now they have also sacrificed it to stealth (these are mutually exclusive concepts). What the US has always surpassed us in is avionics. Here we are forever catching up.
    3. Avior
      Avior 11 July 2020 14: 10 New
      -3
      . no quantum radars.

      You are intrigued
      Can you name a couple of models?
      1. chingachguc
        chingachguc 11 July 2020 15: 18 New
        0
        Now promising models, but five years later they will be put into service. Or are you in doubt?
        1. Avior
          Avior 11 July 2020 15: 20 New
          -1
          Visit the site in five years, write models, discuss
          1. The comment was deleted.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 11 July 2020 12: 28 New
    +3
    The article has reasons.
    It's time to make our planes inconspicuous, give them
    Long Range Radar and Long Range Missiles
    launch range. Then super-maneuverability will be in a row.
    And on this super-maneuverability alone you will not go far ...
    1. evgen1221
      evgen1221 11 July 2020 13: 40 New
      +1
      Think logically and correctly, but the elephant can eat it and give it to him. I’m thinking that invisibility for modern radars is fake and PR, and if that were the case, then nobody would shine with such shorts (in the sense of PR).
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 11 July 2020 13: 57 New
        -1
        I did not write anything about "invisibility."
  • Andrey.AN
    Andrey.AN 11 July 2020 12: 57 New
    +1
    Over-maneuverability will never be superfluous, takeoff - landing is shorter, in defense there is a bonus to dodge or missile defense, there is nothing to say about close combat, for stealth it gives an obvious plus to the mode of envelope relief. Wherever you spit, you need it.
    1. dali
      dali 11 July 2020 20: 04 New
      0
      Quote: Andrey.AN
      Over-maneuverability will never be superfluous, takeoff - landing is shorter, in defense there is a bonus to dodge or missile defense, there is nothing to say about close combat, for stealth it gives an obvious plus to the mode of envelope relief. Wherever you spit, you need it.

      I see specific arguments for oververting ...
      But I don’t see any arguments against two citizens who put a minus ... awww nothing to say - all we can do is click on the left mouse button laughing laughing laughing
      1. Andrey.AN
        Andrey.AN 11 July 2020 21: 23 New
        0
        These are adherents of a flat earth, or the water world, in which no one will ever meet from around the corner.
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 11 July 2020 13: 37 New
    +3
    The USSR had a big war and it was a massive war, the Americans in the masses remotely bombed the masses, hence the difference in the concepts of fighters. The secret of the official report is for a normal analyst, for newspapermen there is a reason to embed an article.
  • polikutin.e
    polikutin.e 11 July 2020 14: 38 New
    0
    Sohu is who or what, since he saw the post that these are Chinese, and also that Koreans, and now again Chinese. Is it time to decide these super connoisseurs?
  • Inspector
    Inspector 11 July 2020 15: 12 New
    +1
    It has long been obvious. Shunting against a trucker - karate against a Makarov pistol. And do not care that the gun does not know how to fight - the karate’s chances are zero. Is there someone who doesn't understand this? Even in the rank they write already !!!
  • Prisoner
    Prisoner 11 July 2020 16: 31 New
    +1
    The Chinese imagined themselves theorists of air war? You can’t create a maneuverable device, so say “sorry, we can’t”, and do not spread over the tree.
  • HMR333
    HMR333 11 July 2020 17: 16 New
    +2
    Maneuverability is always + especially from missiles!
  • Fantazer911
    Fantazer911 11 July 2020 18: 33 New
    0
    Well, yes, yes, the Chinese specialists are also envious, especially their opinion, well, the defense ministers and designers are sure to take their opinion into account when building new aircraft, a paradox, in a word!
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 11 July 2020 19: 14 New
    -1
    Well, here, as in a split personality, or ... or ... 2 opinions in one ,, bottle ,,! Opinion # 1. : Is it because there are so many adherents of close air combat that long-term air-to-air missiles of short and medium range have prevailed in the arsenal of the airborne forces since long ago! Due to the lack of fifth-generation fighters in the arsenal of the aerospace forces, there, “dominates,” a misunderstanding of how to effectively use
  • Whale
    Whale 11 July 2020 20: 15 New
    0
    It is very important to take into account the opinion of the people who never participated in significant air battles.
  • Charik
    Charik 11 July 2020 21: 11 New
    0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=xX6nDShCqOs&feature=emb_logo- а российские летчики такой дозаправкой занимаются или лучше сразу от Ильюши?А в видео еще похожий на Е2 дрлошник палубный-он то как интегрирован с истребителями российского производства?
  • AndreyM
    AndreyM 12 July 2020 06: 29 New
    +1
    The F-35 is not designed for air combat at all - stealth is needed in order to avoid this fight, sneak unnoticed towards the target. And if the air battle has already begun, then the stealth will help little, do more harm. Yes, and “first saw - first shot” does not mean “first hit” - the enemy’s powerful means of electronic warfare and super maneuverability allow him to dodge the missile, and the F-35 already at the time of preparation for the shot (it entered the active radar system, the covers opened rocket compartment) ceases to be a stealth
  • Aviationism
    Aviationism 12 July 2020 06: 41 New
    +2
    Russia is the only country that has effectively mastered 3D thrust vector control. I remember the Eurofighter pilots literally a poster with delight when it was planned to equip it with UVT. Did not work out! The Chinese were soaked with Chengdu J-10B. Did not work out. Both now claim that UVT is useless. Sour grapes?
    And if it is useless, why are the latest Japanese and South Korean projected sixth generation fighter jets incorporating UVT?

    The Americans designed the F-22 as the best fighter for air supremacy until 2050. To do this, it was equipped with UVT. After the emergence of Russian superiority in the UVP, especially promising Su-57 with product 30, the F-22 will soon lose dominance. Therefore, now they feed on convincing everyone that “close air combat” (BVB) is out of date.
    This lie once worked. In Vietnam, Phantoms and MiG-21s did not successfully feed themselves fighting only with long-range missiles. A complete failure!
    Modern missiles are 400% more effective than then. Ho missile defense is also better by 400%; so the statistics will not move very much.

    If two 100% stealth fighter are in the space itself, they will not see each other until their long-range missiles can be used. Then a maneuvering battle is inevitable, or both run to their own.

    UVT is here for a long time, unless the Americans succeed.
    1. Aviationism
      Aviationism 13 July 2020 02: 18 New
      +1
      (Correct original)

      Russia is the only country that has effectively mastered 3D thrust vector control (UHT). I remember the Eurofighter pilots literally cried with delight when it was planned to equip it with UVT. Did not work out! The Chinese were fed with Chengdu J-10B. Did not work out. Both now claim that UVT is useless. Sour grapes?
      And if it is useless, why are the latest Japanese and South Korean projected sixth generation fighter jets incorporating UVT?

      The Americans designed the F-22 as the best fighter for air supremacy until 2050. To do this, it was equipped with UVT. After the emergence of Russian superiority in the UVP, especially promising Su-57 with product 30, the F-22 will soon lose dominance. Therefore, now they feed on convincing everyone that “close air combat” (BVB) is out of date.
      This lie once worked. In Vietnam, Phantoms and MiG-21s did not successfully feed themselves fighting only with long-range missiles. A complete failure! I had to resort to guns.
      Modern missiles are 400% more effective than then. Ho missile defense is also better by 400%; so the statistics will not move very much.

      If two 100% stealth fighter are in the space itself, they will not see each other until their long-range missiles can be used. Then a maneuvering battle is inevitable, or both run to their own.

      UVT is here for a long time, unless the Americans succeed in fooling the Russians again.
  • Vivan
    Vivan 12 July 2020 09: 35 New
    +1
    That's just funny! What kind of combat experiments does the Chinese Air Force have in order to wedge themselves into the conversation of adults and talk about air battles?
  • Bibabo
    Bibabo 12 July 2020 10: 40 New
    0
    It seems important to me that the possibilities of development in the direction of super-maneuverability are limited (at least - by overloads acceptable for the pilot) and close to exhaustion, but not by "early detection". Even if the chances of clashes are equal now, lag will occur tomorrow, and then “they” will take the next step, and “we” will be at the level of “their yesterday”. It seems that further development requires those things in which Russia is traditionally weak (and weak due to traditions).

    By the way, I think that "stealth" is concerned: the development of detection capabilities is less limited than - by concealment.

    And the future is drones, and the one who can stick more will win. And that means the USA, because the economy is stronger.
    1. krokus
      krokus 12 July 2020 23: 28 New
      0
      and the ability to massively knock them down by means of a strong electromagnetic pulse will nullify all conceivable possibilities for their over-mass release. Plus, they can interrupt control and + can also intercept ... and bring these gifts back. With drones, not everything is so rosy, their era is just beginning and the era of serious confrontation with small aircraft is also in its infancy. You can do it ... the question is not to harm yourself.
    2. Aviationism
      Aviationism 13 July 2020 03: 44 New
      0
      The more efficient the UVT, the lower the normal overload due to the quick repayment of speed. A new problem is the combined 3D overload. Gymnastics will help.

      Super-maneuverable missiles are capable of overloading up to 35+, but they are difficult to slow down and accelerate again.
      1. Yuriy Filatov
        Yuriy Filatov 14 July 2020 00: 55 New
        0
        in general, the rocket cannot slow down. Moreover, almost all DVB missiles have fuel for only half the flight, after which they fly by inertia and each maneuver of their rudders sharply reduces their speed and range. And at the end, the plane can fly away from them turning on the afterburner. Recently there was a video how the Syrian MiG-21 escaped from two Turkish missiles, using a dodge maneuver and they could not catch it
  • djdf.tvtkz
    djdf.tvtkz 12 July 2020 12: 14 New
    +1
    Long-range launch of a rocket is an opportunity to destroy it with protective equipment. To develop the detection of unobtrusive targets, that is, to reduce their invisibility to 0 + their long-range missiles (they are already the most long-range ones) and to develop beyond maneuverability further, this is an undeniable trump card when transferred to the 6th generation where aircraft will not need a person
  • 1536
    1536 12 July 2020 14: 11 New
    0
    In Chinese it turns out that it is best to fight on airships. You fly yourself and shoot rockets at the highly maneuverable Russian fighters that wind around a solid airship "sausage", but cannot shoot it down. What is not the concept of a "new air battle" in the style of the movie "Star Wars"?