Military Review

Without "Raptors" and B-2: which aircraft will leave the United States Air Force

91

The United States has entered a new century with a gigantic aerial fleet, designed to solve the tasks set back during the Cold War. However, the new time dictates different rules. New inconspicuous combat aircraft appeared, the role of UAVs and new aviation weapons such as GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb. Have gone to history "Classic" close air combat (at least we can see it in the last decades), low-altitude breakthrough, as well as a number of vehicles with a narrow specialization. All these changes require new solutions, which, in turn, force people to spend more in some areas and save a lot on others.


Tactical aircraft


Americans are no stranger to surprising the world with military innovations. However, the recent news did not leave indifferent even sophisticated observers. On May 12, Defense One wrote about new plans for reforming the Air Force. According to Air Force Chief of Staff, General Charles Brown, the US Air Force wants to reduce the number of its fighter types to four.

“I intend to reduce their number to four. It is important to understand to what extent the combination of aircraft will be correct. The F-22 will be replaced by the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter, which will fly alongside the F-35. F-15EX and F-16 will be in service ",

- said Charles Brown.


In total, the US Air Force wants to write off 2026 old fighters by fiscal year 421, purchasing 304 new ones. Note that the US Air Force currently operates six different fighters: F-22 Raptor, F-15C / D Eagle, F-15E Strike Eagle, F-15EX (Eagle II), F-35 and F-16 Fighting Falcon. The F-22 fighter is expected to be decommissioned later, starting in 2030. The F-16, according to plans, will be reduced by 120 soon, so that their number will be 800 units. In turn, the fleet of F-15C / D, numbering about 230 aircraft, will be completely decommissioned by the end of the 2026 fiscal year.

In general, the abundance of F-15s on the list should not be embarrassing: they are all actually different machines. The F-15C / D are old-fashioned "clean" fighters. In contrast, the F-15E Strike Eagle are attack aircraft, which are closer to the front-line Su-34 bomber than to the "conventional" fighter. In turn, the F-15EX is a newly built vehicle with an advanced active phased antenna array (AFAR) radar and capable of carrying a record arsenal of air-to-air missiles: up to 22 strike capabilities, including a hypersonic weapon system).


The first Eagle II was received by the Air Force in March of this year. In total, the US Department of Defense may receive about 200 new aircraft, which will make the F-15EX one of the main fighters in the United States arsenal.

What is planned in the bottom line?

According to new data, the remaining four types will be the F-15EX, F-35, F-16 and the "mysterious" Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD), a promising sixth generation fighter. It is not yet known what exactly the new car will be, but analysts believe that we can talk about an optionally piloted stealth aircraft, conceptually similar to the F-22 Raptor.

The abandonment of the F-22 itself, even if in the distant future, has already met with a flurry of criticism. This is not surprising, because the aircraft is relatively young, and the cost of the program for its development was $ 60 billion, which is comparable to the program for the development of the super-expensive F-35 (this is without taking into account the construction of serial machines and the cost of operation, of course).

What is the problem?

It must be said that the Raptor has always been haunted by difficulties. As follows from data published by the American newspaper Air Force Times for 2018, the level of technical health of the F-22 fleet was approximately 51%. For comparison: the F-15E is 71%, the F-16 was about 66-70%. The “problem” CV-22B tiltrotor had a readiness rate of 59%, while the B-1B strategic bomber, which was not very popular with pilots, had almost 52%.


As you can see, "Raptor" in this sense looked like an outsider, even against the background of not the most efficient machines. At the same time, the maintenance of the F-22 is almost twice as expensive as maintaining the flight condition of the F-35, and its strike capabilities are rather modest by American standards, which does not allow the fighter to be called "multifunctional" in the full sense of the word.

The A-10 traditionally stands apart in the plans of the US Air Force - a machine that has long wanted to be abandoned in favor of the F-35, but which can outlive, if not it, then at least the F-22 Raptor. There is no alternative to "Warthog" (the nickname of the aircraft), and the benefits of such a complex are undeniable, which is confirmed by the recent conflicts with his participation. Nevertheless, the number of A-10 attack aircraft will be reduced: from 281 aircraft to 218.

Strategic forces


No less interesting in this respect will be the plans of the Americans regarding strategic aviation. The United States has de facto made it clear that the newest of the existing "strategists" - B-1B and B-2 - may come to naught in the foreseeable future.

Back in 2018, the publication Aviation Week announced information according to which the US Air Force was preparing to begin the conservation of the B-2 in order to free up funds to support the B-21 program, a new strategic stealth bomber.


The possible abandonment of the B-2, at first glance, looks no less paradoxical than the decommissioning of the F-22. But in fact, the planes have a lot in common: both began to create during the confrontation with the USSR, both turned out to be too expensive and redundant for solving current problems, and both were built in a relatively small series.

The Americans will decommission the B-1B bomber gradually. Earlier it became known that the US Air Force is preparing to reduce the B-1B fleet to 45 aircraft: Congress allowed 17 aircraft to be written off.

“We have been working on decommissioning old bombers for a long time to make way for the B-21 Raider,”

General Tim Ray, Commander-in-Chief of the US Air Force Global Strikes Command, said.


There are at least two reasons for abandoning the B-1B. First, the high maintenance cost of the machine. Secondly, the relatively low level of combat readiness. At the same time, the famous Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, which made its first flight in 1952, has every chance of celebrating its centenary in service. According to data from open sources, the Americans now have 70 of these aircraft. In the near future, they will face another modernization.


Simply put, the number of types of "strategists" in the US Air Force's arsenal in the future will be reduced to two: the Air Force will operate the B-52 and the new strategic bomber Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider, which is yet to make its maiden flight in the coming years.

In general, the manned combat strength of the US Air Force in the 2030s and 2040s looks something like this:

- F-35 fighter;
- F-15EX fighter;
- F-16 fighter;
- Next Generation Air Dominance fighter;
- attack aircraft A-10 (?);
- strategic bomber B-52;
- strategic bomber B-21.

In the 2030s, a new "budget" fighter is also expected - the conditional successor to the F-16. However, a fundamental decision on it has not yet been made. UAVs deserve separate consideration. As well as a fleet of auxiliary vehicles, including electronic warfare aircraft, training aircraft and tanker aircraft. Perhaps we will talk about them in the following materials.
Author:
91 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 19 May 2021 05: 29
    0
    Optimization, they understand that they will not pull such a number of problems with such problems.
    1. Peak
      Peak 19 May 2021 06: 23
      -5
      “I intend to reduce their number to four. It is important to understand to what extent the combination of aircraft will be correct. The F-22 will be replaced by the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter, which will fly alongside the F-35. F-15EX and F-16 will be in service ",


      McDonnell Douglas F / A-18 Hornet, too, for cancellation?
      1. alexey2073
        alexey2073 19 May 2021 06: 32
        +12
        Peak. The F-18 is not included in the list of type abbreviations. is not considered an Air Force aircraft, but is listed by the US Navy and ILC. hi They wrote about this on some specialized resource, but unfortunately I don't remember where. Therefore, I cannot give a link.
        1. Peak
          Peak 19 May 2021 06: 38
          -2
          Quote: alexey2073
          They wrote about this on some specialized resource, but unfortunately I don't remember where. Therefore, I cannot give a link.

          And it is not necessary to confirm with a link. No.
          “I'll take my word for it,” because it is clear that the Americans now cannot afford to be left without the F / A-18, together with the F-16, which forms the basis of fighter and strike aircraft.
      2. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 19 May 2021 08: 14
        0
        Quote: PiK
        McDonnell Douglas F / A-18 Hornet, too, for cancellation?

        It has already been written off from AB. Little remained on the "ground" at the Navy and the ILC, until they were finally replaced by the F-35, this will be in the coming years.

        USAF: 4 F-15EX / 16 / 35A / NGAD fighters will remain. In the 30s, the F-15C / D, F-15E, F-22 and A-10 will be decommissioned. It is also planned to replace the F-16 "with something else." I think it will be a jet, relatively cheap UAV fighter and / or a deep modernization of the F-16.

        Navy: FA-18E / F, F-35С. With the replacement of the 18th by FA-XX in 30 all years.

        Marines: F-35В / С

        National Guard: So far they are silent, but also F-35A, F-16, F-15, most likely, the old C / D will remain.
        1. Gregory 1
          Gregory 1 19 May 2021 14: 18
          -10%
          Quote: OgnennyiKotik
          The F-22 remains the master of the sky. He is the best air superiority fighter. It is not his problem that for 30 years an equal rival has not appeared and he is simply redundant.
          It is not a multi-functional fighter, at the time of its creation there was a division into fighters and fighter-bombers, and then they did not modernize it.

          F-22 will be discovered at a distance of D = 296 km radar N036 Su-57 and then destroyed RVV-BD R-37M (launch range 300 km)And not having time to reach the launch line of its RVV-BD AIM-120 (launch range 180 km). Don't take your wishful thinking and write a lie ...
          Can you refute?
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 19 May 2021 14: 25
            0
            Grigory 1 / Tonev / Dred / PPSh / Ali / SETSET / I. Vasya, smart girl, keep + from me smile Write more, make me laugh wink
          2. Outsider
            Outsider 27 May 2021 16: 03
            -1
            F-22 will be detected at a distance of D = 296 km radar N036 Su-57

            - Where did this rubbish come from ?? There is nowhere the slightest performance characteristics of the N-036 radar, there is no mention anywhere that it has already left the experimental stage and is being mass-produced!
            The frontal RCS of the F-22 / F-35 is of the order of 0.0001 m², what kind of "296 kilometers" ?!
            12-15 km at best.
            1. Gori
              Gori 27 May 2021 21: 56
              -1
              Quote: Outsider
              - Where did this rubbish come from ?? Nowhere is there not the slightest performance characteristics of the N-036 radar, there is no mention anywhere that it has already left the experimental stage and is being mass-produced!
              ?! Frontal RCS of the F-22 / F-35 of the order of 0.0001 m², which is "296 kilometers"

              You have not only rubbish, but fiction from Lockheed-Martin commercials. Frontal EPR F-22 / F-35 of about 0.0001 m² is your regular urge to the closet, learn to write the truth and count, and also march to school. D = 12-15 km - this is a difficult case, the range of American airborne radars, including those on your F-35I? Israel does not even know how to make airborne radars and its own fighters, as evidenced by the use of US radars and F-35 fighter-bombers in its Air Force.
      3. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 19 May 2021 09: 32
        0
        "Hornet" is now the main aircraft of carrier-based aircraft, and it will be for quite a long time, until and if the carrier-based "F - 35" is brought to mind. The mattress covers have started playing with universalization, the Hornet is now a fighter, an attack aircraft, an electronic warfare, and even a tanker. It remains to make AWACS out of it)))
      4. Alex777
        Alex777 19 May 2021 18: 26
        0
        McDonnell Douglas F / A-18 Hornet, too, for cancellation?

        "Hornets", as well as early modifications of the F-15, are being written off.
        The Super Hornets, like the F-15EX, will continue to serve.
  2. Serpet
    Serpet 19 May 2021 05: 31
    +19
    We wish them a successful "Perestroika"
    1. Artyom Karagodin
      Artyom Karagodin 19 May 2021 08: 33
      +2
      Exactly. Such as ours. And let Biden be their counterparts Gorby, in extreme cases - Chernenko. Not in the sense of being sent to the next world as soon as possible (let him live for himself), but in the sense of his role in history.
  3. Sined
    Sined 19 May 2021 05: 47
    +7
    In principle, there is nothing surprising here and everything looks quite logical to itself.
    The Pentagon plans to purchase about 100 B-21s, which will replace the B-2 and B-1B
    The F-15C, which the Raptor could not replace, will replace the F-15EX
    Responsibilities of the F-15E. Will share the F-15EX and the F-35
    The responsibilities of the A-10 will be taken over by light attack aircraft against those who have no air defense. And against those who have it, either drones or F-35
    The F-16 is gradually replacing the F-35
    F-22 will replace NGAD. The F-22 is certainly good. But it has a low potential for modernization due to the small series, high cost and complexity of maintenance. So it's no surprise that he will be written off.
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 19 May 2021 07: 33
      -7
      F-15C which the Raptor could not replace
      We are lying to you. In advertising f-22 many times it was said that this is a directly flying universal Death Star. Who can do everything and better than anyone. Well, except for flying into space and landing on an aircraft carrier. wassat
      How so? They could not lie to us so much ... So you are disingenuous vi! winked
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 19 May 2021 09: 14
        +1
        The F-22 remains the master of the sky. He is the best air superiority fighter. It is not his problem that for 30 years an equal rival has not appeared and he is simply redundant.
        It is not a multi-functional fighter, at the time of its creation there was a division into fighters and fighter-bombers, and then they did not modernize it.
        1. TermNachTer
          TermNachTer 19 May 2021 09: 34
          -1
          So great that it will soon go for scrap))) and how many dough they wrote off for it, you can only describe the syllable of heroic epics)))
        2. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 19 May 2021 12: 31
          +4
          The F-22 remains the master of the sky.
          Come on. In view of
          It is not his problem that for 30 years an equal rival has not appeared and he is simply redundant.
          This air hero never made it to the sky to show his valiant prowess. Even in the form of beating weak and poor opponents. Or, in extreme cases, at least in training battles. Although there have been enough opportunities for this all the time - the United States is itching to fight around the world. So his heavenly alpha male is not confirmed by deed.
          F-15 / F-16 have shown themselves many times during this time. I believe in them.
          1. Rageee
            Rageee 19 May 2021 14: 35
            +4
            s400 \ s300 have never shown themselves in real battles, do you not believe in them either? Su-35 also did not take part in real battles (it's not even funny about actions against the Papuans in Syria), is there no faith in him either?)
            it seems that the F-22 was created to confront relatively equal rivals (as far as I remember, the United States did not fight with Russia or China during this time) as a tool for gaining air superiority, and not for pokatushki against the Papuans ... the F-22 is just ahead of his time, he has been in the ranks for 20 years, and his competitors in the person of the Su-57 and J-20 are still in a semi-embryonic state ..
            1. DesToeR
              DesToeR 19 May 2021 16: 00
              +4
              Quote: Rageee
              it seems that the F-22 was created to confront relatively equal rivals (as far as I remember, the United States did not fight with Russia or China during this time) as a tool for gaining air superiority, and not for pokatushki against the Papuans ... the F-22 is just ahead of his time, he has been in the ranks for 20 years, and his competitors in the person of the Su-57 and J-20 are still in a semi-embryonic state ..

              And that's why the Americans are launching a modernized version of the F-15 into production? Instead of creating on the basis of the F-22 "station wagon" with the possibility of hitting the ground? Do you really think the sun is rising in Washington?
              1. Rageee
                Rageee 19 May 2021 17: 28
                0
                And why fence in an expensive vegetable garden and make a station wagon out of the f-22 (which has not been produced for a long time), when hundreds of new f-35s are riveted for these tasks?
                The F-15 of the latest modifications is not a replacement for these machines, but only acts as an addition. No, I do not think that the sun is rising in Washington, but there is no doubt that the United States is the world's # 1 leader in aircraft manufacturing, and they will remain in this role for a long time to come.
                1. DesToeR
                  DesToeR 19 May 2021 20: 55
                  0
                  Quote: Rageee
                  And why fence in an expensive vegetable garden and make a station wagon out of the f-22 (which has not been produced for a long time), when hundreds of new f-35s are riveted for these tasks?

                  That is, in your opinion, the F-35 is capable of performing the functions of the F-22? But what about the small radius and carrying capacity of the F-35? And where is the cruising supersonic?
                  Quote: Rageee
                  The F-15 of the latest modifications is not a replacement for these machines, but only acts as an addition.

                  This means that the Americans deliberately abandoned the 6th generation twin-engine multi-role fighter-bomber and returned to the machine of the 70s of the 20th century. The question then is where did the huge funds for the development of the F-22 go? And that at the stage of pre-production samples, this very cost was unknown?
                  Quote: Rageee
                  however, there is no doubt that the United States is the world leader in aircraft manufacturing, and they will remain in this role for a long time to come.

                  We will see.
              2. Avior
                Avior 19 May 2021 17: 42
                +1
                The F-22 is poorly suited for modernization, for this it is too specialized.
                1. DesToeR
                  DesToeR 19 May 2021 21: 02
                  +1
                  Quote: Avior
                  The F-22 is poorly suited for modernization, for this it is too specialized.

                  And what is this "too" specialization? That it is impossible to create for the Raptor a set of external pylons for attaching additional equipment and weapons to the existing ones in the internal compartments? Will the poor man lose his unique "invisibility"? So the brand new F-15EX with two dozen missiles will "glow" on the radar like a Christmas tree on New Year's Eve.
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 19 May 2021 22: 37
                    -1
                    And it's the same
                    The result is a much more expensive version of the F-15 to operate. What for?
                    Plus the features of the control system.
                    Plus the features of the sensors. The f-22 does not have an optical system necessary for ground work, but it has a very developed system of passive radio range sensors required for air combat with another fighter.
                    A certain amount of f-22 is there as insurance in case of limited conflicts by intensive use of aviation, after replacement-f-22 will be stored or written off depending on the degree of wear
                    1. yehat2
                      yehat2 20 May 2021 10: 04
                      +2
                      Quote: Avior
                      a very advanced system of passive radio range sensors required for air combat with another fighter.

                      f-22 is sharpened for battle at a distance of approximately 60-100 km
                      and not on the "battle" itself, but on the first missile launch and departure.
                      As soon as the F-22 begins to actively maneuver or launch traps, its advantage in stealth disappears and it becomes an ordinary 4th generation aircraft.
                      In addition, the eternal question with the fuel supply and the supply on the internal suspensions. It is not enough for long-term loitering. Those. this is plane 1, max 2 attacks.
                      In fact, the f-22 is effective only in cooperation with other aircraft, preferably equipped with missiles with a range of 80+ km and having the ability to receive target designation from the f-22.
                      1. Avior
                        Avior 20 May 2021 10: 06
                        -1
                        your estimate is controversial, but in any case, the aircraft is effective when it is part of the system, and not alone in the field
                      2. yehat2
                        yehat2 20 May 2021 10: 12
                        0
                        Quote: Avior
                        not alone in the field

                        That is the problem.
                        The United States has already halved the number of aircraft and continues.
                        If earlier they operated in the air in Iraq with orders of 30-80 vehicles, where there were jammers, AWACS, reconnaissance vehicles, anti-memory vehicles, etc., now 2-3 units of unified vehicles go into battle from the strength of the force.
                        in fact each one is 1 in the box.
                      3. Avior
                        Avior 20 May 2021 10: 30
                        0
                        there is no war at all
          2. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 19 May 2021 21: 50
            +2
            "Instead of creating on the basis of the F-22" station wagon "////
            ---
            It's impossible. On the F-22, the computer and software are outdated - 80s,
            rigid architecture. All chips are hardwired.
            It was created as a fighter, and it will remain so until it is decommissioned.
            It is easier to design a new fighter (which has been done - NGAD),
            how to upgrade the F-22.
            The F-16 and F-35 were originally created flexibly, so their
            can be upgraded indefinitely.
            1. yehat2
              yehat2 20 May 2021 09: 56
              0
              Quote: voyaka uh
              It was created as a fighter, and it will remain so until it is decommissioned.

              As far as I know, several dozen F-22s have been converted into percussion vehicles in the footsteps of the F-15E.
              they are no longer fighters.
      2. onstar9
        onstar9 21 May 2021 02: 19
        0
        Quote: abrakadabre
        This air hero (F-22) never made it to the sky to show his valiant prowess. Even in the form of beating weak and poor opponents.

        Well, where can good planes show their power now? There are no such wars now, such as even the Iraqi one with a serious adversary. Not to "launch" the same world war for the sake of this? Russia is testing aircraft in Syria. But there, too ... the enemy ... m-la ... on Toyota ... Can an airplane show a lot there? A good test of American and Russian technology would be if they started a war with each other. Maybe let them start? And we'll see ... Find out who is better. Then we will discuss on the forums ...
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 21 May 2021 08: 54
          0
          Russia is testing aircraft in Syria. But there, too ... the enemy ... m-la ... on Toyota ... Can an airplane show a lot there?
          Even such greenhouse (advertising) checks were not arranged for the F-22. Even such! Although during his time in service, there were more than enough opportunities.
    2. Alex777
      Alex777 19 May 2021 18: 46
      +3
      The F-22 remains the master of the sky. He is the best air superiority fighter.

      Ага.
      According to the ACC, at an altitude of 15 meters or more, the pilot has only ten seconds to lose consciousness if the oxygen supply to the mask is cut off. This time is not enough to bring the plane down to an altitude at which you can breathe atmospheric air. An altitude of 7,6 thousand meters is considered safe, because the pilot, in the event of a cessation of oxygen supply, has the opportunity to drop to 5,4 thousand meters - an altitude at which it is already possible to breathe without a mask.

      How will he gain superiority with the limitation of flights in altitude of ~ 7000 m? Among helicopters, yes, undoubtedly a champion.
      And the jamb in the OBOGS oxygen system, due to which such a restriction was imposed, was not sorted out. hi
    3. aszzz888
      aszzz888 21 May 2021 06: 32
      0
      OgnennyiKotik
      19 May 2021 09: 14

      +2
      The F-22 remains the master of the sky.
      laughing fool laughing one more mantra chases ... laughing
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 19 May 2021 22: 22
    0
    The F-15EX will replace all types of F15. and shock and fighter ........... And we also need to go the same way to make a Su30 or 35 double with units and avionics from Su57 ..... and delpt them at a couple of factories of 40-45 pieces in year. And Su57.
  • Ka-52
    Ka-52 19 May 2021 06: 19
    +4
    The "classic" close air combat has gone down in history (at least, we can see it in the past decades),

    Ilya, as always, writes from his alternative universe. Where in this decade has he seen air battles in principle? In the previous decade, WB at a distance of up to 20ml is a common distance, classified as close combat in modern conditions. Often, the pilots were close at a distance of visual contact.
    1. Speedy
      Speedy 19 May 2021 12: 05
      0
      There are countries whose territory does not imply any battles at all, except for those close to them.
      1. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 19 May 2021 21: 15
        0
        San Marino and the Vatican?
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 19 May 2021 22: 24
        0
        And the AWACS will fly along the borders and show and direct everything
    2. Avior
      Avior 19 May 2021 17: 50
      -1
      How do they conduct maneuverable combat outside of visual visibility?
      1. Ka-52
        Ka-52 20 May 2021 07: 11
        0
        How do they conduct maneuverable combat outside of visual visibility?

        is this a question for me? How do you usually fight outside of visual visibility?
        1. Avior
          Avior 20 May 2021 07: 44
          -1
          I believed that close maneuverable combat was being conducted within visual range, so I asked you when I read it.
          Often, the pilots were close at a distance of visual contact.

          Further, with the help of radar or OLS, but a maneuverable battle is so difficult to conduct - there is no full view.
          Now there are only the first attempts to obtain such an overview on airplanes.
          1. Ka-52
            Ka-52 20 May 2021 08: 41
            0
            modern close maneuver combat is not the situation that we remember from air battles in 2M and the Korean War. When opponents hung on each other's tails. Melee range now has a range of up to 25ml. Not for nothing sperrow, considered RBB, have a range of up to 30-35 km.
            1. Avior
              Avior 20 May 2021 09: 06
              -1
              with the fact that missiles have a range greater than visual visibility, it is understandable.
              But how to conduct a maneuverable battle if your enemy drops out of observation all the time?
              that's why I asked.
              Theoretically, of course, you can fight for 25 km. Only it will not be maneuverable, and will slightly differ from the battle at long and medium distances.
              1. Ka-52
                Ka-52 24 May 2021 05: 06
                0
                Theoretically, of course, you can fight for 25 km. Only it will not be maneuverable, and will slightly differ from the battle at long and medium distances.

                Come on, Sergei. This is where such categorical statements are born from?) Maybe let's start from the origins - what is maneuvering as an element of air navigation?)
                1. Avior
                  Avior 24 May 2021 06: 32
                  -1
                  I think it's best to start with the subject of the dispute.
                  Close air combat (fighting on bends, dog fight - tracing paper from English dogfight) is a phenomenon that appeared during the First World War, and quickly acquired significant scope. The fighting was carried out at short distances, when each side is aware of the presence of the other.

                  How do you define what close air combat is and what specific features does it have?
                  1. Ka-52
                    Ka-52 24 May 2021 10: 22
                    0
                    Close air combat (battle on bends, dog fight - tracing paper from English dogfight) is a phenomenon that appeared during the First World War,

                    why refer to what is indicated in the past tense?
                    How do you define what close air combat is and what specific features does it have?

                    Firstly, close-range combat is determined by the area of ​​use of the short-range weapon. Taking into account the speed of approach (oncoming battle), a distance of 20 miles is covered in ~ 40 seconds.
                    secondly, the fight is associated with active maneuvering. In general, from the point of view of tactics, maneuvering is a characteristic for any fight... When the task is to reach the launch distance, launch your missiles and get away from the enemy's attack.
    3. Herman 4223
      Herman 4223 19 May 2021 21: 20
      0
      Not that not rarely, but almost always.
      There is an article on the Internet by an American colonel on this topic. 4 planes out of visual visibility Shoot down the US and Israel to Iraq. 5 accurately known out of sight during a Desert Storm. And a couple more after in Yugoslavia, including a record range of 37 km. The Belgian pilot put it on the F-16.
      1. Ka-52
        Ka-52 20 May 2021 07: 13
        0
        what did you mean by that? That you can shoot down planes outside of visual sight? Is this a joke or trolling?
        1. Herman 4223
          Herman 4223 20 May 2021 07: 41
          0
          You wrote that the planes sometimes came close at a distance of visual visibility. And I answered you that there was almost always a rapprochement in practice. I didn't get it out of my head, but read an article by an American colonel, it is on the Internet.
          1. Ka-52
            Ka-52 20 May 2021 08: 37
            0
            And I answered you that there was almost always a rapprochement in practice.

            It's right. Because the system of identifying "friend or foe" that during the war in the Gulf, in Yugoslavia, the Americans worked very badly. Therefore, the identification of the enemy was often carried out at a distance of visual contact. Battles in both companies were fought at distances of +/- 20ml. What I wrote above
            1. Herman 4223
              Herman 4223 20 May 2021 17: 09
              0
              The author I read wrote about the 5 mile zone. And yes the main reason is the identification system.
  • Free wind
    Free wind 19 May 2021 06: 37
    +4
    B-2 is beautiful.
  • abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 19 May 2021 07: 30
    +2
    In the 2030s, a new "budget" fighter is also expected - the conditional successor to the F-16. However, a fundamental decision on it has not yet been made.
    Something this statement goes against the concept of the F-35. He's like a single plane for everyone.
    1. Herman 4223
      Herman 4223 19 May 2021 21: 14
      0
      Was supposed to replace f-16,18 and A-10.
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 19 May 2021 21: 20
        0
        Was supposed to replace f-16,18 and A-10.
        And How? Replaced?
        1. Herman 4223
          Herman 4223 19 May 2021 21: 24
          0
          Himself already wondering how it will end. F-16 should remain at a minimum by the thirties. What will the new fighter change?
        2. Avior
          Avior 19 May 2021 22: 41
          -1
          The F-18 has been replaced, the F-16 and the A-10 are being replaced gradually.
          Did you think he would replace everything in one day?
  • kytx
    kytx 19 May 2021 07: 42
    +2
    old man f15 is still in business
    very successful plane
    1. yehat2
      yehat2 19 May 2021 10: 17
      +1
      Quote: kytx
      very successful plane

      the plane is not very successful, but the task is correctly set.
      Because of what the aircraft created for it serves very actively and for a long time.
      1. Rageee
        Rageee 19 May 2021 14: 37
        +5
        in what it is not successful then? excellent fighter-bomber, everything with him. And cars in a modern design are generally sweet, they are pumped up with technologies at the most I can not, only stealth is lacking)
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 19 May 2021 16: 46
          +2
          Quote: Rageee
          everything with him

          read the claims of the Americans themselves to the F-15.
          Firstly, they saw, using the example of the Su-27, that they did not use an integral layout, since the designers of the dry and a number of other nuances in aerodynamics, such as slats, why the Su-27 is much better in close combat.
          in the project of silent needles, some of these nuances were corrected.
          secondly, the F-15 did not make a completely universal aircraft - either a fighter or a strike aircraft. This is due to the fact that the layout volumes are somewhat lacking. This also limits the modernization of the F-15. The plane can take a lot on the harness, but not inward.
          This is superimposed on another feature - with the afterburner the F-15 accelerates a little faster, but eats more at speeds above Mach than the Su-27 line due to its lower power, and the fuel supply fits less, which aggravates the difference and therefore is inferior energetically as an interceptor.
          The funny thing is that the F-15, which has a higher maximum speed, wins in range over the dryers only at subsonic speeds. Using outboard tanks, F-15 noticeably worsens aerodynamics, in contrast to drying, in which the internal tanks are noticeably larger.
          There are a number of other nuances that only pilots and designers can better tell.
          so the plane is good, but not "very". Just a reliable plane.
          1. Avior
            Avior 19 May 2021 22: 43
            +1
            The F-15 has been tested for real combat use, in the volume of Simon in aerial battles
            Great plane
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 19 May 2021 08: 33
    +1
    Well, right, on new planes you can steal more.
    1. Rageee
      Rageee 19 May 2021 14: 38
      0
      so they are also a printing press, they can print as many green pieces of paper as they like, why are you so worried about them, it is incomprehensible)))
  • Operator
    Operator 19 May 2021 08: 47
    -3
    For the Russian Aerospace Forces, the ideal is a manned combat aircraft fleet of two types of aircraft - Su-57 and Yak-130.
    Ples unmanned fleet of heavy UAVs and strategic missile launcher "Burevestnik".
  • yehat2
    yehat2 19 May 2021 10: 16
    +3
    I thought the USA a-10 had a couple of links and that's it, but there are 2 hundred of them belay
  • Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 19 May 2021 21: 07
    +1
    Very interesting: "In the 2030s, a new 'budget' fighter is also expected - the conditional successor to the F-16."
    So it was like an F-35 !?
    Now I wonder how many of them will be released for themselves, and what they will do with them when a new car appears in the thirties. After all, the F-16, in theory, should remain the minimum amount.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 19 May 2021 22: 00
      +1
      The minister blurted it out without thinking.
      It is fundamentally impossible to create a budget modern fighter.
      Or this will be a surrogate for a Yak-130 combat aircraft from the Italian Leonardo.
      Even a simple Swedish Grippen with an F-18 engine costs more than an F-35.
      1. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 19 May 2021 22: 26
        0
        Flu is hardly more expensive, in my opinion this is generally the cheapest western fighter, apart from the Italian ersatz.
        It is quite possible to make an airplane cheaper. The engine is simpler, for example, the F-35 has an engine with a thrust of 13 tons, this is not enough. A smaller engine will cost less and consume less fuel. Second, you can rework the glider, make it smaller. Yes, of course there will be no room for internal compartments. But the car will again reduce the cost. Avionics is a little easier.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 19 May 2021 22: 46
          -1
          Avionics - over 50% of the aircraft cost.
          Radar can't be made simpler, scopes,
          IR sensors, sighting devices on the ground. Everything is very expensive.
          And without them there is nothing to rise into the air.
          The F-35 engine costs $ 11 million, with a total aircraft price of $ 85 million.
          And its thrust is only minimally sufficient for this aircraft.
          At the same time, the engine is very economical.
          Without internal compartments - they will notice and shoot down from afar.
          1. Herman 4223
            Herman 4223 19 May 2021 23: 05
            0
            Radar can be made simpler. Reducing the diameter of the blade and the number of modules. As far as notice from afar, 90% of all illumination is given by the largest element of the aircraft. This is his glider. The thrust is minimal enough for this aircraft, maybe yes. But the moment-35 has two tons less thrust of both engines and it is sufficient. Because the plane has a smaller cross-section.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 20 May 2021 00: 06
              +3
              "90% of all exposure comes from the largest element of the aircraft. This is its glider." ///
              ----
              This is not true in radar. Bomber B-2 is huge in size.
              But on centimeter-decimeter radars, it looks approximately,
              like the F-35. And on meter radars, the F-35 is much smaller.
              The F-35 gives out the tail unit in the meter range.
              And on any radar - the B-2 is hundreds of times smaller than the crumbs of Grippen.
              1. Herman 4223
                Herman 4223 20 May 2021 06: 43
                0
                Since when has this been not true?
                The shape of the glider and the materials from which it is made play a role.
                If you take B2, then its shape for signal reflection looks better, and the material is probably thicker.
                But it can be equal to f-35 only from the frontal or lateral surface. If the irradiation is slightly higher or lower, then B2 turns into a huge pancake. And this pancake will give such a flare as a regular plane without stealth technology.
                1. yehat2
                  yehat2 20 May 2021 12: 54
                  +1
                  Quote: Herman 4223
                  And this pancake will give such a flare as a regular plane without stealth technology.

                  not quite right.
                  what angles will they look at? 45 degrees?
                  that is unlikely. When operated from a distance, it will usually operate in the 3-20 degree range.
                  the offset from the axis increases the RCS, but it still turns out to be much lower than that of a conventional aircraft. And, given that pilots can usually choose the trajectory in the dangerous phase of the flight, it turns out that b2 almost always has at least about 85% of its maximum efficiency.
                  In addition, it is worth remembering that the b2 was intended for the use of missiles in hazardous areas, and this gives it a huge tactical niche in order to remain inconspicuous. Remember how the B-52 blasted Belgrade with missiles. Someone tried to intercept them?
      2. yehat2
        yehat2 20 May 2021 09: 51
        +1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        It is fundamentally impossible to create a budget modern fighter.

        perhaps, but this fighter will be tightly tied to powerful infrastructure. You can save on radar, range and other performance characteristics, but this is justified only on the scale of the armies of the Cold War.
        This is how the moment-29 appeared. Its early versions were highly dependent on support, tactics, and other nuances.
        China and the Indians have followed the path of endless modernization in the moment-21. And now this aircraft (or its clone) with modern equipment is 2.5 times cheaper than the modern F-16, and is inferior only in some performance characteristics, and somewhere it is superior, for example, as an interceptor.
        But what can I say, Israel itself created its own Kfir (it seems that it was called so - I can confuse it) and it was much cheaper than even influenza, not to mention the Americans.
      3. yehat2
        yehat2 20 May 2021 09: 55
        +1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        The minister blurted it out without thinking.
        Budget modern fighter

        the concept of "budget" in the US is somewhat different even from yours.
        I suspect that the minister meant a plane no more than $ 200 million
        so, budget ...
  • yehat2
    yehat2 20 May 2021 10: 17
    +1
    Quote: Alex777

    And the jamb in the OBOGS oxygen system, due to which such a restriction was imposed, was not sorted out. hi

    stealth at high altitude loses its meaning
    the best ESR values ​​are just at medium and low altitudes.
    The high altitude of the F-22 is actually only needed to save fuel, and the 7k limitation makes this aircraft even more limited in range and the possibility of using it as an interceptor.
  • yehat2
    yehat2 20 May 2021 12: 48
    0
    Quote: Avior
    there is no war at all

    what did you say? to the fact that the grass is green and the water is wet?
  • APASUS
    APASUS 21 May 2021 15: 21
    -1
    The Americans have a very flexible decision-making system. There, both sharp reductions and a sharp recruitment of aircraft from reserve and storage in the desert are possible. Although I suppose there will be no reduction, now the Biden administration is likely to fit somewhere again ........ ....... Iran, Syria, Libya is not important.
  • Outsider
    Outsider 27 May 2021 16: 24
    0
    Quote: DesToeR
    Quote: Rageee
    it seems that the F-22 was created to confront relatively equal rivals (as far as I remember, the United States did not fight with Russia or China during this time) as a tool for gaining air superiority, and not for pokatushki against the Papuans ... the F-22 is just ahead of his time, he has been in the ranks for 20 years, and his competitors in the person of the Su-57 and J-20 are still in a semi-embryonic state ..

    And that's why the Americans are launching a modernized version of the F-15 into production? Instead of creating on the basis of the F-22 "station wagon" with the possibility of hitting the ground?

    - Who told you that the F-22 is not designed to work on the ground ?! Yes, its internal compartments contain either two bombs of 1000 pounds (457 kg), or 8 SDB GBU-39 (in the near future, and GBU-53B). It was the F-22 that was ordered to follow the cruise missiles in the first shock wave to destroy the most advanced air defense systems - the Sky radar, the S-400 air defense system ... Not the F-35, which will go only in the second wave, namely the F-22 the first and most important percussion functions are coming.
    Naturally, before the start of serial production of NGAD, no one will send the F-22 to retire, there is simply no one to replace him yet... To assume that it will be replaced by the F-15EX, can simply be complete ignoramuses and profane in military affairs ...
  • Outsider
    Outsider 27 May 2021 17: 13
    0
    Quote: Alex777
    The F-22 remains the master of the sky. He is the best air superiority fighter.

    Ага.
    According to the ACC, at an altitude of 15 meters or more, the pilot has only ten seconds to lose consciousness if the oxygen supply to the mask is cut off. This time is not enough to bring the plane down to an altitude at which you can breathe atmospheric air. An altitude of 7,6 thousand meters is considered safe, because the pilot, in the event of a cessation of oxygen supply, has the opportunity to drop to 5,4 thousand meters - an altitude at which it is already possible to breathe without a mask.

    How will he gain superiority with the limitation of flights in altitude of ~ 7000 m? Among helicopters, yes, undoubtedly a champion.
    And the jamb in the OBOGS oxygen system, due to which such a restriction was imposed, was not sorted out. hi

    - Stop smacking the lying nonsense? Already 10 years as figured out and all restrictions have long been removed. And the matter turned out not to be in the oxygen generation system in general, in vain they sinned on it and went over the screws five times, it was always in perfect order and worked properly. It turned out to be a new type of high-altitude compensating suit, which too "choked" the pilots when they quickly descended from the ceiling, to such an extent that some of the less robust ones gradually fainted. The question was eventually clarified, the suit was readjusted, the problem has long been removed ...
  • Outsider
    Outsider 28 May 2021 15: 13
    0
    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
    The F-22 remains the master of the sky. He is the best air superiority fighter. It is not his problem that for 30 years an equal rival has not appeared and he is simply redundant.
    It is not a multi-functional fighter, at the time of its creation there was a division into fighters and fighter-bombers, and then they did not modernize it.

    “It’s a multipurpose fighter and is perfect for flying two 454 kg (1000 lb) JDAMs and eight small diameter GBU-39 bombs.
  • Outsider
    Outsider 28 May 2021 17: 13
    0
    Quote: DesToeR
    Quote: Rageee
    it seems that the F-22 was created to confront relatively equal rivals (as far as I remember, the United States did not fight with Russia or China during this time) as a tool for gaining air superiority, and not for pokatushki against the Papuans ... the F-22 is just ahead of his time, he has been in the ranks for 20 years, and his competitors in the person of the Su-57 and J-20 are still in a semi-embryonic state ..

    And that's why the Americans are launching a modernized version of the F-15 into production? Instead of creating on the basis of the F-22 "station wagon" with the possibility of hitting the ground?

    - NGAD will undoubtedly be versatile, including for strikes on the ground. Others today simply do not create ...
  • Outsider
    Outsider 28 May 2021 17: 16
    0
    Quote: Herman 4223
    Very interesting: "In the 2030s, a new 'budget' fighter is also expected - the conditional successor to the F-16."
    So it was like an F-35 !?
    Now I wonder how many of them will be released for themselves, and what they will do with them when a new car appears in the thirties. After all, the F-16, in theory, should remain the minimum amount.

    - The simplest and cheapest option - today to buy hundreds of three F-16 block 70, upgraded according to the last word - and not break your head ... Just like buying an F-15EX to replace the F-15C, which has exhausted its resource ...
  • Burtas
    Burtas 6 June 2021 06: 21
    0
    They made hardware and positioned themselves all over the world as advanced, and for 20 years they have not effectively used themselves anywhere. Only for interception and escort ... a shame, but they are fighting all over the world. Only Turkey used the F-16 from a squeaky, and even then without a real fight ...
    1. rtutaloe
      rtutaloe 8 June 2021 09: 14
      0
      Young man, well, you understand that expensive toys like the Raptor were made against specific opponents. Are you not satisfied that there has not been a hot war between the United States and Russia for the last 20 years? The rest was successfully used in Iraq, Libya, Syria. The IS-3 also fought only in a buried state, so now, it was not necessary to build it? By the way, the USSR also did not fire at anyone with nuclear missiles, and many types have long been removed from service: were they also unnecessary?
  • rtutaloe
    rtutaloe 8 June 2021 09: 07
    0
    The fleet of old US aircraft was technically obsolete 10-15 years ago. Basically there is the problem of developing the airframe resource. Therefore, we agreed to the F-35 project, because there was a question of either reviving already cut factories for old cars, or investing in a completely new project. Therefore, it is not surprising that as new F-35s are delivered to the Air Force, old aircraft are gradually decommissioned. However, it is clear that there are new projects, so the US combat capability will not drop as the veterans retire.
  • rtutaloe
    rtutaloe 8 June 2021 10: 41
    0
    Quote: Gori
    D = 12-15 km - this is a difficult case, the range of American airborne radars, including those on your F-35I [/ b]? Israel does not even know how to make airborne radars and its own fighters, as evidenced by the use of US radars and F-35 fighter-bombers in its Air Force.

    I watch, accounts change, but knowledge is not added. Let's start with the fact that 10 years ago the EPR of the Raptor, although it is not known in what plane, was estimated by Russian experts as 0.1 sq. M. At that time, there was evidence that one of the promising aircraft radars, it seems, "Irbis" can detect such objects at a distance of just 90 km. Further, if you take the characteristics of the S-400 designation complex, then you will find out that at 400 km it can detect and shoot down only targets with such a large EPR as in the B-52. While such an inconspicuous target as the Tomahawk missile, it can only work from a distance of 60 km. Do you feel the difference between 60 and 400? Moreover, the given proportions are retained for radars of Air-to-Air missiles. With a decrease in the size of the target, the range of its guaranteed destruction also decreases. This is despite the fact that the maximum range of the probability of hitting large targets rarely exceeds 0.7. And, for example, milking MANPADS, it generally amounts to 0.2-0.25. Those. it is necessary to throw five missiles into the target to be guaranteed to hit it. In addition, for example, the Russian R-77, with a declared 90 km of destruction, hits badly even at targets at a distance of 70-80 km, according to the statement of the Indians who periodically fight the Pakistanis with these missiles. Therefore, leave the bravado about the bad F-22 being struck by something there at a distance of 300 km - it's simply impossible. And before you send someone to school, try to understand the question yourself. And one more remark, the S-75 "Dvina" could work on a training target Myasishchev 3M from a distance of 30 km, and on a target of the Su-17 type from 18 km. You can go through the magazines "Technics and Armaments" and learn some materiel. This is for you about EPR, characteristics and real capabilities of the Radar-Rocket complexes. And yet, no matter what Israel does not know how to do there. F-35 is a cooperative construction in which Israel is also involved. And there is nothing shameful here. You probably don’t remember how many things Russia doesn’t know how to do. Remind me at least one unit of Russian non-Soviet non-small arms, in which the share of Russian components is 100%? And this trouble is not only with electronics. But with engines, for example, with composite materials too: how is the wing for the MC-21? So less bravado.
  • rtutaloe
    rtutaloe 9 June 2021 07: 15
    0
    Quote: Ka-52
    modern close maneuver combat is not the situation that we remember from air battles in 2M and the Korean War. When opponents hung on each other's tails. Melee range now has a range of up to 25ml. Not for nothing sperrow, considered RBB, have a range of up to 30-35 km.

    Actually, there was a pretty clear gradation. Close combat: 12-15 km, average distance 50-60 km, and long-range for 60 km. Sparrow was never considered a melee missile. Sparrow is the middle distance, and the close one is the sidewinder and R-27: 12-15 km. And yes, battles are now taking place at medium distances. However, with the massive introduction of the AIM 120 AMRAAM, battles will move at a distance of 120-150 km. And Russian airborne radars can detect carriers of such 5th generation missiles only from 90 km, and drones are even less.