6th Generation Fighter NGAD: It All Starts Again

The U.S. Air Force is rethinking the very core of its requirements for a new sixth-generation stealth combat aircraft as part of an ongoing rethink of the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) initiative. The Air Force also says the reassessment addresses broader questions about the full suite of capabilities it plans to use to achieve air superiority in the future.

Call it what you will: a complete failure, a reboot, a liquid... sorry, they couldn't fulfill the requirements in the declared volume - it doesn't matter. What matters is that the NGAD program itself is hanging by a thread, and if you consider that its "faithful wingmen" component is still flying with the help of a person in a hastily attached cabin - something clearly went wrong. Somewhere around five billion came to a standstill.

However, in such a situation, what should you do? That's right, put on a good face in the face of complete... well, yes, declare victory in the face of complete betrayal.

Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James Slife and Andrew Hunter, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics, discussed the NGAD combat jet and its challenges during a livestreamed Defense Department press conference Sept. 4.

In July, the Air Force confirmed that it had put its plans for a sixth-generation tactical jet on hold due to budget shortfalls and unresolved questions about key requirements. The service insists it still plans to eventually move forward with the effort in some form, though what the plane might ultimately look like, including whether it will eventually require a pilot, is already increasingly uncertain.

Here it is necessary to clarify: NGAD was planned as a human-piloted vehicle. At one time there were rumors that NGAD would become a highly autonomous vehicle controlled by artificial intelligence with the support of operators from ground control stations. But what is happening today with the so-called "Model 437" actually puts an end to the autonomous version, because "Model 437", which was supposed to be a highly autonomous vehicle of the "faithful wingman" series, so far flies only with the help of a person.

Rendering of sixth-generation stealth fighter jet with crew. Collins Aerospace

“So, in terms of requirements, I would say we go back and start from the beginning with what we are trying to do.”, - General Slife admitted his impotence. You can't envy the guy, because sooner or later, Congress will start asking everyone about the money spent in vain.

“So you get two different answers if you formulate the question like this:
"How do we behave - how do we achieve air superiority in a conflict?"
That would be one way to formulate the question. Another way to formulate the question would be:
"How do we build a sixth-generation manned fighter platform?"

So we're kind of going back to what we're trying to do initially. And I don't know exactly how we're going to achieve air superiority in a combat environment. It could involve a manned platform for a sixth-generation fighter, but we're kind of going back and looking at, you know, from the beginning.

Because when we did the initial analysis of alternatives for NGAD... you know, frankly, our technology base has evolved much faster than we expected. So we see that the capabilities that we have that we would like to use going forward to accomplish this mission have not been addressed. And we started the rethink with the NGAD system."

I really feel sorry for the General. Yes, General Slife specifically highlighted questions about whether the current plans for the NGAD combat jet represent a path to an aircraft that is best optimized to operate with the planned future fleets of Joint Warfare unmanned aircraft. aviation (CCA) Air Force. That's something Air Force officials, including Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, have repeatedly emphasized. But the big question of what the future holds for NGAD itself, the general, alas, did not offer answers.

Hunter, the assistant secretary, also spoke in broad terms about the potential desire to incorporate new technologies into aircraft in response to an evolving threat ecosystem. But the specifics were beyond the scope of a microscope.

The sixth-generation NGAD crewed combat aircraft has its roots in what was originally called the PCA platform, which was intended to replace the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter. That program, in turn, was the result of work done by the Air Force in collaboration with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Frank Kendall, now secretary of the Air Force, was involved in that effort, which he says has produced at least one flying demonstrator aircraft.

Before questions about its future began to emerge earlier this year, the NGAD Advanced Combat Jet had already evolved into a much more capable, but also much more expensive, aircraft than the F-22. In July, Gen. Kenneth S. Wilsbach, head of Air Combat Command, said there was currently no timeline for retiring the F-22. There is no timeline, but we know all too well the battles raging in Congress over the Raptor’s retirement from the Air Force.

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Hunter:

“Our approach going forward is to look at aircraft as part of our force as a whole, right? So air superiority is not going to be provided by any one platform. It’s across the force, and we know that there are many capabilities in our force that we’re going to have for the next few decades. We have the F-35. We have the F-15EX. We have the F-22. So we just need to figure out what role we need to play in complementing those capabilities that will be present in our force all the time to provide the full capability that we need to be secure.”

F-22s that were supposed to be replaced by NGAD combat aircraft

In their presentations, Slife and Hunter highlighted a broader shift in Air Force plans toward focusing on ways to achieve core mission requirements rather than on specific platforms to meet those needs.
Now that's interesting. That is, the gentlemen are no longer talking about aircraft, but about methods of carrying out combat missions. But here is a double-edged sword with a hundred nuances. However, here is a quote that sheds light on this misunderstanding.

"We tend to use a prefix. You know, I mean, what do we do with planes that start with a 'C'? We carry cargo, because they start with a 'C'. What do we do with planes that start with a 'B'? Well, we drop bombs. Because anything that starts with a 'B' is a bomber. But you know, in the Air Force, we flew cruise missiles out of the back of a C-17 (under a program called Rapid Dragon – ed.) and dropping people out of the bomb bay of a B-24 (during World War II – ed.) and things like that, I don’t even know what a cargo plane is, or a bomber, or a fighter.”

But in many ways Mr. Slife is right: modern aircraft are increasingly striving for some kind of universality. And the same fighter-bomber can fight other fighters with air-to-air missiles and easily drop bombs, including guided ones, and a cruise missile is not at all news under the belly.

And indeed, the question is not what is used, in the sense of what kind of aircraft, the question is how and in what capacity.

Slife:

"I know what the mission is that we have to accomplish, but I'm not sure that we need to build an airplane to accomplish that mission. We need to build a system that can accomplish the task.

I think the priority is definitely on flexibility in our approach... not being overly specific to any particular set of problems or any particular approach to a set of problems."

You know, it reminded me of a famous movie: "Do I have a key? I have something much better: I have a drawing of a key." Of course, there is a hidden meaning in a system that can quickly and adequately respond to changing conditions. Especially if the system has effective tools.

Slife and Hunter highlighted the iterative approach to developing the CCA program as an example of this way of thinking. General Atomics and Anduril are currently developing Drones as part of the work on the initial part of the CCA, also known as "loyal wingmen", focused primarily on air-to-air combat missions, but the work cannot yet be called successful.

General Atomics CCA design visualization. General Atomics

Author's concept of the Fury CCA drone variant. Anduril

In general, everything that is happening looks like a rush to find a way out of the current situation, when the first stage of the project to create the NGAD fighter and its unmanned wingmen practically ended in nothing and now requires rethinking and rebooting.

The Air Force says that whatever CCA projects it selects for any phase of the program, it will need to attract additional companies to help produce aircraft and UAVs at scale. So the Air Force is now assembling a broader pool of suppliers to provide subsystems and other support for that effort.

However, a larger number of developers and manufacturers does not guarantee a quick solution to the problems that arise.

Hunter:

"We want to see what good ideas there are in the industry, so we don't throw out what might be the right way forward because we started with the wrong question."

Of course, if someone of a higher rank had said this, it would have been even more significant, but even so there is an understanding of how sad everything is.

It is interesting to note here that US Air Force General David W. Allwin, the Air Force Chief of Staff, spoke about the importance of iterative development and a forward-looking aircraft acquisition vision focused on “building for adaptation” rather than “building for the long haul” at the Global Air Force Leadership Conference in London earlier this year.

Olwin's talk was supported by a presentation that included artificial intelligence-generated graphics demonstrating the concept of a notional lightweight stealth fighter.

While this was for illustrative purposes only, it was still a very interesting visual amid the ongoing debate about the future of the NGAD combat aircraft. If, that is, there is a future for this project.

Allvin:

“I want to clarify this just because specifics and words matter. This is a pause in the development of the NGAD air defense platform. NGAD stands for Next Generation Air Dominance. It’s not an aircraft. It’s a family of systems. Within that NGAD family of systems are collaborative combat aircraft, open systems, and some of the sensors that we’re developing, technologies. So, that whole family of systems is still evolving.”

Okay, so growth, especially when it’s incremental, is great. But there are concerns about the natural drag of the defense budget, which is unlikely to increase in the coming years, along with the rising costs of mission-critical programs, especially the new Sentinel ICBM and its associated infrastructure requirements. This is also putting pressure on the Air Force’s modernization plans across the board. And when you consider that past projections suggest that a single NGAD combat jet could cost about three times as much as an F-35, or about $250 million, the concerns take on an even more ominous tone.

"I wouldn't rule anything out, but I wouldn't rule anything out either."" said General Slife. Well said, because the future of the NGAD combat jet remains very uncertain, with signs emerging that the Air Force may amend its previous plans or scrap them altogether and begin developing new ones that would certainly kill the acquisition of the aircraft.

But just a year ago it seemed that the sixth generation was right here, very close...

Comments

[DoctorRandom]

But what is happening today with the so-called "Model 437" effectively puts an end to the autonomous version, because the "Model 437", which was supposed to be a highly autonomous "faithful wingman" series aircraft, currently flies only with the help of a human.

First it flies with a man, then they will remove the cockpit and it will fly without a man, everything is simple, but Skomorokh has already defeated everyone again and swept his hats, and NGAD has failed completely, understand?! So think about it! Only now in the US there is already full talk about the concept of 6th generation fighters, and individual components and technologies are being tested, and sooner or later the US, just like with the 5th generation, will be the first to enter a new era, and the Russian Federation will continue to produce Su-57 in homeopathic doses. I don’t even remember the Su-75, because this project died on February 24, 2022.

It is actually sad that these topics are being touched upon by a person who truly believes that the Su-34 (an aircraft whose concept was left far in the past, somewhere during the Vietnam War) is the pinnacle of aircraft manufacturing and the best that the Russian Federation can offer (the Su-35 nervously smokes on the sidelines).

[Luminman]

Quote from DoctorRandom

First it flies with a person, then they will remove the cabin and it will fly without a person, it's simple

Something tells me that in our lifetime a pilot will become as exotic as a coachman or an oarsman on an ancient galley...

[bk316]

First it flies with a person, then they will remove the cabin and it will fly without a person, it’s simple,

This is unlikely. Most likely, the meaning of this talk is this.

We have the F-15EX.

And this is true with AWACS support and in a large series it is the best solution.

[karabas-barabas]

With the latest generation of AFAR RPS satellites, the Americans no longer really need AWACS and the concept of shooting at milk is disappearing. This is one of the reasons why the SM6 SAM was turned into the SM6 RVV with a combat radius of about 500 km.

[Strelkin]

NGAD will have without fail characteristics that the F-22 and F-35 had, only improved:
1. Extremely low EPR, frontal less than 0.0001 m².
2. A powerful AFAR radar with transmitting and receiving modules based on gallium nitride, which will allow it, like the F-22, to perform the functions of a mini-AWACS, while in dangerous areas of the theater of operations, inaccessible to a large AWACS for reasons of its own security. Naturally, this radar will have LPI (low probability of interception) functions, the detection range of a target with a standard RCS of 1 m² in normal mode is at least 300 km, in LPI mode - 250 km. Instrumental range is at least 550 km.
3. A better radio reconnaissance station than those installed on the F-22 and F-35 (allowing it to determine the direction of enemy radio sources from a distance of 460 km with an accuracy of 2° and to determine their coordinates in space from a distance of 180 km without turning on the radar).
4. A high-speed system for receiving and transmitting tactical information, both to large AWACS and ground control points, and to fighters of all previous generations - 5th and 4th.
5. The presence of artificial intelligence on board will allow easy control of several combat stealth drones, as well as high-speed and high-altitude ones.
6. An advanced electronic-optical system will allow artificial intelligence to monitor airspace in a 360° sector in the optical and IR ranges.
7. Two three-circuit variable-cycle turbojet engines, providing a thrust-to-weight ratio with a full load of at least one, non-afterburning cruising flight at a speed of 1.7M-1.9M and a ceiling of at least 20 kilometers.
8. Combat radius (at high altitude and subsonic) not less than 1000 km.
9. Possibility of performing combat missions without a pilot on board.
.................................

[Strelkin]

Specific wing load is no more than 270 kg/m².
Operational overload +10g/-3g.
Air-to-air missiles with a rated range of up to 300 km.

[air wolf]

The Su-57M can do all this too [media=https://dzen.ru/a/ZZvtySoEzhEl6DJT]

[Stardock]

There are a lot of letters, but little information.
In order to create a new aircraft in Russia, or to improve the Su57 engine, it is necessary to have modern industry, modern science. Which is a big problem.
Until now, the economic policy was this: we have oil, gas, and by selling them we will buy everything we need. Today, this is impossible.
A typical example is the Superjet 100, which consisted of 80% imported components.
There is the sad experience of Skolkovo. The billions invested went down the drain.
There is constant talk about import substitution. An extremely slow and expensive mechanism for creating something new, especially in the context of growing sanctions.

The military developments made during the Soviet era are coming to an end.
An airplane is the final indicator of the level of technology in a country. And there are big problems with it.

[Dutchman Michel]

Quote: Strelkin

NGAD will necessarily have the characteristics that the F-22 had

The funniest thing about this is that we know little about the real characteristics of the F-22, other than those that the American military has drawn for us in the performance characteristics.

[Strelkin]

The first F-22 squadron was combat-ready in 2005, almost 20 years ago. During this time, the aircraft met HUNDREDS of times in the sky with conventional adversaries, including US fighters, as well as fighters from various NATO countries, plus Australia, Japan, and Israel. All of them could use their radars and then their eyes to look for the F-22 in the sky as its adversary. Therefore, in today's aviation world, there are HUNDREDS of witnesses all over the world who confirm that very frontal RCS of the F-22 ~0.0001 m². These are not armchair experts from Uryupinsk and Nizhny Tagil, these are military pilots from the world's leading aviation powers.
Something like that.

The French boasted and proudly cited objective control materials, where the Rafale, during exercises somewhere in the Middle East, “shot down” the F-22, almost four times out of five! However, this is in a dogfight, with guns! No one, anywhere, ever said that during any training exercise he managed to shoot down an F-22 in a long-range missile battle under NORMAL CONDITIONS, not when the exercise leaders, for example, forbade the F-22 to use AIM-120 missiles. Or even to use missiles at all, leaving only the cannon! This was done already in the first years after the F-22s "killed" their "opponents" with a dry score of SEVERAL HUNDREDS IN A ROW. The organizers of the exercises became uninterested in continuing to use the F-22 in the "normal way", they got bored and started to make a circus...

[Neo-9947]

Quote: Stardock

To create a new aircraft in Russia

And where does Russia come from?
The article (we are discussing it) doesn’t say a word about Russia.
The article is written as a concerned view from a United States citizen on the problems that arise in the creation of the NGAD aircraft.

Look at the article from this side.

P.S. We wish we had their problems...

[cpls22]

Quote: Neo-9947

Look at the article from this side.
.

And notice - not a single cry about "cartoons" under it..)

[Stardock]

I'll let you in on a secret. The weapon is designed to fight. And the potential enemy of this fighter is the aircraft of the Russian Federation, China, and India.
The development of our Su 57 began in the early 2000s. The first flight was in 2013. And the plane is still not here in 24. Sad.

[bk316]

And there is still no plane in 24.

One regiment doesn't count?

[Strelkin]

The development of our Su 57 began in the early 2000s. The first flight was in 2013. And the plane is still not here in 24. Sad.

And the answer is simple: the Su-57 is not being launched into large-scale production because it has significant advantages over the same Su-35, he is inferior to him in terms of criterion efficiency / cost. IT IS NOT STEALTH. And to produce it in large quantities is simply "throwing money down the drain". Those at the top know and understand this, but they don't report it to you. And they build the Su-35 - according to the criteria efficiency / cost It is significantly better than the Su-57. Alas and alack, but it is true.

[Stardock]

Thank you. Serious answer. And a logical question right away: why was it necessary to build two expensive planes at the same time? Hundreds of billions down the drain?
But the engine on the 57 continues to be improved.

[Strelkin]

Why was it necessary to build two expensive planes at the same time? Hundreds of billions down the drain?

They wanted to build an analogue and competitor for the F-22. "The stone flower didn't work out", — frontal EPR of the Su-57 officially 0.1 m². Against 0.0001 m² for the F-22 — it's nothing. With equal radars, the difference in mutual detection ranges will be √√(0.1:0.0001) = 5.62 times. That is, the F-22 will be able to detect the Su-57 at a range of 126 km, and the Su-57 will be able to detect the F-22 at a range of 22.5 km. But before it detects the enemy, the Su-57 will be shot down. So why put it into mass production if it is not a real enemy for either the F-22 or the F-35 (with the same EPR as the F-22, and the evil US generals said it was even smaller)? That's why the smart Russian generals are not putting it into mass production - they are obviously waiting for a technological breakthrough!

[Stardock]

I think it's also about economics. There are no funds to make quite similar machines. Airplanes are very expensive.

[Strelkin]

Look at the USA: there were YF-22 and YF-23. The first one won. There were X-32 and X-35. The second one won. Competition and contest are words with the same root and an incentive for quality development! Without competition and contest, only crap can happen...

[Stardock]

The US military budget is 15 times bigger than ours. They can afford such luxury.

[Strelkin]

We need to build a country with a normal economy.

[Stardock]

You have set such a simple task...) We have been building such an economy for 24 years already.
But the standard of living keeps falling. This is if you don't count the salaries of the military and workers of the military-industrial complex.

[Strelkin]

We have been building this economy for 24 years already.

Over the course of 24 years, a kind of analogue of the Latin American dictatorship of the 70s of the last century has been built - with an insane level of corruption, when everything that is impossible to even imagine has been stolen. And, of course, only the SVO was able to reveal all this incredible rottenness of the system. Now we'll have to redo the entire system...

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Yes, yes, of course. A normal capitalist economy that, because of your vaunted competition, is forced to economize on hired workers, which as a result provoked a planetary demographic crisis?

[Strelkin]

Do you have any specific suggestions? Which system is better (except Chinese, it is the best, but too heavy for an individual)?

[WapentakeLokki]

and the question arises.. and on.. why then develop the V-th generation at all if not for series, and then for what.. for a parade or for sale.. and who evaluates these very criteria if in the SVO aviation does not fly closer than 50-70 km to the LBS (they will shoot down both the Su-35 and the Su-57 and they will shoot down the F-22 too).. then why do we need STEALTH (and in the forward hemisphere and not 100%) if overcoming air defense is not guaranteed and it is cheaper to throw out cruise missiles or FAB + UMPK.. questions that have no answers.. but it was worth it.. by the way, Israel still uses its F-35s and, so far, air defense has not shot them down..

[Strelkin]

and the question arises..and then why develop the V-th generation at all if not for production

What do you mean "not in series production"? There should be about 35 F-3000s in the world, 2600 with a hook in the US alone. They planned to produce 22 F-750s, but the USSR suddenly died, they abruptly reduced them to 187 combat ones, then it turned out that Robert Gates, the then US Defense Minister, screwed up in his forecasts (the military demanded 381 F-22s), when they realized that the Chinese were building a fleet of 500 J-20s - oops! Ouch! "Tearing hair on your ass" — and it’s too late, resuming production will cost an additional 50 billion bucks, — they decided to endure what they have, plus keeping in mind NGAD — something will come out anyway...

then why do we need STEALTH (and in the forward hemisphere and not 100%) if overcoming air defense is not guaranteed

And who said that it is "not guaranteed"?? Where there are stealth aircraft AND EVERYTHING ELSE: reconnaissance, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, suppression of air defense and missile defense is guaranteed.

and it's cheaper to dump KR or FAB+UMPK..

In a complex, EVERYTHING IS USED IN A COMPLEX! Wars are not won by just one thing. Serious wars...

questions that have no answers.

Who told you this nonsense? There are answers to questions, you just need to not be shy about asking them - to the right people...

By the way, Israel still uses its F-35s and, so far, air defense has not shot them down.

First of all, the F-35 is stealth.
Secondly, Israel does not destroy Syrian SAMs in Syria if they sit quietly and calmly. If they start "acting up," they do not live long and they know it very well.
Thirdly, Israel in Syria is not fighting the Syrian army itself, it is destroying IRGC bases, IRGC transports, IRGC warehouses. The Syrians are not taking up arms for them.
Fourthly, Israel has been using precision cruise bombs for a long time: 113 kg (110 km from an altitude of 11 km), 456 kg (110 km) and 907 kg (75 km) - you can choose the direction of approach to the target when the SAM radar does not yet see the aircraft at this distance.
Fifthly, Israel has group electronic warfare capabilities on individual aircraft that provide support if necessary.

[NIKN]

Quote: Neo-9947

P.S. We wish we had their problems...

From the article

Something clearly went wrong. Somewhere around five billion came to a standstill.

This is a problem for Americans. Zelensky's wife has more maps in her purse.

[Vitaly_pvo]

We should talk about a new generation only after a new technology appears that cannot be implemented on the old platform even after a deep modernization. At present, all the listed + of the 6th generation can easily be implemented on the 5th. At least on the Russian Su-57. The American F-35 still fundamentally does not have the required thrust-to-weight ratio, speed and altitude.

[Strelkin]

We should talk about a new generation only after a new technology appears that cannot be implemented on the old platform even after a deep modernization.

Such revolutions in technology are rare - for example, the transition from piston aircraft to jet aircraft, or the transition from conventional aircraft to stealth machines. But there was no such transition from the 3rd to the 4th - for example, from the F-4 to the F-14, from the MiG-25 to the Su-35.
One generation of fighters differs from another in that a fighter of the next generation can be guaranteed to defeat a fighter of the previous generation with a high score - in a duel situation, without external support.

[andrey martov]

Evil is becoming more and more evil, more and more armed. At this rate, evil will create some kind of "Death Star"...

[Strelkin]

Is a 58 megaton thermonuclear bomb not enough?!

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Mmm. That is, the F-22 is about to go away, and its successor has returned to the stage of not even a concept, but the drafting of technical specifications. With this approach, the Americans will have the F-20EX as their main means of gaining air supremacy in the next 15 years.

[by land]

The F-22 isn't going anywhere until NGAD is ready, they're already testing a new upgrade package... I think it has about 2 decades of service left.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Well, how is it? It seems that no one has cancelled the write-off of the first 32 vehicles; they were going to retire them up to and including 2025.

They are already testing a new upgrade package

The only question is that it is too expensive, which is why the first cars are sent to a permanent parking lot.

[by land]

They are too expensive to fly, especially in peacetime, when the only thing that can be shot down is an errant balloon. But there is nothing permanent about keeping them in hangars. If a situation arises (due to war or accidental losses), they can be restored to flying condition very quickly. Just as they did to replace a bomber that crashed on landing. Having reserves is necessary for aircraft that are no longer in production.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: overland

But there is nothing permanent about storing them in hangars. If a situation arises (due to war or accidental losses), they can be restored to flying condition very quickly.

Everything would be fine, but domestic publications mentioned recycling. But let's assume that it didn't.

Quote: overland

Having reserves is necessary for aircraft that are no longer in production.

Actually, no. The Americans have been using them since 2005, and have done just fine without a reserve.
In fact, the situation is as follows - the Americans are forced to use some of these aircraft as training aircraft. Block 20, which they are going to withdraw, performs this role. After the withdrawal, they will have to transfer some of the "combat" ones to training ones, and the load on all the remaining machines will increase - now they need to train more pilots for them, so that if something happens, there will be enough for the "reserve" Block 20. That is, the result is that the Americans will kill the resource of newer and more modern "blocks" in order to preserve the resource of the "old men". This can hardly be called a good decision.

[bk316]

new upgrade package...

You probably don’t know, but the limits of modernization are set during development.
And the service life too.

[Strelkin]

Mmm. So the F-22 is leaving soon.

According to the plan - in 2045. But they can also extend the service life - this happened in the US military aviation.

and his successor returned to the stage of not even a concept, but drawing up technical specifications.

"About the concept" is a fairy tale excuse. The real reason is that there are problems with financing.

With this approach, the Americans will have the F-20EX as their main means of gaining air superiority in the next 15 years.

You have simply become his fanatical follower! This is a really good and very useful aircraft and it will definitely be used - in all wars against the Papuans - maybe even in the first roles, but in wars with a serious enemy (China) - only in the second line, "on the fly." The main formula of radar has not been cancelled:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F#%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%A0%D0%9B%D0%A1

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Strelkin

According to the plan - in 2045.

According to the plan, the first 32 will be in 2025. And then it will be up to Congress and the military to agree on what they can. What's interesting is that it is the military that insists on the F-22 being phased out as soon as possible.

Quote: Strelkin

"About the concept" is a fairy tale excuse. The real reason is that there are problems with financing.

The real reason is that they made a piece of crap that no one needed (reasons are unclear), so now they have to redo it from scratch. And this needs justification.

Quote: Strelkin

The main formula of radar has not been cancelled:

Yes, yes, I know that you know her:))))

[Strelkin]

According to the plan, the first 32 will be in 2025. And then it will be up to Congress and the military to agree on what they can. What's interesting is that it is the military that insists on the F-22 being phased out as soon as possible.

Look: above you have presented a very sound idea in a very wonderful way:

In fact, the situation is as follows - the Americans are forced to use some of these aircraft as training aircraft. The Block 20, which they are going to withdraw, performs this role. After the withdrawal, they will have to transfer some of the "combat" aircraft to training aircraft, and the load on all the remaining aircraft will increase - now they need to train more pilots for them, so that if something happens, there will be enough for the "reserve" Block 20. That is, the result is that the Americans will kill the resource of newer and more modern "blocks" in order to preserve the resource of the "old men". This can hardly be called a good decision.

You can sign under every word! And then you refute it: "It is the military that insists on the F-22 being phased out as soon as possible"What paradoxes?!

The real reason is that they made a piece of crap that no one needed (reasons are unclear), so now they have to redo it from scratch. And this needs justification.

"Crap" - is this your "favorite" F-22? Or is it already NGAD? And was it actually made? Only the very initial sample and obviously only a draft design, like the Su-75...
At the beginning of the discussion, I figured out what characteristics NGAD should have in any case and any "concept changes" (Today, 05: 28)

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Strelkin

You can sign up for every word! And then you refute it: "it is the military that insists on the speedy withdrawal of the F-22 from the staff." What kind of paradoxes are these?! wink

There is no paradox here, it’s just that my opponent’s initial thesis (about the usefulness of the F-22 reserve) is not confirmed.

Quote: Strelkin

"Crap" - is this your "favorite" F-22? Or is it NGAD? Was it made?

They promised to do it literally the day after tomorrow (in 2030). And suddenly - an approximate estimate of the unit at $350 million and - a rollback to the level of the developer's technical specifications.

Quote: Strelkin

At the beginning of the discussion, I estimated what characteristics NGAD should have in any scenario and any "concept changes"

Considering that the aircraft is unlikely to start entering service before the second half of the 2040s, I think you guessed right:)

[Strelkin]

Considering that the aircraft is unlikely to start entering service before the second half of the 2040s, I think you've guessed wrong.

I won’t live that long, but while I can, I will follow as closely as I can how the NGAD program progresses. You are not taking into account one very, very important factor: the rapid development of scientific and technological thought in China (Can you also say whether this makes you happy or sad? ). This is a huge incentive for the development of the US aviation complex. Therefore, your pessimism about the negative future of NGAD is completely unjustified. Life will kick Americans in the neck!
Keep pushing!

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Strelkin

You are not taking into account one very, very important factor: the rapid development of scientific and technological thought in China.

I take that into account. And I have no doubt that in 20 years China will have a very decent 5th generation fighter.

Quote: Strelkin

Can you tell me in passing whether this makes you happy or sad?

Remains neutral. China is now trying to take the USSR's place in the world, but it lacks too much for this. And it will lack too much for a long time.

Quote: Strelkin

Therefore, your pessimism about the negative future of NGAD is completely unjustified.

I have no pessimism, only one common sense calculation - usually subsequent fighters take longer to make than previous ones, and the F-22 was made for almost a quarter of a century. If NGAD has now retreated to its original positions, then it would be strange to expect it before the 40s.

Quote: Strelkin

Life will kick Americans in the neck!
Keep pushing!

Alas, the Americans are hardly capable of responding to such serious challenges as you see. They are already beginning to fail in the power confrontation with China, trying to somehow strengthen the fleet, aviation, ground forces... And the results are extremely far from expected.
Another thing is that the PLA Armed Forces are still largely a paper tiger; their challenge is not as serious as it might seem at first glance.

[Strelkin]

I have no doubt that in 20 years China will have a very decent 5th generation fighter

It seems that according to the CIA, the J-20 has a frontal RCS of 0.01 m².

Quote: Strelkin
Can you tell me in passing whether this makes you happy or sad?

Remains neutral. China is now trying to take the USSR's place in the world, but it lacks too much for this. And it will lack too much for a long time.

You are an incredible optimist! China has long since taken the place of the USSR in the world...

I have no pessimism, just one common sense calculation - usually subsequent fighters take longer to make than previous ones, and the F-22 was made for almost a quarter of a century.

20 years. BUT THEY DID IT!

If NGAD has now retreated to its original positions, then it would be strange to expect it before the 40s.

In 2045, the F-22's planned service life ends, and as new aircraft are produced, the F-22s will be retired. If their service life is not extended.

Unfortunately, the Americans are hardly capable of responding to such serious challenges as you see.

Under the leadership of the Democrats, Western civilization is doomed. And China will become the hegemon of the planet. And this scares me very much - they have no concept of humanism at all, only naked pragmatism...

Another thing is that the PLA Armed Forces are still largely a paper tiger; their challenge is not as serious as it might seem at first glance.

I would laugh, but at this point you should only cry and sob, with bitter tears. You haven't watched this video? Then take a closer look:

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Strelkin

It seems that according to the CIA, the J-20 has a frontal RCS of 0.01 m².

I understand that for you, the EPR is the alpha and omega, and everything else is completely unimportant. But the plane flies with Russian engines, roughly analogous to those on the Su-30. That is, they are almost a generation behind the engines on the Su-57.

Quote: Strelkin

You are an incredible optimist! China has long since taken the USSR's place in the world...

No, and it is not a fact that it will be able to. The USSR had an advanced scientific school, China, alas, does not have it. That is why, for example, China cannot catch up in materials science. As a result, it turns out that their designers are good, but if the material is initially bad, then the product will be so-so, no matter how sophisticated you are.

Quote: Strelkin

20 years. BUT THEY DID IT!

Well, and NGAD will be done. In 25 years:))))

Quote: Strelkin

In 2045, the planned service life of the F-22 ends, as new aircraft are produced, the F-22 will be retired. Unless their service life is extended.

At present, they are trying with all their might not to extend it, but to reduce it by early decommissioning. The Air Force, which in theory (if your assessment of the F-22 were correct) should have laid down their lives, but left it in the composition.

Quote: Strelkin

Under the leadership of the Democrats, Western civilization is doomed. And China will become the hegemon of the planet.

Anything can happen. Or it can not happen, we'll see.

Quote: Strelkin

And this really scares me - they have no concept of humanism at all, only naked pragmatism.

I completely agree. They don't have humanism at the original, moral level, their philosophical concepts don't particularly provide for it.

Quote: Strelkin

Haven't you watched this video?

I couldn't watch it after the submarine. It's just ordinary propaganda, and this is despite the fact that in the submarine fleet of the Chinese, how can I put it, not everything is good - they are simply very far from the level of "Virginia" or "Yasen-M". In the evening I will force myself and watch it to the end:)))

[Strelkin]

I understand that for you EPR is the alpha and omega, and everything else is completely unimportant.

For a modern fighter, EPR is alpha, beta, gamma, and delta. I once gave an example here: swap the engines on the "old" F-22 (F119, maximum thrust 11,825 kg, afterburner 15,900 kg) and the new F-15EX (F110-GE-129, maximum thrust 8,614 kg, afterburner 14,740 kg) - what will happen?? NOTHING! As before, the F-22 will beat the F-15EX in duel battles with crushing astronomical scores of 50:0, 100:0, 150:0... Due to this very stealth.

But the plane flies with Russian engines, roughly equivalent to those on the Su-30. That is, they are almost a generation older than the engines on the Su-57.

And who lied to you again that the Chinese have not caught up with Russia in engines? Here are the engines that are already installed on the J-20:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_WS-15#General_characteristics
The thrust in afterburner is 15,900 kg, the same as the F-22 engine. And the engines that are on the Su-57, AL-41F1 (117), the Chinese have long surpassed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_AL-31#AL-41F-1_(izdeliye_117)
maximum thrust 8,800 kg, afterburner 14,495 kg. Less than the Chinese...
But I'll repeat it for the hundredth time: "The happiness of a modern fighter is not in its engines!" It's not the engines that make him fierce and powerful, capable of defeating anyone...

No, and it is not a fact that it will be able to. The USSR had an advanced scientific school, China, alas, does not have it. That is why, for example, China cannot catch up in materials science. As a result, it turns out that their designers are good, but if the material is initially bad, then the product will be so-so, no matter how sophisticated you are.

The Chinese buy excellent scientists and engineers from all over the world, including the US, EU and Russia, create excellent working conditions for them and pay them salaries several times higher (if the specialist is worth it) than in the countries of origin. Therefore, talk about China not being able to catch up in something is simply naive, to the point of infantility. It is enough to compare the GDP of China and the USA, to understand the absurdity of the thesis that "China will never catch up with the US"... And to compare China's science and technology with Russia's today?! This is nonsense...

At present, they are trying with all their might not to extend it, but to reduce it by early decommissioning. The Air Force, which in theory (if your assessment of the F-22 were correct) should have laid down their lives, but left it in the composition.

(with a heavy sigh) And the US Congress will leave him alone, because the US Air Force simply has nothing to replace the F-22 with. And to leave your Air Force "with a bare bottom" against 500 Chinese J-20s - they can't afford it.

I completely agree. They don't have humanism at the original, moral level, their philosophical concepts don't particularly provide for it.

I'm glad that at least we have a consensus on something...

I'll force myself to finish watching it in the evening:)))

Don't be lazy, watch it to the end!

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Strelkin

For a modern fighter, EPR is alpha, beta, gamma, and delta. I once gave an example here

And I explained why the example has no relation to reality. Let's not start over.

Quote: Strelkin

And who lied to you again that the Chinese have not caught up with Russia in engines? Here are the engines that are already installed on the J-20

Apparently the same one who did not explain to you that Chinese engines have a meager resource, this problem has not been solved to this day and because of this they are inferior to our 4th generation engines (whose resource was insufficient even in the 80s of the last century) by several times.

Quote: Strelkin

It's not the engines that make him fierce and powerful, capable of defeating anyone...

Let me explain again - I understand your point of view. And you should understand that I do not share it. What is the point of repeating the same thing from comment to comment? Stealth is not even a quarter as important in air combat as you think. Your models of "airplanes flying head-on at each other and shining their radar" are completely and utterly divorced from real combat clashes and cannot be used to simulate air combat.
You can talk as much as you like about the all-powerful F-22 radar, but the truth is that the Americans themselves consider the lack of an OLS to be the aircraft's most serious drawback (especially in air combat, since in radio silence mode, which, despite the tales about LPI, they use in real life), the aircraft is practically blind. Hence the attempt to modernize it by shoving in an OLS.
I am ready to respect your point of view, but you don’t need to relay it to me 5 times from comment to comment.

Quote: Strelkin

The Chinese buy excellent scientists and engineers from all over the world, including the US, EU and Russia, create excellent working conditions for them and pay them salaries several times higher (if the specialist is worth it) than in the countries of origin. Therefore, talk about China not being able to catch up in something is simply naive, to the point of infantility.

You are saying this now because you are not familiar with Chinese technology. But I, working at a machine-building enterprise, am very familiar with it, fortunately, on the one hand, it is our competitor, and on the other hand, we constantly consider certain units/spare parts of the Chinese industry as elements of our design.
So, the Chinese are losing to our equipment in many ways in terms of reliability and durability. They are losing badly - and almost exclusively because of their inability to make materials. They get their way due to their ability to quickly replace failing units and due to the price, but in terms of materials science they are lagging behind us by about... ten years. So don't tell me about infantilism:)))))

Quote: Strelkin

(with a heavy sigh) And the US Congress will leave him alone, because the US Air Force simply has nothing to replace the F-22 with.

We'll see. But here's the simple fact: it wasn't Congress that insisted on scrapping the first batch of F-22s, but the Air Force. They obviously don't share your views on the Raptor's omnipotence.

Quote: Strelkin

Don't be lazy, watch it to the end!

Do you want me dead? The Chinese have made a gun that can fire at air targets in automatic mode! WOW! True, the rest of the world has been making guns like these for almost 70 years. I almost died laughing at the tanks. Yes, awesome tanks.... true, they were constantly jumping out of their tracks, and not in battle, but in tank biathlon. An uber-platform for infantry protection in battle! True, judging by the ground clearance, it can only work on asphalt, but otherwise it's a wonder weapon, of course. FORTY KILOMETERS for an MLRS! WOW!!!! The whole world is already shooting over 100, really.
Invisibility blankets - yes, we really have blankets in full swing in the SVO that hide from thermal imagers. The Chinese also have visual invisibility, this is a big plus, but they have not yet reached the mass production.

[Strelkin]

Quote: Strelkin
For a modern fighter, EPR is alpha, beta, gamma, and delta. I once gave an example here

And I explained why the example has no relation to reality. Let's not start over.

The point is that this is precisely the "stumbling block" in all our discussions. Therefore, we need to sort this issue out thoroughly. Why are you against it?

Apparently the same one who did not explain to you that Chinese engines have a meager resource, this problem has not been solved to this day and because of this they are inferior to our 4th generation engines (whose resource was insufficient even in the 80s of the last century) by several times.

You are completely out of touch with reality, the resource of Chinese engines today has practically caught up with the Russian ones - and the Chinese are already chasing American parameters.

You are saying this now because you are not familiar with Chinese technology. But I, working at a machine-building enterprise, am very familiar with it, fortunately, on the one hand, it is our competitor, and on the other hand, we constantly consider certain units/spare parts of the Chinese industry as elements of our design.
So, the Chinese are losing to our equipment in many ways in terms of reliability and durability. They are losing badly - and almost exclusively because of their inability to make materials.

And here there is a HUGE NUANCE! Which you do not take into account. There are many companies in China that produce similar products, and the quality (and price) of these products can differ STRINGENTLY! And the products (cheap and not very good quality), which some shabby Chinese company sends for export to Nizhny Tagil, can differ greatly in quality (and price) from those which another company, much more advanced, sends for export to the USA, Great Britain, Germany. That's what it's all about. If you "cut all Chinese products with the same brush", then there is no way to help the grief...

We'll see. But here's the simple fact: it wasn't Congress that insisted on scrapping the first batch of F-22s, but the Air Force. They obviously don't share your views on the Raptor's omnipotence.

So tell me - how can "some US military" replace the F-22? In the coming war with China, for example?! Just don't suggest the F-15EX again, it's not funny...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Strelkin

The point is that this is precisely the "stumbling block" in all our discussions. Therefore, we need to sort this issue out thoroughly. Why are you against it?

Because we've already sorted it out. In my opinion, you simply don't hear my arguments and don't respond to them, but continue to repeat yours. In your opinion... well, I don't know, I'm not you, I don't know how I seem to you.
The point is that a wise person sees when a discussion reaches a dead end and does not continue it - this will not achieve anything except a waste of time.

Quote: Strelkin

You are completely out of touch with reality; the resource of Chinese engines has almost caught up with Russian ones today, and the Chinese are already chasing American parameters.

Not even close.

Quote: Strelkin

There are many companies in China that produce similar products, and the quality (and price) of these products can differ VERY much!

I am now talking about products manufactured by the Chinese in almost completely robotic factories, the production of which my colleagues personally observed (we just recently went to China to visit partners).

Quote: Strelkin

That's what it's all about.

No, not in this. It is you who are now hiding behind the common cliches about China, like, there are handicraft workshops for the Russian Federation and there is serious industrial quality... No, in this case it is not so. Those factories that we saw have a productivity that the Russian Federation simply "cannot digest" in principle.

Quote: Strelkin

So tell me - how can "some US military" replace the F-22?

You should ask them about that:))))

Quote: Strelkin

Just don't suggest the F-15EX again, it's not funny...

I know. However, there is a simple fact - the Americans thought they could quickly introduce NGAD

The US Air Force plans to reduce its fighter fleet from seven types of platforms to four, US Air Force Chief of Staff General Charles Brown said.
According to Jane's, these platforms will include the fifth-generation F-35 fighter, the latest versions of the F-15 and F-16, and the A-10 Thunderbolt 2 attack aircraft, which will continue to operate through modernization.
General Charles Brown noted that in the future, the number of platforms will be expanded to include the advanced next-generation combat aircraft, which is being developed under the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program. In September 2020, it was reported that the prototype of this fighter had undergone full-scale flight tests and showed good results.
Reducing the number of fighter models in service should reduce the cost of maintaining and servicing the U.S. Air Force's fleet.
As Jane's notes, the list announced by General Brown did not include F-22 Raptor aircraft.

https://военное.рф/2021/376900/?ysclid=m0wqh6q1tu321070728 новость 2021 г.
But it didn't work out with NGAD. So - F-15EX is theirs, whether you find it funny or not

[Strelkin]

But it didn't work out with NGAD. So - F-15EX is theirs, whether you find it funny or not

Why are you rushing off in such a hurry? "It didn't work out"?! What I said in this post (Yesterday, 05:28) They can bet on NGAD right now. Obviously, this is not enough for them.
And yet, I would like to hear your qualified opinion: in a duel situation between the F-22 and the F-15EX (with 12 missiles suspended) — Out of 20 battles, how many will the F-22 win, in your opinion?! Thesis for kindergarten "It all depends on the pilot's skill" - don't offer!

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Strelkin

Why are you in such a hurry, "it didn't work out"?! lol What I said in this post (Yesterday, 05:28) they can put on NGAD right now. Obviously, that's not enough for them.

You are now reasoning from the position of your perception of the American Air Force, while ignoring the facts presented in the article.

In July, the Air Force confirmed it had suspended its plans to build sixth-generation tactical aircraft due to budget shortfalls and unresolved questions about key requirements.

That is, the Air Force does not have enough money. Not only to purchase NGADs at 350 million each, but even to develop them. And what about the basic requirements?

Another way to formulate the question would be:
"How do we build a sixth-generation manned fighter platform?"
So we're kind of going back to what we're trying to do initially. And I don't know exactly how we're going to achieve air superiority in a combat environment. It could involve a manned platform for a sixth-generation fighter, but we're kind of going back and looking at, you know, from the beginning.

And then things start to get funny.

Because when we did the initial analysis of alternatives for NGAD... you know, frankly, our technology base was evolving much faster than we expected. So we saw that the capabilities that we had that we wanted to use going forward to accomplish this mission were not being addressed. And we started the rethink with the NGAD system.

That is, it is said very... evasively, in fact. In general, the phrase gives the impression that it is about equipping the NGAD with some additional functions. But the whole point is that any additional functionality will be additionally and expensively expensive. And the US does not have enough money for the NGAD in its current version.
Therefore, this phrase can be understood in such a way that by "their available capabilities" are meant the capabilities of other weapons systems, and it is not about complicating, but on the contrary, about simplifying the NGAD at the conceptual level and removing a number of Air Force requirements from it. Which, in theory, could make it not so unaffordable for the Air Force budget, as it is now.
In any case, it is interesting to read how you state that the Americans are ready to put the NGAD into production right now, while the Americans themselves are blocking funding for the NGAD.

Quote: Strelkin

And yet, I would like to hear your qualified opinion: in a duel situation between the F-22 and the F-15EX (with a suspension of 12 missiles)

Firstly, fighters do not fly with 12 missiles - there is usually a typical set of 4-6 air-to-air missiles. Secondly, the time of dueling situations has long passed - in the air, the air force and air defense systems fight. Therefore, to simulate an air battle, it is necessary to consider the solution of typical combat tasks of aviation in real combat conditions.

[Strelkin]

In any case, it is interesting to read how you state that the Americans are ready to put the NGAD into production right now, while the Americans themselves are blocking funding for the NGAD.

It's interesting to read how you attribute "insurmountable contradictions" to them: either, in their opinion, NGAD is too complex and therefore expensive, and it needs to be simplified, shifting some of the supposed functions to other aircraft - or, on the contrary, technologies have advanced so unexpectedly quickly that it is necessary to rethink what to stuff NGAD with - and, naturally, this will take some time and, of course, money! The only thing I don't understand is why you decided that this delay would be so fatal for the NGAD program? Moreover, your interpretations almost hint at what they say: "Shouldn't we stop this program altogether?"?!
So here it is: THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN. The program will continue and will be completed - this is the demand of the times. And while there is no NGAD, its functions will continue to be performed by the F-22.

Quote: Strelkin
And yet, I would like to hear your qualified opinion: in a duel situation between the F-22 and the F-15EX (with a suspension of 12 missiles)

Firstly, fighters do not fly with 12 missiles - they usually have a typical set of 4-6 air-to-air missiles.

The F-15EX was adapted to carry up to 22 air-to-air missiles at a time, and this is not without reason, it means they saw a need for it. So where did you get your opinion on the "standard set"? From the experience of the Air Defense Forces?

Secondly, the time of dueling situations is long gone - air force and air defense systems fight in the air.

"Again twenty-five dollars for fish!" So they created a new fighter, or a major modernization of the previous one - how to check how good he is PERSONALLY?? That is why, from time immemorial, tests have been carried out in the confrontation of this new aircraft with successively different old ones, "one on one". With a full set of telemetry. And after ten to twenty battles, a qualitative analysis is carried out.

Therefore, to simulate air combat, it is necessary to consider the solution of typical combat tasks of aviation in real combat conditions.

What the hell are "real combat conditions"? when there is no war?! All "real combat conditions" in peacetime are simulated on training grounds. SO IT WAS, SO IT IS, AND SO IT WILL BE. And testing of a new fighter always begins with one-on-one battles. Neither "pair to pair", nor "flight to flight", nor "squadron to squadron". Otherwise you will not learn anything about the new aircraft.

[Strelkin]

Read this document from half a century ago:
https://www.testpilot.ru/review/runway/volga/16.php

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Strelkin

What the hell are "real combat conditions" when there is no war?!

Don't you yourself understand how illogical you are?:)))
On the one hand, you reduce all air combat modeling to a single hypothetical situation of a head-on collision between two aircraft without transition to air-to-air combat. And when I tell you that this situation is a spherical horse in a vacuum, which cannot exist in a modern combat situation, then you get

Quote: Strelkin

Here is this document from half a century ago:

In which the most detailed program of comparison of F-5 and MiG-21 is described, including, of course, close combat. And this is despite the fact that it was MiG-21 that was designed in the concept, according to which BVB was considered dying - it was assumed that the planes would approach at great speed and kill each other with missiles or the first salvo of cannons.
That is, you killed your model with your own link, stabbed it, and buried it.
You write

Quote: Strelkin

All "real combat conditions" in peacetime are simulated at training grounds.

And thus (apparently unconsciously) you are substituting concepts. Because "on the proving grounds" all possible combat situations are worked out within the framework of the concept of using a fighter, there they do not reduce everything to one single combat situation out of the possible ones, as you do.
This is the first, but there is also the second. The thing is that half a century ago, network centricity did not exist. Therefore, air confrontation still ultimately came down to a fight between two aircraft, and it was possible and necessary to strive to attack the enemy unnoticed, but it was impossible to count on this often happening. Therefore, in the end, everything came down to a one-on-one air battle - albeit under different scenarios.
But modern air combat is network-centric. That is why in many cases of clashes in the late 20th century, one side did not even know that an air battle had begun until it was shot down. And not because of stealth, but because external sources of intelligence and control were used - ELINT/AEW aircraft.
Simply put, if we compare, say, a collision between the first series Su-27 and the F-15, the F-15 will have an advantage in long-range combat and the result will be the same. But if we simulate a confrontation in a real battle, it will turn out that the aircraft will be "brought together" by means of the targeting instructions issued by the Sentry and A-50 or ground-based radars, while both aircraft will not turn on their radars at all. That is, even before approaching the detection range of their avionics, they will already know where the enemy is.
This is what distinguishes the simulation of real combat situations from one-on-one meetings.
As for everything else, the comment has grown so much that I'll probably publish it as an article.

[Strelkin]

Don't you yourself understand how illogical you are?:)))
On the one hand, you reduce all air combat simulations to a single hypothetical situation of a head-on collision between two aircraft.

Wait a minute!! This is where I was talking about "one single hypothetical situation"?? I was talking about the ORIGINAL situation, the INITIAL situation, and in this regard - the only and unique one! THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. Have you read the chapter from Kondaurov's book?
And it is this that must be repeated 10 times, 20 times, and so on. Because The BVB is necessarily preceded by: 1) search for a target at maximum range, using one's own means - external target designation may often be absent; 2) target identification; 3) planning a maneuver to attack the target; 4) taking on automatic tracking and launching the air-to-air missile; 5) monitoring the results of the attack; 6) if necessary, re-aiming and launching the next air-to-air missile; 7) monitoring this launch as well. If the target is not hit, and the BD's air-to-air missiles are exhausted, then the options are: 8) exit the battle and return to friendly forces; or, if this is impossible or impractical, 8a) continue approaching the target and attacking it with short-range missiles; 9) if the target is not hit, continue approaching and then 10) air-to-air combat with guns, the dogfight so beloved by all our pioneers.

without transferring to BVB.

But you have to live to see it! And if the operator of the central computer, where all the telemetry data from both planes was collected, tells one of the opponents on the radio: “15 324, you have been shot down, your mission is terminated, turn back to your airfield, exit at such-and-such altitude, approach and landing!”
What kind of BVB is this?!
For the BVB, they organize special duels, separate from everything else, and there even sometimes the Rafale won against the F-22 four times out of five!

And when I tell you that this situation is a spherical horse in a vacuum, which cannot exist in a modern combat situation, then you get

Quote: Strelkin
Here is this document from half a century ago:

In which the most detailed program of comparison of the F-5 and MiG-21 is described, including, of course, close combat.

This is not a spherical horse in a vacuum, this is done EVERYWHERE and ALWAYS. In all countries, including Russia, of course, and no one starts with BVB...

In which the most detailed program of comparison of the F-5 and MiG-21 is described, including, of course, close combat.

And these two planes THERE and THEN they could check ONLY in the BVB. In nothing else - the F-5A didn't even have a radar. "Different times, different songs."

And this is despite the fact that it was the MiG-21 that was designed according to the concept that the BVB was considered dying - it was assumed that the planes would approach each other at great speed and kill each other with missiles.

You confused the MiG-21 with the MiG-29. The MiG-21, with its pathetic radar, was never planned by anyone for such a war.

or the first salvo of cannons.

Don't make me laugh: two planes rushing towards each other, each with a speed of almost 1000 km/h! And firing cannons at each other! This is not even "crazy nonsense", it is worse... The same applies to the air-to-air missiles, which the MiG-21 was equipped with, with IR coordinators: they could be used ONLY in the rear hemisphere! Therefore, it is absolutely true for the MiG-21, as well as for the F-5A, close maneuvering combat was the only real type of air combat.

That is, you killed your model with your own link, stabbed it, and buried it.

Don't make me laugh?

You write

Quote: Strelkin
All "real combat conditions" in peacetime are simulated at training grounds.

And thus (apparently unconsciously) you substitute concepts.

It seems so to you.

Because "at the training grounds" all possible combat situations are worked out within the framework of the concept of using a fighter; they do not reduce everything to one single combat situation out of the possible ones, as you do.

Of course, all possible combat situations are worked out, certainly all possible combat situations are worked out, but then, THEN, THEN!!
When a new production aircraft, the same F-22, rolled out of the factory gates in 1997, was taken to the airfield, and a full range of flight tests were conducted (for weeks or months), no one sends the first few aircraft to participate in full-scale exercises, for example, the same "Red Flag". First, what I said is carried out over one of the training grounds: duel encounters of the F-22 with the F-15, F-16, F-18, and MULTIPLE! Starting with long-range combat. Where the weapons systems are carefully worked out and adjusted if necessary. Then they finally get to the airborne combat on guns. And only after the first combat squadron of the F-22 was formed in 2005, it goes out for mass exercises and that's where what you are talking about begins, not in 1997, but only in 2005!
to be continued...

[Strelkin]

This is the first, but there is also the second. The fact is that half a century ago, network centricity did not exist.

Absolutely true!

Therefore, the air confrontation still ultimately came down to a fight between two aircraft, and it was possible and necessary to strive to attack the enemy unnoticed, but it was impossible to count on this often happening. Therefore, in the end, everything came down to a one-on-one air battle - albeit according to different scenarios.

Not a chance!
Since the Arab-Israeli war of 1967, 1973 and the war with Syria in 1982 - HUNDREDS of aircraft were involved in air raids at the same time, the combat unit was a LINK consisting of two PAIRS. There were also one-on-one fights, but the main unit was a link of two pairs - this was due to the requirements of tactics.

But in modern air combat there is network-centricity.

Already in 1982, during the "Battle of the Bekaa Valley," Israeli fighters were targeting Syrian aircraft using Hawkeye AWACS aircraft. More than 40 years ago. I'm not even talking about the "Gulf War" of 1991! Especially not about the NATO operation in Yugoslavia in 1999.

This is why in a large number of late 20th century clashes one side did not even know that an air battle had started until it was shot down. And not because of stealth, but because external sources of intelligence and control were used - ELINT/AEW aircraft.

Yes, especially in Yugoslavia against the Serbian Air Force.

Simply put, if we compare, say, a collision between the first series Su-27 and the F-15, the F-15 will have an advantage in long-range combat and the result will be the same. But if we simulate a confrontation in a real battle, it will turn out that the aircraft will be "brought together" by means of the targeting instructions issued by the Sentry and A-50 or ground-based radars, while both aircraft will not turn on their radars at all. That is, even before approaching the detection range of their avionics, they will already know where the enemy is.

Of course, this is exactly what the AWACS aircraft were created for.
BUT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS AT ALL. WE (YOU!) I WANT TO CHECK THIS PERSONAL CAPABILITIES OF THE NEWLY CREATED AIRCRAFT. How will AWACS help you check at what range, say, the Su-35 with its Irbis will see the Su-27 in the air?! At what range will it be able to take it into automatic tracking, for a confident launch of air-to-air missiles at it?? What the hell do you need "network centricity" and an AWACS aircraft for?? What will they give you?!
YOU ARE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THIS, AFTER ALL, AND NOT ENDLESSLY REPEAT THIS CRAP:

This is what distinguishes the simulation of real combat situations from one-on-one meetings.

As for everything else, the comment has grown so much that I'll probably publish it as an article.

If you repeat all this nonsense in the same spirit in the "article" - then it would be better to entrust it to Roman Skomorokhov, he is very skilled at this!

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Strelkin

If you repeat all this nonsense in the same spirit in the "article"

Haven't you realized yet that I can be rude a little better than you?:)))))

Quote: Strelkin

You have confused the MiG-21 with the MiG-29. wink The MiG-21, with its pathetic little radar, was never planned by anyone for such a war.

So you don't even know the history of the MiG-21. Well... I'm not surprised.

Quote: Strelkin

Wait a minute!! Where did I say "one and only hypothetical situation"?

In his example of the radar rule, according to which stealth can shoot down "thousands of them"

Quote: Strelkin

Not a chance!

You are even worse at calculating devils than combat situations.

Quote: Strelkin

The combat unit was a LINK consisting of two PAIRS. There were also one-on-one fights, but the main unit was a link of two pairs - this was due to the requirements of tactics.

Thank you, Cap. Now remember HOW these links fought. And when you remember that
- or the fight was built on an attack "from behind", when one pair attacked and the second covered and I SEPARATELY wrote why you shouldn't always count on this (although you should strive for it)
- or the battle would easily turn into a confrontation of "twos", in which it was the qualities of the aircraft "one on one" with an equal level of pilot and weapons that were decisive
Then please answer, what primary male sexual characteristic are you trying to talk me into talking about?

Quote: Strelkin

Already in 1982, during the "Battle of the Bekaa Valley," Israeli fighters were targeting Syrian aircraft using Hawkeye AWACS aircraft. More than 40 years ago.

I'll let you in on a military secret - AWACS aircraft were first used in naval battles during World War II.
But network-centricity is not just foreign intelligence, it is also a communication system that allows for the automatic transfer of necessary data between combat units. In our case, if my memory serves me right, this began with the MiG-31, and in the Americans - Link 16. By the way, your wonderful F-22s flew in Syria in 2017 without Link 16, and could only receive AWACS instructions via regular radio communications.

Quote: Strelkin

BUT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS AT ALL. WE (YOU!) ARE INTERESTED IN HOW TO CHECK THE PERSONAL CAPABILITIES OF A NEWLY CREATED AIRCRAFT.

If you could even read what is being written to you, you might be able to realize that we are not talking about personal qualities tests at all, but about the usefulness and effectiveness of a combat aircraft in REAL combat situations.

[Strelkin]

Haven't you realized yet that I can be rude a little better than you?

Oh, come on! I'm a professional - over 26 calendar years in the Soviet and then Russian army, I've come to understand that "they don't swear there, they talk in swear words there"...

Quote: Strelkin
Wait a minute!! Where did I say "one and only hypothetical situation"?

In his example of the radar rule, according to which stealth can shoot down "thousands of them"

I thought we had clarified this point once and for all: FROM THIS ON THEY ARE BEGINNING TESTING THE COMBAT CAPABILITIES OF MODERN FIGHTERS. We will only stop here for now, because Without going through this stage, you can't go any further.

Now remember HOW these links fought. And when you remember that
- or the fight was built on an attack "from behind", when one pair attacked and the second covered and I SEPARATELY wrote why you shouldn't always count on this (although you should strive for it)
- or the battle would easily turn into a confrontation of "twos", in which it was the qualities of the aircraft "one on one" with an equal level of pilot and weapons that were decisive
Then please answer, what primary male sexual characteristic are you trying to talk me into talking about?

I am trying to get through to you (and I can't!) so that you understand: we still have to get to the situation you describe of an air battle in which many aircraft are involved. AFTER FLIGHT TESTS OF A NEW AIRCRAFT ARE COMPLETED, NO ONE SENDS IT TO EXERCISES IN WHICH SEVERAL MACHINES PARTICIPATE. FIRST IT IS TESTED IN A ONE-ON-ONE DUEL SITUATION. For some reason you have an "alternative opinion" on this matter. Then tell us how, in your opinion, combat tests of a newborn aircraft begin? Since you categorically reject the initial "one-on-one" duel with a previously known aircraft, on the basis, supposedly, that in an air battle, as a rule, there are always a LOT of aircraft at once?!

Quote: Strelkin
BUT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS AT ALL. WE (YOU!) ARE INTERESTED IN HOW TO CHECK THE PERSONAL CAPABILITIES OF A NEWLY CREATED AIRCRAFT.

If you could even read what is being written to you, you might be able to realize that we are not talking about personal qualities tests at all, but about the usefulness and effectiveness of a combat aircraft in REAL combat situations.

I find myself time and time again in the situation of "banging peas against the wall" - I repeat to you for the 10th time that There can be no talk of "combat testing" until a newborn (or foreign-origin) aircraft has been thoroughly tested in a one-on-one duel. ONLY THEN CAN THEM BE LAUNCHED "PAIR TO PAIR", "LINK TO LINK", "SQUADRON TO SQUADRON", ETC. WITH THE CONNECTION OF AEW&C AIRCRAFT, REFUELERS, AIRCRAFT WITH GROUP STATIONS OF ELECTRONIC WARFARE, RTR, ETC.
...............................................
Because you started with the fact that The F-22 and F-35 are so-so aircraft, they do not justify the huge amount of money invested in them and they were created in vain..
It is this CATASTROPHIC delusion of yours that I am trying to disabuse you of. And for this purpose, it would be absolutely wonderful for you to conduct a duel of the same "worthless" F-22 with any famous fighter of the world of your choice? Do you mind?

[IS-80_RVGK2]

When someone starts talking with a straight face about how capitalist China is trying to take or has already taken the place of the socialist USSR, I have some bad suspicions.

[Strelkin]

China is socialist, but it extended the NEP era for 45 years. AND IT IS NOT GOING TO GIVE IT UP, BECAUSE THE RESULTS ARE EXCELLENT, IT HAS OUTSIDED EVERYONE IN THE WORLD.

I have some bad suspicions.

For example, which ones?

[IS-80_RVGK2]

For example, about the adequacy of the view on the issue. There is no NEP there. And this is completely logical. Socialism in that version could not provide the necessary economic growth and development. Therefore, in fact, the whole world has rolled back to capitalism. Which is very, very sad. Because it is a really rotten system. Despite. It has not overtaken anyone there yet with its GDP per capita. But its prospects are certainly not bad. But here we must not forget the fact that Germany also demonstrated great success in the economy in its time, but ultimately failed to become a hegemon.

[Strelkin]

Your suggestions?! What socio-political system do you consider optimal for a normal state?

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Of course, communism. The whole question is that in the current conditions it is extremely far from possible to implement all this in practice.

[Strelkin]

TODAY. NOW - WHAT DO YOU NEED?!

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Nothing is needed. I am a realist and I understand that nothing will change radically in the near future. You can shout, advise, recommend and dream as much as you like, but there are no conditions for implementing all this in practice. I only have one hope that the US will start a war with China before a catastrophe happens to us. And I have almost no doubt that it will happen.

[Strelkin]

The only true catastrophe that can happen to Russia is for China to take over half of it.

[bk316]

The main formula of radar has not been cancelled:

Well, if you managed to copy-paste from the wiki, then you probably understand that from this formula
to the phrase

but in wars with a serious enemy (China) - only in the second line, "on the sidelines".

only one letter of the Greek alphabet is related
namely <...>.

Now a question, since you have set your sights on something sacred (OR)
What letter is this?
What is hidden behind this letter?
And what does it depend on?

By the way, I respect people with fundamental education and despise lamers, whose entire scholarship is based on thoughtless copy-pasta from Wikipedia and other dubious sources? Which of these categories do you belong to?

[Strelkin]

The main formula of radar has not been cancelled:

Well, since you managed to copy-paste from the wiki...

Actually, I was first introduced to this formula in my second year at the Barnaul Higher Military Aviation School, somewhere around 1970...

then you probably understand that from this formula

to the phrase
but in wars with a serious enemy (China) - only in the second line, "on the sidelines".

only one letter of the Greek alphabet is related belay
namely <...>.

Namely σ (sigma).

Now a question, since you've taken on the sacred (ORD) laughing
What letter is this?

σ.

What is hidden behind this letter?

nearly invisible (F-117, B-2, YF-22, YF-23, F-22, X-32, X-35, F-35, J-20, FC-31). Or its absence (Su-57).

And what does it depend on?

From the scientific and technological level of the manufacturing country.

By the way, I respect people with fundamental education and despise lamers, whose entire scholarship is based on thoughtless copy-pasta from Wikipedia and other dubious sources? Which of these categories do you belong to?

During the last seven years of my service (1988-95) at the Chelyabinsk Higher Military Aviation School, I was a teacher in the Department of Aviation Electronic Equipment of this school.

[TermNachTer]

In short: "We sawed, we are sawing and we will continue to saw the budget"))) Lockheed and Boeing shareholders cannot sit hungry)))

[Bookworm]

I completely agree, the American brainless generals are stuck in border battles with Canada, throwing meat in useless assaults, the head of the "Academy" is tired of tolerating the current state of affairs and was inspired to take decisive action, but it did not work out and he died unexpectedly. The equipment is delivered from storage during the Vietnam War, the only quasi-aircraft carrier is not leaving repairs, the military elite are shady guys, the authorities have taken over some, some are next in line, it is unclear whether they are just thieves or traitors. In short, there are many questions, but money is clearly being made, cuts, kickbacks, embezzlement.

[air wolf]

And what again, where are the requirements for the 6th generation, to fly into space? Hypersonic? Then everything will be different, we are waiting for the MiG-41, and then we will see what the Americans will have, this is an endless story, what will actually happen, no one knows...

[Strelkin]

And what again, where are the requirements for the 6th generation, to fly into space? Hypersonic?

There have never been such demands, because no one needs them.

[SovAr238A]

Just 3 years ago, I didn’t even know these words: Betrayal and Victory.
Well, I really didn't know.

Then they appeared.
First in a derogatory context.

Then the majority of Ukrainian patriots began to insert the Ukrainian language at every convenient and inconvenient opportunity.

Now these languages ​​have also begun to be used authors propaganda articles.

Guys, this is not our language, these are foreign words to us, they don’t sound like ours.
Why do you use them?
We have our own language, Russian!

[Berserker95]

The problem with NGAD is weapons become obsolete very quickly. Pouring too much money into a wonder weapon is what we don't want to do. I think the best approach to the NGAD problem is build an FB-22 style airplane. A large delta wing with double the fuel load would meet the range requirements. Adding an adaptive cycle engine when the technology has scaled down the engine size to fit in a raptor size engine bay could be added as a midlife upgrade. At least some components can be shared between the legacy raptor and the new one.

[acetophenone]

Quote: Luminman

Quote from DoctorRandom

First it flies with a person, then they will remove the cabin and it will fly without a person, it's simple

Something tells me that in our lifetime a pilot will become as exotic as a coachman or rower on ancient galleys...

Are you hinting at someone in particular, or just in general?