F-35. Money Slayer or Serious Weapon?

251

A detailed description of the design and flight control of the Lightning fighter will be available in the next issues of Modelist-Konstruktor for 2021. There, in the Electronics for Beginners application, a diagram of the assembly of the APG-81 radar from 1676 transmit-receive modules will appear. And the recollections of the pilots will clarify the details of the combat use of the F-35, which has received the most controversial assessments since its inception.

Today we cannot trust the numbers that are among the most sensitive characteristics of the Lightning. Such as its visibility for domestic detection means or the declared capabilities of the APG-81 radar. Such details are classified and inaccessible to the general public.



By external signs, it is impossible to determine the exact flight characteristics, but it is possible to understand what techniques are used in the design of the "Lightning", what advantages and disadvantages follow from this, based on examples of 4th generation fighters, in the design of which there were similar elements.

The purpose of this material is to systematize the most reliable facts about the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter.

Distinctive features of the 5th generation


The public and experts attach a lot of importance to cruising supersonic and fantasize about the importance of EPR in Russian and American fighters. Forgetting pay attention to the key.

Domestic and foreign fighters of the 5th generation use a diamond-shaped (trapezoidal) wing.

F-35. Money Slayer or Serious Weapon?

Here, high bearing properties at subsonic speeds are combined with high wing rigidity. Load-bearing properties are directly related to maneuverability. The paramount quality of the fighter. A rigid wing of low aspect ratio is a sign of a strike aircraft. For throwing towards a target with full combat load and escape at supersonic speed from a retaliatory strike.

According to experts from aviation, the reception with a diamond-shaped wing made it possible to agree on mutually exclusive requirements for the design of fighters and bombers. This is a significant part of the value of the 5th generation.

Considering that fighters and aircraft based on them (Su-34, F-15E) are regularly involved in strike missions, one can understand the reasons for the growing interest associated with the new wing. Which allows continuous flight at transonic (supersonic) speeds. In the absence of tendencies to the emergence of strong vibrations at high speed and low altitudes - an unavoidable property of all fighters of past generations. Whose aerodynamic appearance has been optimized for maneuvering at speeds well below Mach XNUMX.


Planning bombs GBU-39 in the weapons bay of the F-22 fighter

Development of a new class of aircraft capable of effectively attacking ground targets while maintaining the full potential of a fighter in air combat. Fighter and strike squadron pilots can receive a variety of training. The main message is strike and fighter groups, consisting of aircraft with the same flight characteristics and identical design, incl. sighting complexes (more on this below). The organizational advantages of such an Air Force structure are beyond doubt.

All of the above has a direct bearing on the F-35 multirole fighter.

Analysis of external parts


A) The absence of sagging in the root of the wing.

One of the important innovations that influenced the development of the 4th generation was the creation of vortexes to improve the efficiency of aerodynamic controls.

American fighters of the 5th generation are deprived of the "sharp" influx-vortex generators inherent in the F-16 or the Su-27 family. They also lack elements similar to the upper lip of the F-15 Eagle air intakes, which serves the same purpose.

But the Raptors and Lightnings did not abandon the very physical effect of vortex aerodynamics, which provided such a high maneuverability to their predecessors.

In the pictures, it is noticeable that the edge of the air intake is responsible for creating vortices in the F-35.


B) The presence of two V-shaped keels.

With this arrangement, the vertical tail does not fall into the aerodynamic "shadow" of the wing. That allows you to maintain controllability and return the fighter from high angles of attack.

The single keel was considered the biggest drawback of its predecessor, the multipurpose and ubiquitous F-16. According to some reports, he lost track stability and the ability to steer at angles of attack a little more than 10 degrees. And projects of deep modernization of the F-16 began with a proposal to equip the Falcon with two inclined keels.

Single-keel "Rafali", "Gripen" and "Eurofighter" are not affected by this problem, because use other aerodynamic configurations of a glider with a forward horizontal tail.

In the presence of a normal aerodynamic design and a single keel, the F-16 was and remains the worst among the representatives of the 4th generation in terms of handling at high angles of attack. That, however, did not prevent him from becoming a "working tool" in all conflicts.

Like the Falcon, the F-35 has a normal aerodynamic design. The presence of a V-shaped tail means that this fighter got rid of the shortcoming of its predecessor.

For this reason, the F-35 cannot be inferior in maneuverability to the aforementioned F-16. Contrary to popular beliefs, the Lightning is completely helpless in close combat against Generation 4 fighters.




Shots showing flights at critical and supercritical angles of attack. In fact, back forward. Of course, this is not a super-maneuverable Su-35, but you should not ignore the capabilities of an American fighter.

C) Continuing the external examination of the F-35 airframe, we can note the presence of a single engine located near the center of mass. And a noticeable reduction in the size of the bow, due to the installation of a compact airborne radar with AFAR.

The impact of these aspects on flight performance and maneuverability can only be assessed as “positive”.

D) Like all representatives of the 5th generation, the Lightning has a high degree of integration of the wing and fuselage. Yes, we are talking about an integral layout.

The "area rule" unknown to the general public and the fruitless debate about the boundaries of the concept itself (which layout of the F-15 and F-16 is semi-integral or non-integral?) Will be left for another case.

We will focus on the most neutral definition. In the presence of an integral layout, each element has such a strong influence on other elements that it is impossible to consider them in isolation from each other during calculations.

The "Lightning" has an oversized wide fuselage with "clean" surfaces, where it is impossible to draw a clear boundary between the wing and the fuselage. Integral layout signs.

In conclusion, the following remark will sound. Integral layout is definitely a positive quality that improves the flight characteristics of fighters.

E) The F-35 fuselage is oversized in the center section. The emergence of "extra" volumes was associated with the need to place weapons bays and get an increased supply of fuel. In the version with vertical takeoff (F-35B), part of these volumes are used to install a lifting fan.

Allegations about the negative impact of the wide fuselage on the speed of the Lightning do not inspire much confidence. The main source of resistance in flight was and remains the wing. Tens of square meters set at an angle to the airflow. The fuselage's contribution to drag is negligible.

One paradoxical fact confirms this thesis. All speed records of the early 1930s belonged to flying boats - with huge ugly floats. The reduced wing and the increased landing speed forced to land on the water. And from the point of view of air resistance, the effect of reducing the wing area surpassed all other, not the most pleasant changes in the appearance of record-breaking aircraft.

There are no clear signs of inferiority in the appearance of the modern Lightning. As well as evidence of any outstanding performance characteristics. Normal aerodynamic design and engine without OVT. A new type of multi-role fighter for the United States and NATO countries, in which the main shortcomings of its predecessors were eliminated.

We will leave the calculations of the roll rate at various angles of attack to the specialists of the aviation industry. The author listed the obvious things, from which it follows that the F-35 uses a traditional set of techniques and design solutions. Many times tested on other types of fighters.

The heart of the machine


Every famous aircraft was born thanks to the presence of a successful engine. The aerial triumph of the La-5FN, MiG-15 or British Spitfire begins with the stories of the ASh-82, Klimov VK-1 and Rolls-Royce Merlin engines. Because the best ideas of aircraft designers are meaningless without the power plant of the required parameters. A weight coil is “tied” to the engine. Performance characteristics at a designated take-off weight and combat load.

Technological level 1960-1970s allowed the creation of combat-ready single engine fighters with a normal take-off weight of 12-15 tons. The maximum take-off weight of such aircraft could reach 17-19 tons. Examples are the MiG-23, F-16 or Mirage 2000.

At the beginning of the XXI century, a single-engine F-35 was created with a normal take-off weight of over 20 tons.

The prerequisite for the creation of such an aircraft was the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engine, which develops more thrust than both engines of the MiG-35 fighter. This comparison was made not with the aim of discrediting domestic technology, but with the aim of demonstrating the seriousness of the intentions of the "potential enemy".

The hefty "Penguin" did not appear from scratch. At hand, the designers, first of all, had an engine that made it possible to lift a 20+ ton fighter into the air. With the ability to provide the F-35 with peer-to-peer thrust-to-weight ratio.

The fact that the thrust-to-weight ratio with a normal take-off weight lies in the accepted range for fighters of 4/5 generations is evidenced by shots with flights at supercritical angles of attack, "back" forward. This is possible, first of all, due to the impressive traction of Pratt & Whitney.

Before the appearance of the domestic engine of the "second stage" within the framework of the Su-57 project, there were no close analogues of the F-135 in the world. Declared 13 tons of thrust in non-afterburner mode and 19 tons in afterburner with its own "dry" weight of 1700 kg. A significant gap from the characteristics of its predecessors. This is the engine for a new generation fighter jet.

As a general summary. One engine is beneficial in terms of cost and performance.

Regarding the situation with engine failure, the incidents disprove the belief that twin-engine fighters are more reliable. Loss of thrust became a critical situation, depriving the pilots of the opportunity to continue flying. The pilots did not rely on a second, serviceable engine, but on the ejection seat and the strength of the parachute lines.

Radar


The mass of the airborne radar is only 1% of the take-off mass, but it is the characteristics of the radar that determine the capabilities of modern fighters. Fact: over the past few decades, in air battles, where 4th generation fighters were used, 100% of victories were won with the use of medium and long-range missiles (URVV).

The following is known about the F-35 radar. This is one of three types of radars for fighters (along with the Raptor radar and the Russian 0N36 Belka), originally created with the expectation of using AFAR.

The RBE-2AA radars of the French Rafale fighters and other modern radar modifications of the 4+ generation fighters use outdated architecture and software inherited from their base versions with PFAR. According to the Western military themselves, such developments are a compromise solution that is not able to realize the full potential of an active phased antenna.

It would be too naive to hope that accurate information about the characteristics and capabilities of the AN / APG-81 will be made public. In the brochures themselves, there are very remarkable images of the terrain taken with the F-35 fighter's radar. The declared resolution of 30 x 30 cm allows you to reconstruct the appearance of the target. Distinguish a truck from tank.


The AN / APG-81's capabilities against air targets are apparently not so remarkable, so less attention is paid to them.

AFAR has lower emitted power and detection range. From the positive aspects - extended viewing angles, simultaneous tracking of air and ground targets, great stealth when working. The use of the radar for communication with other aircraft of the group is declared. In this mode, the radar becomes a Wi-Fi access point with a data transfer rate 500 times faster than the standard NATO Link-16.

Neutral summary: the F-35 fighter is equipped with one of the most modern radars, which has certain advantages over the previously created radars.

weaponry


A combat aircraft is a structural element of the armed forces and the military-industrial complex as a whole. History knows examples when a wide range of weapons and an aircraft design compatible with the available ammunition became the most valuable feature in combat conditions. This was, for example, Junkers-88. Absolutely mediocre in everything, except for the presence of a 4-meter "hole" in the middle, most loaded part of the fuselage. A huge bomb bay and a seemingly ordinary compartment, the volume of which was rationally distributed when loaded with standard Luftwaffe bombs.

The F-35 project provides for the use of almost all NATO aircraft ammunition to destroy air, land and sea targets.


Among them, one can distinguish, for example, such patterns as scheduling SDBs (Small-Diameter Bomb). Compact ammunition with foldable wings, best suited to suspension requirements in internal weapon bays.

nearly invisible


The objectives of this direction are to reduce the detection range and reduce the likelihood of "capture" by the heads of the controlled weapons... The idea has received comprehensive development over the past decades. The "probable enemy" has always declared the priority of "stealth technologies". The use of "stealth" in combat has shown controversial results.

The F-35 fighter has a wide range of stealth elements. These are parallel edges of the wing and horizontal tail, S-shaped channels of air intakes, an engine completely recessed into the fuselage, sawtooth edges of the covers of technological openings, an invisible canopy and a "magic" radio-absorbing coating, about which practically nothing is known. Unlike Raptor and V-2 Spirit, on the multipurpose F-35 it was decided to abandon the flat engine nozzle, which means greater thermal signature.

Designated technical solutions, incl. associated with the parallelism of the edges of the aerodynamic planes, are not a sign of poor flight performance. Similar solutions are observed in the design of the domestic Su-57, which is presented as a fighter with the highest flight characteristics among its peers.

Finale


As of early August, 670 F-35 units of all modifications were built. The fighter entered service with the air forces of eight countries of the world. The implementation of contracts in the interests of six more countries is in the process.

The F-35 fighter is presented in three versions, the appearance of which seems logical when creating a "mass" combat aircraft of this class. An example is reports of a promising Su-75 Checkmate. In which the possibility of creating a deck version and VTOL aircraft was also evaluated.

With a total flight time of 400 aircraft accidents, 000 F-4 units were lost, which brings the operation of this type of aircraft closer to civil aviation safety standards.

In open sources, numerous photo and video materials are presented on the implementation of such elements as refueling in the air at night or performing takeoff and landing operations from the decks of aircraft-carrying ships, incl. at night. Evidence that the fighter is actively mastered by personnel and is regularly operated in conditions that are far from the ideal conditions of test centers.






On the other hand, official sources do not hide a significant number of identified shortcomings and design errors. The Americans already had a similar experience with the creation of a massive multi-role fighter. Which ended with unparalleled in terms of time and cost "work on mistakes."

MSIP (Multinational Staged Improvement Program) program for bringing to life the almost incapacitated F-16. Which at first could not fly in the dark and use weapons outside the line of sight. Despite such problems, the fighter had potential and it was "refined" to the required level. The F-16 never learned to fly at high angles of attack. But he became an indispensable participant in all armed conflicts. The adventures of this "miracle Yuda" deserve a separate story.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

251 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -33
    17 August 2021 05: 25
    The F-16 never learned to fly at high angles of attack. That's all the "error correction".
    1. +32
      17 August 2021 05: 44
      Good article. No politics. A very interesting attempt to project the existing knowledge about aviation on the F-35. Even if the aator made a mistake somewhere, his approach is still very interesting.
      1. +31
        17 August 2021 16: 46
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        Good article. No politics.

        If only the author was "in the subject" ...
        And it's just scary to read all this.
        Pearl sits on the strait and drives him with a break. (C)
        You can, of course, say that the author did not come up with all this himself, but read it in some "Popular Mechanics". But then, firstly, it would be nice if the author gave links to his sources, but they are not. Secondly, a qualified author in any case should filter out the errors of the primary sources, but here - alas: it looks like he did something else on his own.
        On business...
        1.
        Domestic and foreign fighters of the 5th generation use a diamond-shaped (trapezoidal) wing.

        Firstly, the rhomboid and trapezoidal wings are "two big differences": in the first, the trailing edge has a large negative sweep, and in the second, a slight positive (rarely, a small negative). The diamond-shaped wing is, indeed, stronger than the trapezoidal one, but its aerodynamics are worse than that of the latter.
        Secondly, only the American G5s have diamond-shaped wings - their Russian and Chinese "counterparts" are equipped with "regular" trapezoidal wings. So two shoals in one sentence. And this is already at the very beginning ...
        2.
        A rigid wing of low aspect ratio is a sign of a strike aircraft.

        Aha! Tell the Starfighter pilots this! ... or, for example, "Warthogs" ...
        3.
        Considering that fighters and aircraft based on them (Su-34, F-15E) are regularly involved in strike missions, one can understand the reasons for the growing interest associated with the new wing. Which allows continuous flight at transonic (supersonic) speeds. In the absence of tendencies to the emergence of strong vibrations at high speed and low altitudes - an unavoidable property of all fighters of past generations. Whose aerodynamic appearance has been optimized for maneuvering at speeds well below Mach XNUMX.

        Well, first of all, what is it "new"? !! - But what about "Starfighter" ?!
        But the most important thing here is something else: "the occurrence of strong vibrations at high speed and low altitudes" is the lot of all aircraft without exception (An-2 at high for him speeds, too, shakes mercilessly!). In principle, this problem is solved either by using a variable sweep wing, or by a special ACS, which provides damping of these "vibrations". But the possibilities of these solutions are severely limited. The third way is to reduce the bearing properties of the wing (either by decreasing its aspect ratio (and increasing its sweep), or by decreasing its area). Both that, and another greatly impairs the maneuverable and takeoff and landing characteristics of the aircraft. And then it is no longer a "strike" aircraft, since such a machine needs a large, good airfield close to the forward edge (otherwise it will not take off and will not reach), which is unrealistic in a real combat situation: the enemy will instantly disable such an airfield!
        4.
        ... [two-finned V-shaped] vertical tail does not fall into the aerodynamic "shadow" of the wing.
        .
        Well, it is enough to draw a picture of the plane in the plan to understand what exactly hits. But it does not fall into the "shadow" of the fuselage, which is much more critical.
        5.
        The single keel was considered the biggest drawback of its predecessor, the multipurpose and ubiquitous F-16. According to some reports, he lost track stability and the ability to steer at angles of attack a little more than 10 degrees. And projects of deep modernization of the F-16 began with a proposal to equip the Falcon with two inclined keels.

        This is the first time I've heard this! Author, can you link to the original source?
        And the pictures of the two-keel versions of the F-16 would also be nice to show!
        6.
        Shots showing flights at critical and supercritical angles of attack. In fact, back forward.

        Yes, not with his back forward, but with his back down, he flies there. That is, a rather banal inverted flight is shown. Yes, the angle of attack is decent, but this is an achievement of a pilot, not an airplane. And surely this is not the merit of the two-finned plumage (which is not shaded by anything here at all)!
        7.
        Allegations about the negative impact of the wide fuselage on the speed of the Lightning do not inspire much confidence. The main source of resistance in flight was and remains the wing. Tens of square meters set at an angle to the airflow. The fuselage's contribution to drag is negligible.

        The wing really creates bоMost of the resistance, but this is during active maneuvering and in cruising flight, but when flying at maximum speed, when the angles of attack are minimal, but there is a large wave drag, the fuselage "breaks out in the lead." And precisely because the "Penguin" has a relatively thick fuselage, its maximum speed corresponds to a "pathetic" 1,6M.
        8.
        Confirmation of this thesis [about low resistance of the fuselage] is one paradoxical fact. All speed records of the early 1930s belonged to flying boats - with huge ugly floats. The reduced wing and the increased landing speed forced to land on the water. And from the point of view of air resistance, the effect of reducing the wing area surpassed all other, not the most pleasant changes in the appearance of record-breaking aircraft.

        The author does not understand what he is writing about! In those years, land airfields were unpaved and very small in size, so the wing area of ​​a land aircraft had to be large. When flying at maximum speed, such a wing turned out to be oversized (both in terms of aerodynamics and in terms of weight return). But on the water surface it was possible to scatter as long as you like. This made it possible to minimize the dimensions and weight of the wing. And there was a fairly short period of time when this minimization began to overlap the gain in weight and resistance from the floats. ... especially since there were no retractable landing gears at that time (and the resistance of the chassis, firstly, is also very decent, and secondly, it is quite comparable to the resistance of the floats (well, less, of course, but not fundamentally)).
        As soon as retractable landing gear appeared, and the runways were made of concrete and with a length of more than one kilometer, the era of record seaplanes has sunk into oblivion. And it has sunk irrevocably.

        And these are only the crudest blunders of the author. But this article is full of even more "subtle" lies ...

        Why am I all this? - As an aerodynamicist, it is extremely unpleasant for me to read such heresy, realizing that less prepared readers consume all this blizzard uncritically. Gentlemen, be careful, protect your brains from this ...
        1. +5
          17 August 2021 20: 20
          Quote: PilotS37
          As an aerodynamicist, it is extremely unpleasant for me to read such heresy, realizing that less prepared readers consume all this blizzard uncritically. Gentlemen, be vigilant, protect your brains from something like this.

          laughing Well, this is Oleg, he is multifaceted with us wink At least for many years it has been interesting to read ... Style, sir. Although he often likes to play with facts in his favor and becomes an ardent defender of what most people laugh at. Like now, for example bully hi
        2. 0
          18 August 2021 02: 48
          but when flying at maximum speed, when the angles of attack are minimal, but there is a large wave resistance, the fuselage "breaks out in the lead"

          High-speed record holders McKee or Supermarine B6 were flying boats with huge, almost fuselage-sized floats - the drag from them outweighed the smaller wing
          In those years, land airfields were unpaved and very small in size, so the wing area of ​​a land aircraft had to be large. When flying at maximum speed, such a wing turned out to be oversized

          Does this contradict or change the essence of what was said in the article?

          For record speeds, the wing area was reduced. The presence of floats was considered justified. The price of the issue.

          But what about "Starfighter" ?!

          Exception confirming the rule
          Starfighter - Interceptor
          This is the first time I've heard this! Author, can you link to the original source?
          And the pictures of the two-keel versions of the F-16 would also be nice to show!

          Google Pavel Bulat, a series of articles about the 5th generation, published 10 years ago
          A photo of a two-keel F-16 was posted yesterday in the comments to this article.
          1. +5
            18 August 2021 12: 35
            Quote: Santa Fe
            High-speed record holders McKee or Supermarine B6 were flying boats with huge, almost fuselage-sized floats - the drag from them outweighed the smaller wing

            Have you checked it? Have you seen the purges? Or so, "out of general considerations", do you express yourself here?
            1. +6
              18 August 2021 12: 36
              Quote: PilotS37
              In those years, land airfields were unpaved and very small in size, so the wing area of ​​a land aircraft had to be large. When flying at maximum speed, such a wing turned out to be oversized


              Quote: Santa Fe
              Does this contradict or change the essence of what was said in the article?

              For record speeds, the wing area was reduced. The presence of floats was considered justified. The price of the issue.

              Your question suggests that you do not understand anything about the structure of airplanes. Check out some textbook on aircraft construction. Jaeger, for example. And then argue.
            2. 0
              18 August 2021 20: 36
              Have you checked it? The blows saw

              Why is your question

              We're talking about the obvious. The racing McKee had a significantly higher beats. wing load than peers (200 kg / m2 - three times more than I-15bis for example)

              Smaller beats wing loading = higher landing speed. He could only sit on the water

              As evidenced by the very fact of the speed record (700 km / h), the presence of fuselage-sized floats created less drag than the wing, which could provide a safe landing speed at an unpaved airfield
              1. +4
                19 August 2021 16: 25
                Quote: Santa Fe
                As evidenced by the very fact of the speed record (700 km / h), the presence of fuselage-sized floats created less drag than the wing, which could provide a safe landing speed at an unpaved airfield

                This is a record aircraft. It doesn't have a lot of things that should be on a combat vehicle. So the comparison with the I-15 is absolutely incorrect here.
                This is the first.
                After 5 years, his record was broken by land monoplanes.
                This is the second.
                You have never seen the results of blowing an airplane into a wind tunnel. You have never calculated airplane drag. You don't know how to do it.
                You are "just thinking."
                For you, the words of a foreign journalist are more valuable than the words of a domestic specialist who actually worked in an aircraft design bureau and actually designed airplanes.
                This is the third.
                But what can you take from an amateur? !!
                1. -1
                  20 August 2021 06: 57
                  This is a record aircraft. It doesn't have a lot of things that should be on a combat vehicle. So the comparison with the I-15 is absolutely incorrect here.

                  You are told about the principle itself, and you are trying to play everything

                  Smaller wing - high speed, the principle that guided those who sought to build a high-speed aircraft. The resistance from all other structural elements of the McKee and Supermarine B.6 was obviously less, otherwise the designers would not have made such a sacrifice by equipping the aircraft with fuselage-sized floats.
                  1. +1
                    20 August 2021 13: 24
                    Quote: Santa Fe
                    You are told about the principle itself, and you are trying to play everything

                    Of the two of us, you are whirligig: you have picked up scattered facts and juggle them.
          2. +4
            18 August 2021 12: 43
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Starfighter - Interceptor

            That's it!
            The thesis that strike aircraft need a diamond-shaped wing does not stand up to criticism! To begin with, the F-22 is a "clean" fighter, but it has a "diamond".
            By the way, in G5, the "diamond" was used to minimize the number of directions in which the radar signal could be reflected, since in this case the trailing edge of one console turns out to be parallel to the leading edge of the other console.
            Strike aircraft need something completely different - look at the F-16, the most popular drummer in the world today.
            1. 0
              18 August 2021 20: 43
              That's it!

              That a 1950s interceptor flying in a straight line had a design similar to shock
              The thesis that strike aircraft need a diamond-shaped wing does not stand up to criticism!

              I have not written this anywhere, you invented it yourself
              By the way, in G5, the "rhombus" was used to minimize the number of directions

              I also thought so at first that this is the only reason - to ensure the parallel edges of the wing and tail
              Then I read Bulat's articles and there were many interesting points.
              Strike planes need something completely different.

              Always and at all times. Less wing loading, higher speed - for a bomber

              In the late thirties and early fifties of the last century, because of this, a paradoxical situation developed - the fighters could not catch up with the bombers.
              1. 0
                19 August 2021 16: 11
                Quote: Santa Fe
                In the late thirties and early fifties of the last century, because of this, a paradoxical situation developed - the fighters could not catch up with the bombers.

                First, not at the end, but in the middle ("feel the difference").
                In the middle of the 30s. the problem was that "bombers" -monoplanes with "smooth" skin and retractable landing gear appeared, and biplanes with non-retractable landing gear and often with corrugated skin flew in fighters.
                You do not know either the structure of the aircraft, or the history of aviation. If you were sitting and keeping quiet, that's okay, but you rivet articles in which you carry all sorts of nonsense. And this already smells bad.
                1. 0
                  20 August 2021 06: 50
                  First, not at the end, but in the middle ("feel the difference").

                  And at the beginning, and in the middle, and throughout the Second World War, this trend continued, from there the ideas of "snellbomber" and "mosquito"

                  Bombers could have a heavy wing load. Reserves of the piston engine at the limit; with the same engines, the bombers obtained speeds comparable and even larger than fighters
                  And immediately after WWII, until the mid-50s, the first jet had the same situation
                  You do not know either the structure of the aircraft, or the history of aviation. If you were sitting and keeping quiet, that's okay, but you rivet articles in which you carry all sorts of nonsense. And this already smells bad.

                  This is your purely personal opinion, I do not agree with him. That's all
            2. 0
              16 September 2022 22: 32
              well, in general, f 16 is more of a fighter than a drummer, a drummer is more like f15
              1. 0
                19 September 2022 10: 35
                Quote from Alan_McCormack
                well, in general, f 16 is more of a fighter than a drummer, a drummer is more like f15

                The F-16 carried out and continues to carry out the main part of its missions with "work on the ground." But, in principle, he is a good fighter.
                And the F-15 was created as an "air superiority fighter", that is, as a pure fighter. However, over time, a shock version of the F-15E appeared.
                But most of the "Eagles" are precisely "clean" fighters (although they can also carry bombs, but this is not their main task).
                1. 0
                  20 September 2022 00: 02
                  clear. It's funny that the eagles are still producing (not sure for the US Air Force), and at a price of 29 million apiece, it has + - characteristics equal to su 35 (at 3 times lower price)
          3. +1
            18 August 2021 12: 47
            Quote: Santa Fe
            A photo of a two-keel F-16 was posted yesterday in the comments to this article.

            Under this photo I will answer ...
        3. +1
          22 August 2021 15: 20
          Here's how it was in that joke - I feel a liter in my gut, but I can't prove it!
          Thanks for the detailed comment!
        4. 0
          8 November 2021 09: 29
          the emergence of strong vibrations at high speed and low altitudes "- the lot of all aircraft without exception (An-2 at high speeds for it also shakes mercilessly!).


          Yes, but when it is problematic to reach supersonic at low altitudes, this is already too much for a fighter.
          The maneuverability of the F-16 was ensured by a low sweep wing, and this turned out to be a double-edged sword.

          The third way is to reduce the bearing properties of the wing (either by decreasing its elongation (and increasing its sweep), or by decreasing its area). Both that, and another greatly impair the maneuvering and takeoff and landing characteristics of the aircraft.


          H'm. How was this problem solved for the MiG-29 and Su-27, for example?
          A case of not using an integrated circuit?
          Or are their maneuverable characteristics also unimportant?
          1. 0
            11 November 2021 13: 50
            Quote: Illanatol
            H'm. How was this problem solved for the MiG-29 and Su-27, for example?
            A case of not using an integrated circuit?
            Or are their maneuverable characteristics also unimportant?

            Su-27 and MiG-29 are high-altitude vehicles, they are not Su-24.
        5. -1
          16 September 2022 22: 27
          I can see a VERY gross blunder you have. At the expense of the speed f35, or rather the reasons that it is so low. Firstly, judging by the appearance of the f 22, the fuselage is either as thick or thicker, and so is the f 15. Well, and Secondly, the requirements for a maximum speed of exactly 1,6M were dictated primarily by the JSF program itself, that is, even before f 35 itself appeared. You can safely read about the requirements for this program on the Internet, all of it is in networks and in the public domain, though most likely in English
          1. 0
            19 September 2022 10: 27
            Quote from Alan_McCormack
            I can see a VERY gross blunder you have. At the expense of the speed f35, or rather the reasons that it is so low.

            Correctly, in the 5th generation, the fuselages are "thicker", since some of the weapons are located in the inner fuselage compartments. However, the resistance of the missiles is much greater than the increase in the midsection of the fuselage gives.
            As for the spelling of certain data in the performance characteristics, the military are not fools either: they do not take these performance characteristics from the ceiling, and do not pick their noses. There are programs that allow you to evaluate the performance characteristics of an aircraft, when it has not yet been drawn on paper! Another thing is that when the engineers draw and build, and the pilots fly around, a lot of things will come out that will lead to a decrease in performance. The process is standard...
            The fact that the Molniya has a speed of only M1,6 is not "to blame" for the performance characteristics set by the military, but for the capabilities of such a machine in principle.
            In addition, as it was written, the anti-radar coating of the F-35 peels off at high speeds - this is the reason why there is more M1,6 do not...
            1. 0
              20 September 2022 00: 04
              I would still advise you to read the requirements for the program, and not to engage in assumptions.
    2. +25
      17 August 2021 05: 56
      That's all the "error correction".

      Leave Hurray. Be objective. The result of these countless Block 1 to Block 60/62 upgrades is the most massive multi-role fighter in 20+ countries. Participant in all conflicts. half a century in combat service and according to plans until 2070

      Its story - from the raid on Osirak to the regular news in which the F-16 again hit someone somewhere. Which speaks more about the usefulness of this type in combat conditions than about the uselessness

      A real fighter, not for parades and demonstrations at exhibitions. All the dirt of the war is on it

      And flights at high angles of attack, apparently, were not the most important characteristic for a fighter of this purpose.

      Draft two-keel F-16 P.1202, but I wanted to talk about it in detail at other times
      1. +9
        17 August 2021 08: 03
        670 aircraft were produced. Delivered to 8 countries and will be delivered to 6 more - here is the answer to the question in the title of the article. But the Russian analogue is still only in the layout and no matter how it begins to correspond to the first part of the title of the article, no matter how it repeats the story from the s-57.
        1. +3
          17 August 2021 10: 08
          Quote: Kuzya the Cat
          as if he did not repeat the story with the s-57.

          And what is this plane? And what is the story about?
          1. +9
            17 August 2021 10: 33
            I, too, rarely hear about this plane now. And before that, wow! How many wrote about it, like "does not have an analogue in the world", "mirvoshischen", "merikantsyi NATOboyazzo", well, and all that ..... since 2009. wink
            1. +2
              17 August 2021 13: 52
              Quote: Kuzya the Cat
              I also rarely hear about this plane now.

              Now you can see him in the shops of the aircraft plant.
        2. -8
          17 August 2021 12: 34
          Nobody asked the opinion of the aborigines of Kievisho.
      2. -8
        17 August 2021 08: 56
        Without understanding why these large angles of attack are needed, their discussion is meaningless.
        1. +4
          17 August 2021 10: 10
          Quote: EvilLion
          Without understanding why these large angles of attack are needed, their discussion is meaningless.

          They write that it is possible to escape from the rocket, but the rocket can carry large overloads, so it will not help most likely ..
          I don’t know of course, but in my opinion it’s not really necessary.
          Aerial acrobatics.
          1. +5
            17 August 2021 10: 37
            Quote: Alexey Sommer
            They write that it is possible to escape from the rocket, but the rocket can carry large overloads, so it will not help most likely ..
            I don’t know of course, but in my opinion it’s not really necessary.
            Aerial acrobatics.

            So that you are not afraid of the "magic" angle of attack, I will explain to you. It is simply the angle between the incoming airflow onto the wing and the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. To make it quite simple, the plane flies strictly straight, the horizontal angle is considered 0. But the plane needs to gain altitude, it lifts its nose up with its control aerodynamic surfaces, say, the lift increases by 10 degrees, the angle of attack is considered 10 degrees. We still need to increase the lift - we also lift the nose up, the angle of attack becomes, for example, 30 degrees, the plane is gaining altitude, but at the same time the horizontal speed decreases (the resistance increases). So Oleg wrote about 10 degrees of nonsense, I in the simulator on the F-16 and at 45 lifted it up without disrupting the flow and spinning.
            1. 0
              17 August 2021 12: 37
              If you lifted your nose and changed the aircraft's velocity vector by the same angle, then the angle of attack is still 0, because it is considered between the plane, or the aircraft's nose, and the velocity vector. In general, as far as I understand, access to large angles of attack in battle is necessary, since the lift increases.
              1. +4
                17 August 2021 13: 00
                Quote: EvilLion
                If you lifted your nose and changed the aircraft's velocity vector by the same angle, then the angle of attack is still 0, because it is considered between the plane, or the aircraft's nose, and the velocity vector.

                I wrote a post there below to a person with the same error. But especially for you, if the angle of attack was considered between the velocity vector and the nose of the aircraft, then it would always be zero. Always.
                If the aircraft has lifted its nose, then the velocity vector can be decomposed into 2 components. One is vertical and the other is horizontal. Then think for yourself. If you don’t think it out, read the post below with a picture.
            2. +3
              19 August 2021 20: 37
              Quote: KKND
              So that you are not afraid of the "magic" angle of attack ...

              You confuse a little concepts a little, no offense.
              Pitch: The angle between the horizon and the longitudinal axis of the aircraft.
              Angle of attack: the angle between the velocity vector and the incoming flow.
              1. 0
                19 August 2021 20: 44
                Quote: Pete Mitchell
                Angle of attack: the angle between the velocity vector and the incoming flow

                How to scorch downed glaciers flyers...

                The angle of attack (commonly abbreviated {\ displaystyle \ alpha} \ alpha - the letter of the Greek alphabet alpha) is the angle between the direction of the velocity vector of the flow (liquid or gas) oncoming the body and the characteristic longitudinal direction chosen on the body, for example, at the wing of an airplane it will be a chord wings, an airplane has a longitudinal construction axis, a projectile or rocket has their axis of symmetry. When considering a wing or aircraft, the angle of attack is in the normal plane, as opposed to the slip angle
                .
                1. +2
                  19 August 2021 21: 00
                  I just can't understand: are you a masochist or what? Do you see the meaning or do you only speak the language? Go stick the stamps.
                  Even if I was mistaken - I don’t do copy-paste - I overlooked, but you get off the pedestal and walk by, where can we, who do not know how to draw "wisdom" from wiki / lzh
                  Quote: Pete Mitchell
                  25.11.2020
                  Quote: Pete Mitchell
                  Did you find your statement about the Carcass? Or, as always, "merge"?
                  You either present or do as it should

                  So you will stay senor yap?
                  1. +1
                    19 August 2021 21: 04
                    A pilot who does not know what an angle of attack is is like a milkmaid who does not know that a cow has an udder)
                    1. +1
                      19 August 2021 21: 06
                      I'm at least a pilot: educated, flying and not using the wiki. Overlooked, it is good that there are vigilant citizens ready to get out.
                      So, will you answer for the Carcass or will you remain a yap?
                      1. 0
                        19 August 2021 21: 09
                        Quote: Pete Mitchell
                        At least I'm a pilot: educated

                        I readily believe ... Especially after another blooper ... 8 classes and vocational schools)
                      2. +3
                        19 August 2021 21: 11
                        Can I expect that once you get on the plane and hear my name, at least here you will behave respectably and get off? What you understand - I guarantee you. Will you get off? or merge as always
                      3. -4
                        19 August 2021 21: 20
                        Such are not taken in cosmonauts

                        So play further in the forum Chkalov.
                      4. +1
                        19 August 2021 21: 23
                        The fact that you are no longer capable of broadcasting anything other than labels - we have already understood. Specific question specific answer - will you get off? Hope. And do not forget about the Carcass - you need to answer for your words: here you are not European
                      5. +1
                        19 August 2021 21: 36
                        I hesitate to ask: and you, who speaks the language, according to your own words, are you capable of sticking stamps on something? For example, be responsible for the advanced presentation?
                        Quote: Liam
                        25.11.2020/154/XNUMX / it's like when a child's games on a computer flight simulator were shown to me from YouTube as "proof" of the Tu-XNUMX's skills
                        Quote: Pete Mitchell
                        Did you find your statement about the Carcass? Or will you “merge” as always? You either present or do as it should
                        Merge senor yap?
              2. +2
                19 August 2021 21: 18
                Quote: Pete Mitchell
                Angle of attack: the angle between the velocity vector and the incoming flow.

                Here the non-comrade correctly noticed: the angle between the chord of the wing, as a rule, and the velocity vector. I apologize for the embarrassment, I did not look crying
                1. +2
                  3 February 2022 09: 49
                  The angle between the wing chord and the oncoming flow because the lift is created by the flow, and not by the velocity vector
                  1. +2
                    3 February 2022 10: 51
                    Like I said, I didn't see it feel and did not repeat the definition even longer. In addition, on modern devices, you have to dance from the pitch and flight path vectora = the difference between them, and as a rule we do not use the path vector, there is no need
            3. +1
              3 February 2022 09: 42
              So Oleg wrote nonsense about 10 degrees, I in the simulator on the F-16 and 45 turned up without a stall and a corkscrew.

              Stall != stall. When moving to extreme angles of attack, the flow stalls and the wing loses lift, but stall does not occur immediately because the aircraft maintains speed due to engine thrust and momentum. Naturally, the plane cannot fly like this for a long time, because the total thrust of the engines is less than the weight of the plane, plus air resistance. Try to reach extreme angles of attack at a speed close to the stall speed (but not less than it)

              That is why the rate of climb of the aircraft is indicated at the angle of attack and the speed at which the aircraft gains maximum altitude per second without losing speed and without turning into a stall. And so, almost any aircraft with sufficiently powerful engines can be transferred to a fully vertical flight with a fierce climb - but of course, with a loss of speed and subsequent stall or return to the allowable angle of attack
      3. +2
        17 August 2021 12: 30
        Why not a word about Typhoon, Gripen, Rafal (very little about him) - after all, they are close to the 5th generation?
        1. -5
          17 August 2021 12: 37
          They didn’t stand nearby.
        2. +7
          17 August 2021 13: 22
          Rafal is close to the F-35 in avionics.
          The French recently equipped it with an advanced electronic warfare system.
          And several IR optical sensors.
          1. nks
            +5
            17 August 2021 23: 05
            On the contrary, Alexey, the opposite is true - the F-35 is also close to Rafal in avionics. But the f-35 does not have a full-fledged Plug and Play, like Raphael, and is not expected - only the Israelis (and here you have reason to be proud) plan to implement it in a truncated form on their version of the F-35I Adir.
            Although LM recently (compared to Rafal, of course) equipped it with several "IR optical sensors." and an advanced (not as advanced as on Rafal, but nevertheless) electronic warfare system. In general, the F-35 can deservedly be considered the second (or 3rd ... Dassault implemented IMA in the latest mirage2000 update :) combat fighter with a full-fledged IMA (Integrated modular avionics) architecture. In the F-22, the IMA was never completed, so there are such problems with modernization, and the gripen E is not yet in service. Like the su-57, but the developers of the su-57 avionics are guided by the rafal.
            https://uacrussia.livejournal.com/61632.html :)
            1. +4
              18 August 2021 09: 26
              The radar, however, is much more advanced on the F-35 than on the Rafal.
              Therefore, the statement that Rafal is the first in avionics is controversial.
              1. nks
                +4
                18 August 2021 11: 28
                Alexey, speaking about the championship, I meant chronology. I consider the compilation of ratings in general, and in particular, on the "advanced" of avionics, to be quite pointless. The timeline is simple, unambiguous, and in this case, we know the chronological data, but we did not define clear criteria for ranking by advancement, and with the completeness of the data we have problems that we are unlikely to be able to solve. In addition, I talked primarily about the architecture of avionics, which allows you to efficiently use individual components and develop intensively. Both the rafale and the F-35 are created in the concept of continuous updating - those constant updates to maintain capabilities that meet current requirements and you need to compare specific "blocks" at a specific point in time. For example, the communication system of the F-35 on this moment (in operation) really surpasses that of rafale in terms of stealth and throughput, although in terms of basic functions (real-time data exchange for awareness and control), rafale has the same level. As for the radar, I do not know what you mean by "more advanced", but, for example, the RBE2 AA has electron scan angles in azimuth of + -70 (best in class) versus + -60 on the AN / APG-81. The density of the TRM, judging by the available data, is also lower for the APG-81.
                And by the way, work on block 4 F-35 is far behind schedule, in contrast to work on the new F4 * Rafal standard. :)
                1. +5
                  18 August 2021 13: 12
                  "what do you mean by" more advanced "," ///
                  ----
                  The F-35 is capable of:
                  1) scan the ground with radar,
                  2) select on the scanned 3D map
                  military target
                  3) launch a rocket at this target.

                  All this instantly at a speed of 0.8 MAX.
                  No other aircraft can do this.
                  The F-35 is far superior to the Rafal in terms of striking ability.
                  In aerial combat, it's hard to say.
                  The F-35 has many times less EPR.
                  He can notice the enemy earlier and dodge the battle in unfavorable conditions. In close combat, both vehicles have approximately equal capabilities.
                  1. nks
                    +3
                    18 August 2021 14: 47
                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    The F-35 is capable of:
                    1) scan the ground with radar,
                    2) select on the scanned 3D map
                    military target


                    rafal with rbe2 aa can too
                    https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/active-electronically-scanned-array-aesa-rbe2-radar
                    Real-time generation of high resolution ground maps for navigation and targeting.

                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    3) launch a rocket at this target.

                    Which one in the example you described?))


                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    The F-35 is far superior to the Rafal in terms of striking ability.

                    This is a very strange statement, given that the F-35 has less payload in general, and even more so in stealth mode. It is possible to discuss the ASP nomenclature on the ground, but at the moment the F-35 arsenal is poorer.
                    In general, Alexey, you can discuss the theoretical aspects of the implementation of means to reduce the likelihood of detection, identification, control and destruction of the aircraft, but with you, as usual, this does not work. But you will not argue that practice is the main criterion of truth? So here's the thing - the invisibility of rafale in air-to-gorund missions, which is called a combat proven (officially confirmed by the RF Ministry of Defense in April 2018), similarly, combat proven capabilities of rafale to suppress air defense (in Libya - there is weak, but still ). But the F-35 does not really have such experience, and LM so far, together with the aircraft, sells more not real opportunities, but promises and beautiful pictures.
                    The irony is that the stealth F-35 is optimized for the narrow angle of the air defense system, like the F-222, which works well against target air defense (but not for echeloned air defense) and in airdominance, but for the role of airdominance there is more than one serious operator, including Israel and The United States is not considering it, planning other planes for this.

                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    In close combat, both vehicles have approximately equal capabilities.

                    Yes. Especially taking into account the flight characteristics, real stealth and the fact that the airborne missile system in the Rafale's arsenal is currently better, and the F-9 has AIM-35X only on an external sling (stealth?))
                    1. +2
                      18 August 2021 15: 24
                      "even more so in stealth mode" ///
                      ---
                      Rafal has no hidden mode at all.
                      He flies with all bombs and explosive rockets on external suspensions. And even with hefty fuel tanks - without them, its working radius is extremely small.
                      What is there to talk about?
                      Here is Rafale, in all its 4th generation glory:
                      1. nks
                        +2
                        18 August 2021 15: 29
                        Well, if, as usual, you cannot give examples and answer simple questions, then there is really nothing more to talk about. I gave you specific confirmed examples about rafale, but you can't about the f-35. As for the f-35, I only know examples of the fact that the Americans are always afraid that someone might steal the stealth f-35 :))

                        PS: If you find examples - come hi drinks
                      2. +1
                        18 August 2021 15: 38
                        I attached a photo of Raphael on top - a classic of the 4th generation with elements of 5th generation avionics. Nice plane.
                        And this is how they fly out on F-35 missions,
                        5th generation, stealth. Everything is integrated into the fuselage.

                        But for the French, nothing is lost yet. They will be able to make a new plane, no doubt about it. drinks
                        Here is this:
                      3. nks
                        +5
                        18 August 2021 15: 48
                        Quote: voyaka uh
                        Everything is integrated into the fuselage.

                        And behind the cropped frame there are aim-9x on the wings and / or other types of cover fighters? Well LM can do pictures :)


                        Quote: voyaka uh
                        They will be able to make a new plane, no doubt about it.

                        LM may be too ... although they already have a second 5th generation fighter is not very successful, but nothing - they will learn well from the French (LM, together with Boeing, buy systems and design cycle methodologies from Dassault), then they all have will work :)


                        Quote: voyaka uh
                        Here is this:

                        You got it all mixed up again - this is a German concept from Airbus

                        PS: By the way, are you aware that the F-35b, the photo of which you brought, has a shorter range than the internal fuel rafale?
                      4. +1
                        18 August 2021 16: 02
                        But you, apparently, are not aware that Sidewinder is a very old rocket? In which the engine starts directly on the suspension.
                        And it basically cannot be placed in the inner compartment.
                        Lockheed has already created two "bad" 5th generation aircraft. And released them under a thousand pieces.
                        And Dassault created one "good" flightless prototype. But he designs perfectly! laughing
                      5. nks
                        +3
                        18 August 2021 16: 23
                        Alexey, the point is not even that the Sidewinder rocket, although old, but modernized many times and there is practically nothing left of the original half a century ago, but that I did not expect such shameful ignorance from you. Ask how the aim-9x is located in the special internal compartments of the F-22, and at the same time how the "engines" of the missiles in the internal compartment of the F-35 are launched (hint: no way, of course - they are launched _only_ after leaving the compartment). The funny thing is that LM, in principle, promises the internal placement of AIM-9x, but not specifically - so far such work is not included in the plans.

                        Quote: voyaka uh
                        And released them under a thousand pieces.

                        For a country that has a military budget and _internal_ order for aircraft 10 times more (this is not counting Israel, etc.) than France, this is nothing surprising.


                        Quote: voyaka uh

                        And Dassault created one "good" flightless prototype. But he designs perfectly!

                        Oh, I'm afraid you're overheated after all. Rafale built> 200 with _firm_ orders> 300, and, by the way, export sales (if you do not take the members of the F-35 consortium - they are also an internal customer) of Rafal at the F-35 G level) surprise? And yes, the prototype of the rafale A really was alone and in the first flight it went to supersonic. This really speaks of a high level of design, and neither LM, nor Boeing, nor Sukhoi with MiG can boast of this.
                      6. +1
                        18 August 2021 16: 44
                        "overheated. rafale built> 200 with _hard_ orders" ///
                        ---
                        I meant the fifth, not the fourth generation.
                        F-16 - Rafal's brother by generation - built several thousand. Avionics is no worse than Raphael.
                      7. nks
                        0
                        18 August 2021 16: 51
                        Generation brother F-16 mirage-2000. And, I must say, the Greeks send mirages to shoot down Turkish vipers, although they have more mirages of their vipers and their blocks are newer than those of the Turkish F-16s. Alexey, try to get more education after all.

                        PS: When I was in Israel 2 years ago, to be honest, I was unpleasantly surprised by the low level of education of the locals. Sorry, but at least you try not to dishonor Israel.
                      8. +4
                        18 August 2021 17: 04
                        I also love France. The nature is beautiful, museums, gastronomy. smile

                        And my advice: never don't get personal. And the people will reach out to you.
                      9. nks
                        +4
                        18 August 2021 17: 10
                        Thanks for the advice, Alexey. I have no problem with the love of others around me. And I did not offend you personally or Israel as a whole. Sorry again, but it is you and some of your fellow citizens, although, of course, I have met many wonderful Israelis and Jews in your country and in the world. Best wishes, Alexey,
                        - try to do at least elementary fact-checking (with the sidewinder it turned out very stupid), so as not to write such nonsense.
                    2. 0
                      16 September 2022 22: 57
                      I don’t know how much poorer the f 35’s arsenal is, if its arsenal is almost everything that the United States has in service.
                      It is true that the f 35 has less combat load, but it is worth considering that the normal load of the rafal is 10 tons less, the normal load for the f35 = the maximum for the rafal, that is, in a conditional battle, if you take an external suspension, the f 35 will have a slightly better chance, considering that he can carry several missiles inside, and Rafal will need PTBs, which significantly impair maneuvering characteristics.
                      According to the flight characteristics, f 35 does f16, at the expense of a naked rafal xs (naked - without weapons on an external sling and PTB), and just PTBs of which on the rafal as many as 3 pieces will gobble up a significant mass of its combat load (at least because they will occupy the most load-lifting points, Well, because they themselves do not weigh much)
                      1. nks
                        0
                        17 September 2022 07: 28
                        Alan, I'm sorry, but only the first two words in your post are definitely correct. You may be offended by the likes of Alex above (and completely in vain if so), but you'd better carefully read at least the wiki. I can also explain to you, but for this you must be prepared to read carefully
                      2. 0
                        17 September 2022 11: 08
                        I read it, and I can say that you should also read Wiki more carefully. For the simple reason that the characteristics of the dasso rafal do not indicate the ability to carry guided and unguided bombs.
                        For air battles, Dasso Rafall has 5-6 types of missiles, but to destroy ground equipment, he has only 5 types of air-to-surface missiles and no bombs
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. nks
                        0
                        17 September 2022 12: 07
                        Alan, I often read more serious sources, and it would be good for you with such a nickname to know that there is not only a Russian-language wiki (although you should also read it more carefully). I understand that you are not ready. All the best, but I will leave a small gift for you
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale#Specifications
                        AASM-Hammer (SBU-38/54/64)
                        GBU-12 Paveway II, GBU-16 Paveway II, GBU-22 Paveway III, GBU-24 Paveway III, GBU-49 Enhanced Paveway II

                        These are bombs, including American ones. (American URVV, by the way, are not integrated into Rafal, as it is written in the Russian wiki). You can't thank hi
                      5. -1
                        20 September 2022 00: 07
                        it was an example that even wiki etc. not everyone knows. It also does not indicate the possibility of f 35 to carry the GBU 39 inside, while there is such an opportunity
      4. +4
        18 August 2021 12: 56
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Draft two-keel F-16 P.1202, but I wanted to talk about it in detail at other times

        The beginning of the article for the picture that I posted Santa fe:
        In the mid 1970s, the British company Hawker Siddeley developed a concept for a medium-weight fighter for the Royal Air Force strongly influenced by the US 'F-16. This series of 'P.1200' concepts came from the company's Kingston division. Though considerably larger than the F-16, most of the P.1200 designs featured a similar air intake, canopy, leading edge root extensions and general wing configuration.

        Link: https://hushkit.net/2015/11/19/the-untold-story-of-britains-f-16/
        Translation:
        In the mid-1970s, the British company Hawker Siddeley developed a medium-weight fighter concept for the Royal Air Force, heavily influenced by the American F-16. This "P. 1200" concept series was developed by a division of Kingston. Although significantly larger than the F-16, most of the P. 1200 models had a similar air intake, canopy, leading edge root extensions and an overall wing configuration.

        That is, it is not a "two-keel F-16" and even less a "project of deep modernization of the F-16". It's not even a "project", but concept... And it was developed by a completely different company. Developed at a time when the YF-16 was just competing with the YF-17 in the competition, and nothing was known to the "general public" about its maneuverability.
        So, here we are dealing with a banal falsification of facts. Simply put, with lies.
        1. 0
          18 August 2021 19: 58
          there is this - not a "two-keel F-16" and even less a "project of deep modernization of the F-16". It is not even a "project", but a concept. And it was developed by a completely different company.

          It somehow changes the fact
          A fighter with a normal aerodynamic configuration, developed under the influence of the F-16, and similar in appearance, received two keels
          1. +1
            19 August 2021 16: 41
            Quote: Santa Fe
            It somehow changes the fact
            A fighter with a normal aerodynamic configuration, developed under the influence of the F-16, and similar in appearance, received two keels

            But you, my dear, before wrote something completely different:
            deep modernization projects for the F-16 began with a proposal to equip the Falcon with two oblique keels

            What kind of "deep modernization" could we talk about in 1975, if YIs the F-16 just being tested?
            In addition, one should not forget that the two-keel YF-16, the prototype of the future F-17, directly competed with the single-keel YF-18. "Artist" who composed image under the name "Project P.1202", it could well have added the keels from the YF-16 to the appearance of the YF-17 (so as not to look like a plagiarist at all).

            Draft two-keel F-16 P.1202

            And what kind of "two-keel F-16" is this if it is a completely different plane ?!
            (Again, the picture you are waving here was not created in General Dynamics, and not even in the United States.)

            You, my dear, either are not friends with logic, or you do not really know anything, or you are deliberately trying to mislead your readers (that is, you are corny lying).
            1. -1
              20 August 2021 07: 07
              What kind of "deep modernization" could we talk about in 1975, if the YF-16 was just being tested?

              And what kind of "two-keel F-16" is this if it is a completely different plane ?!

              Again, the picture you are waving here was not created in General Dynamics, and not even in the United States.)

              Repeat a fourth time if you have nothing more to say and you can be proud that you found an inaccuracy in the article. Bingo!

              I wrote this moment from memory. The bottom line - a similar project existed

              A fighter with a normal layout, outwardly identical to the F-16, another team of designers originally designed a two-keel

              Just as Northrop designed his future Hornet with a two-keel, the main competitor of the F-16 in the Air Force competition
              1. 0
                20 August 2021 13: 39
                Quote: Santa Fe
                A fighter with a normal layout, outwardly identical to the F-16, another team of designers originally designed a two-keel

                Again, my dear, you are distorting the facts: it was a "paper" project, which is full in any design bureau. But the F-16 today is the most massive fighter in the world.
                Just as Northrop designed his future Hornet with a two-keel, the main competitor of the F-16 in the Air Force competition

                Well, first of all, not "the main one", but the only one not on paper. And secondly, the single-keel F-16 was the winner of that competition.

                The main thing here is different: in your article you claim that the two-keel scheme has an indisputable advantage over the one-keel one. And in order to prove this your (or someone else's?) Message, you began to defame the most popular fighter in the world, so you wanted to convert it into a two-keel one too. And this is not true: no one in the two-keel was ever going to remake the F-16 (which I have successfully demonstrated to everyone (except you)).
                By the way, I am sure that if this "your" P.1202 had been brought to the stage of pipe testing, then we would have greatly regretted having installed two keels: such diffusers are obtained there; so they increase resistance ...
  2. -16
    17 August 2021 05: 36
    An ode to the F-35? As the author correctly noted at the beginning of the article, most of the data is classified as "Sov. Secret", that is, we have another overflow from empty to empty, although all the "gossip" is in one article. Double impression. hi
    1. +18
      17 August 2021 06: 06
      An ode to the F-35?

      I'm sorry, I didn't immediately indicate that the penguin is not able to fly)))
      that is, we have another overflow from empty to empty, though all the "gossip

      It’s a pity that you have such an impression.

      On the contrary, the author tried to move away from empty disputes and gossip about unverified performance characteristics. All that is said - personally observed techniques and structural elements.
      1. -10
        17 August 2021 06: 51
        Quote: Santa Fe
        On the contrary, the author tried to move away from empty disputes and gossip about unverified performance characteristics. All that is said - personally observed techniques and structural elements.

        Shots showing flights at critical and supercritical angles of attack. In fact, back forward.
        In my unprofessional opinion, these shots indicate that the plane is flying in a spin, that is, the plane was checked for the possibility of breaking out of various types of spin.
        1. +2
          17 August 2021 11: 14
          Normal aerodynamic design and engine without OVT.

          Not all F-35s are without OVT.
          Here is a movie from which the footage in Oleg's article there at 6:10 seems to be about a corkscrew and at 7:40 a flight at critical angles of attack, can someone from the pros explain?
          1. +7
            17 August 2021 14: 37
            All F-35s without OVT.
            Maneuverability is achieved exclusively
            tail unit.
            1. +2
              17 August 2021 15: 30
              Quote: voyaka uh
              All F-35s without OVT.
              Maneuverability is achieved exclusively
              tail unit.

              There are such f-35Vs, they have OVT
              1. +10
                17 August 2021 15: 56
                BUT! It's true. But they have OBT (up to 90 degrees) exclusively for short (or sometimes vertical) takeoff
                and vertical fit.
                This OVT is not used in aerial combat.
                1. -3
                  17 August 2021 16: 17
                  And what prevents the F-35V from using the OVT in air combat?
                  1. +9
                    17 August 2021 16: 27
                    Software.
                    It is universal for air combat of all three modifications of the F-35.
                    Commanded by the computer. And he only fulfills (in the best, safest way) the "recommendations" of the pilot in maneuvers.
                    The pilot is not afraid to ditch the plane with a dangerous maneuver and is busy with weapons, communications, reconnaissance.
                    1. 0
                      17 August 2021 16: 53
                      If it is really one, then the developers have missed some of the advantages that OVT provides.
                      1. +5
                        17 August 2021 16: 58
                        Well, the F-35B can hover in flight like a helicopter (wasting a lot of fuel) to trick the enemy tactically for a few seconds.
                        But this can hardly be called super-maneuverability with the use of OVT. recourse
                      2. -1
                        17 August 2021 19: 24
                        Quote: voyaka uh
                        Well, the F-35B can get stuck in flight

                        It is strange that the Americans, pushing a fan and an OVT engine into the F-35, did not take care of using this weight range for useful purposes as maneuverability.
      2. -4
        17 August 2021 15: 46
        Didn't you like the word? Well, replace "ode" with "poem" or, if you are closer, with "prose" .... But as there were speculations before you, they remained after your article, or were you given access to more "reliable" information?
        PS. "we have information, but it is secret, and we cannot disclose the source" is the most frequent statement .... hi
    2. PPD
      0
      17 August 2021 09: 35
      Why not. Something is known.
      About plating, which loses its properties quickly enough. Because of this, staying at supersonic for a long time is undesirable.
      Yes, flaws approaching 1000.
      Although, yes, a lot is in question, for example, how much constant supersonic is necessary at all. The speed and maneuverability of things, to put it mildly, are different.
      Well, the real range from which the missiles are fired is much lower than the maximum.
      Etc. wink
      1. +6
        17 August 2021 14: 41
        "Well, the real range from which the missiles are fired is much lower than the maximum" ///
        ----
        All explosive missiles are fired from a range of no more than 2/3 of the maximum.

        Not all stealth coating loses its properties on prolonged supersonic sound, but only
        on the trailing edge of the tail.
        That has little effect on the total EPR.
        1. PPD
          +1
          18 August 2021 11: 22
          That's right! good
          And the key word is the maximum.
          As the people, this f 35 excited.
          Answering the title of the article, the task was to do something cheaper f 22, preferably not much worse and more massively.
          The task was completed in general terms. 15 and 16 are excellent planes, but not until the end of the century to fly on them. Made a new car, it flies. Doesn't always happen ah.
          Reminds of a story from moments 21 and 23.
          By the way, it is unknown whether it affects EPR or not. And given the real missile launches, everything will be very difficult for f 35.
          It is not clear - all restrictions in battle will be removed, but ...
      2. +3
        17 August 2021 21: 27
        Quote: PPD
        Yes flaws approaching 1000

        And how many disadvantages does PAKFA have? What does the Sukhoi Design Bureau say about this?
        1. +3
          17 August 2021 21: 30
          The Sukhoi Design Bureau seems to be saying nothing. This is a secret, and a state secret. But everyone talks about the shortcomings of Sukhoi's competitors ... Well, it would seem strange not to argue when about 1000 units will be produced.
          Oh yes, there were in fact how many accidents ... the same F-35, but how many hours have flown ...
      3. +2
        18 August 2021 10: 30
        We all know this based on the reports of the Americans themselves. Only when you need to present everything as you would like, the details are forgotten. This happened 2 times (only two: once on the F-1B, once on the F-35C) during the test flights of the performance confirmation program somewhere around 1-35. During prolonged flight at maximum speed, damage to the stealth coating in the tail section was noticed due to the heat of the engine. Changes were made to the composition of the coating and the method of application to prevent this from happening in the future. After all this, during tests under the same conditions, it was not possible to damage the coating again. But the restrictions on flight time in maximum modes for reinsurance were retained: the stealth coating is the most hemorrhoid element serving: according to the memoirs of the F-2011 pilot, there are fewer problems with its units than with the F-2014 and everyone spoiled the constant work to restore the coating. Therefore, you need to be careful with him. But now the year is 22, it is not a fact that these restrictions are still in force, and even if they are in combat conditions, they will be removed. There are a lot of such examples.
        Let me remind you that Sukhoi very elegantly solved this problem at home: on our stealth Su-57 there is no stealth coating, and the engines are not covered with a composite body at all, just like 45 years ago. There, all the cans transmit friendly Komsomol greetings to the enemy's radars and infrared homing heads. Why bother with unnecessary problems, right?
        About 1000 flaws. Again, our Su-57 can catch a surge, or it can catch on fire, and after 5 years of fine-tuning during the factory tests of the first combat board, the engine will generally refuse and fall into the forest and NOBODY will tell why this happened and how many more problems this aircraft has. At the same time, the F-35 flew with 1000 flaws, as the article says, 400 hours. Moreover, for the first 000 hours without any loss in the air at all (two planes caught fire on the ground due to problems either with fuel or with hydraulic systems), when more than 100 F-000s had fallen by that time. Feel the difference. Something suggests that the statistics of our 16th generation were similarly significantly worse than the F-20 with an incomparable level of design complexity.
        And about speed, I've already watched several interviews with F-35 pilots. Two of them were asked the same question: Mach 1,6, isn't it enough? And the former F-18 pilot (for him to reach the passport maximum speed in general turned out to be a big problem, only without the PTB on the afterburner in a dive), and what is funny, the former F-15 pilot (with his maximum speed of 2,5M!) Said they did not remember when they accelerated faster than Mach 1,6 even on combat missions, and that they feel quite comfortable in the F-35, especially as they feel, it picks up swings faster than the 4th generation. Only the F-22 pilot once said that yes, flying at cruising 1,5M in dense layers is a tactical advantage, but there is only one such aircraft in the ranks, it is rather an exception to the rule.
  3. -28
    17 August 2021 05: 36
    Advertisements for American manufacturers from Jewish comrades.
    1. +22
      17 August 2021 06: 08
      Advertisements for American manufacturers from Jewish comrades.

      Fortunately, or vice versa, unfortunately, the author is not a representative of the indicated nationality.
      1. +8
        17 August 2021 08: 37
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Advertisements for American manufacturers from Jewish comrades.

        Fortunately, or vice versa, unfortunately, the author is not a representative of the indicated nationality.
        Advertising - advertising, don't deny it! And in some places unreliable. laughing


        Okay, the view from above is shown, you never know how the radar was turned out, but since when did the radar show shadows from trees! laughing
        1. +13
          17 August 2021 09: 20
          since when did the radar show shadows from trees!

          Vladimir, shadows on radar images are common

          The so-called "Shadow" appears where the radar beam cannot illuminate the surface of the earth. Near vertical objects or on steep slopes.

          Sometimes it occurs IN FRONT of the object, if the beam is repeatedly reflected downward and to the side and does not hit the antenna

          Areas will appear dark in the image because the antenna was not receiving a signal from that location

          1. -5
            17 August 2021 09: 30
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Vladimir, shadows on radar images are common

            "You rub in some kind of game" - a great quote. To confuse an unseen area and a SHADOW from ANOTHER source of radiation, at least some light source, excuse the level of the advertiser and these additional two pictures of yours only aggravate the impression.
            1. +9
              17 August 2021 10: 23
              Well then, stay with your opinion.

              Perhaps I will emboss a couple of pictures, for those who read the commentary thread. Radar images of the area

              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. +5
                  17 August 2021 10: 54
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Link please.

                  You can use google image search. Here's what I googled.
                  https://www.sandia.gov/radar/imagery/index.html
                  Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) resolutions require an antenna too large to be practically carried by an airborne platform: antenna lengths several hundred meters long are often required.
                  Hike Oleg not with those radar "baryzhit" (small podzaborki) wassat
              2. +4
                17 August 2021 10: 51
                I admit that you are correct in this matter, such shadows are possible on the radar image. I apologize for being rude.
            2. 0
              17 August 2021 16: 33
              "You rub some kind of game"
              Its author, by the way, is rock musician Konstantin Stupin.
          2. +5
            17 August 2021 11: 56
            Oleg hi Thanks for the article, for a long time your articles on the site were not! As they say, God forbid, not the last, but if the last, then God forbid !!! good good
    2. +11
      17 August 2021 08: 16
      Well, first: "Jewish comrades" have already bought the plane, received it and fly it successfully. What should they advertise then? They already know everything about him. Secondly: it is unlikely that comrades (and regardless of their nationality) when purchasing such equipment are guided by articles on VO (with all due respect to the publication).
  4. +9
    17 August 2021 06: 38
    Oleg, thanks for the article. It's nice to read an unbiased analysis of the aircraft's performance characteristics, which was argued about even when it was in the plans and is still being argued by numerous experts and amateurs of aircraft from various countries. In the meantime, they argue "Vaska listens - yes eats", multiplying at a decent pace. And the quantity is such a thing, it tends to turn into quality.
    1. +6
      17 August 2021 10: 11
      Quote: gregor6549
      unbiased analysis of aircraft performance characteristics

      but it’s much easier and more enjoyable in every comment to binge: "dull sawing the dough", "these are candy wrappers, they will still print", "nuuu stupid" and so on according to the list bully
    2. nks
      -4
      17 August 2021 22: 02
      Unbiased is good, but the analysis of performance characteristics in the article is difficult to find. In general, Oleg is a rather unique author. Changing his point of view at times to the exact opposite, he manages not to come close to understanding the subject one iota. Oleg is more likely a poet soars and sees how he can :)
  5. +6
    17 August 2021 07: 03
    The article is great, everything is laid out on the shelves. But only concrete practice, i.e. participation in widespread hostilities, will confirm or refute the conclusions drawn. Perhaps such shoals will come out, or vice versa, dignities that no one could even think of. hi
  6. +3
    17 August 2021 07: 10
    A detailed description of the design and flight control of the Lightning fighter will be available in the next issues of Modelist-Konstruktor for 2021. There, in the Electronics for Beginners application, a diagram of the assembly of the APG-81 radar from 1676 transmit-receive modules will appear.

    And they wrote that AFAR is difficult and expensive! We need to show our manufacturers the circuits in "Modelist-Constructor", let them use the ready-made solution for beginners. :)
    And if it is a ready-made set "Electronics for Beginners" for 4-6 thousand rubles, then let them buy, assemble and install. :)

    I would have thrown this part about the "Modelist-Konstruktor" magazine out of the article. It is superfluous in the article about the most massive aircraft of the fifth generation.
    1. +5
      17 August 2021 10: 13
      Quote: Peter is not the first
      We need to show our manufacturers the circuits in "Modelist-Constructor", let them use the ready-made solution for beginners. :)

      don't, believe me
      with a dramatic lag in the element base, it is very difficult to produce modern (in general) products.
      1. -1
        2 January 2022 17: 51
        Dramatic lag in the civilian element base. In the military, it’s not so dramatic.
  7. +17
    17 August 2021 08: 13
    Great article. I would also like a section on the pilot's workplace and its equipment. There is a story to tell.

  8. +12
    17 August 2021 08: 15
    Thanks to Oleg for the article.
    The Americans have been and remain one of the leaders in the aircraft industry. Everyone has mistakes, but "only those who do not do anything are not mistaken" ... The Su-27 was also born "in agony," and the whole world knows what the result was.
    The problem is that it flies, it is massively produced, it flies in three main modifications, in different countries ... And this is a problem for Russia, because the Su-57 flies, but it is still far from mass production ...
    1. +5
      17 August 2021 09: 54
      Quote: Doccor18
      Everyone has mistakes, but after all, "only he who does not do anything is not mistaken"

      As far as I understand, the main "mistake" was to launch the aircraft into production (albeit small-scale) before the completion of all tests. As a result, sores and flaws have to be eliminated on the machines already handed over to the customer, which, in particular, spoils the image.
      On the other hand, this has already made it possible to have a solid fleet of new aircraft, and here the comparison will, of course, not in favor of the Su-57: a couple of hundreds of even very mediocre fighters will inevitably stutter two dozen of the "best in the world."
      1. +5
        17 August 2021 14: 00
        Quote: Kalmar
        the main "mistake" was to launch the aircraft into production (albeit small-scale) before the completion of all tests.

        It's not a mistake. It is impossible to identify flaws without trial operation. This is the normal life cycle of any product. They just keep silent about the shortcomings of other aircraft. And the F-35 is the first in history, such an open project. Mythical 1000 remarks - is that a lot or a little? How many such remarks do other fighters have? What is the method of identifying these comments?
        1. +5
          17 August 2021 14: 05
          Quote: OgnennyiKotik
          It's not a mistake. It is impossible to identify flaws without trial operation

          Of course. Here the question is more about the size of the experimental batch: usually they make a dozen or two cars and exercise on them, but the F-35 was built at once a couple of hundred. It is obvious that correcting the identified slogans for such a large batch is becoming costly and painful even for American military budgets. This, in particular, is the source of complaints about the excessive cost of the project.
          Quote: OgnennyiKotik
          Mythical 1000 remarks - is that a lot or a little?

          But this, of course, is an interesting question. Here you can even think of the unpleasant thought that the F-35 is not so bad in the end.
          1. +6
            17 August 2021 14: 17
            Quote: Kalmar
            Here the question is rather in the volume of the experimental batch: usually they make a dozen or two cars and practice on them

            And so they did. Test operation was carried out for blocks 1 and 2, block 3 is being purchased in large quantities, block 4 is on the way. Again, it is not known what exactly was fixed in blocks 1-3 and what comments remained. The fact that there are no critical is for sure. Block 4 is already a qualitative enhancement of capabilities, not fine-tuning.
            There is a high probability that blocks 1-2 will be written off.
            In fact, everything is confused, when they say the F-35, these are actually 9-12 types of aircraft (3 types of 3 blocks each, + special versions).
            Quote: Kalmar
            Here you can even think of the unpleasant thought that the F-35 is not so bad in the end.

            The pace of purchases confirms this "unpleasant thought". The main triggers are Israel and Switzerland. And the fascination with the amount of purchases of Japan from South Korea, after receiving the F-35 troops and their operation.
  9. +19
    17 August 2021 08: 15
    How dare the author say a single word about the positive qualities of this outrage !? Whose mill is he pouring water into ?!
    This is clearly a secret attack on the fan of denigrating the domestic military industry!
    Such, if I may say "authors", should in no case be allowed to reach such a high tribune, which is VO!
    Today they are praising the bucket of nuts, which is well-known to any sofa expert, and tomorrow they will reach the point that it’s scary to even imagine, they will say a kind word regarding something even more terrible than they will certainly pour salt on their already tortured tender hearts and bleeding wounds!
    1. +11
      17 August 2021 09: 54
      So thick that it's even thin, plus))
    2. -1
      17 August 2021 19: 58
      Quote: A. Privalov
      Today they are praising the bucket of nuts, which is well-known to any sofa expert, and tomorrow they will reach the point that it’s scary to even imagine, they will say a kind word regarding something even more terrible than they will certainly pour salt on their already tortured tender hearts and bleeding wounds!

      Mmmm ... will Zamvolt be praised? wink
      1. -1
        17 August 2021 23: 09
        This author had about zamvolt
  10. +3
    17 August 2021 08: 33
    Thanks, interesting.
    Not boom-boom in technology, but this is perhaps one of the few really interesting articles in recent years, there would be more of them.
    Recently, on one fairly well-known aviation resource, I saw a schematic diagram of a Chinese J-20, which indicates all the elements of this aircraft, plus a translation of the material for a point-by-element comparison of the new Chinese Z-20 helicopter and the American UH-60 Black Hawk, it really looked amazing. I would like to see something similar in relation to the F-35 and this is not a claim to the author, I will clarify.
  11. -22
    17 August 2021 08: 35
    Conclusion: The F35 is an unnecessary aircraft, created for a war that will not happen, as well as for selling to the allies. F16,15 and A10 will fight. A good cut of budget funds.
    1. +5
      17 August 2021 09: 56
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      Conclusion: The F35 is an unnecessary aircraft, created for a war that will not happen, as well as for selling to the allies. F16,15 and A10 will fight. A good cut of budget funds.

      You haven't heard about the Strategic Missile Forces yet ...
      1. -11
        17 August 2021 12: 40
        They will be applied just when necessary, and everyone knows this, except Timokhin, and therefore no Kuriles of Japan, or the Kaliningrad region of Germany, shine.

        So the Strategic Missile Forces justify their expenses.
        1. +3
          17 August 2021 20: 01
          Quote: EvilLion
          They will be applied just when necessary.

      2. -5
        18 August 2021 07: 48
        Strategic Missile Forces is the best investment of money. It is the Strategic Missile Forces that makes the F35,22 and other "miracle weapons" scrap metal.
  12. -7
    17 August 2021 08: 46
    For this reason, the F-35 cannot be inferior in maneuverability to the aforementioned F-16.


    And why should it be inferior to the F-16, when the F-16 itself has always been a so-so airplane, and the thrust-to-weight ratio of the F-35 roughly corresponds to the "superhornet".

    Allegations about the negative impact of the wide fuselage on the speed of the Lightning do not inspire much confidence. The main source of resistance in flight was and remains the wing. Tens of square meters set at an angle to the airflow. The fuselage's contribution to drag is negligible.


    I would not say that this is completely true. The resistance from the surface area is also increasing, and narrow-nosed, but long aircraft with liquid-propellant engines of the WWII times somehow had not much less resistance, compared with blunt-nosed air vents and the war did not reveal a clear superiority of this or that scheme.

    F-135, which develops more thrust than both engines of the MiG-35 fighter


    But it is also larger, a product of a different class, however, 2 RD-33 is clearly heavier than 1 F-135, and it is from here that my non-recognition of the J-31 as something more than a prototype grows, since if the Chinese are not can put the engine, as on the F-35, then the whole idea of ​​an airplane of the same dimension becomes zilch.
    1. +9
      17 August 2021 09: 29
      Quote: EvilLion
      And why should it be inferior to the F-16, when the F-16 itself has always been a so-so airplane, and the thrust-to-weight ratio of the F-35 roughly corresponds to the "superhornet".

      The old F-16C Block 50 with 50% fuel and similar armament surpasses the F-35A with 50% fuel and the same armament in thrust-to-weight ratio. And given that he has less moment of inertia and most likely the midsection, then Oleg simply pulled the owl onto the globe.
      Quote: EvilLion
      The resistance from the surface area is also increasing, and narrow-nosed, but long aircraft with liquid-propellant engines of the WWII times somehow did not have much less resistance, in comparison with blunt-nosed air vents and the war did not reveal the obvious superiority of this or that scheme.

      Because Oleg forgot to tell that their length also affects the resistance to the movement of bodies in the air. The longer the body with the same midsection and shape, the greater the resistance due to the friction of air particles on the sides.
      1. +1
        17 August 2021 12: 43
        Take into account that the F-35 has weapons inside, and the F-16 gives extra. resistance will be? I'm even too lazy to look at the fuel reserves now, since the F-35 has a much greater range.
        1. +3
          17 August 2021 13: 06
          Quote: EvilLion
          Take into account that the F-35 has weapons inside, and the F-16 gives extra. resistance will be? I'm even too lazy to look at the fuel reserves now, since the F-35 has a much greater range.

          The resistance of explosive missiles is very small. They are specially made that way. But the fact that the F-16 with the suspension of a large number of missiles will greatly increase the moment of inertia for aerial combat, of course, not buzzing.
          But once again the F-16 is lighter, smaller and more powerful
          .
          Quote: EvilLion
          I'm even too lazy to look at the fuel reserves now, since the F-35 has a much greater range.

          It remains only to understand that the F-35's engine eats much more. In aerial combat, large reserves of fuel are a double-edged sword. They make the fight heavier but allow you to drag out the fight.
      2. +11
        17 August 2021 13: 08
        Norwegian pilots who are replacing now whole fleet F-16 on F-35
        wrote in their blogs that the F-35 makes steeper and more stable turns, easier to control. The pilot is less stressed during sharp turns / turns. Less vibration.
        The Norwegians plan to use the F-35 as fighters (like the outgoing F-16), rather than as strike aircraft. Their drills are aerial combat, not ground strikes.
        They trained against Typhoons, Rafals, F-22
        Therefore, their opinion is especially interesting.
  13. +4
    17 August 2021 08: 49
    Well, where is the answer to the question:
    F-35. Money Slayer or Serious Weapon?

    Or the reader himself must draw conclusions based on his own worldview
  14. -1
    17 August 2021 08: 53
    The pilots did not rely on a second, serviceable engine, but on the ejection seat and the strength of the parachute lines.


    Bailout is dangerous, so the car will be dragged to the last, again, the prospect of swimming in the sea, or running around the mountains from thugs, who are better off not being captured, pilots are not too happy.
  15. sav
    +25
    17 August 2021 09: 11
    Oleg, thanks for the material. It was useful for me - resolved a couple of questions about airplanes
  16. +16
    17 August 2021 09: 11
    Domestic and foreign fighters of the 5th generation use a diamond-shaped (trapezoidal) wing.

    The wings of both the 5th and 4th generation of fighters (F-16, MiG-29, Su-27) are trapezoids, they have nothing to do with rhombuses at all.
    Here, high bearing properties at subsonic speeds are combined with high wing rigidity.

    Can you find out how the classic F-22 trapezoid, with its shape, dramatically increases the rigidity of the wing compared to the rectangular F-16 trapezoid? And to what, in what plane, forces does the rigidity increase? And is it okay that the stiffness of the wings is usually increased by classic trusses?
    you can understand the reasons for the growing interest associated with the new wing.

    What was the problem with creating a wing of this shape before?
    Which allows continuous flight at transonic (supersonic) speeds.

    Wings so large in relative area create tremendous lift, but also tremendous drag, prolonged flight at high speeds will quickly "eat up" all the fuel.
    In the absence of tendencies to the emergence of strong vibrations at high speed and low altitudes - an unavoidable property of all fighters of past generations.

    Aircraft with variable wing geometry convey hello to this unrecoverable property, then even if vibrations are present, they are more likely to be associated with a ground effect and not with strong wing bends.
    With this arrangement, the vertical tail does not fall into the aerodynamic "shadow" of the wing. That allows you to maintain controllability and return the fighter from high angles of attack.

    Keels are responsible for stabilizing the aircraft in the air, and yaw, they do not affect the pitch.
    According to some reports, he lost track stability and the ability to control at angles of attack a little more than 10 degrees.

    Funny wassat
    With this arrangement, the vertical tail does not fall into the aerodynamic "shadow" of the wing. That allows you to maintain controllability and return the fighter from high angles of attack ...
    Rafali, Gripen and Eurofighter are not affected by this problem, because use other aerodynamic configurations of a glider with a forward horizontal tail.

    And here the aerodynamic shadow from the wing, the keel and the horizontal stabilizer, I did not understand at all, Oleg confused the keel and the horizontal stabilizer during the campaign.
    For this reason, the F-35 cannot be inferior in maneuverability to the aforementioned F-16.

    Maneuverability primarily depends on the thrust-to-weight ratio, resistance and moment of inertia of the aircraft and not on the keel design.
    The "area rule" unknown to the general public and the fruitless debate about the boundaries of the concept itself (which layout of the F-15 and F-16 is semi-integral or non-integral?) Will be left for another case.

    What does the "area rule" of aerodynamics and integral layout have to do with the term of designers?
    Allegations about the negative impact of the wide fuselage on the speed of the Lightning do not inspire much confidence. The main source of resistance in flight was and remains the wing. Tens of square meters set at an angle to the airflow. The fuselage's contribution to drag is negligible.

    And nothing that during horizontal flight, air particles fall on the wing at a large angle and on the fuselage at a small angle to the normal? In any case, I would like at least rough calculations and not a paradoxical fact.
    The fact that the thrust-to-weight ratio with a normal take-off weight lies in the accepted range for fighters of 4/5 generations is evidenced by shots with flights at supercritical angles of attack, "back" forward. This is possible, first of all, due to the impressive traction of Pratt & Whitney.

    This is possible due to the distribution of forces created by the aircraft structure. You can pick up speed, turn off the engine and do the same, due to inertia.
    Regarding the situation with engine failure, the incidents disprove the belief that twin-engine fighters are more reliable. Loss of thrust became a critical situation, depriving the pilots of the opportunity to continue flying. The pilots did not rely on a second, serviceable engine, but on the ejection seat and the strength of the parachute lines.

    Rave. If all engines fail, it is possible to land the plane using the stored energy. One running engine in any case adds energy before landing.
    Fact: over the past few decades, in air battles, where 4th generation fighters were used, 100% of victories were won with the use of medium and long-range missiles (URVV).

    Nonsense, long to explain but complete nonsense.
    AFAR has lower emitted power and detection range. From the positive aspects - extended viewing angles, simultaneous tracking of air and ground targets, great stealth when working.

    Rave. The main advantages of AFAR are beamforming frequency and reliability and low life cycle cost. simultaneous tracking of air and ground targets is possible with other types of radars, extended viewing angles are provided by turning the reflectors of any antennas up to the sphere, the power and range are generally not to the village not to the city.
    The article is still full of blunders, but it's too lazy to sort it out.
    1. -3
      17 August 2021 09: 34
      How are you going to turn off and start a jet engine in the air?
      1. +6
        17 August 2021 09: 39
        Quote: ZlodeyTim
        How are you going to turn off and start a jet engine in the air?

        This is usually done by the oncoming air flow, there are also air bleed systems from the second engine, sometimes some aircraft have an APU.
        Why are you talking about particulars? Inertia, in theory, allows you to fly without an engine. And this is not a distant theory, all explosive missiles, especially medium and long-range ones, travel most of the way by inertia.
    2. +4
      17 August 2021 10: 28
      Quote: KKND
      Maneuverability primarily depends on the thrust-to-weight ratio, resistance and moment of inertia of the aircraft and not on the keel design.

      this is on the verticals, and on the horizontal the wing load is still important
      Quote: KKND
      The main advantages of AFAR are beamforming frequency and reliability and low life cycle cost.

      size gain is still important for an airplane, which was mentioned in the article, in vain the author did not connect
    3. +5
      17 August 2021 10: 39
      ... simultaneous tracking of air and ground targets is possible with other types of radars

      Electronically scanned beam
    4. 0
      17 August 2021 12: 09
      IMHO, you are partially right, but this is more suitable for the difference between the wording of one and the same
      1. +7
        17 August 2021 12: 18
        Quote: Max1995
        IMHO, you are partially right, but this is more suitable for the difference between the wording of one and the same

        This is not a difference in wording. Oleg does not understand what he is writing about at all. His article is an article by a technically illiterate journalist who tried to analyze the forces acting on the plane. He does not even understand what the angle of attack is, otherwise there would be no nonsense about uncontrollability by 10 degrees.
        His article is a set of terms without understanding how it all works in the expectation that the reader will not understand and, seeing clever words, will think that the author is right.
        And you bought into all this only because you also do not want to understand, as you need to strain your brains a lot.
        It's as old as the world.
        1. 0
          17 August 2021 12: 20
          Anything can be, because vrrbsche is far from aviation.
          And your final conclusions about F35, if you forget the article completely?
          1. +6
            17 August 2021 12: 32
            Quote: Max1995
            And your final conclusions about F35, if you forget the article completely?

            How do I know. This plane is almost completely classified. I flew in the most serious simulator available to ordinary people, and even there, the developers of the natives and TsAGI do not have information on old missiles such as Aim-120 or even R-27. They only have information from pilots on old aircraft such as F-15C and the pilots themselves do not know how the systems work there, they are only trained to press the buttons correctly.
            What is the F-35 with its state-of-the-art systems?
            The only thing I can tell by eye, if the size and weight on the internet did not lie (but could well) that it is still not as maneuverable as the F-16 or MiG-29. Its maneuverability is somewhere on the level of the F-15. And the F-15 is still more maneuverable than the Su-27.
            And yes, maneuverability in air combat among pilots means maintaining altitude and speed during sharp anti-missile maneuvers due to the thrust of the engines and not somersaults and other acrabatics.
            1. +1
              17 August 2021 12: 35
              Thank you! Any stakeholder opinion is better than paid hurray articles ...
              1. +4
                17 August 2021 12: 52
                About the comparison of the F-16 and F-35. An interesting monologue by Acting Defense Minister Miller at a press conference about a conversation with an unnamed Air Force colonel. This colonel began his service on the F-16, now he flies on the F-35. The minister told him that the F-35 was "a piece of excrement," at which the colonel laughed and said, "No, seriously, tell me about this?" and added that the F-35 is "an incredible aircraft."
                https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/2473893/press-gaggle-with-acting-secretary-miller-en-route-to-washington-dc/
                Ps The minister is a former infantry colonel, a veteran of many wars, judging by his speech, he was shell-shocked more than once.
                1. +1
                  17 August 2021 13: 08
                  Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                  An interesting monologue by Acting Defense Minister Miller at a press conference about a conversation with an unnamed Air Force colonel.

                  What else did you hear "valuable" in the smoking room?
                  1. +3
                    17 August 2021 13: 56
                    Quote: KKND
                    What else did you hear "valuable" in the smoking room?

                    This is not “valuable”. But you have to rely on something.
            2. 0
              18 August 2021 08: 09
              The F-15 is more maneuverable than the F-16 in everything except the roll rate, simply due to its higher thrust-to-weight ratio. Otherwise, the F-15 would simply not exist. The F-15 is more maneuverable than the Su-27 except on verticals, or if we take the later versions with engines that are even more powerful than the AL-31F, while the F-15 is lighter than the Su-27. Somersaults just show how quickly the plane changes its velocity vector, and the faster it does it, the less energy it loses. Hence all sorts of UVT.
  17. +2
    17 August 2021 09: 43
    At the expense of stealth. The F-35 in Syria must have come under our radar. Are there any data on the effectiveness of our radars on the F-35?
    1. +7
      17 August 2021 10: 12
      Quote: riwas
      At the expense of stealth. The F-35 in Syria must have come under our radar. Are there any data on the effectiveness of our radars on the F-35?

      Nobody will give you an answer to this question.
      1.Americans hide the real RCS of the F-35 and fly with Lunberg lenses.
      2. The information received by our radar facilities is "under the stamp".
  18. +7
    17 August 2021 10: 33
    The article is interesting! Oleg Kaptsov tried to weigh dispassionately all the available information and give ordinary assessments! Such statuses are rare for the Russian. info-space. Respect to the author! hi
  19. +4
    17 August 2021 10: 52
    Excellent article, as for me. Maybe experts will find inconsistencies, I don't know, but the article is excellent - short and angry. It was possible to add more about network centricity, visualization in all directions by cameras, this is not fundamental, since it is known. Indeed, the Americans are long-term leaders in aircraft construction and not only, what else to expect from them, if not an advanced aircraft in all characteristics. At the cost, however, too, although the Americans just wanted to reduce it. In comparison with the previous models, their 3 serial stealths have been reduced in price, but apparently not as they wanted.
    In general, a wonderful car, not without flaws (which will finish how the problems of engine blades have now arisen), as without them, and the main one, it seems, is the price of the aircraft and its maintenance. The price has already ruined (almost) f22 and b2, but now the cost has been diluted into several countries, and it may survive.
  20. -1
    17 August 2021 11: 38
    Quote: KKND
    Quote: Alexey Sommer
    They write that it is possible to escape from the rocket, but the rocket can carry large overloads, so it will not help most likely ..
    I don’t know of course, but in my opinion it’s not really necessary.
    Aerial acrobatics.

    So that you are not afraid of the "magic" angle of attack, I will explain to you. It is simply the angle between the incoming airflow onto the wing and the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. To make it quite simple, the plane flies strictly straight, the horizontal angle is considered 0. But the plane needs to gain altitude, it lifts its nose up with its control aerodynamic surfaces, say, the lift increases by 10 degrees, the angle of attack is considered 10 degrees. We still need to increase the lift - we also lift the nose up, the angle of attack becomes, for example, 30 degrees, the plane is gaining altitude, but at the same time the horizontal speed decreases (the resistance increases). So Oleg wrote about 10 degrees of nonsense, I in the simulator on the F-16 and at 45 lifted it up without disrupting the flow and spinning.

    You are confusing angle of attack and pitch. When climbing with a pitch angle, for example equal to 30 degrees, the velocity vector is not directed horizontally, so the angle of attack is not 30 degrees. And then, in your opinion, it turns out that civilian ships can fly with high angles of attack.
    1. +4
      17 August 2021 12: 02
      Quote: smoltish
      You are confusing angle of attack and pitch. When climbing with a pitch angle, for example equal to 30 degrees, the velocity vector is not directed horizontally, so the angle of attack is not 30 degrees. And then, in your opinion, it turns out that civilian ships can fly with high angles of attack.

      That you are confusing something. If we imagine that this is the angle between the incoming air flow and the velocity vector, say 30 degrees, then it will always be zero. And in cases of 30 degrees and in cases of 10 degrees and in cases of any direction of the velocity vector.
      When the pitch is 30 degrees, the velocity vector can be decomposed into two components, one horizontal and the other vertical. Here, the vertical speed cannot create lift, on the contrary, it creates resistance to lift.
      And the horizontal one just creates the lift because the air particles fall at an angle onto the plane of the wing.
      In short, here's a childish picture for you, otherwise I'm too difficult to explain

      What has the civilian ships dragged in at all is incomprehensible.
      Another avatar, which one was set, but you don't understand the basic concept of the angle of attack, and even argue.
      1. +3
        17 August 2021 17: 37
        Read the definition in the tutorial. Everything is clear there. Just a definition. That should be enough.
      2. +1
        17 August 2021 18: 13
        TANGAZH is the angle between the horizontal plane and the longitudinal axis of the aircraft.
        Trajectory inclination angle - the angle between the horizon plane and the airspeed vector)
        Angle of attack - the angle between the chord of the aircraft, approximately can be considered the longitudinal axis of the aircraft and the airspeed vector.
        This is simple. Well, in the picture, everything is clearly visible. It is more informative than the one you presented. He (your drawing) is misleading.
        Look, for example, the flight of the MiG-29 at extremely low speeds. It flies horizontally (the velocity vector is horizontal relative to the Earth's surface), and the nose is "raised" at an angle. But he does not gain height at the same time. And during takeoff of any aircraft, the velocity vector and the angle of the aircraft relative to the 6th horizon approximately coincide. The angle of attack, of course, is not equal to zero (the wing design "provides" initially a small angle of attack), but if the pitch is, according to your description, 30 degrees during takeoff, then the angle of attack is very far from 30 degrees.
        1. -1
          3 February 2022 10: 15
          Provided that the oncoming flow is equal to the horizon line, the pitch angle is considered from the longitudinal axis of the aeroplane itself, the angle of attack from the chord of the surface creating lift (usually the wing). Symmetric wings cannot produce lift at zero angle of attack, so in an aeroplane with a symmetrical wing, the angle of attack will always be positive at zero pitch angle.
  21. +1
    17 August 2021 11: 50
    Quote: A. Privalov
    How dare the author say a single word about the positive qualities of this outrage !? Whose mill is he pouring water into ?!
    This is clearly a secret attack on the fan of denigrating the domestic military industry!
    Such, if I may say "authors", should in no case be allowed to reach such a high tribune, which is VO!
    Today they are praising the bucket of nuts, which is well-known to any sofa expert, and tomorrow they will reach the point that it’s scary to even imagine, they will say a kind word regarding something even more terrible than they will certainly pour salt on their already tortured tender hearts and bleeding wounds!

    And what the author denigrated domestic producers ?? He made his analysis of the plane of a potential enemy. Do not underestimate your opponent. If he praised the F-35 for anything, it does not denigrate anyone at all. Strange logic.
    I found few numbers in this review and there is practically no comparison. New technologies applied to the F-35 are not affected. I learned practically nothing new.
    1. +3
      17 August 2021 17: 46
      If someone puts something out, I'm afraid he will be fired .. BO - still not with a neighbor to exchange opinions .. As a result, it will pop up.
      In general, the article is very objective, albeit without a description of some essential parameters.
      A minimum of propaganda ... Evaluation of the technical side.
    2. -1
      19 August 2021 13: 38
      Have you heard something about irony?
  22. +6
    17 August 2021 12: 06
    Good article.
    Specificity, a minimum of sound assumptions and analytics.

    IMHO, this is even a small bomber - it carries a lot of weapons on one engine.
    he does not need to win air superiority, from this everything else.

    And all sorts of PR in the URA-media "underdevelopment" - one laugh, IMHO. Do not compare, we have everything zaspecheno.
  23. +2
    17 August 2021 12: 36
    I liked the article.

    The following phrase aroused particular interest.

    "The RBE-2AA radars of the French Rafale fighters and other modern radar modifications of the 4+ generation fighters use outdated architecture and software inherited from their base versions with PFAR."

    Here I would like to know what is the conceptual advantage of Afar 35 over Afar Rafal? the French praise their station very much. What's wrong with her (well, except that she has a small canvas)?
    1. -1
      17 August 2021 18: 52
      Afar rafala - modernized pfar

      Afar f-35 - development from scratch
      1. 0
        17 August 2021 18: 55
        I don't really understand this. Afar is quite different from pfar, how can a single pfar be converted into afar?
        1. +1
          19 August 2021 06: 12
          Radars of many American and European fighters, their new versions received an AFAR antenna

          The results are controversial.

          The APG-79 shows a slight increase in performance compared to the APG-73. The results of practical tests did not reveal any noticeable advantages of F / A-18E / F fighter jets, equipped with AFAR radars, before vehicles with conventional radar radars.

          From Director of Test & Evaluation (DOT & E), 2013.
          1. nks
            0
            24 August 2021 11: 56
            Quote: Santa Fe
            The APG-79 shows a slight performance increase over the APG-73.

            Oleg, how is your Kiev uncle?) Comparison of AFAR and SHAR SH radars does not mean anything about comparing two other AFAR radars.
  24. +2
    17 August 2021 13: 26
    F-35. Money Slayer or Serious Weapon?
    definitely both
  25. +3
    17 August 2021 14: 22
    Good, objective article. My respect for the author.
  26. +1
    17 August 2021 14: 45
    Here's a good, measured article. Without enthusiasm, but also without unnecessary muddying. Thanks to the author.
  27. +2
    17 August 2021 17: 33
    Yes, they are all money fighters, some more, some less. And whoever says or writes the F-35 still flies, and a Jew seems to be even fighting on it.
  28. +1
    17 August 2021 17: 54
    Quote: KKND
    Quote: smoltish
    You are confusing angle of attack and pitch. When climbing with a pitch angle, for example equal to 30 degrees, the velocity vector is not directed horizontally, so the angle of attack is not 30 degrees. And then, in your opinion, it turns out that civilian ships can fly with high angles of attack.

    That you are confusing something. If we imagine that this is the angle between the incoming air flow and the velocity vector, say 30 degrees, then it will always be zero. And in cases of 30 degrees and in cases of 10 degrees and in cases of any direction of the velocity vector.
    When the pitch is 30 degrees, the velocity vector can be decomposed into two components, one horizontal and the other vertical. Here, the vertical speed cannot create lift, on the contrary, it creates resistance to lift.
    And the horizontal one just creates the lift because the air particles fall at an angle onto the plane of the wing.
    In short, here's a childish picture for you, otherwise I'm too difficult to explain

    What has the civilian ships dragged in at all is incomprehensible.
    Another avatar, which one was set, but you don't understand the basic concept of the angle of attack, and even argue.

    1. +4
      18 August 2021 07: 06
      Yes, you are right, the angle of attack is not always equal to the pitch angle, it is the angle between the longitudinal axis of the aircraft and the airspeed vector. hi
  29. +1
    17 August 2021 18: 12
    The author is much better at getting articles about battleships, cruisers and ARMOR!
  30. +2
    17 August 2021 19: 39
    Discretion is the main quality of the 5th generation. The author said practically nothing about this. It is this quality that gives the decisive advantage. The training battles of the F-35 with the 4th generation fighters confirmed its calculated advantages in the ratio from 14: 1 to 16: 0, depending on the type (F15, F16, F18). On average, they are rated 15 to 1!
    The second gap is the lack of information about the new three-circuit engine XA-100, which has 10% more thrust, 25% less fuel consumption, which increases the combat radius by 50%!
  31. 0
    17 August 2021 23: 00
    No armor. No armor at all. No armor belt, no barbet ...
  32. +3
    18 August 2021 02: 17
    Ode to the penguin or not, with all the criticism to the terminology of the article, the conclusions are quite correct - 700 pieces are a lot, the plane is cheaper than the Raphael, logistics and service will improve. We would have such a series of su57 or at least su35
  33. -8
    18 August 2021 10: 29
    The United States refused to supply Turkey with the F-35 after the purchase of the air defense system by the Turks.

    There is only one reason: the true value of the EPR of the F-35 will be revealed, and therefore the Pentagon was frightened.
    1. +4
      19 August 2021 12: 25
      Let me tell you a secret: there, opposite Turkey, there is a country of Greece, in which Russian-made C-300s have been in operation for a long time, and Greece has already approved the sale of F-35s. Turkey did not pass the test for loyalty, they did not like this, so the taps are turned off. Turkey is an active participant in military conflicts in the region with and without business. Why would the Americans wake up one day and read the news as the Turkish F-35 bomb someone who is supported by the United States?
      About the EPR everything is secret, but, for example, at the hearings on the F-22 program, it was stated that the C-300 (though still Soviet) would see the F-22 only at a distance of 30 km from itself. And again, it is stated that although theoretically the RCS of the F-22 should be less than that of the F-35 due to a number of compromises in the latter's airframe, but in fact, as again only stated, progress in radio-absorbing coating and other trifles has equalized this characteristic on both planes.
      And now how it works for them, according to them: the F-35 transmits to the pilot on the screen and helmet not only the location of the threats directly detected by its sensors, but also the radius of the zone in which it is possible to illuminate itself on radars. The aircraft searches for targets, receives radiation signals from its STR, compares everything with the library of threat signatures (by the way, the Heritage Foundation report from 2019 stated that there is no S-400 in this library at the moment) and forms a zone for the pilot to fly into. costs. Moreover, this zone is considered in real time, depending on which projection you turned towards the enemy and what external suspensions you are carrying. To fly up to 30 km or even 50 km is more than enough: even gliding guided bombs are dropped from a distance twice as large. And all this infa also circulates between the surrounding F-35s (in the plans between all aircraft of all military branches). The intelligence is compared, specified, something is discarded as unconfirmed, some signatures, on the contrary, are assigned the status of full confirmation and distributed freely. Apparently, the accuracy of target identification and recognition has now reached a sufficient level to build its tactics around this system. This smart analysis is one of the main differences between the new MADL protocol and the old Link16, which hails from the early 00s. If this is so, then it is clear why this needs to be developed for 20 years and to what kind of network centricity Lockheed has pumped tens of billions since the mid-90s. For now, our modern analogue of Link16 is being deployed on the Su-35, Su-30SM2 (in theory, for now, there are none) and the Su-57 (when more than 10 units go to the troops, wake up). And about stealth, the head of the Sukhoi Poghosyan Design Bureau officially spoke with us only then that the EPR of the F-22 is the same as that of the Su-57 and reaches values ​​of almost 0,5 square meters. Was it an attempt to lower the parameters of the F-22 or increase them in the Su-57? Of course, this half a meter is not enough, but it will still not allow you to get close to any modern air defense system. The operating countries, allies of the United States, receive secret data before buying, including on the EPR, and so far no one has been disappointed in the characteristics of the aircraft, of course, officially. There are those who cut the procurement program due to cost, but there are also a lot of examples when, after flying over the first batches, they want to even completely replace their F-16 fleets.
  34. +3
    18 August 2021 19: 06
    Wonderful! Oleg is back at VO. I already thought oh ...
    I always read it with pleasure, and comments. IMHO the most commented VO author.
    1. +1
      19 August 2021 06: 05
      Thank you yes feedback!
      I read the entire thread, I do not always have time to respond. The reader's attention is the best reward for the author
      1. 0
        19 August 2021 15: 42
        The article is cool. But in the headline about money - not exactly.
        Nobody "eats" them - they came from the American economy and
        went into the American economy. Moreover, the money of the countries-buyers from
        their economies merged again with the US economy.
      2. 0
        20 August 2021 20: 09
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Thank you yes feedback!
        I read the entire thread, I do not always have time to respond. The reader's attention is the best reward for the author

        Attention, it is not just that. You read the author, read the comments and there is an irresistible desire to figure it out for yourself. Only three writers on VO deserve my attention when I'm willing to throw my money-making time to find out the truth. This is you, V.O. Shpakovsky. and Andrey from Chelyabinsk. Maybe more comments, ccsr .... yes ....
        With uv.
  35. +2
    19 August 2021 12: 06
    A good article from the author was obtained, although not without errors.
    Definitely a plus.
  36. 0
    20 August 2021 06: 13
    Good article. Much became clear to me.
    Obviously, despite its mass production, the F-35 is a serious factor in our safety.
    He is extremely ugly. I saw two landing in Salt Lake City. But it is not important.
    The most interesting question, of course, is how far our systems see the 22nd and 35th. But we will not know this for a long time.
    1. -1
      20 August 2021 07: 32
      We will not marry him, and critics, write better!
  37. -2
    20 August 2021 11: 10
    F-35. Money Slayer or Serious Weapon?


    for those who buy it, this is a money fighter and a serious weapon, because the United States does not even sell its best F-22 aircraft to Israel. The F-35 is a real source of income for the US military-industrial complex, and in terms of PR of any of their weapons, they are the best. So F- 35 this is not about weapons, but about the real ability to grab the dough on the sale of the conditionally 5th generation, without super-maneuverability, he can not be considered such, and the excuse "why does he need super-maneuverability because he is invisible" clearly does not help.
    1. 0
      21 August 2021 00: 56
      How exactly did you describe the Su-75 program.
      Seriously, it has long been necessary to understand that the complexity and the effectiveness behind it, and behind it the cost of weapons is constantly increasing, otherwise there is no point in new developments. Is the JSF development program one of the most expensive? 60 billion or something like that, with a bunch of stocks (for example, an overweight of more than a ton! With the dismissal of part of Lockheed's management and subsequent redesign and "weight loss") because of which the development price only increased? Yes, you can, but there are simply no analogues for comparison, what difficulties did you have to cope with? it is not a fact that the Europeans with their next generation will be cheaper, or even ours will be cheaper, although the question here is what are the priorities? A small historical note: the program for developing only F1 engines (the largest single-chamber engine in history) for the first stage of Saturn-5, which sent Apollo to the Moon, cost I no longer remember, whether 2, or 4 billion! These engines worked very poorly, unstable, they appeared as a result of an experimental program of the US Air Force (something completely insane was being prepared there). The military eventually gave up on the idea, but NASA picked up and, through an uncountable number of fire tests, brought it to a state of work close to ideal. In the entire history of operation, there were one or two failures that did not lead to any consequences, and something like this happened on the launch pad. And the entire program for the development of the H-1 - a Soviet super-heavy launch vehicle, which was being prepared to send an astronaut to the moon, exactly one, not three as in Apollo (the H-1 lacked strength for more) cost about 200 million dollars in foreign currency. The military simply did not allocate more money to the Queen, for them all this was too ephemeral. As a result, tests of a very complex multi-engine system were not carried out. They were combined with the launch of the entire rocket. As a result, four unsuccessful starts, all due to improper operation of the first stage propulsion system. Korolev and Glushko had a falling out. The program has closed. As if, how much money was allocated for so much and flew. And only Elon Musk in Falcon Heavy was able to successfully implement a multi-engine installation of similar complexity. End.
      But can we say that the F-35 itself is expensive? No, this is an erroneous statement for a long time. If in lot 1 (in the first batch) one F-35A cost about 240! million, then in the freshest lots the F-35A costs less than 80 million. Is it expensive now in 2021 or not? For a seed, a modern F-15EX will cost no less than 90 million. Our Su-35, however, together with reserve engines, went to the Chinese, to my surprise, with a price of just over 100 million apiece, and this is a contract and dollars from the distant 2015.
      For an honest comparison, the single-engine F-16 of the fresh Block 70 (F-21) is being offered to Arabs and Indians at a price of about 120 million apiece! Because this is a modern small series aircraft. The kit includes (according to the ever-increasing wishes of customers, of course, here as with cars) an increasing number of special stages / suspensions and still the final price will be clearly higher than the F-35. Or another analogue from the recent past, the F / A-18E sample of 2012 at prices of 21 years costs 75 million (Do not put your finger in Boeing's mouth for this old junk). Hmm, but still cheaper than the F-35C, and generally cheaper than many. Next, we add the sighting optical system, we add the electronic warfare container, we add the set of towed decoys, add. tanks, etc. and the price is already about 90 million! In fact, this aircraft is now far behind the F-35 in terms of combat capabilities, which already has all this on board at once and from above is stealth and tactical awareness. This, by the way, is also related to the cost of a flight hour, because in the military reports from which we go nuts, according to these figures, the cost of operating an aircraft and attachments! additional systems are considered separately.
      On the other hand, Rafale is even more trenchant. It cost the Indians (in the competition where the MiG-35 was, by the way) how much? 200 million apiece?!?! And even if the price also includes service and a bunch of special stages, it still went far ahead of the F-35, not even the freshest lots. The Germans recently ordered about 30-40 Eurofighters to directly replace their very first batch of these fighters at a price of 160 !! million apiece. Here's a good example of what it can cost to deliver a good but relatively infrequently produced aircraft. And for some reason no one in our country worries about the German taxpayers, and does not call the European consortium swindlers. There are national priorities and don't care about the price. Ursula von der Leyen, the former German Defense Minister, even fired one of the generals in the Luftwaffe, who criticized the ministry for refusing to immediately replace the obsolete Tornado with the F-35. Let me remind you that two F-35A for the price of one eurofighter.
      An example from the past, proving that the F-35 is not the biggest money eater - the F-14! If you buy a serial F-14 of the 1984 model, then you need to unload at our prices as much as 85 million. And then we would not miss the proportions in the growth of the total budget. How much at current prices the Americans could afford the F-14 then and how much now. There, and the failure of the TFX (Tactical Fighter Experimental) program with the overly sophisticated F-111 (like the story with Zumwalt) and forcedly born by sailors as a result of the F-14. Disgusting PW engines inherited from their great-grandfather, which constantly refused and who wanted to be replaced immediately, but 600 of the 14 F-700s flew all the time in the "first stage", not least because of the PW lobby. And the famous Phoenix rockets, which also grew out of TFX, at a price of 5 million !! apiece at current prices, but there were no analogues until the 90s. The Air Force said: Yes, you are fucking there in general, but the sailors: give me two! I bet in our country the MiG-21 and probably even the MiG-23 was cheaper than this rocket. At the time of production in 1974, one F-14A at nominal prices cost about 15 million.For comparison, 2 years later, when the F-15A appeared, it cost 11 million and everyone just fucked up about it, because the good old Phantom was no more than 3 million, let alone the reaction to the F-14. Here, in all its glory, the largest eater of taxpayers' dough, now everything is very civilized.
      1. 0
        21 August 2021 01: 48
        Then the F-22, which with the quoted price of 140 million (192 now) had just started production, as the program was abolished. In theory, it should have been stabbed altogether, because after the collapse of the USSR there was no point in the plane, but it came out really good and already more than 40 billion for development was banal a pity. Therefore, it is more correct to compare it with the F-35 of the first lots. Again we run into a big difference between the first and subsequent games. I wonder what the F-22 was supposed to be priced at? The head of the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter) project from the customer's side said in an interview that the program started with a goal of 30-35 million apiece, but his bosses (military) screwed up so many hatelocks, which even after they were forced to cut half of them (like a circular radar, an OLS, more than 10 missiles inside, there was a damn even a reverse as on passenger planes!) then the planned price could not drop below 45-50 million, that is how much, in their opinion, the average cost of the F-22 would be after the construction of 700 units, that's about 65 million if you take inflation since 2004. The difference between the 1st and the 700th F-35 x3, just the same could be in the F-22. Coincidence seems to be true.
        The same story with the B-2 - instead of at least 60 aircraft, only 21 were produced. And for the same reason. Sign, here you have a billion apiece, you wanted it yourself, but we don't need your B-2 plant later. For reference, the design price of the new B-21 is 500 million. More than a hundred want to do it, the guys don't waste time on trifles right away. And since we are talking about bombers, then again a clear example from our reality. The new Tu-160M2 will cost us all about $ 260 million apiece! That's okay, a billion bucks for four swans. Should our patriotism support or condemn this? Somehow not at all in the style of the Soviet "cheap and cheerful", the point is again the same production line that needs to be built anew. And you can easily drown in an argument comparing the combat effectiveness of one B-2 and four Tu-160s. According to American estimates, two B-2s perform the work of a group of 50 cars: bombers, a fighter escort, electronic warfare and tankers for this entire gang. And there are certain grounds for this statement. On the second day of the Gulf War, the coalition became so emboldened that it decided to bomb a nuclear facility near Baghdad during the day, because just that night on the eve of the F-177s had already bombed the city and everything was a beam. They sent a group of like 62 planes where the core was F-16 with free falling bombs. As a result, they got it in the neck, the task was not completed, several F-16s were shot down by the SA-2 (Dvina) and SA-6 (Buk) air defense systems. In the internet there is a video recorder of one of the F-16s in the raid that dodged 6 missiles. It has become a teaching tool for the cadets. Eight F-117s with two tankers flew into the night. Targets destroyed. And it was here that the idea came to me: it wouldn’t be a bad idea to replace our F-16s with such F-117s, only modified with a file. And the F-117 wore the letter F at the beginning not only because of secrecy. There is an interview with the F-117 pilot, who said that the plane could actually use all the nomenclature of the Air Force except for the AIM-7 for obvious reasons. In training, they practiced hunting for Soviet A-50 avacs with a harma attack, and night raids with nuclear bombs in Moscow.
        And what to expect further from this "expensive" F-35? It seems that Congress has cut the number of F-35s in the next deliveries. But it's too early for us to rejoice, because by the year 24, Lockheed promises to roll out a new version of Block 4, which has already been deployed into mass production (yes, now, in their opinion, it is not a pancake mass) There are 6 AIM-120s in the belly (and this is the same as the F -22 for a minute) and new computers (while they have been doing it for 20 years, its processors are no longer so relevant) and a new distributed aperture of infrared vision, a new OLS (why touch it? For comparison, watch Lockheed's commercials from 2010 with a demonstration of the capabilities of OLS F- 35 and fresh videos of real work from a seemingly ordinary thermal imager on a banal helicopter, which was just purchased by the local police department in the same states - the first one nervously smokes aside), APG-81 upgrades, perhaps! the new XA-100 engine from GE under the ADVENT project (adaptive three-circuit engine + 10% thrust is already 22 thousand kgf (our product has 30 ~ 18 thousand kgf, like the Chinese WS-15), -25% consumption, successfully passed tests of the first sample) and much more. All this, moreover, according to the assurance, will also turn out to be cheaper: constantly negotiations are underway with contractors and someone has already been stupidly replaced by others in future contracts for Block 4. One of the ways to reduce the price.
        It is very interesting to observe all this, as a complex process in which difficult decisions are made, but moving the program forward. In America, it means the bigwigs of the business are selling the F-35 for 80 million, and here the patrons will give the Su-75 for 30 million to everyone who wants it? Iiii I don’t believe it. How can Oboronexport offer the MiG-35 at a price of 50 million apiece, and then will sell "unparalleled" for 30 million? Ask what prices are publicly available, even in the mass production of a modern engine or radar in the west. There, one electronic warfare station will cost about 5 million. Which batch should be produced? MIG alone was offered by UHT as an option for 10 million, a third! the prices of the Su-75 on which it is also of the type. Here, either the MIG "rose" so much and broke such prices that in the end it scared everyone off and now they have to mercilessly dumping, or the Su-75 at the exit will never cost 30 million even close. UHT literally a little bit (two UHT 35 million each :)) to 35 million - the fresh price of the F-10A. There is already a contract for 79lot with options on 35, where the government is also putting pressure on the price. And then in 15, when in Block 16,17 some of the contractors will be replaced and the price will fall again.
  38. +1
    20 August 2021 13: 16
    Quote: PilotS37
    6.
    Shots showing flights at critical and supercritical angles of attack. In fact, back forward.

    Yes, not with his back forward, but with his back down, he flies there. That is, a rather banal inverted flight is shown. Yes, the angle of attack is decent, but this is an achievement of a pilot, not an airplane.

    - You were joking at this place ... lol
  39. +1
    20 August 2021 13: 19
    Quote: PilotS37
    Quote: Santa Fe
    Starfighter - Interceptor

    That's it!
    The thesis that strike aircraft need a diamond-shaped wing does not stand up to criticism! To begin with, the F-22 is a "clean" fighter, but it has a "diamond".

    - Yes, what a "clean" fighter he is, he is practically a multipurpose fighter since birth ... There are no "clean" ones today ...
  40. +1
    20 August 2021 13: 29
    Quote: nks
    On the contrary, Alexey, the opposite is true - the F-35 is also close to Rafal in avionics. But the f-35 does not have a full-fledged Plug and Play, like Raphael, and is not expected - only the Israelis (and here you have reason to be proud) plan to implement it in a truncated form on their version of the F-35I Adir.
    Although LM recently (compared to Rafal, of course) equipped it with several "IR optical sensors." and an advanced (not as advanced as on Rafal, but nevertheless) electronic warfare system. In general, the F-35 can deservedly be considered the second (or 3rd ... Dassault implemented IMA in the latest mirage2000 update :) combat fighter with a full-fledged IMA (Integrated modular avionics) architecture. In the F-22, the IMA was never completed, so there are such problems with modernization, and the gripen E is not yet in service. Like the su-57, but the developers of the su-57 avionics are guided by the rafal.
    https://uacrussia.livejournal.com/61632.html :)

    - And you are not ashamed to sculpt any rubbish? Only a true layman can claim that the F-35 is lagging behind Raphael in terms of avionics.
    And the fact that "the developers of the Su-57 are guided precisely by the Rafale" 35-year-old - so "the flag in their hands" and "seven feet under the keel": first flight Rafale A demo: 4 July 1986.
    1. nks
      0
      24 August 2021 11: 51
      I have nothing to be ashamed of. But you are apparently ashamed of the fact that you read so badly and you are embarrassed to write to me directly. Once again, especially for you - I ranked exclusively by chronology and gave examples (not all, of course) of the advantages and disadvantages of the Raphael avionics in relation to the F-35 avionics. If you can read it and you have something to say, come. Just get ready, otherwise it turned out awkward with voyaka uh.


      Quote: Outsider
      first flight Rafale A demo: 4 July 1986.

      Is that all you know about rafale?
      1. +1
        24 August 2021 14: 54
        - Only an absolute layman can claim that the F-35 avionics lags behind Raphael's avionics. 146% off.
        1. nks
          0
          24 August 2021 16: 02
          Yes, you, my friend, are a desperate balabol :)
          Quote: Outsider
          146% off.

          But self-irony +
          1. 0
            24 August 2021 21: 53
            - So prove that Rafal's avionics are better than that of the F-35 - with figures, facts, examples?


            https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-35-lightning-ii-eots.html
            1. nks
              0
              24 August 2021 21: 57
              Once again, we read it carefully. I gave examples (apg-81 with the same performance characteristics loses in the angles of scanning mountains + -60 versus + -70 for RBE2 AA) - refute. I don’t need to slip LM advertising materials - I know them better than you. What did you want them to say?


              1. 0
                25 August 2021 00: 16
                - You are talking nonsense, "without batting an eye":


                I don’t need to slip LM advertising materials - I know them better than you. What did you want to say with them?

                - "Slip" me advertising materials on Rafal, superior to those of the F-35 ?! wink
                And about the "small" maximum load of the F-35, you lied above:
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Specifications_(F-35A)
                Hardpoints: 4 × internal stations, 6 × external stations on wings with a capacity of 2,600 kg internal, 6,800 kg) external, 8,200 kg total weapons payload.
                Raphael has 9500 kg - this is with outboard fuel tanks! And without them, he will not fly far:
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale#Specifications
                Hardpoints: 14 for Air Force versions (Rafale B / C), 13 for Navy version (Rafale M) with a capacity of 9,500 kg external fuel and order.

                1. nks
                  0
                  25 August 2021 14: 24
                  I understand that you have no objections about the superiority of RBE2 AA over apg-81 in scanning angles. Why did you attach photos of radars - what do you want to say?

                  Quote: Outsider
                  - "Slip" me advertising materials on Rafal, superior to those of the F-35 ?!

                  Мерится рекламными материалами? О нет, это вам суда https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%A4%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C+%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B

                  And here, after all, a military-technical site


                  Quote: Outsider
                  And about the "small" maximum load of the F-35, you lied above

                  Ay-ay, I do not want to accuse you of such an obvious lie. You probably still have problem reading skills. I didn't say little, I said
                  Quote: lx

                  payload of the F-35 less in general, and even more so in stealth mode
                  that you quoted from the Wiki and confirmed. Only this is not about avionics at all - it is understandable, you have absolutely nothing to say about avionics.
                  1. 0
                    25 August 2021 18: 12
                    Quote: nks
                    I understand that you have no objections about the superiority of RBE2 AA over apg-81 in scanning angles.

                    - No. But this is by no means the main criterion.
                    Why did you attach photos of radars - what do you want to say?

                    - I want to say the most elementary thing (for those who understand): 1676 receiving and transmitting modules APG-81 in comparison with 838 RBE2-AA's PPMs indicate that:
                    a) the APG-81 radar is about twice as powerful;
                    b) it has a significantly thinner directional diagram - accordingly - the power concentration;
                    c) it has much wider possibilities for the simultaneous execution of several functions, using more power in each.

                    Quote: Outsider
                    - "Slip" me advertising materials on Rafal, superior to those of the F-35 ?!

                    Мерится рекламными материалами? О нет, это вам суда https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%A4%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C+%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B

                    And here, after all, a military-technical site

                    - So let's give the true data, who's in the way? And, you have nowhere to take them?
                    Quote: Outsider
                    And about the "small" maximum load of the F-35, you lied above

                    Ay-ay, I do not want to accuse you of such an obvious lie. You probably still have problem reading skills. I didn't say "small", I said: the payload of the F-35 less in general

                    - It is no less IN GENERAL, just the fuel that Rafal is forced to carry in the external fuel tanks, the F-35A has in the internal fuel tanks:
                    F-35: fuel capacity: 8,278 kg internal
                    Rafale: fuel capacity: 4,700 kg internal
                    Therefore, minus the fuel in the PTB, the payload for Rafal is LESS.
                    ... and even more so in stealth mode

                    - fool fool fool Wasn't there anything funnier to say?
                    which you quoted from the Wiki and confirmed. Only this is not about avionics at all - it is understandable, you have absolutely nothing to say about avionics.

                    - To say more than in the presented videos ?! wink
                    You are in avionics, by all appearances, any aircraft, understand "like a horse - in oranges." laughing lol
                    1. nks
                      0
                      27 August 2021 00: 32
                      Quote: Outsider
                      But this is by no means the main criterion.

                      I don’t know what you’re talking about as a criterion, but in this case this is an avionics characteristic that gives concrete advantages.
                      And I must say that this advantage will only increase with the introduction of the following standards F4 * for rafale and block4 for f-35.

                      Quote: Outsider
                      I want to say the most elementary thing (for those who understand): 1676 p ...

                      Do not confuse the number of counted depressions or ridges (what do enthusiasts think there?) Of the emitters on the front panel of the AFAR and the number of PPMs are not the same and the connection between them is not necessarily 1 to 1. Actually, in all more or less official sources ( including the video you are referring to) APG-81's PPMs are a little over 1000.
                      And such pictures exist different with different counting options. Another thing is that the APG-81 canvas is really larger and
                      There is more PPM in it than in RBE2-AA, but in itself this is not an advantage (and in the layout aspect it is also a disadvantage in general - so Soviet microcircuits were the largest in the world :).

                      a) This would be largely the case if we were talking about the same APM (or, more precisely, about two technologically identical AFAR-radars, but of different dimensions)
                      In this case, this is not the case.
                      b) DN does not depend at all on the number of PPMs. I'm not saying that it is formed dynamically depending on the modes (didn't you know?). We can talk about the limiting characteristics of DP for modes, but this has nothing to do with the number of PPMs.
                      c) Power has nothing to do with it (see above), about the number of simultaneous functions - it could make a difference if there were hundreds of these functions, but this is again not the case.


                      Quote: Outsider
                      Therefore, minus the fuel in the PTB, the payload for Rafal is LESS.

                      You are confusing 3 different things:
                      1. Max payload. The F-35 has it less than that of the Raphael, and apparently nothing can be done about it.
                      2. Load profiles. There are many aspects, including the fact that the F-35 can place a small part inside, but the Rafale cannot, but if we talk about the PTB, then the F-35 cannot use them at the moment. It seems that it is quite possible to fix it during the modernization (some customers really want it).
                      3. The actual range. It must be said here that the F-35 is indeed an aircraft with a very good max. load for its class,
                      but about int. fuel is so simply outstanding (in the C version there is generally more than in the F-22!), but here you should not forget,
                      that this seemingly light single-engine MFI is almost 50% heavier than the twin-engine rafale, and the F135 consumes more fuel (and costs, by the way, too) than the 2xM88.
                      So the STOVL version is generally inferior in range to the Rafal on internal fuel, A is about the same (well, let it be a little more in the F-35),
                      and more or less significantly surpasses only the naval F-35C, but here for the Rafal, in order to have parity with it in range, only one supersonic PTB per 1250 liters (~ 1 t) is enough
                      and along with this, the PTB Rafale will still have a small, but advantage in terms of the total max. payload.
                      But this is all the lyrics, the most interesting thing is that the F-35 at the moment does not have the opportunity to increase its autonomy without a tanker. But Rafal can be 2 and 3 PTBs (1250l or 2000l)
                      - even 5 (+ KTB), but this is already as a tanker, which, by the way, the F-35 also does not know how to do.
                      And therefore, the same Israel really wants a PTB for its Adir - otherwise there is no deep strike, and Israel does not have such a large geography of potential attacks.

                      Look at the F-22 - this is an aircraft that has regular NORAD missions, and seeing it with 2 PTB x 600gal is a common thing (this, by the way, does not negate the tankers).

                      Further, together with the issue of effective work on the ground, we smoothly return to the topic of avionics. Do you know what the current version of EOTS is based on? And it's not even that
                      Sniper XR is now a little out of date and limits the capabilities of the F-35 in CAS missions, but in the fact that you just can't use an alternative, including because of the avionics architecture, but again the Israelis need this alternative
                      and so they want their own software add-on to be able to flexibly connect the hardware they need, like Rafale.
                      Therefore, there are beautiful videos and pictures, but there are specific opportunities. And the Rafal demonstrates the defeat of an air target in the rear hemisphere, and the F-35, as he noticed an ICBM, is beautiful, but almost useless.
                      1. 0
                        27 August 2021 02: 02
                        - He smiled, burst out laughing ... Your delusions are monstrous, Rafal is a wonderful, wonderful 4th generation aircraft, but against the F-35 he is - "like a carpenter versus a carpenter". laughing To claim that its avionics are superior to the F-35 avionics is simply absurd. To claim that its radar is superior to the APG-81 is to understand nothing at all in modern aviation. Not knowing about the F-35's helmet-mounted target designation system, its "magic helmet", which allows you to see everything at 360 ° without turning your head and launch the airborne missile system at 360 °, is simply a shame. Allows you to see through the walls of the cabin.
                        Not to mention that comparing stealth with a frontal RCS of 0.0001 m² with a very good 4th generation fighter with a frontal RCS of 0.1-0.3 m² (without suspensions!) - like the Su-57 - is simply not serious. They are in completely different categories ...
                      2. nks
                        0
                        27 August 2021 12: 19
                        Quote: Outsider
                        F-35, its "magic helmet" ... allowing ... to launch an air-to-air missile system at 360 °

                        Divine helmet :)
                        https://www.defesanet.com.br/rafale/noticia/10893/Shooting-Down-an-Aggressor-on-My-Six--Vive-la-difference-

                        This allowed us to design the target from any source (EM / IR / Laser Threat Detection - Electromagnetic Threat Detection / Infrared / Laser),
                        when the security bubble around the Rafale was invad-ed, and to execute the missile launch "over the shoulder."
                        Over the shoulder means that a MICA can be fired at a target located at position six o'clock (behind the aircraft) without changing flight direction.

                        I'm waiting for a similar proof for F-35


                        Quote: Outsider
                        compare stealth with frontal EPR 0.0001 m²

                        Yes, write more zeros - why be ashamed of that? Otherwise, the hierarchs of the LM Church will think that your faith is not strong enough :)


                        You can look at the configuration of the load yourself (2 SCALP, PTB and MICA each)

                        https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5125763

                        "Russian air defense systems at the Khmeimim and Tartus bases in a timely manner all missile launches from both sea and air carriers of the United States and Great Britain were identified and monitored- said the general. -
                        Announced participation of French aviation is not recorded"



                        It's official and real. (unofficially and in the exercises it was before)
                        I am waiting for a similar confirmation of the effectiveness of the secrecy of the F-35

                        There, by the way, also the A-50 flew and the fleet.
  41. +1
    20 August 2021 13: 35
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Well, the F-35B can hover in flight like a helicopter (wasting a lot of fuel) to trick the enemy tactically for a few seconds.
    But this can hardly be called super-maneuverability with the use of OVT. recourse

    - It was a joke and not at all witty. am
    1. -1
      20 August 2021 16: 32
      You might immediately think that rut, but somehow in an interview with a retired F-22 pilot when asked what he remembered in training battles with foreigners? He answered how he spun with, like, an Italian harrier and he turned on the hover mode right on the move, which was a complete surprise.
      1. 0
        20 August 2021 23: 58
        - Well, how can you imagine: they were conducting a training air battle at speeds of 900-700 km / h, and suddenly "he turned on the hover mode"?
        Second: engine thrust is sufficient to provide hover mode only at the ground. In no case will this thrust be enough for hovering at an altitude of 5 km and higher. However, some joke "Harrier" really could soak for a short time and in a short area... Then he will have to switch to a rather steep descent and transfer the thrust vector to the normal mode ...
        1. +2
          21 August 2021 00: 57
          Apparently this was what was discussed.
      2. +1
        23 August 2021 22: 04
        for those who think that the story about the harrier deploying his nozzles in dogfight is a cool story, then here is the very interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WdyiQrTlAw&list=PLObcJkVHaiNzY1zZ2z0ZfsKn-RoEIwF9lab&index :30. The only inaccuracy is that in the topic about foreign aircraft this harrier in a duel was recalled by an interviewer - a former FA-21 pilot, and not the one who answered questions - a former F-50 pilot. This raptor flyer told in the video several funny stories about service on it: how the F-18 almost flew into it while refueling in the air, or how he got nervous at the first exercises and conditionally launched all missiles into milk, confusing the range to the target, or how embarrassing he was that he, a young F-22 pilot, kicked asses on experienced flyers in duels on other legacy fighters in the Air Force. There they had different programs for the development of raptors: they took both experienced and, as an experiment, young cadets, who were taught only minimal skills on the F-15: takeoff / landing, refueling. Such a "green" was this pilot, who had flown only on the F-22 throughout his career. In general, from such interviews, it is now possible for a mere mortal to learn something interesting about the life of fighters, it is a pity that only foreign ones. Our situation with this format is much worse.
  42. 0
    20 August 2021 13: 43
    Quote: saturn.mmm
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Well, the F-35B can get stuck in flight

    It is strange that the Americans, pushing a fan and an OVT engine into the F-35, did not take care of using this weight range for useful purposes as maneuverability.

    “They don't consider UHT to be an important component for a fighter. An exception was made only for the F-22, and even then only in one plane - its operating range of supersonic speeds requires additional opportunities to enhance pitch maneuverability. And for the F-35, this is completely redundant.
    1. +3
      20 August 2021 16: 13
      Yes, JSF is definitely not a priority, but there are some small successes in this too. On YouTube, you can find a report from the opening of a new plant for the production of F-35. There, one of the leading engineers of the F-35 program was interviewed (it's funny that his parents are Iranian refugees and that he is such a patriot who gives such a debt to his new homeland). So he said that in the process of working on the X-35 prototype, they realized that they could try to give some elements of super-maneuverability (alpha maneuverability, as they call it) to the aircraft. They realized that the computing power of modern fly-by-wire systems (control by wire, into which it is easy to integrate the piloting assistant function) allowed them to teach the prototype to cope with large angles of attack, even without UHT, primarily due to the work of control surfaces, such as elevators ... And this is very similar to the truth. Elevators have been increased compared to the prototype on the F-35, and pilots in all operating countries note much greater maneuverability at low speeds and high angles of attack compared to the F-16. Yes, and this is obvious from the video of the flights. Frolov's chakra, Pugachev's cobra, controlled corkscrews in various directions - all this is now available in the 3F version for the F-35. And it is just noticeable how actively the plane moves the elevators, from the side everything is similar to how the tail of a pigeon moves, sharply changing direction or speed.
  43. 0
    20 August 2021 13: 47
    Quote: Ros 56
    The article is great, everything is laid out on the shelves. But only concrete practice, i.e. participation in widespread hostilities, will confirm or refute the conclusions drawn. Perhaps such shoals will come out, or vice versa, dignities that no one could even think of. hi

    - All these shoals / advantages "climb" on numerous exercises of various sizes in peacetime. Waiting for a real war to identify them is nonsense ...
  44. 0
    20 August 2021 13: 55
    Quote: vvvjak
    Well, where is the answer to the question:
    F-35. Money Slayer or Serious Weapon?

    Or the reader himself must draw conclusions based on his own worldview

    - And most, without a hint, do not guess ?! I give a hint: F-35 - VERY serious weapon... Especially when combined with the F-22! wink
  45. 0
    20 August 2021 14: 00
    Quote: ZlodeyTim
    How are you going to turn off and start a jet engine in the air?

    - Elementary Watson! On aircraft with 2 or more engines, this is done even with cadets for training purposes ...
  46. 0
    20 August 2021 14: 06
    Quote: Santa Fe
    Afar rafala - modernized pfar

    Afar f-35 - development from scratch

    - Of course not. The APG-81 of the F-35 is based entirely on the APG-77 of the F-22, the first airborne radar with AFAR. The same firm:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-77
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-81
  47. 0
    20 August 2021 14: 14
    Quote: PilotS37

    The main thing here is different: in your article you claim that the two-keel scheme has an undeniable advantage over the single-keel one. And in order to prove this your (or someone else's?) Message, you began to defame the most popular fighter in the world, so you wanted to convert it into a two-keel one too. And this is not true: no one in the two-keel was ever going to remake the F-16 (which I have successfully demonstrated to everyone (except you)).

    - The two-keel scheme has an undeniable advantage:
    a) for aircraft whose operating range extends far into the supersonic zone (the efficiency of vertical tail at supersonic drops dramatically) - MiG-25/31, SR-71, F-15, F-14, F-22, J-20;
    b) the two-keel scheme allows for the camber of the keels and thus allows the use of the keels as an addition to the stabilizer for pitch control;
    c) allows you to significantly reduce the RCS at angles close to 4/4. Therefore, all stealths have a two-keel scheme ...
  48. 0
    20 August 2021 14: 17
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: riwas
    At the expense of stealth. The F-35 in Syria must have come under our radar. Are there any data on the effectiveness of our radars on the F-35?

    Nobody will give you an answer to this question.
    1.Americans hide the real RCS of the F-35 and fly with Lunberg lenses.

    - Not in the area of ​​hostilities! laughing The F-22 flew in Syria without Luneberg lenses ...
  49. 0
    20 August 2021 14: 20
    Quote: smoltish

    You are confusing angle of attack and pitch. When climbing with a pitch angle, for example equal to 30 degrees, the velocity vector is not directed horizontally, so the angle of attack is not 30 degrees. And then, in your opinion, it turns out that civilian ships can fly with high angles of attack.

    - It remains for you to find out that in addition to the angles of attack and pitch angles, there are also trajectory inclination angles... smile
  50. 0
    20 August 2021 14: 26
    Quote: CastroRuiz
    A good article from the author was obtained, although not without errors.
    Definitely a plus.

    - Good article for dummies. The main thing is that the author raised the question! laughing
  51. -2
    20 August 2021 14: 35
    Quote from Flanker692
    And regarding stealth, only then the head of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, Pogosyan, officially told us that the EPR of the F-22 is the same as that of the Su-57 and reaches values ​​of almost 0,5 sq.m.

    - He was the one who “lied like a gray gelding.”
    Was this an attempt to lower the parameters of the F-22 or increase them for the Su-57?

    - This was an attempt to disguise the creation of “obosrach No. 2” (the first was “obosrach” Su-47) with ESR = 0.5 m² versus frontal ESR = 0.0001 m² for the F-22.
    This half a meter is certainly not enough, but it still will not allow you to get close to any modern air defense system.

    - This ESR = 0.5 m² for the Su-57 turns it into a complete insignificance, into billions of rubles thrown away, into uselessness to anyone in the world, including its native Defense Ministry and its native Air Force. feel crying
    1. -2
      20 August 2021 21: 59
      Every time I am convinced that Russophobia is a type of brain dullness. EPR F-22 is like a pigeon...what are we smoking?)
      1. 0
        21 August 2021 00: 08
        - Smoke Aviation Week & Space Technology:



      2. 0
        21 August 2021 02: 40
        Runner2022 (Paul), to make it completely clear, see the bottom picture: an F-15 with an ESR = 15 m² is detected by the S-400 air defense system at a range of 350 km, an F-22 aircraft is detected by the same air defense system at a range of 21 km.
        Question: what is the EPR of the F-22?
        Answer: EPR F-22 = 15/(350:21)^4 = 0.0002 m².
        Given that the EPR of the Su-57 is 0.5 m².
        1. -1
          21 August 2021 06: 56
          Himself is not funny?
          1. 0
            21 August 2021 13: 06
            - And no one in the world finds stealth funny, except complete savages. All developed countries are trying to create them, with varying degrees of success, spending billions of dollars on it.
            The rest “laugh,” licking their lips, repeating aloud the Aesop-Lafontaine-Krylov fable “The Fox and the Grapes”...
            1. 0
              21 August 2021 17: 44
              ,,we didn’t know that he was invisible,, (s-125 division)
              1. +1
                21 August 2021 21: 08
                - For 850 F-117 combat sorties in Syria for 78 days of the 1999 war shot down from them 1 (one). Behind 5 days of the Russian-Georgian war in 2008, 1 Su-24M, 1 Tu-22M3 and 6 Su-25 were shot down. Moreover, 3 Su-25s were shot down by their own...
                1. 0
                  22 August 2021 10: 16
                  That is, the Su-24M, 22 and 25 are also stealth?
        2. 0
          23 August 2021 19: 42
          Where does the information come from at what distance the S-400 detects the F-22?
          1. 0
            24 August 2021 16: 37
            - The Americans have radars similar in power to the S-400 radar, and there are also more powerful ones - 10, 100, 1000 times more powerful. They use them to check, use them to calculate the detection range, and use them to clarify the aircraft's EPR from different angles...
  52. The comment was deleted.
  53. The comment was deleted.
  54. 0
    21 August 2021 21: 20
    Oh great article! Thanks to the author!
    The unfortunate patriots, under the influence of lies spread by our media about “the barely flying and constantly falling Fu-35, with terrible characteristics,” have formed a strong opinion about this aircraft, and such articles cause their hysterical protest. Not everyone can look at things realistically, unfortunately.
    1. -3
      22 August 2021 10: 18
      There is only one reality:

      All purchases of the F-35 have been completely stopped, primarily by the Pentagon itself due to the failure of the project as a 5th generation fighter.

      Its production has been stopped. Vanguy - there will be no launch, at most those with more than 50% of the build will finish it
      1. 0
        26 August 2021 09: 22
        You know better from a parallel reality.
        One thing is clear, no one in America knows that production of the F-35 has been stopped, and the Pentagon has no idea that the F-35 was a failure. This news is known only in Russia.

        Only one thing is unclear. What will people like you sing when our Aerospace Forces have nothing to oppose the F-35s, of which there will be 2000 in the US Air Force alone?
  55. 0
    22 August 2021 16: 14
    Quote: Runner2022
    There is only one reality:

    All purchases of the F-35 have been completely stopped, primarily by the Pentagon itself due to the failure of the project as a 5th generation fighter.

    Its production has been stopped. Vanguy - there will be no launch, at most those with more than 50% of the build will finish it

    - How did you get it, liars and talkers!
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-16/asia-eyes-steady-open-on-virus-caution-dollar-up-markets-wrap
    https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/pentagon-to-seek-85-f-35-jets-in-next-years-budget-request
    1. -1
      22 August 2021 17: 31
      All claims to Lockheed Martin.

      The official reason for the stop is Covid 19, the real reason is the failure of the program
      1. -1
        22 August 2021 19: 06
        - I gave links, too lazy to open and delve into it? There is NO “stopping” of purchases. There is simply no previously expected increase in their number beyond what was previously planned in 2021 and 2022. See links.
      2. +1
        23 August 2021 23: 06
        Are you an insider and know the real picture?
        But here is the truth that is officially reported: in the 20th year, Lockheed delivered 120 aircraft, but it should have been 133-139. Undelivered vehicles due to a temporary shutdown of production during the pandemic will be shipped in lots over the next 4-5 years. The decision was made together with the government so that the plant saves money and does not needlessly expand the production line for these machines. After all, they just built an additional line in Texas. According to the plan, production is gradually increasing (2022 vehicles should be shipped in 169, 2023 in 175). Those. deliveries are so tight that there is nowhere to cram those very Covid 15-20 aircraft at once. Where is the end of the program? For example, we have completed the military acceptance of two new fighters into the troops in the first half of 2021.
        F-35 production is currently in the "low-rate initial production" (LRIP) stage. The aircraft is preparing to pass the Milestone C phase (the point at which the program is ready for mass production). The next significant date is February 2021, when tests should take place at the Patuxent River airbase. One of the reasons for the delay in such tests is the unfinished construction of a training ground for simulating counteraction to promising anti-aircraft systems at Patuxent River Air Force Base, Maryland, due to Covid. According to an optimistic scenario, in 2024 (when the current contracted lots 14,15,16 will be closed), production may move to “high-speed” status; in fact, this will be a doubling of the pace. Once again, where is the failure of the program?
  56. 0
    22 August 2021 21: 07
    Quote: Cat Kuzya
    I, too, rarely hear about this plane now. And before that, wow! How many wrote about it, like "does not have an analogue in the world", "mirvoshischen", "merikantsyi NATOboyazzo", well, and all that ..... since 2009. wink

    Meanwhile, in Kukuevo there are 70-meter flagpoles instead of the Air Force.
  57. The comment was deleted.
  58. 0
    22 August 2021 22: 34
    Quote: Military Commissar77
    The F-16 never learned to fly at high angles of attack. That's all the "error correction".

    https://www.businessinsider.com/people-are-bashing-the-f-35-over-this-picture-of-it-flying-with-an-f-16-2016-5
    The design of the JSF is such it can fly really high AOA (back in October 2012, the aircraft was flown to the production limit of 50 degrees) while the F-16 is limited to below 29 degrees.
    The JSF's design is such that it can fly at a very high angle of attack (as recently as October 2012, the aircraft was flying with a production limit of 50 degrees), while the F-16 is limited to 29 degrees.
    ..............................
    - Not 10° critical angle of attack for the F-16, but 29°! The F-35 has - 50°!!
  59. The comment was deleted.
  60. 0
    27 August 2021 02: 08
    Quote: nks
    Quote: Outsider
    I want to say the most elementary thing (for those who understand): 1676 p ...

    Do not confuse the number of calculated depressions or ridges (what do enthusiasts think?) of the emitters on the front panel of the AFAR and the number of PPM - this is not the same thing and the connection between them is not necessarily 1 to 1.

    - And this is simply absurd.
    Actually, in all more or less official sources (including the video you link to), the APG-81’s MRP is a little more than 1000.

    - There is nothing like this in any official source. If you want to know the number of PPMs, count them in the pictures, they are exactly the same, one to one.
    1. nks
      0
      27 August 2021 12: 24
      Quote: Outsider
      - There is nothing like this in any official source

      https://youtu.be/wIwAOupjMeM?t=40
      from 40 seconds of the official promotional video.

      Quote: Outsider
      If you want to know the number of MPPs, count them in the pictures

      Yeah. Here is a picture of APG-81 from wiki

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/AN-APG-81_Antenna%2C_2005_-_National_Electronics_Museum_-_DSC00393.JPG
      count, compare - then tell me :)


      Quote: Outsider
      this is what they are, one-on-one.


      I believe! These are emitters (by the way, you can note that in the slats they are not even visually separated), and the PPM is behind the panel (in the same video at 33 sec)

      Although, again, the number of PPM is not important.
  61. 0
    27 August 2021 13: 33
    Quote: nks
    Quote: Outsider
    - There is nothing like this in any official source

    https://youtu.be/wIwAOupjMeM?t=40
    from 40 seconds of the official promotional video.

    - ...our radar has over 1000 TR sights... So 1676 is “over 1000”! laughing lol
    Quote: Outsider
    If you want to know the number of MPPs, count them in the pictures

    Yeah. Here is a picture of APG-81 from wiki

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/AN-APG-81_Antenna%2C_2005_-_National_Electronics_Museum_-_DSC00393.JPG
    count, compare - then tell me :)

    - Recount it at least 10 times - the number will not change. We already counted that there were a lot of people... wink
    Quote: Outsider
    this is what they are, one-on-one.

    I believe! These are emitters (by the way, you can note that in the slats they are not even visually separated), and the PPM is behind the panel (in the same video at 33 sec)

    - Correct: each receiving and transmitting module has its own ONE emitter. They make up the area of ​​the antenna, and all the electronic stuffing is inside - as you correctly noticed! lol
    Although, again, the number of PPM is not important.

    - More than important. The APG-81 has 1676 PPMs - each has a maximum average of ~10 watts, for a total of 16 kW; on the APG-77 there are more than 2000 of the same PPMs - respectively, and a maximum average power of more than 20 kW.
    Here are “two sisters of the same mother,” the older and the younger:


    1. nks
      0
      29 August 2021 12: 48
      For some reason, you all seem to be responding inappropriately - I don’t receive notifications.

      Quote: Outsider
      So 1676 is “over 1000”!

      Formally, yes, but from the point of view of usage in speech, they usually write/say this when they don’t want to name the exact number, but it is close to the one named, and 1672 is over 1500 :)

      Quote: Outsider
      - Recount it at least 10 times - the number will not change. We already counted, there were a lot of people.


      If you were curious and attentive rather than religious, you would notice that the panels are clearly different.
      In the wiki, the padding is smaller and the nearest bar consists of 10 rather than 12 channels than in your counting picture. Although the profile of the emitters is the same (on the APG-77, by the way, it is slightly different)

      Quote: Outsider
      has a maximum average

      What does this mean?

      Quote: Outsider
      ~10 watts, total - 16 kW,

      Okay, RBE2 AA 832 TRM has 20W each, but do you want 30W each? There will be ~25kW peak). RBE2 AA is not the sister of APG-77 and APG-81 and not even a brother :)

      I want to explain one simple thing to you.
      APG-81 and RBE2 AA are two radars of the same class, but we can really compare them with a high degree of reliability only in certain aspects due to the fact that most of the characteristics are simply unknown.
      It’s unclear how many targets the APG-81 can track. In advertising, for some reason, the count ends at 23. It is known about rbe2 aa that it can track up to 40 targets.
      And here the point is not at all that RBE2 AA is better here - I’m just saying that there is not enough data for comparison. The main thing here is that such a characteristic already has tactical significance.
      The size of the web, the number of ppm, peak power can be realized as an advantage, or it may not be realized and only disadvantages remain, but in themselves they are not an advantage
      -- they have no tactical use. And even more so, this is not an indicator of technological advantage.
      IRBIS has a larger blade size and peak power - it is advertised as the most powerful radar for fighter aircraft (perhaps it is)
      And the size of the canvas is generally determined by the size of the aircraft. All other things being equal, it is better to have a radar with greater sensitivity and better beam focusing and signal processing than with more power.
      More precisely, for power there is one option, if we assume that the MFI also performs the functions of defensive electronic warfare and can also cover other aircraft.
      And yes - LM declares that this is possible, but this does not currently exist as a current operational possibility, and it is doubtful only due to the radar due to the narrowness of its range.
      And here, yes - the Rafale does not currently have such a function, its electronic warfare is designed only for self-defense, and it is primarily in signal processing (and by the way, a wider range:) than in power.
      In general, we can say that some individual sensors at the moment (and in general this will all change constantly) are better on the F-35 (some may be vice versa), but combining them into a single system at the moment
      Rafale is better due to better development - they have been doing this for longer. That's what I talked about chronology from the very beginning :)
  62. 0
    29 August 2021 15: 21
    Bottom line: F-35:
    - worse than the F-22 as a fighter
    - worse than F15E as a bomber
    The deck version (like everything decked in general) is even worse.
    An ordinary, but overrated and mega-expensive device to sell to the natives. Like the f-16 in its time. Only the 16th was reliable and inexpensive (that’s why they still buy it in Europe).
  63. 0
    29 August 2021 21: 53
    Quote: nks
    For some reason, you all seem to be responding inappropriately - I don’t receive notifications.

    Quote: Outsider
    So 1676 is “over 1000”!

    Formally, yes, but from the point of view of usage in speech, they usually write/say this when they don’t want to name the exact number, but it is close to the one named, and 1672 is over 1500 :)

    - Is there something stopping you from adding several numbers into a column yourself? laughing To make sure how many PPMs are there?!


    Quote: Outsider
    - Recount it at least 10 times - the number will not change. We already counted, there were a lot of people.

    If you were curious and attentive rather than religious, you would notice that the panels are clearly different.
    In the wiki, the padding is smaller and the nearest bar consists of 10 rather than 12 channels than in your counting picture. Although the profile of the emitters is the same (on the APG-77, by the way, it is slightly different)

    - The radar has undergone some modernization over the years - this is common. Take a few pictures from the Internet and compare them - who's stopping?
    Quote: Outsider
    has a maximum average

    What does this mean?

    - This means average power, for decent radars it can vary by three orders of magnitude.
    Quote: Outsider
    ~10 watts, total - 16 kW,

    Okay, RBE2 AA 832 TRM has 20W each, but do you want 30W each? There will be ~25kW peak). RBE2 AA is not the sister of APG-77 and APG-81 and not even a brother :)

    - Why not 100 watts for one PPM? Fantasize, dare! wink
    I want to explain one simple thing to you.

    -You are too incompetent to объяснять something for me... lol The explanation is immature... laughing
    APG-81 and RBE2 AA are two radars of the same class, but we can really compare them with a high degree of reliability only in certain aspects due to the fact that most of the characteristics are simply unknown.

    - Something has been leaking online for a long time:

    It’s unclear how many targets the APG-81 can track. In advertising, for some reason, the count ends at 23. It is known about rbe2 aa that it can track up to 40 targets.

    - If the APG-77 can track a hundred, then the APG-81 is probably no less. This video shows it perfectly:
    https://youtu.be/wIwAOupjMeM
    But where can you get so many of them at once?!
    And here the point is not at all that RBE2 AA is better here - I’m just saying that there is not enough data for comparison. The main thing here is that such a characteristic already has tactical significance.

    - Undoubtedly it has and undoubtedly APG-81 surpasses it.
    The size of the web, the number of ppm, peak power can be realized as an advantage, or it may not be realized and only disadvantages remain, but in themselves they are not an advantage

    - The number of PPMs, the total average power, the overall technological excellence (including the radar computer, which provides all the basic characteristics of the signals) - yes, they are of decisive importance. Nobody, anywhere, ever on the Internet has declared the superiority of the RBE-2AA over the APG-81. If you have a link to this, please provide it?!
    -- they have no tactical use. And even more so, this is not an indicator of technological advantage.

    - Are you tired of spouting profane nonsense?
    IRBIS has a larger blade size and peak power - it is advertised as the most powerful radar for fighter aircraft (perhaps it is)

    - It’s not even funny - I want to cry. In RuNet they talk about the awesome superiority of the Su-57 over the F-22. Well what can I say? Just to quote Lavrov: "Morons, b-d!"
    And the size of the canvas is generally determined by the size of the aircraft.

    - Would anyone argue?
    All other things being equal, it is better to have a radar with greater sensitivity and better beam focusing and signal processing than with more power.

    - Actually
    "It's better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick"
    . And if you bring the Irbis to a “common denominator” with the APG-81 (I did), it turns out that the Irbis is almost TWICE inferior in range to the APG-81!
    More precisely, for power there is one option, if we assume that the MFI also performs the functions of defensive electronic warfare and can also cover other aircraft.

    - Stealth aircraft never do such crap as to cover other planes with their radar. Neither the F-22 nor the F-35 even use their own radars in this capacity.
    And yes - LM declares that this is possible, but this does not currently exist as a current operational possibility, and it is doubtful only due to the radar due to the narrowness of its range.

    - The range is standard for most radars 8-12 GHz, the problem is different: this use instantly unmasks a stealth aircraft.
    And here, yes - the Rafale does not currently have such a function, its electronic warfare is designed only for self-defense, and it is primarily in signal processing (and by the way, a wider range:) than in power.

    - To your health - Rafal is not stealth and can attach any electronic warfare station to itself, as well as use its radar for this purpose, if the command of the French Air Force requires it. Creating an appropriate program is not a problem today.
    In general, we can say that some individual sensors at the moment (and in general this will all change constantly) are better on the F-35 (some may be vice versa), but combining them into a single system at the moment
    Rafale is better due to better development - they have been doing this for longer. That's what I talked about chronology from the very beginning :)

    - Enough of this stupid nonsense already? It is in the F-35 that all this is synthesized into a single block and displayed on the helmet display. There is nothing like this on Rafale, there is a regular HUD:



    And in general: if you make such “sensational” statements, provide links to serious sources.
  64. The comment was deleted.
  65. -1
    1 October 2021 22: 24
    Quote: Mikhail Kazakov
    Bottom line: F-35:
    - worse than the F-22 as a fighter

    - Undoubtedly.
    - worse than F15E as a bomber

    - "Vegetable oil nonsense." The advantage of the F-35 is to approach the target at such a range (for example, 110 km) and an altitude of 11-12 km and drop 8 small-diameter bombs - GBU-39, or GBU-53B. At these ranges and altitudes, the F-15E will be shot down in 10 cases out of 10, in 50 cases out of 50, etc. This is understandable to a child.
    The deck version (like everything decked in general) is even worse.

    - See above. It's better because it's stealth. And he is able to survive and complete a combat mission where non-stealth fighters would die without completing this task.
    An ordinary, but overrated and mega-expensive device to sell to the natives. Like the f-16 in its time. Only the 16th was reliable and inexpensive (that’s why they still buy it in Europe).

    - When will you, amateurs, laymen and dummies, begin to understand even a little about military aviation matters?! You've been repeating the same nonsense for years... It's a shame, very shame...
  66. 0
    4 October 2021 17: 46
    Oleg, let me “shake your hand” for your thorough and emotionless analysis of the situation. In fact, the Gordian knot was cut. We are waiting for new publications.
  67. 0
    4 November 2021 12: 47
    Overall an interesting article.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"