Military Review

"We need increased combat resistance of fighters": the US Air Force on the consequences of the appearance of new missiles from the PRC and the Russian Federation

46
"We need increased combat resistance of fighters": the US Air Force on the consequences of the appearance of new missiles from the PRC and the Russian Federation

In combat aviation The United States is concerned about the emergence of a number of new means of destruction of air targets from potential adversaries. For example, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force Samuel Clinton Hinout believes that in the face of renewal of enemy arsenals, "increased combat resistance of American fighters is needed."


As noted in the IISS edition, we are talking about "threat drivers" - specific missile defense systems of Chinese and Russian design, the creation of which caused negative consequences for the combat stability of the US Air Force.

So, the PRC acquired a combination of a Chengdu J-20 fighter and a long-range missile (over 200 km) PL-15 (CH-AA-10), equipped with a seeker with AFAR. The equipment of the 9th and 1st brigades of the PLA Air Force J-20 is already underway; according to the Pentagon, up to six air brigades can be re-equipped with this type of aircraft by 2025.

In addition, China is working on a missile that is expected to receive the designation PL-16, which has the same characteristics as the PL-15, but allows six rather than four missile launchers to be placed in the internal compartment of the J-20.

Russia, albeit belatedly, is also upgrading its weapons with missiles such as the R-77-1 (RS-AA-12B) and K-77M (RS-AA-X-12C), which are still in development.

- indicated in the IISS, explaining that "the equipment of the missiles, the range of their destruction and, in a broader sense, the combat resistance of fighters - all this is a determining factor in the development of a new aircraft for tactical aviation of the United States."

46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Thrifty
    Thrifty 31 May 2021 17: 53
    +1
    More often, America needs to throw information about the creation of weapons with fantastic parameters in our country, you see, they will overtake us from the strain and tear our pants. ...
    1. Crabong
      Crabong 31 May 2021 17: 58
      +4
      Aha, and there the fools are sitting ...
      1. Marachuh
        Marachuh 31 May 2021 18: 01
        +8
        Well, no smart Zamvolt or F35 would come up with. wassat
        1. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
          Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 31 May 2021 18: 59
          -4
          How many types of MBT are there smart in service, can you tell me?
          1. bk0010
            bk0010 31 May 2021 20: 13
            +3
            Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
            How many types of MBT are there smart in service, can you tell me?
            And how many MBT factories do they have?
            1. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
              Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 31 May 2021 20: 17
              -2
              Is this the final answer to the question posed? Very patriotic, thank you.
              1. bk0010
                bk0010 31 May 2021 20: 22
                +2
                Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
                Is this the final answer to the question posed? Very patriotic, thank you.
                Damn, you seriously don’t understand that leapfrog with tanks is due to the number of their manufacturers (Kharkov, Leningrad, UVZ). Look at how many types of fighters the states have (F-16, F-15, F-18, F-22, F-35, I'm not talking about all sorts of Harriers). Why is that? Do you think the F-16 could not be adapted to the deck? Yes, the same thing: everyone does his own thing.
                1. mvg
                  mvg 1 June 2021 01: 06
                  -1
                  Yes, the same: everyone does his own thing.

                  But we have 3-4 factories, and the options for SU's and MiGs to hell ..., in no other country there are so many. And, by the way, there is so much Abrashek in "storage" that it is enough to sell it for export, why do they need the plant? On kraynyak Ebipet corps will do. And the light ones will stuff them with the most "I don't want"
                  PS: By the way, McDonnell Douglas produces both F-15 and F-18. Somehow it does not fit with your statements. And for Kharkiv, Leningrad and the Urals, too ... they simply pulled the blanket over themselves, with a normal order "from above" they would release all T-72s on a V-46 diesel
                  1. Zaurbek
                    Zaurbek 1 June 2021 10: 50
                    0
                    For good ... it was necessary to choose the manufacturer of the Moving Part and the manufacturer of the BM with the weapon ... And all the forces (to throw money on improving the diesel engine)
                    1. abc_alex
                      abc_alex 1 June 2021 12: 02
                      -1
                      Have chosen. Kharkov. But Morozov did something that even his plant could not cope with. At UVZ it was a "serial" design bureau, it adapts exactly what to production, and does not do from scratch.
                      It's the same with a diesel engine. The T-64 was configured only for a boxer diesel engine, and it could only be made in Kharkov. Bad, but they could. In other factories, no. The tank was needed, but there were no motors for it.
                      The T-72 was originally a T-64 with a different engine, and the T-80 was a T-64 with a turbine. But, as it turned out, the T-64 was simply poorly designed. And during the remotorization, the unsuccessful components and assemblies were replaced. Do you think they should have been left as they were?
                      1. mvg
                        mvg 1 June 2021 12: 47
                        +1
                        The T-72 was originally a T-64 with a different engine, and the T-80 was a T-64 with a turbine.

                        This is not true. All three tanks have different hoists, this is the first. Then the engines and transmission - this is the second, then a different automatic loader ... and the tower, not to mention the FCS ..
                        Who told you that the T-64 is poorly designed? Where did you read such a thing?
                      2. abc_alex
                        abc_alex 2 June 2021 17: 21
                        +1
                        Quote: mvg
                        that's not the case. All three tanks have different hoists, this is the first. Then the engines and transmission - this is the second, then a different automatic loader ... and the tower, not to mention the FCS ..

                        So.
                        The history of the T-72 began when it became clear that Kharkov was struggling to cope with peacetime supply plans and was simply not able to increase production volumes. In addition, there were complaints about the motor. It was decided to create a "mobilization" tank with a classic diesel engine on the basis of the T-64. We gave it to UVZ. There he looked at the T-64 sample, gasped and ... gasped again. :) And they remade the whole car to hell for the needs of large-scale production and a real war. And they started, as you rightly noted, with the chassis. We threw a half-torsion to hell and further down the list. When we had finished with the "technology" of the chassis, they set to work on the tower. Replaced the automatic loader.

                        Roughly the same story was with the T-80. Initially, the same problem - Kharkov's failure to supply the car and motor. In Leningrad, they took a serial T-64, installed a turbine and realized that Morozov's inventions were going to hell. And again, starting with the chassis, the tank was altered.
                        The fundamental difference was that the Urals made a cheap version, and therefore their sighting system was "minimally sufficient", and the Leningraders were a full-fledged replacement for the T-64. Therefore, their electronics were better.

                        Quote: mvg
                        Who told you that the T-64 is poorly designed? Where did you read such a thing?


                        Yes, full of where I read it. The chassis was changed for a reason in the T-72 and T-80 versions. And it was not just that they could not produce it in normal quantities. If you tell me now that it was a terrible high-tech for its time, I will agree.
                      3. mvg
                        mvg 2 June 2021 22: 03
                        0
                        In my understanding, the T-64 was just corny more expensive, but no worse than the T-72 of earlier versions. Even now Bulat looks more interesting than the T-72B3 mod 16. And on VO there was an article about it.
                        By the way, the T-64 was not exported, in contrast to 40 thousand pieces of T-72 produced with the lion's share of the export part
                      4. abc_alex
                        abc_alex 6 June 2021 01: 37
                        0
                        Quote: mvg
                        In my understanding, the T-64 was just corny more expensive, but no worse than the T-72 of earlier versions. Even now Bulat looks more interesting than the T-72B3 mod 16. And on VO there was an article about it.
                        By the way, the T-64 was not exported, in contrast to 40 thousand pieces of T-72 produced with the lion's share of the export part

                        He was not technologically advanced. He had a lot of controversial solutions, a problematic engine, and if it had not been Morozov's brainchild, most likely, he would never have gone into the series.

                        The T-64 was not exported, of course. It was not enough for the SA. Initially, it was planned to equip the tank units of the SA in BE. But it turned out that Kharkov is simply not able to ensure the planned production of the car, and serial cars suffer from a whole bunch of childhood diseases. After sinking with the T-64 in Europe for some time, they began to replace it with the T-80.

                        And the T-72 was originally a "mobilization" simplified, sharpened for production in wartime conditions. A full replacement for the T-64 would be the T-80.
                2. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek 1 June 2021 14: 14
                  0
                  In my opinion, it is necessary to produce a "trolley and diesel" T72 .....
            2. bk0010
              bk0010 1 June 2021 22: 36
              0
              Quote: mvg
              But we have 3-4 factories, and the options for SU's and MiG's to hell ...
              The Su-30SM is made by one plant, the Su-35S by another. The rest are old or exported. Nobody seems to do Migi.
            3. bk0010
              bk0010 1 June 2021 22: 44
              0
              Quote: mvg
              PS: By the way, McDonnell Douglas produces both F-15 and F-18. Somehow it does not fit with your statements.
              F-15 is heavy, I was talking about F-16 <-> F-18
          2. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
            Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 2 June 2021 10: 36
            0
            > you seriously don’t understand that leapfrog with tanks is due to the number of their manufacturers

            Googling who and where produced M1 and M60 is a matter of 1 minute, it's easier for a patriot to stick out aplomb and write nonsense, I understand.
  2. Crabong
    Crabong 31 May 2021 20: 38
    +2
    Do you know, I’ll ask, what does the F-35 not suit you?
  • hirurg
    hirurg 31 May 2021 18: 02
    +5
    Combat resistance of fighters .. ... Terminology of the brain removal.
    1. Anachoret
      Anachoret 31 May 2021 18: 21
      -1
      new generation fighters are expected to enter the ranks of the us air force))) checked by the electronics of the ukrainian army)))
      first production sample in the photo on the right)
      1. hirurg
        hirurg 31 May 2021 18: 31
        +2
        Enough. What are you doing to me.
        The combat durability of a fighter depends on the maneuverability and the experience of the crew.
        1. Bradley
          Bradley 31 May 2021 22: 05
          -1
          The combat durability of a fighter depends on the maneuverability and the experience of the crew.

          The war in the Pacific showed no.
    2. sergo1914
      sergo1914 31 May 2021 19: 57
      0
      Quote: hirurg
      Combat resistance of fighters .. ... Terminology of the brain removal.


      Why is that? Everything has already been invented. An armored belt, pressurized compartments, an air defense system, and to work out the fight for the survivability of a fighter. Plug holes quickly. Only now ... such an interesting fighter turns out.
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 31 May 2021 18: 02
    +1
    Krabong, their phobias are at the genetic level, each of our sneezes as a threat to themselves. That is why money is sprayed on hundreds of projects, although you need not be lazy, go to a psychiatrist, and drink prescribed medications on time lol
  • Kuroneko
    Kuroneko 31 May 2021 18: 18
    +2
    Quote: Krabong
    Aha, and there the fools are sitting ...

    Lobbyists are sitting there. Money, more money! Russians are coming! (well, the Chinese)
  • venik
    venik 31 May 2021 21: 37
    0
    Quote: Thrifty
    More often, America needs to throw information about the creation of weapons with fantastic parameters in our country, you see, they will overtake us from the strain and tear our pants. ...

    ========
    Not always, not always! Sometimes it is better to "merge" information and about "backwardness"in some industries ...... And" on the sly "and do something that"them"and" never dreamed "even in nightmares !! option!!!
  • Undecim
    Undecim 31 May 2021 18: 03
    +8
    Tomorrow we should wait for Damantsev's article of the type "A deadly surprise for US carrier-based aircraft from the Chinese PiLi 15 ((CH-AA-10)". Operational-strategic and technical advantages of the Chinese Air Force. "
    The number of abbreviations is even scary to imagine.
    1. Kuroneko
      Kuroneko 31 May 2021 18: 19
      0
      Well, he seems to have already written about our SD.
    2. sergo1914
      sergo1914 31 May 2021 19: 58
      +2
      Quote: Undecim
      Tomorrow we should wait for Damantsev's article of the type "A deadly surprise for US carrier-based aircraft from the Chinese PiLi 15 ((CH-AA-10)". Operational-strategic and technical advantages of the Chinese Air Force. "
      The number of abbreviations is even scary to imagine.


      Now it was really scary.
    3. And Us Rat
      And Us Rat 31 May 2021 21: 18
      0
      Quote: Undecim
      Tomorrow we have to wait for Damantsev's article ...

      But you don't need to be clickers. stop
      And then he probably is already sitting, raping the keyboard. belay
  • Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 31 May 2021 18: 27
    0
    Did I understand correctly that their problem is that their planes can be shot down?
    1. lucul
      lucul 31 May 2021 18: 32
      -1
      Did I understand correctly that their problem is that their planes can be shot down?

      So since the Second World War they did not have an equal opponent))))
      1. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 31 May 2021 19: 59
        0
        Well, in Korea and Viet Nam, they got a little bit harder.
    2. Mitroha
      Mitroha 31 May 2021 21: 44
      +2
      Quote: Herman 4223
      Did I understand correctly that their problem is that their planes can be shot down?

      Yes, but if you put commas, they'll get knocked down faster. laughing
      1. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 31 May 2021 22: 22
        0
        Read in one breath without interruption laughing
  • RealPilot
    RealPilot 31 May 2021 18: 29
    +2
    Quote: Thrifty
    More often, America needs to throw information about the creation of weapons with fantastic parameters in our country, you see, they will overtake us from the strain and tear our pants. ...

    And I have a tip for them: add armor plates for the entire maximum take-off weight!
    Fighting stability, you see, and it will increase ...
    They will fly steadily, but slowly ... bully
    1. And Us Rat
      And Us Rat 31 May 2021 21: 20
      +1
      Quote: RealPilot
      They will fly steadily, but slowly ...

      And nyzenko nyzenko. wassat
  • Gunther
    Gunther 31 May 2021 18: 46
    +4
    Quote: IISS editions
    ...this is about "threat drivers»


    it is absolutely impossible to understand what kind of crap these IISS scribblers are talking about in their Newspeak.
    1. dauria
      dauria 31 May 2021 21: 01
      0
      these IISS scribblers are talking shit

      "Threat drivers" - this is our "greyhound translators". And be glad that for now you have a keyboard, and not a button-board or a key-board. Englishmen - "scribblers" write in their native language. IISS (IISS) - International Institute for Strategic Studies - research and analytical center on military-political conflicts. The headquarters are located in London.
      He is also engaged in the release of quite serious publications on military topics.
      Well, of course, they didn't stand next to VO, but they try to match Meehan with the Professor ... laughing
  • sabakina
    sabakina 31 May 2021 19: 08
    0
    As far as I understood, they have two ways:
    1. Book a fighter using Israeli tricks.
    2. Place a protective force field on the fighter.
    The first is unlikely, the second is impossible, due to the lack of such technology on Earth.
    PS And why did George Lucas make the film "Star Wars" ... They really believe in the force field ...
    1. And Us Rat
      And Us Rat 31 May 2021 21: 26
      0
      Quote: sabakina
      Book a fighter jet using Israeli tricks.

      This is possible, of course, but at such a pace, their military-industrial complex will really begin to degrade.

    2. isv000
      isv000 1 June 2021 17: 18
      0
      Russian hackers will launch a virus there, and there will be no field. Nobody canceled the felt boots thrown awkwardly on the control panel ... wink
  • Klingon
    Klingon 1 June 2021 00: 36
    0
    cheered up the Chinese video commentator's Indian accent ... could it be Raj Kootrapali ?? wassat
  • Synoid
    Synoid 1 June 2021 02: 20
    +1
    Yes, that they are afraid of F35 is invisible to enemy radars and missiles, the singers from Israel will confirm.
    And if they get shot down, only by accident.
  • isv000
    isv000 1 June 2021 17: 14
    0
    You need to behave yourself, then diapers will not be needed. Here they are not Indians with axes, but as a hooligan on the tinsel, we know to enter ... negative