Your own bar with blackjack and... "Euroraptor"

26
Your own bar with blackjack and... "Euroraptor"

An insatiable desire to “have your own bar with blackjack and fun things” and thus be less dependent on the USA, aviation whose products have recently been at the level of platinum, and the value is no more than tin.

And here comes the fanfare – the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), a trilateral project between Britain, Italy and Japan to develop a sixth-generation stealth fighter – effectively a redefinition of the future of air power. the war. And judging by the new concept model unveiled in Hall 5 of this year's Farnborough Airshow, that future has at least large delta wings. As for the size of the prospects, it's worth keeping quiet for now.



This new, wider delta configuration should allow the aircraft to fly further and faster while carrying more weapons and fuel. These advantages, however, come at the expense of maneuverability, which has declined compared to both the original "lambda wing" concept that was unveiled in 2018 and the official Japanese concept art for its FX fighter program that was included in GCAP .


Own way. The Americans relied on stealth (and are gradually flying with it), the Russians - on maneuverability and speed (although we must pay tribute - in comparison with American aircraft, we all have long-range bombers), the Euro-Asians decided that it was necessary to fly far and quickly, and maneuverability and stealth can be sacrificed.

BAE program manager Hermann Clazan made a profound statement when he said, "...We have to go far, we have to go a long way, we have to carry a lot of stuff, and we have to do it in a stealthy configuration." However, uh... They swung their hearts out.

British aviation journalist Gareth Jennings said the larger model's wingspan was comparable to the retired American F-111 Aardvark supersonic long-range bomber. This is a serious statement, the F-111 was a full-fledged bomber with a very fun life. And his dimensions were very soulful.


But the variable-sweep wing F-111 was designed to fly at extremely low altitudes to penetrate defenses; GCAP will instead use stealth and long-range missiles. As such, it is more similar to the FB-22, a proposed short-range fighter-bomber variant based on the F-22A Raptor stealth fighter, which also had a very wide delta wing.


Lockheed-Martin FB-22 concept

To be clear, the latest GCAP concept is not complete. It's not certain that the result will be a decent bomber, but the design does indicate that GCAP's designers are leaning toward trading some maneuverability (used in dogfights with enemy fighters within visual range) for greater range and payload. This is likely due to the fact that they believe that these qualities will be of greater importance - not only for assault and anti-ship missions, but also possibly for air combat.

All GCAP partners operate the stealthy carrier-based F-35B and (with the exception of the UK) land-based F-35A aircraft. However, they want to build their own next-generation stealth aircraft that can fly further and carry more internal weapons than the F-35 - one that they can freely modify and/or export without restrictions from the US. This last factor may facilitate missile integration weapons domestically produced by these countries, such as MBDA Meteor, SPEAR 3, as well as Japanese ASM-3 anti-ship missiles and JNAAM medium-range air-to-air missiles.

More generally, the aircraft would combine the defining feature of the fifth generation fighter (low radar signature) with a set of features that were expected to define the still conceptual sixth generation:
- sophisticated, secure data links that allow sensors and weapons to be networked with friendly forces and drones;
- helmets that not only display data for pilots, but also monitor their physical and mental states to provide intervention in the event of overload or loss of consciousness;
- integrated artificial intelligence that will assist the pilot in many tasks, including issuing instructions to multiple combat drones in a “trusty wingman” style that can carry out risky missions;
- Advanced adaptive cycle turbofan engines that can be rebuilt during flight to optimize performance or fuel efficiency;
- Improved engine cooling and gearless electric generators producing ten times more electricity to power sensors and perhaps eventually directed energy weapons.

While diverging national requirements and commercial priorities have undermined many past multinational fighter jet programs, the partners have reportedly agreed on a single design document.

Ultimately, the UK and Italy want the GCAP to eventually replace their Typhoon "4+" generation fighters, while Japan is more desperately in need of a new aircraft to replace its F-2s, which are exhibiting serious problems with wing cracking. which makes life extension undesirable.

And the triumvirate could be expanded: Saudi Arabia, which was denied the sale of the F-35, has also expressed interest in joining GCAP, but has not yet been invited due to Japanese objections (they will eventually buy the Su-57). Sweden was also in talks to join GCAP, but declined, saying it would reconsider its decision in 2031.

The GCAP program's intention remains to begin production of fighter jets by 2035. It is expected that the use of new digital tools will enable this rapid pace of development.

Meanwhile, production of a flying demonstrator began in 2023, with a flight scheduled for 2027. It will include an internal payload bay, a Martin-Baker ejection seat, and the EJ200 turbofan engines used on the Typhoon fighter rather than the next-generation GCAP engines, although the EJ200s will reportedly have stealthy S-shaped air intakes.

In addition, a Boeing 757-200 airliner called Excalibur is being converted into an avionics testbed for GCAP systems. It is due to enter service in 2026 and will serve as a test site for the MFRS radar, infrared sensor, and GCAP communications and self-defense systems.

Show your faces



The Global Combat Air Program (GCAP) is a three-pronged project led by Britain's BAE Systems, Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Italy's Leonardo to develop a sixth-generation manned stealth fighter.

The joint project is overseen by an organization called the GCAP Intergovernmental Organization (GIGO). The company is headquartered in the UK and is currently headed by a Japanese official.

A successful GCAP program will result in an aircraft called Tempest in UK service, but may have different designations in Italy and Japan (possibly F-3 for the latter).


GCAP/Tempest is one component of a wider British program called the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), which also includes the development of related combat drones and aviation ammunition.

Confusingly, France and Germany are leading a separate but identically named FCAS program with similar ambitions to the UK FCAS, which Spain and Belgium have joined. The Franco-German program includes an aircraft called the Next Generation Fighter (NGF) and unmanned aerial vehicles called Remote Carriers.

In general, it seems like everyone is in one apartment under the sign of NATO, but in reality everyone really has their own bar...

The British defense press has been nervous about the future of GCAP lately, with new Defense Secretary Lucas Pollard refusing to commit to the program until the department has completed its Strategic Defense Review, due to be published in the first half of 2025.

However, some UK analysts say the alleged threat of repeal was exaggerated by (or by) the press, driven by anonymous insiders who may either be antipathetic to the new government or intend to change the distribution of interdepartmental funding.

For now, GCAP officials insist they have secured all the funding they need (around £2 billion or $2,5 billion) until 2025, with a further £9,5 billion to be released after that date. However, the final cost is likely to rise sharply based on past stealth fighter programs. A more realistic threat than outright repeal may be a funding shortfall, as Labour's commitment to increase defense spending from 2,2% to 2,5% depends on the financial conditions facing the UK economy.

Another obstacle is the US Air Force's policy regarding its supposedly breakthrough sixth-generation fighter NGAD, caused by very high unit costs ($250-300 million per aircraft) and the accompanying budget crisis caused by the modernization of strategic nuclear weapons. Air Force leaders now say they can achieve what they want by using drones designed to accompany the NGAD in combat, without the NGAD itself.


Lockheed Martin NGAD Concept

If the US (with its huge defense budget) believes that the R&D and production of a sixth-generation manned fighter is too expensive and not as necessary, it could call into question sixth-generation programs such as GCAP in other countries. Perhaps the inevitable transition to cheaper and more expendable unmanned strike fighters will occur sooner than expected, without the need to develop sixth-generation manned aircraft as a bridge.

Some analysts argue that this is not the case - GCAP is expected to cost significantly less than NGAD, and the development team is focused on having a "minimum viable product" ready by the mid-2030s, with future upgrades possible. Lower costs may also make it easier to obtain export sales.

This is quite logical in our times. Minimum output capabilities with upgrades and enhancements at a separate cost - why not?

Since USAF officials have said they may revise the NGAD design to be cheaper, it is possible that the NGAD could eventually reduce the cost to be more comparable to the GCAP. Interestingly, however, GCAP was originally billed as using advanced adaptive cycle engines, a component that is responsible for NGAD's high projected costs.

However, not everyone is optimistic about GCAP's future.


Analyst Justin Bronk argues that GCAP will require such a huge chunk of the UK's defense budget that the RAF will not be able to rebuild or upgrade its current combat aircraft in the next decade, and that current cost estimates are actually wildly optimistic. Given that the previous Eurofighter Typhoon ended up being 50% over budget (adjusted for inflation, £23 billion to £34,5 billion for the UK alone), the program could realistically prove to be financially unsustainable.

It is noteworthy that both optimistic forecasts for R&D time and cost-effectiveness achieved through the use of digital tools turned out to be lower than forecasts (cost reduction of “only” 20%) in bringing the Boeing T-7 Red Hawk trainer aircraft to state of production readiness.

Plus general instability in the world, affecting both currencies and components for production - all this can add its ten bob to the GCAP program scales.

Why range, speed and payload trump maneuverability



GCAP (and the sixth generation fighter concept in general) is influenced by the idea that stealth, more powerful radars and better missiles are inexorably turning air warfare into something more akin to a standoff between teams of snipers.

Thus, the ability to avoid detection, i.e., stealth, the ability to quietly detect the enemy first (using powerful AESA radars with a low probability of interception) and stealthily maneuver into position for the perfect shot can determine the winner to a greater extent than a "knife fight" at close range. distance.

Obviously, having a decent amount of ammo (missiles in the internal bays) and a bunch of expendable wingman drones is also a big advantage.

It is noteworthy that during the more than two-year air war over Ukraine, Russian fighters with more powerful radars and R-37M and R-77M missiles almost constantly use long-range missiles, operating from long distances, abandoning close combat within visual range due to high mutual risks using modern short-range missiles.


Case in point. Why arrange a “dog dump” if you can reach the enemy from a distance of 200 km, when the enemy does not even see the plane that is already attacking him.

Rising tensions between Western countries and China are also affecting GCAP. Japan is a Pacific country and, as expected, seeks to strengthen its role in the region. And to do this, aircraft must fly long distances, especially in order to be based out of the range of long-range Chinese missiles to attack ground targets. In addition, a larger amount of internal fuel allows fighters to accompany stealth bombers deep into enemy air defense zones, where tankers simply cannot safely approach.

Sustained high speeds also provide a quick transition to the battlefield and provide greater ability to evade long-range enemy missiles by simply running away from the area. Hit and run at its best.

Conveniently, speed, range, sensors, stealth and a large payload are also key attributes of a strike aircraft designed to evade enemy air defenses, potentially harass mobile targets such as ballistic missile launchers or warships, and inflict maximum damage in a single departure.

While the advantage in maneuverability is still useful, it is believed to affect the combat power and survivability of the aircraft, but not as significantly as the qualities listed. This explains why the GCAP's design is less similar to the F-22 Raptor than to the canceled FB-22 bomber.


The FB-22, offered by Lockheed-Martin in various configurations, was an F-22A with wider delta wings, three times the surface area, larger internal weapons bays capable of holding up to 6 kg of payload, and triple the fuel capacity. the combat radius would be approximately 800 km.

By 2003, Secretary of the Air Force James Roche stated that the FB-22 was the "clear choice" to replace the F-15E and proposed buying 150 FB-22s in addition to the planned the fleet from 500 "Raptors" (which will presumably have 80% unification in parts). R&D for the FB-22 is estimated to have cost about $6 billion, far less than what would be needed for a new, clean-sheet bomber.

As a result, Lockheed-Martin submitted six concepts for the FB-22 project for consideration. However, the Raptor bomber did not fit with the defense concept of the 2000s, aimed primarily at fighting terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, for which stealth fighters were of no use.

The FB-22 was finally canceled in 2006, and F-22 production was reduced from 500 aircraft to 187 aircraft. Instead of a supersonic bomber, the Air Force eventually turned to developing a larger subsonic stealth strategic bomber that could be based at an even safer distance in Hawaii or even the United States—the B-21 Raider, which is currently undergoing flight testing.

And as uncertainty grows over whether NGAD will enter service, the ambitions of the France-Germany-Belgium-Spain and UK-Japan-Italy blocs to create their own aircraft of tomorrow are entirely understandable. If yesterday's hegemon in the arms market begins to give up, we need to strain ourselves.
26 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -5
    5 August 2024 04: 29
    This new, wider delta configuration should allow aircraft to fly further and faster, while carrying more weapons and fuel. These advantages, however, achieved through maneuverability,
    belay Interceptor? So this is your 50th birthday to Migu
    back...... recourse“...We have to go far, we have to go a long way, we have to carry a lot of stuff, and we have to do it in a stealthy configuration.” However, uh... They swung their hearts out.
    1. -4
      5 August 2024 04: 37
      “...We have to go far, we have to go a long way, we have to carry a lot of stuff, and we have to do it in a stealthy configuration.” However, uh... They swung their hearts out.
      belay WHO IS FOR ALL THE GOOD AND AGAINST ALL THE BAD? Behind me! fool
  2. +1
    5 August 2024 04: 31
    Recently there was information that Russia has developed “there are no analogues in the world” stealth coating that gives low ESR. Is it bad when our aircraft can detect an enemy missile in advance, and the enemy can detect an extended-range Russian air-to-air missile coated with this invisible material a moment before it is hit?
    * * *
    I notice that there is some kind of cooperation going on in the world. Who is Russia cooperating with? With what partners is she going to confront the adversary?
    1. +3
      5 August 2024 05: 04
      Quote: ROSS 42
      I notice that there is some kind of cooperation going on in the world. Who is Russia cooperating with? With what partners is she going to confront the adversary?

      For now there is only one option - China/DPRK...
      1. +5
        5 August 2024 11: 33
        Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
        For now there is only one option - China\DPRK...

        I seriously doubt it about China. They refused to build a civil aircraft together. And even more so military equipment.
      2. 0
        5 August 2024 14: 20
        Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
        Who is Russia cooperating with? With what partners is she going to confront the adversary?

        For now there is only one option - China/DPRK...

        And Iran. According to the prepared agreement on comprehensive cooperation, Iran will assemble the Su-35SE from our vehicle kits, and perhaps then the same will happen for the Su-75. Transfer of technologies for the construction of submarines (MAPL) and supply of key components for the construction of such in Iran. From Iranian sources shortly after the death of Soleimani.
        As for “who Russia cooperates with,” this is of no use to us in development (there are no partners with such scientific and technical potential, and China is a fellow traveler, and this is its choice). The Su-57 is already in serial production (24 units should be delivered this year, 30 units per year from the future), the Su-75 is promised to be rolled out for its first flight before the end of this year - earlier than the stated deadline. Now (in the short term) we don’t even need new customers for our aircraft - we ourselves need so much that we are expanding production and placing orders for years to come. And no one should be hired to co-finance the projects under development (the example of India on the PAK FA is still hiccuping), because the whims of the illiterate will begin, they will begin to twist and whine with the agreed payments, and the project with an already approved and scheduled budget will freeze. We need to do everything ourselves, and offer the finished product to our allies and partners. Europeans cooperate because they don’t have enough money for their own development, or competence, and this is useful for expanding the series to pay off the project. But how much wed[email protected]and on such a collective farm.
        1. +1
          5 August 2024 22: 36
          Quote: bayard
          in Iran they will assemble the Su-35SE from our vehicle kits

          Quote: bayard
          perhaps the same thing will happen with the Su-75

          Quote: bayard
          The Su-57 is already in serial production (24 units should be delivered this year, from the future 30 units per year)

          Quote: bayard
          They promise to roll out the Su-75 for its first flight before the end of this year - earlier than stated.


          Quote: bayard
          Europeans cooperate because they don’t have enough money for their own development, or competence, and this is useful for expanding the series to pay off the project. But how much wed[email protected]and on such a collective farm

          Where do you get all this? Is it unlikely that any serious press writes this? Let's bet that all your fantastic plans for the Iranian Su-35, for the delivery of 24!!! The Su-57, regardless of the appearance of the Su-75..., God forgive me, will remain in fantasies. It would be nice if they could make several Su-35s for the Northern Military District to compensate for the losses. At the same time, in Europe, in your opinion, there is neither money nor competence!))) Where do they all belong to the military-industrial complex of the Russian Federation! And here we’ll argue once again that the Europeans and Japanese will receive their 6th generation on time.
          1. -2
            6 August 2024 01: 05
            Quote: karabas-barabas
            Let's bet that all your fantastic plans for Iranian Su-35

            Don't argue, you'll lose. 24 Su-35SE have already been delivered. In total, under the contract, Iran intends to receive at least 70 such aircraft, which will most likely be assembled in Iran itself, just as the Su-30MKI was assembled in India from our vehicle kits. About this and much more in an Iranian article shortly after the death of Soleimani, in which the programs in which we will cooperate with Iran are partially named. This includes the development of gas fields, the construction of an LNG plant on the coast, nuclear energy, assistance in Iran’s construction of its own submarines with the supply of reactors and other components, training of specialists, purchases of helicopters and much more. This is the Iranian press, and this is confirmed by our Foreign Ministry. So don't argue, you'll lose.
            Quote: karabas-barabas
            Su-57, after the Su-75 ever appeared..., God forgive me

            For sacrilege and blasphemy you can be punished with Karma, you should be careful with this.
            What kind of antics about the Su-57? There is already a regimental set of them in the troops, by the end of this year the second regimental set (24 pieces) will arrive in the troops. And unlike the F-35 and F-22, the Su-57 already has victories in air battles (at least three), is this what bothers you?
            They recently promised to take the Su-75 into the air before the end of this year (in the frost, as it should be for the first takeoff, according to tradition). We'll see how it takes off, but this is already at least 1 year ahead of schedule. The engine, avionics and much more are from the Su-57, which reduces the cost and speeds up development and makes it easier to launch into series.
            Quote: karabas-barabas
            It would be nice if they could make several Su-35s for the Northern Military District to compensate for the losses.

            Do your trousers put pressure on your ears?
            The Su-35S has been in mass production for a long time, not only for aerospace forces, but also for export. There are more than a hundred of them in service, 12 pieces. delivered to China, 24 pcs. to Iran. Now the pace of their production is increasing (the lag from order to delivery to the customer is from 2 to 3 years, a year for slipway assembly, a year for cooperation enterprises for the manufacture and delivery of components to the plant). At the beginning of the SVO, Su-35S were delivered to the Aerospace Forces at a rate of 8 - 12 units. in year . But at the same time, the Egyptian contract for 24 Su-35SE at a rate of 8 units was also fulfilled. per year (now they are supplied to Iran).
            Quote: karabas-barabas
            In Europe, according to you, there is neither money nor competence!)))

            For each individual country, this is too expensive and difficult - the needs of one country are small, competencies are limited, and the price tag is astronomical. Look at the price tag of the Eurofighter compared to its classmates, and the price of the Rafale. That's why they cooperate. No one can do it alone. And external customers are definitely needed to expand the series and pay off the development.

            Quote: karabas-barabas
            Where do they all care about the military-industrial complex of the Russian Federation?

            We do everything ourselves and our planes are much cheaper. Although our fighters are heavy, while the Europeans are all light. One can argue about the effectiveness of our military-industrial complex, but our equipment is for war and all aircraft have combat experience. Even the MiG-35S shot down targets in the Northern Military District, although there are only 6 of them. in stock .
            Quote: karabas-barabas
            And here we’ll argue once again that the Europeans and Japanese will receive their 6th generations on time.

            Oh Marquis, you'll lose yourself in smoke.
            They will most likely develop the plane and even build it. Maybe they will even meet the deadline, but who told you that this will be some kind of mythical 6th generation? If we put aside the nonsense about artificial intelligence and an innovative headset, then at best they will build a normal 5\5+ generation aircraft. Maximum. It will probably turn out to be a really successful 5th generation fighter, freed from the shoals of the F-22 and F-35, but nothing more. And it is unlikely to be better than our Su-57, for which the second stage engine is already ready. It is called “intermediate” because, for the sake of the declared resource, they slightly lowered the temperature on the turbine blades, so in afterburner it will not produce 18 kg.s. , and 000 - 16 kg.s. But this is enough, because it (the Su-500) is very good even with the AL-17F-000S.
  3. -2
    5 August 2024 05: 08
    Why range, speed and payload trump maneuverability

    This slogan already existed in the 60s of the twentieth century. But the Vietnam War showed him to be wrong. Again with the same rake or is it still an attempt to come up with something fundamentally new?
    1. Eug
      0
      5 August 2024 06: 51
      As for me, then the missile launch range for a guaranteed (at least with a probability of 0,3-0,6) defeat forced us to move closer to the range of close maneuverable combat. Now this is unlikely to happen, although... I would estimate the chances as 70/30 - 80/20.
      1. +3
        5 August 2024 12: 09
        Quote: Eug
        As for me, then the missile launch range for a guaranteed (at least with a probability of 0,3-0,6) defeat forced us to move closer to the range of close maneuverable combat.

        This became clear in a real battle. And before that, it was believed in the same way that an air battle would be reduced to the “first salvo”: whoever was the first to detect the enemy and the first to launch was the winner. And all this is at medium altitudes.

        And then Vietnam began - and suddenly it turned out that we would have to work at low altitudes. Or at targets against the background of the earth. Moreover, these targets are maneuvering. And all medium-range RVVs of that time had semi-active radar homing, which required keeping the illumination on the target and worked extremely poorly against low-altitude targets (and in general against targets against the ground). In general, enemy fighters either disrupted the capture, or the capture did not pass through them at all - after which a rapprochement and maneuverable combat followed.
  4. +4
    5 August 2024 05: 20
    GCAP/Tempest is one component of a wider British program called the Future Combat Air System (FCAS)

    GCAP and FCAS are two different programs with different participants.
    The Global Combat Air Program (GCAP) is a British, Japanese and Italian sixth-generation fighter program created by combining the British BAE Systems Tempest program and the Japanese Mitsubishi FX. Completion of the program is planned in 2035.
    Future Combat Air System (FCAS) is a similar program of France, Spain and Germany (Dassault Aviation, Airbus and Indra Sistemas). Completion of the program is planned in 2045.
  5. +1
    5 August 2024 06: 28
    Only time will tell who was right, everyone has their own path and is good in their own way!
  6. Eug
    0
    5 August 2024 06: 45
    You have to understand, “adaptive” engines - with a variable degree of two-conversion?
    1. +1
      5 August 2024 08: 07
      "adaptive" engines - with a variable degree of dcw?

      More like a three-circuit one. A third air flow is added - one internal circuit with a gas generator and nozzle part and two external ones. At subsonic speeds, the third air circuit is open and the engine operates like a turbofan with a higher bypass ratio. At supersonic speed, the third circuit is completely closed, and the volume of air passing through the second circuit decreases.
  7. -3
    5 August 2024 09: 26
    As far as I remember, about 15 years ago, the argument in favor of super-maneuverability was the possible collisions between an aircraft and a weapon.
    A smart long-range missile. When a missile was detected and intercepted by a short-range counter-missile. In fact, on the Su 57, which sees in all directions, this is possible. He saw it, knocked down the guidance by performing a complex maneuver, and intercepted it.
  8. -6
    5 August 2024 10: 54
    No one has canceled the disbursement of taxpayers' money. The result will be expected - “Well, I couldn’t, I couldn’t…” Thank you for the money, and we’ll use the reliable, proven old one.
  9. +1
    5 August 2024 12: 44
    Fighter-bomber... More and more of the second, less and less of the first.
  10. +3
    5 August 2024 13: 03
    During the more than two-year air war over Ukraine, Russian fighters with more powerful radars and R-37M and R-77M missiles almost constantly use long-range missiles, operating from long distances, refusing close combat within visual range due to high mutual risks with using modern short-range missiles


    What nonsense? Close combat missiles are not used for another reason - the enemy rarely comes within 50 km of the front line, plus he tries to set up ambushes by placing long-range air defense systems closer to the front. Thus, approaching enemy aircraft even at a distance of 190 km, our aircraft find themselves in the destruction zone of the enemy air defense system. Hence the long-range battles.
    1. 0
      6 August 2024 01: 04
      So this is the reality of modern war, when opponents who are approximately equal in technological terms meet on the battlefield. No one will approach the front line within the 50 km you mentioned. A huge number of detection and destruction means exclude the possibility of close combat. This is not the Vietnam War era.
  11. -1
    5 August 2024 14: 55
    Obviously, the fate of such aircraft will depend on the technological level of the enemy country. If such a country can afford really good detection and attack capabilities, these aircraft are doomed. No aircraft can exceed the speed of a rocket (if only because hypersonic speeds will smear the pilot around the cockpit during the most careful maneuver), so what good is height to them? They'll get it anyway.
    In general, nowadays aviation in battles of approximately equal strength is just a foundling for missiles - it takes off, fires and lands. There is no need to maneuver and there is nowhere - it is dangerous. All its advantages are realized only during fights with the natives.
    Russian WWII soldiers would be shocked to see the current battles for the support positions. For them, whom the ILs supported properly, all the current hand-to-hand and short-term battles would be wild. A few PCs, and the enemy fortified point can be calmly cleared. But current aviation is not capable of this - they will shoot you down instantly.
    Where are there even hints that designers and production are trying to solve the problem?
  12. -4
    5 August 2024 15: 26
    Something tells me that the United States does not need competitors and it may simply not reach a series of 6th generation aircraft from the EU. The countries are too politically dependent on the Americans. The United States will then use their groundwork
  13. -2
    5 August 2024 16: 24
    Japan is a Pacific country and, as expected, seeks to strengthen its role in the region. And to do this, aircraft must fly long distances, especially in order to be based out of the range of long-range Chinese missiles to attack ground targets.

    It seems to me that the range of Chinese missiles is enough to cover the range to Japanese territories by two or three times, so it is useless to hide in this way. what wassat
  14. 0
    6 August 2024 13: 47
    It is noteworthy that during the more than two-year air war over Ukraine, Russian fighters with more powerful radars and R-37M and R-77M missiles almost constantly use long-range missiles, operating from long distances, abandoning close combat within visual range due to high mutual risks using modern short-range missiles.


    Hardly because of this. They just shoot without entering the air defense zone 404...
  15. 0
    6 August 2024 17: 38
    Experts, tell me what kind of aircraft/prototype/UAV it is? (Next to MIG-31)
  16. 0
    4 September 2024 14: 37
    As a result, the unmanned concept with AI will win. Which will have to be given the command to take out everything in that square... And run away with overloads inaccessible to a human body