Military Review

New - well forgotten old: the most powerful fighters of the fourth generation

136

The fifth generation is faced with quite obvious difficulties inherent in any new technology. Bringing these machines to a fully operational state can take years. Thus, now, as at the end of the century, the basis of the power of the Air Force (even if we are talking about the leading Western countries) are the machines of the previous generation - the fourth. In some respects, they are in no way inferior to the same F-35.


Nowadays, several fighters of the 4 + (+) generation can be distinguished, which can be a real competitor to full-fledged "invisible". Among them are American, European and Russian cars.

F-15EX


The main aviation event early February - the first flight of the deeply modernized F-15 fighter for the US Air Force, designated F-15EX. It took place on February 2 at Boeing's St. Louis facility.

It makes no sense to analyze in detail the performance characteristics of the new aircraft: in our time, "dry" figures about the flight range, maximum speed and ceiling say little. Much more important, for example, are measures to reduce radar signature (although the developers rarely talk about this "out loud").


However, the F-15EX has its own distinct advantages that make it stand out from any aircraft.

This is, first of all, the composition of the weapons. The aircraft can carry up to 22 guided air-to-air missiles. This is more than any other fighter, including fifth-generation vehicles, can take: at least within the framework of existing weapons configurations. The vehicle will also be able to use a wide arsenal of air-to-surface weapons, including promising hypersonic models.

The two-seater fighter has a powerful AN / APG-82 radar with an active phased antenna array, which is probably capable of effectively detecting even stealthy fighters (the issue of their detection range remains open). According to some reports, the US Air Force ultimately wants to receive about 200 new fighters. They are considered primarily as a replacement for the rapidly aging F-15C / D.

F / A-18 Block III Super Hornet


If the most powerful "four" of the US Air Force will be the modernized F-15, then Boeing presented a "gift" for the US Navy in the form of an updated version of the Super Hornet. The car made its first test flight last year. The plane that took off into the sky is similar to the "regular" F / A-18E / F: as far as can be judged, it has become something of a test bench.


Production cars will receive very noticeable improvements. First of all, attention is drawn to the conformal fuel tanks, which increase the combat radius. Other improvements include an updated Infrared Search and Track (IRST) outboard container and a large touchscreen display to the cockpit.

Broadly speaking, IRST is not new. However, modern technologies make it as sensitive as possible, which, for example, will make it possible to more efficiently identify inconspicuous aircraft. At the same time, you need to understand that IRST Block II will never be a full-fledged replacement for a radar.

Another major improvement to the F / A-18 Block III Super Hornet is the new in-cockpit display measuring 10x19 inches. It is in stark contrast to the "miniature" (by modern standards, of course) displays of early Super Hornets. In modern warfare, when the pilot has to deal with a huge amount of data, this is a fundamentally important improvement.

Dassault Rafale


French Rafale needs no introduction.

In short, the vehicle combines excellent flight performance, reduced radar signature (however, it is not a "stealth" in the classical sense) and a very wide range of weapons.

There are three versions: Rafale C (single seater land variant), Rafale M (single seater naval variant), and Rafale B (two seater land variant).

In the course of life, the car received many updates. One of the main ones is the modern Thales RBE2 active phased array radar. Recall that until recently in the arsenal of the Russian Aerospace Forces there was not a single fighter with a radar of this type.


The undoubted advantage of Rafale, distinguishing it from the background of overseas machines, is the newest long-range air-to-air missile MBDA Meteor, equipped with a sustainer ramjet engine, which allows maintaining the highest flight speed along the entire trajectory, up to hitting the target (flight speed missiles - more than M = 4).

The missile's firing range is 100 kilometers. However, it must be assumed that when firing at a highly maneuverable target of the "fighter" type, the effective range will still be significantly shorter. Nonetheless, a number of Western observers consider the Meteor the most dangerous air-to-air missile and the Dassault Rafale one of the deadliest fighters on Earth.

Eurofighter Typhoon


This car can be called "neglected".

Nevertheless, in terms of the amount of flight performance, it is (at least) not inferior to the Rafale. And, most likely, even slightly superior to the French plane.


If we talk about weapons, then the machines are similar. Typhoon, like the Dassault Rafale, can use the MBDA Meteor missile.

One of the vehicle's features is the ability to carry Brimstone missiles. Due to its low weight (about 50 kg) and dimensions, one fighter can theoretically take up to 18 such products.

The real revolution here can be its development in the person of SPEAR3, which, among other things, has a range of up to 140 kilometers. Flight testing of the SPEAR missile demonstrators from the Eurofighter Typhoon began in 2014, and the UK Department of Defense awarded a £ 550 million contract for the purchase of SPEAR3 in January 2021.

The weak point of the Eurofighter Typhoon is the radar station. The aircraft is equipped with a relatively old CAPTOR radar. She will be replaced in the future.

Recall that last year Airbus received a major contract for the installation of a Captor-E radar station with AFAR on the German Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon fighters and part of the Spanish Typhoons. Also in 2020, a contract for equipping a new radar with an active phased antenna array was signed by the British Ministry of Defense.

Su-35С


The most powerful and modern Russian fighter of the 4 + (+) generation is undoubtedly the Su-35S. Earlier, there was information about the modernization of the Su-30SM, which implies, in particular, the installation of the AL-41F-1S engine (the same as on the Su-35S).

However, even in this case, the Su-35S fighter will remain a more advanced machine, equipped with a relatively modern radar with a phased antenna array "N035 Irbis", which, according to available information, is very much superior to the Su-30SM N0011M "Bars" radar.


For all its merits, the "SM" is in a broad sense a "Russified" version of the export Su-30MKI: a machine that is very successful on the market, but far from new.

Among the main advantages of its successor, the Su-35S, is the advanced optical-location station OLS-35, which increases the chances of meeting the fifth generation, as well as outstanding maneuverability and excellent flight range.

One of the main "highlights" is the possibility of using the R-37M air-to-air missile, the range of which, according to some sources, reaches 300 kilometers. Previously, missiles with such indicators were carried only by Russian interceptors based on the MiG-31.

Together with the ability to carry medium-range air-to-air missiles RVV-AE (conventional analogue of the American AMRAAM), R-27T / ET with an infrared homing head, as well as short-range R-73 - the arsenal for hitting air targets is more than impressive ...
Author:
136 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 12 February 2021 05: 23
    +7
    The cars are good, but the desire to make it even better is not always immediately possible ...
    1. Sergey_G_M
      Sergey_G_M 12 February 2021 07: 46
      +1
      Good things are good, only the description of the advantages is somehow strange (the size of the displays, the number of short-range missiles, etc.)
      And the question is, where is the MiG-31? Air combat is more difficult than pure numbers with performance characteristics. For example, when firing at the MiG-31 at catch-up or with a large value of the parameter, the range of destruction drops significantly. In catch-up, the max speed of a rocket from Mach 4 suddenly turns into a relative speed of 1 Mach. And the author of the joke also wrote that the speed of the type is not important.
      1. 2 Level Advisor
        2 Level Advisor 12 February 2021 08: 53
        +5
        You are right, but MIG-31, I think the only example. MIG is generally an exception to the rule - no one else except us has such planes .. the probability of meeting "conventional" fighters in the air is many times higher, so, nevertheless, exceptions do not refute the rule ..
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 12 February 2021 16: 40
          +2
          Americans used to actively use tomkats - they can be called some kind of analogue of the mig-31
          now there are few such planes, but they are.
          1. ironic
            ironic 14 February 2021 16: 32
            -2
            No, it is impossible, although Tomket was equipped with a long-range missile, not for maneuvering combat, for which he was well adapted.
            1. yehat2
              yehat2 14 February 2021 16: 52
              +4
              except for the word "no" did not understand anything lol
              express yourself more clearly
              1. ironic
                ironic 14 February 2021 17: 17
                -4
                Tomket was armed with a Phoenix not for maneuverable combat and this is all the similarity, but he was well adapted to maneuvering combat, which the MiG-31 never has.
                1. yehat2
                  yehat2 14 February 2021 18: 03
                  +3
                  we are talking about the main function of intercepting and transporting missiles.
                  in this regard, the cars are similar, both had good electronic equipment, although the mig-31 is still much better, both cars are two-seater. And the fact that the tomcat is more maneuverable is the specifics of the fitting. But the instant-31 could fly much faster at supersonic speed. When the Indians ordered dry fighters, they needed two-seaters just from the experience of tomket.
                  1. ironic
                    ironic 14 February 2021 18: 12
                    -1
                    Tomcat was an air superiority destroyer with interceptor functions. Mig is a pure interceptor. This is a big difference. Hence the difference in speed and cruising supersonic Mig, which Tomket does not have, and the difference in electronics and maneuverability. A crew of two is a function of the number of tasks to be solved, but this is only an external similarity. The F-15X has two people not at all for the same purpose as the Mig, but there are also two of them.
                    1. yehat2
                      yehat2 14 February 2021 18: 37
                      +6
                      no air superiority fighter he was
                      industry excellence is possible.
                      Its main and main goal was defensive - to defend the Aug at a great distance.
                      It was for this that he armed himself with a phoenix. In other words, the rocket is strange. The probability of a drop of 0.13 and the lack of launch training due to the high cost is something.
                      There was no question of the struggle for supremacy, for this the F-15 and F-16 were created and the ATF program was almost immediately started.
                      1. ironic
                        ironic 14 February 2021 18: 44
                        -4
                        The F-16 has never been a superiority fighter. And between the F-14 and the F-15 there was even a struggle for this "position" for one period, but the F-15 definitely defeated the Air Force in general, the F-14 was abandoned altogether, but the F-14 was more suitable for the fleet for various reasons, and they stopped there. ...
                      2. yehat2
                        yehat2 14 February 2021 19: 06
                        +3
                        the F-14 program was insanely expensive and highly specialized. In principle, he could not argue with the F-15. F-14 is a very cool aircraft, but this is also its drawback.
                      3. ironic
                        ironic 14 February 2021 20: 06
                        -3
                        Well, I would not say that the ~ 38 million cost of the aircraft was outstanding for the cost of other programs. Ksati he was not so narrowly specialized, not narrower than the F-15A.
  2. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 12 February 2021 09: 23
    +9
    Quote: Sergey_G_M
    the question is where is the MiG-31? Air combat is more difficult than pure numbers with performance characteristics.

    MiG31 interceptor, it is not intended for air combat with an equal aircraft. And, as they noticed here, he has no equal, he is the only one. It is for meeting fat and large. And who will shoot at him? Although Mach 1 for the approach speed is not the worst speed. It will catch up anyway. And this clumsy piece of iron will not be able to dodge.
    1. Dread
      Dread 12 February 2021 09: 47
      -8
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      And, as they noticed here, he has no equal, he is the only one. It is for meeting fat and large.

      The MiG-31 is a heavy interceptor for long-range air combat and can easily engage targets with the RVV-BD R-37M that have an overload capacity when maneuvering.
      10 g, the pilot can no longer take it.
      The overload capacity of the R-37M during maneuvering is more than 22 g, which is more than enough. R-37M with ARGSN - easily hits stealth aircraft, including F-22 and F-35!
      1. dauria
        dauria 12 February 2021 10: 54
        +10
        The overload capacity of the R-37M during maneuvering is more than 22 g,


        More careful with the numbers. 22 for a rocket with a 2 times difference in rocket-airplane speed, the normal overload with the same radius for an airplane will not be 22, but only 5 and a half. V square divided by radius and g. And don't mention g ("Same") in overload. It is measured in units.
        That is why overload 43 is laid for melee missiles. respectfully hi
      2. ironic
        ironic 14 February 2021 17: 25
        -3
        He does not strike anything like that, he is generally not for combat with stealth and radar, not for meeting modern electronic warfare at combat distances at medium and short distances. And in the case of a stealth maneuver on a super cruise, they attack him with missiles at a dull oncoming angle, from which there would not be enough speed even higher than his speed to get away. Let me remind you that the speed of 2.8M in the 31st is achieved not at all immediately, and the maximum cruising speed on a partial farce is 2.35M. Whereas the rocket has about 4M with a much higher overload capacity.
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 13 February 2021 11: 13
      +3
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      And this clumsy piece of iron will not be able to dodge.

      And what about means of electronic warfare to turn on and shoot different traps? Didn't you think about it?
      1. ironic
        ironic 14 February 2021 18: 25
        -2
        Well, yes, there is something there at the level of the MiG-29SMT.
  3. ironic
    ironic 14 February 2021 16: 30
    -2
    In an air battle over the front line, even 1.5M is redundant, and the Mig-31 there is generally like a ski bath. He's a high altitude interceptor.
  • OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 12 February 2021 09: 10
    +3
    Who is interested in the video and story of the F / A-18D dogfight against the Su-30MKM and F-22. He also has against the MiG-29 and F-15, on the net you can find a translation of these videos.

    1. Dread
      Dread 13 February 2021 08: 53
      +4
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      It's just that our industry is not able to to make a sane element base for AFAR radar.

      You do not know that the N036 "Belka" radar with AFAR on the Su-57 is superior in many respects to the AN / APG-77,81 radar. And the element base in Russia is also of its own manufacture.
      1. ironic
        ironic 14 February 2021 16: 37
        -3
        It does not exceed, in dry numbers, it kind of captures further than the American version of the 77th and is equal to 77v1, but in fact no one knows, because the Belka data is not in such a quantity as in the American ones and while it exists on the airplane in a single copy ...
        1. Dread
          Dread 15 February 2021 01: 52
          -3
          Quote: ironic
          Does not surpass, in dry numbers she kind of takes it further The American version of the 77th is equal to 77v1, but in fact no one knows, because the data for the Belka is not in such a quantity as for the American one and so far it exists on the plane in a single copy.

          ironic - you yourself repeatedly contradict!
          If the radar further captures the target - it means that it detects it earlier - it means that the radar has a long range of action - another, physically not given ...
          1. ironic
            ironic 15 February 2021 18: 56
            -2
            You cannot find contradictions, but only write about them, not disdaining not contradictions, but outright forgeries. The squirrel doesn't find anything beyond 77v1 or 81, according to open sources. I already wrote to you above that the detection data, which are known additionally only on the head-on course along the normal to the antenna. What happens when the direction of detection with PFAR is deviated, I have already written that before comparing the AFAR, then given the number of transmitters-receivers, the western one should also have an advantage in lateral detection.
            And yes, physically, it may be that the PFAR radar is farther on the target along the course than the AFAR and is closer at the side views, and it was not my idea, it is described with a physical explanation of why this is possible. Moreover, 77v1 and 81 have no less range and heading.
            1. Dread
              Dread 15 February 2021 20: 40
              0
              Quote: ironic
              And yes, physically, that the PFAR radar further captures the target along the course than the AFAR and is closer on the side views and I didn’t come up with it, it is described with a physical explanation of why this is possible. Moreover, 77v1 and 81 have no less range and heading.

              Strategist, do not write your semi-literate nonsense about the PFAR, including about side views, provide a link about the side views of the PFAR. When it seems - you need to be baptized! Learn Physics! According to open sources - you are a liar and do not know radar!
              1. ironic
                ironic 15 February 2021 21: 15
                -3
                The teacher of radio locating, this is not my nonsense, these are the infuriations of the shortcomings of PFAR against AFAR, compiled not by me, but by those who did not teach radio locating on the forums, probably.
                This is baptized to Christians. And it seems only to you here. According to open sources, you are twice a liar, you only know radar location and you are also lying that I am lying.

                And now from not mine and not written by me information about the shortcomings of PFAR against AFAR:
                /// the advantage of AFAR over PFAR is that the drop in the detection range with significant deviations of the beam from the normal to the antenna web is due only to a decrease in the projection area of ​​the antenna aperture to the normal to this direction. In PFAR, this is also added to the attenuation of the signal in the delay lines, which is proportional to the phase shift or, the delay time.

                Now about the APG-77v1:
                /// It is believed that a range of 400 km or more is possible, compared to a goal of 1 m2 (11 square feet), with the APG-77v1 with the new GaAs modules, while using narrower beams.///
                1. Dread
                  Dread 16 February 2021 00: 55
                  0
                  Quote: ironic
                  /// the advantage of AFAR over PFAR is that the drop in the detection range with significant deviations of the beam from the normal to the antenna web is due only to a decrease in the projection area of ​​the antenna aperture to the normal to this direction. In PFAR, this is also added to the attenuation of the signal in the delay lines, which is proportional to the phase shift or, the delay time.

                  ironic - you absolutely do not know the meanings of the words, what is it with significant deviations of the beam and how it is chosen radar coverage area.
                  Also don't know at allthat any signal attenuation in the on-board radar circuits after the radio receiver (radio receiver) during coherent processing after the delay lines (which are controlled by the switch to prevent blind speeds) on video frequency - is compensated by gain and does not affect the overall signal attenuation.
                  Learn radar and materiel, and do not engage in semi-literate trolling ... You know absolutely nothing and cannot explain anything! And at the same time, I do not see links to your sites!
                  1. Dread
                    Dread 16 February 2021 09: 04
                    0
                    PS Forgot to write the word
                    For example in the radar circuits, and it turned out to be nonsense ... Confused me. The phase shifters have a small attenuation, which slightly and can be neglected! Therefore, a lot is leveled ...
                    1. ironic
                      ironic 16 February 2021 13: 58
                      -2
                      And what if the phase delay devices on the receive and transmit paths can be used to calculate the efficiency? Who will finish the phrase for you?
                    2. Dread
                      Dread 17 February 2021 04: 44
                      +2
                      Quote: ironic
                      And what if the phase delay devices on the receive and transmit paths can be used to calculate the efficiency? Who will finish the phrase for you?

                      And here is the efficiency, if we are talking about the detection range. Radar Basics Tutorial to Help You!
                    3. ironic
                      ironic 17 February 2021 13: 02
                      -1
                      /// slight attenuation that is negligible ///

                      It is revealed all the time when I read your posts, which look more like an incoherent signal ...
              2. ironic
                ironic 16 February 2021 13: 49
                -1
                To check what I don't know, I looked through the lectures compiled on the radar based on Bakulev and Belotserkovsky and found out that all your mantras about my great knowledge of the very basics of the subject being discussed (and I did not claim deep knowledge) is complete garbage, but your completely uninformative posts - pure demogogy. I turned out to be right in the fact that today coherent signal processing is not a block of static, non-programmable electronic circuits, but an AD or TI DSP system, as well as Xlins or Altera programmable logic. In particular, Armor uses AD signaling processes. And not what you rubbed, professor of sour cabbage soup from far-forgotten days. Only something relevant can be compensated for by the gain, and if there is nothing relevant at the input, which a system with the appropriate resolution can recognize, since the result will be a conglomeration of system and random measurement errors, then only garbage can be amplified, and this even without touching on the question of the induced active interference.
                Learn not to be a windbag and demogog. When indicating to another about trolling, present this pretense to yourself first. I point out to another about the inability to explain, start again with your own inability and, most importantly, unwillingness to explain anything. I also do not see links to anything that would fill your meaningless posts with meaning.
                1. Hexenmeister
                  Hexenmeister 16 February 2021 14: 42
                  +3
                  I turned out to be right in the fact that today coherent signal processing is not a block of static, non-programmable electronic circuits, but an AD or TI DSP system, as well as Xlins or Altera programmable logic. In particular, Armor uses AD signaling processes.
                  If the mention of Bakulev and others has gone, then you missed the most important thing, and they started with the concept of "optimal receiver", which is completely determined by the signal used, and not by what "prots" there. And the optimal receiver shows only what needs to be done, not how, but this can be done in various ways, including without any "process", and the result will be the same !!! There is no coherent processing, there is a coherent signal and an optimal receiver for it!
                2. ironic
                  ironic 16 February 2021 15: 08
                  -1
                  The optimal device (not just a single receiver) today is determined by one and only one, how much its performance, enhancement and scalability is determined by the ability to shift the emphasis on software, computing power and technology improvement. These are the basics of an introduction to modern production management !!!

                  There are and are used the terms and (in) coherent systems and (in) coherent signal and (in) coherent processing. In today's terminology, all these terms are legitimate!
                3. Hexenmeister
                  Hexenmeister 16 February 2021 15: 49
                  +1
                  There are and are used the terms and (in) coherent systems and (in) coherent signal and (in) coherent processing. In today's terminology, all these terms are legitimate!
                  Well, apply the term coherent processing to an incoherent signal! What? Does not work! An optimal receiver is one of the foundations of radar theory, and it is better than it in terms of signal-to-noise ratio, and it can be implemented in various ways! And all this nonsense that you wrote, performance, scalability, software, refers to only one of these methods, namely digital signal processing, which also has certain disadvantages.
                4. ironic
                  ironic 16 February 2021 15: 58
                  -1
                  It is not necessary to introduce a marching step where it is not needed. This is not a parade. Then it will be easier to walk. The optimal receiver is, first of all, a mathematical model under the conditions of the problem, change the conditions of the problem and it will cease to be optimal. Let me give you an example. I have found the opinion that more than 1500 T / R in AFAR is considered unacceptable if their price is above a certain value. But in 77v1 and 81 under 2000 modules and Arsenides Galia it is still expensive. So what is acceptable and what is not? And it depends on the task at hand. Another example, in the aforementioned literature, the statistics of errors are considered, dancing from the normal distribution law, and this is not true in practice. Etc. etc. And nonsense is what you wrote about signal / noise.
                5. Hexenmeister
                  Hexenmeister 16 February 2021 16: 15
                  +1
                  The optimal receiver is, first of all, a mathematical model under the conditions of the problem, change the conditions of the problem and it will cease to be optimal.
                  Study radar, the optimal receiver is tied to the signal and nothing else, the signal will change, you need another optimal receiver, this is the foundation!
                6. ironic
                  ironic 16 February 2021 16: 28
                  -1
                  And nothing is a problem at all, a random signal at the input and the correlation integral in our hands, is that where we lost this very detection threshold, according to the theory? Bloody practice !!! Submit the cheaters of the receiver here, kizka's mother!
                7. Hexenmeister
                  Hexenmeister 16 February 2021 16: 44
                  +1
                  If you don't understand, then the optimal receiver is built for the signal emitted by the radar, and not for some randomly received one. And the detection threshold is set in accordance with the required level of false alarms, and no Bakulev will tell you the specifics of this in his lectures, only general "la-la" will give you.
                8. ironic
                  ironic 16 February 2021 17: 34
                  -1
                  Namely, because the required level of false alarms it presents theoretically beautifully, only it has not been so required and not so defined for a long time, and the wrong distributions are taken as a basis. And the receiver can receive such a phony, in which the signal does not necessarily exceed the noise. Also, false alarms must be defined as false, and not false targets of real emitters or specially induced signals that look like real signatures.
                  And what is considered to be the optimal receiver, strongly depends on what the DSP and the programmable logic can adaptively subtract at the input, based on the knowledge of the output signal and threshold signatures. And the signal of a maneuvering target, in addition to everything still covered by electronic warfare, with an emphasis not only on suppressing the signal-to-noise ratio, but also on the generation of the so-called. random errors that do not fall under the normal distribution and noise packets far from Gaussian noise, it cannot qualify otherwise than random.

                  It is not possible to disclose further questions within the framework of the forum. For this is both complex mathematics and conceptual specificity, the most modern data on which we simply do not know.
                9. Hexenmeister
                  Hexenmeister 16 February 2021 17: 48
                  +1
                  Well, everything is in a heap! Believe it or not, the problem of stabilizing the level of false alarms has long been solved in real radar stations of fighters, without any DSP and other nonsense. Adaptive subtraction is generally a gem worthy of respect wink
                10. ironic
                  ironic 16 February 2021 17: 57
                  -1
                  And everything is just in a heap. wink It is also called an adaptive equalizer, a very common gem in digital system processing. It's strange that you heard it from me for the first time. These are just statistical calculations, equalizers, emulators of threshold signatures and are solved in modern combat vehicles with all this nonsense, especially nonsense concerning tuning and calibrating about 2K AFAR channels. Yes, it is difficult and expensive, but it is promising, productive, scalable and therefore correct. good
                11. Dread
                  Dread 17 February 2021 03: 34
                  -2
                  Quote: ironic
                  Now about the APG-77v1:
                  /// It is believed that a range of 400 km or more is possible, compared to a goal of 1 m2 (11 square feet), with the APG-77v1 with the new GaAs modules, while using narrower beams.///

                  Translation:
                  And now about PNG-77v1:
                  // It is assumed that the flight range is 400 km and more possible, compared to the target of 1 m2 (11 sq ft), with the APG-77v1 with new GaAs modules, using narrower beams./ / /
                  I asked to provide you with links to this untruth of yours, which speaks about the future and gives material from the theory. Therefore, you wrote, apparently advertising from the American website of Lockheed - Martin about the future development of AN / APG-77,81 radar. Which has nothing to do with our dispute, at the moment
                  this information - such capabilities of these radars do not and have not been, and it is not known if at this time. You wrote a lie.
                12. Dread
                  Dread 17 February 2021 04: 29
                  +1
                  Quote: ironic
                  I also do not see links to anything that would fill your meaningless posts with meaning.

                  1. Range of detection of air targets Radar AN / APG-77,81 is
                  300 km for purposes with Image intensifier = 3 m2.
                  2. Range of detection of air targets Radar N035 "Irbis" is 400 km for purposes with Image intensifier = 3 m2.
                  Reading your dialogues with other members of the forum, I see - you do not know the Basics of Radar, continuous errors.
                  https://docviewer.yandex.ru/view/1245548168/?page=1&*=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%3D%3D&lang=ru
                13. ironic
                  ironic 17 February 2021 12: 36
                  -1
                  1. First not true, I already gave the text in English, but you don't seem to know it.
                  2. You are constantly repeating mantras that have not yet been confirmed, which is not surprising.
                  I will study your link and see how this literature is fundamentally different from the one I read. But judging by your previous posts, there is already a doubt immediately.
                14. ironic
                  ironic 17 February 2021 12: 53
                  -2
                  Even with a cursory review, I found a number of inaccuracies in the information provided by Nechaev and Deryabin, which differ from the information available in English.
              3. ironic
                ironic 17 February 2021 13: 12
                -2
                But this is true and this is not the future, but the present, because all the necessary upgrades to v1 have been made long ago, and changes at the code level have been uploaded to the software of the 35th and are part of the ongoing upgrade of the 22nd. But you keep believing in hashtags #you're all true. The 35th and 22nd from your #s are neither cold nor hot. And you have postgraduate students who write uchabniki to which you refer, they cannot even write the correct number of modules in the stations of the US AFAR, but this does not bother you.
              4. ironic
                ironic 17 February 2021 13: 15
                -2
                I already answered that, and spamming is reprehensible. Minus you a separate one for spam.
            2. Hexenmeister
              Hexenmeister 17 February 2021 09: 41
              +1
              And everything is just in a heap. It is also called an adaptive equalizer.
              Well, yes, in your opinion, it turns out that "subtraction" is equal to "equalizer". Regarding the "subtraction", I immediately remembered the ideology of signal processing in the SNR-75V sixty years ago with pseudo-coherence and after-period subtraction, now it is called an "equalizer" wink
            3. ironic
              ironic 17 February 2021 12: 56
              -2
              These are not my words, these are your words, it turns out in your opinion. If you are literate, then you could not help but understand that the "subtraction" that I mentioned does not imply a narrow arithmetic operation minus, but if it is easier for you to look for counter-arguments, then jumping to the trivial throwing poop at each other is not over the threshold.
            4. Hexenmeister
              Hexenmeister 17 February 2021 13: 23
              +1
              that the "subtraction" I mentioned does not imply the narrow arithmetic operation minus
              The action "subtraction" leads to the formation of a filter with a certain frequency response, and the "equalizer" is also a filter, and the "optimal receiver" builds a filter for a given signal, only better than the latter in terms of the signal-to-noise ratio, and thus obtaining the maximum detection range, nothing can not be done!
            5. ironic
              ironic 17 February 2021 15: 21
              -1
              Well, finally, just not for the given signal, but for the [assumed] / [calculated according to a certain principle] parasitic spectrum of signals, which includes the echo cutoff of the receiver signal, after which they try to extract the so-called threshold signal (s), i.e. some of the known signatures. So in fact, the noise can significantly exceed the signal in practice. The theoretical maximum range cannot be exceeded, but the practical maximum range, which is less than or equal to the theoretical one, and can be infinitely close to the theoretical one.
            6. Hexenmeister
              Hexenmeister 17 February 2021 15: 25
              +1
              For a given signal in the radar, the emitted signal was assumed all the time! The target reflects exactly the signal emitted by the radar! Didn't Bakulev explain this?
            7. ironic
              ironic 19 February 2021 18: 23
              0
              Of course, he explained, but he also explained a lot of stuff about the threshold signal. wink
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • Alien From
    Alien From 12 February 2021 06: 02
    +2
    Well, the girls later)))
  • Ka-52
    Ka-52 12 February 2021 06: 15
    +5
    French Rafale needs no introduction.

    In short, the machine combines excellent flight performance, reduced radar signature.

    it is necessary to make a reservation right away that the Duck aerodynamic configuration will always have a more pronounced radar signature compared to the normal one. And this is categorical.
    1. arkadiyssk
      arkadiyssk 12 February 2021 10: 44
      -11%
      Those. fools developers who actually made a duck of the su-57?
      1. Ka-52
        Ka-52 12 February 2021 10: 59
        +11
        Those. fools developers who actually made a duck of the su-57?

        Do you even know how erodynamic schemes differ from each other? Can you explain where the Su-57 have stabilizers and elevators?
    2. Herman 4223
      Herman 4223 13 February 2021 13: 49
      0
      I am making an appeal. The rear horizontal tail will give no less illumination on the radars than the front one.
      1. Ka-52
        Ka-52 15 February 2021 04: 50
        +3
        I am making an appeal. The rear horizontal tail will give no less illumination on the radars than the front one.

        will give less, mk are in the radar shadow of the main planes in the front projection.
        But besides this, in a normal scheme with two vertical stabilizers, they are made with a collapse in order to make a non-right angle of reflection. On a "duck" with its one keel it is not possible to do this
  • Ka-52
    Ka-52 12 February 2021 06: 20
    +10
    Among the main advantages of its successor, the Su-35S, is the advanced optical-location station OLS-35, which increases the chances of meeting the fifth generation, as well as outstanding maneuverability and excellent flight range.

    the advantage of the Su-35 in comparison with the 30 is the much more advanced IMS based on the multiprocessor on-board computer "Baget-53-31M".
    which, according to the available information, is very much superior to the Su-30SM N0011M Bars radar.

    what is there to doubt? The band of operating frequencies has been expanded by 2 times, the width in azimuth of detection and tracking of air targets is increased by 70%, the operating range is 2 times greater.
    1. ironic
      ironic 14 February 2021 16: 40
      -3
      And yet this is PFAR.
  • Ka-52
    Ka-52 12 February 2021 06: 37
    +7
    Among the main advantages of its successor in the face of the Su-35S is the advanced optical-location station OLS-35, which increases the chances of meeting the fifth generation,

    The H035 itself is more effective for countering aircraft with reduced radar signature. Since it detects super-low-profile targets with an image intensifier of 0.01 m2 at ranges of up to 90 km.
    1. Dread
      Dread 13 February 2021 08: 54
      +1
      Quote: Ka-52
      Let's start with the fact that AFAR radar is not a wunderfawl. It has some positive aspects, but we are not talking about a multiple advantage (for example, in comparison with the IRBIS PAR). In terms of target detection range, the H035 is in no way inferior to Rafal's BE / RBE2.

      Totally agree with you!
      1. ironic
        ironic 14 February 2021 16: 49
        -3
        Yes, just don't know why.
        1. Dread
          Dread 14 February 2021 20: 13
          0
          An illiterate foreign troll - last time I advised you to teach radar, which you do not know from the word - did not begin to write you an answer at all, in view of the fact that you do not understand the parameters of the radar and you are not able to calculate the maximum range for targets with a different image intensifier value from the parameter (the main one, as I think) of the maximum range. You don't even understand that this is done in practice:
          Quote: ironic
          Quote: Dread
          Quote: 2534M

          Monsieur "trampoline breaker", can you explain the NUMBER of radar stations with AFAR in the Air Force in our country and they have, how it turns out that against the background of massive serial deliveries THERE have only "ONE PIECE" on the only combatant Su-57

          ... One only radar
          Н036 "Squirrel" is worth a lot. The detection range of targets with an image intensifier = 1 m2 is D = 400 km. US radars AN / APG-77, 81 will remain unsuccessful.

          ...AND machines with image intensifier = 1 m2 are unlikely to be the main potential enemy of this aircraft. APG-77v1 has the same range, but the capabilities Proteins by FoV while not known.

          ironic - do not know radar and do not know how to count, and also contradict yourself, not knowing the parameters of the radar.
          Radar N036 "Belka" Su-57 has:
          The detection range of targets with an image intensifier = 1 m2 is D = 400 km. F-22 (F-35) have average value Image intensifier tube (effective reflecting surface) 0,3 m2 (0,35) and will be detected by the IRBIS radar at a distance of D = 296 km and then destroyed by a distant RVV-BD with a range of D = 300 km, without reaching the line of use its long-range RVV-BD AIM-120 with a range of D = 180 km.
          1. ironic
            ironic 14 February 2021 20: 40
            -3
            A cultureless Russian boor, I wrote to you last time that you talk a lot about knowledgeThat failed to demonstrate, so your advice was ignored as illogical and meaningless. I already wrote to you that the maximum detection range of a single-channel PFAR in a collision course of a consistently approaching target has nothing to do with its ability to detect subtle maneuvering targets at a significant deviation angle away from the normal with respect to the transmitter, in contrast to the multichannel AFAR and especially in conditions of use of electronic warfare. Therefore, all your calculations are calculations of a spherical horse in a vacuum, with the meaning of the word counting in Russian, which have nothing in common. And especially if we consider that the image intensifier tubes F-22, F-35 in English-language sources are not even close to the ones you sound, then this is also simple informational disinformation, designed to calm the patriotic layman. I respect patriotism, but in conjunction with consistency and adequacy, as well as at least with the rudiments of a culture of behavior, which you do not observe in any of the parameters. I think that taking into account all of the above, as a troll, I am significantly inferior to you in performance characteristics.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Ka-52
              Ka-52 15 February 2021 04: 42
              +4
              that the maximum detection range of a single-channel PFAR in a collision course of a consistently approaching target has nothing to do with its ability to detect subtle maneuvering targets at a significant deviation angle away from the normal with respect to the transmitter, in contrast to the multichannel AFAR and especially in the conditions of electronic warfare.

              there is no logic in this phrase. What does the single-channel PFAR and radar side lobes have to do with it? Moreover, the "maneuvering" goal is how to the location? It seems that the phrase was written without much understanding of the physics of the process
              The EOP F-22, F-35 in English-speaking sources is not even close to the voiced by you, it is also just informational misinformation, designed to calm the patriotic layman.

              Image intensifier F-22 is estimated everywhere 0,01. Of course, you can write that it is generally "invisible" even to the touch. Your "English-language sources" are so reliable. Indeed, according to them, even the F-35 belongs to the 5th generation combat aircraft. laughing
              1. ironic
                ironic 15 February 2021 18: 41
                -2
                Given that one of the indicative weaknesses of a radar with one channel is the drop in the detection range with significant deviations of the beam from the normal to the antenna web. This trivially depends on the projection area of ​​the antenna onto the normal in the direction of detection. In addition, the antenna signal also weakens when it deviates from the normal.

                There are many English-language sources and it is possible to track the degree of information reliability by them, to a greater extent than by Russian-speaking ones, in which a considerable share of information has passed through the patriotic filter of the informant. The maximum for the F-0,01 is estimated at 22. But the above mentioned claims 0.3. And the F-35A, as a minimum, meets all the requirements of the fifth generation, if you do not find fault with the cruise speed, they say supersonic starts at 1.25M, and the latter has a cruise without afterburner 1.2M. wink
          2. ironic
            ironic 14 February 2021 21: 12
            -2
            PS As for the Squirrel H036, there is too little information about it and it exists on a production aircraft in a single copy to say something about it. And Irbis N035, for your information, the expert is on the Su-35S, this has a very indirect relationship to the Su-57.
          3. ironic
            ironic 14 February 2021 21: 38
            -3
            PS2 Squirrel 1,552 T / R modules. 77v1 & 81 1956 T / R GaAs modules. Physics cannot be fooled, and which of the two is most likely to have the best detection capabilities, it can be assumed, although it is not known for sure, more data is needed.
    2. ironic
      ironic 14 February 2021 16: 45
      -3
      But only on a head-on course and in the absence of electronic warfare. The DSP is worth new, but it is a more powerful upgrade for Barça in the end.
      /// receiver hardware, the master oscillator and exciter of the BARS ///
      1. Dread
        Dread 14 February 2021 20: 43
        -3
        Quote: ironic
        But only on a head-on course and in the absence of electronic warfare. The DSP is worth new, but it is a more powerful upgrade for Barça in the end.


        ironic - where does the Bars radar? The article cites the Su-35S, which contains the N035 Irbis radar, not the N011 Bars. And you don't have to rely entirely on electronic warfare, in reality you do not take into account many factors.
        1. ironic
          ironic 15 February 2021 19: 00
          -2
          Despite the fact that Irbis is Bars on anabolic steroids with a new DSP. And in the above English quote it is written why this is so and what is saved in the Irbis from Bars.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 12 February 2021 06: 46
    +8
    It is clear that if you start to seriously compare the performance characteristics of avionics of aircraft (and where else to find them, real ones), then you can get a cumbersome, not very digestible, and, most importantly, not very pleasant article for our urapatriots.
    But that's not the case either.
    Oh, my second warning.
    Funny.
    The editors post openly weak materials, and are offended when readers point out this.
    1. Ka-52
      Ka-52 12 February 2021 06: 54
      +5
      most importantly, not very pleasant article for our urapatriots.

      and what is unpleasant?
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 12 February 2021 07: 04
        +9
        Quote: Ka-52
        and what is unpleasant?

        Well, even here it was mentioned in passing.
        Until recently, there was not a single fighter with a radar of this type in the arsenal of the Russian Aerospace Forces.

        This is when about Rafal.
        And let me remind you that there are now 1 (one!) Fighters with radars of this type in our VKS.
        Or about SU30
        For all its merits, the "SM" is in a broad sense a "Russified" version of the export Su-30MKI: a machine that is very successful on the market, but far from new.

        And if the announced modernization of the thirty to the SU35 level is limited only by the engine, as the author writes, without replacing the avionics, then this is sadness, sadness and complete hopelessness.
        1. Ka-52
          Ka-52 12 February 2021 07: 16
          +2
          This is when about Rafal.
          And let me remind you that there are now 1 (one!) Fighters with radars of this type in our VKS.

          Let's start with the fact that AFAR radar is not a wunderfawl. It has some positive aspects, but we are not talking about a multiple advantage (for example, in comparison with the IRBIS PAR). In terms of target detection range, the H035 is in no way inferior to Rafal's BE / RBE2.
          And if the announced modernization of the thirty to the SU35 level is limited only by the engine, as the author writes, without replacing the avionics, then this is sadness, sadness and complete hopelessness.

          Irbis tests on MK2 have already been carried out. The decision to modernize hangs in high offices.
          1. Jacket in stock
            Jacket in stock 12 February 2021 10: 52
            +3
            Quote: Ka-52
            A radar with AFAR is not a wunderfawl. It has some positive aspects, but we are not talking about a multiple advantage.

            These spells remind me of the fable of the fox and the grapes.
            It's just that our industry is not able to make a sane element base for the AFAR radar.
            And what may not be able to handle the budget. That's the whole "secret".
            So engineers have to sculpt candy out of Mr., fortunately, the experience is rich and sometimes they really get quite useful things.
            But even this Irbis is in the second decade of the series, which in our time is impermissible antiquity for electronics.
            1. Ka-52
              Ka-52 12 February 2021 11: 12
              +5
              These spells remind me of the fable of the fox and the grapes.

              well, with your big-ass approach, it makes no sense to talk about technique
              It's just that our industry is not able to make a sane element base for the AFAR radar.

              Well, statements for a rally of all-propals is suitable. To "make" the PPM work, phase shifters and attenuators of a particularly complex elementary base are not required. The main problems arise when reaching a "consensus" between output power, weight, heat dissipation and other parameters. Well, the price is the last decisive argument.
              So the engineers have to sculpt a candy from Mr.

              you can't even explain what your "shit" is. In terms of target detection range with an image intensifier tube 1m - PAR is better. PAR is better in peak impulse. Parity in viewing angles (+/- 60), parity in the number of tracked targets (+/-). What's the shit besides your bawking?
              I understand that AFAR has certain FUNCTIONAL advantages. But they don't make a wunderwaffe out of AFAR.
              1. Jacket in stock
                Jacket in stock 12 February 2021 11: 30
                -4
                Quote: Ka-52
                you can't even explain what your "shit" is

                Yes, you yourself wrote everything, and I have nothing to add.
                Quote: Ka-52
                problems arise when reaching a "consensus" between power output, weight, heat dissipation and other parameters. Well, the price is the last decisive argument ...
                ... AFAR has certain FUNCTIONAL advantages.
                1. Ka-52
                  Ka-52 12 February 2021 11: 34
                  +7
                  I have nothing to add.

                  this is the key phrase of your comments. The rest might not have been written. And continue to use it
                  1. Jacket in stock
                    Jacket in stock 12 February 2021 11: 41
                    -1
                    Quote: Ka-52
                    The rest might not have been written. And continue to use it

                    Yes, I do, sometimes.
                    Especially when directly opposite conclusions are drawn from the same facts.
                    You write that there are problems, but they seem unworthy of attention to you.
                    I write that there are problems, and they seem critical to me. And since we write about the same problems, why should I repeat them, it's easier to agree.
                    1. Ka-52
                      Ka-52 12 February 2021 11: 59
                      +5
                      I write that there are problems, and they seem critical to me. And since we write about the same problems, why should I repeat them, it's easier to agree.

                      I would understand your concern if it was based on anything specific. And so it's just a concussion. In fact, the basic operating parameters of the radar for both technologies are not very different. The differences lie in the functionality, where AFAR offers wider possibilities for electronic warfare, broadband scanning, etc. But once again, I repeat 100500 times, this is not a global revolutionary advantage
                      1. Jacket in stock
                        Jacket in stock 12 February 2021 13: 34
                        -1
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        The differences lie in the functionality, where AFAR offers wider possibilities for electronic warfare, broadband scanning, etc. But once again, I repeat 100500 times, this is not a global revolutionary advantage

                        And I repeat to you 100500 times that I do not agree with your assessment and consider the differences to be our lag, which may turn out to be critical.
                        If everything were the way you want it, why would we have invested akhrenillion in the development of the AFAR radar for the SU-57?
                      2. Hexenmeister
                        Hexenmeister 12 February 2021 13: 49
                        +1
                        that I disagree with your assessment and consider the differences as our lag, which may turn out to be critical.
                        The lag here may be that we spent so much time repeating the ideology of the F-22, instead of going forward and not repeating the "shortcomings" of flat fixed grilles. But maybe once you need to make a mistake so as not to repeat it, or maybe this is the only way they can, which is sad ...
                      3. shahor
                        shahor 12 February 2021 15: 05
                        0
                        Quote: Hexenmeister
                        "disadvantages" of flat fixed lattices.

                        On this resource a few days ago there was an article about Eurofighter, on which the Raven radar with AFAR and a mechanical twist of 20 degrees is already installed.
                      4. Hexenmeister
                        Hexenmeister 12 February 2021 16: 50
                        +5
                        Mechanical reversal of the HEADLIGHTS has long been used in Bars and Irbis and to a greater angle, so the Europeans have already come to this. And if without a turnaround? And the whole area is electronically scanned without signal loss?
                      5. Dread
                        Dread 13 February 2021 08: 31
                        +2
                        Quote: Jacket in stock
                        It is clear that if you start to seriously compare the performance characteristics of avionics of aircraft (and where else can you find them, real ones), then you can get bulky, not very digestible, and, most importantly, not very pleasant for our urapatriots, article.
                        But that's not the case either.

                        There are many literate people on the VO website, as you call, hurray-patriots. Therefore, do not write badly about them.
                        Is it bad when they rejoice at the achievements of our country - Russia? And they write their comments very competently, unlike Russophobes of all stripes!
                      6. Jacket in stock
                        Jacket in stock 13 February 2021 08: 57
                        -3
                        Quote: Dread
                        On the VO website there are many literate, as you call it, hurray-patriots. Therefore, do not write badly about them.
                        Is it bad when they rejoice at the achievements of our country - Russia? And they write their comments very competently,

                        In my understanding, the words "literate" and "urapatriot" are mutually exclusive. And when people correctly explain about achievements, I rejoice with them. And when I read about the superiority of warm over soft, and even with the use of non-existent terms, these are the urapatriots, who, no matter what to rejoice at, they still do not understand.
                      7. ironic
                        ironic 16 February 2021 15: 22
                        -1
                        You don't write, you don't write anything coherent at all. And you present to those around you a whole bunch of pretensions, none of which you first presented to yourself!
                    2. ironic
                      ironic 16 February 2021 15: 20
                      -1
                      Because on BARS there was no other way out, and IRBIS is BARS on steroids. What I borrowed from BARS in IRBIS, I have given in the posts above, for those who can read Amglish.
                    3. Hexenmeister
                      Hexenmeister 16 February 2021 15: 55
                      +1
                      What other way out for Barça? Expand the carrier's ability to maneuver in the guidance process - achieved. To reduce losses when searching not along the axis of the web - achieved. Use electronic scanning - achieved, and APG-63 mechanically waved the antenna during the Barca release! What are we talking about?
  • mvg
    mvg 12 February 2021 14: 21
    +2
    In terms of target detection range with an image intensifier tube 1m - PAR is better. PAR is better in peak impulse. Parity in viewing angles (+/- 60), parity in the number of tracked targets (+/-). What's the shit besides your bawking?

    It is you, a pilot who is far from technical, discussing the advantages of AFAR over FAR, like a first grader. There are many more pluses, but only one minus. Complexity, respectively, the price.
    PS: I can say that at the end of the 90s, we were at least no worse in development than Israel. At least my friend, from parallel LETI from graduate school, was involved in the development, ordered by Israel.
    P.P.S .:
    By the peak impulse of the PAR is better

    Not true.
    1. Dread
      Dread 12 February 2021 14: 56
      +2
      Quote: mvg
      This is exactly you, a pilot, far from technology, are discussing advantages of AFAR over FAR, as a first grader. There are many more pluses, but only one minus.

      Quote: mvg
      By the peak impulse of the PAR is better

      Not true

      mvg - what is peak impulse?
      And how are you different from a first grader?))
      1. mvg
        mvg 12 February 2021 15: 12
        0
        what is peak impulse?

        a question to the question, how will the peak pulse from one transmitter and the summation of pulses differ from all low-power AFAR transmitters?
        In this case, with the PFAR, when the beam deviates from the normal, the target detection range decreases more than that of the AFAR.
        All characteristics of Squirrel, Barsa are given at the maximum, in ideal conditions.
        1. Dread
          Dread 12 February 2021 15: 47
          +2
          Quote: mvg
          a question to the question, how will the peak pulse from one transmitter and the summation of pulses differ from all low-power AFAR transmitters?

          Gotcha Mavru, Saracen ... mvg - you made 2 mistakes:
          1. Wrongly depicted the meaning of the phrase in Russian;
          2. There is no such thing in radar - peak impulse from the word completely, in Radar, no concept of peak power... Do not confuse pulsed power with peak power. This is an invention of journalists ... (((
          1. mvg
            mvg 12 February 2021 21: 06
            0
            Wrongly depicted the meaning of the phrase in Russian

            Wrongly put it, what is considered a minus of AFAR is its plus.
            In PFAR, one powerful transmitter is needed, which is stressful to do. In AFAR, many low-power transmitters are summed.
          2. Jacket in stock
            Jacket in stock 13 February 2021 09: 02
            -1
            Quote: mvg
            what is considered a minus of AFAR is its plus.
            In PFAR, one powerful transmitter is needed, which is stressful to do. In AFAR, many low-power transmitters are summed.

            There is no difficulty in making a powerful generator, the topic has long been worked out.
            It is difficult to make low-power generators suitable for operation in a grid. This is what our industry is not capable of.
    2. ironic
      ironic 16 February 2021 15: 25
      0
      AFAR is capable of a large total useful signal power of transmitters and a large total sensitivity of receivers. The only plus of PFAR is a simpler design and, as a function of it, simpler maintenance and price.
  • CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 12 February 2021 21: 42
    +1
    AFAR na mnogo ustoichivee REB chem PFAR.
    A eto ochen vazhno.
  • The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 12 February 2021 23: 28
    -1
    Quote: Ka-52
    To "force" the PPM to work, phase shifters and attenuators of a particularly complex elementary base are not required


    A sophisticated element base is required, from digitization onwards.
  • ironic
    ironic 14 February 2021 17: 02
    -2
    Yeah, so you have to figure out how to tone up such an output power in order to recognize something not only in the center, but even along one channel and what to do when you need to counteract the extended electronic warfare. The new DSP is of course a significant help, but it's like forcing a strong pitching to pull a seven-pound anchor on his back and demanding it to overtake an athlete with a bottle of water in a backpack behind him.
    It is not better, but with a much higher power of one channel, it can detect far in the center, something that is well noticeable and noticeably worse at viewing angles. With the same total power, the multichannel AFAR will detect at the same distance. With the same viewing angles, the best detection will be at the angles behind the AFAR, and with parity detection, the viewing angles will be larger. If necessary, work in the conditions of electronic warfare AFAR is much better.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 12 February 2021 11: 20
    +5
    Tell it F-22 Whose 20 MHz processors were upgraded to 200+ MHz.
    1. Ka-52
      Ka-52 12 February 2021 11: 30
      +2
      that is, the 77th radar remained the same, but the processors changed laughing well now draw your logical chain from the processors to the radar
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 12 February 2021 13: 21
        +3
        The question was that these processors are not i7 at all. Leaving the radar station and changing the processors, increasing the possibilities for calculating the signal is quite possible.
        1. ironic
          ironic 14 February 2021 17: 10
          -1
          Intel desktop processors are not included in military aviation equipment. They put the products of Friscale, once a division of Motorola.
    2. ironic
      ironic 14 February 2021 17: 08
      -1
      In general, the older i960 series worked at 100Mhz. Who were you counting on in this post? A housewife?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • ironic
    ironic 14 February 2021 16: 49
    -2
    Of course it comes because it is Bars on power steroids with the new DSP. But this is not enough to be better than AFAR in actual combat over the front line.
  • Alien From
    Alien From 12 February 2021 07: 47
    +2
    You are still a schoolboy with a second warning)))) who knows, he will understand laughing
  • Niko
    Niko 12 February 2021 08: 48
    +1
    "The editorial board posts frankly weak materials" - so there are practically no others, do not close the site
  • The comment was deleted.
  • rocket757
    rocket757 12 February 2021 08: 04
    +3
    New - well forgotten old: the most powerful fighters of the fourth generation

    All the same, you will have to move forward, develop technology, intelligence infrastructure / support / tactics, etc., etc., then the fifth and subsequent generations will fit into the picture and be able to show their advantages ...
    THE PROCESS IS GOING !!! You cannot lag behind.
  • Tsoy
    Tsoy 12 February 2021 08: 10
    +3
    Production cars will receive very noticeable improvements. First of all, attention is drawn to the conformal fuel tanks, which increase the combat radius.


    No longer. Due to a constructive miscalculation, the question arose about the impossibility of using the comfortable tanks. Now they want to abandon them at least for a while in order to take F-18 block 3 and launch a series.
  • Hermit21
    Hermit21 12 February 2021 08: 21
    0
    RVV-AE is an export index. And already unused
  • mvg
    mvg 12 February 2021 14: 38
    +2
    And what did he say a lie ??? the author has listed almost all 4 ++ generation fighters, except the Swedes and the Chinese and EVERYTHING. Neither Blocks, nor Tranches, nor equipment, in the case of Typhoons and F-15s, is very relevant. 24 missiles of what ??? Air to air wassat what kind? 150 kg AIM-120S7 / D or AIM-9X 90 kg each, or new AIM-260. What are the stealth characteristics when you have 24 missiles hanging like a bunch of grapes?
    What is the comparison in carrying capacity with fighters of the 5th generation, which has 2 tons of bombs or missiles in the cargo compartment.
    No one will say the real performance characteristics of the radar, but the Indians and other operators of the Su-30MKkh are not queuing up for the N035 or Belka. But they look at Tiles or Israel.
    PS: KA-52, 20MG processors and 200MHz processors for upgrading the F-22 ...
    The numbers there are completely different. But even from the "old" APG-77, with proper filtering of the signal and new algorithms of work, you can get more. The software on modern processors will do it. The radar in itself is nothing, we still need to process what it will give.
    PPPS: A lot depends on electronic warfare, I don’t remember that over the past 20 years, many carriers were shot down. Although the "vaunted" S-300PMU2 participate in the DB zone, they are straight from the VKS warehouse, not cut down.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 12 February 2021 19: 24
    +2
    Generation 4+ will not disappear anywhere until the air forces of most countries
    will be sated by generation 5. And the next one will not appear - unmanned.
    And there are only two models of the 5th generation on the stream: F-35 and J-20.
    And a few Su-57s, thank God.
    F-22s are no longer in production and are being phased out.
    Therefore, the 4th will upgrade for a long time.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 13 February 2021 12: 23
      -2
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Generation 4+ will not disappear anywhere until the air forces of most countries
      will be sated by generation 5. And the next one will not appear - unmanned.

      I do not think that the 5th generation will replace the principle of 4. Too different machines turned out. Here unmanned systems will be able to replace 4 in the near future.
      1. ironic
        ironic 14 February 2021 17: 13
        -1
        It depends on what tasks. For example, the F-35A is capable of replacing the F-16 completely today.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 14 February 2021 17: 25
          -1
          It is possible, but expensive. There are routine tasks for which it is better to use simpler machines. To bomb the same barmaleev.
          Therefore, I say that the 4th generation will rather replace the UAV, the 5th generation is too expensive.
          1. ironic
            ironic 16 February 2021 15: 27
            0
            Not expensive, but even more so in perspective. The Viper's price is not far off, and the cheaper service does not match the lower aggregate capabilities. Driving the barmaley is necessary, first of all, with drones.
  • Dkuznecov
    Dkuznecov 12 February 2021 23: 17
    0
    All this resembles a comparison of cameras on
    outer security perimeter,
    if there is a response team,
    which will twist the head of the same PPP if they drive up.
    And also to whom and more serious.
  • TatarinSSSR
    TatarinSSSR 14 February 2021 23: 14
    -1
    Ideally, Russian fighters of the Aerospace Forces for the next 30 years will consist mainly of workhorses of 4+ generations Su-30SM, SU-35S, MIG-31BM and MIG-35 (questionable), and a small number - no more than 160 units of generation 5 - SU-57. We are silent about the deck ones, since what is there with the new aircraft carriers is not clear, and Kuzya is unlikely to be able to become a full-fledged combat unit even after repairs. His MIG-29K / KUB and SU-33, as well as the VKS SU-27s of all modifications, will be written off in 5-10 years or sent to sedimentation tanks. The motley MIG-29 remaining in the units will also be stored and scrapped. But in total, Russia will scrape together about 1200 combat aircraft. I hope.
  • yehat2
    yehat2 15 February 2021 00: 33
    +1
    Quote: ironic
    not narrower than the F-15A

    the F-15 did not have a reinforced hull for landing on the deck, did not have rotary wings, and did not have such sophisticated equipment. It was essentially simple and functional, even simpler than a phantom and therefore better.
  • Volder
    Volder 16 February 2021 13: 05
    +1
    Quote: Ilya Legat
    It makes no sense to analyze in detail the performance characteristics of the new aircraft: in our time, "dry" figures about the flight range, maximum speed and ceiling say little.
    Quite the opposite: they say a lot!
    Much more important, for example, measures to reduce radar signature
    This is just not very important, because airborne and ground radars perfectly see stealth aircraft. I mean Russian radars, PFAR, AFAR. Even the Soviet MiG-29 could see the "invisible".
  • Outsider
    Outsider 26 March 2021 01: 46
    0
    Quote: Sergey_G_M
    Good things are good, only the description of the advantages is somehow strange (the size of the displays, the number of short-range missiles, etc.)
    And the question is, where is the MiG-31? Air combat is more difficult than pure numbers with performance characteristics. For example, when firing at the MiG-31 in pursuit or with a large value of the parameter, the range of destruction drops significantly. In catch-up, the max speed of a rocket from Mach 4 suddenly turns into a relative speed of Mach 1. And the author of the joke also wrote that the type's speeds are not important.

    - Where and when did you see the MiG-31 "all of a sudden" flying at a speed of 3M ?! And he is not a front-line fighter, he is unlikely to have to meet enemy fighters, he must work in the depths of his territory, he has nothing to do at the front, he is just a target there.
  • Outsider
    Outsider 26 March 2021 01: 50
    0
    Quote: Volder
    Quote: Ilya Legat
    It makes no sense to analyze in detail the performance characteristics of the new aircraft: in our time, "dry" figures about the flight range, maximum speed and ceiling say little.
    Quite the opposite: they say a lot!
    Much more important, for example, measures to reduce radar signature
    This is just not very important, because airborne and ground radars perfectly see stealth aircraft. I mean Russian radars, PFAR, AFAR. Even the Soviet MiG-29 could see the "invisible".

    - How zadolbali you, profane, with your ignorance! Of course, any hostile stealth aircraft will be seen by any Russian radar, even on the MiG-29. There is only a "little nuance": How far will she see him ?! Will see at a distance of less than 12-10 km. When her pilot has been shot down twenty times.
  • Outsider
    Outsider 26 March 2021 01: 51
    0
    Quote: yehat2
    Americans used to actively use tomkats - they can be called some kind of analogue of the mig-31
    now there are few such planes, but they are.

    - Now they do not have such planes. Long gone.
  • Outsider
    Outsider 26 March 2021 02: 00
    0
    Quote: yehat2
    we are talking about the main function of intercepting and transporting missiles.
    in this regard, the machines are similar, both had good electronic equipment, although the mig-31 is still much better.

    - The MiG-31 is not suitable for the F-14D aircraft, - first of all, on the radar. And by its power, and by the number of simultaneously tracked targets (24 for the F-14 and 10 for the MiG-31), and by the number of targets fired at the same time (6 and 4), and by the target detection range with a standard RCS = 1 m142 (96 km and XNUMX km), in terms of noise immunity, - for the "Barrier" it is "below the plinth, just almost zero ...
    In addition the MiG-31 has no jamming station on board...
  • Outsider
    Outsider 26 March 2021 02: 03
    0
    Quote: Ka-52
    Let's start with the fact that AFAR radar is not a wunderfawl. It has some positive aspects, but we are not talking about a multiple advantage (for example, in comparison with the IRBIS PAR). In terms of target detection range, the H035 is in no way inferior to Rafal's BE / RBE2.

    - Generally, it is inferior, if you really compare them "as expected." But since you don't know the hardware, it's almost impossible for you to believe ... laughing lol
  • Outsider
    Outsider 26 March 2021 02: 06
    0
    Quote: Ka-52
    These spells remind me of the fable of the fox and the grapes.

    well, with your big-ass approach, it makes no sense to talk about technique
    It's just that our industry is not able to make a sane element base for the AFAR radar.

    Well, statements for a rally of all-propals is suitable. To "make" the PPM work, phase shifters and attenuators of a particularly complex elementary base are not required. The main problems arise when reaching a "consensus" between output power, weight, heat dissipation and other parameters. Well, the price is the last decisive argument.
    So the engineers have to sculpt a candy from Mr.

    you can't even explain what your "shit" is. In terms of target detection range with an image intensifier tube 1m - PAR is better. PAR is better in peak impulse. Parity in viewing angles (+/- 60), parity in the number of tracked targets (+/-). What's the shit besides your bawking?
    I understand that AFAR has certain FUNCTIONAL advantages. But they don't make a wunderwaffe out of AFAR.

    - You think so because of your complete ignorance, "as it really is" ... lol
  • Outsider
    Outsider 26 March 2021 02: 58
    0
    Quote: Dread
    1. Range of detection of air targets Radar AN / APG-77,81 is
    300 km for purposes with Image intensifier = 3 m2.

    - Why flog this nonsense, equating two radars with different power?
    APG-77 - D obn. targets with RCS = 1 m² - 225 km in normal mode, 193 km - in LPI mode.
    APG-81 - D obn. targets with RCS = 1 m² - 160 km in normal mode, 140 km - in LPI mode.
    Su-35, IRBIS radar:
    http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-533.html
    1. Detection range:
    - targets with an EPR of 3 square meters on the opposite courses - 350-400 km (in the field of view 10 x 10 degrees)
    - targets with an EPR of 3 square meters on the opposite courses - 200 km (in the field of view 17,3 x 17,3 degrees = 300 sq. degrees)
    - targets with an EPR of 3 square meters on the opposite courses against the background of the earth - 170 km (in the field of view 17,3 x 17,3 degrees = 300 sq. degrees)
    - targets with an EPR of 3 sq. m at catch-up courses - 80 km (in the field of view 17,3 x 17,3 degrees = 300 sq. degrees)
    - targets with an EPR of 3 square meters at catch-up courses on the background of the earth - 50 km (in the field of view 17,3 x 17,3 degrees = 300 sq. degrees)
    ...........................
    2. Here they forgot to add: with a signal accumulation time of 10 seconds.
    3. And we forgot to add: with the probability of detection 0.5 (in USA - 0.86).
    .............................
    We look here, APG-81, time 1: 03-1: 28:

    In 19 seconds, the beam of the directional pattern scans the angle 120x60 = 7200 square degrees (at least, possibly 120x120, but let's not be greedy) and gets a complete picture of targets at a distance of 160 km (the scale is in nautical miles).
    =============
    "Irbis" - targets with EPR 3 sq. M on a collision course - 200 km (in the viewing area 17,3 x 17,3 degrees = 300 sq. Deg.) - targets with EPR 1 sq. M. m - 152 km, - conditionally equated to the range for APG-81, - 300 sq. degrees in 10 sec.
    Compare:
    APG-81: 7200 sq. hail in 19 sec. - roughly: 7200: 19 = 380 sq. deg / sec
    Irbis: 300 sq. hail in 10 sec. - 300: 10 = 30 square degrees / sec
    That is: at the same range, to obtain the same resolution, the signal accumulation time is 380: 30 = 12.67 times longer. If we equate in power, then √√12.67 = 1.8865.
    160: 1.8865 = 85 km - at such a distance the same target will be detected by the Irbis compared to the fact that in the same time the same target will be detected by the APG-81 at a distance 160 km... According to the main radar formula:

    The Irbis is so much worse than the airborne radar that it stands on the F-35 ...
  • Outsider
    Outsider 26 March 2021 03: 20
    0
    Quote: yehat2
    no air superiority fighter he was
    industry excellence is possible.
    Its main and main goal was defensive - to defend the Aug at a great distance.
    It was for this that he armed himself with a phoenix. In other words, the rocket is strange. The probability of a drop of 0.13 and the lack of launch training due to the high cost is something.

    - The probability of hitting 0.13 is sheer nonsense. The probability of hitting the AIM-54 was ~ 0.8-0.85. No idiot will ever take a rocket with P = 0.13 into service.... Oh, these propagandists, they are ready to bring everything to the fullest absurdity ...
    There was no question of the struggle for supremacy, for this the F-15 and F-16 were created and the ATF program was almost immediately started.

    - Of course the F-14A, and especially the F-14C, were much more powerful and more perfect than the F-16 and F-15. But they stayed on ships and cost much more.
  • Outsider
    Outsider 26 March 2021 03: 23
    0
    Quote: ironic
    Well, I would not say that the ~ 38 million cost of the aircraft was outstanding in terms of cost from other programs. Ksati, he was not so narrowly specialized, not narrower than the F-15A.

    - Yeah, the F-14 cost 38 million dollars, and the F-15 then only 15 million. 2.5 times less!
  • Outsider
    Outsider 26 March 2021 03: 24
    0
    Quote: Dread
    Quote: Jacket in stock
    It's just that our industry is not able to to make a sane element base for AFAR radar.

    You do not know that the N036 "Belka" radar with AFAR on the Su-57 surpasses the AN / APG-77,81 radar in many respects.

    - This is a gross and stupid LIE.
  • EMMM
    EMMM 3 May 2021 00: 14
    0
    It's nice to see so many specialists in the tactics of air combat and in the technical intricacies of avionics, but I saw the question in this article: why engage in 5th generation aviation if 4 or 4+ (4 ++) are so good.
    The question of the definition of the "5th generation" is in the air, and today it seems that this is a purely marketing move, which is determined by the monopoly North American jury, which, by the way, hastened to declare the Su-57 not meeting the requirements of the 5th generation.
    In my understanding, each buyer of these "inexpensive" toys soberly compares the means available to him and the goals that he wants to achieve.
    Example: modifications of the Tu-20, etc., which, it would seem, a place in the museum, are still in service and are still unsurpassed machines.