Military Review

Are Chinese planes better than Russian ones? Prove would ...

115
Let no one be confused by the link to Forbes, the author is well known to us. This is Sebastien Roblin from The National Interest, so it's okay. For some reason, Sebastien decided to change the platform and publish on the pages of Forbes, which, it turns out, has a heading "Aerospace & Defense" in the "Business" section.



And from Ukraine drying as a gift


So, what did Roblin hook with? First of all, my opinion, which is quite original and contradictory at the same time.

It is worth agreeing with him on the part that China (China) is generally indebted to the USSR (USSR) in the sense that if it were not for the supply of our aircraft, then the Chinese Air Force would hardly represent such a significant force today.

The first sign was the MiG-15 (MiG-15) back in 1950. And then, why really, China just started copying our aircraft. For the first decent Chinese aircraft J-5, J-6 and J-7 are, in fact, cloned MiG-17, MiG-19 and MiG-21.


J-7. Find the Differences ...

Shameful? Not at all. These were cool machines, and the MiG-21 is still quite normally operated in a number of countries. Effectively, I would say. The Pakistanis will confirm if anything.

“After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia sold to China the fourth generation Su-27 and Su-30 Flanker jets, powerful twin-engine aircraft with excellent super-maneuverability characteristics. ... Aviation Shenyang Aviation Corporation has developed three clones of the Flanker of the Russian Su-27 Flanker fighter - this is the J-11, as well as the carrier-based version of the J-15 Fling Shark and focused on performing strike missions J- sixteen".

Let's say not everything is so simple. The J-15 is a copy of the Su-33, but we did not sell or give it away. For the J-15, the Chinese should say thanks to the Ukrainians who sold the unfinished Varyag, together with it they donated not just two Su-33s from the ship's group, but also with all the documentation. So, for China, it became a matter of purely technology to arrange their copying.


What do we have from the copier?

Has the student surpassed his mentor?


Roblin cites research by British analyst Justin Bronk of the Royal United Service Institute, RUSI, London, United Kingdom, the oldest (since 1831) British defense think tank.

Bronk believes that "the student may have already surpassed his teacher." Argumentation? Naturally.

“... China, starting from the position of dependence on Russian aircraft and other military equipment, was able to create its own modern enterprises for the production of aircraft, instruments and weapons systems, which are superior in their capabilities to Russian ones ... China is increasing its technological gap from Russia in most areas related to the development of combat aircraft. Moreover, the Russian industry is unlikely to be able to recover the lost areas of competitive advantage. And the reason for this may be deep structural, production and budgetary problems compared to the situation in the Chinese defense sector. "

A bold statement, but you must admit that it also contains a grain of truth. The fact that China is exporting engines from Russia is for now. Many experts also use this word. Simply because China has almost everything to master the production of engines. And as soon as this "almost" is eliminated ...

In fact, China makes its own aircraft engines. Another question is that they are still much inferior to Russian ones in the main thing: in terms of service life and reliability. However, time is working for China. And it is quite possible that in a few years, alternative versions of the WS-10B and WS-15 engines will be able to catch up with their Russian counterparts.

And what about us with "Product 30"?

With weapons, too, Russia is ahead of its neighbor. But about avionics and other electronic components - yes, it's difficult to talk about. And it's not even about technology or hands. It's about money.

Russia in 2020 will spend $ 70 billion on defense, China - $ 190 billion.

Actually, that's the difference. Two and a half times.

Our rockets with Chinese microcircuits in their "brains"


Plus, do not forget how well-developed the electronics industry is in the PRC. And that our rockets fly with Chinese chips in their "brains", and not vice versa. And if necessary, communist China will very easily be able to exercise its advantage in industrial space and labor. By multiplying all this with technology, it will be very easy to ensure that China has total superiority.

Moreover, the Chinese really want to have all the best and most advanced. And not by buying for petrodollars, but by studying and producing at our facilities.

Peking Reverse Engineering


Yes, of course, reverse engineering (direct copying) and industrial espionage are the reality of the Chinese day today. However, if the resources and capabilities of intelligence allow it to be done - why not? Not everything can be bought today, which means - why not steal?

Once we sniffed contemptuously at Chinese cars, calling them more than derogatory. Today, a Chinese-made car has taken its place on the streets of cities around the world and even in Hollywood films. It is not easy to predict what will happen next, the plane is more complex, but Chinese water and not such stones can exude dust.


Of course, this does not mean that everything is unambiguously bad for us.

It is worth noting that not everything was copied by the Chinese. There are planes that are still beyond the reach of their neighbors such as Tu-160 and MiG-31. True, these are not Russian models either, so it's just good that we have them, and China doesn't have them.

But even those aircraft that are currently being built in Russia are in demand in the world. It is fighting. The PRC also participates in the world trade in aircraft, but they are more successful in drones and training vehicles, as they are cheaper.

However, one can agree with American and British experts in the sense that if China improves its engines to the level of Russia, then aircraft manufactured in China will be more attractive on the market, especially for those countries that cannot afford American, European and Russian aircraft. because of their price.

And there are more than enough such countries in the world.

Lead tracks


And the Chinese military has something to interest representatives of colleagues from poorer, but ambitious states. Indeed, there are a number of points on which Chinese aircraft are ahead of Russian ones.

For example, the increased use of composite materials (composite materials). The Chinese are really great here. And reasonably, and in step with the times. The J-11B, J-11D and J-16 are all used very extensively in these aircraft. This, in turn, entails a reduction in the weight of the vehicle, which means the possibility of installing additional systems and weapons.

It is believed that these aircraft have already outstripped their prototype, the Su-27. The point is to catch up with the aircraft made on the basis of the Su-27 in Russia. It's not that easy. But the introduction of composite materials is a good step along the way.


Su-27 or J-11BS

Second: the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars. Here, China is also moving forward with leaps and bounds.

The Americans have been using active phased array radars on their fighters for nearly two decades. Russia says active phased array radars have finally begun to be installed on the stealthy Su-57 fighter and the MiG-35. However, many of the Su-35S produced do not have an active phased array radar. And while the state of work on the radar, which is planned to be installed on the Su-57 fighter, remains unclear.

Today, China is already routinely installing active phased array radars on J-11B / D, J-15 and J-16 fighters, as well as on the light single-engine J-10 and on the stealth J-20 fighter.

And the Chinese know how to keep their secrets


True, the Chinese radar with AFAR, let's say, is still little-known and classified. And the Chinese know how to keep their secrets. So how good the Chinese radar is, how confidently it detects the enemy and at what distance - while this information is not available to the masses. As well as information about how many (in percentage) PLA Air Force aircraft are already equipped with radars with AFAR.

But there is no doubt that they exist and work.


And if China is able (and there are no reasons to prevent this) to equip all its aircraft with new AFAR radars, this will definitely give the PLA Air Force an advantage over the Russian Air Force, where a certain number of aircraft of the latest designs are selectively equipped with new AFAR radars.

Of course, radar is one of the components of modern combat. The suppression of the radar station is an important combat moment, and here Russia is traditionally strong with its electronic warfare means, which is undeniable. So far, it is undeniable, but it is very difficult to compete with Russia here. But not impossible.

But in the field of other weapons, China is making progress, according to Roblin. In the past ten years, the PLA Air Force has received two very good missiles at its disposal. The first is the PL-2, which in terms of its characteristics is close to the American AIM120C missile, and surpasses the Russian R-77 missile in its range of action.

But the R-77 is, after all, 1994, the year it was put into service. So the comparison looks somewhat unprofitable.

However, China also has a second development, the PL-15 missile, which has an even longer range than the latest AIM-120D missile. The PL-15 rocket also has a dual thrust engine that allows it to reach speeds of up to 4M.

Nevertheless, both the R-77 and the AIM-120D are missiles of the last century. The fact that the PL-15 is superior to them is not surprising, since the American (1991) and Russian (1994) missiles are frankly outdated. It is not a great honor to outstrip rockets with nearly thirty years of service.

It makes sense to catch up and overtake Russia in such a competition not with the P-77, but, say, with the P-33 or the P-37M, of which there are not so many in the troops as we would like, but they exist and continue to come. But the range of these missiles (320 km) is a subject for conversation.

In general, the Chinese engineers still have work to do.

Fashionable stealth


The next item will be fashionable stealth (Stealth Aircraft Technology).

Some experts today describe the Chinese Chengdu J-20 fighter as the first credible fifth-generation stealth fighter developed outside the United States.


Roblin in his article compares the J-20 to the F-22, saying that the Chinese fighter is inferior to the American aircraft in maneuverability. So be it. However, there are many parameters, according to which the Chinese plane will be head and shoulders above the Raptor. Deservedly, by the way, since the Raptor can be called whatever you want, but not - a successful aircraft.

In the article, Roblin cites very interesting statements from the report of the same Royal Joint Institute for Defense Research of Great Britain about the Su-57.

According to the British, the Su-57 will have an effective dispersion surface at least an order of magnitude greater than that of the F-35 and several orders of magnitude greater than that of the F-22. Therefore, it cannot be considered a worthy competitor to either the American F-22 or the Chinese J-20 as an aircraft designed to gain air superiority.

That is, British experts put the J-20 and F-22 much higher than the Su-57, which is definitely a compliment towards the Chinese fighter. Indeed, the Chinese military has spent a lot of money on the development of its stealth aircraft.


Another question is whether the J-20 is as good as a fifth generation fighter in terms of engines?

Of course, in China, work continues on the deck version of the J-31 Big Falcon, the brainchild of the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, but it is difficult to say how successful this project will be.


Given the growing needs of naval carrier-based aircraft, the project is likely to be completed.

Modern military operations in the theory and practice of using aviation (especially in terms of work on ground targets) are increasingly based on the fact that dropping a large number of bombs on the target area is a less effective method than just one or two high-precision shells that destroy the target. However, so far, the large-scale use of high-precision (and very expensive) weapons associated with huge financial risks.

Recently, Russia has developed many options for high-precision guided weapons, but its stocks are limited, and therefore, in combat use in Syria, the Russian Aerospace Forces preferred to use unguided bombs and missiles.

Another problem is the limited accuracy of the Russian GLONASS satellite system, which is used for calculations and navigation. But if we compare GLONASS with its accuracy of 3 meters and "Beidou-3" with twice the accuracy - here, as they say, comments are unnecessary. And the number of high-precision missiles in China will be easily and naturally leveled by the low accuracy of their navigation system.

But - the road will be mastered by the one walking, and the issue with navigation can be resolved in the near future. Moreover, China's orbital constellation is growing day by day.

With regard to target designation systems, here Roblin is confident that Russian aircraft remained in the last century, using more complex and less accurate methods such as integrated guidance systems in the aircraft or the use of telecontrol operators in two-seater aircraft such as the Su-30 or Su-34.


The American and the British are confident that the Chinese electro-optical target designation system, which is now installed on the latest Chinese fighters, including the J-10, J-16, and J-20, has clear advantages over the Russian system.

In addition, China is developing and even exporting a range of high-precision missiles and bombs for deployment on combat drones.

Unmanned battles


Drones should be discussed separately.

With all due respect to fighters and bombers, more and more attention is paid to unmanned aerial vehicles. If only because the operation of these aircraft does not consume such a complex resource as pilots. UAVs are also cheaper, and the capabilities are no worse than those of normal aircraft. Therefore, it is quite natural that this direction will attract both attention and funds.

An unmanned vehicle (in the role of both shock and reconnaissance) is already becoming an indispensable assistant to the aircraft.

China is in perfect order with drones.

Over the past two decades, China has developed a wide range of both reconnaissance and strike drones, starting with the small and cheap CH-2 and Wing Loong, which have proven more than successful as they are actively exported. Next come the jet "Cloud Shadow", "Divine Eagle" capable of conducting strategic reconnaissance, the supersonic reconnaissance WZ-8.

And, if we consider the concept of using UAVs jointly and for the benefit of conventional air forces, then here China is noticeably ahead of many countries, including Russia, which does not have any attack UAVs at all.

Yes, it was announced the start of deliveries in 2021 in terms of some kind of attack drones, but their name was not even announced. Although the Russian Air Force has at its disposal a whole range of tactical reconnaissance vehicles that have proven themselves in Ukraine and Syria.

While the drone program in Russia may ultimately prove very fruitful, it continues to be surprising that China, Israel and Turkey today use and export a variety of combat drones, while Russian military counterparts do not yet have such weapons.

But unmanned aerial vehicles are only support for normal aircraft.

The student is not ahead of the teacher


Speaking about the advantage of Chinese planes over Russian ones, as it was said, in the style of “the student outdid the teacher,” here it is worth putting everything on the shelves.

Russia-China:
1. Engines. So far, Russia is definitely ahead. 1-0
2. AFAR. In China, the program is easy and simple to implement, questions only in quality. 1-1
3. Composite materials. China is ahead. 1-2
4. Electronic warfare systems. Russia. 2-2
5. Armament. Russia. 3-2
6. Electronics. Target designation, avionics. China. 3-3

This list does not include precision weapons and stealth. It makes perfect sense. Because there is no reliable open data for an objective comparison of these parameters.

If we consider the situation in this (truthful) perspective, then the student (China) has not overtaken the teacher (Russia). Moreover, Russia retains its advantage in the area of ​​more serious, in my opinion, divisions. But this does not mean that everything is beautiful and calm. The fact that China is following the path of the development of modern military technology and with huge leaps is an indisputable fact.

It is clear that Messrs. Roblin and Bronk wanted to hurt us with reason. But I think it didn't work out.

Yes, the American and British experts praised the Chinese with all the heart. But with us - not very well reasoned yet.

Although quite rightly pointed out our lag in certain types. It is what it is.

Syria


In addition, the Russian Air Force has another indisputable advantage over its Chinese counterparts: combat training received in Syria. And this is such a thing, you see, which gives a very significant advantage.

But this is just as temporary as China's lag.

And everything can turn out in the course of time exactly as the roblin and bronchial gentlemen would like.

And in order not to succeed ... It is necessary to constantly and very well remember those who breathe down our heads. And develop in the right direction.
Author:
115 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 20 November 2020 05: 34
    +7
    There are planes that are still beyond the reach of their neighbors such as Tu-160 and MiG-31.
    There are many things that they cannot repeat yet ... Tu-95, An-124, Tu-22M, Su-34 ... Although they really need such aircraft
    1. Nazar
      Nazar 20 November 2020 06: 00
      23
      svp67 - Some of these aircraft and we (RF) are no longer able to copy. There is no new production of TU-22, no MIG-31, AN-124 - also, it is completely incomprehensible what took off in Kazan - either the TU-160, made from scratch, or it, but assembled from Soviet parts , and this is a significant difference.
      Yes, a decision has been made to resume production of TU-160, but between the decision and production in our country, the time gap may turn out to be very, very long. There are many examples of this, not even worth mentioning.
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 20 November 2020 06: 32
        +9
        Quote: Nazar
        it is completely incomprehensible what took off in Kazan - whether the TU-160, made from scratch, or it, but assembled from Soviet parts

        Yes, they didn’t make any secret, so far they assembled one new plane from the old reserve. Everything else that takes off there is modernized combat aircraft from the Aerospace Forces.
      2. alekc75
        alekc75 20 November 2020 08: 13
        +9
        no need to la la tu-160 some of the parts are new and went from the air strike !!
      3. Sergey Averchenkov
        Sergey Averchenkov 20 November 2020 20: 32
        +1
        Dear Igor, you cannot do this - with this attitude only for the churchyard. Damn, how I miss the Komsomol construction sites, my enthusiasm, but this whining disgusts me. How was Soviet aviation created? We made mistakes, fell, but got up, and fell again, and got up again ... Somewhere they stole something, somewhere they bought something, but moved forward. And now? "Don't even mention them."
        1. Nazar
          Nazar 20 November 2020 21: 32
          12
          Sergey Averchenkov - Dear Sergey, but about the "churchyard" you are right - I have been retired for a long time and my age and health just correspond to the journey in the direction you indicated fellow
          Quote - "How was Soviet aviation created?" - I live in Ulan-Ude, and a commemorative plaque hangs at the entrance of the local aircraft plant, there are dates - the beginning of the construction of the plant and the date of release of the first serial aircraft. - less than a year between them! In the taiga, from scratch, there are no access roads, no infrastructure and local "personnel", let's say - this is not the Urals, it is there that people have worked in factories for centuries, hereditary technicians, and here are cattle breeders and hunters. And now, in less than a year, the plant produced products. It is possible that something similar in our today's country, a funny question - the replacement of the corn plant has been created and created for 7 years already, as a result, there is no engine for such an aircraft in the Russian Federation and there is not really a project even. There are options, of course, the same "Baikal" but dvigun on it. Honeywell, the body is made of imported composite and all the "stuffing" is imported. That's what I wrote about this "not worth mentioning them."
          And about the Komsomol construction sites - I am a civil engineer and spent most (and the best) part of my life on construction sites, many of which were Komsomol construction sites, so I will go to the churchyard with a clear conscience, I know what will be left to people after me, for 40k plus years managed to build a lot of things. With respect, Igor.
          1. Sergey Averchenkov
            Sergey Averchenkov 20 November 2020 22: 00
            +4
            Yes, I'm not talking about your age, although my respect. A boy can be an old man, and an old man a young man. It all depends on the person. To me a little bit ... Or not? Doctors say: "from one to five". Hope for 5. :)
            So you write about the aircraft plant, and you write absolutely correctly - "in the taiga" ... Yes, the Russian land has not really appeared with little people? I do not believe. It is normal to be offended (when you see what happened to your country), especially in the last years (you yourself are). But life does not end on offense, believe me ... My son was born today - the third (3200), about the third wife ... already joy! And we will succeed!
            1. Nazar
              Nazar 20 November 2020 22: 48
              0
              Sergey Averchenkov - Congratulations! good
              quote- "And we will succeed!" - it will, undoubtedly, but it seems no longer "with us". The development of any country is conditionally "sinusoidal", a series of ups and downs, and now we are just in the phase of "failure", how long it will last is unknown, but in any case the change of direction takes more than a dozen years. So, in my opinion, the USSR in the 1970s, early 1980s was in the highest phase of its development, followed by a decline, in which we still live, there will be an upswing, but judging by a number of signs, very, very not soon. hi
              1. Sergey Averchenkov
                Sergey Averchenkov 20 November 2020 23: 15
                +2
                Thanks. Well, fine. :) Let there be a failure today, even if not a dozen years ... but there is still hope? Okay, I'm in failure, but let my son live at the peak - I'm used to it, I will endure it. How all my ancestors endured ... but in fact, in fact, I live now much better than my grandfather - he took typhoid corpses out of the city (he was 16 then). He did not go to school, he learned to read and write himself - his favorite reading is a great Soviet encyclopedia. He was born in 903, by the way. And I? Higher education, read so many books ... I can't even count, I don't starve, I don't take out corpses, four children ... and it's all thanks to my grandfathers.
                Well, for the rise! For my son! Forgive me for drinking and talking to you not quite sober. :)
                1. Nazar
                  Nazar 21 November 2020 03: 21
                  +6
                  Sergey Averchenkov- I would love to hold you drinks , but now on pills, temperature.
                  Grandfather 1900, went through two wars, was a simple baker, 4th grade of education, liked to read Izvestia, was interested in "politics" smile
                  So this is what upsets what country our semi-literate grandfathers built and left us, and what we, so "smart" and educated, did with all this.
      4. Elturisto
        Elturisto 22 November 2020 19: 17
        -1
        Absolutely correct opinion. The Russian Federation is no longer capable of anything. All these attempts are simply cut.
    2. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 20 November 2020 06: 28
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      Tu-95, An-124, Tu-22M, Su-34 ... Although they really need such aircraft

      Do you really need it?
      Exactly like that?
    3. Avior
      Avior 20 November 2020 07: 05
      0
      They are trying to replicate the American B-2.
      Xian H-20.
      With An-124, if necessary, there will be no problems. They have the Xian Y-20, they developed it together with Antonov.
      1. faiver
        faiver 20 November 2020 07: 26
        +8
        Xian Y-20
        - well, this is an analogue of the IL-76, but they are stamping with an enviable speed ...
        1. Avior
          Avior 20 November 2020 07: 48
          +7
          If they need it, it is not a problem for them, provided they have active contacts with the Antonov Design Bureau and Motor Sich.
          In reality, they only have a problem with fighter engines.
          As soon as the reshat, they will dump inexpensive military equipment onto the market as a competition to Russia.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 23 November 2020 09: 33
            +2
            Inexpensive modern technology is no longer available ... neither in China, nor in the Russian Federation ... especially fighters of the 5th generation. and 4 +++
            1. Avior
              Avior 23 November 2020 09: 38
              +1
              relatively inexpensive.
              in aviation, the word inexpensive is generally relatively
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 23 November 2020 09: 41
                0
                Well, there is F35 ... Su57 J-20 ..... or Su35S and its analogue from China ..... the cost plus or minus will be one ... even with our ruble exchange rate, Su35 will be cheaper in s / b
                1. Avior
                  Avior 23 November 2020 09: 59
                  0
                  I think the mass market entry will not start with fighters of the 5th generation.
                  The Chinese state-owned Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) showed record export volumes in 2017, delivering 96,7 billion yuan ($ 14,1 billion) worth of products to foreign customers.
                  ... As noted in the press service of the corporation, the most popular among foreign customers are the Chinese JF-17 "Thunder" fighters, the K-8 "Karakorum" trainer aircraft, the modernized L-15 jet trainer aircraft, reconnaissance and strike unmanned aerial vehicles of the Wing Lun family; and the Y-8 multipurpose transport aircraft.

                  In 2011, AVIC's aircraft sales overseas totaled 43,1 billion yuan, and by 2015, exports rose to 75,3 billion yuan. In relation to the last indicator in 2017, the corporation showed an increase of 27%.

                  this is a 2018 article
                  1. Zaurbek
                    Zaurbek 23 November 2020 11: 17
                    0
                    Probably. "Poor" countries were left without fighters ....... there is Grippen (but it has an adult price)
        2. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 20 November 2020 08: 55
          +2
          This is an analogue, but with a more comfortable cabin. Not sharpened (Like Ila) for the airborne forces and obviously he is waiting for a more powerful turbojet engine
    4. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 20 November 2020 07: 52
      +4
      We ourselves cannot repeat them .... An124, for example. China produces its Y-20 with the D-30 turbojet engine. A copy of Tu16 (I doubt that it is less advanced than Tu95 and Tu22), As for the Su34, it has no analogues and is only in the Russian Federation (even the Indians use the Su30MKI with an aiming container for this purpose).

      The Chinese are slowed down by a turbojet engine from 12 tons of thrust and above. The Russian Federation was lucky, there was a spent PS-90. So he now gave the opportunity to make IL476.
      1. alekc75
        alekc75 20 November 2020 08: 10
        -2
        while all the silts are with old engines !!!
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 20 November 2020 08: 53
          +4
          What are ALL Silts? ...... Tashkent assembly? They are coming. New ones were released 5 pieces or 6 pieces .... they are all with PS90
      2. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 21 November 2020 15: 42
        0
        An124, for example. China produces its Y-20 with the D-30 turbojet engine.

        Y-20 is not an analogue of An-124
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 21 November 2020 16: 45
          0
          So Il476 is not an analog
  2. Asad
    Asad 20 November 2020 05: 40
    +1
    Professionals will, of course, sort the article through the shelves! Maybe there will be more optimism than from the article?
    1. Kart
      Kart 20 November 2020 08: 47
      -5
      It depends on what kind of professionals.
      If for the country - then yes, there will be more optimism.
      And if against - then on the contrary.
      Moreover, both those and others may well be professionals.
      This is the only way it works for us - "friend or foe".
      1. 2 Level Advisor
        2 Level Advisor 20 November 2020 09: 23
        +2
        professionals have to reveal the actual situation, without "husk", this is the main thing, for that they are the pros .. and everyone will make the conclusions himself, someone without moral color, someone with "hurray-patriotism", someone with "everything disappeared", whatever you like. . this does not apply to facts anymore ..
    2. LastPS
      LastPS 20 November 2020 19: 37
      +3
      ... Judging by what China is doing, I'm not sure if they have not reached the level of alliance in engines. There is no evidence in the article to suggest that they are lagging behind. For their dry copies, they seem to be already stamping the engines themselves, and absolutely nothing is known about their resource. Logically speaking, in the 30 years that they have been using Sukhoi fighters, reverse engineering has certainly been carried out a long time ago and the production technology has been disclosed. Nothing sensible has been written about AFAR either - "we do not know how good they are, so it is not clear what to talk about, most likely shit." But I think nifiga. They are already putting AFAR on cheap export fighters, which means that the technology is most likely mastered for themselves, and why would some Italian Leonardo be in AFAR, but the Chinese are not? The author admits that the Chinese have a well-developed electronics production, which is significantly superior to the Russian, but does not really believe in the Chinese AFAR. Why does the author extol Russian electronic warfare equipment? On VO, no one can say anything sensible about them at all, and all this looks more like a miracle weapon that has no analogues than something real. In short, it looks more like an agitation that not all polymers are still prototypes. I don’t drown for the authors of the National Interest, who also often carry nonsense, but Skomorokhov does not lag behind. No sensible arguments, if the topic is interesting, then it is better to read Bongo - he certainly collects all possible information and his articles give a realistic idea of ​​the Chinese in the sky.
  3. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 20 November 2020 06: 26
    0
    It continues to be surprising that China, Israel and Turkey today use and export a variety of combat drones, while Russian military counterparts do not yet have such weapons.

    And what is so surprising here?
    Moreover, the author himself described the reason
    our rockets fly with Chinese microcircuits in their "brains", and not vice versa.

    And apart from electronics (not only "brains", but also sensors, optics, etc., etc.) we do not have the production of motors of the required dimension. Yes, and with composites, not everything is clear.
    And the same Turkey has access to any (almost) components, and we are under sanctions. Either they have to do it themselves (given the position of our government "why do something, we will buy everything"), or bow to the Chinese, hoping for their mercy that they will sell something decent.
    1. faiver
      faiver 20 November 2020 07: 21
      +9
      or bow to the Chinese trusting in their mercy
      - why do you associate buying something abroad with humiliation? For example, when I buy a Subaru, I don’t bow to the Japanese
      with the position of our government "why do something, we will buy everything"
      - and here we have a twofold situation, given our ditched industry and the greed of our officials and businessmen, it is actually sometimes easier and cheaper to buy abroad, although our industry needs to be restored, but somehow this is all done through the fifth point. Look, we have been building the BOD "Ivan Gren" for 14 years and for five years of its brother, "Petr Morgunov", these are ships with a displacement of 5000 tons, the first one cost us 160 million. dollars, now we take the Chinese DVD of the project 071, displacement of 19000 tons, from laying to transfer to the fleet only two years, another year to run in, and it cost the Chinese cheaper than our "Gren", now the Chinese are building the same DVD for the Philippines for 130 million. dollars. Everything seems to speak for itself ... hi
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 20 November 2020 09: 16
        +2
        Quote: faiver
        Why do you associate buying something abroad with humiliation? For example, when I buy a Subaru, I don’t bow to the Japanese

        Because dual-use or obviously military products are not sold just like that. They really need to either strongly ask, or contrive with smuggling and other troubles.
        And by the way, Subaru does not sell all of its models to Russia. Perhaps due to other reasons. But it's a fact.
  4. Ros 56
    Ros 56 20 November 2020 06: 49
    +3
    Maybe someone will name what and who copied from the Chinese, but of those that and from whom the Chinese copied, the queue will immediately line up.
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 20 November 2020 09: 22
      +5
      Quote: Ros 56
      what and who copied from the Chinese,

      We have a Liotech plant in Novosibirsk, which makes lithium-ion batteries for Chinese electric buses. All technology is Chinese.
      It is like "high" technologies. And the lope of everything Chinese is already countless. I remember in the nineties they even learned to make sacks according to Chinese technology, they boasted on TV about a great achievement. This, by the way. at the factory where studio video equipment and electronics for missiles were made earlier.
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 20 November 2020 13: 41
        -1
        And I'm talking about the same, only those Chinese technologies, too, probably the Chinese have borrowed from somewhere. fellow
        1. LastPS
          LastPS 20 November 2020 19: 40
          +2
          Yes, but this is not a sin, everyone trades in reverse engineering.
  5. military_cat
    military_cat 20 November 2020 06: 56
    +6
    Electronic warfare systems have not shown themselves in practice in the fight against modern aircraft, and something tells me that a system of the class "big hellish powerful jammer" folk ingenuity) will live a maximum of the first missile with passive guidance to a radio source.
    1. Hexenmeister
      Hexenmeister 20 November 2020 09: 44
      +3
      live maximum
      Yeah, all the information about the realities in terms of radar and electronic warfare is closed, and there are three out of every two experts on the Internet!
      1. military_cat
        military_cat 20 November 2020 12: 42
        +1
        Something can be judged quite adequately by the state of the radio-electronic industry. And to refuse to judge anything by it is to go into denial of reality.
        1. Hexenmeister
          Hexenmeister 20 November 2020 16: 13
          +1
          Something can be judged quite adequately by the state of the radio-electronic industry.
          That is, you do not know how the radar and electronic warfare systems worked in the 80s, what tendencies they developed, what these systems have at the modern level, but you will judge something there, flavoring judgments with fairy tales, like "will live to. .. ".
          1. military_cat
            military_cat 20 November 2020 17: 52
            0
            Yeah. All the best.
  6. novel66
    novel66 20 November 2020 07: 21
    +1
    whoever has more planes is the best ... we are behind
    1. faiver
      faiver 20 November 2020 07: 23
      +1
      So the Chinese have the largest army in the world ...
      1. novel66
        novel66 20 November 2020 07: 28
        -2
        this is the whole point, they kill everyone, shoot down everyone and any tanks are destroyed and the one who has the most wins, and here the Chinese are clearly ahead
        1. faiver
          faiver 20 November 2020 07: 29
          +2
          A mistake, an armed conflict between Russia and China can a priori only be nuclear ... but here everything is written with a pitchfork on the water ...
          1. novel66
            novel66 20 November 2020 07: 31
            -1
            and the meaning of the Chinese in a nuclear conflict? They can squeeze half of Siberia out of our country anyway, but will our will be enough to use ...
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 24 November 2020 13: 59
              -2
              Enough. Or we have a lot of people willing to send their soldiers when there are missiles.
        2. Ros 56
          Ros 56 20 November 2020 13: 43
          0
          Seriously, how was it in Damansky?
    2. Shimshon
      Shimshon 20 November 2020 13: 28
      0
      Tell this to the Israelis, otherwise they don't know.
  7. Sibguest
    Sibguest 20 November 2020 07: 30
    +1
    And here, in Russia, our giant pandas are bigger than Chinese ones!
    Eh, to prove it more!

    Until we with our Chinese comrades met in the sky - let the Naglo-Saxons compare anything - they also want to eat.
    Syria showed whose air force and what it is capable of.
    (for the common dill and the liberal pro-Westerners - SILENCE!)
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 20 November 2020 09: 39
      +1
      Quote: Sibguest
      Syria showed whose air force and what it is capable of.

      I am not a liberal, so I will answer.
      Syria just very clearly showed the backwardness of our aviation.
      Compare the losses of our Aerospace Forces and Israel. Despite the fact that sometimes even "real" air defense tries to work on them. And our planes themselves fall or are substituted by their own missiles.
      We do not take a Turkish stab in the back, it was not expected. Although it is also a question, why actually?
      Again, the Israelis hit with smart missiles, half of which are shot down, but the rest hit the target and carry out the task. And ours are pouring tons of "cast iron" on whom God will send. Because precise ammunition is very expensive for us.
      Well, and the answer to the question "and what are they flying and bombing there?" But this is not only about aviation.
      1. Sibguest
        Sibguest 20 November 2020 11: 03
        0
        Konstantin, I will support the dialogue: in order to compare the losses, it is necessary to compare the number of flight hours in the combat zone.
        Israel is brazenly and despicably working on targets in Syria from its airspace.

        You write "And our planes themselves fall or are substituted under their own missiles." - what is this about?
        You write: "And our people pour tons of" cast iron "on whom God will send." - same question?
        In conclusion, you write: "Well, the answer to the question" and what are they flying and bombing there, "we all will not like it either."
        Summing up, I can tell you: you are still from the liberal camp (I don’t want to be rude at a distance - I’m used to express myself more firmly looking into the eyes of my opponent) because you are writing liberal nonsense ..
        1. Jacket in stock
          Jacket in stock 20 November 2020 11: 21
          +2
          Quote: Sibguest
          you are still from the liberal camp (I don’t want to be rude

          But they got nasty.
          Maybe you are a liberal?
          Painfully their habits - there are two opinions, mine and wrong.
      2. mister-red
        mister-red 22 November 2020 20: 52
        0
        Quote: Jacket in stock
        Quote: Sibguest
        Syria showed whose air force and what it is capable of.

        I am not a liberal, so I will answer.
        Syria just very clearly showed the backwardness of our aviation.
        Compare the losses of our Aerospace Forces and Israel. Despite the fact that sometimes even "real" air defense tries to work on them. And our planes themselves fall or are substituted by their own missiles.
        We do not take a Turkish stab in the back, it was not expected. Although it is also a question, why actually?
        Again, the Israelis hit with smart missiles, half of which are shot down, but the rest hit the target and carry out the task. And ours are pouring tons of "cast iron" on whom God will send. Because precise ammunition is very expensive for us.
        Well, and the answer to the question "and what are they flying and bombing there?" But this is not only about aviation.

        Do not write such nonsense anymore.
      3. EvilLion
        EvilLion 24 November 2020 13: 58
        -4
        Your videoconferencing has long been shot down by the LPR militia, take it easy and do not squabble on Russian resources.
  8. KCA
    KCA 20 November 2020 07: 49
    10
    Always reading such articles, the question gnaws - where and how did the authors measure the RCS, not just the J-20 and SU-57, but even the F-22 and F-35? Were on duty at the radar station and suddenly all these planes flew past in a line? Did you consider all the characteristics, compare them, and write reasoned articles based on the results?
    1. Andrey Stavropolsky
      Andrey Stavropolsky 23 November 2020 00: 25
      +1
      It is more profitable for us to praise someone's military goods of lower quality than of higher quality. Half of the world will buy cheap junk that cannot withstand them. Purely pragmatism.
      1. Slasherrus
        Slasherrus 23 November 2020 13: 01
        0
        Expensive is not always the best, but cheap is the worst. The example of Vietnam, the cheaper MIG-21, turned out to be no worse than the fancy phantom at that time. Somewhere I came across information that the cost of the Mig-21 was like a BMP-1. And this is serious. And history is full of examples when even a simpler and more technologically advanced weapon in war shows itself better than a super sophisticated one
  9. alekc75
    alekc75 20 November 2020 08: 08
    +2
    the author forgot that a composite wing cannot be patched like a metal one !!!
    1. faiver
      faiver 20 November 2020 08: 20
      +1
      but epoxy will not work? bully
      1. alekc75
        alekc75 20 November 2020 08: 23
        +3
        no !!! the longitudinal stiffness of the fibers is broken - the integrity is broken and the whole wing loses 30-40% of reliability!
    2. Bobrick
      Bobrick 20 November 2020 09: 35
      0
      Why can't that? Plywood is also a composite, but for some reason this fact did not interfere with patching the wing.
      The power set is metal there, which means it is possible to cut out the damaged part and, as well as on the metal wing, fix the patch.

      And you can't just patch a metal wing either - the strength decreases by 20 percent or more (the wing is semi-monocoque and its skin takes part of the load, and any patch is a guarantee of weakening of such a wing).
      So the exit is a transition to percale, or what?

      In general, in case of damage in flight, like a fragment break through, a composite wing behaves much better than a metal wing under load (overload during maneuvering, etc.), because very strongly prevents the development of cracks from the damaged area. This means that the likelihood of returning with damage is much higher.
      1. mmaxx
        mmaxx 20 November 2020 15: 31
        0
        It won't work that way. Composite technology is complex. On the knee at the airport you cannot reproduce. In this sense, it is easier with metal. A false key is made and that's it. This place will be harder, well, okay. And if the power set is interrupted, then it's also hard.
        It's hard to say how it will be in the war. And now - to the plant.
        1. Bobrick
          Bobrick 21 November 2020 09: 51
          0
          In fact, there are options, up to the setting of a prepreg patch and smoothing with an iron or an industrial hair dryer.
          And yes, of course it is more difficult to repair.

          Ps while the plant is just studying.
          1. mmaxx
            mmaxx 21 November 2020 13: 44
            +1
            Such a patch will be one continuous defect. Find the clips for the MC-21 wing. Such difficulties are there precisely for quality.
            1. Bobrick
              Bobrick 22 November 2020 15: 05
              0
              With a small thickness of the skin, the aluminum wing will also be non-repairable (there were wings with an aluminum skin thickness of less than 1 mm - no patch can be put here).

              Yes, the wing is complex and very loaded (only for military aviation, the safety margins are increased several times, so the patch for "fly to repair" will even work like this), but still there are options to make a patch without losing much in strength (somehow composite elements are attached to elements made of traditional materials, which means that a traditional element can be installed or patched in a certain way).

              Yes, and according to the experience of operating composite fan blades, such wings will be afraid of more different layering (from hail, from small fragments, from the penetration of moisture and various lubricants, etc., through layers or individual threads from the binder) than directly through penetrations, which such blades withstand much better than traditional ones (made of titanium or steel).

              Ps all the same, if it is a question of war, any methods of bringing to a state of combat readiness will be used, and even those that will be in the instructions indirectly, and possibly directly prohibited.
              1. mmaxx
                mmaxx 22 November 2020 17: 21
                0
                On the wing of a modern fighter plane, above and below, there are panels milled from an aluminum plate. The thicknesses are variable, but, believe me, not 1 mm.
                CFRP mimics such a panel. Only for the resource it is even thicker. Yes, with the greater strength of the material itself, the thickness of the panel is greater. This is the wing itself. That which carries strength. And everything else is for aerodynamics. But the same ribs of the socks are also milled. Even on the Yak-130. In general, on modern aircraft, the volume of milling is very large. In this case, more than 90% goes to shavings.
                During repairs, you need to look at what is damaged. So you can't get off with a flat patch.
                Coeff. the safety factor for science is less than 1, usually 0,95 for the ultimate strength of the material, for wing spars 1,05. The operational overload for a fighter is usually 10. That is, the reserve is 9,5 - 10,5. The design bureau itself can change something.
                The level of quality of modern composites is ensured by expensive technology. It is unrealistic to reproduce this on the knee. It all comes down to the same: bolt-on false key. Only a piece of carbon fiber of the required thickness must be taken somewhere and processed. And this is harder than processing metal.
                1. Bobrick
                  Bobrick 22 November 2020 19: 33
                  0
                  Those. the scheme with spars and stringers has already been abandoned, since a solid plate has been introduced. Moreover, such plates are made milled.

                  Surprisingly, I have not even seen safety factors less than 1 anywhere else, only something in the range from 0,95 to 1,05, or in elements of controlled destruction.
                  Although even so on aircraft of this or the next generation, it is already possible to programmatically introduce restrictions on overloads based on the degree of damage to the elements, since an aircraft with operating restrictions is still an aircraft that can perform a number of tasks (ground attack, long-range air combat, etc.)

                  CFRPs, in most cases, have long been supplied to enterprises in the form of pre-impregnated sheets, which are much easier to work with. All the same, the most complicated technology in the manufacture of composite products is impregnation under pressure in molds with simultaneous molding, other processes are much simpler or comparable in complexity with traditional materials. Also, as far as I understand, there are even stronger samples of composite materials based on boroplastics, on which a simplified technology can be implemented without a drop in strength (and progress in the study of carbon fibers does not stand still).
                  And what prevents the use of aluminum or composite inserts of even greater thickness, if it comes to that.

                  Well, by analogy, already in the 70s, fiberglass elements in the structure of aircraft (nose cone, keel elements, etc.) were quite common, which could also be damaged, while repair of such elements by installing patches was allowed.
                  At the same time, there was also a discrepancy with the production process at the plant and a drop in strength.
                  1. mmaxx
                    mmaxx 23 November 2020 04: 24
                    0
                    The spars remained. Where without them. Modern coffered fenders. That is, a stiff box made of spars, panels and ribs. Panels are made in different ways. Completely milled or riveted. Although the canvas itself is still milled. Since the thickness needs to be variable. Of course, solid milled is better. But there is still a question of production. There must be appropriate machines. Here on the Be-200 they made a special machine for 12 meters of the treated area. There is no such thing in Taganrog and, as far as I know, the structure was changed to a riveted one. I think that this did not add to the operational characteristics. But at first they wanted everything to be composite.
                    Prepregs go to all sorts of elements that do not bear any strength - all sorts of fairings and internal parts. Everything loaded is the injection of resin into the matrix. The quality is different there. But they practiced with this for a long time. The quality requirements are tough.
                    In a war, of course, no one will stand on ceremony. But where is that war? And at war games, damage will be corrected as efficiently as possible. I don't even know how it is on composites in airfield conditions. Once upon a time, about 30 years ago, competent people said that only the replacement of an element. Maybe it's not right now.
                    1. Bobrick
                      Bobrick 24 November 2020 12: 10
                      0
                      I also won't say for sure, but in the manual for small and medium repairs of aircraft for the maintenance staff, the technology for diluting hardeners for fiberglass and applying patches or self-manufacturing of elements for some reason was given.
                      Apparently, the real possibility of starting a big war was implied.

                      And in the case of small voynushki, you are completely right. In such a war, there is an opportunity to drive away the damaged board almost to the manufacturer.
                      In such conditions, the composite wing is the best - it keeps damage better, which gives more guarantees for the survival of the aircraft and crew. In a small war, minimizing the loss of people is at the forefront (so that society does not strain as a whole, or, at first or second glance, the senselessness of such a war for the population - sad results for the government may appear from the awareness of such ideas by society).
                      1. mmaxx
                        mmaxx 24 November 2020 14: 20
                        +1
                        Well, let's take, for example, the Su-30 or Yak-130. What's composite? Nose fairings, small antenna fairings, tail cone. Another "doghouse" is the dashboard cover. Crackers from fiberglass. These are the tips of the mechanization of the wings, wings and plumage. Generally nonsense. Ahh! More gas cylinders. :-)
                        All this is to stick a patch - no problem. Any pioneer modeller will do it easily.
                        But the coal panel ... I personally don't know. Most likely the same as metal. Special patch with reinforcement. Metal - bolted with sealant. Approximately the same d. B. and on coal. How then will decrease the strength and resources? Since it is not clear how to change the wing panel, for example. Metal - nothing. Not to mention the complete disassembly of the console, the fact is that the holes for the fasteners will have to be drilled out. In general, hopelessness right away. Why do I think so? Because the actual wing structure has not changed much from the use of coal.
                        Maybe smart people have come up with something. But it is not yet noticeable.
                        At the same time, judging by the photo from above on the Su-57 and the inscriptions on it, it speaks of a very relatively large volume of composites. Half glider - solid antennas. These flaps can also be supplied with spare parts.
                      2. Bobrick
                        Bobrick 24 November 2020 23: 51
                        0
                        There is a possibility that as usual with metal it may not work. For composite parts, special fastening methods are usually developed. For example, in fan blades, this usually includes a metal sleeve with a shell wrapped around it, and a retaining element is already inserted into the cavity of the sleeve. A similar fastening of traditional blades is only available on TV2-117, and on any larger engine such fastening becomes a big technological problem.

                        But the antennas are yes, with the modern (integrated circuits) and military (a secret object of the highest level of secrecy, which must be transported in a special way, not only repaired in the field) approaches to repairing such a product, it is cheaper and easier to change the entire wing.
  • ares1988
    ares1988 20 November 2020 08: 48
    0
    "The MiG-21 is still operating quite normally in a number of countries. Effectively, I would say. The Pakistanis will confirm it, if anything." - The Indians did not provide any evidence to EMNIP, only words.
    1. parma
      parma 20 November 2020 10: 07
      +1
      Quote: ares1988
      "The MiG-21 is still operating quite normally in a number of countries. Effectively, I would say. The Pakistanis will confirm it, if anything." - The Indians did not provide any evidence to EMNIP, only words.

      And what is left of the balalaika in the Indian "bison"?
      1. ares1988
        ares1988 20 November 2020 12: 22
        0
        The case, probably?)
        1. parma
          parma 20 November 2020 13: 10
          +2
          Quote: ares1988
          The case, probably?)

          As far as I remember, the coating was changed to reduce visibility and extend the resource, the engine was also modernized in the 90s specifically for the "bison" (there is a modification of the RD-25-300 from the BIS) .. so I think the maximum shape ...
  • Valery Potapov
    Valery Potapov 20 November 2020 09: 33
    +4
    Not just copying. The USSR built aircraft factories in fraternal / still / China, transferred technologies ...
  • Ivan Maksimovich
    Ivan Maksimovich 20 November 2020 09: 49
    +1
    The quality of Chinese aircraft is poor. Recently there was such a news here-
    According to government sources, 40% of JF-17 fighters at two Pakistani Air Force bases have landed for various reasons, and these reasons are related to structural problems. There are problems with the fuselage, with cracks found in the lower fairing skin. This is the area most affected by congestion and gravitational pressure. The electrical glazing system of the JF-17 cockpit has problems, the same applies to the two-seater JF-17B aircraft. This poses a potential hazard, as it makes it difficult or nearly impossible for the pilot to bail out if necessary.
    The JF-17 was developed by the Chinese company Chengdu Aircraft Corporation with the financial support of Pakistan in the late 1990s - early 2000s on the basis of the descendant of the Soviet MiG-21 produced in the PRC.
  • Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 20 November 2020 10: 00
    +6
    The electronics situation is awful. Moreover, there was a chance to pull it up at least in the military-industrial complex. Until 2014, there was money and there were no sanctions. Yes, the newest thing would not have been sold to us, but at 28 nm it is. For the defense industry, slightly different parameters are important, not those in smartphones ...
    But the Kremlin didn't care. So now we have a bunch of yachts from close billionaires and darkness in the military-industrial complex.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 24 November 2020 13: 55
      -2
      Did you know that the military commissar not apply 28 nm? Such devices will simply die there from radiation?
  • iouris
    iouris 20 November 2020 10: 12
    0
    "Airplane" is a complex, a complex is "hardware" and "software". "Iron" is not only the fuselage (structure), but also "hard". The cost and value of "hard" and "software" is much higher than the cost and value of construction (although there are no trifles in aviation). The question is posed incorrectly. Which criterion: competitiveness in the market of third countries (export potential) or the possibility of achieving air supremacy in the event of a war with each other?
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 20 November 2020 10: 28
    +4
    The fact that China is exporting engines from Russia is for now. Many experts also use this word. Simply because China has almost everything to master the production of engines. And as soon as this "almost" is eliminated ...

    In 20-25 years, they may receive an analogue of Al-41. All these mantras do not work with engines.

    Recently, many variants of high-precision guided weapons have been developed in Russia, however, its stocks are limited,

    And who has a lot of it? In France, for example, the stocks of the aviation WTO in operation in Libya ended in a week.

    and the capabilities are no worse than those of normal aircraft.

    Are you serious? Well, show me an unmanned fighter-bomber comparable across the entire spectrum of capabilities to the banal F-16.
    the Su-57's effective dispersion surface will be at least an order of magnitude greater than that of the F-35 and several orders of magnitude greater than that of the F-22. Therefore, it cannot be considered a worthy competitor to either the American F-22 or the Chinese J-20 as an aircraft designed to gain air superiority.

    This statement is clearly nonsense and has nothing to do with reality.

    However, many Su-35S produced do not have an active phased array radar.

    Not on any. Irbis in the aggregate TTD provides parity. But it's not worth repeating your mistakes, and therefore in five to seven years it is necessary to drive the Su-35 through modernity with the replacement of PFAR with AFAR
  • Hermit21
    Hermit21 20 November 2020 10: 43
    +4
    For reference: there is no direct relationship between the type of radar and its efficiency. You can make an excellent radar with PFAR ("Irbis"), and shitty radar with AFAR (APG-63 (V3)).

    But the R-77 is, after all, 1994, the year it was put into service.


    Did the author forget about the R-77-1?
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 20 November 2020 12: 54
      +4
      Quote: Hermit21
      For reference: there is no direct relationship between the type of radar and its efficiency. You can make an excellent radar with PFAR ("Irbis"), and shitty radar with AFAR (APG-63 (V3)).


      Quite right. But a number of gentlemen here simply pray to AFAR, choking on saliva, while very vaguely understanding the subject of discussion.
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 20 November 2020 11: 50
    +2
    The fact that the PL-15 is superior to them is not surprising, since the American (1991) and Russian (1994) missiles are frankly outdated. It is not a great honor to outstrip rockets with nearly thirty years of service.


    It's time to focus in long-range missiles on a modern leader - MBDA Meteor
    with variable thrust ramjet engine powered by solid powder fuel. Speed ​​4M, range over 100 km.

    The speed of the "Meteor" practically does not change on the middle and final trajectory, and the speed of conventional medium-range air combat missiles, which sharply increases at the initial stage, decreases significantly over time.
    Source: http://nevskii-bastion.ru/meteor-mbda/ VTS "NEVSKY BASTION" AVKarpenko
    1. Hermit21
      Hermit21 20 November 2020 13: 33
      0
      The ramjet has its drawbacks
    2. Avior
      Avior 20 November 2020 21: 02
      +2
      To solve the problem, the engine is made so that it starts up a second time when approaching the target.
      The range is slightly shorter, the energy is much higher
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 24 November 2020 13: 41
      -2
      Meteor has its own physics, it changes reality. Only his 4M rocket does not experience air resistance.
  • fa2998
    fa2998 20 November 2020 14: 12
    +1
    Quote: faiver
    they churn out at an enviable speed ...

    It was like that in 2 MV. Germany could not build many tanks. They decided to crush them with quality. They made a Tiger, Panther, etc. Yes, maybe better than our T-34s, but 50000 cannot be defeated! Such a situation in airplanes, we make "no analogues" Su -57 (20 years and not a single one in the ranks), and the Chinese do it much easier, but massively. You yourself know who won in 2 MV .. hi
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 24 November 2020 13: 38
      -3
      The Su-27 has been built since 1968, 17 years later, not a single one was in service. Just study the question at least a little, maybe then you will understand that the Su-57 is being created very quickly by world standards.
      1. Hexenmeister
        Hexenmeister 24 November 2020 13: 59
        0
        Su-27 has been built since 1968
        Only the first flight of the prototype was in 1977, and the delivery of the first combatants, without any installation batches, in 1985, and this is only 8 years! And how many T-50s have already been flying on trials?
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 24 November 2020 14: 04
          -2
          Only 8 years old, the F-22 flew EMNIP back in the late 80s, went into production in 2005, the Su-57, if not for the ditched first serial was supposed to enter the troops at the end of 2019. In general, the terms are almost the same, only the Su-27 is much simpler, and was created in slightly different conditions, much more conducive to the renewal of equipment. The same fundamentally not new Su-35 in general went through the entire cycle from the first flight in 2008 to the official acceptance into service in 2017, in 9 years, while already being in combat units. Tell me more about how poorly the UAC works.
          1. Hexenmeister
            Hexenmeister 24 November 2020 14: 21
            0
            only the Su-27 is much simpler
            It's easier, if you look at it from the perspective of 2020, and if you go back to 1977, it turns out to be not at all simple, and in these 8 years there was a complete alteration of the aircraft and a lot of adventures in terms of radar!
            other conditions, much more conducive to the renewal of technology
            Here I agree, the possibilities of the Union of the times of Leonid Ilyich, far exceed the possibilities of the modern Russian Federation.
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 24 November 2020 16: 11
              -2
              The question is not about the possibilities, then even in the United States it was not possible to make electronics as it is now, and therefore calculate the EPR, how to implement a modern EDSU, but how much was allocated from both sides for the army. Well, the fact that the Su-27 had to be altered is just an indicator of problems.

              And you can fill the Su-57 with money, attract additional. KB, to plan a tighter test schedule is only a matter of justification.
              1. Hexenmeister
                Hexenmeister 24 November 2020 16: 35
                0
                And you can fill the Su-57 with money, attract additional. KB
                It will not work, there is only one "effective" (in the good sense of the word) fighter radar developer in the country, and there is no one else to attract. But the "level" of development seems to be completely different from what it was under the Soviet Union.
  • NF68
    NF68 20 November 2020 17: 07
    0
    Over time, this may well become a reality.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 20 November 2020 17: 42
    +1
    If the MiG followed the path of the Chinese and would have made an aircraft of the J-10 type, then, with modernization similar to the Su35S, the Russian Federation would not have a bad mass fighter
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 24 November 2020 13: 36
      -3
      Here are just a Russian aircraft is not needed otherwise. Better to eat.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 24 November 2020 15: 26
        0
        The USA also has better ... but the F16 is the most massive 4th generation fighter in the world.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 24 November 2020 16: 12
          -1
          In the United States, there is no need for a strong air defense system with a mass of long-range interceptors.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 24 November 2020 16: 20
            0
            In the United States, all air defense is based on aviation ... And F16 also form the basis of aviation in Asian and European countries
  • Ersh
    Ersh 20 November 2020 18: 12
    -1
    Let them scold! It's even helpful. After all, as you know, "there is no prophet in his own country."
    But why are they worried about Russia? Let them worry about themselves.
    And I would like to advise the all-fledged people to immediately quit everything and go to work in the aviation industry, where everything will instantly change for the better thanks to their brilliant ideas. You can also go to serve in aviation or send your children there.
  • SaLaR
    SaLaR 20 November 2020 21: 40
    -3
    Many words ... but the essence is one !!!! IN pope soon we will ....... !!!!!!
  • Magmax
    Magmax 20 November 2020 23: 03
    0
    China still buys fighters from Russia. They would not do That if they could make better ones. Besides that Rusiia still suplies the parts for the planes Chinese make. (Engines etc) So the Chinese are not Beter than Russians for now.
  • av58
    av58 21 November 2020 00: 10
    0
    We are really interested in who and what writes about the quality of Russian and Chinese aircraft? laughing
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman 21 November 2020 01: 14
    -1
    To be honest, I am amazed by such "analytics". I have no doubt about the great ambitions and capabilities of the PRC, but where does the infa about their control systems come from? I heard that the Indians on the Su-30mki, these j-31s or whatever ... they spotted it more than once. So the Indians don't even have an Irbis, but a leopard like.
    So all these stealth technologies are good, but not at the expense of speed, maneuverability (hello to the penguin).
    Engines are considered to be practically the most difficult part of an airplane. I'm not saying that the Chinese won't be able to, but they won't be able to in a couple of years. And we, as it were, also do not stand. By the way, about the Chinese author, who was cited as an example in the form of an analogy: their car industry is full of problems and I personally don't know a single person who would buy a Chinese. except that only models assembled with nodes manufactured under license from other countries, or after purchasing enterprises such as Volvo. But here's the catch, the Volvo did not really have its own engines. So the Chinese do not have a normal v1 - v6. The bodies are rotting, the machines are all aisin, there is no one of our own. All they can do is make an order for someone from Audi or BVM to paint a body for them. So it's worth realistically assessing their capabilities. They are colossal in terms of production capacity, but with technology problems. you can't make bows, and then bam and make ak-8. You need to go through the technological chain, gain experience, create your own design school. it is Soviet among the Chinese. its not.
  • Maks winter
    Maks winter 21 November 2020 08: 25
    -1
    maybe I'm not in the subject, but, as it were, from conversations with one of the engineers, I learned this. maybe they learned not only to copy but also to create something of their own, but they are unlikely to be able to make their own engines effective ... No.
  • marat2016
    marat2016 21 November 2020 13: 22
    -1
    1 Su-27K went to the PRC. https://www.unroca.org/ukraine/report/2004/
  • wow
    wow 22 November 2020 00: 23
    -1
    No, even the best copy can be better than the original by definition.
  • _Ugene_
    _Ugene_ 22 November 2020 11: 41
    0
    Are Chinese planes better than Russian ones?
    Why not? The main weapon of modern aircraft is their avionics, and here we are lagging behind China very much, and our only plus is the engines, so we sell them as Chinese, i.e. in this matter, everything is equally
  • ankir13
    ankir13 23 November 2020 11: 53
    +2
    The author has completed the task of complacency, the student has not surpassed his teacher.
  • Karen Khoreev
    Karen Khoreev 23 November 2020 12: 08
    -1
    The article is more about politics than about aviation .. Well, or about commerce)
    A copy can never be better than the original! It is truth! They will be bought by those who do not have the money for the original ... So in everything .. China was originally tied to the Soviet school and in aviation and engine building! Specialists from Soviet universities, samples from Soviet workshops! There is no own school in China and will never be! And without school, there is no creativity! Stamping copies is the lot of the Chinese aircraft industry! The situation with the CR-929 is the clearest confirmation of this .. A lot of money can increase the quantity, but quality, forward, is driven only by geniuses, creators! And with this, the Chinese have problems ...
  • Spkrdctr
    Spkrdctr 23 November 2020 17: 54
    +2
    I want to comment as a retired American defense analyst. The Chinese do not have to copy from Russia. The American research centers and universities are full of Chinese students and researchers. They steal all of the American technology and use it in China. Our government does not stop them in any way. I say this to mean that China does not have to try to copy Russian aircraft plans. The Americans practically give the Chinese all the plans and engineering documents before we build anything. I am exaggerating a little bit but it is really bad in the US. The Chinese have pretty much open access to all our research, which means they do not need to copy Russia.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 24 November 2020 08: 43
    -3
    Russia in 2020 will spend $ 70 billion on defense, China - $ 190 billion.


    China's army is also larger, and especially the navy, but how do investments in the navy, and is it now a priority, correlate with avionics?

    As for the engines, then all the statements about a little more and China ... can only cause Homeric laughter. The USSR, with all its monstrous investments in the military-industrial complex, many more than China is now investing, was able to create something comparable to American engines only in the 80s, that is, since the end of WWII, 40 years caught up, and then the Americans after a few years rolled out another model, superior to the AL-31F.

    The Chinese economy is fundamentally not self-sufficient and is built on the export of consumer goods to the West. country, despite the fact that half of the country is still sitting in the villages, that is, some kind of outright brutal investments in engine building are impossible for them, since there is not enough personnel, and it is necessary to somehow feed those who are not yet included in the prom. production. At the same time, in terms of energy, China is in a very difficult position and no mythical invasions of Siberia will help it in this regard.

    Some experts today describe the Chinese Chengdu J-20 fighter as the first credible fifth-generation stealth fighter developed outside the United States.


    There is no engine, aerodynamics at the level of the 80s, functionality from the same place. As a strike aircraft, the J-20 is practically useless, but the Su-57, nude, is bad.

    According to the British, the Su-57 will have an effective dispersion surface at least an order of magnitude greater than that of the F-35 and several orders of magnitude greater than that of the F-22.


    Tell the British "experts" that order is 10 times. 2 orders of magnitude is the difference between the uncompromising stealth type F-117 with 0.025 sq. meters and some modern version of the 4th generation fighter, which has implemented measures to reduce the RCS, so that it does not exceed 1 sq. meters.

    3. Composite materials. China is ahead. 1-2


    The overwhelming majority of composite materials in the world go to consumer goods, and if a lot of it is produced somewhere, this does not mean that composites for aviation are produced there.

    About Chinese radars and electronics in general - this is from the category "well, you say." And I remember the slanting brothers forever for their FC-1 wrote software in C ++ in order to recruit civilian specialists. There is practically no Chinese software in the world.

    It continues to be surprising that China, Israel and Turkey today use and export a variety of combat drones, while Russian military counterparts do not yet have such weapons.


    Probably because the rocket after launch is nothing more than a suicide drone. Well, "Iskander" and "Caliber" drones for all drones.

    Large drones carrying weapons are a simple target for air defense, or you need to make stealth with internal. placement of weapons, then we will get drones with a couple of missiles, such things can be unpleasant, but physically they cannot do much harm.