Military Review

The F-22 fighter will be able to detect the Su-57 only after entering the zone of destruction of its missiles

540

One of the main characteristics of the fifth generation fighter is the implemented stealth technology. In general, this is a complex of technologies that is associated with a decrease in radar signature, signature in the infrared range. One of the defining parameters in this case is the effective scattering area (ESR). It is a quantitative measure of the scattering of electromagnetic waves.


In turn, the EPR indicator is associated not only with the stealth technology implemented on the fighter itself (including the use of composite materials in the airframe, special radio-absorbing coatings), but also with the distance from which the enemy's airborne radar is tracking.

Earlier, the manufacturer of the Russian fifth generation fighter Su-57 called the effective area of ​​dispersion of the aircraft at 0,3 square meters. Of course, this is significantly higher than that of the F-22 and F-35, but even in this case, the Russian aircraft is inaccessible to the avionics (avionics) of fifth-generation American fighters at medium distances. For example, to modernize the American APG-77 radar with AFAR, the detection range of a "standard" target with an EPR of 1 sq. M. is about 200 km. This is when the azimuth field of view is plus or minus 60 degrees.

For an indicator of the effective scattering area of ​​the Su-57 of 0,3 square meters and below, detection at long distances is impossible. In order for the F-22 avionics to detect the Su-57 in the sky with a high degree of probability, it will have to monitor the airspace with the entrance to the engagement zone of the Russian fighter's weapons. And this despite the fact that the number of standard weapons of the Russian fifth generation fighter, as previously reported, will include a modernized version of the hypersonic missile of the Kh-47M2 "Dagger" complex with a maximum speed of 10 (according to other sources - 12) M. "Dagger" missiles are capable of delivering damage to enemy ships, its infrastructure.

In other words, the F-22 will be able to reliably detect the Su-57 only after entering the missile range of a Russian combat aircraft. For obvious reasons, this is already a risk for the F-22 itself, even if it tries to prevent the launch of the "Dagger" at targets on land or at sea.

Experts note that when the Su-57 and F-22 “meet” in the air, two things can ultimately play a key role: effective missile weapons and super-maneuverability. And in terms of maneuverability, Russian fighters are significantly ahead of American ones, which, in fact, is recognized in the United States itself.
Photos used:
Sukhoi Corporation
540 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 16 August 2020 14: 25
    58 th
    Su-57 EPR - 0.3-0.5
    And Sukhoi, without hesitation, said: "Our main enemy also has 0.3."
    And all the problems with the stealthiness of the Su-57 immediately disappeared after this statement.
    bosses. Wisely! laughing
    1. Observer2014
      Observer2014 16 August 2020 14: 41
      25 th
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Su-57 EPR - 0.3-0.5
      And Sukhoi, without hesitation, said: "Our main enemy also has 0.3."
      And all the problems with the stealthiness of the Su-57 immediately disappeared after this statement.
      bosses. Wisely! laughing

      Alexander hi The bosses everywhere think that the smartest. wink Tell me better about the infrared radiation of the Su 57. The infrared radiation is the Achilles heel of the Su 57. And it allows you to detect an American just when the Su 57 is already deadly for the F-22.
      1. Private-K
        Private-K 17 August 2020 09: 48
        +5
        Quote: Observer2014
        Infrared radiation is the Achilles heel of the Su 57, and allows an American to be detected exactly when the Su 57 is already deadly for the F-22

        The funny thing is that there is no IR station on F22 detection. tongue Saved in due time. fool
        On Fu35 it is, but ... the penguin, of course, could shoot down an eagle with its carcass wassat , but it flies badly. crying
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 17 August 2020 14: 05
          -1
          the penguin, of course, could have knocked down an eagle with his wassat carcass, but it flies badly. crying

          Have you personally checked? Flies, according to recall, no worse than the F-18. And at high angles of attack it is more stable.
          F22 lacks an IR detection station. Saved in due time.

          It has an AIM-9x (2), which can lock the target +/- 90 'along the axis of the aircraft and the ability to lock the target after launch. With the JHMCS helmet (and the corresponding computing unit) it allows you to attack the target on your tail.
          As a result, even breaking into close range to the F-22, your chances are not very good. A tough battle with heavy casualties, to say the least.
          A useful topic about pilots. Who has the largest average plaque in the world? (Except Israelis smile )
          1. Igor Aviator
            Igor Aviator 17 August 2020 16: 20
            +3
            Quote: 3danimal
            As a result, even breaking into close range to the F-22, your chances are not very good. A tough battle with heavy casualties, to say the least.
            A useful topic about pilots. Who has the largest average plaque in the world? (Except Israelis smile)

            Yes Yes! Our pilots have already met with American ones, we know their flying and MORAL qualities! (even those!)! How many times did our (RF) command offer the USAF command to conduct training air battles? Do not even count! Each time, opponents CATEGORALLY refused! How many times has the USAF agreed? In my opinion, ONE, and then - on its territory, more precisely - on the territory of its operating airbase, Langley. Where was the training zone allocated? In the ocean, at a distance of 200 km from the eastern coast of the United States (so NO ONE could see, if that ...) How many air battles were carried out? in my opinion, 15, (if I'm not mistaken). How much did the USAF win? ....... How much did they lose? All ! So it's not just one raid! It's all about the skill of the one sitting in the cockpit. USAF pilots complain that Russian pilots "fly incorrectly - overly aggressive and pose a danger to USAF pilots".
            And about the infinitely expensive (worth about $ 600), but also the infinitely buggy helmet does not need to be told, we know!
            Yes! there are a lot of them, USAF pilots! But, as one of our epic heroes said to the darkness of the Pechenegs: "Your mother, where am I going to bury you all ?!"
            And at the expense of "And they have ..." I will say this: no matter what they have, if they turn up, "from that they will die!" (from)
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 17 August 2020 20: 43
              -3
              but also an endlessly buggy helmet

              All complex products fail as they are fine-tuned.
              How many air battles have been fought? in my opinion, 15, (if I'm not mistaken). How much did the USAF win? ....... How much did they lose? All !

              This confirms that in the first half of the 90s, the F-15 were inferior to the Su-27 in close combat. No doubt.
              1. Ali
                Ali 27 August 2020 14: 23
                +1
                Quote: unknown author of the article on VO
                Earlier, the manufacturer of the Russian fifth generation fighter Su-57 called the effective area of ​​dispersion of the aircraft at 0,3 square meters. Of course, this is significantly higher than the F-22 and F-35., but even in this case, the Russian aircraft is inaccessible to the avionics (avionics) of the fifth generation American fighters at medium distances. For example, to modernize the American APG-77 radar with AFAR, the detection range of a "standard" target with an EPR of 1 sq. M. is about 200 km. This is when the azimuth field of view is plus or minus 60 degrees.

                Unknown author! Don't write your ridiculous assumptions!
                The American firm Lockheed-Martin deliberately, for advertising purposes, gives the minimum possible, amplitude, in ideal conditions from a certain direction, EOP (effective reflecting surface) F-22 equal to 0,0001 sq. meter (hornet image intensifier) ​​in the front hemisphere, which is an incorrect image intensifier parameter. They also sounded the F-35 OEP equal to 0,005 sq. meter (image intensifier crows) under the same measurement conditions as for the F-22. According to Russian experts, average value Image intensifier F-22 is about 0,3 sq. meters. Considering that the image intensifier tube F-35 is larger than the image intensifier tube -22 and the stealth is worse, we choose for the calculation of the image intensifier tube = 0,3 m2.
                And the image intensifier tube of the Su-57 is 0,3-0,5 m2 - we choose the image converter tube = 0,5 m2 for the Su-57 for calculation, and the image converter tube = 2,5 m2 for the Su-35S, taking into account the suspension of the weapon. In many sources, the image intensifier tube of an empty SU-35S is no more than 1,4 m2, in Wikipedia it was earlier 0,7-1,0 m2, and now 0,7-2,0 m2 has been corrected - it is immediately clear who is doing this and why. Therefore, for the calculation, we choose the image intensifier = 2,5 m2, since this does not in any way affect the defeat of the Su-35S fighter aircraft F-22 (F-35) USA /
                1. N035 "Irbis" radar with PFAR Su-35S detects targets with an EOP = 3 square meters at a distance of D = 400 km, and F-22 (F-35) at a distance of D = 224,936 km, in free space.
                2. N036 "Belka" radar with AFAR Su-57 detects a target with an image intensifier = 1 square meter at a distance of D = 400 km, and F-22 (F-35) at a distance of D = 296,033 km, in free space.
                3. Radar AN / APG-77 with AFAR F-22 (AN / APG-81 with AFAR F-35) detects a target with an image intensifier = 1 sq. meter at a distance D = 241 km, and Su-57 at a distance of D = 202,656 km, and the Su-35S at a distance Su-35S at a distance of D = 303,041 km in free space, with a nominal combat load on an external sling.
                During the calculation, we see:
                1. Fighter Su-57 will detect F-22 (F-35) aircraft at a distance of D = 296,033 km in free space and it is guaranteed that they will be destroyed by RVV-BD R-37M with a range of D = 300 km. At the same time, the F-22 (F-35) will not even detect it (the detection range of the Su-57 is D = 202,656 km for the AN / APG-77 radar with the AFAR F-22 (AN / APG-81 with the AFAR F-35)) ...
                2. US F-22 (F-35) aircraft will detect Su-35S fighter earlier, however, when approaching the launch range of its long-range RVV-BD AIM-120 D = 180 km, Su-35S will be detected at a distance of D = 224,936 and then RVV-BD R-37M with a range of D = 300 km will be destroyed with a high probability ...
                These calculations are approximate according to open data on the Internet!
                However, only real air combat will decide everything!
                Forgive don't write old dogmasthat the range of destruction will be equal to 0,3-0,4 D max, which is now out of date, as well as fables about electronic warfare and the LPI mode.
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 27 August 2020 18: 52
                  -1
                  According to Russian experts, the average value of the F-22 image intensifier is about 0,3 sq. meters

                  Did they manage to steal the F-22 and irradiate it with radio waves in the laboratory? smile
                  The eye meter here can produce an error in orders of magnitude.
                  Offhand: the 22nd has S-shaped air intakes (compressor blades are not visible), metalized canopy without cover, "collapsed" keels. The Su-35 lacks all this, not to mention the sophisticated (albeit "gentle") coatings.
                  Plus, Lockheed has a lot of experience in stealth production and service.
                  1. Ali
                    Ali 27 August 2020 23: 45
                    0
                    3danimal, you absolutely do not know the methods for calculating the image intensifier, as well as the resonance phenomena!
                    Therefore, write nonsense, like a parrot, with your fellow citizens on the VO website. From time to time about air intakes, coatings (which are not worse than Martin-Lockheed coatings), about a binder lamp, and nonsense about image intensifier tubes - completely ignorant of radar, and so on.
                    And as they suggested to you, 3danimal, to calculate the detection range against the background of the underlying surface, it’s not a radar specialist.
                    Your specialists are far from the specialists of the United States and especially Russia in the field of radar, therefore you cannot bring your air defense and missile defense systems to your mind in terms of parameters! Maybe you can
                    tell by what?
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 28 August 2020 03: 20
                      -1
                      which are no worse than Martin-Lockheed coatings

                      The grounds for such statements ??
                      you absolutely do not know the methods for calculating the image intensifier, as well as the resonance phenomena!

                      I know that EPR is not calculated "by eye", which is what Poghosyan and Co. did.
                      about air intakes

                      about the bindery

                      So these solutions DO NOT significantly reduce the ESR ?? smile
                      And as they suggested to you, 3danimal, to calculate the detection range against the background of the underlying surface

                      I guess YOU, a great specialist, can easily do this ?? wink
                      Your specialists are far from the US and especially Russia in the field of radar

                      In order: I am a citizen of the Russian Federation (and even Russian by nationality). Considering the experience of creating serial stealth aircraft, AFAR radars for fighters (how many are there in the world in a series and who has more ??), FAR marine radars (the first - the beginning of the 60s) and the operation of all this - all, to a greater or lesser extent, lag behind "US specialists".
                      China is catching up, but it has a comparable budget (military - like our whole) and can allocate very large funds for research (comparable to the American one).
                      you cannot bring your air defense and missile defense systems to mind in terms of parameters

                      EMNIP, the Israelis are doing well with the air defense system, the same Indians preferred their samples to our (Russian) ones on frigates.
                      1. Ali
                        Ali 28 August 2020 08: 46
                        +2
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        you cannot bring your air defense and missile defense systems to mind in terms of parameters

                        EMNIP, the Israelis are doing well with the air defense system, the same Indians preferred their samples to our (Russian) ones on frigates.

                        I have not mentioned anything about Israel - this is your illiterate, from beginning to end, statement!
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Considering the experience of creating serial stealth aircraft, AFAR radars for fighters (how many are there in the world in a series and who has more ??), FAR marine radars (the first - the beginning of the 60s) and the operation of all this - all, to a greater or lesser extent, lag behind "US specialists".

                        3danimal. Do not write nonsense, as always, not a radar specialist ...
                        To detection parameters "Don-2N" the over-the-horizon American radar stations could not even come close ... and there is no smell of Israel here at all! Radar "Don-2N" dubbed "The Eighth Wonder of the World".
                        Ball hunters

                        Six years ago, recalls the chief designer of the radar, Viktor Sloka, within the framework of cooperation on the missile defense program, Russia and America conducted a joint experiment ODERACS.
                        From the American shuttle Discovery, metal target balls were thrown into space, and the world's most powerful radars tried to detect them.
                        Fifteen-centimeter spheres have detected everything. Balls with a diameter of 10 centimeters were seen by only three radars: two Russian and an American COBRA DANE radar in Alaska. Finally, the ship threw out two 5cm balls. Only the Moscow Region "DON" discovered and built the trajectories of miniature targets.


                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Offhand: the 22nd has S-shaped air intakes (compressor blades are not visible), metalized canopy without cover, "collapsed" keels. The Su-35 lacks all this, not to mention the sophisticated (albeit "gentle") coatings.

                        You have not seen serial samples, so do not write nonsense. I guess there will be differences!
                        Plus, Lockheed has a lot of experience in stealth production and service.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        In order: I am a citizen of the Russian Federation (and even Russian by nationality).

                        And what kind of Russian you are, from time to time spitting on Russian equipment, Russians, trying to make Russians consider themselves flawed. You are just an illiterate propagandist troll, trying to find out secrets in the public domain from the military and specialists with the help of the training manual, by your lies to bring discord into the minds of people!
                      2. Ali
                        Ali 28 August 2020 08: 59
                        +2
                        Oppiska. It turned out - little time for editing.
                        Plus, Lockheed has a lot of experience in stealth production and service.
                        is a 3danimal statement.
                      3. 3danimal
                        3danimal 28 August 2020 10: 20
                        -1
                        3danimal. Do not write nonsense, as always, not a radar specialist ...

                        Who then are YOU ?? You jump from topic to topic. What about naval HEADLIGHTS? How many serial AFAR radars are there in the world and who owns them?
                        which are no worse than Martin-Lockheed coatings

                        The grounds for such statements ??

                        No answer.. smile
                        The over-the-horizon American radars could not even come close to the detection parameters of the Don-2N ..

                        Do you propose to put this miracle station on a ship or a fighter? Because that's what I was talking about. Do not confuse warm with soft.
                        You have not seen serial samples, so do not write nonsense.

                        Oh, the production samples of the Su-35 have been seen by millions of people (at exhibitions and on video). Or did you inattentively read the name of the aircraft? Taking into account the mentioned measures to reduce the visibility, the RCS of the F-22/35 should be much smaller than it.
                        About the Su-57: IMHO, the lantern will be left unchanged, as will the non-s-shaped air intakes.
                        You are just an illiterate propagandist troll, trying to find out the secrets in the public domain from the military and specialists with the help of the training manual, by your lies to bring discord into the minds of people!

                        You look more like a propagandist, moreover, a hysterical, Prokhanov type smile
                        For you, any adequate assessment of foreign technology is "unacceptable for a Russian" behavior and "spitting". Moreover, I never said that the same Su-35 is a bad plane. But it has aging equipment (PFAR).
                        My posts weaken the position of the captain, and that's good.
                        And what are you Russian

                        In Nazi Germany, the term "white Jews" was used to refer to ethnic Germans who had their own views and opinions (different from the prescribed). There is something in common in approaches smile
                      4. Ali
                        Ali 28 August 2020 17: 46
                        +2
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        And what are you Russian

                        In Nazi Germany, the term "white Jews" was used to refer to ethnic Germans who had their own views and opinions (different from the prescribed). There is something in common in approaches

                        3danimal. You seem to have problems with the Russian language. I never mentioned anything bad about the Jews, but only stated a fact! Your speculation no need to write about white Jews, out of place, propagandist! Don't try to pounce on the fan!
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        For you, any adequate assessment of foreign technology is "unacceptable for a Russian" behavior and "spitting". Moreover, I never said that the same Su-35 is a bad plane. But it has aging hardware. (PFAR).
                        My posts weaken the position of the captain, and that's good.

                        3danimal. Lying again and brazenly lying. And that you do not know how to read your stupid expressions, which I have marked. Contradict yourself - you don’t know the Russian language. First, learn what is the difference between PFAR and AFAR and do not post outright nonsense about the LPI mode in many places of discussion. The PFAR N035 "Irbis" radar is superior to the AFAR AN / APG-77 F-22 radar (AFAR AN / APG-81 F-35 radar) in detection range:
                        The main tactical and technical characteristics of the Irbis-E radar:
                        Frequency range: 8-12 GHz.
                        Range of detection of air targets with EPR = 3 m2:
                        - 400 km in the front hemisphere;
                        - 80 km in the rear hemisphere.

                        The main tactical and technical characteristics of the AN / APG-77 (V) 1 radar:
                        Frequency range: 8-12 GHz (X-band).
                        Range of detection of air targets with EPR = 1 m2:
                        - 241 (225) km in the front hemisphere;
                        - 80 km in the rear hemisphere.

                        Learn radio engineering and the propagation of electromagnetic waves, radar, etc. and do not try to blame your ignorance on imaginary hats - thesis of the illiterate and talkers all over the World!
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Oh, the production samples of the Su-35 have been seen by millions of people (at exhibitions and on video). Or did you inattentively read the name of the aircraft? Taking into account the mentioned measures to reduce the visibility, EPR F-22/35 should be much smaller than it.
                        About the Su-57: IMHO, flashlight will be left unchangedas well as non-s-shaped air intakes.

                        3danimal. Show your complete illiteracy again - Su-35S has no internal weapons compartment unlike the F-22, F-35, therefore its image intensifier is larger due to the suspension of weapons at the outer points of the suspension. It's just baby talk from you.
                        Don't wishful thinking and assume what the Su-57 does not know.
                        There are many other decisions on the Su-57 that you do not even know about and cannot assume in view of your qualifications.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        The over-the-horizon American radars could not even come close to the detection parameters of the Don-2N ..

                        Do you propose to put this miracle station on a ship or fighter? Because that's what I was talking about. Do not confuse warm with soft.

                        3danimal. You not only confuse warm with soft, but show yourself as an illiterate person. The Don-2N state of the art is very high, so the USA could not come close to its characteristics. And again you are writing a lie about the Russian radar, which are superior in parameters to the US radar:
                        The main tactical and technical characteristics of radar with AFAR N036:
                        Operating frequency range: 8-12 GHz.
                        Target Detection Range:
                        - with EPR = 1 m2 - 400 km in the front hemisphere;

                        The main tactical and technical characteristics of the Irbis-E radar:
                        Frequency range: 8-12 GHz.
                        Range of detection of air targets with EPR = 3 m2:
                        - 400 km in the front hemisphere;
                        - 80 km in the rear hemisphere.

                        The main tactical and technical characteristics of the AN / APG-77 (V) 1 radar:
                        Frequency range: 8-12 GHz (X-band).
                        Range of detection of air targets with EPR = 1 m2:
                        - 241 (225) km in the front hemisphere;
                        - 80 km in the rear hemisphere.
                        One lie on your part and complete ignorance of the issues. And no longer write your illiterate opuses, "otherwise the cow will die with you!"
                      5. 3danimal
                        3danimal 28 August 2020 20: 10
                        -1
                        Don't try to pounce on the fan!

                        And the approach is very similar to that of the Nazis. He who does not "march" with everyone has his own opinion, different from the "only correct" opinion - the enemy.
                        The Su-35S does not have an internal compartment for weapons, unlike the F-22, F-35, so its image intensifier is larger due to the suspension of weapons at the external points of the suspension.

                        Read carefully. It was precisely about the design features that lead to a much smaller "EOP" (if you will) than the Su-35 (which is basically the 4th generation).
                        The Don-2N's state of the art is very high, so the USA could not come close to its characteristics.

                        Radar with AFAR. 250 MW (!). Not surprising.
                        On the other hand, there is GMBD and PAVE PAWS radar
                        https://vpk.name/library/f/gmd-system.html. В том числе, размешенная на морской платформе. Другой подход и приоритеты...
                        The main tactical and technical characteristics of radar with AFAR N036:
                        Operating frequency range: 8-12 GHz.
                        Target Detection Range:
                        - with EPR = 1 m2 - 400 km in the front hemisphere;

                        Firstly - it's not in the series, secondly. Most of the 22-X has an APG-77v1 radar, with a similar range.
                        There is no clear advantage and easy victories.
                        One lie on your part

                        And with quotes you can ?? In order not to be unfounded.
                        Radar "Irbis-E":
                        Frequency range: 8-12 GHz.
                        Detection range of air targets with RCS = 3 m2:
                        - 400 km in the front hemisphere;

                        Excellent performance. But the "EOP" F-35 from the front is up to 3000 times smaller than the same 3 m2. Should this affect the detection range?
                      6. Ali
                        Ali 28 August 2020 21: 31
                        +1
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Radar "Irbis-E":
                        Frequency range: 8-12 GHz.
                        Detection range of air targets with RCS = 3 m2:
                        - 400 km in the front hemisphere;


                        Excellent performance. But the "EOP" F-35 from the front is up to 3000 times smaller than the same 3 m2. Should this affect the detection range?


                        Quote: 3danimal
                        For you, any adequate assessment of foreign technology is "unacceptable for a Russian" behavior and "spitting". Moreover, I never said that the same Su-35 is a bad plane. But it has aging hardware. (PFAR).
                        My posts weaken the position of the captain, and that's good.

                        3danimal. Not tired of showing your complete illiteracy and contradicting yourself, propagandist - everything is allocated for people like you! Telling lies from commercials Martin - Lockheed. Complete ignorance of radar - what is instant the value of the image intensifier, and what is average the value of the image intensifier.
                        [quote3danimal]
                        The main tactical and technical characteristics of radar with AFAR N036:
                        Operating frequency range: 8-12 GHz.
                        Target Detection Range:
                        - with EPR = 1 m2 - 400 km in the front hemisphere;

                        At first - it's not in series, Secondly. Most of the 22-X has an APG-77v1 radar, with a similar range.
                        There is no clear advantage and easy victories.
                        [/ Quote]
                        3danimal. Your dirty lie is the dictum of Russophobes when there is nothing to say ...

                        Quote: 3danimal
                        The Don-2N's state of the art is very high, so the USA could not come close to its characteristics.


                        Radar with AFAR. 250 MW (!). Not surprising.
                        On the other hand, there is GMBD and PAVE PAWS radar
                        https://vpk.name/library/f/gmd-system.html. В том числе, размешенная на морской платформе. Другой подход и приоритеты...

                        3danimal. The arguments are over. You were not asked about anything else - no need to write spam!
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        The Su-35S does not have an internal compartment for weapons, unlike the F-22, F-35, so its image intensifier is larger due to the suspension of weapons at the external points of the suspension.


                        Read carefully. It was precisely about the design features that lead to a much smaller "EOP" (if you will) than the Su-35 (which is basically the 4th generation).

                        3danimal. You yourself don't know design features, especially have not seen the production samples of the Su-57. 3danimal advertised by you F-35, not a 5th generation aircraft - cannot fly at a cruising supersonic speed without afterburner throughout its entire flight path, and the thrust-to-weight ratio is also very low, equal to approximately 0,8 - hence the maneuverability with a nominal combat load is low!
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Don't try to pounce on the fan!


                        And the approach is very similar to that of the Nazis. He who does not "march" with everyone has his own opinion, different from the "only correct" opinion - the enemy.

                        3danimal. Like you lie all the time, exaggerating and changing my statement. I quote the original below for people like you:
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        And what are you Russian

                        In Nazi Germany, the term "white Jews" was used to refer to ethnic Germans who had their own views and opinions (different from the prescribed). There is something in common in approaches

                        3danimal. You seem to have problems with the Russian language. I never mentioned anything bad about the Jews, but only stated a fact! Your speculation about white Jews does not need to be written, out of place, propagandist ! Don't try to pounce on the fan!

                        3danimal. It is ugly to lie and engage in propaganda on VO.
                        I do not need to communicate with people like you and listen to your lies. For you is dedicated below:
                        "To shame a liar, make fun of a fool
                        And arguing with a woman is the same
                        What to draw water sieve:
                        Deliver us from these three, God! .. "M. Yu. Lermontov
                      7. 3danimal
                        3danimal 29 August 2020 05: 54
                        -2
                        [quote] Excellent characteristics. [/ quote]
                        [Quote] Moreover, I never said that the same Su-35 is a bad plane. But it has aging hardware. (PFAR) [/ quote]
                        Can you read? These statements do not contradict each other at all. Modern radar is AFAR. Like H-036, APG-77.
                        But in comparison with Zaslon-BM (positioned as a mini AWACS smile ), Irbis is significantly better.
                        [quote] propagandist [/ quote]
                        [quote] And what kind of Russian are you [/ quote]
                        I repeat:
                        “Your approach is very similar to that of the Nazis. He who does not "march" with everyone has his own opinion, different from the "only true" opinion - the enemy. " It's true, you shouldn't be ashamed of the "neighborhood" ..
                        [Quote]
                        3danimal. You seem to have problems with the Russian language. I never mentioned anything bad about the Jews, but only stated a fact!
                        [/ Quote]
                        Do you know how to build analogies, or is it too difficult?
                        (Do you speak Russian at all? smile )
                        By the way, you are merging. The transition to personalities is always from the weakness of the arguments negative
                        [quote] Most of the 22-X has an APG-77v1 radar, with a similar range.
                        There is no clear advantage and easy victories.
                        [/ Quote]
                        3danimal. Your dirty lie is the dictum of Russophobes when there is nothing to say ...
                        [/ Quote]
                        Calling an ethnic Russian a Russophobe is strong fool
                        What about this?
                        [quote] Avionics
                        AN / APG-77 or AN / APG-77 (V) 1 radar: 125–150 miles (201–241 km) against 1 m2 (11 sq ft) targets (estimated range), 250 miles (400 km) in narrow beams
                        [/ Quote]

                        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor

                        Narrow beam... Now the question (for the radar technician wink ): in which sector Irbis and Belka reach a range of 400 km ("narrow" or "wide" beam) ??
                        [quote] 350-400 km for "Irbis E" is the target detection range with RCS = 3 m2, in the sector 10x10 = 100 square degrees with an incomprehensible signal accumulation time.
                        In the 17.3x17.3 = 300 square degrees sector, the Irbis E has a target detection range with the same RCS = 3 m2 and (probably) with the same signal accumulation time will be 200 km.
                        How much it will have the maximum instrumental range (due to the properties of its radar) on a target with a large RCS is unknown to us.

                        The APG-77 has a target detection range with an RCS of 1 m2 in a full field of view of 120x60 = 7200 square degrees in 14 seconds (after a complete computer analysis of the situation).
                        [/ Quote]
                        https://vpk.name/user/7940?comm
                        [Quote] You yourself do not know the design features, especially since you have not seen the production samples of the Su-57.
                        [/ Quote]
                        Do you know, let's bet that the production Su-57 will retain the same flashlight and air intakes? smile We'll find out soon enough.
                        [quote] The thrust-to-weight ratio is also very small, equal to about 0,8 - hence the low maneuverability with a nominal combat load!
                        [/ Quote]
                        For the F-35A, the thrust-to-weight ratio with 50% fuel and explosive missiles is 1,07.
                        Nobody turns bends with bombs to the eyeballs.
                        Do you understand at all what you are talking about?
                      8. The comment was deleted.
                      9. Ali
                        Ali 30 August 2020 11: 59
                        +4
                        PS
                        3danimal. For people like you, semi-literate: the beam width corresponds to the antenna gain.

                        Experts usually say - the width of the radiation pattern in a certain plane and indicate the power (voltage) level at which this value is measured!
                      10. 3danimal
                        3danimal 30 August 2020 12: 01
                        -1
                        0,8 - hence the low maneuverability with a nominal combat load!

                        Mindfulness
                        Thrust / weight
                        • full fuel: 0.87
                        • 50% fuel: 1.07

                        Deliberately misrepresent information. Are you lying or careless?
                        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
                        3danimal. Again write lies from Martin-Lockheed commercials, calculated for laymen!

                        So what about the lie? tongue
                        1. F-35 advertised by you, [b] is not a 5th generation aircraft (1) -
                        do not argue, then I'm right.
                        2. Cannot fly at a cruising supersonic speed without afterburner throughout its entire flight path (2) - do not dispute, then I am right again.

                        There is no point in arguing with such an emotional and “ideologically grounded” subject.
                        Opinions about the set of qualities of the 5th generation may differ.
                        Lockheed and the customers decided that stealth and advanced frontal AFAR radar were enough for a 5th generation mass fighter. And 360 'DAS, instead of side and rear radar.
                        There is a deliberate belittling of the characteristics of the N035 "Irbis" radar. The maximum range is D = 400 km for targets with an image intensifier = 3 m2, and not 350-400 from Wikipedia, which is modified by everyone and everyone, for themselves.

                        Do not bother to name then the angular dimensions of the scanned area, where the indicated range corresponds to 400 km smile
                      11. 3danimal
                        3danimal 30 August 2020 12: 15
                        -1
                        Childish, semi-literate babble of a non-radar specialist! Complete ignorance of AFU (antenna feeder devices) and radar parameters.

                        Common phrases (they memorized the terms for a long time wink ?).
                        Is the detection range of a narrow beam higher or lower ??
                        If the range in the scanning "window" is 120x60 '230 km, what will it be in the 10x10' window?
                        What about the Irbis, in which area of ​​the scanned space does it have a range of 400 km ??
                        And I repeat: attempts to go over to personalities betray your weakness as a polemicist and a desire to support weak arguments in this way (pulled from the same Wiki in a deliberately incorrect interpretation).
                      12. The comment was deleted.
                      13. The comment was deleted.
                      14. The comment was deleted.
                      15. The comment was deleted.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                2. Ali
                  Ali 31 August 2020 11: 26
                  +2
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Quote: Ali
                  Childish, semi-literate babble of a non-radar specialist! Complete ignorance of AFU (antenna feeder devices) and radar parameters.


                  Common phrases (have you memorized wink terms for a long time?) (1)
                  Narrow beam detection range higher or lower (2)??
                  If the range in the scanning "window" is 120x60 '230 km, what will it be in the 10x10' window?
                  What about the Irbis, in which area of ​​the scanned space does it have a range of 400 km ?? (3)

                  And I repeat: attempts to become personalized betray your weakness as a polemicist and desire thus reinforce weak arguments (pulled from the same Wiki in a deliberately incorrect interpretation).

                  3danimal. You have absolutely no knowledge of radar, AFU, and therefore your weakest arguments in the field of radar do not stand up to criticism and there is no point in controversywhen the opponent deliberately lies, trying to hide behind the sayings of managers (not specialists) of the Martin-Lockheed firm, and cannot apply these sayings in practice, without understanding them and not having data on the radar.
                  1. "Common phrases (did you remember the wink terms for a long time?)"
                  Unlike you, I am a radar specialist, so I know the terms, but you do not, judging by your technical language (slang).
                  2.Is the detection range of a narrow beam higher or lower ??
                  You do not know AFU and radar at all. For such as, you - the beamwidth, like the antenna gain, is determined by the antenna design. The use of your statement about a narrow beam speaks of your ignorance and cannot in any way be used to determine the detection range of an airborne radar. The window size cannot be used to calculate the range, but only indirectly characterizes the radiation pattern - more or less ...
                  Therefore your expressions:
                  Quote: 3danimal.
                  If the range in the scanning "window" is 120x60 '230 km, what will it be in the 10x10' window?
                  What about the Irbis, in which area of ​​the scanned space does it have a range of 400 km (3) ??

                  It makes no sense and you cannot apply the expressions of square degrees in determining the maximum range, because the maximum range of the radar is determined not only the number of pulses in the burst, but also other parameters.
                  A similar expression characterizes this on the site https://vpk.name/user/7940?comm.
                  You are very unclear about what you are talking about: 350-400 km for "Irbis E" is the target detection range with RCS = 3 m2, in the sector 10x10 = 100 square degrees with an incomprehensible signal accumulation time.
                  In the sector 17.3x17.3 = 300 square degrees, the Irbis E has a target detection range with the same RCS = 3 m2 and (probably) with the same accumulation time of signals, it will already be 200 km.
                  How much will it have the maximum instrumental range (due to the properties of its radar) on a target with a large RCS we do not know.

                  Rather, this is your incorrect expression in essence.
                  Don't write about what you don't know. It's not beautiful
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  ... weak arguments (pulled from the same Wiki in a deliberately incorrect interpretation).

                  It is ugly to write a lie. You have a lot of data from your favorite Wikipedia, and where you write a lie. Example:
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Quote: Ali
                  the thrust-to-weight ratio is also very low, equal to approximately 0,8 - hence the low maneuverability with a nominal combat load!

                  For F-35A thrust-to-weight ratio with 50% fuel and explosive rockets - 1,07.
                  Nobody turns bends with bombs to the eyeballs.
                  Do you understand at all what you are talking about?

                  The specialists of Martin-Lockheed, when they cannot bring their products to mind, come up with other parameters in order to get money, as in this case, and for people like you, one excuse is for the initial air combat.
                  Give then such a value for the Su-30, you will not be able, the last time here at VO, you lied.
                  Another example of the F-35 cannot fly at a cruising supersonic speed throughout the entire flight - specialists Martin - Lockheed: "Maybe about 200 miles", but you wrote there is no such thing in the requirements for the 5th generation. You deliberately here praise the technology of the United States and Israel, spewing out streams of untruth.
                  Therefore, there is no point in communicating with you!
                3. 3danimal
                  3danimal 1 September 2020 06: 48
                  0
                  Rather, this is your incorrect expression in essence.

                  I am not present on the VPK website.
                  and you wrote there is no such requirement for the 5th generation.

                  Didn't write that. You are lying.
                  Opinions about the set of qualities of the 5th generation may differ.
                  Lockheed and the customers decided that stealth and advanced frontal AFAR radar were enough for a 5th generation mass fighter. And 360 'DAS, instead of side and rear radar.


                  If the range in the scanning "window" is 120x60 '230 km, what will it be in the 10x10' window?
                  What about the Irbis, in which area of ​​the scanned space does it have a range of 400 km (3) ??

                  It makes no sense and you cannot apply the expressions of square degrees in determining the maximum range, because the maximum range of the radar is determined not only by the number of pulses in the packet, but also by other parameters.

                  You, "specialist" can answer this question? Because it is critical when evaluating and comparing airborne radars.
                4. Hexenmeister
                  Hexenmeister 1 September 2020 10: 54
                  +1
                  Because it is critical when evaluating and comparing airborne radars
                  The radar detection range does not depend on the field of view !!! Another thing is that to increase the detection range, various "tricks" can be used that affect the TIME of a certain area of ​​space. In addition, do not distort the "original", and do not speculate about what you do not know. The developer's site says "one hundred square degrees", not the 10x10 zone that you are all trying to include in the conversation. And if you showed at least some understanding of the process, you would pick up an "engineering" calculator, and you would easily find out that at a distance of 400 km, the altitude range of 20 km is covered by THREE degrees in elevation, and accordingly these "one hundred square degrees "go into the 33x3 zone, or almost 200 km along the front and 20 km in height, for one fighter this is quite enough. Then we could again use the same calculator to calculate, if the plane is flying at an altitude of 10 km and the radar beam is lowered down by 20 degrees, what will be the distance along the beam to the ground ??? You can even use a "flat" model, just for evaluation, and you would get a result in the region of 30-40 km, almost close combat. Thus, when you hear that some kind of AFAR in ranged combat is reviewing plus / minus 60 degrees in elevation, then personally I understand that two-thirds of this zone belongs to the melee area, where no high detection range is required , and whether it even needs to be surveyed in ranged modes.
  • Igor Aviator
    Igor Aviator 17 August 2020 20: 09
    +3
    Quote: 3danimal
    no worse than F-18

    Since when is it a deck-mounted multipurpose vehicle, sharpened for strikes on the ground, with maneuverability corresponding to ed. 23-18, (MiG-23MLD), and does not even have a controlled air intake, which, by its very fact, implies the impossibility of using the entire potential of the power plant in air combat, became benchmarklike a fighter? At best, this is an attack aircraft. And if you extol the F-35's comparable maneuverability as an argument, then I'm sad (rather, no! I'm VERY SATISFIED!) And the F-35 is fully justified by its nickname "pregnant penguin"!
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 17 August 2020 20: 56
      -1
      not even having a controlled air intake

      The F-16 also does not have a controlled air intake. Is he less maneuverable because of this? Strange reasons.
      There are reviews of pilots who flew the F-35.
      I'm wondering where did the bike about "extremely low maneuverability" come from (in comparison with the F-22 or MiG-31?)
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 28 August 2020 04: 38
      0
      and does not even have a controlled air intake

      On the question of ignorance of such statements and unwillingness to seek information.
      The modern development of supersonic air intakes is the DSI-air intake (English diverterless supersonic inlet), that is, it does not have a lamellar cutter of the boundary layer and internal movable regulating elements.


      https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сверхзвуковой_воздухозаборник
  • Shahno
    Shahno 19 August 2020 22: 58
    -1
    Poorly. But he has been performing combat missions ... It's been a year already. Soo is still in a zircon situation with this car ..
    Single copies are good for flights to Mars.
  • Incvizitor
    Incvizitor 16 August 2020 14: 45
    13
    What FSA claims is true in the last instance, there is no doubt that it is true and the rest is false laughing
  • dauria
    dauria 16 August 2020 14: 51
    38
    Su-57 EPR - 0.3-0.5
    And Sukhoi, without hesitation, said: "Our main enemy also has 0.3."


    Warrior, but if we talk seriously? Let's drop the numbers. And 0,3 and your advertising ball from Ping-pong in 3 square cm. Forms one to one. Yes, the size is smaller for the F-35 (but compare with the F-22). Shiny dots are excluded by the shape, the gaps are closed, the lantern is covered, there are absorbing coatings, the weapon is hidden inside. What is it that the Americans have so unknown that our engineers and technologists cannot?
    Gravity? Distortion of space-time? Plasma bubble?
    There is a Su-57 aircraft. A great. Modern. The only drawback is that it is expensive and there are few of them.
    1. V1er
      V1er 16 August 2020 14: 59
      +7
      The Americans still cover their plane with some kind of coating that needs to be constantly changed and it is very expensive)) And they also have a flat nozzle and there is a technology for absorbing heat from the engine. How this is actually implemented, I do not know) It would be interesting to see an article on the VO comparing fighters. But until there is more information about the Su-57, it is too early to write articles. We are waiting for serial cars hi
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 16 August 2020 15: 27
        10
        Quote: V1er
        they also cover their aircraft with some kind of coating that needs to be constantly changed and it is very expensive))


        Covering say?
        1. Voyager
          Voyager 16 August 2020 15: 49
          11
          Well yes. So tender it melts in your mouth
          1. CBR600
            CBR600 17 August 2020 11: 06
            +2
            Pts similar to corrosive ablation for the specified location. If so, this is a complete failure in hydrodynamics. In fact, the whole nose needs to be redone. Under the lantern, horror. Maybe after a blow, like a bird. I can't believe it.
      2. loki565
        loki565 16 August 2020 15: 27
        10
        In general, the plane is completely illuminated in the IR, plus the exhaust, therefore, already on the F35, the flat nozzle was abandoned.
      3. Voyager
        Voyager 16 August 2020 15: 29
        11
        There have already been many such articles about a flat nozzle as well. We also conducted research and refused, because the pluses of the flat nozzle are followed by the minuses. And today's rockets can easily catch their teeth even for the reduced heat footprint from flat engines.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 16 August 2020 16: 04
          +1
          today's rockets will easily catch their teeth even in the reduced heat footprint from flat engines.

          Less target acquisition range.
          1. Kleon
            Kleon 16 August 2020 23: 00
            +4
            The intensity of the signal at the input of the IR head depends on the square of the distance, a decrease in the intensity of the heat flow by 15-20% will give a penny decrease in the capture range and a decrease in engine thrust by the same 15%, which greatly reduces the aircraft's ability to escape from fire by maneuvering. Therefore, on the F-35, it was abandoned. There, in general, the thrust-to-weight ratio is not very good. And on the F-22 it is more useful as an advertising and propaganda element. In the IR, everything glows beautifully like a New Year tree.
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 17 August 2020 03: 07
              -3
              In IR, everything glows beautifully like a New Year tree.

              The certainty of the statement suggests your personal involvement in the measurements of the F-22 IR signature smile
      4. basmach
        basmach 16 August 2020 17: 39
        +5
        What are you all tied to the nozzle. Plyasattnado not from the nozzle, but from the capture range of the heat direction finder. And if it does not exceed 50-70 km, then on the drum the shape of the nozzle is flat, square, khosh triangular.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 17 August 2020 14: 13
          -2
          And if it does not exceed 50-70 km

          We are talking about a maximum of 50 km, in the ZPS. In an oncoming battle - less.
      5. Miron
        Miron 16 August 2020 23: 11
        +6
        The flat nozzle burns on afterburner.
        Without afterburner, he cannot escape missiles.
        Missile launches glow on radars.
        Stealth makes sense if the stats are equal or superior before the start of the fight.
        That is, it is a senseless and very painful innovation.
        The main thing is the skill and ingenuity of the personnel and the coherence of the arms of the troops in repelling a sudden strike.
        The donkey in June 1941 was not inferior to Messer, just as the Su-27 is not inferior to the Fe-22 today.
        Everything is in the hands of the pilots and the headquarters coordinating their work.
        The experience of June 22, 1941 teaches that the most difficult thing during a treacherous surprise attack by the enemy is to raise aircraft into the air. As soon as the falcons take to the air, each with 10 medium-range missiles, the aggressor will try to escape from the battlefield and turn on the frenzied propaganda "Putin attacked us."
        Therefore, they must be shot down at every opportunity. This is the only way to keep the rabid dog of the west in the paddock and make them eat their own. Mad dogs cannot do otherwise. They have a disease - to kill.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 17 August 2020 03: 18
          +2
          Without afterburner, he cannot escape missiles

          Ask a little more. The 22nd has the option of non-afterburning supersonic flight. And just fly away from the missiles will not work.
          Donkey in June 1941 was not inferior to Messer

          Bf-109 F-2 ?? Just conceded. In speed, rate of climb, vertical maneuvers, which were used by the German pilots. Without wasting time on horizontal "carousels". They could simply get out of a disadvantageous situation by increasing the speed.
          Su-27 today is not inferior to Fe-22

          Your distortion of the name of the aircraft speaks in advance about the subjectivity of the estimates.
          It is inferior in terms of: the maneuverability of the 22nd deflectable nozzles and a large thrust-to-weight ratio, avionics - radar, glass cockpit, helmet with information output (of the same ILS) on the screen and the ability to target AIM-9x missiles, no restrictions on maneuver due to suspended missiles ( they are inside the glider and do not affect aerodynamics).
          This is the only way to keep the rabid dog of the west in the paddock and make them eat their own.

          These are some of your fabrications, heavily mixed with ideology. They have nothing to do with the tactics of using aviation.
          1. Ka-52
            Ka-52 17 August 2020 06: 07
            +7
            Inferior in: maneuverability at the 22nd deflectable nozzles

            not true. The Su-27SM2 ​​is equipped with an M1 with UVT.
            helmet with information display (the same ILS) on the screen and the ability to target AIM-9x missiles,

            Drying - OEPS-27MK with optical location station OLS-27MK. Let it be not so colorful, but functional.
            high thrust-to-weight ratio

            to compensate for the worse aerodynamic quality.
            glass cockpit

            what????
            no restrictions on maneuver due to suspended missiles (they are inside the glider and do not affect aerodynamics).

            the first half of the sentence is not related to the second. In addition, you need to understand the internal compartments increase the midsection, which leads to an increase in the wave drag of the aircraft.
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 17 August 2020 07: 35
              -2
              what????

              Displaying information on large screens, instead of many "boilers", more awareness, less load.
              And also a better view from the pilot's seat, thanks to the one-piece canopy.
              Drying - OEPS-27MK with optical location station OLS-27MK. Let it be not so colorful, but functional.

              Older equipment, less convenient (and therefore faster) to use.
              On the 22nd, the angles of target capture by the AIM-9x heads are larger, there is a capture function after launch (the rocket is turned back).
              This is because even in close combat the F-22 will have more chances against the Su-27. Which will also be able to hit the invisibility, having managed to aim the P-73.
              to compensate for the worse aerodynamic quality.

              Yeah, and not at all to ensure cruising supersonic sound at 1600-1800 km / h smile
              Until such a thing (but less speed) appeared on the Su-35, some wrote that it didn't hurt, then it was needed ..
              1. Ka-52
                Ka-52 17 August 2020 08: 16
                +5
                Displaying information on large screens, instead of many “boilers”, more awareness, less load.

                ahh, you mean ergonomics ... well, in general, yes, I agree.
                And also a better view from the pilot's seat, thanks to the one-piece canopy.

                if you sit in the cab, you will see for yourself that the arc does not greatly affect visibility. Reduces, but not so much that it becomes noticeable.
                Older equipment, less convenient (and therefore faster) to use.

                what does "less fast" mean? The speed of the on-board computer insignificantly affects the capture of the target. To a much greater extent, the permission to launch a rocket affects. And this has nothing to do with the architecture of the shooting complex. Even the most advanced complex will not give permission if the plane is outside the zone.
                On the 22nd, the angles of target capture by the AIM-9x heads are larger, there is a capture function after launch (the rocket is turned back).

                where are such tales from? The capture angles of the missile itself (AIM-9) are provided by the coordinator's target. And the NSCI, which is ours, that the American work is essentially the same
                This is because even in close combat the F-22 will have more chances against the Su-27.

                to say this, you need a foundation.
                Yeah, and not at all to provide cruising supersonic sound at 1600-1800 km / h smile
                Until such a thing (but less speed) appeared on the Su-35, some wrote that it didn't hurt, then it was needed ..

                who is he?
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 17 August 2020 10: 44
                  -4
                  And the NSCI, which is ours, that the American work is essentially the same

                  HMDS provides information from the ILS, which is more convenient.
                  where are these tales from? The capture angles of the missile itself (AIM-9) are provided by the coordinator's target.

                  "The AIM-22x heads capture angles on the 9nd, there is a capture function after launch (turn the rocket back)."
                  To be clear, you can look back and launch. Missiles of this type have been used since 2010, EMNIP.
                  The capture of the target by the GOS themselves - up to 90 '.
                  1. Ka-52
                    Ka-52 17 August 2020 11: 22
                    +2
                    HMDS provides information from the ILS, which is more convenient.

                    you would understand first what is the NSI (or NSCI). It does not give out information from the ILS, but acts like it - it projects information onto the eyepiece of the ZSh with the help of a sighting-reference device. In contrast to the ILS on the NSCI, tactical and navigation information is displayed in a limited volume, so as not to clog the picture. The main purpose is the sighting system. Sura-K is installed for Su-27, Sura-M is installed on later machines (Su-35)
                    To be clear, you can look back and launch. Missiles of this type have been used since 2010, EMNIP.

                    R-73 (more precisely R-73RMD-2) - launch into ZPS. AND....?
                    The capture of the target by the GOS themselves - up to 90 '.

                    60 degrees bearing, to be honest.
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 17 August 2020 12: 08
                      -1
                      The main purpose is the sighting system. Sura-K is installed for Su-27, Sura-M is installed on later machines (Su-35)

                      Find videos / photos from HMDS. It displays information and performance to capture the target.
                      60 degrees bearing, to be honest.

                      I believe the data for the R-73 Rmd-2
                      For the AIM-9x - 90 ', as well as for the R-73M, by the way.
                      R-73 (more precisely R-73RMD-2) - launch into ZPS. AND....?

                      You need to understand correctly what you are reading. Start in ZPS target. There is a start-up at the PPS. The ranges differ, the first missiles of this type attacked only in the ZPS.
                      From the information I have found, the possibility of capturing a target after launch (shot "back") is being worked out only in the K-74.
                    2. Ka-52
                      Ka-52 17 August 2020 12: 23
                      +2
                      You need to understand correctly what you are reading. Start in ZPS target

                      I'm not so stupid as not to know what it is about. Of course the ZPS carrier.
                      I believe the data for the R-73 Rmd-2
                      For the AIM-9x - 90 ', as well as for the R-73M, by the way.

                      it is not essential. In any case, the bearing angle. The capture of the seeker of the target located in the ZPS is practically impossible - target designation to the seeker comes from the sighting complex.
                      Find videos / photos from HMDS. It displays information and performance to capture the target.

                      find what?
                    3. 3danimal
                      3danimal 17 August 2020 14: 00
                      -1
                      Of course ZPS carrier.

                      Yeah, old R-73 Rmd-2 smile
                      Can you throw off the source of information?
                      it doesn't matter

                      In battle, 30 'will save your life and give you victory.
                      The capture of the seeker of a target located in the ZPS is practically impossible - target designation to the seeker comes from the sighting complex.

                      Possible with JHMCS or HMDS helmets and AIM-9x (v2) missiles. The computer complex programs the rocket to turn in the desired direction and it captures.
                      For HMDS with DAS system (external IR cameras) F-35 it works even more reliably, because the seeker immediately has a "portrait" of the target.
                2. 3danimal
                  3danimal 17 August 2020 12: 33
                  -1
                  About helmets: HMDS F-35, JHMCS from others.
                  (The first one outputs video from external cameras)
                3. Ka-52
                  Ka-52 17 August 2020 12: 39
                  +3
                  About helmets: HMDS F-35, JHMCS from others.
                  (The first one outputs video from external cameras)

                  I wrote above that it is colorful, beautiful, but how the Sura system paired with OLS copes no worse.
                4. 3danimal
                  3danimal 17 August 2020 13: 09
                  -1
                  Limited by the direction along the axis of the aircraft. And in general, it is designed to attack at a greater distance than the parameters of the IR seeker allow.
                  I spoke for close combat. Greater flexibility means victory or defeat. If you do not have enough target capture angle, for example, or a rocket (which has a max overload of 60g) will fly at you from a fighter flying in front (!) Of you.
                5. Ka-52
                  Ka-52 18 August 2020 05: 26
                  +3
                  Limited by the direction along the axis of the aircraft. And in general, it is designed to attack at a greater distance than the parameters of the IR seeker allow.

                  buddy, I understand your desire to protect the mattress tech genius, but the JHMCS system gives a field of view of 80 degrees in azimuth.
                6. 3danimal
                  3danimal 18 August 2020 09: 24
                  0
                  I understand your desire to protect the mattress technical genius

                  No mattress genius. Just technique and facts.
                  I am for objectivity. Example: I am interested in boxing (I did it before), I watch the main fights. Before the battle, Povetkin-Joshua predicted Joshua's victory. At the same time, a number of acquaintances reproached me that I was not patriotic enough. And the conclusion was the result of a simple analysis of previous fights (Povetkin-Klitschko ml, Joshua-Klitschko ml). Miraculously, my “unpatriotic” forecast came true.
                  In the battle, Judah-Tszyu expected Tszyu to win, waited for the Tszyu-Mayweather ml fight, giving the latter greater chances. Etc.
                  Also here. I am glad that the United States has no reason to attack us (just don’t talk about resources, we are happy to sell them for vacuum cleaners and iPhones). In the conventional version, we will face very heavy losses (they are also, but smaller). (In unconventional - all the corpses, which does not suit me at all, I am not a believer). The state of the aircraft fleet, its modernization, the absence of any financing problems, the widespread armament of the AIM-120C / D and AIM-9x, the largest flight hours by pilots - the advantage is on their side.
                7. Ka-52
                  Ka-52 18 August 2020 09: 37
                  +1
                  I'm for objectivity

                  we are now discussing not a geopolitical state, but a local detail, an instrument. And he is not what you think. If you are interested in objectivity - here's a presentation for you. I think it will be informative.


                  Yeah, old R-73 Rmd-2 smile
                  Can you throw off the source of information?

                  and go to the site to the guys from NPO Splav. The Ganichevites will tell you what's what and why. This is their samovar))
                8. 3danimal
                  3danimal 18 August 2020 09: 54
                  0
                  and go to the site to the guys from NPO Splav.

                  The old missiles did not have the "target after launch" function. This required some progress in microelectronics.
                  In addition, you and the NSCI will not allow you to lock targets at an angle of deviation from the aircraft axis greater than 60-90 '.
                9. Ka-52
                  Ka-52 18 August 2020 10: 15
                  +1
                  The old missiles did not have the "target after launch" function. This required some progress in microelectronics.

                  heh laughing the alloy developer says - maybe you say - no.
                  But even without the Alloy, I will say it again - the p73 provides target acquisition on a trajectory according to target designation from a rear-view radar (N014). Controlled flight of a rocket with angles aw = 180 ° ... 90 ° in the "reverse" flight (V <0) using a gas-dynamic system.
                  And then doubt as much as you like)
                10. 3danimal
                  3danimal 19 August 2020 03: 55
                  0
                  Rear-facing radar (N014).

                  Remind me, what aircraft was this radar station on? Yes, even in the 80s-90s?
                11. Ka-52
                  Ka-52 19 August 2020 04: 56
                  +1
                  Remind me, what aircraft was this radar station on? Yes, even in the 80s-90s?

                  we're sort of discussing the Su-27. She stood on it. Or have you already climbed into another jungle?
                12. 3danimal
                  3danimal 19 August 2020 06: 23
                  0
                  Interesting. Tell me, what serial Su-27 is the rear-view radar?
                13. Ka-52
                  Ka-52 19 August 2020 07: 33
                  +1
                  On SM modifications.
                14. 3danimal
                  3danimal 19 August 2020 10: 22
                  -1
                  I have not found anywhere a mention of the stern radar on the SM modifications. Updated OLS (front location) and NSC "Sura-k".
                  It is more likely that it was installed on experimental aircraft, or offered as an option.
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal 19 August 2020 04: 08
          0
          RMD-2 version - 1994.
        3. Ka-52
          Ka-52 19 August 2020 04: 53
          +1
          RMD-2 version - 1994.

          heh, so old that the R-74M2 modification (the base is the same - with gas-dynamic spoilers) was developed for the Su-57 five years ago. Stop tormenting an underdeveloped Wikipedia.
        4. 3danimal
          3danimal 19 August 2020 06: 22
          -2
          R-74M2 - fresh.
          Analogy: AIM-9x (v1) and AIM-9x (v2). The first appeared in service closer to 2000. But only (2010) the second is able to capture the target after launch (according to the NSC), although both have gas-dynamic spoilers. "Brains" are different.
        5. Ka-52
          Ka-52 19 August 2020 07: 38
          +3
          R-74M2 - fresh.
          Analogy: AIM-9x (v1) and AIM-9x (v2). The first appeared in service closer to 2000. But only (2010) the second is able to capture the target after launch (according to the NSC), although both have gas-dynamic spoilers. "Brains" are different.

          I do not understand this annoying attempt to distinguish between "old" and "new". Why are you messing up my brain with some kind of nonsense? Is the rocket itself? There is. Is it possible to use it? Implemented. Is your sighing about the American NSCI nonsense? Nonsense. What else does? A conversation with you reminds of an anecdote about toilet paper: ".... I already brought a toilet bowl and showed my ass, but I still didn't sell it!" Tired No.
        6. 3danimal
          3danimal 19 August 2020 10: 28
          0
          There is. Is it possible to use it?

          NOT in the 90s, but in a non-serial rocket now. Which means, you either didn't understand the modifications, or you are dishonest.
          Are your sighs about the American NSCI nonsense?

          Something I didn't understand you. AIM-9x (v2) with JHMCS helmet do not stand on production aircraft and are NOT dangerous? (their use is not imba, but will significantly increase the number of victories and losses of their opponents in air battles)
          Do you understand the "insignificant" difference between single copies and hundreds of those in service?
  • Ka-52
    Ka-52 18 August 2020 11: 43
    +1
    The old missiles did not have the "target after launch" function. This required some progress in microelectronics.
    In addition, you and the NSCI will not allow you to lock targets at an angle of deviation from the aircraft axis greater than 60-90 '.

  • 3danimal
    3danimal 18 August 2020 09: 59
    0
    Cognitive table. There are some nuances: JHMCS is on many planes, has a good night system. Geophysics .. in units at best, as far as I know, these are not serial samples. In a few years the situation will probably change.
  • Ka-52
    Ka-52 18 August 2020 10: 17
    +1
    Cognitive table.

    if you pay attention, the eye tracking system is only in HMDS. This is a more accurate system (since the head rotation control system has an error of> 1 degree), plus the eyes give about 20 more degrees of field of view
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 19 August 2020 04: 04
    0
    I agree. I talked about it. Modern, fast and accurate systems have been created that provide the necessary information on the glass of the helmet. The question is: how many of our planes still have something like a 3SH-10 with a Sura? Which only provides target designation at the very least ...
    Better equipment, better results. This is also, in a certain field, sport request
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 28 August 2020 14: 10
    0
    colorful, beautiful, but how the Sura system paired with OLS copes no worse.

    Less convenient means less fast. And in BVB, that often separates victory from defeat.
    A separate topic is 2+ times the average flight time of pilots.
    The main conclusion: hypothetical battles will go very difficult and with large losses. There will be no "easy walks".
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 30 August 2020 22: 58
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    A separate topic is 2+ times the average flight time of pilots.


    With a touch, everything is not so simple
    First, they don't think so. They have from the moment the engine is started until it is turned off. With us, from the moment of the run up to the touch ... And then the French do not take into account the number of hours spent by the entire flight crew, but the average figure is displayed.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 31 August 2020 05: 57
    0
    But even so, it still comes out big.
    More training on working with AWACS (there are a lot of them that are corny workable), the widespread use of air refueling, practicing it (again, because of the fleet of "tankers" of 500+).
    Practicing takeoff of dozens of planes at once, complex group tactics training (there are almost no 1v1 battles in reality).
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 28 August 2020 11: 33
    0
    projects with the help of a sighting-reference device information on the eyepiece ZSh. In contrast to the ILS on the NSCI, tactical and navigation information is displayed in a limited volume, so as not to clog the picture.

    On the aforementioned helmets, information is projected onto the glass of the helmet, and not onto a small sight, used only to lock onto a target, including one flying behind the aircraft.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 17 August 2020 14: 17
    -2
    Su-27SM2 ​​is equipped with M1 with UVT

    An important point: their number. In fact, only the Su-35 is an acceptable number of fighters with OVT in service.
    The vast majority of others do not have such an upgrade.
    1. Igor Aviator
      Igor Aviator 17 August 2020 16: 42
      +3
      Quote: 3danimal
      The vast majority of others do not have such an upgrade.

      If the F-22 is comparable in maneuverability to the F-15, it does not matter at all whether the SU-27 has an UHT! since the F-15 is closer to the MiG-23MLD in maneuverability, and in ALL training air battles (even with the SU-27UB !!) there was a beat. And if we take into account the cost of its operation (due to which the F-22 program was terminated) and the time required to prepare for the flight, especially to prepare for the REPEATED flight, it does not matter whether the SU-27SM UVT is equipped. Especially if we take into account the ongoing and ongoing replacement of the SU-27 fleet with the SU-30SM.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 18 August 2020 09: 29
        0
        If the F-22 is comparable in maneuverability to the F-15

        Where did you get this from? Can you imagine the difference in the capabilities of these aircraft? Thanks to OVT, the 22nd bypasses the F-16 in combat on horizontal turns (“2 turn fight”, in which the latter is considered to be especially strong), the thrust-to-weight ratio is so few people have. In close combat against the Raptor, the 15th has very few chances, in the long-range - little.
        Especially if we take into account the ongoing and ongoing replacement of the SU-27 fleet with the SU-30SM.

        The replacement made pleases, but here and now it does not change the picture.
        since the F-15 is closer to the MiG-23MLD in terms of maneuverability, and in ALL training air battles (even with the SU-27UB !!)

        Too many emotions .. They make it difficult to think soberly.
        I repeat: those exercises only mean that the Su-27 had an advantage in close combat, thanks to better maneuverability and R-73 missiles with NSTI.
        Now the F-15 can use AIM-9x (v1, v2) with a JHMCS helmet, which greatly changes the balance in close combat. To which he will try not to bring, using his radar with AFAR (updated) and missiles with ARL seeker.
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 18 August 2020 09: 41
        0
        This is not a perfect example, but watch the 1v1 vs. F-22 fights in DCS (Digital Combat Simulator).
  • Alber alber
    Alber alber 16 August 2020 23: 22
    +1
    And what nozzle for f35, I will not say anything about flight performance, the Yankees will say anything, but in fact they shoot down and shoot down well, even radio-transparent mini-drones over Khmeimim, so you can return these tales about US airplanes to them
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 17 August 2020 03: 05
      -2
      radio transparent mini drones

      So are these stealth drones ?? laughing
      1. Igor Aviator
        Igor Aviator 17 August 2020 22: 42
        +1
        Quote: 3danimal
        So are these stealth drones ??

        Is it good to think? No, we don't know how? The drone, if it does not carry a warhead with metal PE, is made of plastic, in fact, a radio-transparent material, of small geometric dimensions, its engine is almost the only radio-reflecting unit, in view of its small dimensions, in comparison with the dimensions of the drone itself, it has a negligible RCS. Such a drone, stuffed with explosives - itself a flying radio-transparent land mine - is a difficult target for air defense. Well, thanks to the Syrian experience, Pantsir C1 and TOP-2M were modified to successfully combat such targets. But the "Iron Dome", as the air defense of the near zone, in my opinion, is not capable of fighting such drones.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 18 August 2020 03: 41
          -2
          The "iron dome", as a near-zone air defense system, in my opinion, is not capable of fighting such drones.

          I like the word "in my opinion" the most. smile
          Especially considering the regular tests of its strength and level of combat readiness.
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 30 August 2020 23: 04
            0
            Quote: 3danimal
            Especially considering the regular tests of its strength and level of combat readiness.

            But I've heard about the downed Kassams so far. I wonder what they will do with a salvo of one Grad combat vehicle.
            And more about the LCD. I am putting together the statement that the ZUR ZhK has an ARGSN, but it costs 40 you. bucks. And then the question arises - But how is Holmes !!? AiM-9 fresh costs under half a million dollars, AiM-120 about 1 million 300 thousand dollars. SAM Pantsyr - about 50 thousand bucks, SAM TOP about 100 000 bucks
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 31 August 2020 06: 00
              0
              SAM Pantsyr - about 50 thousand bucks, SAM TOP about 100 000 bucks

              There RK guidance system, hence the cheapness. But less immunity to interference. Against the same "Delilah".
              1. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 31 August 2020 12: 42
                0
                Quote: 3danimal
                But less immunity to interference.


                Who told you such nonsense? The least resistant to jamming are missiles with an active radar homing head. It's trite - the antenna is very small, the transmitter is weak ...
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 1 September 2020 06: 50
                  0
                  Is it difficult to shoot down RK guidance? smile For SAM the Pantsir works quite effectively.
                  ARL seeker have interference guidance mode.
                2. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 1 September 2020 08: 21
                  0
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Is it difficult to shoot down RK guidance?

                  Complicated. Capacities are not comparable.

                  ARL seeker have interference guidance mode.

                  Not at all.
                3. 3danimal
                  3danimal 1 September 2020 08: 56
                  0
                  Complicated. Capacities are not comparable.

                  Incomparable to the radar power of the air defense system? (For PARL GOS) Or ARL GOS missiles?
                  Then provide the data for comparison.
                  In addition, the same Delilah creates a "diversion" sufficient to ensure a missile missile missile.
                4. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 1 September 2020 10: 05
                  0
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  In addition, the same Delilah creates a "diversion" sufficient to ensure a missile missile missile.


                  You are misrepresenting this once. The second hindrance, sufficient to ensure missile missile missiles, provides a certain probability of the event. Which one? Here I am definitely not your assistant. I can only say the power of the RVP interference is hardly worth comparing with the target tracking station of the SAM-MD

                  Incomparable to the radar power of the air defense system? (For PARL GOS) Or ARL GOS missiles?
                  Then provide the data for comparison.


                  I don't know to what extent Dagger or Hurricane is declassified, so I will not help you. Let me just tell you that the Nut will be more powerful than the 62nd station ...
                5. 3danimal
                  3danimal 1 September 2020 12: 02
                  0
                  the power of the RVP interference is hardly worth comparing with the target tracking station of the SAM-MD

                  https://library.voenmeh.ru/cnau/09ZffWX1yllVMet.pdf
                  1,5 kW
                  Incomparable to the radar power. It is quite possible to realize a leading obstacle in the Kyrgyz Republic. And with the same Khibiny (or an analogue) - completely drown out.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 31 August 2020 06: 11
      -1
      I wonder what they will do with a salvo of one Grad combat vehicle.

      You are now talking about air defense overload.
      By analogy: what will our Buk-M3 do with this salvo? - Will knock off a part.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • lopvlad
    lopvlad 17 August 2020 01: 47
    -1
    Quote: V1er
    Americans are still covering their plane with some kind of coating


    for Americans, the F-22 and F-35 flashlights require a regular and terribly expensive coating, because this coating wears out quickly and the coating itself contains expensive materials.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 19 August 2020 21: 15
      0
      Costs. They can afford it, with such a budget. So are the Chinese.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 31 August 2020 06: 04
      0
      The coating of the aircraft itself wears out more. There is something like gold plating on the glass of the lantern.
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman 17 August 2020 15: 35
    0
    nozzles play only if the glider is irradiated from behind. otherwise, there is no particular sense. VSe these RCS come from the most advantageous position of the airframe, i.e. head-on. Looking straight ahead, the Raptor can have very good ESR, but how often is this possible?
    Then about the heat trail: here again, how to shoot. Does the missile have a heat head or a radar head? in general, there are many questions, conditions of defeat too. and as the history of weapons shows: many performance characteristics of US military equipment can be multiplied by 0.7-0.8. They have such a nature, the structure is such: to represent everything from the best side.
    1. Igor Aviator
      Igor Aviator 17 August 2020 21: 20
      +2
      Quote: silver_roman
      Looking clearly into the forehead, the Raptor can have very good ESR

      WRONG IN PRINCIPLE !, since the reflectivity of the antenna (mirror) of the RLPK (regardless of whether it is a slot antenna, a phased array or an AFAR) is very good - the principle of location is based on this property. So the visibility in the frontal sector, (just "head-on"), is quite high, despite loud statements.
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman 18 August 2020 11: 30
        0
        you have not explained anything, only refuted. what is the angle of the stealth aircraft with the least RCS? The principle of location is to detect something in space - the reflection of the beam emanating from the radar antenna, from the target plane and its return to the transceiver elements of the same radar. Stealth technology is designed to reflect the beams of the radar in the other direction, so that the reflected beams go away from the radar. This is stupid on the fingers as I understand it. Based on pure logic, the smallest view of the aircraft is forehead or, as you correctly noted, frontal. And you say that the plane is very noticeable in the frontal plane?
        Explain all the same so that both me and the others do not have to think out. hi
        I admit that I don't understand a lot of things.
        1. Hexenmeister
          Hexenmeister 18 August 2020 11: 56
          0
          Explain all the same
          Reflection from the radar antenna located in the nose is not a reflection from a piece of iron in the same location, provided that the radiation is in the operating frequency range of the radar antenna!
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 31 August 2020 06: 08
            -1
            There are irradiation diagrams for our Su27 and modifications. The smallest RCS is always from the front. The radar visibility problem is successfully solved with the help of a fairing.
            1. Hexenmeister
              Hexenmeister 31 August 2020 10: 12
              0
              successfully solved with a fairing
              How can you solve the problem of re-reflection from what is behind the fairing with the help of a radio-transparent fairing on both sides ???
            2. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 31 August 2020 15: 41
              0
              Quote: 3danimal
              The radar visibility problem is successfully solved with the help of a fairing.


              This is not being resolved in any way. What is incomprehensible to you in the word radio-transparent?
              I'll give you a hint. Our enemies also thought that it was NECESSARY TO DO something with the afar mirror. And we came to the conclusion that it should be deployed as much as possible parallel to the flow.

              That is, the declared ESR in 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 sq. this is also in the case of uh, the traveling position of the antenna.
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 1 September 2020 06: 40
                0
                Your approach and numbers at, 000000 XNUMX speak of bias.
                Suggest your version of why the Su-27/35 have a minimum RCS from the front (although the PAR should reflect).
                1. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 1 September 2020 08: 18
                  0
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  why the Su-27/35 have a minimum RCS from the front (although the PAR should reflect).


                  This is how it reflects. The radar area is approximately equal to 0.7-0.8 square meters ... The radar fairing should be transparent on both sides, I thought it was an axiom

                  the numbers in, 000000 speak of bias.

                  This is a mockery of the enemy's delusions ...
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 31 August 2020 06: 06
        0
        This problem has been successfully solved for a long time thanks to a special fairing. Otherwise, our Su-35 would have had an order of magnitude more RCS.
  • Igor Aviator
    Igor Aviator 17 August 2020 16: 28
    0
    Quote: V1er
    And they also have a flat nozzle and there is a technology for absorbing heat from the engine. How this is actually implemented, I do not know

    If you went to school and studied physics, you should know the Law of Conservation of Energy. So, according to him, if SOMETHING absorbs ENERGY, then SOMETHING should emit it! In other words, while absorbing the heat of gases from the engine nozzle, this device must emit it no less intensely, except in a slightly different spectrum, perhaps longer wavelength.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 31 August 2020 06: 09
      0
      It does not absorb energy, but makes the "jet" flat, due to which it cools down quickly (noticeably faster than the "round" one).
  • Igor Aviator
    Igor Aviator 17 August 2020 20: 15
    0
    Quote: V1er
    Americans still cover their plane with some kind of coating that needs to be constantly changed and is very expensive.

    Red Dragon feces, I guess. They miscalculated, however! It bubbles on supersonic - Red Dragon is a purely creature SUBSOUND! laughing
  • Voyager
    Voyager 16 August 2020 15: 36
    +8
    They don't understand that stealth is always complex measures. First of all, these are the structural features of the glider. Wing edges, keels and other elements are oriented in limited directions, using certain angles of inclination. The protruding elements, such as LDPE, are minimized. With this, the Su-57 is doing well in almost all projections. Next come special RPMs that reduce the reflection of enemy radar signals. The only thing that remains a serious question is the Su-57 air intakes with open blades and the insufficiency of the S-shaped channel, which "glow" on the radar from afar. There is evidence that this is compensated by the installed radar blockers, but this is not known for sure.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 16 August 2020 16: 22
      0
      The F-22/35 also has radar blockers. And also the F-18e / f. This is not enough, obviously. But we can say that stealth is not that important.
      1. PROXOR
        PROXOR 17 August 2020 12: 29
        0
        What is the dispute? As soon as Fu-22 or Fu-35 turns on its AFAR, they will immediately draw a target on their forehead. The Su-57 does not even need to turn on its own in order to work on the outgoing signal.
  • SovAr238A
    SovAr238A 16 August 2020 16: 05
    15 th
    Quote: dauria
    Su-57 EPR - 0.3-0.5
    And Sukhoi, without hesitation, said: "Our main enemy also has 0.3."


    Warrior, but if we talk seriously? Let's drop the numbers. And 0,3 and your advertising ball from Ping-pong in 3 square cm. Forms one to one. Yes, the size is smaller for the F-35 (but compare with the F-22). Shiny dots are excluded by the shape, the gaps are closed, the lantern is covered, there are absorbing coatings, the weapon is hidden inside. What is it that the Americans have so unknown that our engineers and technologists cannot?
    Gravity? Distortion of space-time? Plasma bubble?
    There is a Su-57 aircraft. A great. Modern. The only drawback is that it is expensive and there are few of them.

    The engine blades are not closed.
    Half of the engine is open to all thermal OLS.
    AFAR and no experience of its operation.
    And there is no experience, there will be no understanding of how the same LPI mode is implemented.
    For it did not appear immediately, but only 7-8 years after the start of operation.
    They have real operating experience, and they have already implemented all their application tactics in all schemes.
    They already have a completely licked plane, and we still have 10 years of improvements ahead.
    1. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 16 August 2020 22: 33
      +5
      Is this F-35 licked? And the Raptor, with all its undoubted merits, is very far from ideal. Temporary handicap for the Su-57. It was not designed by fools, an S-nozzle would be critically needed - it would be supplied.
      The effectiveness of the LPI mode has not been proven by anyone in fact in combat conditions, like Link16, by the way. And I'm not sure that these technologies are a secret behind 7 seals for us.
    2. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 16 August 2020 22: 40
      +7
      Quote: SovAr238A
      AFAR and no experience of its operation.

      Less than 20 years old if that ...

      Quote: SovAr238A
      And there is no experience, there will be no understanding of how the same LPI mode is implemented.

      Everything is clear there. The radar equation cannot be fooled.

      Quote: SovAr238A
      They already have a completely licked plane

      It’s you about the F-35, don’t tell me!
    3. NEXUS
      NEXUS 16 August 2020 23: 42
      +7
      Quote: SovAr238A
      Half of the engine is open to all thermal OLS.

      Seriously, so what? Will the F-35 just easily go into the tail of the SU-57? Dear eksperD, I will tell you apparently a big secret for you, but neither the Europeans nor the mattresses are SUICIDES to get involved with the SU-57 in a dog dump. Why? Because neither the F-22, nor Raphael, nor the F-16/18, nor Grippen, let alone the F-35, have a chance to see it in it at all. What the fuck are the shoulder blades? Considering that the SU-57 has all the "skin" in the sensors?
      Quote: SovAr238A
      AFAR and no experience of its operation.

      Enchanting idiocy. fellow
      Quote: SovAr238A
      They have real operating experience, and they have already implemented all their application tactics in all schemes.

      Uchi ways ... and what, against the SU-30 SM, against the SU-35S and even more against the SU-57? fellow Real AIRBATTLE, dear, this is not a duel of two fighters, but a complex of unknowns that will multiply all EPR, tactics and strategy by zero. Starting from the fact that in addition to fighters, there are air defense systems, radar aircraft (such as AWACS), electronic warfare systems, both ground-based and fighters, and so on ... WHAT THE FUCK IS IMPLEMENTED THERE, dear? Who was it all practiced on? On the African Bushmen?
      Quote: SovAr238A
      They already have a completely licked plane

      Fully licked by advertisers. Open your eyes, turn on your brain and see what the F-35 is REALLY capable of. He is up to a fighter, as you are up to a serious aviation expert. There is no afterburner supersonic ... SOFSEM NO. A single-motor misunderstanding that suffers from hemorrhoids, prostatitis, gonorrhea, and Alzheimer's. Where is he licked? In your wet, silly dreams? Is his EPR unprecedented? And where did you get this? Uncle Sam whispered in your ears about this, and you are sitting here passing him idiocy for the truth? What about the arsenal? Compare the arsenal of the SU-57 and this non-attack aircraft? What are you comparing here?
      Quote: SovAr238A
      and we still have 10 years of improvements ahead.

      Wow ... straight 10 years? I'll tell you, these 10 years have ended and there was already a pre-production batch, and now the first production SU-57 is being assembled. What is there to refine? Or do you, out of your feeble mind, do not understand the difference between REFINING and CURRENT MODERNIZATION?
    4. Ka-52
      Ka-52 17 August 2020 06: 20
      +3
      The engine blades are not closed.

      only one fool
      And there is no experience, there will be no understanding of how the same LPI mode is implemented

      firstly, this mode is initially overrated, because implemented at ranges up to 60 km +/-. At this range, talking about the "radio silence" mode is simply stupid.
    5. PROXOR
      PROXOR 17 August 2020 12: 31
      0
      As far as I know, we have decided with AFAR and not to suffer and finish ROFAR.
      Quote: SovAr238A
      They already have a completely licked plane, and we still have 10 years of improvements ahead.

      Is that what you give us from their words? I will also say that I know Latin, play the piano and dance the Viennese waltz beautifully. And already successfully for 10 years.
    6. Igor Aviator
      Igor Aviator 17 August 2020 16: 47
      0
      Quote: SovAr238A
      They already have a completely licked plane

      THEY DON'T HAVE it already! program terminated! As they themselves admitted, they will not be able to resume production because of the lost competencies and a number of other problems! All! The Raptor is blown away!
      1. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 17 August 2020 21: 40
        -1
        Quote: Igor Aviator
        Quote: SovAr238A
        They already have a completely licked plane

        THEY DON'T HAVE it already! program terminated! As they themselves admitted, they will not be able to resume production because of the lost competencies and a number of other problems! All! The Raptor is blown away!

        Fuck the logic of a typical hats ...
        They have a 5th generation aircraft for 20 years, they built 180 of them, and they fly on them constantly.

        We have not yet built a single combat aircraft - a direct competitor.
        The plans are only 76.
        None of the combat pilots sat at the helm ...

        And in your opinion the Raptor was blown away.
        Fuck logic ..
        Honestly flawed.
        For our country,
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 28 August 2020 15: 56
          +1
          Quote: SovAr238A
          And in your opinion the Raptor was blown away.
          Fuck logic ..

          You have no logic. First, find out the situation with 180 Raptors. How many of them were killed, how many of them are used as teaching aids, and how many are flying in combat units and what is the percentage of readiness. Such, at best, 2/3 ...

          The plans are only 76.

          What nonsense? This is the first contract. Our first contract for the Su-34 was for 32 sides, then 92 boards, now a new contract has been signed for 20 boards and another 36 boards
    7. Igor Aviator
      Igor Aviator 17 August 2020 21: 30
      0
      Quote: SovAr238A
      Half of the engine is open to all thermal OLS.

      That. what you call "half-open engine" - in fact, the heat shield is a very effective means of reducing the thermal signature of the turbojet engine, since, in addition to the multilayer structure, it is cooled from the inside by the air flow taken from the turbofan. It was used in edition 88, and was its structural element, including providing a high degree of bypass.
  • APASUS
    APASUS 16 August 2020 17: 26
    -2
    Quote: dauria
    Warrior, but if we talk seriously? Let's drop the numbers. And 0,3 and your advertising ball from Ping-pong in 3 square cm. Forms one to one. Yes, the size is smaller for the F-35 (but compare with the F-22). Shiny dots are excluded by the shape, the gaps are closed, the lantern is covered, there are absorbing coatings, the weapon is hidden inside.What is it that the Americans have so unknown that our engineers and technologists cannot?
    Gravity? Distortion of space-time? Plasma bubble?
    There is a Su-57 aircraft. A great. Modern. The only drawback is that it is expensive and there are few of them.

    Everything is simple. Such a level of funds invested in advertising this aircraft! I think R&D on this topic was cheaper, look how much material per week comes out under this topic, so far
    1. Igor Aviator
      Igor Aviator 17 August 2020 21: 38
      +1
      Quote: APASUS
      Such a level of funds invested in advertising this aircraft! I think R&D on this topic has cost less, look how much material per week comes out under this topic, so far

      Still would! After all, with all its OBVIOUS and well-known shortcomings, flaws, constructive errors and an outright MARRIAGE, you need to VAPOR the suckers - vassals! After all, if you do not wrap the feces in a beautiful and shiny wrapper, no one will want to take it.! Even under pressure or out of a sense of solidarity!
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 16 August 2020 20: 49
    +6
    And this despite the fact that the number of standard weapons of the Russian fifth generation fighter, as previously reported, will include a modernized version of the hypersonic missile of the Kh-47M2 "Dagger" complex

    Which side, I would like to ask the author, Dagger for air combat? Despite the fact that there is no Dagger on the SU-57 and will not be in the next couple of years.
    Quote: dauria
    There is a Su-57 aircraft. A great. Modern. The only drawback is that it is expensive and there are few of them.

    Not more expensive than the F-35 and even more so the F-22. Speaking of prices ... but excuse me, what is the cost of the SU-57, please?
    Quote: dauria
    Shiny dots are excluded by the shape, the gaps are closed, the lantern is covered, there are absorbing coatings, the weapon is hidden inside. What is it that the Americans have so unknown that our engineers and technologists cannot?

    Advertisers. Air combat is an action with many variable unknowns, and a fighter is a priori not capable of being in the most advantageous position in terms of the least RCS in relation to the enemy's radar. There, the spread in RCS values ​​will be calculated not in centimeters, but in meters. At the same time, a question to the author ... he cited the words of the representative of the Sukhoi Design Bureau about the EPR SU-57 in the value of 0,3 m2. And then he declares ...
    Of course, this is significantly higher than the F-22 and F-35,

    With what drinking, ale, author? The Pentagon throws off secret information on soap personally and you know who has something thicker and longer?
    Mattresses have not created anything new breakthrough in this matter, to say that their fighters are the most invisible of the invisible in the world. The EPR values ​​of modern fighters of the new generation, plus or minus, are very close. And no "SIGNIFICANTLY ABOVE" is not even lying there.
    1. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 16 August 2020 22: 42
      +1
      I agree, the Dagger here has not sewn a sleeve to something.
      As for EPR, for some reason they always compare visibility in a dueling situation nose to nose.
      And if there is a perspective other than zero? The one who moves strictly towards the enemy has a minimum RCS, the one who moves at an angle towards him already has RCS meters.
      Pure tactics.
      The one who shines with his radar, even in LPI - obviously not STEALTH and his EPR to the enemy before the flashlight
      And what is the result? Shoulder blades, shoulder blades! And we are fed well here too ...
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 17 August 2020 03: 31
        0
        already has EPR meters.

        Where does this assumption come from? An ultra-precise mental eye again? smile
        This parameter from any angle will not exceed 1 m2. And much less will remain in the plane.
        The one who shines with his radar, even in LPI, is obviously not STEALTH

        LPI will allow you to accurately determine the position of the fighter using this mode ?? Can you tell me how?
        and his EPR to the enemy to the lantern

        This is great, but how do you aim the rocket? Even after determining the direction, you also need to know the range (100 or 50 km), missiles do not fly "just forward." And having flown to the target, there will be a problem to visit it with your ARL GOS (if we are talking about R-77 and analogues).
        1. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 17 August 2020 08: 59
          +4
          Excuse me, but even for the "primitive" Irbis
          Is 1 m2 or even 0.1 m2 disastrous?
          The main thing is that even if all the advertising characteristics of the f-22 by EPR are real, they are real only with the parameter 0 and only nose to nose.
          - of course, one radiation receiver will not allow you to determine the range, and two - already for a sweet soul. I was taught that way at school. Let it be rather inaccurate, but it will be enough to build a tactical interception scheme. And what kind of receivers will be no difference (a pair of fighters, a fighter and a ground radar, a fighter and an A50 ...)
          We then meet the enemy near our borders, and not vice versa.
          Or do we, as always, "consider" the situation when ALL US Air Forces, with the support of AWACS, are fighting against one single poor Russian fighter?
          And all the adversaries, having received, without working on radiation by communication channels (Link16 does not emit control messages), without scanning the space immediately in search of the enemy with a narrow beam, they stick to our fighter, reduce the radiation power to the minimum required and expand the spectrum of the emitted signal to the fullest disgrace? And they basically have no side lobes, well, that's their radar there.
          Well, we play giveaway. They are all clever Jews there, and here are the burdock bastards ...
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 18 August 2020 03: 33
            0
            Or we, as always, "consider" the situation when ALL American Air Forces, with the support of AWACS, are fighting against one single poor Russian

            No, I was considering an option, say, 5x5 or 10x10, without external support. If we take the A-50 from our side, then we need the S-3 from theirs. Those. equal number of fighters and support radars.
            not working on radiation by communication channels (Link16 does not emit test messages)

            A covert communication system has a weaker signal by many orders of magnitude (zeros in number, remember). Free software will definitely not work smile
            reduce the radiation power to the minimum required and expand the spectrum of the emitted signal to the most complete disgrace

            No, they initially use this mode, assuming there is an air patrol. It's not about smart-stupid. It's just that at the moment their best and most readily available air supremacy fighter is the F-22, and ours is the Su-35. We use them.
        2. Igor Aviator
          Igor Aviator 17 August 2020 21: 56
          +1
          Quote: 3danimal
          LPI will allow you to accurately determine the position of the fighter using this mode ?? Can you tell me how?

          Do you need to sketch an algorithm right away? If you have even a little bit, even the smallest idea about the analysis of pseudo-random variables, even my hint will not be needed - everything is so obvious! and given the EXCESSIVE computing power on board, the IMPLEMENTATION of such algorithms is almost commonplace.
    2. PROXOR
      PROXOR 17 August 2020 12: 35
      0
      Quote: NEXUS
      Which side, I would like to ask the author, Dagger for air combat? Despite the fact that there is no Dagger on the SU-57 and will not be in the next couple of years.

      And to be afraid. Don't care that it's not air-to-air. The main thing sounds deliciously 10-12M speed.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 18 August 2020 03: 37
        -2
        Mostly Russians or emigrants are sitting here.
        1. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 19 August 2020 22: 44
          0
          Well, what are you. Where can there be Russians on a Russian-language site?
          Exclusively Somali blacks! Well, the inhabitants of the frosty state of Israel periodically come to warm up. They are a small people, but in any place and at any time, as usual, dofiga.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 20 August 2020 03: 12
            0
            or expats.

            Careful.
          2. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 28 August 2020 15: 59
            +1
            Quote: Vlad.by
            Well, the inhabitants of the frosty state of Israel periodically come to warm up.


            And some, to dump a mountain of feces, to their credit, not all.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 20 August 2020 15: 24
    -1
    Shiny dots are excluded by the shape, the gaps are closed, the lantern is covered,

    The lantern has a cover and consists of two parts. The air intakes are NOT S-shaped (the solution is similar to that used on the Super Hornet), part of the radiation will be reflected from the compressor blades. Coating may vary - Lockheed has more experience.
    And yet the Su-57 is still larger than the F-22.
    Maybe our designers decided not to bother much?
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 24 August 2020 11: 47
    -1
    According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001 ~ 0.0002 m2, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015m2, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F / A-22. The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and is comparable to the B-2, which was half that of the older F-117. Other reports claim that the F-35 is said to have an smaller RCS headon than the F-22, but from all other angles the F-35 RCS is greater. By comparison, the RCS of the Mig-29 is about 5m2.


    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-design.htm
  • Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 16 August 2020 14: 55
    13
    What problems does the Su 57 have? The aircraft is made using low-visibility technology, it is invisible for you and your owners to attack from around the corner, and for us it will go, super-maneuverable.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 16 August 2020 16: 27
      11 th
      You will also say that ours was created in a knightly spirit fool
      Unobtrusive great for protection. They are ready to fire rockets at you (the attacker), but you do not know.
      They simply did not achieve the same stealth (did not seek), focusing on maneuver. BUT: you won't be able to dodge AIM-9x (v2) and analogs in close combat. So it's debatable.
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 16 August 2020 22: 43
        +2
        Quote: 3danimal
        BUT: you won't be able to dodge AIM-9x (v2) and analogs in close combat.

        In reality, as it turned out, the AiM-9X misses the mark in greenhouse conditions. And it's clear that the chance to hit the R-73 is one and a half to two times higher than the AiM-120
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 17 August 2020 02: 49
          0
          In reality, as it turned out, the AiM-9X misses the mark in greenhouse conditions.

          And here is more detailed?
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal 17 August 2020 03: 23
          -2
          AiM-9X

          At the very least, she has a much more modern GOS. With memory of the thermal image of the target, which makes it insensitive to the use of LTZ.
          A similar one is still being tested here, should be implemented in the K-74.
          1. Souchastnik
            Souchastnik 17 August 2020 07: 14
            +2
            With memory of the thermal image of the target, which makes it insensitive to the use of LTZ.

            Sorry, I could not resist, butted.
            Can you tell me how the memory of the thermal image can withstand the real thermal illumination of the LTZ?
            It seems to me, perhaps out of stupidity, that this is a little different.
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 17 August 2020 07: 39
              +1
              Not really. GOS of the old type (that on the R-73M and AIM-9x (v1) and its predecessors) were aimed simply at a strong source of IR radiation. And the resolution of the matrix did not allow to form a legible image of the target.
              In new ones, aiming is carried out exactly on the picture, and the interference is ignored.
      2. Old Skeptic
        Old Skeptic 16 August 2020 23: 00
        0
        Correct me if I am wrong. The included radar puts an end to stealth. That is, to detect the enemy, you need to turn on the radar, and therefore get out of the stealth mode. (we do not consider external target designation).
        I can assume a hundred stealth mode, for breaking through air defense, and not for combat.

        "First saw, first shot." What is it like? Turn on the radar to see. And turned on the radar - lit up. And where is the advantage?
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 17 August 2020 02: 50
          0
          The radar can be activated by an AWACS aircraft flying far behind. Or on "stealth", in LPI mode.
          1. Old Skeptic
            Old Skeptic 17 August 2020 13: 34
            0
            If this is not AWACS it is not that far. For AWACS there are long-range interceptors and their own AWACS, as well as ground stations. But we are talking about a battle without AWACS (there are not so many of them and there will not be enough for all sorties).
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 17 August 2020 13: 50
              -2
              on stealth, in LPI mode.
              1. Old Skeptic
                Old Skeptic 17 August 2020 17: 15
                +1
                Well....? Expand please.
            2. 3danimal
              3danimal 19 August 2020 20: 28
              0
              there are not so many of them and there will not be enough for all flights).

              We have 9 of them, and amers - 45. Enough for a while.
              1. Old Skeptic
                Old Skeptic 21 August 2020 17: 03
                0
                (do not shoot)
                A few stupid questions from an amateur.
                1. What about LPI mode?
                2. At what distance does the enemy detect the AWACS radiation?
                3. At what distance does the AWACS detect the enemy?
                4. Does the AWACS illuminate allied fighters in the tail (they are in the front)?
                5. How to cover AWACS from all directions? (area of ​​a circle is still PiRsquare, or am I missing something?)
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 21 August 2020 18: 45
                  -1
                  how to cover AWACS from all directions? (the area of ​​the circle is still PiRsquare, or am I missing something?)

                  Overview - provided by the AWACS itself, and at 12, 3,6 and 9 hours a pair of fighters flies.
                  Does AWACS light up allied fighters in the tail (they are in the front)?

                  Not. Indeed, from the side of the "tail" only allies, they can see the radiation reflected from the "tail".
                  What about LPI mode?

                  Unlike conventional radars, which emit powerful pulses of energy in a narrow frequency range, the AN / APG-77 emits low-energy pulses in a wide range of frequencies using a technique called broadband transmission. When multiple echoes are returned, the radar signal processor combines these signals. The amount of energy reflected back to the target is at the same level as conventional radar, but since each LPI pulse has significantly less energy and a different signal structure, the F-22 will be difficult to detect. [1]
                  1. Old Skeptic
                    Old Skeptic 22 August 2020 01: 28
                    0
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    Not. Indeed, from the side of the "tail" only allies, they can see the radiation reflected from the "tail".

                    That is - The angle of incidence is no longer equal to the angle of reflection?
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 22 August 2020 04: 48
                      0
                      Why then. The beams hit the edges of the wings, the nozzle was mostly scattered / absorbed (talking about stealth), partially returned. Part of the rays that hit the top of the aircraft (the AWACS flies at the same height or slightly higher) will be reflected upwards. How is this supposed to help the ground stations and fighters of the defending side?
                    2. Old Skeptic
                      Old Skeptic 22 August 2020 15: 11
                      0
                      Geometry.
                      AWACS + allies in front and below, - opponents in front and above.
                      Wouldn't the ally glare with the entire plane of the wing and fuselage?
                    3. 3danimal
                      3danimal 22 August 2020 22: 49
                      0
                      In this case, yes. Adjusted for RPM (if available). But transmission to the "transmission" does not give an acceptable accuracy. Most importantly, the radar frequencies will differ. So there will be no targets ready for firing on the screen.
                    4. Old Skeptic
                      Old Skeptic 23 August 2020 17: 01
                      0
                      Means - all the same warned.
                    5. 3danimal
                      3danimal 24 August 2020 02: 11
                      0
                      Most importantly, the radar frequencies will differ.

                      In theory.
                      In addition, I have come across information that the latest E-3 models are equipped with AFAR and also have an LPI mode.
          2. The comment was deleted.
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal 21 August 2020 19: 13
          -2
          At what distance does the AWACS detect the enemy?

          Detection range of objects with RCS 1 m2 - 425 km; (https://vpk.name/library/f/e-3-sentry.html)
          At what distance does the enemy detect the radiation of the AWACS?

          I won't say for sure, but probably more. The problem is aiming with weapons. After all, an approaching missile (with guidance on a signal) AWACS will also detect, and the latest E-3 models carry AIM-9x for self-defense for such cases.
          Long-range air defense missile and explosive missiles are large (noticeable) and low maneuverability (in comparison with the AIM-120, R-77, not to mention the R-73 and AIM-9x).
          1. Old Skeptic
            Old Skeptic 23 August 2020 17: 11
            0
            Is the AWACS super-maneuverable?
            Or is the escort so cool that attacking missiles are shot down?
            If so, what are we discussing here?
            Tomorrow we line up in columns and go to surrender. (sarcasm).
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 24 August 2020 02: 14
              0
              The AIM-120 and especially the AIM-9x are highly maneuverable.
              Tomorrow we line up in columns and go to surrender. (sarcasm).

              Strange logic. First, this does not mean that a conflict will inevitably begin. Secondly, its scale still implies noticeable losses for the attackers, causing the exceptional conditions of its beginning.
              In addition, there is the factor of the presence of nuclear weapons.
              So everything is ok smile
      3. Old Skeptic
        Old Skeptic 21 August 2020 17: 09
        0
        We have 9 of them, and amers - 45. Enough for a while.

        Divide by the number of sorties and the theater area.
        They will be enough for a conflict of high intensity for a very short time.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 21 August 2020 20: 01
          0
          They will be enough for a conflict of high intensity for a very short time.

          Obviously we'll run out of them sooner request
          Here the question generally arises: who has more planes (and trained pilots) and who is able to recover their losses at what speed.
          1. Old Skeptic
            Old Skeptic 22 August 2020 01: 23
            0
            Quote: 3danimal
            Obviously we'll run out of them sooner

            Obviously we are going to play defensively. And here ground stations rule. Guess who has the most?
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 22 August 2020 04: 43
              0
              Let me make a reservation right away that such a conflict is extremely undesirable, since it will inevitably involve large losses (even in the conventional version), including for us.
              The first point: aviation is more flexible, it will not be possible to transfer ground complexes with the same efficiency (landing if only, and then not fast enough).
              Second: the question will arise in the number of precision-guided ammunition, modern explosive missiles and for air defense systems, as well as the air defense systems themselves, which will also suffer losses. Let's say there is a MALD, an unmanned simulator of a CD or an airplane. With their help (when hundreds of launches are made), it is possible to overload the defense, and then start up real CD and aircraft. Or mixed with launches of PRR. A lot of modern methods of fighting ground air defense have been worked out, so a lot will be decided in the fight for air superiority between aircraft.
            2. Old Skeptic
              Old Skeptic 22 August 2020 15: 23
              0
              1 Aviation is more flexible if targets are anywhere. Each sortie has a goal and the enemy is defending this goal, not abstract territory.
              2 Two people dance in this game. False targets are also set on the ground, including radar ones.
              3 You stubbornly consider air defense and defense aviation separately.
              What are you trying to convince us of?
            3. 3danimal
              3danimal 22 August 2020 23: 07
              0
              Aviation is more flexible if targets are anywhere. Each sortie has a goal and the enemy is defending this goal, not abstract territory.

              Flexibility means attacks from different directions, and from different heights, and with different weapons. Ground forces always play number two.
              2 Two people dance in this game. False targets are also set on the ground, including radar ones.

              Radar targets can be filtered by power.
              And when using MALDs, air defense systems will have to work on them. As well as defense aviation.
              3 You stubbornly consider air defense and defense aviation separately.

              Just for convenience. In reality, everything will be more complicated, but the balance of forces matters. The number of aircraft, trained pilots and the ability to reproduce them all at a faster pace.
            4. Old Skeptic
              Old Skeptic 23 August 2020 17: 15
              0
              Quote: 3danimal
              Just for convenience.

              Whose?
              Quote: 3danimal
              In reality, everything will be more complicated, but the balance of forces matters. The number of aircraft, trained pilots and the ability to reproduce them all at a faster pace.

              Things will get even more complicated.
              There are also missiles, artillery, REB, etc.

              All this discussion is a Spherical Horse in a vacuum.
            5. 3danimal
              3danimal 24 August 2020 02: 56
              0
              Spherical horse in a vacuum.

              Somewhat.
              But you yourself asked questions regarding the use of AWACS and, summing up, we can say that they are very effective. Attackers with his support have strong support. And it is extremely difficult to stop them, with the involvement of significant forces and funds.
  • Igor Aviator
    Igor Aviator 17 August 2020 22: 05
    +2
    Quote: 3danimal
    The radar can be activated by an AWACS aircraft flying far behind. Or on "stealth", in LPI mode.

    You uorno bend your line "stealth - invisible sign" Fundamentally wrong! stealth is hardly noticeable only in a very narrow frequency spectrum. The frequency of the radar changes slightly and that's it! Moreover, I do not think that the probable "partner" knows the radiation spectrum of the SU-57 RLPK in the so-called "combat" mode.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 19 August 2020 20: 46
      0
      You uorno bend your line "stealth is invisible"

      Not at all. I proceed from the assumption that lowering the RCS in the frequency range of modern (and accurate, I note) radars reduces the detection range. Proportional to the root of the 4th degree from the decrease in ESR. Let's say the radar detects a target with an RCS of 1 m2 at a distance of 200m. You reduce the RCS by 100 times (up to 0,01 m2) and the range is reduced by 3,16 times, to 63 km. The conditional “dome” on the field radar map is compressed.
      You can't change the frequency a little. And the "meter" radars are many meters in size (they will not fit on the plane) and indecently low accuracy. With their help, you can direct fighters (in the old fashioned way: "fly into this square") or anti-aircraft missiles with nuclear warheads.
      1. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 19 August 2020 22: 57
        +1
        I'm embarrassed to ask, but what is the L-band radar in the Su-57? Lower decimeter or upper meter? And how to protect yourself from it with stealth?
        And you yourself wrote - the first one found, the first one fired.
        Lack of accuracy? You can launch a missile at the coordinates found, then retarget it during the approach. Time will be won, and the pilot's diapers, on which the launch was made, are not dimensionless.
        I suppose that even at 5-6 g overload, the pilot will feel very pleasant, at the very least, and there is one more distraction. Again, any maneuver increases the RCS ...
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 20 August 2020 03: 18
          0
          L-band radar in the Su-57, is that

          It is additional, much (minimum order - 10 times) less powerful. In addition, stealth technology also works against the L-band. In addition, it is a side-looking radar station designed to further increase overall awareness.
          And an important point: the Su-57 is not in service. Only 10 prototypes, in contrast to 90 Su-35.
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal 24 August 2020 02: 58
          0
          The "top meter" always has multi-meter dimensions - it will not fit into an aircraft, and the accuracy is insufficient for accurate guidance. A radar seeker missiles always have a centimeter range.
  • Igor Aviator
    Igor Aviator 17 August 2020 16: 54
    +1
    Quote: 3danimal
    They simply did not achieve the same stealth (did not seek), focusing on maneuver. BUT: you won't be able to dodge AIM-9x (v2) and analogs in close combat. So it's debatable.

    Yes you?! True? Wouldn't you have thought? Almost 30 years in aviation, but I would not have thought that! Young man! On paper THEM is doing great! but in reality ... wassat crying
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 19 August 2020 20: 52
      -1
      Almost 30 years in aviation, but I would not have thought that!

      Have you ever used the R-73 and its modifications?
      I saw the storyboard of the R-74 (analogue of the AIM-9x v2) turns back after launch and hits the missile launched at the fighter.
      Well, in DCS I used both options.
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 16 August 2020 15: 25
    11
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Su-57 EPR - 0.3-0.5
    And Sukhoi, without hesitation, said: "Our main enemy also has 0.3."


    Correctly said, not to believe in crazy fairy tales about 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 sq. M. There is little difference between the F-22/35 and the Su-57. Smoke the radar equation, maybe even you will receive grace. By the way, speaking of the "invisible" F-117, there, on a machine sharpened purely for covert penetration into the deep rear of the enemy, the frontal EPR is at least 0.4-0.5, which is confirmed by Dobn in the jamming environment of the P-18 radar
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 16 August 2020 16: 28
      -2
      There is little difference between the F-22/35 and the Su-57. Smoke the radar equation, maybe even you will receive grace.

      But I'm going you don't have exact data, so you suggest comparing "by eye".
      1. Igor Aviator
        Igor Aviator 17 August 2020 22: 09
        0
        Quote: 3danimal
        But I'm going you don't have exact data, so you suggest comparing "by eye".

        Believe me, the Sukhoi Group of Companies knows what it says because it has information. The position obliges, and the special services help in this.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 18 August 2020 03: 39
          -2
          Believe me

          I don’t believe it, I’m not accustomed. smile Just the facts. Before that - the manufacturer's data.
  • Voltsky
    Voltsky 16 August 2020 17: 22
    +2
    Quote: voyaka uh
    And all the problems with the stealthiness of the Su-57 immediately disappeared after this statement.
    bosses. Wisely!

    oh great guru, tell us how to guess the EPR from a photo.
    and even better, tell us how they will look for each other without the included radars, and how the EPR will affect this
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 16 August 2020 22: 44
      0
      Quote: Voletsky
      tell us how to guess the EPR from a photo.


      Spialist yes !!!? Moreover, the master !! He glanced sideways and named the EPR .. laughing
      1. dzvero
        dzvero 17 August 2020 10: 37
        +2
        Looking sideways will not work. It is necessary to determine two angles - the first one between the LDPE and the left wing half; the second between the LDPE and the left keel (both in relation to the left engine nozzle). Then we divide the cosine from the first angle by the tangent from the second, divide by pi, multiply by 3.14 and get the EPR in cm2. Something like that, probably smile
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 17 August 2020 13: 53
      -2
      No way. Those sitting here, in order to maintain objectivity, can only use hired producers.
      Radars will be on, but AFAR on the F-22 has LPI mode.
      In addition, bearing (with the help of the REO) will not give you permission to launch if the radar has not detected the target. This is where EPR comes into play.
      1. Serg4545
        Serg4545 17 August 2020 17: 11
        +1
        Quote: 3danimal
        Radars will be on, but AFAR on the F-22 has LPI mode.



        The LPI operating mode itself, when the picture is assembled like a mosaic of disparate signals, guarantees that the accuracy of determining the target data (direction, speed, etc.) will be plus, minus bast shoes. This means that it is impossible to use weapons in LPI mode. To do this, you need to turn on the radar in normal mode. As in the case of OLS.
        But OLS is better than LPI mode. The target detection range for the OLS is greater. LPI mode is extremely sensitive to any interference! Not even to electronic warfare! but to natural interference! For example, increased activity of the Sun, as a result of electromagnetic background fluctuations. LPI mode is blind.
        If the target is flying below you, you will not see it in LPI mode. Too many echoes from the ground.
        In general, the LPI mode is a degraded analogue of the RL. Severely impaired.
        1. Hexenmeister
          Hexenmeister 17 August 2020 17: 45
          +1
          If the target is flying below you, you will not see it in LPI mode. Too many echoes from the ground.
          If all this is true, then the afar radar when operating on such a signal will correspond to the radar of third-generation fighters, and such a mode is not needed, since nothing is visible against the background of the underlying surface!
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal 21 August 2020 18: 41
          0
          Nothing like this. After all, the plane's computer knows exactly at what frequencies the signals were sent. It is just a matter of availability and sufficient power of electronic computing equipment.
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 17 August 2020 00: 04
    +4
    Quote: voyaka uh
    And Sukhoi, without hesitation, said: "Our main enemy also has 0.3."

    Well, your COMMANDER, sitting in Washington, said that the F-35 has an EPR 0,0000000000000000001 m2. And you've been posting this idiocy here for a year already?
    And I'm wildly sorry, don't tell me why such breakthrough mattresses or Jews have created in stealth technology that yours and mattress fighters are invisible than ours or Chinese ones?
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Su-57 EPR - 0.3-0.5

    Sound EPR F-22 and F-35, pzhlsta. fellow And especially in the context of REAL air combat, when fighters every second change both altitude and angles.It's really very interesting to know, excuse me, the F-22 or F-35 has a lower value than even the SU-57, but although the SU-35.
    And now for a snack ... dear Israeli, tell me, would your pilots on the F-16 (I’m not talking about the F-35, since it’s a fighter from it, as you’re a Muslim), would they venture into a dog dump with the SU-57?
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 17 August 2020 02: 57
      -1
      It’s very interesting to know in what kind of asshole, the F-22 or F-35 has a lower value than, not even the SU-57, but at least the SU-35.

      Extremely subjective assessment. You have measured the EPR (with an eye, I suppose?) What if the stealth parameter is not less than that of the MiG-23, and all PR? fellow
    2. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 17 August 2020 10: 40
      -1
      Quote: NEXUS
      Well, your COMMANDER, sitting in Washington, said that the F-35 has an EPR 0,0000000000000000001 m2. And you've been posting this idiocy here for a year already?


      That's for sure....
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 17 August 2020 07: 58
    -2
    How many disadvantages in such a short period of time .. How could you question the genetic honesty of Russian officials and the ability of scientists and engineers to surpass everyone in any field (despite years of lagging behind and less experience in stealth exploitation)? wink
    1. Igor Aviator
      Igor Aviator 17 August 2020 17: 14
      +2
      Quote: 3danimal
      despite years of lag and less experience in stealth operation

      Firstly, the Americans themselves admitted the superiority of Russian fighters over American ones (it was not for nothing that the F-22 program was launched! But the result of this program was somehow "not very" - and unacceptably expensive, and superiority even over Russian aircraft 4- As it turned out, there is no second generation ... Secondly, please tell me who developed the stealth theory? Is it really the Americans? laughing did not know! Or do you think that it, (this theory), in the Russian Federation was not taken into account even before its final formation as a theory?
      And thirdly, and this is the MOST IMPORTANT thing: do you know what is the MOST IMPORTANT difference between American and Russian weapons? Americans, creating weapons (any). first of all, they create a PRODUCT. And the Russians are WEAPONS! yes Both practice and HISTORY are proof of this!
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 17 August 2020 17: 45
        -2
        how the theory?

        Was not. The faceless official considered it unpromising, pushing it in. And even the secrecy was not done. Printed the book smile The country of the victorious bureaucracy ..
        But the result of this program turned out to be somehow "not very" - and unacceptably expensive

        The result is worthy and dangerous. And the reduction in the military budget ... It was big enough to buy them 5-6 times more. But the Cold War ended and there were cutbacks.
        What is the MOST IMPORTANT difference between American and Russian weapons? Americans, creating weapons (any). first of all, they create a PRODUCT. And the Russians are WEAPONS! yes Both practice and HISTORY are proof of this!

        I don't want to conduct ideological disputes, there is too much subjectivity. The weapon is created based on the requirements of the customer and his budget.
        Can't they fight with their weapons? Tell this to Hussein's tankmen, his pilots (about the equipment). And the price ... It's good to be rich.
        1. Igor Aviator
          Igor Aviator 17 August 2020 23: 04
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          The faceless official considered it unpromising, pushing it in. And even the secrecy was not done. They published a book smile The country of victorious bureaucracy ..

          You read this on "Rain Echo"? wassat This technology was considered unpromising due to some efficiency in a very narrow frequency spectrum. and for radars operating in frequency scanning mode, especially with a synthetic aperture, stealth is not at all unnoticeable.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 18 August 2020 03: 43
            -3
            stealth is not inconspicuous at all.

            The ultimate truth good
            An official (ours) cannot be narrow-minded and blunt.
            No, not on Echo. There is an interview with Ufimtsev, for example. You have a strange train of thought.
  • Igor Aviator
    Igor Aviator 17 August 2020 22: 29
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    And Sukhoi, without hesitation, said: "Our main enemy also has 0.3."
    And all the problems with the stealthiness of the Su-57 immediately disappeared after this statement.
    bosses. Wisely!

    But the Americans are not funny! Since the Sukhoi Design Bureau, making such a statement, relies on data obtained both from the analysis of data from the public domain and from the SVR (the position obliges to be in the know). And the announcement of such information by a knowingly competent high-ranking person, moreover, the highest authority in the field of military aircraft construction, puts BOLD CROSS on the tale of the "invisibility" of the American wunderwafe. Well, what "inadvertently" announced the EPR of our aircraft is the open secret - an aircraft created using similar, I would say, congruent technologies, cannot have cardinal differences, even with an obvious desire to surpass the opponent. True, our super-maneuverability technologies are still unattainable for the Americans. And given the current situation inside the United States, it can be argued that it is "forever unattainable."
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 24 August 2020 12: 12
      -1
      Found on this site.
      http://www.knaapo.ru/media/rus/about/production/military/su-35/su-35_buklet_rus.pdf
      There is no data about RVV-BD request

      About EPR F-22 and F-35 from their resource.
      https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-design.htm

      But Poghosyan's research
      http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/JOURNAL/VRAN/03_10/STELLS.HTM
      EPR 2 m0,3 is mentioned 2 times, not a word about how this figure was obtained.
      Again, there is no reason to blindly believe in “the intelligence services know everything”.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Asad
    Asad 16 August 2020 14: 30
    +7
    God forbid, of course, but someday the day will come and SS 57 will shoot down F 22 and the argument will end which is better! But war is no better.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 16 August 2020 16: 30
      -3
      And if the F-22 hits the Su-57, he was lucky, the stars converged, or there were 10 against one good
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 16 August 2020 22: 46
        +1
        Not you just habitually talking nonsense ...
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 17 August 2020 02: 53
          +1
          Deliberately exaggerating, I want to show the subjectivity (dangerous) of such statements and attitudes. In battle, anything can happen.
  • kind
    kind 16 August 2020 14: 35
    +9
    The F-22 fighter will be able to detect the Su-57 only after entering the zone of destruction of its missiles

    I think so. While there was no real confrontation, there is nothing to predict. Of course, I am a patriot of the Russian Aerospace Forces, but here a lot depends on the skill of the pilot. Even if the F-22 gets into the affected area does not mean that it will be hit.
    1. Roman1970_1
      Roman1970_1 16 August 2020 16: 02
      15 th
      It doesn't even mean that it will be discovered
  • BIABIA
    BIABIA 16 August 2020 14: 36
    -7
    And there is. Just one problem. Russia does not have a ready-to-fight Su-57
    1. Igor Aviator
      Igor Aviator 17 August 2020 17: 25
      0
      Quote: BIABIA
      Russia does not have a ready-to-fight Su-57

      Is there a war tomorrow? First, as it turned out, the Americans now have NOTHING to oppose even against the SU-27 of not the most recent modifications (it was not because of a good life that the decision was made to resume production of the F-15!)
      Secondly, a new generation of pilots is being prepared by saturating the regiments with new equipment (SU-30SM, SU-35), and flight experience is not a matter of time. By the time the serial number of SU-57s appears, a sufficient number of pilots capable of retraining for them will be trained.
  • Force
    Force 16 August 2020 14: 38
    +2
    In order for the F-22 avionics to detect the Su-57 in the sky with a high degree of probability, it will have to monitor the airspace with the entrance to the engagement zone of the Russian fighter's weapons. And this despite the fact that the number of standard weapons of the Russian fifth generation fighter, as previously reported, will include a modernized version of a hypersonic missile of the Kh-47M2 Dagger complex with a maximum speed of 10 (according to other sources - 12) M. Dagger missiles are capable of delivering damage to enemy ships, its infrastructure.


    I wonder how the Dagger can help in a hypothetical fight with the F-22?
    Here he will bring a whole bunch of problems if you do not get rid of him in time
    How is news like this passed on to VO?
    1. kind
      kind 16 August 2020 14: 55
      +7
      "Dagger" is designed for completely different tasks, like its carrier MiG-31. The heights and speeds at which it operates are unattainable for the F-22.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 16 August 2020 16: 31
        -4
        Are you saying that the F-22 is unable to shoot down the MiG-31?
        1. Wolf
          Wolf 17 August 2020 10: 47
          0
          It can if you catch up, but it's hard neither in height nor horizontally.
  • Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 16 August 2020 14: 50
    15
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Su-57 EPR - 0.3-0.5
    And Sukhoi, without hesitation, said: "Our main enemy also has 0.3."
    And all the problems with the stealthiness of the Su-57 immediately disappeared after this statement.
    bosses. Wisely! laughing



    Have you measured the EPR with a ruler? This data is secret and will not be told to you. but the EPR figures of the F-22 and F-35 given by the Americans are a lie. Which has been proven many times.
    1. Voyager
      Voyager 16 August 2020 15: 39
      +6
      In fact, 0.3-0.5 is what Sukhoi's designers themselves mentioned in open sources, but the stump is clear that no one will openly publish true critical data laughing
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 16 August 2020 16: 35
      +1
      but the EPR figures of the F-22 and F-35 given by the Americans are a lie. Which has been proven many times.

      Then give proof. Or did you measure the "American" with a ruler?
      EPR Su-57 was called by representatives of the KLA.
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 16 August 2020 22: 47
        0
        The KLA representatives gave adequate figures. And you used to lie
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 17 August 2020 02: 59
          -2
          I lied? Then tell me where.
          Adequate numbers - here they are also called by some. Assuming that the EPR of the F-22 is not less than that of the same Su-35. EPR eyepiece - elastic piece smile
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 17 August 2020 09: 00
            +2
            Quote: 3danimal
            I lied? Then tell me where.


            Of course respected, for a simple reason - you are trying to draw conclusions, not based on anything by and large
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 17 August 2020 11: 01
              0
              Of course respected, for a simple reason - you are trying to draw conclusions, not based on anything by and large

              General phrases, can you be more specific? Where exactly is there a lie in my posts?
              1. Igor Aviator
                Igor Aviator 17 August 2020 17: 40
                +2
                Quote: 3danimal
                General phrases, can you be more specific? Where exactly is there a lie in my posts?

                You see, to directly incriminate you in a lie is almost hopeless, YES AND NOT NECESSARY - you just VOICE, as they say, "drown" for the almost absolute superiority of American stealth over Russian fighters, not operating with ANY facts, because you do not own, and do not you can possess information constituting a secret, and guarded by special services. Or are you, pretending to be a naive user, in this way trying to find out information on the local forum that constitutes at least some value? Then contact me! I can tell you a LOT about the secrets of Russian aviation! (As a child, before the service, I read a lot of good science fiction! laughing )
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 17 August 2020 18: 34
                  -1
                  You see, to directly catch you in a lie is almost hopeless, YES AND NOT NECESSARY

                  This means that your words about lies are subjective dissatisfaction with my arguments. Let me remind you that they can be refuted by giving their arguments and data. Or unreasonably and unproven to accuse smile
                  operating with NO facts

                  Here you lie. I operate on facts that are in the public domain, like everyone else here. If you didn’t know, about 80% of intelligence information services are obtained from open source analysis.
                2. 3danimal
                  3danimal 17 August 2020 18: 47
                  -1
                  Or are you, pretending to be a naive user, in this way trying to find out information on the local forum that constitutes at least some value?

                  Is that what's going on in your head? I suppose you believe in the World Conspiracy too? laughing
                  Don't worry, I'm here for entertainment purposes.
                  Interested in technology, history, opinions and controversy.
                3. 3danimal
                  3danimal 17 August 2020 19: 09
                  0
                  You just VOICE, as they say, "drown" for the almost absolute superiority of American stealth over Russian fighters

                  Sounds like: "you do not believe in the superiority of Russian weapons." No I do not believe. Foundations are needed.
                  Read carefully: "I'm drowning" for stealth and modern technologies in general. Superiority in which one of the sides gives it an advantage and much greater losses to the enemy. In the variant I was considering, the aggressor / defender (of a group of fighters) indicated that the presence of stealth aircraft (with radar with AFAR) on the defending side would minimize the advantages of the attackers.
                  In general, I try, to the best of my ability, to fight the hateful sentiments and put objectivity first of all.
  • Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 16 August 2020 14: 58
    0
    I'm just wondering, on the basis of which the representatives of the "friendly" countries draw conclusions that the Russian designers, stating that:
    The F-22 fighter will be able to detect the Su-57 only after entering the zone of destruction of its missiles

    splurge?
    It's easy to check. However, there will be no different access to the Su-57 cockpit. Let them dream near the fence.
    1. Outsider
      Outsider 17 August 2020 02: 47
      -9
      It is not Russian designers who let the dust in their eyes, - the designers go about their business - within the framework of the technologies at their disposal and their own brains, the propagandists are trying to let the dust in their eyes, wrapping one lie on an even bigger one. Sofa hamsters crunch her ... lol
      And the real "value" of the Su-57 is very simple to determine, you just need to open a little wider eyes:
      1. Hindus refused to buy it - it too does not meet modern requirements, - primarily by stealth.
      2. Brazil refused its co-production.
      3. South Korea refused from its joint production.
      4. Apparently, Turkey refused its joint production.
      Four countries have sent this "product" to hell and do not want to mess with it! Few?!
      1. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 17 August 2020 03: 49
        +1
        Quote: Outsider
        Four countries have sent this "product" to hell and do not want to mess with it! Few?!

        You struck me outright with your arguments. I can even determine the main answers, why they did it and in the "bright" prospects of what economic and financial infringements and what "high-tech" production, which from 2020 employs 25 million highly qualified workers ... economic sanctions, due to which "Chersky" went to replace "business partners" who had "taken off" from the construction of SP-000.
        Among other things, these aircraft will be equipped with engines of the second stage - "products 30" only ...
        Details are here:
        https://topwar.ru/171118-serijnoe-proizvodstvo-su-57-v-kontekste-dvigatelej.html
        As for the four countries and Russia, bile and various other wastes of the digestion process have recently emanated: Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, GB, Denmark, Japan ... and even the USA itself (not the entire country (s), and some representatives), BUT !!!

        hi
      2. Souchastnik
        Souchastnik 17 August 2020 07: 33
        +2
        Four countries have sent this "product" to hell and do not want to mess with it! Few?!

        But here, in my opinion, there is more politics than propaganda in the declared performance characteristics of aircraft.
        1. Outsider
          Outsider 18 August 2020 08: 40
          -3
          - Can you imagine that the United States proposed the joint production of the F-22, with its subsequent putting into service (taking into account the accumulated technologies for 25 years):
          1. India.
          2. Brazil.
          3. South Korea.
          4. Turkey.
          So they would have rushed "into a fight", racing, bumping their heads together! Because worthwhile thing... And here all the "snouts" are turning up, including their own Defense Ministry and their own Air Force. Because THIS nafig is not necessary ...
      3. Igor Aviator
        Igor Aviator 17 August 2020 17: 48
        +3
        Quote: Outsider
        1. The Indians refused to buy it - it does not meet modern requirements too much - primarily due to stealth.
        2. Brazil refused its co-production.
        3. South Korea refused from its joint production.
        4. Apparently, Turkey refused its joint production.

        Listening (reading) you, you might think that you are delusional (c) Firstly, About the Indians - the fable of I.A. Do you know Krylov's "fox and grapes"? - In-in, exactly! DEMANDED provision All technologies! Yeah !, schaz! Having learned the "direction" in which they were sent, they said - "Yes, he is bad at all!"
        Well, as for Turkey, Brazil and South Korea - this is not for me at all, this is in Kashchenko, to Kanatchikova dacha! wassat
        1. Outsider
          Outsider 18 August 2020 08: 47
          -3
          Listening (reading) you, one might think that you are delusional (c) Firstly, About the Indians - the fable of I.A. Do you know Krylov's "fox and grapes"? - In-in, exactly! DEMANDED the provision of ALL technologies! Yeah !, schaz!

          - Again, the devil knows what you've heard enough and it is not clear where: if a country (any) is offered a joint production of an aircraft, then it is "no brainer", for this it must have the technology for its production and nothing else. Moreover, for example, having established the production of the Su-30MKI under license (and all technologies), the Indians threw out part of the Russian avionics of this aircraft and replaced them with French and Israeli ones ... And Russia was not even offended at all ...
          The French were ready to transfer to India all the technologies for the production of "Rafali", but the "plug" arose for a completely different reason: the impudent gypsies demanded that the French give guarantees for all "Rafali", including those produced in India without French specialists! But even the frivolous French did not agree to this ...
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 18 August 2020 09: 01
            0
            Quote: Outsider
            The French were ready to transfer all technologies to India for the production of Rafale,


            Lies ... The French were basically not ready to give up the technological chains for the production of all components.
            1. Outsider
              Outsider 18 August 2020 09: 03
              -3
              - It is necessary to read not only the newspaper "Komsomolets of Mordovia" ...
      4. Charik
        Charik 18 August 2020 05: 15
        -1
        so let them buy what they want (they will order)
  • A. Privalov
    A. Privalov 16 August 2020 14: 59
    -6
    The F-22 has been discontinued for 10 years. They made a total of 180 pieces.
    While the Su-57 hatches from the egg, let it stand on the wing, the last Raptor will be taken to the museum.

    But it would be better for them to never meet. There will be fewer disappointments.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 16 August 2020 15: 28
      +5
      You probably have ... laughing
    2. Paranoid50
      Paranoid50 16 August 2020 20: 57
      +3
      Quote: A. Privalov
      There will be fewer disappointments.

      Do not worry so much about your masters - they seem to be not going to fight, for they are not immortals. yes
    3. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 17 August 2020 03: 56
      +1
      Quote: A. Privalov
      While the Su-57 hatches from the egg, let it stand on the wing, the last Raptor will be taken to the museum.

      It only says that the ratio "price-quality" of the created product and the product that is designed for everyone does not correspond to the declared one.
      yes
      1. Igor Aviator
        Igor Aviator 17 August 2020 17: 50
        0
        Quote: ROSS 42
        the ratio "price-quality" of the created product and the product that is produced by all does not correspond to the declared one.

        But what a wrapper!
      2. Outsider
        Outsider 18 August 2020 09: 13
        -1
        - Of course, the F-22 will be handed over to the museum someday. According to the plan - in 2045 (if the resource is not extended). Wait a little ...
  • Rubi0
    Rubi0 16 August 2020 15: 00
    10 th
    Seriously, the sous 57th would take off for a start, when there will be at least half of f22, then even such articles would be written
  • Pechkin
    Pechkin 16 August 2020 15: 02
    +9
    Articles on VO with Yandex Zen are already being posted, judging by the quality. Who will tell you a real EPR. An article by the type of their tank can knock out our tank only in the affected area of ​​our tank, which, for obvious reasons, is already a risk for their tank. All of me journalist.
  • RUnnm
    RUnnm 16 August 2020 15: 02
    16
    What I like about this site is that there are real pros in their questions and from dozens of IksperDs' comments on all issues covering any issue from the protests in Belarus to the SU-57, moreover, with the same texts, like " Belomorkanal ", there is always one made by a specialized specialist. And for the sake of comments from such specialists, I want to go to VO.
    1. Incvizitor
      Incvizitor 17 August 2020 00: 08
      0
      Surely the EPR is not known for one. Comparing something and seriously talking on this topic is at least pointless, or even stupid laughing
  • The comment was deleted.
  • svp67
    svp67 16 August 2020 15: 06
    +1
    M ... yes, it's a pity that all this can only be verified in a face-to-face confrontation between these two fighters ...
  • abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 16 August 2020 15: 10
    +3
    In turn, the EPR indicator is associated not only with the stealth technology implemented on the fighter itself (including the use of composite materials in the airframe, special radio-absorbing coatings), but also with the distance from which the enemy's airborne radar is tracking.
    The EPR indicator has nothing to do with "what distance the onboard radar is tracking". It is associated with the shape of the airframe (and its parts), with the coating material (including the canopy). This is if you do not take active radiation by onboard systems. All! The angle is also a derivative of the glider shape. But just the value of the RCS from a certain angle affects the range of this very "from what distance the enemy's onboard radar is tracking." And not the other way around.
    This is the same as sanitary and epidemiological norms depend on human physiology, and not human physiology depends on these norms.
  • Shahno
    Shahno 16 August 2020 15: 11
    10 th
    Something your media outright took. Vaccine, hypersound, fighters .. Well done, the main thing is that the people are obedient .. laughing
    An obedient voter is a guarantee of happiness.
    1. RUnnm
      RUnnm 16 August 2020 15: 26
      +5
      So this is because there are enough ideological, and sometimes paid, gadgets for the fan.
      How is it, why the media do not call to pay and repent, right?
  • zlinn
    zlinn 16 August 2020 15: 13
    +3
    what is it that I just read? what are the conclusions from the last 2 paragraphs based on? Let's say the f-22 detects drying at 80 km, but what does it mean that the su himself will find the f-22 at this distance? what did the unnamed author mean?
    1. Dimka75
      Dimka75 16 August 2020 15: 35
      -5
      The author hasn't said everything yet. Thinking about the sequel.
      After all, if instead of the Dagger you hang an MRB under the wing of the Su-57, then the foe on the Fu22 is generally better not to take off from the airfield.
    2. Voyager
      Voyager 16 August 2020 15: 46
      0
      From the fact that

      a) According to official data, the Su-57 radar system is more advanced
      b) To detect drying, F-22 will have to turn on its microwave, after which it will begin to glow like a Christmas tree
      c) Russia develops its Armed Forces mainly for defensive reasons, and additional means of ground-based detection and AWACS are taken into account.
      1. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 16 August 2020 16: 20
        -3
        Quote: Voyager
        From the fact that

        a) According to official data, the Su-57 radar system is more advanced
        b) To detect drying, F-22 will have to turn on its microwave, after which it will begin to glow like a Christmas tree
        c) Russia develops its Armed Forces mainly for defensive reasons, and additional means of ground-based detection and AWACS are taken into account.

        Where do you get such official data?

        On item 1.
        The radar system on the Su-57 in the form of a production sample is absent as a class.
        They have almost 40 years of operation of aviation AFAR, we have not a single one ...

        On item 2.
        Learn about the LPI mode implemented in Western AFAR. Nothing shines there and is not detected especially ...

        On item 3.
        In comparison with the enemies, we have almost 20 times less active AWACS aircraft.
        5-7 effective against almost 100 units of enemies ... Taking into account even only the European theater of operations, we will have regular holes in the AWACS system. Yes, and do not forget to count the tankers, AWACS without tankers look weak ...

        Same.
        Defensive doctrine is always a losing one.
        Without counterattacks, it is impossible to destroy the attacker's infrastructure and hence it is impossible to stop their attacks. They will continue this way.
        And taking into account the multiple excess in the quantitative value of the forces of our enemies, on the defensive doctrine, we just all slowly, one by one, we will die, even if we take with us one of the enemies. But there are more of them, and they will remain, but we will not.
        1. Voyager
          Voyager 16 August 2020 17: 32
          10
          Are you saying that the first crashed serial Su-57 was with empty plugs instead of AFAR?

          Quote: SovAr238A
          On item 2.
          Learn about the LPI mode implemented in Western AFAR. Nothing shines there and is not detected especially ...

          Yes, I am aware of the secretive mode of work, but I do not understand what miracles do you expect from him? In this mode, the effective detection range drops significantly, up to the level of effective capabilities of the OLS, and even worse under some conditions. In theory, of course.

          Quote: SovAr238A
          On item 3.
          In comparison with the enemies, we have almost 20 times less active AWACS aircraft.
          5-7 acting against almost 100 units from enemies ...

          And the most powerful layered air defense system with ground detection equipment, which you somehow ignore. In addition, you do not think that NATO forces will pull together all their 100 AWACS, refuellers and other units? Where and how will they serve all this? And most importantly, in the event of a conflict, who will give them, when the use of weapons will take place in a comprehensive manner, including the mutual exchange of tactical weapons at the most important infrastructure facilities, including airfields.

          So no one canceled the counterattacks, but what about the numerical superiority and our death - so by this moment the conversation will turn into another channel. Tritium and Deuterium will finally find each other and embrace.
        2. Voyager
          Voyager 16 August 2020 17: 41
          +5
          And more about LPI. Who said that modern open source software is not able to spill a wideband LPI signal? What makes you think that we have no analogue of such a regime?
          1. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 16 August 2020 19: 41
            -3
            Quote: Voyager
            And more about LPI. Who said that modern open source software is not able to spill a wideband LPI signal? What makes you think that we have no analogue of such a regime?

            We do not have AFAR, and accordingly there is no understanding of how to manage it ...
            And this is a simple axiom ...
            No matter how much you look at halva, but until you put it in your mouth, you will not learn anything about it ...


            Open source software does not know how to work the way they were not taught. If in practice we do not know how LPI works, then how can we teach the open source software to catch tens of thousands of low-level signals of different frequencies?
            You can hammer in a nail only if you have a nail and a hammer and a board.
            With a lack of any missing element, this is already garbage. Not relevant.
            Is the analogy clear?
            1. Mountain shooter
              Mountain shooter 16 August 2020 20: 19
              10
              Quote: SovAr238A
              We do not have AFAR, and accordingly there is no understanding of how to manage it ...
              And this is a simple axiom ...
              No matter how much you look at halva, but until you put it in your mouth, you will not learn anything about it

              Who told you that there is no AFAR in Russia? I even know where the plant is built for their production. Under Moscow. And in some other places ... It's just that it is not customary for us to "call" about secret work, and every year it gets more serious. Moreover, the development of gallium nitride modules has also been completed, and gallium arsenide modules have been produced for more than 10 years. Where are they doing so many ??? Straight mystery laughing
              Well, your conviction that we slurp cabbage soup, but for peaceful purposes ...
            2. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 16 August 2020 23: 10
              +3
              Quote: SovAr238A
              We do not have AFAR, and accordingly there is no understanding of how to manage it ...

              Actually, there are, of course, serial ones too ..

              Quote: SovAr238A
              Open source software does not know how to work the way they were not taught. If in practice we do not know how LPI works, then how can we teach the open source software to catch tens of thousands of low-level signals of different frequencies?


              Dear, there is a minimum level of the incident energy coming from a specific sector, which allows us to conclude that the radar is working for you. At the same time, with LPI, the detection range drops significantly.
              1. Herman 4223
                Herman 4223 17 August 2020 07: 20
                +3
                We can say that the first AFAR appeared with us with the mig-31, they forget to just say that the x-band modules are passive in its lattice, its L-modules are active. So we have had experience with AFAR for over forty years, but in the USA this miracle appeared on serial machines only in the twenty-first century. On AWACS they had AFAR, but on what is simpler they did not.
            3. Dzafdet
              Dzafdet 17 August 2020 08: 10
              0
              Open source software does not know how to work the way they were not taught. If in practice we do not know how LPI works, then how can we teach the open source software to catch tens of thousands of low-level signals of different frequencies?
              You can hammer in a nail only if you have a nail and a hammer and a board.
              With a lack of any missing element, this is already garbage. Not relevant.
              Is the analogy clear?


              LPI is a passive radar mode. and what will he find there? You keep forgetting that airplanes do not fight by themselves. As soon as the amerikos turns on the radar, they will immediately take him to the zugunder. And if it doesn't turn it on, they'll spot it from the ground ... The end is the same: the launch of the rocket and that's it ...
              1. Herman 4223
                Herman 4223 17 August 2020 10: 07
                +2
                You are a little mistaken, LPI is not a passive mode of operation, it is operation with constant frequency tuning, a wide-band directional pattern. The signal to the irradiated object is weak, similar to the background noise that is always present, and the aircraft sensors do not understand that the irradiation is taking place.
          2. Herman 4223
            Herman 4223 16 August 2020 20: 06
            +5
            Broadband operation is available for all headlights, both passive and active.
            Most of what is attributed to AFAR, PFAR can do too. It's just that the United States and its allies have no PFAR on their fighters and weren't there, they switched to AFAR right away from slotted antenna arrays.
            PFAR is simpler and has greater efficiency, AFAR has its advantages, the rest is stupid propaganda.
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 17 August 2020 08: 58
              +4
              Quote: Herman 4223
              Broadband operation is available for all headlights, both passive and active.
              Most of what is attributed to AFAR, PFAR can do too. It's just that the United States and its allies have no PFAR on their fighters and weren't there, they switched to AFAR right away from slotted antenna arrays.
              PFAR is simpler and has greater efficiency, AFAR has its advantages, the rest is stupid propaganda.


              Exactly
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 17 August 2020 11: 06
                0
                AFAR has its advantages, the rest is stupid propaganda.

                Greater accuracy, selectivity, LPI mode, resistance to electronic warfare, more tracked targets
                Just compare the performance characteristics of the Su-57 and Su-35 radar.
                When their number becomes noticeable in our Air Force, articles will appear that clearly describe the advantages, without phrases in the style of "Good, but not painful and necessary."
                1. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 17 August 2020 11: 34
                  +1
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Greater precision, selectivity,

                  Better but not critical
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  LPI mode,

                  Works well against open source software from the 80s and 90s. Pastel quite reads LPI, trite because the Radar equation does not deceive. And if there is a desire to detect a target 100 km away, the signal strength must be appropriate ...
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  resistance to electronic warfare,

                  I agree. Noise immunity is higher than that of pFAR, but of course not order. Again, we are losing in noise immunity, increasing the signal power.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  more tracked targets

                  Scholasticism
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Just compare the performance characteristics of the Su-57 and Su-35 radar.

                  Дdetect in the Irbis, as it were, not higher than that of the Squirrel.

                  At the same time, AFAR is critically more expensive this time. Heat dissipation is significantly higher, etc. etc.
                  1. 3danimal
                    3danimal 17 August 2020 12: 41
                    0
                    increase the signal strength.

                    Which is somewhat limited compared to land or sea radar
                    Scholasticism

                    Better but not critical

                    Everything is critical in battle. Better awareness brings benefits. You can talk in a utilitarian way regarding pilots, but their number is limited, including on a specific site, like aircraft.
                    I agree. Noise immunity is higher than that of pFAR, but not order of course

                    Stability is 5 times greater (and not 10, as we would like) - not too important, in your opinion ??
                    Detection at the Irbis is, as it were, not higher than at the Squirrel.

                    I have listed the pros above. I repeat: as the radar with AFAR of the Air Force becomes saturated, I am sure you will also change your mind. smile
                    1. Cyril G ...
                      Cyril G ... 17 August 2020 12: 48
                      +1
                      Stability is 5 times greater (and not 10, as we would like) - not too important, in your opinion ??

                      where did you get factor of? Lucky if the percentage is 10 higher ...
                      Which is somewhat limited

                      Higher than the AFAR radar
                      1. 3danimal
                        3danimal 17 August 2020 12: 56
                        0
                        Lucky if the percentage is 10 higher ...

                        Is there a source of information about 10%? Assumptions ..
                        Higher than the AFAR radar

                        Not much, limited by the capacity of the power system. Which is far from the ship.
                  2. 3danimal
                    3danimal 17 August 2020 12: 54
                    0
                    Pastel quite reads LPI, it is corny because the Radar equation does not deceive

                    And you still only get the direction from where you are being irradiated. This is not enough to launch a rocket (at long and medium ranges).
                    1. Cyril G ...
                      Cyril G ... 17 August 2020 12: 58
                      0
                      Quote: 3danimal
                      This is not enough to launch a rocket (at long and medium ranges).


                      Uh, you didn’t confuse anything there? We know the sector of the radiation source. It's enough
                      1. 3danimal
                        3danimal 17 August 2020 13: 04
                        0
                        For a launch at 60-100 km? The missiles do not fly in a straight trajectory (they have solid propellant rocket motors), let me remind you, but with a climb and descent to the target location. You need to know the distance. All this gives the radar smile
                        And the problem of guiding the PARL / ARL seeker of the missile does not disappear.
                      2. Hexenmeister
                        Hexenmeister 17 August 2020 13: 14
                        +1
                        All this gives the radar
                        The concept of focusing on low radar signature has one major disadvantage, which is that the detection range does not depend on the power of the transmitter, but on the signal energy. And knowing the bearing, you can always raise the signal energy at a constant transmitter power, thereby increasing the detection range. The second possible method of increasing the detection range would be "playing with probability theory". The theory of probability, although it belongs to the category of "corrupt girls", but with its competent use, it has always made it possible to literally suck out useful properties in radar in the form of an increase in the detection range from nothing. So, if the bearing is known, then a radar station operating in a non-trivial manner will always reveal the target from this bearing.
                      3. 3danimal
                        3danimal 17 August 2020 13: 19
                        0
                        How do you do it on a fighter plane? There will be no permission to start. You can only turn towards the enemy, trying to find him with your radar.
                        I repeat: the problem will remain target acquisition by the illumination beam (for the R-27) or the ARL seeker (for the R-77).
                        The former are generally very ineffective. After all, it is worth letting AIM-120 at you, and you yourself will reset the illumination, starting dodging.
                      4. Hexenmeister
                        Hexenmeister 17 August 2020 13: 26
                        +2
                        How do you do it on a fighter plane?
                        I already wrote how, if you do not understand, then your problems, the textbook "Theoretical Foundations of Radar" to help!
                        It is pointless to consider the guidance problems of the R-2020 (E) R in 27, for missiles with ARGS you need to know the coordinates of the target, the "correct" radar will do this in bearing from the SPO, then it will go to the point of switching on its head itself.
                      5. 3danimal
                        3danimal 17 August 2020 13: 44
                        0
                        the correct "radar on the bearing from the trip will do it

                        And which of the operating radars can do this? Do they have a rocket launch mode according to the theory of probability ??
                      6. Hexenmeister
                        Hexenmeister 17 August 2020 14: 03
                        +3
                        The theory of probability is used to increase the target detection range at the desired bearing, and not for launching and guiding a missile. And, for example, "Zaslon" with the MiG-31 knew how to do this forty years ago!
                      7. 3danimal
                        3danimal 17 August 2020 14: 20
                        0
                        And, for example, the Zaslon with the MiG-31 was able to do this forty years ago!

                        Happy for him, but
                        to increase the target detection range at the desired bearing, and not for launching and guiding a missile

                        And you are still limited by the capabilities of your radar against a stealthy target. To which you have to fly closer.
                      8. Hexenmeister
                        Hexenmeister 17 August 2020 14: 39
                        +2
                        To which you have to fly closer
                        Once again - the need to approach closer is removed by increasing the detection range at the desired bearing using the above methods!
                      9. 3danimal
                        3danimal 17 August 2020 14: 47
                        0
                        By narrowing the field of view, you will not get the power and detection range that radically change the picture of the battle.
                        You (if you are not stealth too) will be seen and attacked earlier. After which it will become more difficult to attack. Much will depend on group tactics. After all, other aircraft will be able to attack you, with the radar turned off.
                      10. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 17 August 2020 15: 47
                        +1
                        Likewise with your fetishized Stealth
                      11. 3danimal
                        3danimal 17 August 2020 16: 15
                        -1
                        That's right, but it is also better to have stealth from "our" side if they are already attacking from "them". Then they won't have much of an advantage in long range missile.
                        Aircraft of the 4th generation will be opened by a guidance aircraft (one of the F-22, the ability to track up to 100 targets to help it) from a long distance.
        3. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 17 August 2020 15: 46
          +1
          Quote: 3danimal
          The former are generally very ineffective.



          Who told you that? R-27T / ET is quite actual
        4. 3danimal
          3danimal 17 August 2020 16: 20
          -1
          No longer. On the other hand, missiles with ARL seeker and analogs are widely used. As soon as you are attacked, you disrupt the P-27's guidance.
        5. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 17 August 2020 16: 25
          +2
          You are not aware again. In the first, there is a radio correction channel, and the radar will begin to illuminate the target after the RVV has flown about 40-50 km. Secondly, we are talking about RVV with TGSN
        6. 3danimal
          3danimal 28 August 2020 12: 17
          0
          In the first, there is a radio correction channel, and the radar will begin to illuminate the target after the RVV has flown about 40-50 km. Secondly, we are talking about RVV with TGSN

          The radio correction channel assumes keeping the target in the "capture" of the radar. And by starting the evasion maneuvers from the inevitable counterattack, you will break the capture.
        7. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 28 August 2020 12: 25
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          And by starting evasion maneuvers from the inevitable counterattack, you will break the capture.


          Nope, you can accompany on the aisle within the radar directivity range. In the case of the Su-35 - 240 degrees
        8. 3danimal
          3danimal 28 August 2020 13: 42
          0
          By turning the gimbal?
          This is good.
          Although, in comparison with the more modern R-77 / RVV-AE, the advantages are not visible.
        9. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 28 August 2020 15: 48
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          Although, in comparison with the more modern R-77 / RVV-AE, the advantages are not visible.


          Not. We are talking about the fact that it is not much worse if RK + PARGSN is used, because we begin to highlight the target when the RVV is 10-15 km from the target ...
        10. 3danimal
          3danimal 28 August 2020 16: 17
          0
          How well will the backlight be reflected? Head-on, if the battle is oncoming, where is the stealth effect maximized?
          And what about the launched AIM-120 in the counterattack?
          It is highly desirable to have a numerical superiority.
        11. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 28 August 2020 16: 23
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          How well will the backlight be reflected? Head-on, if the battle is oncoming, where is the stealth effect maximized?

          And think? The radar power will be maximum here, and the missile will be 10-15 km from the target, it is quite acceptable.

          Quote: 3danimal
          And what about the launched AIM-120 in the counterattack?

          The enemy also needs to pull the AiM-120 closer to the target on the RC ...

          In general, the real distance of air combat, not of interception of Il-76 or Boeing-787, namely air combat is unlikely to exceed 60-80 km today. I will repeat Lieutenant Colonel Higby to help you ..
        12. 3danimal
          3danimal 28 August 2020 19: 44
          0
          Lieutenant Colonel Higby will help you ..

          Can you clarify?
          is unlikely to exceed 60-80 km today

          It is true that the same AIM-120D (with a Max range of 180 km for a tanker) at a fighter will be launched by the Blue from a distance of 70-100 km, no further.
          On the other hand, the Reds need a similar missile (development of the R-77, not the R-37M logs, IMHO).
          The question is whether the Su-35 radar will be able to capture the F-22/35 at 100 km and issue a launch permit. Again, RVV-AE has a maximum range of 110 km, the energy may not be enough when attacking at such a range (even taking into account the proximity).
        13. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 28 August 2020 20: 45
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          The question is whether the Su-35 radar will be able to capture the F-22/35 at 100 km and issue a launch permit.


          The wrong question is whether there is a chance to seize a target from the ARGSN, which will be crushed by the Khibiny or its American counterpart. There is always a chance. But that's what it is, an interesting question. You see, there is not much difference in the detection range. It is much more serious whether ARGSN RVV can be effective. no matter how it turns out, the trend of the 60s will continue. The most effective RVV - RVV with TGSN

          Can you clarify?

          You do not know!!! Lieutenant Colonel Higby. Combat outside visual range. 2005.
          Read on. Do not find write h.p. I'll throw it off for you.
        14. 3danimal
          3danimal 29 August 2020 02: 18
          0
          is there a chance to capture a target from the ARGSN which will be crushed by the Khibiny or its American counterpart.

          Everywhere there is information that the AIM-120 is being jammed. As well as the P-77. If so, that will have to just dodge.
          But the latter has significantly less range.
          https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/outgunned-by-pakistan-f-16s-iaf-plans-to-re-arm-its-sukhois-with-israeli-missiles-2044172
          Here the Indians were unhappy request
        15. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 29 August 2020 16: 19
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          that the AIM-120 is being jammed. As well as the P-77.

          I won't say exactly. But it can be directed to something like a noise or a barrage, and for example, due to a misleading interference, there can be a miss ...

          Here the Indians were unhappy with the request

          Do you have a battle scheme and indicated the ranges of all launches?

          But the latter has significantly less range.

          Go to Higby. Study.
        16. 3danimal
          3danimal 29 August 2020 17: 54
          -1
          Go to Higby. Study.

          I will study, of course.
          However, the declared maximum ranges differ by almost 2 times. Accordingly, the AIM-120D at a distance of 70-100 km will have a much larger (than the current RVV-AE) energy reserve (more fuel).

          Posted in one of the comments here, I repeat:
          350-400 km for "Irbis E" is the target detection range with RCS = 3 m2, in a sector of 10x10 = 100 square degrees with an incomprehensible signal accumulation time.
          In the 17.3x17.3 = 300 square degrees sector, the Irbis E has a target detection range with the same RCS = 3 m2 and (probably) with the same signal accumulation time will be 200 km.
          How much it will have the maximum instrumental range (due to the properties of its radar) on a target with a large RCS is unknown to us.

          The APG-77 has a target detection range with an RCS = 1 m2 in a full field of view 120x60 = 7200 square degrees in 14 seconds (after a full computer analysis of the situation)


          https://vpk.name/user/7940?comm

          Can you comment?
        17. 3danimal
          3danimal 30 August 2020 14: 33
          0
          Continuing the theme of the scanning angle of space, which ensures the Irbis's range of 350-400 km:

          https://www.niip.ru/catalog/eksportnaya-produktsiya/rlsu-irbis-e/

          Please comment.
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 28 August 2020 17: 48
    0
    Quote: Cyril G ...
    Quote: 3danimal
    And by starting evasion maneuvers from the inevitable counterattack, you will break the capture.


    Nope, you can accompany on the aisle within radar directional range. In the case of the Su-35 - 240 degrees


    Sorry, of course, the radar radiation patterns (if more specifically, the radar antenna)
  • Ali
    Ali 27 August 2020 14: 37
    +1
    Quote: Hexenmeister
    And knowing the bearing, you can always raise the signal energy with a constant transmitter power, thereby increasing the detection range.

    Be kind, maybe not the bearing, but the azimuth? It just cuts the ear.
  • Hexenmeister
    Hexenmeister 27 August 2020 15: 09
    0
    Bearing is two angular coordinates: azimuth and elevation. If the TRS can determine both of them, then there will be a bearing, and if only the azimuth, then naturally only one azimuth.
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 17 August 2020 15: 31
    +2
    Quote: 3danimal
    For a launch at 60-100 km?


    To determine the target search sector ...
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 17 August 2020 16: 16
    -2
    This is the only plus. You still move closer to capture a stealthy target. The one that sees you first and attacks first.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 18 August 2020 03: 46
    0
    increasing the signal strength

    About power. I revised the characteristics: the peak power of the Irbis and AN / APG-77 is the same - 20 kW.
    1. Ali
      Ali 27 August 2020 14: 41
      0
      Quote: 3danimal
      increasing the signal strength

      About power. I revised the characteristics: the peak power of the Irbis and AN / APG-77 is the same - 20 kW.

      Not the peak, but the pulsed power of the radar will be correct!
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 27 August 2020 19: 05
        0
        Ok, let it be impulse.

        20 kW peak [

        (On the English Wiki.)
        It is interesting that I was often told here that the Su-35go PFAR is more powerful (they say, this compensates for the lower sensitivity and resistance to interference).
        Why is AFAR better:

        https://dxdt.ru/2007/11/26/836/

        https://dxdt.ru/2008/01/23/1021/
  • Hexenmeister
    Hexenmeister 17 August 2020 11: 38
    +1
    Greater precision

    spatial resolution is determined by the dimensions of the antenna and the wavelength, does not depend on afarity
    selectivity

    range and speed resolution is determined by the signal and does not depend on afarity
    LPI mode
    it is just a kind of complex signal that has been used for a long time in fighter radars, "everything new is well forgotten old"
    resistance to electronic warfare
    not true, this does not apply to all jammers
    more tracked targets
    it is rather the capabilities of the computing systems on board, rather than an affarity.
    I do not see any advantages according to the specified list, and where they are, they were not included in this list ...
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 17 August 2020 13: 49
      0
      which have long been used in fighter radars, "everything new is well forgotten old"

      Examples? Which of the old fighters were able to scan space with radar without making themselves felt? And with what help?
      it is rather the capabilities of the computing systems on board, rather than an affarity.

      Assumptions .. In fact: all AFAR have a multiple superiority over the phased array in the number of tracked / attacked targets.
      spatial resolution is determined by the dimensions of the antenna and the wavelength, does not depend on afarity

      There is a synthetic aperture mode. I know for sure that it gives impressive accuracy on the surface.
      1. Hexenmeister
        Hexenmeister 17 August 2020 14: 13
        +1
        Where did you get the idea that AFAR can scan without making itself felt? For your information, the problem of detecting a signal of an unknown type at the engineering level was solved back in the late 80s!
        And an example of a multiple difference? Is there a big difference between 30 and 24 with only 6-8 missiles on board? And what does the synthetic aperture mode with "good" ground target resolution have to do with aerial combat? NO ONE! For your information, the maximum resolution in the synthetic aperture mode is achieved under the condition of perpendicularity of the target line of sight and the carrier's velocity vector !!! Which radar with AFAR can deflect the beam 90 degrees? NO! The regime was "crowed", a "toy" was created for it, but they could not reveal the possibilities of the regime to the maximum! The same "Irbis" can deflect the beam 90 degrees and get better resolution.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 17 August 2020 14: 24
          -2
          Is there a big difference between 30 and 24 with only 6-8 missiles on board?

          Don't know or are you distorting the data? "Belka" has 60 targets, for AN / APG-77 (82) - 100.
          See more targets, attack priority ones (tactical flexibility), direct your followers or other groups to others, which may not include the radar at all.
          Irbis "can deflect the beam on

          The snow leopard has a hydraulic drive. By the way, "Belka" does not have it. IMHO, this is due to large deflection angles.
        2. Hexenmeister
          Hexenmeister 17 August 2020 14: 36
          +1
          And the Su-27 did the same thing, the computing capabilities grew, and the number of targets grew.
          By the way, "Belka" does not have it. IMHO, this is due to large deflection angles.

          The "Squirrel" has two additional side canvases, just for the synthetic aperture mode for ground targets, and the curtain in the nose cannot deflect the beam by 90 degrees. And again, for information, for a stationary flat web of any grating, the greater the angle of electronic deviation from the axis of the web, the greater the losses, and at an angle of 60 degrees the losses will be at least 2 times, the geometry cannot be fooled, which essentially means an uneven detection range by zone.
        3. 3danimal
          3danimal 17 August 2020 14: 42
          0
          And the Su-27 did the same thing, the computing capabilities grew, and the number of targets grew.

          I did it until I hit the ceiling of the structure - a maximum of 30 targets for the Irbis, less for others.
        4. Hexenmeister
          Hexenmeister 17 August 2020 15: 01
          +1
          until I hit the ceiling of the structure
          What other ceiling and even in the structure? There is complete confusion in their heads, you can "build trajectories", for this you only need readings from different viewing cycles and the corresponding computational capabilities, or you can "guide" the target with the accuracy necessary to calculate the radio correction, there is still something you need about which "types support "in question, no one in the public domain will not say, and it is pointless to discuss it.
        5. 3danimal
          3danimal 17 August 2020 16: 10
          0
          What other ceiling and even in the structure? There is complete confusion in their heads, you can "build trajectories", for this you only need samples from different review cycles and the corresponding computing capabilities,

          Then explain the multiple superiority in tracked targets with AFAR radars. In addition, the designers of Belka just followed the fashion, in your opinion ?? I already wrote above that when a certain number of such radars in our aviation is reached, the number of their critics will sharply decrease smile their
        6. Hexenmeister
          Hexenmeister 17 August 2020 16: 26
          +1
          Squirrel designers just followed the fashion, in your opinion?
          I have not seen the terms of reference for the "Belka", you suspect too. The list of what parameters of the radar station can push for the transition to AFAR, I roughly guess, but I did not see them in the list of widely discussed ones. What is in sight, in my understanding, rather resembles a "set of system blunders", but for an average-level radar, created by performers of the same average level, it will do quite well. "Following fashion" ... sometimes you need to go this way in order to forget about it forever, and never come back to such decisions, but this is for the Chief Designers with a capital letter.
  • Serg4545
    Serg4545 17 August 2020 18: 36
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    Don't know or are you distorting the data? "Belka" has 60 targets, for AN / APG-77 (82) - 100.
    See more targets, attack priority ones (tactical flexibility), direct your followers or other groups to others, which may not include the radar at all.


    Do you even understand what you wrote?
    The fighter's radar shines ahead. For the American radar to gain an advantage over Belka, it is necessary that more than 50 enemy aircraft find themselves in a narrow sector of the radar beam (maximum 300 km wide and about 60 km in range). That's when American radar really gets a tiny edge.
    But if you could imagine that the situation described above can happen in reality, then I can say - your fantasy is immeasurable!)
  • Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 17 August 2020 21: 50
    +1
    Resistance to rab just gives a broadband signal, but this is not especially true for active headlights, and indeed headlights in general. This mode first became known back in the 50s, when no one had any headlights yet. A larger number of tracked targets, this is more a question of the electronic stuffing of the aircraft, if we are talking about the ability to form several beams and the ability to track multiple targets, then this is a feature of phased antenna arrays, which are not necessarily active. So does the shaping of differently shaped beams, so does electronic scanning.
    Then we have AFAR since the 70s, we must pay tribute to the Soviet engineers who guessed to make active L-band modules and passive X modules for a moment.
  • SovAr238A
    SovAr238A 17 August 2020 20: 48
    -1
    Quote: Herman 4223
    Broadband operation is available for all headlights, both passive and active.
    Most of what is attributed to AFAR, PFAR can do too. It's just that the United States and its allies have no PFAR on their fighters and weren't there, they switched to AFAR right away from slotted antenna arrays.
    PFAR is simpler and has greater efficiency, AFAR has its advantages, the rest is stupid propaganda.

    Suddenly...
    Tell us, how can PFAR simultaneously, that is, with one pulse, give 200-400 signals different in frequency and power, having only one transmitter and one receiver?
    I think that I will not get an intelligible answer from you ...
    For the course of your Thoughts that the PFAR is better than the AFAR and that the AFAR is propaganda looks foolish to say the least ...
    Especially looking at how for decades our all have been trying to somehow finish off the Beetle and the Belka ...
    Here are the fools that fell for the propaganda ...


    And you probably do not know that when transmitting a signal in LPI mode, a key is also transmitted - information about the signal coding scheme. Since the response from the target of many LPI mode signals, it cannot be processed independently.
    I need a key. And one aircraft operates in LPI mode, transmitting in its impulse information to the rest of the aircraft flying in passive scanning mode. And they can all process the reflected noise-like signal ...
    Without hundreds of individually controlled and programmable transceivers, such a mode is impossible ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Herman 4223
      Herman 4223 18 August 2020 08: 06
      0
      I did not say that AFAR is worse, it has its own pluses, PFAR has its own.
      PFAR always has one transmitter, it's true
      But there are many emitters, each emitter at least has a phase regulator, so such an antenna array is called phased. If it is a little less primitive than what you described, then there are also separate receivers.
      And if you add a frequency modulator to this, what happens? The ability to generate signals of different frequencies.
      And if the pulse?
      Broadband signals have been around since the 30s, what were the headlights like then?
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 16 August 2020 19: 33
    +5
    Quote: SovAr238A
    there are more of them, and they will remain, but we will not.

    Not a defender of the Brest Fortress? Not?
    "And I, even dead, will gnaw them until I bite everyone!" - said my shell-shocked Cuban friend in a hospital in Luanda ...
    Maybe that's why the Cubans were not taken prisoner, like the defenders of the Brest Fortress?
    1. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 16 August 2020 19: 46
      -3
      Quote: BoA KAA
      Quote: SovAr238A
      there are more of them, and they will remain, but we will not.

      Not a defender of the Brest Fortress? Not?
      "And I, even dead, will gnaw them until I bite everyone!" - said my shell-shocked Cuban friend in a hospital in Luanda ...
      Maybe that's why the Cubans were not taken prisoner, like the defenders of the Brest Fortress?

      Luanda?

      Cubans are the end of the 70s, the beginning of the 80s, these are our ancestors, 50-60s ...

      The world has changed ...
      The Internet has changed everyone.
      Atomized normal people.
      But he mobilized all sorts of marginals, mother's political scientists ...
      This is an example of all color revolutions ..
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 16 August 2020 19: 56
        +2
        Quote: SovAr238A
        The world has changed ...
        The Internet has changed everyone.
        Atomized normal people.

        But what about A.S. Pushkmn?
        - "HERE IS THE RUSSIAN SPIRIT,
        HERE Smells like Russia! "
        1. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A 17 August 2020 20: 56
          0
          Quote: BoA KAA
          Quote: SovAr238A
          The world has changed ...
          The Internet has changed everyone.
          Atomized normal people.

          But what about A.S. Pushkmn?
          - "HERE IS THE RUSSIAN SPIRIT,
          HERE Smells like Russia! "

          Minsk did not give examples of the Russian land?
          Any performances by the marginalized in all sorts of Swamp and Sakharov areas - don't give food for thought?
          When was the last time you watched youth polls, what would they like in the future?
          How many Russian youth are there writing questionnaires for Green Cards?
          Hundreds of thousands?
          And this is only because more than half of young people simply do not know about green cards, and the remaining half are lazy ...
          And when they find out, the number of applications on Green Cards will be in the millions.
          The world has really changed ...
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 17 August 2020 11: 13
      -1
      The story of Hussein's sons is indicative.
      They were found in a house with security, the seizure of the house seemed difficult and associated with losses. They were not going to give up. They drove cargo Humvees with ATGMs and fired about 10 shots. Ruins remained from the house, no one survived, the mission was completed. This word. And the dead did not gnaw anyone.
      Further, the question is: did the Germans have to be determined to die in the Fuehrer in 1945? History shows that it is not. Now it is the 4th economy in the world.
      There were also supporters of "fight to the last Japanese" among the Japanese leadership. And also, it is very correct for the Japanese that they chose to end resistance and develop peacefully. Becoming the 3rd economy in the world.
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 17 August 2020 15: 55
        +1
        Quote: 3danimal
        History shows that it is not.

        History shows that you don't know her. The last big war in which the USSR was involved was associated with total genocide of our population. Now it is easier - we are able to provide this big war by providing MRNU on "decision-making centers" and key industrial centers and energy centers for the economy. That even in the event of a loss by us TYAV will lead the enemy to extinction. No other way.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 17 August 2020 16: 26
          -1
          You see, there is a difference. It was mortally dangerous for the scumbags to the Nazis to lose, but it was quite possible for the allies.
          It is important to remember about responsibility to people. Who must live, the fault is to be winners at any cost.
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 17 August 2020 16: 28
            +1
            Quote: 3danimal
            You see, there is a difference.


            Now there is no difference.
        2. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A 17 August 2020 21: 01
          0
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          Quote: 3danimal
          History shows that it is not.

          History shows that you don't know her. The last big war in which the USSR was involved was associated with total genocide of our population. Now it is easier - we are able to provide this big war by providing MRNU on "decision-making centers" and key industrial centers and energy centers for the economy. That even in the event of a loss by us TYAV will lead the enemy to extinction. No other way.

          You lied a lot about total genocide ...
          Before the war, up to 70 million people lived in the occupied territories.
          Even if 15 million men went into the army, even if 15 million left for evacuation ...
          How much is left ...
          Can you answer this question honestly?
          Without propaganda?
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 30 August 2020 00: 57
            -1
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Can you answer this question honestly?

            What am I? Yes! And you are just stupid Goebel's nonsense ...
            1. SovAr238A
              SovAr238A 30 August 2020 11: 59
              +2
              Quote: Cyril G ...
              Quote: SovAr238A
              Can you answer this question honestly?

              What am I? Yes! And you are just stupid Goebel's nonsense ...

              Those. there will be no answer?
              Only accusations of Goebbelsism ...
              And you yourself do not notice that you are lying exactly as Goebbels bequeathed to you?
              The same wild lie, no facts.
              Only emotions.
              Because you do not praise Nazism, the principles of Nazi Goebbelsism in your phrases have not disappeared ...
              You speak exactly the same as he does.
              1. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 30 August 2020 12: 25
                -2
                Quote: SovAr238A
                And you yourself do not notice that you are lying exactly as Goebbels bequeathed to you?
                The same wild lie, no facts.
                Only emotions.


                You are absolutely true about yourself. Breshete as you breathe. You are already lying.
                You did not give a single fact, but in the best traditions of your komirs, the Nazis tried to accuse me of this.

                The total human losses of the Soviet Union in the Great Patriotic War amounted to 26,6 million people, of which irrecoverable military losses - almost 12 million ..


                In total, more than 14 million civilians - killed during punitive expeditions, died from hunger and disease and other things .. Together with the dead servicemen, this is more than 10 percent of the population of the USSR.
                So that's it. Goebbels is dead, but his work lives on thanks to you and people like you ...
  • Souchastnik
    Souchastnik 17 August 2020 07: 59
    0
    But there are more of them, and they will remain, but we will not

    But we will go to heaven, and they will not.
    But seriously, defensive doctrine involves more than just entrenching and sitting in a dugout, waiting for the enemy to run out of ammunition.
    THEM (or you) have more money. But there are nuances))))
    1. They wage wars to recoup costs, and we can only be destroyed with our resources. If they don't help from the inside.
    2. One of the samurai said: if you are not ready to die, you will not win. Maybe not literally, but the meaning is clear.
    3. You can attack communications and infrastructure while on the defensive. Who told you that this will not be done by ALL available forces and means?
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 17 August 2020 10: 57
      +2
      1. They wage wars to recoup costs, and we can only be destroyed with our resources. If they don't help from the inside.

      You know, this whole story with "resources" appeared after the collapse of the USSR, it was said earlier that aggressive imperialists do not like the country of victorious socialism / communism. Have you ever thought that ideological attitudes are simply changing?
      Wars are fought .. What did they get from Iraq? The Dutch and the British won the tender for oil production.
      When you are a superpower (with exports of $ 2 trillion a year, only 10% are oil products), you can afford to think not only from the financial point of view. Hussein was considered a problem in the region (security issues), they believed that regime change would improve the situation.
      Our resources do not need to be seized, we ourselves are happy to sell them. Its own market cannot use the extracted / produced volumes, so a lot is sold. In addition, there is generally a great dependence on imports.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 17 August 2020 11: 00
        +1
        3. You can attack communications and infrastructure while on the defensive. Who told you that this will not be done by ALL available forces and means?

        The transition from conventional to nuclear war will free the hands of the other side.
        The best option is negotiation. It is highly unlikely that the target would be territories and resources.
        The most realistic scenario, I mean, is an attempt to "incorporate" the Baltic states and, possibly, Poland. In many interviews, the longing of the country's top officials for the empire of the late 19th century on the map was traced.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 17 August 2020 15: 56
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          The most realistic scenario, I mean, is an attempt to "incorporate" the Baltic states and, possibly, Poland.


          Don't say nonsense. Well, yes - your brain is too brainwashed to think sensibly ...
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 17 August 2020 17: 11
            0
            Don't talk nonsense

            Suggest your options. Why can they start a conflict fraught with the death of millions of their voters?
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 17 August 2020 19: 07
              0
              The Anglo-Saxon elites have long ceased to be human in the social sense. Why THIS is not clear to me. In principle, it is difficult to understand non-humans. And they are just that non-humans ... And why are they lying about possibly Poland. At most, we could talk about the restoration of the USSR. When doing this, remember. The Balts were honestly bought from the Swedes. The price is known. Sooner or later they will have to pay.
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 17 August 2020 19: 20
                +1
                The Balts were honestly bought from the Swedes.

                Forget about the remnants of the 17-19 centuries. In the 21st century, it is not worth starting a conflict for this. And now they belong to themselves, the affairs, so that this state of affairs will continue in the future. Rascals want freedom smile
                about possibly Poland.

                Because in one of the interviews there were thoughts about the desired restoration within the borders of the Republic of Ingushetia at the end of the 19th century (then Finland was added).

                And in general, why do many only care about the seizure of territories (and there we will live)? Why does no one say about entering the top five economies? The Japanese huddle on a piece of land, and take third place. So it's not just size that matters?
                1. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 17 August 2020 19: 33
                  0
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  In the 21st century, it is not worth starting a conflict for this.


                  And who there demanded from Russia to pay and repent, and you know what the Baltic states were in the 20s - 30s?
                2. 3danimal
                  3danimal 17 August 2020 21: 29
                  -1
                  is the Baltics in the 20s - 30s?

                  A country in which troops should be deployed (in an ultimatum order), under their pressure to hold elections for communists who will immediately ask to join the Union?
            2. 3danimal
              3danimal 17 August 2020 19: 43
              0
              Why THIS is not clear to me. In principle, it is difficult to understand non-humans. And they are just that inhuman ...

              Why - it is clear. We flew from Sirius during the time of Pharaoh Akhenaten. Or even reptilians in disguise smile (there are many versions on REN-TV, they say).
              Seriously though, you're too involved in conspiracy, IMHO. Interests are always quite mundane. Adjusted for the development of society and the structure of states.
              1. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 17 August 2020 20: 03
                0
                Quote: 3danimal
                Seriously though, you're too involved in conspiracy, IMHO. Interests are always quite mundane. Adjusted for the development of society and the structure of states.


                You don't see the obvious. And believe in fairy tales ...
              2. 3danimal
                3danimal 17 August 2020 20: 38
                0
                You don't see the obvious

                I don't believe in the reptilian conspiracy.
                Well, there is no extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim. request smile
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 30 August 2020 00: 58
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    The Dutch and the British won the tender for oil production.


    Sixes must sometimes be fed so that they do not die ahead of time ..........
  • Serg4545
    Serg4545 17 August 2020 11: 03
    +2
    Quote: SovAr238A
    Learn about the LPI mode implemented in Western AFAR. Nothing shines there and is not detected especially ...


    You study this:
    covert radar operation. Imprisoned basically under AFAR, tk. high emitting power allows detecting the radar carrier at a very large distance, up to the radio horizon.
    This is achieved by distributing the radiation power in a wide frequency band, using wide-band noise-like signals with high occupancy and controlling the radiation power, in which the product of the spectrum width by the duration is much longer than unity.

    The receiver should separate overlapping or closely spaced signals. Therefore, the instantaneous band passing through each of its channels should not be wider than the band necessary for passing through the primary channel the shortest really expected pulses with subsequent measurement of their angle and time of arrival.
    The parameter of the distance of the secretive operation of the radar is determined by the coefficient. alpha. which should be greater than or equal to one. With these values, CPTR has the ability to detect an enemy radar signal before it detects a target by the reflected signal.
    Coef. alpha is determined by the nonlinear dependence of Dst. to Dobn. A value of Alpha = 1 corresponds to a range of 55 km. This is the ultimate theoretical distance of the radar in stealth mode. A further increase in the power of the probe pulse leads to the detection of radar by the enemy radar.

    Summary:
    LPI mode for detection distances has nothing to do with the maximum or working radar detection distances. because it is determined by other parameters.
    The maximum distance in theory is up to 55 km, in real life less than 50 km. //


    That is, this means that any aircraft with a more or less modern Optoelectronic detection station will detect the LPI stealth before the stealth detects it.
    The detection range of modern optoelectronic stations approaches 80 km. Moreover, the detection range of optoelectronic stations will only grow over time, but the LPI mode is theoretically limited to a range of up to 55 km.
    In general, the LPI mode is still useless, and in the future it will be simply dangerous for the one who will use it.
    1. Outsider
      Outsider 22 August 2020 09: 03
      -2
      LPI mode for detection distances has nothing to do with the maximum or working radar detection distances. because it is determined by other parameters.
      The maximum distance in theory is up to 55 km, in real life less than 50 km. //

      - This is a lie. The maximum detection range in this mode is less by 25-30 %%, not less. APG-77 (V) - 225 km and 196 km, respectively, APG-81 - 160 and 140 km.
      1. Serg4545
        Serg4545 23 August 2020 15: 22
        +1
        Quote: Outsider
        This is a lie. The maximum detection range in this mode is less by 25-30 %%, not less. APG-77 (V) - 225 km and 196 km, respectively, APG-81 - 160 and 140 km.


        You didn't understand what you read.
        55 km is not the maximum range in LPI mode. This is the maximum range at which there is a chance to remain unnoticed in this mode.
        To see in LPI mode beyond 55 km, you need to increase the radiation power so much that you will be GUARANTEED to be seen.
        And so yes. See in LPI mode for two hundred kilometers. nobody interferes. But at the same time everyone will see you.
        1. Outsider
          Outsider 24 August 2020 09: 38
          -1
          - It is you who do not understand what you are saying at all. At a distance of 55 km, either the F-22 or the F-35, any enemy (for them) fighter will be able to see them by means of electro-optical systems. The task of using LPI precisely at maximum ranges, when, upon detecting superior enemy forces and lack of own forces, you need to make a decision: get involved in a fight - or quietly "slip away", calling for reinforcements.
          Russian modern means of SPO / RTR so far the LPI modes of American radars do not track, do not recognize that they are being irradiated.

          The Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) capability of the radar defeats conventional RWR / ESM systems. The AN / APG-77 radar is capable of performing an active radar search on RWR / ESM equipped fighter aircraft without the target knowing he is being illuminated. Unlike conventional radars which emit high energy pulses in a narrow frequency band, the AN / APG-77 emits low energy pulses over a wide frequency band using a technique called spread spectrum transmission. When multiple echoes are returned, the radar's signal processor combines the signals. The amount of energy reflected back to the target is about the same as a conventional radar, but because each LPI pulse has considerably less amount of energy and may not fit normal modulation patterns, the target would have a difficult time detecting the F-22.
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 30 August 2020 01: 09
            0
            - This is a lie.

            As if you are again breaking like a gray gelding. Self-critical, cho.

            Quote: Outsider
            Russian modern means of SPO / RTR so far the LPI modes of American radars do not track, do not recognize that they are being irradiated.


            They have been recognized for a long time, relax the horse ... And study the radar equation, it really won't help you, because Obama and the rest are stuck in your brain, but even you must understand that everything depends on the signal strength and even if the signal is smeared in frequencies, which is done at the 77th and 81st stations, although even there questions arise about the operating modes, in the end the signals can be analyzed. Since the signal strength has a threshold value, then the modern STR is quite capable of detecting the operation of the enemy's radar.
            1. Outsider
              Outsider 30 August 2020 01: 14
              -1
              Have long been identified

              - Did Kiselyov tell you, or Solovyov?
              and even if the signal is spread across frequencies, which is done at the 77th and 81st stations, although there are questions about the operating modes, in the end the signals can be analyzed.

              - What, specifically?
              1. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 30 August 2020 01: 22
                0
                Quote: Outsider
                What, specifically?

                Why do you need it?
                Did Kiselyov tell you, or Solovyov?

                Why are you watching them? Nobody watches them in Russia, only Ukrainians and also such obviously inadequate citizens as you. And the fact that the signal is recognized is a given. It could only work with unexpected use. Just earlier, radar antennas could provide a change in the frequency of the sinal from pulse to pulse. Now the signal is broadband. The task is really easy to solve.
                1. Outsider
                  Outsider 30 August 2020 01: 28
                  -1
                  Why do you need it?

                  “It’s very interesting what your chatter is based on.
                  And the fact that the signal is recognized is a given.

                  - Stop lying, layman. "Given"!
                  It could only work with unexpected use. Just earlier, radar antennas could provide a change in the frequency of the sinal from pulse to pulse. Now the signal is broadband. The task is really easy to solve.

                  - Nonsense, Losers.
                2. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 30 August 2020 22: 05
                  0
                  Quote: Outsider
                  - Nonsense, Losers.

                  Nonsense here is just you because of the sluggish disintegration of the personality ...
                  Stop lying, layman. "Given"!

                  Poor. If, due to your congenital microcephaly, you do not understand the elementary things, right is only your problem. And the radar equation is elementary. So you don’t understand him in principle, and you’re even being led on children's wiring about 193 km.
                  But in reality, the effective detection range when using LPI will be 3-4 times less ...
                  - Nonsense, Losers.

                  Poor you don't even understand what it is about ...
                3. Outsider
                  Outsider 31 August 2020 00: 40
                  0
                  “You don’t understand that. From the word "absolutely". Obviously, your radar education ended with traveling seminars at the Global Adventure Forum ... laughing lol
  • Ali
    Ali 27 August 2020 00: 08
    +2
    Quote: Outsider
    - This is a lie. The maximum detection range in this mode is less by 25-30 %%, not less. APG-77 (V) - 225 km and 196 km, respectively, APG-81 - 160 and 140 km.

    No need to rewrite fairy tales from Wikipedia!
    The energy of the noise-like signals is too small to get a long range of 196 km, there is stupidity from Wikipedia ...
    1. Outsider
      Outsider 27 August 2020 00: 46
      -1
      - It's not from Wikipedia, it's from Aviation Week & Space Technology.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 28 August 2020 12: 13
      -1
      And it is worth trying to read more carefully:
      Unlike conventional radars, which emit powerful pulses of energy in a narrow frequency range, the AN / APG-77 emits low-energy pulses in a wide range of frequencies using a technique called broadband transmission. When multiple echoes are returned, the radar signal processor combines these signals. The amount of energy reflected back to the target is at the same level as conventional radar, but since each LPI pulse has significantly less energy and a different signal structure, the F-22 will be difficult to detect.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 16 August 2020 16: 42
    -2
    Do you suppose that the Su-57 will fly with the radar off, relying on the OLS, which has a 10 times shorter range for the 4th generation aircraft?
    1. Mountain shooter
      Mountain shooter 16 August 2020 20: 31
      +8
      Quote: 3danimal
      You are assuming that the Su-57 will fly with the radar off, relying on the OLS

      Will the F-22 or F-35 also fly blindly? And what regime will they use? Well, there is no such thing that the radar is turned on, and it is impossible to detect it! In whatever mode it would work ... The source of the EMR is the source of the EMR, it is detected and direction finding. And powerful long-wave radars detect all these stealths from afar, and can transmit their coordinates to our fighters, after which the ECO stations or even an attack on external target designations will take over. lol
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 17 August 2020 02: 47
        -1
        Will the F-22 or F-35 also fly blindly?

        The AN / APG-77 (82) has an LPI mode where pulses are spread over a wide frequency range. And it will not work to detect the exact position of the enemy request
        1. Mountain shooter
          Mountain shooter 17 August 2020 08: 23
          +4
          Quote: 3danimal
          The AN / APG-77 (82) has an LPI mode where pulses are spread over a wide frequency range. And it will not work to detect the exact position of the enemy

          At the same time, the sensitivity of the radar drops to ... an indecent level. And the signal is detected anyway.
          There are systems specially tuned for this mode ... which continuously and at high speed scan the ranges of a possible signal ... with high sensitivity ... For a tricky device ... there is always ... with a screw. tongue
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 17 August 2020 10: 48
            0
            At the same time, the sensitivity of the radar drops to ... an indecent level

            By 10-15%. Myopia smile
            There are systems specially tuned for this mode ... which continuously and at high speed scan the ranges of a possible signal ... with high sensitivity

            And these systems are on all fighters (innovations are being introduced everywhere at once).
            And even after learning about possible exposure, you will only get an approximate direction of where the aggressor is. Insufficient data to start.
            1. Mountain shooter
              Mountain shooter 17 August 2020 10: 55
              +1
              Quote: 3danimal
              And even after learning about possible exposure, you will only get an approximate direction of where the aggressor is. Insufficient data to start

              The direction is taken from several points. Or do you think that situations will ALWAYS be dueling? The area where the target is located is taken, then EOS stations, infrared range, high-power ground radars are included in the case ... And launch on external target designation. As an option.
              About 10-15% - it looks like an advertisement. I read about 50 ...
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 17 August 2020 17: 14
                -1
                I read about 50 ...

                Read the manufacturer's specifications.
                And launch on external target designation.

                Well, so you can put modern AWACS on the other side smile
                1. Serg4545
                  Serg4545 17 August 2020 17: 26
                  +2
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Read manufacturer specifications


                  Have you read these characteristics yourself?
                  I am sure that no.

                  And you have problems with math.
                  Are you saying that the detection range in LPI mode drops by 10-15 percent?
                  However, the detection range of the F 22, in normal mode, is 300-350 km. And in LPI mode, less than 50 km.
                  10-15 percent say?)
                  1. 3danimal
                    3danimal 17 August 2020 17: 49
                    0
                    Where do you get these numbers from?
                    Nowhere is there 350 km. There are 223 and 193 km
                  2. Serg4545
                    Serg4545 17 August 2020 18: 46
                    0
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    There are 223 and 193 km


                    This is with EPR targets at 1 m.
                    But the Americans claim that the RCS of the SU-30/35 is much larger and therefore they (allegedly) can see them for 300+ km.
                  3. 3danimal
                    3danimal 17 August 2020 18: 50
                    -1
                    I was guided by data for EPR 1 m2. Obviously, the loss in the detection range is 13,4% (just those my "10-15%").
                    EPR SU-30/35 is much larger

                    For objectivity, 3-10 m2.
                  4. 3danimal
                    3danimal 24 August 2020 11: 48
                    0
                    3-7 m2. For 5 m2 (EPR is 5 times greater), the increase in range will be 1,495 times (root of the 4th degree of 5), which will be 336 km good
                2. Outsider
                  Outsider 24 August 2020 09: 40
                  -1
                  - Instrumental range APG-77 - 525 km (in normal mode).
                3. Serg4545
                  Serg4545 24 August 2020 14: 19
                  0
                  Quote: Outsider
                  The instrumental range of the APG-77 is 525 km (in normal mode).


                  Why do we need to know the instrumental range?
                  The instrumental has nothing to do with the real range.
                  Let me give you a slightly rough, but quite adequate example:
                  Let's say you measure your arm length with a tape measure 2 meters long. And now you can safely say that the instrumental length of your hand is 2 meters. And this will be the pure truth!
                  And if you take a tape measure 10 meters long, then the instrumental length of your hand will immediately grow up to 10 meters.
                  Instrumental range has nothing to do with actual range.
                4. Outsider
                  Outsider 24 August 2020 23: 23
                  -1
                  - You just said a terrible absurdity! The instrumental range of a radar is simply the maximum range at which a radar can detect targets. Outside this range, the radar station cannot detect anything. No matter how large the EPR the target has. Its design feature is as follows.
                  It's like a tape measure 2 meters long - you can't measure anything with it at once, whose length is more than 2 meters.
                  The APG-77 detects a target with a standard RCS of 1 m² at a range of 225 km in normal mode and at a range of 193 km in LPI mode. (APG-81 has 160 km and 140 km, respectively). Then you can easily recalculate the detection range with a probability of 0.86 (American standard), you just need to know the RCS of the target.
                  EPR target 0.1 m² - D obn. = 225 / √√ (1: 0.1) = 126.5 km
                  EPR target 0.01 m² - D obn. = 225 / √√ (1: 0.01) = 71.2 km
                  EPR target 0.001 m² - D obn. = 225 / √√ (1: 0.001) = 40.0 km
                  EPR target 0.0001 m² - D obn. = 225 / √√ (1: 0.0001) = 22.5 km
                  ...........................................
                  EPR target 10 m² - D obn. = 225 / √√ (1: 10) = 400 km
                  EPR target 100 m² - D obn. = 225 / √√ (1: 100)> 525 km
                  EPR target 1000 m² - D obn. = 225 / √√ (1: 1000)> 525 km
                  EPR target 10000 m² - D obn. = 225 / √√ (1: 10000)> 525 km
                5. Serg4545
                  Serg4545 25 August 2020 06: 50
                  0
                  Quote: Outsider
                  Radar instrumental range is simply the maximum range at which a radar can detect targets.


                  No.
                  The maximum range is called .... tadam! - Maximum range!
                  The instrumental range simply shows to what values ​​the measuring device is calibrated.
                  It seems that I explained it as simply as possible with the tape measure. Well, let's take another example:
                  Let's say a speedometer from a Formula 1 car was installed on Zaporozhets. And it can measure speeds up to 400 km / h.
                  And the instrumental speed of Zaporozhets will be 400 km / h. Do you have a tool (speedometer)? There is. Can it measure speeds up to 400 km / h? Can. The fact that Zaporozhets cannot develop even a quarter of this speed does not matter. Its instrumental speed will be 400 km / h.
                6. Outsider
                  Outsider 25 August 2020 09: 32
                  0
                  - You are talking nonsense again: if we draw an analogy with Zaporozhets, then this is just the maximum speed (instrumental speed) that Zaporozhets can develop on a flat stretch of highway, for example, 125 km / h. And whether there is a Formula 1 speedometer on it, or there is an M-meter on it with a MiG-31 - it does not affect its maximum speed.
                  So the instrumental range of the radar is the maximum range that can be measured to the target using a given radar. This is due to the peculiarities of measuring the range by pulse-Doppler stations - when, to measure the range, you need to send several packets of pulses with different repetition rates - and then, adding their responses, the range to the target is determined. Therefore, the range is limited.

                  Pulse radars can determine an arbitrarily long range to the target, even thousands of kilometers, but they are not used on airborne radars today.
                7. Hexenmeister
                  Hexenmeister 25 August 2020 10: 28
                  0
                  This is due to the peculiarities of measuring the range by pulse-Doppler stations ... Therefore, the range is limited
                  Not all pulse-Doppler stations and not in all modes determine the range in this way, and where this method is not used, the limitations on the maximum range are rather arbitrary.
                8. Outsider
                  Outsider 25 August 2020 10: 33
                  0
                  - Those pulse-Doppler stations that want to have a measurement range of several hundred kilometers - ALL. Alternative - you need to have an additional pulse mode.
                  This is possible, but it requires additional design (and financial) costs and is not always implemented. Here on AWG-9, 40-year development range, standing on the F-14A / D, there was a pulse-Doppler mode and there was a pulse mode (to work on targets in pursuit).
                9. Hexenmeister
                  Hexenmeister 25 August 2020 10: 46
                  0
                  ALL. Alternative - you need to have an additional pulse mode.
                  Without any pulse mode, the standard radar Su-27 (N-001 "Sword") measured the range in certain modes without using the method you specified (the Chinese theorem on residuals)!
                10. Outsider
                  Outsider 25 August 2020 12: 23
                  0
                  "Do you really know HOW she measures range?" laughing lol
                  Not very big, by the way:
                  http://library.voenmeh.ru/jirbis2/files/materials/ifour/book2/book_on_main_page/15.7.htm
                11. Outsider
                  Outsider 25 August 2020 12: 44
                  0
                  - Read this very carefully:
                  https://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/rb09.ru.html
                12. Hexenmeister
                  Hexenmeister 25 August 2020 14: 17
                  0
                  Read this very carefully
                  Before teaching someone with some references, they themselves would have mastered the science called "RADIOLOCATION". And so we begin ...
                  First: do they switch to an ambiguous determination of the range, if its unambiguous determination is possible? So it gives some advantages! What are the advantages, neither you nor the authors on these links know !!!
                  Second: why did you stop at just such a "level of ambiguity" at which you can use the "remainder theorem"? You can go to a more "hard" level of ambiguity, at which this theorem cannot be used, but you can use radar methods of complex signals, about which neither you nor the authors in the links know. And this gives even more advantages in comparison with your "brute-force" method! And this transition was made back in the USSR.
                  Third: the apparent "small" detection range of the N-001 is due, let's say, its low potential for real targets, lift a "flying cargo ship" with an area of ​​a couple of thousand square meters into the air, and this radar will easily show its range of 500 km without any restrictions that you are talking about all the time.
                13. Outsider
                  Outsider 25 August 2020 14: 22
                  0
                  Before teaching someone with some references, they themselves would have mastered the science called "RADIOLOCATION". And so we begin ...

                  - "A camel can be brought to water by force, but you cannot force a camel to drink ..." fool
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 17 August 2020 18: 29
    -5
    Target detection range with EPR = 1 m2: 201-241 km; [6]
    225 km in azimuth-speed mode;
    193 km in LPI mode (the frequency changes more than 1000 times per second);
    Problems with mathematics appear due to the reluctance to seek information and the use of sources "someone said" request
  • Serg4545
    Serg4545 17 August 2020 19: 21
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    Obviously, the loss in the detection range is 13,4% (just those my "10-15%").


    And give me the source of your Evidence.
    While I see your unfounded allegations.
    Quote: 3danimal
    193 km in LPI mode

    Again, please, a reference, which confirms that 193 km is in LPI mode.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 17 August 2020 21: 30
    0
    Source - AviationWeek.com
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 30 August 2020 01: 13
    0
    There was only this nonsense about 193 km, lol sorry advertising of unfulfilled dreams.
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 17 August 2020 19: 23
    0
    http://www.rusarmy.com/forum/threads/breho-f-22-i-f-35-bortovye-rls-i-ix-vozmozhnosti-mify-i-realnost.6945/page-5
    I love promotional materials. We'll kill everyone ... in theory.
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 30 August 2020 01: 12
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    By 10-15%. Myopia


    No, 60-70 percent
  • Souchastnik
    Souchastnik 17 August 2020 08: 03
    +2
    Even on the MiG-31, guidance in the director mode was implemented, i.e. guidance from the ground. A lot has changed since then.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 17 August 2020 18: 29
      0
      Airplane guidance, not missiles.
  • Outsider
    Outsider 22 August 2020 09: 10
    -1
    - Both have radio intelligence stations (ALR-94 and ASQ-239), which determine the azimuth to the emitting enemy fighter for 460 km and determine, in addition, the distance to it from 180 km or less. Without the need to turn on the radiation of their own radar.
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 17 August 2020 15: 58
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    Su-57 will fly with the radar off,


    Sure. And nothing else.
  • rocket757
    rocket757 16 August 2020 15: 19
    +3
    Everything is changing, there is progress in many directions!
    A year, two, three .... a new technique will appear, with other performance characteristics, and arguing about what we do not know for sure will continue.
  • Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 16 August 2020 15: 22
    0
    Uh ...
    "The F-22 fighter will be able to detect the Su-57 only after entering the affected area of ​​its missiles."
    And the Su-57 fighter will be able to detect the F-22 .... when?

    In principle, it is clear that a 20-year-old fighter should be worse than the one being developed ...
    However, in both cases, they wrote, they tend to fly on a tip from other aircraft flying from behind with an active radar .......
  • SovAr238A
    SovAr238A 16 August 2020 15: 53
    0
    A dagger on the Su-57?
    Yes, and probably in the internal compartments?
    Well, what would the EPR be at 0.3 ...


    how far from reality are the authors of these news ...
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 16 August 2020 15: 55
    +1
    How will the dagger be suspended?
    1. borberd
      borberd 16 August 2020 16: 00
      +3
      On blue duct tape ...
    2. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 16 August 2020 16: 04
      -1
      There is no dagger. there a set of missiles is on the Su-57 The dagger can only be picked up on the Su-34 between the engines and the Tu-22M
      1. Voyager
        Voyager 16 August 2020 16: 16
        +2
        The Su-57 is developing its own standard version of the "Dagger"
        1. Dimka75
          Dimka75 16 August 2020 16: 40
          -2
          That is, for long-range shooting at the F-22 modification? Did I understand the essence of the article correctly?
        2. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A 16 August 2020 17: 38
          -1
          Quote: Voyager
          The Su-57 is developing its own standard version of the "Dagger"

          Have you come up with some kind of gag again?
          Look at the dimensions of the armament compartment first ...
          1. Voyager
            Voyager 16 August 2020 17: 49
            +2
            What do you mean invented, and even again? The director of the Tactical Missile Armament Corporation JSC spoke about this.
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Look at the dimensions of the armament compartment first ...

            Show first where it was about the internal location.
            1. SovAr238A
              SovAr238A 16 August 2020 19: 49
              0
              Quote: Voyager
              What do you mean invented, and even again? The director of the Tactical Missile Armament Corporation JSC spoke about this.
              Quote: SovAr238A
              Look at the dimensions of the armament compartment first ...

              Show first where it was about the internal location.

              It's just that the article says about 0.3
              And this is unambiguously interpreted as carrying weapons in the compartments.


              The Suspended Gauge will give 2 RCS ...


              Don't you think that the author of the article, to put it mildly, is insane?
              Does it connect a hedgehog and a snake?
              No?
        3. NordUral
          NordUral 16 August 2020 20: 25
          0
          And it is called "Kashchei's Needle".
  • yfast
    yfast 16 August 2020 17: 39
    +3
    Quote: Voyager
    The Su-57 is developing its own standard version of the "Dagger"

    The dagger will still not fit into a skinny dryer, or whatever will fit, but it will already be a feather. And if it hangs outside, then why stealth at all.
    1. Voyager
      Voyager 16 August 2020 17: 50
      +1
      Quote: yfast
      The dagger will still not fit into a skinny dryer, or whatever will fit, but it will already be a feather.


      True, but there is no contradiction here.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 16 August 2020 18: 38
    -2
    How tired of all this ...
    There are more than 22 serial F-180s, and the Su-57 is not in service.
    What comparisons and "encounters" can there be?
    1. NordUral
      NordUral 16 August 2020 20: 23
      -1
      Only in the inflamed imagination of "our" top-chiefs "
  • Dikson
    Dikson 16 August 2020 19: 39
    -3
    Curve some kind of article .. If he sees, he does not see .. who will be illuminated from the Earth or from the AWACS, this is where the northern fur-bearing animal will come .. It's only in the movies that dog dumps on jet fighters show .. Again - why not take into account weapons? American rockets fly far .. and super-maneuverability .. - you also need to be able to use it ..
    1. Herman 4223
      Herman 4223 16 August 2020 20: 22
      0
      Ours also fly far, but this is not enough for the rocket to hit, and at long and medium distances there have always been big problems with this.
    2. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 16 August 2020 22: 55
      +1
      The truth is not far away. The effective launch range does not exceed 0.3-0.4 x Maximum allowance. In reality, the maximum range of destruction of a real air target does not exceed 50-55 km. Higby to help you
  • NordUral
    NordUral 16 August 2020 20: 22
    0
    This makes no sense. What does "Dagger" have to do with it?
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 16 August 2020 22: 03
      -1
      Well ... How else?
      "Dagger" is our EVERYTHING!
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 16 August 2020 20: 30
    +1
    And who told the author that the F22 has less EPR than the Su57? There is no data on either one or the other.
    1. Outsider
      Outsider 24 August 2020 09: 45
      -1
      Reindeer breeders of Yakutia have not delivered newspapers and magazines again?
      http://faculty.nps.edu/jenn/EC4630/RCSredux.pdf
      According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001 ~ 0.0002 sqm, marble sized in frontal aspect.
      http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/01/india-russia-close-to-agreement-on-next.html
      Sukhoi's FGFA prototype, which is expected to make its first flight within weeks, is a true stealth aircraft, almost invisible to enemy radar. According to an MoD official, “It is an amazing looking aircraft. It has a Radar Cross Section (RCS) of just 0.5 square meters as compared to the Su-30MKI's RCS of about 20 square meters. "
      1. Viktor Sergeev
        Viktor Sergeev 24 August 2020 10: 15
        +1
        No, the reindeer breeders of Yakutia did not understand that what is written in the newspapers is pure linden, since EPR data are the greatest secret for any aircraft. They are reindeer herders, they were told, but they believe. The main thing is you believe the Americans, they won't lie. This is probably why corner reflectors are usually installed on US aircraft at normal times, because there is nothing to hide.
        Our data is most likely correct, but 0,5 is, I think, indicators from the most unfortunate point of the hemisphere. The F22 has approximately the same performance, and the F35 has not gone far. Keep reading American science fiction though.
        1. Outsider
          Outsider 25 August 2020 00: 20
          -1
          - The F-22 has been in operation for 15 years. During this time, its combat effectiveness, primarily due to his extremely low visibility, has been checked HUNDREDS of times. Including in all kinds of international military exercises.
          And the newspapers - they always lie, yeah ...
          1. Viktor Sergeev
            Viktor Sergeev 25 August 2020 09: 54
            +1
            Tell me, stupid, when did this show the combat effectiveness of the F22? When this has been tested hundreds of times, give at least a couple of examples. Maybe it is due primarily to the availability of means of the AWACS type, complete air superiority, a war with an enemy who has ancient weapons and pilots whose hands do not grow from there? Oh yes, the highest efficiency is the same sorties to escort Russian bombers and patrol flights in Syria once a year, without participating in hostilities.
            Remember the strength of the F22 is not in RCS, but in radar, the ability to flock with guidance from AWACS without turning on the radar.
            Nobody is lying, everyone composes absolutely not knowing the real state of affairs, only a small part of specialists know the real parameters of EPR from different angles and all this is hidden. The strong point of the Americans: the ability to advertise even an unnecessary product, like the F35, ours do not know how, we are more honest and stupid.
            I would advise you to read the literature about how the "invisibility" effect is achieved, or rather, the reduction of the radar detection range, study what electronic warfare is or how it affects the detection parameter. Last but not least, stop believing everything, especially advertising claims.
            1. Outsider
              Outsider 25 August 2020 11: 02
              -1
              Tell me, stupid, when did this show the combat effectiveness of the F22? When this has been tested hundreds of times, give at least a couple of examples.
              Perhaps it is due primarily to the availability of funds such as AWACS?

              - Easy! Everything is exactly the opposite: F-22 delivers data to its AWACS! laughing
              https://nvo.ng.ru/concepts/2008-02-29/5_pentagon.html
              complete air superiority, a war with an enemy who has ancient weapons and pilots whose hands do not grow from there?

              - In all the US exercises that have passed over the last 15 years of the F-22's existence, its rivals were all the most modern American and European aircraft of the 4th (with any number of advantages) generation. They were piloted by highly trained US Air Force pilots, probably the most trained in the world after Israelis.
              Oh yes, the highest efficiency is the same sorties to escort Russian bombers ...

              - It's a routine job in Alaska. Where F-22s fly with a PTB and without removing the Luneberg lens unit ... smile
              ... and patrol flights in Syria once a year, without participating in hostilities.

              - In Syria, the F-22 dropped 2% of all US Air Force bombs, but his main task was and is there - reconnaissance and covert patrolling (they remove the Luneberg lens blocks there), protection of the separation line along the Tigris and Euphrates, the Kurdish zone. And six F-22s, based at the Al Dhafra air base in the United Arab Emirates, have been patrolling the Persian Gulf for many years, driving Iranian fighters with their rags ...
              Remember the strength of the F22 is not in RCS, but in radar, the ability to flock with guidance from AWACS without turning on the radar.

              - Read the article above. You have absolutely no idea about the subject of the conversation.
              I would advise you to read the literature about how the "invisibility" effect is achieved, or rather, the reduction of the radar detection range, study what electronic warfare is or how it affects the detection parameter. Last but not least, stop believing everything, especially advertising claims.

              - Don't tell my slippers, you ignorant layman. You are absolutely "out of the loop".
              1. Viktor Sergeev
                Viktor Sergeev 26 August 2020 08: 13
                +1
                F22 gives information to Awax? Well, now it's clear, everything is clear with you. Admit it: you don't understand anything about radar or modern methods of warfare. For such a "specialist" for the last time I will inform you: the meaning of invisibility and the use of "invisible" is that they do not turn on the radar at all, follow signals from AWACS and are guided by them, and only at the right moment they turn on the radar.
                Now tell us about covert patrolling in an area where the enemy has no radar. F22 and reconnaissance were not close. Stealth is not needed at all to drop bombs on the Barmaley. The F22 was used to justify their existence, as the car turned out to be useless.
                And yes, unlike you, I am a former air defense officer and in radar and electronic warfare I know more than yours in practice. child go read literature.
                1. Outsider
                  Outsider 26 August 2020 16: 54
                  -2
                  F22 gives information to Awax? Well, now it's clear, everything is clear with you. Admit it: you don't understand anything about radar or modern methods of warfare.

                  - I, in fact, taught both that, and another ... laughing The last 7 years out of 26 spent in the USSR / RF Air Force (1969-1995). lol
                  And you really were terribly lazy to read carefully and thoughtfully a small article in pure Russian? Not a new article at all, look at the date:
                  https://nvo.ng.ru/concepts/2008-02-29/5_pentagon.html
                  Can I find a description of this action in English?
                  For such a "specialist" for the last time I will inform you: the meaning of invisibility and the use of "invisibles" is that they do not turn on the radar at all, follow signals from AWACS and are guided by them, and only at the right moment they turn on the radar.

                  - You see, my incompetent "air defense opponent", there are a number of nuances:
                  1. Ceiling F-22 - 19.8 km, the range of the radio horizon from this height ~490 kilometers.
                  2. The working altitude of the AWACS flight is 10 km, after running out of fuel it will gain 12 km, it can see from this altitude only 350-380 km, BUT! For reasons of its own safety, AWACS cannot climb into the thick of the theater of operations, as the F-22 can calmly do, AWACS is forced to keep at least 200 km from the danger zone of clashes... That is: subtract these 380 km from 200 km! Remains 180 km... And the F-22 can climb into the very center, at a great height and see from there for almost 500 km! Both air and ground targets. And for these reasons, he was made an AWACS assistant to supply that with detailed information from the most advanced and highly placed post.... Is it understandable?
                  3. The F-22 and F-35 have excellent, wonderful electronic reconnaissance stations, ALR-94 for the F-22 and ASQ-239 for the F-35, providing them with situational awareness within a radius of 460 km about all emitting radars / radars - by azimuth is very accurate, and those that are closer than 180 km - these RTR stations also calculate the range to them. Therefore, the F-22 really does not have an urgent need to immediately use the radar "to the fullest", but if necessary, their radars have an LPI mode - low probability of intercept, which Russian STO / RTR does not detect - they have not grown to this level. And the plane continues to remain invisible at the distance at which it is from enemies.
                  Now tell us about covert patrolling in an area where the enemy has no radar. F22 and reconnaissance did not stand nearby. Stealth is not needed at all to drop bombs on the Barmaley.

                  - Syria is full of radars, including very powerful ones, on the same S-300, which Shoigu gave them a couple of years ago. How is it "no radar" ?! There is, of course, where did they go ...
                  The F22 was used to justify their existence, as the car turned out to be useless.

                  - There was nothing more stupid to say ?! And why then did Russia drag Su-35 to Khmeimim ?? With whom are they fighting there ?!
                  And yes, unlike you, I am a former air defense officer and in radar and electronic warfare I know more than yours in practice.

                  - I am a former Air Force officer, pilot, flight commander, reserve lieutenant colonel, in the last seven years - a former teacher of the Department of Aviation Radioelectronic Means of the Chelyabinsk VVAKUSH. In principle, you cannot know either radar or electronic warfare "more than mine" ... wink
                  child go read literature.

                  - He smiled - from ear to ear! laughing I am 69 years, 10 months and 26 days. lol И "when they scribbled an overcoat on me, they jerked off another dick on you"- so be humble, infantry ... repeat
                  If you have questions - ask. Just formulate them thoughtfully and do not blast wild nonsense about "the uselessness of stealth aircraft." Such a phrase does not even paint an officer from the construction battalion, and since you have been in the air defense - it is generally absurd from a representative of this kind of troops ...
                  1. Viktor Sergeev
                    Viktor Sergeev 26 August 2020 20: 10
                    0
                    So you taught that fighter radar can see beyond AWACS? Oh well.
                    I did not talk about the uselessness of STEALTH, I said that people comparing two aircraft solely by EPR not understanding how electronic warfare reduces the aircraft's detection range can only be a layman. And I also understand the difference between the detection range of radio reconnaissance equipment and I know that if the F22 climbs to a great height there it will end its days from the missiles of the S300, 400 complexes.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. Outsider
                        Outsider 26 August 2020 23: 16
                        0
                        An additional look at the 5th generation:

                    2. Outsider
                      Outsider 27 August 2020 22: 55
                      -1
                      - Strange: did the moderators delete my reply to this post? For quoting an innocent anecdote ?!
                      I hope you managed to read it ... so that I don't need to answer this twice:
                      So you taught that fighter radar can see beyond AWACS? Oh well

                      But one point still has to be repeated:
                      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90-50#%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F
                      Range detection of air targets:
                      - cruise missiles (RCS = 1 m215): XNUMX km
                      ..............................
                      The APG-77 (V) 1 radar of the F-22 aircraft detects targets with RCS = 1 m² at a range of 225 km in normal mode. Those. it all depends on whose radar of which fighter - and whose AWACS aircraft.
                      1. Viktor Sergeev
                        Viktor Sergeev 28 August 2020 14: 07
                        0
                        Target detection range with EPR 1 sq.m. against the background of the earth (without interference) at AWACS 400 km. AWACS searches for a 360-degree target search. The F22 does not have a radar, it scans targets at 60 degrees (range from 150 to 240 km.) And I dare to assume that the scanning speed is much slower than AWACS. Any other questions: Who is providing information to whom?
                      2. Outsider
                        Outsider 28 August 2020 19: 16
                        -1
                        - It seems that you either do not read what I am writing, or absolutely do not understand? Again:
                        1. Radio horizon from AWACS from an altitude of 10 km - 350 km, radio horizon from F-22 from an altitude of 20 km - 490 km.
                        2. AWACS, for reasons of its own safety, cannot approach the dangerous area closer than 200 km, subtract another 350 km from 200 km - 150 km remain!
                        3. Now compare: 490 km in the F-22 - and 150 km at AWACS ??! Given that modern air-to-air missiles hit 200 km: the European Meteor, the American AIM-260 and the Russian RVV-BD. Those. AWACS has to stay even further from the thick of things today!
                        4. The AWACS search sector is really 360 °, the whole antenna rotates there, at a speed of 6 rpm, the picture is updated every 10 seconds, but for the fighter what is important and necessary is what is in front of it - the F-22 radar has a sector of view + / -60 ° (ie 120 °) both in azimuth and in elevation, this is enough for him "above the roof". The speed of full coverage of the entire space 120 ° x120 ° - 14 seconds for the F-22 and 19 seconds for the F-35, with a complete analysis of the situation - azimuths, ranges, altitudes and speeds of targets.
                        Any other questions: Who is providing information to whom?

                        - If you repeat this ridiculous mantra for the fourth time, after reading all of the above, I will decide that you are inoperable.
                      3. Viktor Sergeev
                        Viktor Sergeev 28 August 2020 22: 11
                        0
                        The F22 radar sees at 150-240 km. What does the radio horizon have to do with it? Climb 20 km. become a target. AWACS will not climb? Why is he needed then? It climbs, since its range is over 500 km.
                        Decide that you yourself are not operable. Bye, specialist.
                      4. Outsider
                        Outsider 29 August 2020 01: 22
                        0
                        The F22 radar sees at 150-240 km. What does the radio horizon have to do with it?

                        - Radar F-22 sees targets at a range of 525 kilometers. At a distance of 225 km, he sees a target with RCS = 1 m². Stop talking stupid? He will see a Su-30 aircraft with an RCS = 20 m² at a distance of 225 / √√ (1:20) =476 km
                        APG-77

                        AW&ST 2000/03/17, 120 mile (192 km) at "Stealthy mode".
                        AW&ST 2000/03/17, 140 to 145 mile (225 to 235 km) at "Non-stealthy mode".
                        AW&ST 2000/03/17, radar image of 30 cm-class resolution for the target 100 miles (160 km) away.
                        AW&ST 2000/03/17, TWS 100 targets at the same time.
                        E. Stealth capability: Frontal minimal RCS: 0.0005 to 0.001 m2
                        Climb 20 km. become a target.

                        - With frontal EPR = 0.0001 m²? That is unlikely. The F-22 targets everyone else.
                        AWACS will not climb? Why is he needed then?

                        - He carries out general management, dispatching functions, controlling his aircraft in the theaters of the theater entrusted to him.
                        It climbs, since its range is over 500 km.

                        - AWACS has a maximum range of 600 km, but for targets with the appropriate RCS and flying at a HIGH altitude. He does not see targets flying at low and extremely low altitudes outside his radio horizon of 350 km - the Earth is round ...
                      5. Viktor Sergeev
                        Viktor Sergeev 29 August 2020 13: 40
                        +1
                        At 420 he sees 1 sq. M. against the background of the earth.
                      6. Outsider
                        Outsider 29 August 2020 16: 24
                        -1
                        - No, "against the background of the earth" - such data are too "bold" even for the sophisticated AWACS. Yes, and the radio horizon will not give it. Against the sky... Against the background of the Earth, he will see such a target at a distance of no more than 300 km, and only if it has a radial component "on" - "from"if my memory serves me, at least 15 km / h or more, then the Doppler filters will allow me to see something.
                      7. Viktor Sergeev
                        Viktor Sergeev 29 August 2020 17: 07
                        0
                        So it is stated that there is in reality, hell knows.
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal 28 August 2020 13: 48
          0
          if the F22 climbs to a great height there he will end his days, from the missiles of the S300, 400 complexes.

          He needs to fly close enough for this, the detection / capture range is reduced. What prevents to shoot before PRR according to STR data?
          1. Viktor Sergeev
            Viktor Sergeev 28 August 2020 14: 22
            0
            Who told you that the detection range is reduced? Have you heard about decimeter and meter range radars? And there are also a bunch of passive radar equipment, plus ground-based means can have more powerful radars than airborne ones and detect far enough. Rather, the target firing range with centimeter and millimeter radars has been reduced, but even here there are enough nuances, for example, self-guided missiles.
            What makes the application of the PRP? Or maybe their rather short range, special countermeasures, short-range air defense systems, and a lot of other things have been invented.
            A war against a strong enemy, this is not a walk for the Americans in Iraq and Yugoslavia, not shooting like in a shooting range.
          2. 3danimal
            3danimal 28 August 2020 15: 13
            0
            Have you heard about decimeter and meter range radars?

            Stealth is also effective against the decimeter range, and the meter range will not provide the required accuracy. ARL seeker missiles have a cm and mm range, there will be difficulties with target acquisition, as well as with RDS illumination.
            What makes the application of the PRP? Or maybe their rather short range, special countermeasures, short-range air defense systems, and a lot of other things have been invented.

            The range of the latest modifications (in service) of HARMs is 150 km, which is quite solid. The filling is more advanced.
            "The latest modifications are designed to destroy the radar with a change in operating frequencies." Turning off the radar also does not work.
            It is difficult to intercept: small size and high speed, launching is possible with a large number at once (tens).
            A war against a strong enemy, this is not a walk for the Americans in Iraq and Yugoslavia, not shooting like in a shooting range.

            It is understandable, but it can be solved by more complicated tactics and a larger number of forces and means. There will be losses, but the tactics described above (just one of the options) will lead to significant losses for the defenders. And the question of the rate of reproduction of weapons will arise.
          3. Viktor Sergeev
            Viktor Sergeev 28 August 2020 22: 20
            0
            There is no insurmountable air defense, as there is no super-powerful aviation. Everything will be decided by specific conditions. The fight against the Kharms is quite real: rocking the rocket, installing false sources around the radar. Torah and Armor under normal conditions are quite capable of knocking down Kharmas. By the way, the flight range of Harm seems to be like 150 km. this is for known targets, as well as 48. The new AARGM missile is up to 110 km, that is, the aircraft must approach the air defense complex at the specified range.
          4. 3danimal
            3danimal 29 August 2020 03: 26
            0
            installation of false sources around the radar.

            They should be more powerful than radar, which is unlikely.
            Torah and Armor under normal conditions are quite capable of knocking down Kharmas.

            I do not argue, but given the size and speed, the launch of a large number will overload the air defense and, as a result, break holes in it. Again, there could be a second launch next.
            that is, the aircraft must approach the air defense system at the specified range.

            It shouldn't be a problem for stealth.
      2. Outsider